Antarctic Krill Fishery

Home , Champsocephalus esox, Chionobathyscus, Chionodraco myersi

DERIS S.A – Pesca Chile- Antarctic Krill Fishery

Picture from : fao.org

PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT

JUNE 2018

Conformity Assessment Body: Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS

Authors: Beatriz Roel Italo Campodonico José Ríos Contact: [email protected]

Client: DERIS, S.A.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 1

Contents

Contents ...... 2 Glossary ...... 4 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 10 3.1.1 UoA and proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 10 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and UoC catch data: ...... 14 3.2. Overview of the fishery ...... 15 3.2.1. History of the krill fishery ...... 15 3.2.2. Fishing operation and gear configurations in use ...... 20 3.2.3. Ownership, history and organisational structure of the assessed fleet ...... 21 3.2.4. Assessed area: common fishing grounds, jurisdiction and user’s rights ...... 21 3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 23 3.3.1. Background information ...... 23 3.3.2. State of the stock ...... 29 3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 37 3.4.1 Scotia Sea: context ...... 37 3.4.2 UoC catch composition: species assigment to MSC P2 categories ...... 48 3.4.3 Primary species impacted by the UoC ...... 58 3.4.4 Secondary species impacted by the UoC ...... 59 3.4.5 ETP species impacted by the UoC ...... 59 3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 61 3.5.1. Overarching framework ...... 61 3.5.2. CCAMLR’s Principles and objectives ...... 62 3.5.3. CCAMLR’s Structure and Functioning ...... 62 3.5.4. Management of the Antarctic krill fishery ...... 63 3.5.5. Chilean Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (LFA) and legal provisions regarding the Antarctic krill ...... 65 3.5.6. Chilean Fisheries Institutional Framework and specific requirements to the vessel ... 66 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 69 4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 69 Harmonisation process ...... 69 Cumulative impacts...... 70

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 2

4.2. Previous assessments ...... 71 4.3. Assessment Methodologies ...... 71 4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 71 4.4.1 Site Visit ...... 71 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 72 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 73 4.4.4 Risk Based Framework ...... 74 5 Traceability ...... 74 5.1. Eligibility Date ...... 74 5.2. Traceability within the Fishery ...... 74 5.2.1 Processing and final product description ...... 74 5.3.1 Determination of risk associated to traceability factors prior to entering CoC ...... 74 5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 77 5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 78 6 Evaluation Results ...... 79 6.1. Principle Level Scores ...... 79 6.2. Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 79 6.3. Summary of Conditions ...... 81 6.4. Recommendations ...... 81 6.5. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 81 References ...... 82 Appendices ...... 90 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 90 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 90 1.2 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 198 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 201 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 219 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 220 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 221

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 3

Glossary Below are presented the abbreviations and acronyms used in the report. The terms defined here do not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI vocabulary.

Concepts and terms:

B0 Unexploited biomass BLIM Precautionary reference point. SSB below B lim indicate increase risk of impairment of recruitment BMSY Spawning biomass (equilibrium) when fishing at FMSY BPA Precautionary reference point SSB below B PA indicate that action should be taken to recover the stock Btrigger Biomass level below which fishing mortality should be reduced BRP Biological Reference Points CAB Conformity Assessment Body (in the case of this particular assessment the CAB is Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS) CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CR (MSC) Certification Requirements CSIs Combined Stardardised Indices ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected FCR (MSC) Fisheries Certificacion Requirements f/v Fishing vessel

FLIM Fishing mortality which should be avoided with high probability because it is associated with unknown population dynamics or stock collapse

FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY FPA Fishing mortality to ensure that there is a high probability that F lim will be avoided and that the spawning stock biomass will remain above the threshold B lim FPI Fishery Performance Index GYM Generalized Yield Model LTL Low Trohic Level MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA Marine Protected Area MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PCL Precautionary Catch Limit PRI Point where Recruitment would be Impaired SISO Scheme of International Scientific Observation SSMUs Small-Scale Management Units UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMS Vessel Monitoring System

Organizations: ASI Acreditation Service International BV Bureau Veritas CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora DIRECTEMAR Chilean General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Navy (Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y de Marina Mercante) DIRINMAR Chilean Directorate of Maritime Interests Aquatic Environment (Direccion de Intereses Marítimos Medio Ambiente Acuático) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations SGSSI South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands IDEAL Research Institute of Marine Ecosystems of High Latitudes (Centro de Investigación Dinámica de Ecosistemas Marinos de Altas Latitudes) INACH Chilean Antarctic Institute (Instituto Antártico Chileno) IWC International Whaling Commission MINECON Chilean Ministry of Economy (Ministerio de Economia) MINREL Chilean Foreign Affairs (Ministerior de Relaciones Exteriores)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 4

MSC Marine Stewardship Council SCAF CCAMLR Standing Committee on Administration and Finance SCIC CCMALR Standing Committee on Administration and Finance SERNAPESCA Chilean Fishing and Aquaculture Service (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura) SUBPESCA Chilean Undersecretariat of Fishing and Aquaculture (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura) UACH Chilean Southern University (Universidad Austral de Chile) WG-FSA CCAMLR Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment WG-EMM CCAMLR Working Group for Ecosystem Monitoring and Management WG-IMAF CCAMLR Working Group on Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing WG-SAM CCAMLR Working Group on Statistics, Assessments and Modeling

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 5

1. Executive Summary The Client Group includes Deris, S.A and affiliated companies and vessels. Henceforth, the term client will be used to refer to them. This Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) provides details to client, reviewers and stakeholders on the assessment of the Deris S.A. Antarctic krill fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable fishing v2.0. After the client’s and Peer Reviewers, the CAB prepared this PCDR to be published at the MSC website for a 30 day public consultation period. This report was prepared by Bureau Veritas Iberia. The assessment team for this fishery was comprised of Beatriz Roel who was primarily responsible for assessing Principle 1, Italo Campodonico who was primarily responsible for assessing Principle 3 and José Ríos who acted as team leader and Principle 2 assessor. The fishery started the MSC certification process in May 2017. Previously, the client did not perform a whole pre-assessment, although P3 had been pre-assessed by BV in 2016. The official announcement and also the timeline detailing the different steps to be performed along the process were published on the 22 nd of May at the MSC website. This timeline was prepared considering that the assessed vessel could start fishing during the first quarter of 2017 (after being adapted for the krill fishery at a shipyard in Chile). However, different setbacks prevented the vessel to start its operations before December 2017. This fact motivated the assessment process to suffer a significant delay as the assessment team considered essential to have at least some data from the UoA (logbook and SISO data). A shortlist of potential peer reviewers compiled by the MSC’s Peer Reviewers Collegue was published at the MSC website on September 7. Due to the delay in the assessment process, and in accordance with the FCR V2.0, a new consultation period was opened for the stakeholders from the 26th of February to the 25th of March 2018. The CAB submitted variation requests to MSC in order to fulfil IPI requirements (see Section 5.4 for more details). The assessment team performed a site visit to Santiago de Chile and Valparaiso between the 2 nd and 4th of August 2017. During this site visit the assessment team had the opportunity to meet with managers, scientists and fishers’ representatives to discuss and gather information on the fishery. After the site visit, the team compiled and analysed the information collected and, when necessary, additional information was requested to the stakeholders. Each expert prepared their respective draft scores and rationales, and then all the team discussed and weighed up the evidences for assigning the final scores. A detailed scoring rationale is provided in Appendix 1 . The main strengths of the client’s operations are listed below: • There is no evidence that the krill poluation has declined since the circumpolar survey was conducted in 2000, when krill estimated biomass was assumed a proxy for unexploited biomass. • Catches have been kept below the effective regional catch limit (or “trigger level”), which is about 11% of the precautionary catch level. The estimated long-term exploitation rate is considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and to support krill predators (also at the subarea level). • Fisheries managed by CCAMLR are subject to a a cohesive arrangement comprising a comprehensive set of measures designed to manage the impact on the target stock, the other impacted species (including ETP species), habitast and ecosystems and maintain those components at sustainable levels. This strategy includes observers on board which in the case of the UoA will a have a 100% coverage since the beginning of the fishing operations. Observers perform on-board sampling of krill, bycathes and they also record warp strikes and incidental mortality on seabirds and marine mammals

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 6

• Different sources of information confirm that the krill fishery is a highly-selective fishery, with very reduced percentages of bycatch and ocassional interactions with seabirds and marine mammals which only very rarely end up in fatalities. • The krill fishery operates with midwater trawls designed to operate in the water column, between 5 and 400m depth, without any contact with the sea bottom. • Monitoring at CEMP-sites has been providing valuable information on the distribution, forage behavior, population trends and response to environmental parameters of selected krill-dependend species, aiming to detect changes in those krill predator populations and distinguish between changes attributable to fisheries and environmental variations. • Chile has experience managing, monitoring and inspecting the former Chilean vessel targeting krill and its Management bodies are integrated in the CCAMLR management system. In some cases National requirements are even more restrictive than those from CCAMLR (e.g. VMS regulations, landing and transshipment inspections) • Fishing operations conducted under the umbrella of an international management system highly regulated and precautionary, which guarantees the normal development of the fishery On the other hand, the main weaknesses of the client’s operations are detailed herein: ° The single estimate for the CCAMLRS 2000 survey is an uncertain representation of the stock biomass. ° A new synoptic survey is unlikely. An integrated stock assessment model intended to make use of multiple data sources would provide an alternative to synoptic surveys as a means of assessing krill biomass status but, it is still under development. ° The assessed vessel has just started to operate in December 2017, therefore the amount of data provided by the UoA is still limited. For instance, data from the assessed vessel are still too limited and not conclusive regarding the impact on the mackerel icefish. ° Finer-scale management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts on the Antarctic marine ecosystems which might arise as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas or climate change. ° Despite the long tenure of the CEMP, however, parametrization of the functional responses of krill-dependent predators to variations in krill biomass and krill catches remains difficult. ° CCAMLR intention to put in place a feedback management for the krill fishery which integrates information from CEMP, but work to implement such a strategy is still work in progress. ° Chile does not have a national program for training observers working within the Covention Area ° The assessed vessel has no history in the antarctic krill fishery, which limits a proper evaluation of its performance regarding compliance with Conservation Measures.

Both the assessment team and Bureau Veritas agree that the DERIS, S.A –Pesca Chile- Antarctic Krill Fishery COMPLIES with MSC Principles and Criteria. Therefore, Bureau Veritas recommends the fishery SHOULD be awarded an MSC Fishery certificate.

The CAB has set 1 binding condition for certification (see Section 6.3 and Appendix 1.2 ) and 5 non- binding management reccomendations (see Section 6.4 ).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 7

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers Names, qualifications and affiliation of the AUTHORS are presented below. All team members listed below completed the training required by MSC for becoming part of a fisheries assessment team. BEATRIZ ROEL. Fisheries scientist with extensive experience in the evaluation of pelagic fish resources and squid, in Europe and South Africa. Led the UK assessment of Thames herring and was active in conducting stock assessments and providing management advice for other EU herring and small pelagic fish stocks, through ICES, for whom she chaired several Expert Groups. She was also the UK scientific lead to the IWC for several years. Involved in the evaluation of multi-annual TAC approaches by means of simulation frameworks and in the development of associated stock assessment models. For this assessment she acted as P1 expert and, from her experience with several commercial fish stocks and involvement over many years in various aspects of fisheries, management, fish communities and associated ecosystem research, collaborated with the other team members on the report for Principles P2 and P3. ITALO CAMPODONICO is a Marine Biologist graduated from the Universidad de Chile with over 40 years experience in marine resources and fisheries management. Former head of the Fisheries Department of the Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Chile) and for many years he was Chile’s representative to the oceans and fisheries related Working Groups of APEC as well as the head of the Chilean scientific delegation to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. He is the author of many scientific papers (crustacean and fish biology, toxic red tides, oil pollution) as well as technical reports in the field of marine commercial fisheries. Currently he is an independent fisheries consultant. In this assessment he acted as P3 expert. JOSE RIOS, holds a degree in Sea Sciences from the University of Vigo and an MSc in Fisheries and Aquaculture from the University of Wales-Bangor. He has more than 15 years of experience working in fisheries from different angles and places around the world. In 1999 he worked at the ICM-CSIC on trophic ecology of demersal fish species and participated in different research cruises on board the r/v Garcia del Cid. In 2001/02 he was hired by the University of Azores as observer and fisheries inspector assessing an experimental fishing license for Orange roughy. Between 2003 and 2010 he was responsible for designing and monitoring fisheries management plans for several marine resources (clams, cockles and barnacles) for the Regional Fisheries Authority of Galicia (Spain). In 2008-09 he developed and implemented a scientific monitoring scheme for an experimental octopus fishery in the waters of Namibia (IIM-CSIC). Between 2008 and 2012, as part of different projects funded by the Spanish International Cooperation Agency (AECID), he supported local fisheries and aquaculture management bodies to strengthen organizational and managing capacities of the fishing and rural aquaculture sector in Namibia, Cape Verde, Colombia and Mozambique. Since 2013, as part of the fisheries team of WWF Spain, he promoted different initiatives to improve fisheries management in coastal Spanish fisheries. As the WWF representative in fisheries co-management committees, he took part in the daily management of the following coastal fisheries in the Spanish Mediterranean: Catalan sandeel, Balearic boat seines, and Palamós red shrimp. Since April 2016 he is a full-time employee at Bureau Veritas Fisheries Department and he has participated in the following MSC fisheries assessments and audits: LFPO pelagic trawl Baltic sprat fishery, NKF Bothnian Bay vendace trawl fishery, Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery, Agarba Spain Barents Sea cod trawl fishery, Cantabrian Sea purse seine anchovy fishery, North Atlantic albacore artisanal fishery, Western Asturias octopus traps fishery of artisanal cofradías, and the Chilean mussel fishery and suspended culture Toralla S.A. and Cultivos Toralla, S.A. He has also conducted 2 MSC pre- assessments. His 7 years in charge of designing and monitoring fisheries management plans for the exploitation different marine resources in Galicia, together with his experience on trophic ecology of demersal fish species in the Mediterranean (ICM-CSIC), his work with the University of Azores assessing an experimental fishing license for Orange roughy in the Azores islands, and his experience designing

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 8

and monitoring an experimental fishing license for octopus in Namibia (IIM-CSIC) ensure he meets qualification and competency criteria established in PC3 for (i) Fishing impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Also, his 3 years of experience as a practicing fishery manager as a WWF representative in 3 Mediterranean fisheries, together with his 7 years of experience participating in the implementation of fisheries management plans in Galicia and his experiences assessing experimental fishing licenses in the Azores and Namibia ensure he meets qualification and competency criteria established in PC3 for (ii) Fishery management and operations. For this assessment he will be the Team Leader and Principle 2.2. The MSC’s Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for Deris S.A. – Pesca Chile – Antarctic krill fishery (click here for the list). The following peer reviewers were selected: PR1. Jim Andrews Jim Andrews has over 20 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and environmental management. His previous experience includes running the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee as its Chief Executive from 2001 to 2005, and previously working as the SFC's Marine Environment Liaison Officer. During this time he was responsible for the regulation, management and assessment of inshore finfish and shellfish stocks along a 1,500km coastline. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. He has formal legal training & qualifications, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on more than 20 MSC certifications within the UK, Europe, Asia, Australia and the Southern Ocean since 2007. He has assessed a wide range of fisheries including finned fish, shellfish, enhanced shellfisheries and also for several data-deficient fisheries requiring the use of the risk based framework (RBF). Jim has also carried out numerous MSC Chain of Custody assessments within the UK, and also several peer reviews of MSC assessments. In December 2015 he was appointed to serve on the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority by the UK Government.

PR2. Earl Geoffrey Dawe Retired in 2015 following a 35-year research career with Fisheries and Oceans Canada which focused on the fisheries, biology, population dynamics, and ecology of cephalopods and crustaceans. Published 170 scientific/technical reports and journal articles (58 in the primary, peer reviewed literature) on various aspects of population biology and ecology as well as fishery resource assessment and management of both short-finned squid and snow crab. Research effort has most recently focused on ecosystem structure and functioning, particularly the relative effects of ocean climate versus predation on finfish and crustacean resources. Career included heavy involvement in the review and formulation of scientific advice for management of shellfish resources in Atlantic Canada as well as the advisory/consultative part of managing the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) fisheries for short-finned squid and snow crab. Recently participated, as scientific advisor, in MSC certification of the NL snow crab fishery. Also recently served as peer reviewer in MSC certification of the Western Asturias octopus trap fishery.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 9

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 UoA and proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) The CAB confirms that the fishery is within the scope of the MSC fisheries certification sought as: ° It is a non-enhanced wild capture fishery based on a native species ° It does not target species classified as ‘out-of-scope’ by MSC: amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals ° It does not make use of any kind of destructive practices ° There is no controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement involved and its management regime includes mechanisms for resolving disputes ° The client group ensures compliance with national and international laws on forced labour. According to the UoA definition given by MSC in its MSC-MSCI Vocabulary and the information collected during and after the site visit, the CAB concluded that the UoA presented in Table 3-3 meets the MSC fisheries requirements while suits client’s needs. Table 3-1.Unit of Assessment defined for the Deris, S.A –Pesca Chile- Antarctic Krill Fishery Target stock Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ) in FAO Area 48 Fishing Area FAO 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 Fishing method Midwater trawl targeting Antarctic krill Fishing operators ‘Antarctic Endeavour’ f/v Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers

Technical caracteristics of the assessed vessel The f/v Antarctic Endeavour is a Chilean trawler that started to fish Antarctic krill on the 12 th December 2017, after being adapted for this specific fishery at a shipyard in Iquique (Chile). Previously, this vessel was named as ‘Saint Pierre’ and was dedicated to demersal fisheries. It is worth noting that the FV named Saint Pierre no longer exists as it name was changed to Antarctic Endeavour (certificate N° 12805/8 as of February 2017, issued by the relevant Chilean Navy Agency). See Figure 3-1 for a picture of the assessed vessel and Table 3-1 for its technical caracteristics Table 3-1. Technical characteristics of the f/v included in the UoC, the ‘Antarctic Endeavour’. Sources: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/node/94781 and WG-EMM-16/72 CCAMLR vessel ID 90544 Owner and Operator Deris, S.A Callsign CB5744 Built in year 1989 Registration number 3407 IMO Number 8717453 Builts at location France Flag Chile Crew count 38 Beam (m) 13.00 Gross tonnage (t) 2,455.00 Length (m) 73.50 Engine power 1,695.00 kW Carrying capacity (t) 1,738.00 Fish hold capacity (m 3) 2,551.00 Processing capacity (tonnes GW/day) 250 Fish hold count 2

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 10

Port of registry Valparaiso External markings Valparaiso, Chile VMS details Argos Fishing method Conventional midwater trawl

Figure 3-1. f/v ‘Antarctic Endeavour’ docked in Punta Arenas. Source: Enrique Gutierrez

The Antarctic Endeavour is 73.5 m long and operates a conventional midwater trawl, i.e. bringing the codend on board at regular intervals. Technical features including details of the two types of midwater trawl used (Gloria 192M and Omega 200 nets) are summarized in Table 3-2, Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3. Both nets carry the mandatory marine mammal exclusion devices. The trawl doors used are the Apolo Stream (2,600kg-10m 2), see figure 3-4 for more details. Table 3-2. Technical caracteristics of the fishing gears used by the f/v ‘Antarctic Endeavour’. Source: WG-EMM- 16/72

Marine Net Codend Codend Codend Codend Trawl Trawl Net outh Total net mammal mouth mouth mouth mouth mesh gear technique width (m) length (m) exclusión height (m) height (m) width (m) length (m) size (mm) device Midwater otter Panel across Traditional 15 22 99 3.2 3.0 28 16 (Gloria 192) mouth Midwater otter Panel across Traditional 19 26 107 3.2 3.0 28 16 (Omega 200) mouth

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 11

Figure 3-2. ‘Gloria 192’ fishing net used by the assessed vessel. Source: Observer’s report

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 12

Figure 3-3. ‘Omega 200’ fishing net used by the assessed vessel. Source: Observer’s report

Figure 3-4. ‘Apolo Stream’ doors and rigging details used by the assessed vessel. Source: Observer’s report

Other eligible fishers Other eligible fishers exist in cases where a client enters into assessment with the aim of initially certifying only part of a fishery, but also wishes to have the possibility of expanding the UoC at a later data by the mechanism of certificate sharing (see FCR G7.4.7-G7.4.9). In the case of the Antarctic krill fishery there are other vessels in the area targeting the same species with midwater trawls as the list of authorised vessels for during the 2017/18 fishing season (December 1 - November 30) includes 10 vessels from 5 different countries (see Figure 3-5 for its distribution among countries). The only certified vessels are the 3 norwegian vessels (2 under the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 13

certificate issued to Aker BioMarine and 1 under the certificate issued to Olympic Holding AS –self- suspended from 20 June 2017 until further notice-). However, the client expressed his wish to not share the certificate with other client group members, therefore there are no other eligible fishers according to FCR 7.4.12

Figure 3-5. Number of fishing vessels authorised for fishing Antarctic krill during 2017/18 fishing season. Source: CCAMLR web site ( https://www.ccamlr.org/en/compliance/list-authorised-vessels )

The unit of assessment (UoA) defines the full scope of what is being assessed and is therefore equal to or larger than the UoC. If it is larger this means it will include “other eligible fishers”. As in this case the are no other eligible fishers (see above), the UoC is equal to the UoA defined in Table 3-1.

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and UoC catch data: The Antarctic krill harvest from the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage (Area 48) has been capped by CCAMLR at 620 000 tonnes per year. This figure is an interim catch limit or trigger level, which is significantly less than the Precautionary Catch Level –PCL- (currently 5.61 millions tonnes per year) set for this Area 48 (see Table 3-3). Further, to prevent excessive localized depletion of the krill stock there is an interim distribution of the trigger level in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4. There is no further quota allocation to Countries or fleets. Although the trigger level for 48.1 has been reached in recent years, the total interim catch limit has never been reached (see Figure 3-7). The fishing vessel included in the UoC has just incorporated to the fishery during the current fishing season (1 st December 2017 – 30 th November 2018), so there is no historical catch records to be assigned to this UoC (see Table 3-3). However, the vessel has communicated to CCAMLR (in accordance to CM 21-03-2016) its expected level of catch for the 2017/18 fishing season in 45,000. The vessel has a processing capacity for 300 tonnes of krill (green weight) per day. Table 3-3. Antarctic krill Precautionary Cacth Limit (PCL) and Trigger level in FAO Area 48 and UoC catch data Fishing season (Dec 1-Nov 30) 2016/17 2017/18 PCL (t) 5,600,000 5,600,000 CCAMLR Trigger level (t) 620,000 620,000 UoC share of TAC N/A N/A Total green weight catch by UoC N/A -

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 14

3.2. Overview of the fishery

3.2.1. History of the krill fishery The Antarctic krill fishery developed as a result of a growing demand for protein from the sea along with increasingly restricted access to historical fishing grounds over the past 30 years. Krill commercial fishing was initiated in 1961/62 when a small catch was taken by two research vessels from the USSR. However, it was not until the 1972/73 season that a fishery on a commercial scale started. It soon concentrated in localised area of the Atlantic Ocean known as Scotia Sea, with the main fishing grounds east of South Georgia, around the South Orkney Islands and off the north coast of the South Shetland Islands (see Figure 3-6). After peaking at nearly 530 000 t in 1981/82, catches dropped substantially because of problems in processing the product and more effort being diverted to fishing for finfish. From 1986/87 to 1990/91, annual catches stabilised at between 350 000 and 400 000 t, which was about 13% of the world catch of crustaceans. Then, when economic factors forced the Russian fleet to stop fishing, catches declined dramatically to about 80 000 t per annum (Kock 2000). Since then, catches have been increasing as other participants entered the fishery. The total 2015/16 season krill catch was 225 646 t (CCAMLR 2016), many tens of thousands of tonnes less than the previous season. See Figure 3-7 for a trend of total catches of Antarctic krill in the Convention Area since 1973, separating the annual catches according to the CCAMLR Area. It is worth mentioning that during the 2016/17 fishing season some catches were performed in Area 58 after many years of inactivity.

Figure 3-6. Map of Scotia Sea. Toponyms: undersea topograhpy, maritime and nearby lands, countries and cities. Isobatch interval: 200m. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scotia- sea.png#mediaviewer/File:Scotia-sea.png

The CCAMLR database holds data on krill catches starting in 1973. Just over half of this catch was reported by the USSR (51%), with Japan (21%), Norway (9.5%), Korea (5.6%), Poland (3.4%) and Ukraine (3.4%) as the other major fishing nations. Within the past decade (including seasons 2005- 2014), however, 41% of the total catch has been taken by Norway, 21% by Korea and 11% by Japan.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 15

Figure 3-7. Total annual catches of krill ( Euphausia superba ) in the CCAMLR Convention Area (source CCMLR WG-EMM 16/07).

As the fishery has developed, the location of fishing has moved from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean and has focused almost entirely in the Atlantic sector since early 1990s. In the past 10 years, the spatial distribution of the fishery has centred on the region of the Bransfield Strait off the Antarctic Peninsula (Subarea 48.1), to the northwest of Coronation Island (Subarea 48.2) and also to the north of South Georgia (Subarea 48.3) (CCAMLR 2016) (see Figure 3-6). The South Orkney Islands and the Antarctic Peninsula region are usually fished in summer, whereas the South Georgia fishing grounds are mainly fished in winter, when the more southern grounds are covered by ice. The general pattern described above is consistent with data on geographical distribution of the fshing effort performed by the only Chilean vessel targeting krill between 2011 and 2016, the f/v Betanzos (see next subsection for more details on this vessel). Arana and Rolleri (2017) mapped all hauls performed by this fishing vessel during the period it was operating in the Convention Area. Fishing operations conducted in Subarea 48.1 concentrated around the South Shetland Islands, Elephant Island and in the Bransfield Strait ( Figure 3-8), while in Subarea 48.2 the activity concentrated northwest of the South Orkney Islands, and in Subarea 48.3 ( Figure 3-9) hauls concentrated along the northeastern coast of the South Georgia Island ( Figure 3-10 ).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 16

66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S 60°00'S

Elephant Island Elephant Island a b s s land land d Is d Is tlan tlan She She uth 62°00' uth t 62°00' So So trai ld S rait sfie St an ield Br nsf Bra

64°00' 64°00' la su ula nin ins Pe en tic c P rc cti nta tar A SUBAREA 48.1 An SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'

66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S 60°00'S c Elephant Island d Elephant Island s nds land Isla d Is land tlan het She 62°00' th S 62°00' th it Sou ait Sou tra Str d S ield fiel nsf ans Bra Br

64°00' 64°00' ula la ins su en nin c P Pe cti tic tar rc An nta SUBAREA 48.1 A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'

66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S 60°00'S e Elephant Island f Elephant Island nds Isla nds land Isla het and th S hetl Sou 62°00' th S it 62°00' ou tra rait S ld S St fie ield ans nsf Br Bra

64°00' 64°00' a ula ul ns ins ni en Pe P ic tic rct rc ta nta An SUBAREA 48.1 A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 17

47°48'W 47°18' 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 47°48'W 47°18' 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 60°00'S 60°00'S a b Southern Ocean Southern Ocean

60°30' 60°30'

South Orkney Islands South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' 61°00' 47°48'W 47°18' 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 47°48'W 47°18' 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 60°00'S c Southern ocean d Southern ocean

60°30' 60°30'

South Orkney Islands South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' 61°00'

47°48'W 47°18' 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 60°00'S e Southern ocean

60°30'

South Orkney Islands SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' Figure 3-9. Geographical distribution of the hauls performed by the f/v Betanzos in Subarea 48.2 during (a) 2011, (b) 2012, (c) 2013, (d) 2014, (e) 2015 and (f) 2016. Source: Arana and Rolleri 2017

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 18

In the first 10 years of krill fishing, catches, in particular those made by vessels from countries of the former Soviet Union and satellite associates, were largely used for animal feed. In the mid-1980s, difficulties in processing krill were overcome. Today, most of the krill catch is processed for aquaculture feed, bait and human consumption. Its use in aquaculture and its potential as a source of biochemical products has increased worldwide interest in krill fisheries (Kock 2000).

Chilean participation in the krill fishery Chile incorporated to the antarctic krill fishery in 2011 with the f/v Betanzos, owned by Antarctic Sea Fisheries (current Deris’ CEO, Enrique Gutierrez, was formerly Antarctic Sea Fisheries’ CEO). However, this vessel was a conventional trawler that was never specifically adapted to the krill fishery. Figure 3-11 shows krill catches by f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016, representing between 2 and 6% of total annual Antarctic krill catches in Area 48. The f/v Betanzos sold to a foreign company and withdrawn from this fishery. Currently, the only Chilean vessel authorized for

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 19

fishing krill is the assessed vessel, the f/v Antarctic Endeavour (see seccion 3.2.3 for more details on the ownership and section 3.1.1 for technical caractheristics of this vessel)

Figure 3-11. f/v Betanzos krill catches in Area 48. Source: Patricio Arana.

3.2.2. Fishing operation and gear configurations in use Antarctic krill characteristically aggregate into concentrations of many swarms, and these are targeted by the fishing vessels. As the concentrations are formed in limited areas, vessels make use of a range of information to locate harvestable concentrations. During searching activity, surface water temperatures are monitored in order to detect oceanographic fronts, which tend to attract krill aggregations for prolonged periods. Icebergs with many resting seabirds or covered by bird droppings can also be indications of the existence of nearby krill aggregations. Once such indicators have been found, vessels intensify their searching activities by increasing the frequency of directional changes so as to locate the high density part of the krill concentration (Ichii 2000). Good fishing grounds are closely associated with ice-free continental and insular shelf break – slope regions (Ichii 1990, Everson and Goss 1991). A number of difficulties have been associated with the krill fishery; the greatest problem is distance, the fishery being centred far from major ports and undertaken in often inhospitable seas. Krill quality is also a major concern. Important from the commercial perspective, krill products are graded by ‘greenness’, body size and body colour. `Green' krill are those which have been feeding intensively on phytoplankton that accumulates in the anterior part of the body, specifically in the hepatopancreas inside the carapace. This is unimportant if peeled krill meat or meal is being produced, but `green' krill are actively avoided if fresh-frozen or boiled-frozen products are required, owing to the dirty appearance, unfavourable smell and inferior taste of products from the former. `Green' krill tend to be taken in the early austral summer (December–January) (Kawaguchi et al. 1998). Detection of krill swarms on the fishing grounds relies on the information provided by the vessel’s echosounder and sonar. Fishing vessels concentrate on the larger and denser swarms. Once a swarm is targeted and the trawl shot, adjustments to the trawl depth would be made using information from the echo-sounder and trawl sounder. The latter has two main functions: to indicate the depth of the net and to inform on the quantity of krill that has entered the net. Control of the catch size is important because of vessel processing capability and product quality considerations. For krill harvesting, a midwater trawl net with a mouth opening of 500 to 700 m 2 is used. As krill appear to take no effective avoidance action to commercial nets, towing speeds are generally around 2 knots (Everson 2000).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 20

The use of marine mammal exclusion devices on trawls is mandatory in the Convention area (as established in CM 51-01 for Subareas 48.1-484 and CM 51-03 for Subarea 58.4.2). The different mid-water trawls being currently used by the international fleet targeting the stock in the Convention Area can be classified in two main groups depending on the fishing operation: a. Continuous trawl. The gear is deployed and fishes continuously for up to four weeks with the krill being pumped continuously for the codend. b. Traditional trawls. The gear is deployed and either brought aboard the vessel after each tow or brought to the side of the vessl and then pumped out (Hønneland et at, 2015). Depending on the technical caractheristics there are different types normally known by the Commercial name and size. See Table 3-2 for technical caractheristics of the two types of midwater trawl used (Gloria 192M and Omega 200 nets). Different net configurations are likely having some influence on gear selectivity (Krag et al. 2013) and CPUE estimation, so detailed information on the gears used by each of the vessels intented to fish for krill shall be included in the notifications sent in advance to CCAMLR.

3.2.3. Ownership, history and organisational structure of the assessed fleet Deris S.A. is the holding company for the fishing and aquaculture activities of Inder Group (investment office of the Del Rio family based in Chile) since the Group acquired Pesca Chile’s fleet (one of the largest fishing companies in Chile at that time) in 2014. Deris S.A. comprises a fleet composed of: 6 factory vessels (3 trawlers and 3 longliners) and 1 wet fish trawler. Currently, the company has quota for more than 5,000 t of demersal species in Chile’s southern demersal fisheries. Deris, S.A has kept the well know commercial brand –Pesca Chile- for its products, although the fishing company that gives its name to the product no longer exists. Deris, S.A. is member of the Association of Responsible Krill harvesting companies (ARK). Currently ARK ( http://www.ark-krill.org/) is integrated by 5 krill fishing companies: AkerBioMarine, Rimfrost, Insung, CNFC and Deris-Pescachile. The ARK aims to facilitate communication between the industry, CCAMLR and the scientific community, and also to promote research for the sustainable harvest of Antarctic krill. The ARK agree that the industry must develop sustainably to ensure long term viability of the krill stocks and dependent predators. Apart from attending to the CCAMLR meeting in October, some of the relevant activities developed by ARK during 2017 included (taken from their website): ° The purchase and installation of a calibration kit for use by ARK members. This equipment will be used to provide CCAMLR scientists with acoustic data on the distribution and abundance of Antarctic krill ° In June this year, ARK hosted an afternoon workshop during the Third International Krill Symposium in Scotland. The aim of this workshop was to bring together scientists and the fishing industry to explore topics of mutual interest. Specifically, it was designed to provide an opportunity for interaction with the wider scientific community that is interested in krill research, not just CCAMLR scientists.

3.2.4. Assessed area: common fishing grounds, jurisdiction and user’s rights F/v Antarctic Endeavour will operate within the CCAMLR Area 48, in particular krill fishing grounds are restricted to subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4. There is no krill fishing in subareas 48.5 (Weddel Sea) and 48.6. The observer’s report from the first fishing trip performed by the Antarctic Endeavour (December 2017-February 2018) show that subarea 48.1 (around Elephant island and South Shetland Islands –in particular around King George Island-) concentrated 62% of the effective fishing days, while the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 21

remaining 38% took place near Orkney Islands in Subarea 48.2. As already explained, the f/v Antarctic Endeavour is using the same fishing gears, and share the same skipper and operations manager than the f/v Betanzos, so it is expected that fishing grounds shown in Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 will also be the ones frequented by the assessed vessel: South Shetland Islands, Elephant Island and in the Bransfield Strait in Subarea 48.1, northwest of the South Orkney Islands in Subarea 48.2, along the northeastern coast of the South Georgia Island in Subarea 48.3.

Figure 3-12. The location of subareas in Area 48 (Atlantic-Antarctic) and (inset) the whole CAMLR Convention Area. Source: CCAMLR

The f/v Antarctic Endeavour was granted a permission by the Chilean Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA) to operate in the High Seas (SUBPESCA, 2017) and also has a permit to conduct fishing activities on Antarctic krill in CCAMLR Sub-areas 48.1; 48.2; and 48.3 (SUBPESCA, 2017b (see Figure 3-12 for locationg CCAMLR Subareas). This permit is valid for the fishing season 2017/18 and, as required by the Chilean LFA, a brief of this authorization was published in the official gazette (N° 41757 as of 15/05/2017). This fishing vessel submitted the formal notification to CCAMLR Secretariat on the intent to fish krill during the current fishing season and it is listed in the Convention website as an authorized vessel (see Table 3-4 for details included in the licence issued by CCAMLR). This is the only Chilean vessel attempting to harvest krill during the current 2017/18 season. Table 3-4. Details of the latest annual licence issued to the f/v ‘Antarctic Endeavour’. Source: https://www.ccamlr.org/en/node/97817#quicktabs-vessel_tabs=1

Bottom Fishing Authority Period Target species Areas Authorised

Euphausia Subareas 48.1, 48.2, Chile 01 Dec 2017 to 30 Nov 2018 Not Applicable superba 48.3

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 22

3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire target species stock, not just the fishery undergoing certification. In this section of the report, a referenced summary is provided covering: a. an outline of the fishery resource, including life history information; b. an outline of the status of the stock as indicated by stock assessment, including a description of the assessment methods, standards, and stock indicators, biological limits, etc. c. a history of the fishery for the stock and its management. Antarctic krill, the single target species, is a key low trophic level (LTL) species, so management has to take account of this and the P1 text covers the subject in detail.

3.3.1. Background information

Introduction Krill are small crustaceans of the order Euphausiacea , and are found in all the world's oceans. In the Southern Ocean, the Antarctic krill Euphausia superba is a widespread species that swarms frequently and is the subject of significant commercial fishing. With a distribution extending over much of the 36 million km 2 that make up the Southern Ocean, the estimation of E. superba biomass presents many logistical difficulties. Added to this is the problem caused by a significant part of the area being covered by sea-ice (Everson 2000). Therefore, it is unsurprising that survey estimates of krill biomass tend to have broad boundaries of uncertainty around them. A large number of scientific studies covering all aspects of krill biology, distribution and ecology can be found in the literature but this section aims at summarising current knowledge to provide a basis for consideration of krill status and fisheries. Key information on krill is contained in the Discovery Reports of the 1930s, various sightings and commercial activities (generally on other stocks and species) throughout the 20 th century, First International Biomass Experiment (FIBEX) acoustic study reports and the results of other surveys, most of them other than the Discovery cruises having been relatively recent. Literature consulted to compile this summary includes Miller and Hampton (1989), Everson (2000), Miller (2003) and Nicol (2006), although specific aspects relating to certain life history characteristics are the subject of other studies, some referenced as appropriate in the text below.

Krill as a low trophic level species (LTL) Antarctic krill is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 (MSC FCR V 2.0). Therefore, in accordance with SA2.2.9 the Antarctic krill is to be treated as a key LTL species in the case that during the adult phase of its life cycle the species plays a key role in the ecosystem such that the species demonstrably meets at least two of subcriteria (i), (ii) and (iii) below: i. a large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve the stock, leading to significant predator dependence;

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 23

ii. a large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through the stock; iii. there are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through the stock (i.e. the ecosystem is of a ‘wasp-waist’ form). Krill are considered to be an important trophic level connection – near the bottom of the food chain – because they feed on phytoplankton and to a lesser extent also zooplankton, converting them into a form suitable as an energy source for many larger animals for whom krill make up a large part of the diet. In the Southern Ocean ecosystem, the Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba , plays a central role in the ecosystem and acts as a direct link between primary production and higher predators such as baleen whales, seals, fish, birds and cephalopods. The current best estimate of krill biomass is 60.2 million tonnes (CCAMLR 2015), believed to be the largest biomass of any species on Earth. In fact, krill constitute a large proportion of the whole biomass in the Antarctic marine ecosystem and it is a key connector species in the Antarctic marine foodweb. As much as 152–313 million tonnes of krill are thought to be consumed by various predators of krill each year (Miller and Hampton 1989), a quantum replaced by growth and reproduction. Antarctic krill display large daily vertical migrations (Demer and Hewitt 1995), so providing food for predators near the surface at night and in deeper water by day. The role of krill in the ecosystem is crucial, because the resource provides the major link between LTL production and consumption by higher trophic level predators across the Scotia Sea (Murphy et al . 2007). In a subsequent research article aiming at improving understanding of the structure and functioning of polar pelagic ecosystems, Murphy et al . (2016) state that the Antarctic krill is the main prey species in the areas of the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) and over the South Georgia shelf (two polar regions they selected specifically for their study), although they recognise that other species of meso- and macrozooplankton are important in energy flow to fish and other larger species. They state that the short pathway through Antarctic krill dominates the consumption by the combined upper-trophic levels (fish and larger species), supplying similar levels (approx. 43%) of the demand for the WAP and South Georgia (~44% and ~47%, respectively, including off-shelf flows). The percentage contributions of the demand by seabird, marine mammal, fish and cephalopod predators in the two regions are also calculated by these authors. The foodwebs that flow through Antarctic krill are illustrated in Figure 3-13 below.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 24

Figure 3-13. Structural variations in Antarctic foodwebs along a gradient from the high-latitude sea-ice zone (white boxes), through seasonal sea-ice zone (blue boxes) to lower latitude open-ocean zones (red boxes). Adapted from Murphy et al . (2016).

A simplified diagram of the foodweb in the Southern Ocean ( Figure 3-14 ), presented by Everson (2000), suggests that linkages are centred around krill, also supporting the view that the species meets at least LTL definition subcriteria (i) and (ii) above.

Figure 3-14. Simplified diagram of the foodweb in the Southern Ocean. Source: Everson (2000)

Distribution The circumpolar nature of the Southern Ocean with its dominant west-to-east water movement suggests that many plankton species may be circumpolar in distribution. That this hypothesis is largely correct was proven by Baker (1954) studying the zooplankton and Hart (1942) the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 25

phytoplankton samples of Discovery Investigations, both of whom found that the species composition did not change markedly around the continent (Everson 2000). The broad-scale distribution of E. superba has been described by Marr (1962) from a large series of net hauls during the ` Discovery Investigations.' Although there have been many large-scale surveys subsequently, that picture of the general distribution extending from the high Antarctic continental shelf north as far as the Antarctic Polar Front Zone (APFZ) and shown in Figure 3-15 (Everson 2000) is still accepted. Despite a widespread distribution, it is well documented that krill aggregate in hotspots. Such areas likely provide good food resources for krill as well as shelter from offshore currents heading towards less productive areas (Siegel and Watkins 2016).

Figure 3-15 . Large-scale distribution of krill, based on surveys and commercial fishing activity (from Everson 2000).

The habitat of Antarctic krill is actually a fraction of the area of the entire Southern Ocean south of the Polar Front. The publication by Atkinson et al . (2009) confirmed a habitat area of 19×10 6 km 2 around the Antarctic Ocean (Miller and Hampton 1989). Few studies have demonstrated a clear and consistent relationship between simple environmental factors and krill, and no single environmental factor has shown a predictable relationship with krill density (Siegel and Watkins 2016). Hydrographic features are known to influence the distribution of krill at a broad range of scales (Nicol et al . 2000). On the large scale (100s to 1000s of km), although a general correlation was found between krill abundance and chlorophyll-a in the Antarctic Peninsula region, the relationship was weak. On the mesoscale (10s to 100s of km), krill may interact with the physical structure and circulation. The only fine-scale (up to-10s of km), a relationship between the krill and its environment is evident between krill density and bathymetry, with the greatest densities of krill being found in the shelf-break zone, as demonstrated by the consistent concentration of the krill fishery in the Scotia Sea and around the Antarctic Peninsula. In addition, in the Antarctic Peninsula region, the presence of Circumpolar Deep Water interacts with the shelf break and where deep canyons penetrate the shelf they allow transport of krill towards and up onto the shelf. The Circumpolar Deep Water provides deep troughs and canyons with high concentration of nutrients, leading to increased total phytoplankton and diatom biomass. By modifying their

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 26

behaviour (diel vertical migration, swarming and continuous swimming), krill may be retained and accumulate in such local, food-rich areas (Siegel and Watkins 2016). Regions of high abundance of Antarctic krill are well known, but the small-scale (<1 km) distribution is quite variable and difficult to predict. Krill are typically distributed in aggregations or swarms that can show differing extents of concentration and dispersion over diel cycles. Swarming is likely a response to predation but may also offer energetic advantages relative to a dispersed distribution. Krill also migrate vertically over the diel cycle, but such a migration may be strong or absent, and they may also use the sea-floor as their habitat. Krill consistently reside in the upper 200 m of the ocean, but recent observations show that a substantial proportion of the population may be found below this pelagic zone (Siegel and Watkins 2016). During routine krill surveys, net tows are carried out in the upper 200 m of the water column or sometimes slightly less. Krill concentrations seem to be densest in CCAMLR Area 48, and it is there where most of the fisheries for krill have focused their activities; only small catches have been taken from other areas. The results of various surveys have shown that krill density in the western Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean is more than twice that in the Indian Ocean sector, and there is also some evidence that krill abundance is even lower in the Pacific Ocean sector than in the Indian Ocean sector. Krill are generally considered to be relatively passive components of ocean systems, but there is good evidence that adults are efficient swimmers that can swim against currents for long periods. Therefore, overall krill distribution is likely influenced by adults being able to remain in favourable (i.e. productive) habitats for long periods (Miller and Hampton 1989). The scientific literature and evidence based on commercial-size aggregations is not yet definitive in terms of whether krill follow repetitive diurnal migrations when they do migrate; some stocks seem to do so, others may not. What is not questioned, however, is that krill can exist in layers and patches ranging from a few square metres across, through shoals, schools, swarms and up to superswarms covering >100 km 2, and it is this aspect of their behaviour that likely renders them appropriate for commercial harvesting. Solitary or dispersed groups of krill are often found during research surveys, generally in a seasonally repetitive pattern, but such animals are not sought commercially. The fishery-targeted krill are generally those in aggregations dense enough to sustain the type of fishery, usually around islands, over shallow shelves, or associated with areas where water masses mix, and their swarming and schooling behaviour has been explained scientifically as an adaptive strategy to avoid selective predators such as fish and seabirds, as well as to increase their own efficiency in finding food. Aggregations of krill may last a matter of hours or even longer, perhaps days or weeks, and their components vary considerably in shape, size and state of sexual maturity. For any stock with a distribution as extensive as that of krill, it must be possible that there are several stocks, but to date for krill, formal stock distinction by any means, including genetics (Siegel 2000b), has not been proven.

Krill growth Laboratory and field studies on the age, growth, mortality and recruitment dynamics of Antarctic krill have greatly increased the knowledge of its life history over the past 30 years. Laboratory studies have also enhanced the knowledge of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors governing growth and moulting frequency that have been used to develop more robust models for krill growth. However, the lack of progress on developing direct measures of krill age continue to hamper the ability to compare and contrast growth and recruitment robustly and with confidence across different environments. Estimating the longevity of crustaceans is difficult, because crustaceans lack the hard parts, e.g. otoliths, spines or scales, that can record chronological age (Reiss 2016). Estimates of maximum age or longevity have therefore largely been estimated from external attributes of the animal, such as length and maturity. Krill apparently attain a maximum length of >60 mm and an age of >5 years.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 27

Growth rate has been estimated by modal progression in length-frequency data (de la Mare 1994a, 1994b) and laboratory experimentation that revealed that growth is highly seasonal and almost certainly depends on food availability. Around the Antarctic Peninsula, the peak season for krill growth is the austral summer (January and February), when somatic fat reserves are accumulated and the fishery targets the animals for the valuable Omega 3 somatic oil. In winter, from May/June on, fat content and hence oil yield reach their minimum. Food availability in the form of plankton is much lower in winter, but although phytoplankton – diatoms in particular – are the staple food of krill, protozoans and small copepods are ingested simulataneously and represent an important food resource year-round (Schmidt and Atkinson 2016). Krill in the wild in winter have been observed feeding on ice-algae and zooplankton components of the water column. Further, laboratory experimentation has revealed krill surviving for 200 days or more without food, but with some body shrinkage.

Reproductive biology and life history The reproductive output of Antarctic krill is a key factor influencing their overall population size. Seasonal cycles of reproduction and larval development are synchronized with seasonal cycles of food, sea-ice and the light regime (Kawaguchi 2016). Although the distribution of krill females varies depending on maturity stage, spawning females are predominantly found in open water. Spawning takes place mainly from late November to late March, but the onset of spawning varies both spatially and between years. Total egg production is a function of female abundance, the fraction of females reproducing in a season, the number of spawning episodes (krill are batch-spawners) and the number of eggs released per batch, with each female producing 6000–10 000 eggs per batch. It is not known why, but not all females reproduce every year, the percentage of subadult and adult females reproducing within a season apparently varying from <20% to virtually 100%. The length of the period between batches varies with location and year from a minimum of 6 d to a maximum of 50 d in midsummer, and the total number of spawning episodes per season ranges from 3 to 9, almost certainly depending on food availability and environmental conditions (Everson 2000). The mean body size of krill in the spawning aggregation may influence batch fecundity. Lifespan and the age at first reproduction are not always the same for male and female euphausiids. Female Antarctic krill generally spawn from an age of about 2 years near the sea surface and the eggs sink to hatch in deeper water. Larvae ascend in the water column as they develop. Feeding commences after 21–30 days at depths of 30–100 m at the fourth development stage, but the total development time from egg to final larva takes about 130 days. Male krill seem to mature at an age of about 3 years. Krill can live for several years, but the proportion of krill >5 years old in the population is low (always <1% of the total stock surveyed).

Longevity, natural mortality and recruitment Management of krill fisheries requires information on key population parameters of the species as well as their natural variability. The work of Lu and Wang (1996) suggests the existence of a 5+ age group in Antarctic krill. However, older age groups do not contribute substantially to the population, as mentioned above. Laboratory studies indicated that Antarctic krill can survive in captivity up to 6 years, resulting in a longevity of up to 6–7 years (Siegel and Nicol 2000). Published estimates of natural mortality for E. superba range from 0.45 to 2.92 (Kinzel et al . 2013). Estimates of the rate of natural mortality based on maximum age calculations (Basson 1994) suggest a value between 0.83 and 1.67 year -1, although Siegel (2000a) considered realistic values of natural mortality for post- larval E. superba to be between 0.66 and 1.35.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 28

Pairwise correlations between Antarctic krill stock parameters, recruitment indices, and available environmental data indicated that good and poor year-class success are both directly and indirectly related to sea-ice conditions during the preceding winter season, the timing of krill spawning, and the occurrence of dense salp concentrations. No correlation was shown with upper water column temperature or krill stock/spawning stock size (Siegel and Loeb 1995). Available time-series of data of krill abundance from nets, acoustics and predator studies show considerable (tenfold) inter- and intra-annual variation. This interannual variability in abundance is therefore of similar overall magnitude to the overall trend observed in some of the time-series. Interannual changes correlate most clearly with sea-ice variability, indicating strong environmental control on the early life cycle and hence on recruitment success and population size of krill (Flores et al. 2012). In a given year, krill recruitment may vary considerably by region, depending on environmental conditions.

3.3.2. State of the stock MSC certification requires rigorous evaluation of the stock assessment methods applied and of the stock biomass and fishing mortality against reference points in order to be able to say that a fishery operates sustainably. This aspect of the process generally applies to the entire stock and not only to the UoC. Krill has a circumpolar distribution, but the evaluations and the assessments have concentrated in area 48, where the assessed vessel operates. The estimated standing stock of krill in Area 48 is based on the CCAMLR-2000 Survey (Trathan et al . 2001), an estimate that has been revised over the years on the basis of methodological improvement in the processing and analysis of acoustic data (SC-CAMLR-XXIX, Annex 5, paragraphs 2.40 to 2.44), specifically including target strength. The annual stock assessments carried out by CCAMLR are conducted on the basis of the 2000 Survey supported by research findings of member countries who may conduct annual or occasional surveys on a much more restricted area. However, the total fishery does seem to be operating sustainably because annual catches are well below a very conservatively set precautionary catch limit (PCL). For the purpose of evaluation of this report, it is deemed sufficient to present an updated summary of the stock assessment outputs, as tabled in previous certifications. Key issues here are the evaluation of the cumulative impact of fishing levels on stock size and the need to demonstrate that management and the controls applied are both scientifically defensible and robust to plausible scenarios of environmental and climatic change.

Introduction In developing any management regime, including that for krill, one of CCAMLR's first tasks was to identify management areas. However, the delineation of krill stock boundaries has proved extremely difficult because the extent to which krill are resident in various areas or move between them as passive particles in the east-flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Current is largely unknown and likely to be quite variable (Miller and Hampton, 1989; Miller and Agnew 2000). For practical purposes, therefore, CCAMLR has focused its efforts on areas where the fishery is primarily located (i.e. Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3, and to a lesser degree 48.4). These areas, particularly 48.1 and 48.3, contain sites where large colonies of land-based krill predators breed or are located (Bengtson 1984; Croxall et al . 1988; Croxall 1990). Therefore, it seemed appropriate at CCAMLR to identify the areas where the fishery, the krill and its predators overlap as management areas. Area 48 is here considered to be a single management unit, although recruitment is shared with other areas (Pacific, Area 88; Indian, Area 58). Catch limits are set for krill in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2, but there has been no commercial fishing for the species in these two divisions in the past two decades (until Chinese vessels started operating in subarea 58.4 during the 2016/17 season). Under those circumstances, managing Area 48 as a single separate stock is deemed to be appropriate. In 2003, CCAMLR agreed to the definition of a number of small-scale management units (SSMUs) in area 48 that are based on the distribution of krill, krill predators and the fishery.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 29

However, there has as yet been no agreement on the allocation of catches at this scale (CCAMLR Secretariat WG-EMM-16/07). The management areas currently in place (Subareas 48.1–48.6; Figure 3-12) are based on CCAMLR’s own precautionary management regime for krill, given that is unlikely that krill, or krill products, move extensively between smaller areas and taking into account the oceanography of the Convention Area.

Stock assessment CCAMLR sets precautionary catch limits (PCL) for krill using a set of “decision rules” to determine the proportion of the stock that can be fished while still achieving the objectives of the Convention. The approach has been developed within CCAMLR into a Generalized Yield Model (GYM; Constable and de la Mare 1996). A simple population model, which includes random variability in recruitment, is run hundreds of times with values for growth, mortality and abundance drawn at random from suitable statistical distributions, to allow for natural variability in the population as well as uncertainty in the parameter estimates to be incorporated. Thus, the simulation model is used to calculate a distribution of possible population sizes both in the absence of fishing and at various fishing mortalities. These distributions are used to determine the proportion (Ɣ) of an estimate of the unexploited biomass (B 0; from a hydroacoustic survey) that can be caught each year (de la Mare 1996, Constable et al . 2000). In 2010, the Scientific Committee agreed that the best estimate of krill biomass during the CCAMLR- 2000 Survey was 60.3 million tonnes. Based on the krill stock assessment model, CCAMLR agreed to a PCL for krill of 5.61 million tonnes per season (1 December to 30 November of the following year) in Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 combined. This catch limit was based on a B 0 estimate of 60.3 million tonnes with a survey CV of 12.8% and a fraction of the population (Ɣ) estimated using the GYM of 0.093. This PCL is still current. Work on the krill assessment model is ongoing. At present, researchers are working towards models that integrate both net and acoustic biomass indices with the size compositions from research net tows. Ultimately, the aim is to develop a statistical modelling framework to assess the status and productivity of Antactic krill in the Scotia Sea (Kinzey et al . 2015).

Biomass estimates The multinational synoptic survey undertaken in the summer of 2000 covering Area 48 provides the only complete estimate of krill biomass available at present. Survey rationale and design are described in Trathan et al . (2001). The primary objective of the survey was to improve estimates of the pre-exploitation biomass of krill (B 0) to be used in models to estimate the sustainable yield in Area 48. The value of B 0 was calculated at a multinational Workshop (SC-CCAMLR 2000) as equal to 44.29 million tonnes. Since then, however, different models and target-strength estimates have

been applied and the value of B 0 revised. Currently, the best estimate of B 0 (CCAMLR Scientific Committee 2010) is 60.3 million tonnes. No other synoptic survey has been conducted since 2000 and although this is understandable given the enormous cost and complicated coordination effort required by Member countries, it does open a question regarding the reliability of management advice based on such a historical survey estimate. Realizing this, and since early years of the fishery, individual countries participating in the fishery have conducted annual or sporadic surveys in the areas of their operation that are important contributions to the overall knowledge of stock size. The ability of fishery data to provide information on krill abundance and biomass trends over time has been the focus of several studies. Early studies concluded that catch per unit effort (CPUE) was not a useful index of krill abundance (Butterworth 1988), so more recently, an overall fishery performance index (FPI) was derived by Reid (2016) from catch and effort data. Comparison of the annual FPI with the krill biomass estimates from local surveys in Subareas 48.1 (Kinzey et al . 2015),

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 30

48.2 (Skaret et al. 2015) and 48.3 (Fielding et al. 2014) and the Combined Standardised Indices (CSI) of krill-dependent predator performance (see WG-EMM 16/09) data suggests (at least qualitatively) some relationship between the performance of the fishery and krill abundance. This is obviously an area of future development. Biomass indices from local krill monitoring programs (Table 3-5) show no evidence of a decline in krill stock since the CCAMLR-2000 Survey. Although there is a perception of an ongoing decline this is based on data collected prior to the CCAMLR-2000 survey, as none of the published krill numerical density and biomass time series show a decline since 2000. Two statisfical test for a decline between 2000 and 2014 in biomass indices shown in Table 3.5 were carried out and none indicate a decline. These are noisy time- series and separating systematic change from natural variability is difficult in such cases. Further, the relationship between local biomass indices and the biomass of the whole stock is unknown. However, the analyses support the conclusion that the population appears to have declined since the 1980s but it is unlikely that it has declined further since 2000. Table 3-5.Biomass indices from local krill monitoring programs (tons km -2); extracted from Hill et al. 2016.

Catch advice In setting a precautionary 5.61 million tonne catch limit over such a large area, CCAMLR recognises that the fishery has the potential to be spatially restricted and subjected to localised, potentially negative, ecosystem impacts. Recognising this risk, CCAMLR introduced a trigger level of 620 000 tonnes above which the fishery cannot proceed until there is an agreed mechanism to distribute catches into smaller management units (i.e. SSMUs) to avoid local impacts.The trigger was selected at that level because it represented the combined maximum historical catches reported from each subarea (although at no point in the krill fishery has an annual catch as high of 620 000 t been taken). Further, the trigger level has been subdivided so that catches in any one season may not

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 31

exceed 25% (i.e. 155 000 t) of the trigger level in Subarea 48.1, 45% (i.e. 279 000 t) in Subareas 48.2 and 48.3, or 15% (i.e. 93 000 t) in Subarea 48.4. Although these percentages sum to >100% and the trigger catches to >620 000 t, management experience has shown clearly that halting fishing in one subarea when it approaches its catch trigger virtually stops fishing anywhere in the management area, so the trigger level has yet to be reached. In 2003, CCAMLR agreed to the definition of a suite of (SSMUs) in Area 48 based on the distribution of krill, krill predators and the fishery, but to date there has been no agreement on the allocation of catches at this scale (CCAMLR 2016).

Monitoring The actual catches of krill are reported as the mass of product multiplied by a conversion factor to estimate the “green weight”. Given the different on-board processing methods and the resulting range of conversion factors used in the overall krill fishery, concern has been expressed about inconsistencies in the way the quantity of krill being removed from the ecosystem may be recorded. In order to progress analyses of uncertainty in green weight, specific detail of the method used to estimate catch on all of the krill-catching vessels is included in the CCAMLR notification process. This issue remains an important consideration in WG-EMM. Reporting of catch and effort is on a monthly basis. However, reporting is required on a five-day basis when the reported catch has exceeded 80% of the catch limit in a management subarea. Management on this basis requires close monitoring of compliance, and a robust programme for systematic and mainly country-independent observer coverage in the krill fishery was first implemented in 2010. Since then, a large proportion of the vessels participating in the fishery have carried observers on board, many for 100% of the time they are operating. The development of the observer scheme has allowed greater specification of data requirements too, to include data on length composition, sex and maturity stage, fish by-catch and the collection of acoustic data for krill.

Harvest strategy The 23-nation Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and its Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR) have endeavoured to develop a scientifically based management regime for the krill fishery. Advice on the management of Antarctic marine living resources, including exploitation levels, has been developed by specialist working groups of SC- CAMLR. For krill, these consist of the Working Group on Krill (WG-Krill) (1987±1994) and the Working Group for the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (WG-CEMP) (1986±1994). In 1994, the two Groups were combined into the Working Group for Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) (Miller and Agnew 2000). The fundamental management objectives of CCAMLR are set out in Article II of the Convention. From the outset, the ecological importance of krill as a key species in the Antarctic marine ecosystem, and the consequent need to manage krill stocks in such a way as to minimise potential ecological risks to both krill and its predators was recognised (Miller and Agnew 2000). CCAMLR was the first international fisheries organisation to explicitly assume both precautionary and ecosystem approaches as basic management principles. Although CCAMLR’s role has focused on conservation, the Commission is also tasked with allowing the development of fisheries in the Convention area. Therefore, although protection of krill-dependent predators needs to be implemented at critical times and in specific areas, it is deemed that such protection should not exert unnecessary, or unreasonable, restriction on the fishery (SC-CCMLR 1993). CCAMLR strategy is to manage fishery expansion in accord with its own management objectives (WG-EMM-08/46). Its primary controls remain catch limits and it does not set maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as a target, because sustainable harvesting levels would almost certainly be well below a single-species krill MSY. In setting a krill PCL, CCAMLR uses a potential yield estimate. Although that

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 32

estimate does not take into account the potential effects of harvesting krill on its dependent predators, the decision rule does do so. CCAMLR also monitors the populations of krill predators, producing catch reports and supporting periodic, fisheries-independent surveys of local biomass. Monitoring includes a long time-series of krill density and recruitment indices, although whether these would suffice to detect the impacts of fishing in a timely manner has not been tested. The krill fishery overlaps with areas where foraging, land-based predators, particularly penguins, capture krill to feed their young during the rearing phase. Using a modelling approach and robust assumptions, Mangel and Switzer (1998) suggested that the required level of krill forage by penguin offspring, and adult foraging behaviour and relative local reproductive success, could be inversely correlated with the fraction of the total krill biomass caught by the fishery. Notwithstanding, every effort is made to correlate data on potential krill fishery/predator (not just penguin) overlap, with a view to identifying areas and times of likely most significant common use, and ultimately to developing spatial catch quotas for krill.

Harvest control rules CCAMLR sets precautionary catch limits for krill using a set of “decision rules” to determine the proportion of the stock that can be fished while still achieving the objectives of the Convention. The actual catch limit for krill is set on the basis of a sustainable yield that can be taken as a constant catch, estimated using the GYM. After repeatedly projecting the pre-exploitation population forward with different yield levels (Ɣ), i.e. a different fraction of the starting population taken as a constant catch in each year of the projection, the following rules are used to determine the final estimate of yield: 1. Choose a yield level, Ɣ 1, so that the probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation level over a 20-year harvesting period is 10%. 2. Choose a yield level, Ɣ 2, so that the median escapement at the end of a 20-year period is 75% of the median pre-exploitation level. 3. Select the lower of Ɣ 1 and Ɣ 2 as the yield level. The actual catch limit is the gamma selected in step 3, because that is a value that is consistent with both of the objectives, multiplied by the estimate of the stock size from a survey of that stock. The catch limit is reviewed every year and is well above the trigger level currently set for krill catches. The two rules used to determine the PCL are the recruitment or threshold criterion (rule 1) that

effectively includes a limit reference point of a general overfishing threshold, 20% of B 0, and the predator or escapement criterion, which is a target reference point for spawning biomass. Together they address Convention Article II objectives 3a and 3b. The 20-year period relates to the Convention objective 3c and allows integration of expanding exploitation with sustainability and precaution, so it is good management practice. Notwithstanding, the precautionary catch trigger level in place (overall and for subareas) prevents the decision rule having any practical effect on management and catches until SSMUs are accepted formally and applied. The overall trigger level of 620 000 t is almost 100 000 t above the historical maximum annual catch in Area 48 (528 201 t in 1981/82; WG-EMM-14/58), but is nevertheless considered by WG-EMM to be an arbitrary choice, less so than that of alternative proposals made when it was originally established. The implementation of SSMU quotas is still deemed by the Commission to be necessary to render the management procedure fully consistent with ecosystem requirements (Article II of the Convention), but although in 2000 the Commission estimated development of SSMU quotas would take 5–10 years, the practical issues of reporting, observer coverage, etc, still need to be dealt with before such a system becomes feasible.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 33

Figure 3-16. Total annual catches of krill in the Convention Area in relation of the trigger level (Sources FAO catch statistics and Reports of the 34 th and 35 th meetings of the CCAMLR Commission).

Uncertainty in the assessment and catch advice Although the assessment takes into account parameter uncertainty in the fishery and ecosystem as well as model uncertainty (to the extent that different models have been developed and evaluated), the work of Kinzey et al. (2013) suggests that the use of a single value for natural mortality and a theoretical distribution of recruitment variability that is more narrow than the observed variability in krill size distributions may result in catch limits that are not precautionary. The study illustrates that better information is required about recruitment variability and natural mortality to assess the sustainability of increasing catches in Area 48 much beyond the trigger level. Another source of uncertainty that is not taken into account in the assessment is implementation uncertainty, caused, for example, by inaccurate reporting of catches. The observer scheme does go a long way towards reducing under- or misreporting of catch, but implementation uncertainty could also be reduced by taking it into account in the evaluation of management rules. There are uncertainties associated with the development of the fishery (see Leape et al . 2009, Johnston et al . 2009), so the question does arise whether the catch limit is precautionary enough to preclude there being a great risk of damage to the ecosystem. From the early 1990s up to 2009, the cach by the krill fishery remained around 120 000 t annually. Since then, annual catches have increased to >200 000 t and there is potential for additional increases in catch by other countries and additional vessels from countries already participating in the fishery. However, the total precautionary catch limit of 5.61 million tonnes per season for Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 combined is more than 25 times the current catch, catering adequately for uncertainty in catch levels for at least the immediate future. The precautionary catch limit is equivalent to 9.3% of the biomass estimate for 2000 which is conservative compared to the exploitation rates that would

reduce the biomass to B MSY . Moreover, the exploitation rates associated with reported catches have been less than 3% at the regional level (see Table 3-6 extracted from Hill et al . 2016). Rates above 9.3% have occurred at the Subarea and at the regional scales. These fluctuations are associated with variability in the local biomass estimates and there is no apparent trend. This comparison, based on conservative estimates of subarea biomass, suggests that the trigger level together with the subarea catch limits generally ensure low exploitation rates but might allow occasional relatively high

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 34

exploitation rates where true biomass is as low as the conservative estimate. The trigger level however, effectively limits the overall exploitation rate for Subareas 43.1 to 48.3 to an average of 6% (Table 3-6). Table 3-6 Indicative exploitation rates (catch metric divided by conservative biomass estimate for each subarea) associated with subarea catch limits and reported catches. The “All” coumns show the trigger level or catch divided by the sum of available conservative biomass estimates (and are therefore likely to overestimate exploitation rates when then the set of biomass estimates is incomplete). Extracted from Hill et al . 2016.

The krill fishery now mainly operates from late summer to mid-winter, and this has been made possible by the reductions in winter sea-ice around the Antarctic Peninsula as a result of climate change. Another important environmental issue emerging is the effect of ocean acidification. Southern Ocean ecosystems are expected to be rapidly affected by ocean acidification. A recent study indicates that there could be negative impacts of acidification on krill early development and underlines the importance of undertaking detailed studies on the sensitivity of krill to ocean acidification across all life stages (Kawaguchi et al . 2010). Environmental changes in the Southern Ocean are likely to impact on krill populations in a complex fashion, and data do not currently exist to render reliable any predictions made on the likely effects of predicted environmental changes on the circumpolar krill stock. Consequently, management of the krill fishery will have to remain suitably precautionary to account for an uncertain future (Nicol et al . 2012). Current levels of exploitation are definitely precautionary given what is currently known, but the range of values calculated and documented in the literature for B 0 do raise concern. All are based on the level of unexploited biomass calculated from the single synoptic survey carried out in 2000. Although there is apparently no likelihood of this survey being conducted again soon, some national efforts are being made to conduct new partial surveys in certain sectors regularly, including the area covered by the UoC fishery. Differences in the various estimates generally exceed sampling standard

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 35

errors and confidence ranges, however, suggesting that overall uncertainty is likely being underestimated, although the most-recent CCAMLR-approved estimate of unexploited biomass is taken from near the lowest of the range of values provided in the literature and analyses. There is confidence in the management control system too, given that the overall and individual subarea trigger levels are still well below the PCL calculated on the basis of the GYM. Uncertainties and concerns related to the use of varying conversion factors for krill, from processed to live weight, and to the potential for discards not to be taken into account, were mentioned above. Such issues are almost certainly not relevant in terms of the UoC fishery, and despite total annual catches rising slowly, it would seem highly unlikely, given current controls and conservation measures, that the annual catches will exceed the trigger level in the short term. In the longer term, however, if catches continue to rise and further catching capacity is introduced, such issues are going to have to be addressed. Note, however, that subareas were closed several times during recent completed seasons and discussion on trigger levels and PUCL has taken place at CCAMLR as a result. For the time being, the situation remains the same as it has been for many years.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 36

3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1 Scotia Sea: context

3.4.1.1. Location The Scotia Sea is a sea located at the northern edge of the Southern Ocean at its boundary with the South Atlantic Ocean. It is bounded on the west by the Drake Passage and on the north, east and south by the Scotia Arc, an undersea ridge and island arc system supporting various islands (Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-17 ). The sea sits atop the Scotia Plate and encompasses an area of approximately 900,000 square kilometers, a little smaller than Venezuela.

3.4.1.2. Marieland and the Scotia Sea Islands Tundra ecoregions: biodiversity The islands bordering the Scotia Sea are rocky and partly covered in ice and snow year round; despite these harsh conditions, however, the islands do support vegetation and have been described as the Scotia Sea Islands tundra ecoregion, which includes South Georgia, the volcanic South Sandwich Islands and the South Orkneys in the Scotia Sea, as well as the remote South Shetland Islands near the Antarctic Peninsula and the small isolated volcano called Bouvet Island. All these islands lie in the cold seas below the Antarctic convergence. These areas support tundra vegetation consisting of mosses, lichen and algae, while seabirds, penguins and seals feed in the surrounding waters. The coastal fringes of the Antarctic peninsula, which are also free of permanent ice, constitute another ecoregion called Marieland, with a maritime Antarctic climate similar to that of the islands bordering the Scotia Sea. The climate of the peninsula, especially on the western coast is the mildest on the Antarctic continent. From the tip of the Antarctic peninsula south to 68°S, average monthly temperatures exceed 0°C for 3-4 months of summer, and rarely fall below -10°C during winter. Main features of the biodiversity in these ecoregions are summarized below based on information gathered by WWF ( https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/an1101 ). Six seal species are native to Antarctica, crabeater seal ( Lobodon carcinophagus ), Ross seal (Omimatophoca rossii ), leopard seal ( Hydrurga leptonyx ), Weddell seal ( Leptonychotes weddellii ), southern elephant seal ( Mirounga leonina ), and southern fur seal ( Arctocephalus gazella ). Elephant seals are found in the Antarctic Peninsula area and on subantarctic islands, but do not range as farther south into continental Antarctica. The elephant seal and fur seal are more often associated with the open ocean, while the others spend a significant amount of time on sea ice. Weddell, crabeater, Ross, and leopard seals are all ice-breeding. Pushed almost to extinction by intensive hunting in the 19th century, the fur seal has recovered greatly starting around 1970, and now totals about 1 million individuals. The crabeater seal is the most abundant seal in the world, with total population of over 30 million. Thirty-seven flying seabird species are native to Antarctica. Some species characteristic of Marieland are southern fulmar ( Fulmaras glacialoides ), southern giant fulmar ( Macronectes giganteus ), cape pigeon ( Daption capense ), snow petrel ( Pagodroma nivea ), Wilson’s storm petrel ( Oceanites oceanicus ), blue-eyed shag ( Phalacrocorax atriceps ), American sheathbill ( Chionis alba ), south polar skua ( Catharacta maccormicki ), brown skua ( Catharacta lonnbergi ), southern black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus ), and Antarctic tern (Sterna vittata ). These birds must nest on ice-free areas, therefore, they are seldom found far inland over the ice cap, and breed during summer months when coastal areas are exposed. Several petrel species build burrows to nest in the ground.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 37

Of the estimated total of 350 million birds of all species in the Antarctic, about 175 million are penguins. Six species of penguin are native to the Antarctic region: Adélie penguin ( Pygoscelis adeliae ), chinstrap penguin ( P. antarctica ), gentoo penguin ( P. papua ), emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri ), king penguin ( A. patagonicus ), rockhopper penguin ( Eudyptes crestatus ), and macaroni penguin ( E. chrysolophus ). The chinstrap and gento penguins breed primarily on the milder Antarctic Peninsula. Penguins likely could not exist if carnivores such as polar bears, arctic foxes, or arctic wolves were present.

3.4.1.3. Oceanographic features The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) flows uninterrupted around Antarctica and takes approximately six years to complete a circumnavigation. Oceanographically, the Scotia Sea is strongly influenced by the ACC, which is highly constrained as it flows through the Drake Passage, after which it is able to meander more freely as it crosses the Scotia Sea (Figure 3-17 ).

Figure 3-17. Location map of the Scotia Sea e North Weddell Sea area. Primary ocean current systems, topographical features and the 2000 m bathymetric contour are marked. Solid arrows indicate major current systems: North Atlantic Deep Waters in black , Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) in dark grey , Antarctic Deep and Bottom Waters in light grey ). Abbreviations (clockwise from top): Shag Rocks Passage (SRP); Falkland Trough (FT); SouthSandwich Islands (SSI); Jane Basin (JB); and Drake Passage (DP). Source: Collins et al 2012

The ACC is divided into a number of fronts (Figure 3-18 ), each of which can be identified by a rapid change in surface thermohaline (temperature and salinity) properties. The Sub-Antarctic Front (SAF) separates the ACC from temperate North Atlantic Deep Waters to the north, with the Southern Boundary (SB) as the southern limit of the ACC. The Southern Antarctic Circumpolar Current Front (SACCF) crosses the central Scotia Sea and wraps around the eastern end of South Georgia, before retroflecting to the north and east of the island (GSGSSI 2013 and references cited therein). The Polar Front (PF) lies between the SACCF and SAF and separates waters with a subsurface temperature minimum to the south from warmer waters to the north. Further south the SB maintains a mostly eastward course through the Scotia Sea, but has a northward topographically induced loop in the vicinity of the South Sandwich Island arc. Within this area of complex oceanography, different water masses may be characterised by different flora and fauna,with fronts potentially providing elevated productivity and putative barriers to stenothermal (temperature

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 38

sensitive) fauna (GSGSSI 2013). These fronts are higher velocity flows than elsewhere in the ACC and have been found to influence the assemblages of different plankton species across the Southern Ocean (Constable and Doust, 2009 and references cited therein).

Figure 3-18. Mean locations of the principal thermohaline fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). From north to south: the Subantarctic Front (SAF) in brown, the Polar Front (PF) in purple, the Southern Antarctic Cicumpolar Current Front (SACCF) in green, the Southern boundary of the ACC (SB) in blue. Source: GSGSSI 2013

3.4.1.4. Marine habitats, food webs and ecosytems Main features of marine habitats, food webs and ecosystems in the Southern Ocean are summarized in the Southern Ocean Sentinel Report (Constable and Doust 2009). Information presented below is based on that report unless indicated. Most of the biological activity in the Southern Ocean occurs in the top 300 m where light and nutrients combined are at their maximum. This is often referred to as the ‘mixed layer’ as the water is well mixed due to the prevailing winds stirring up the surface of the ocean. The depth of the mixed layer can be as shallow as 50 metres in summer due to weaker winds combined with a shallow stratification of the water column (resulting from sea ice melt in spring and the warming of the surface waters in summer). The Antarctic krill concentrates in this epilagic area feeding on phytoplankton, and subsequently this is also the area the fishery targets using midwater trawls. The Southern Ocean is known as a high nutrient – low chlorophyll (HNLC) ocean,meaning that nitrogen and phosphorous do not limit primary production13. In this case, iron is thought to be the primary micro-nutrient limiting production15. The areas where iron is not limiting are evident from satellite images of the distribution of Chlorophyll-a showing regions of high productivity (Figure 2.10)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 39

Figure 3-19. Mean chlorophyll distribution in (a) November and (b) December in the Southern Ocean. Source: Sokolov et al 2017

It is important to note that sea ice is a habitat that profoundly alters the Southern Ocean each year through its expansion over approximately 40% of the region (19 million km2) in autumn and winter followed by its melting in spring and early summer. As the sea ice habitat forms it retains remnants of phytoplankton production. These algae are captured within brine channels or attached to the under-surface of the sea ice. This provides a suitable habitat for overwintering juvenile Antarctic krill. As the sea ice melts in the following season, ice algae are released into the surface water providing a strong foundation for the ensuing spring phytoplankton bloom. The melt water creates a buoyant fresher water stratum on the sea surface. This stratification helps prevent the phytoplankton cells from sinking below the light zone. Raymond (2011) performed a circumpolar, pelagic regionalisation of the Southern Ocean south of 40°S, based on sea surface temperature, depth, and sea ice information. Regionalisation analyses are used to classify the environments across a region into a number of discrete classes, thereby providing a spatial and environmental subdivision of the study area. The results show 20 environmental types ( Figure 3-20 ). A series of latitudinal bands in open ocean areas, consistent with the oceanic fronts. Around islands and continents, the spatial scale of the patterns is finer, and is driven by variations in depth and sea ice. Those environmental types which can be commonly encountered by the UoA are identified and described in table in scoring table for PI 2.4.1. An international effort is underway to establish a representative system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Southern Ocean to help provide for the long-term conservation of marine biodiversity in the region. Important to this undertaking is knowledge of the distribution of benthic assemblages. Benthic habitat types were identified through the benthic bioregionalization work developed by Douglass et al. 2014, based on physical proxies such as depth, seabed slope, water column or seabed temperature and primary productivity. The authors identified 23 different ecoregions, 9 bathomes and 107 spatially restricted environmental types (see Figure 3-21 ). The UoA overlaps with three of those ecoregions (Antarctic Peninsula, South Orkney Islands and South Sandwich Islands) and several restricted environmental types (in particular around the does around the islands). However, the krill fishery does not interact with the sea bottom.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 40

Figure 3-20. Spatial distributions of the 20 cluster types from the regionalisation analyses performed by Raymond 2011

Figure 3-21 . The benthic ecoregions, restricted environments and marine protected areas identified within the Southern Ocean. Source: Douglas et al 2014

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 41

The key role performed by the Antarctic krill in the food webs of the Southern Ocean has already been described in section 3.3.1 . However, it is important to remark that Southern Ocean food webs are more complex than the oft-cited simple phytoplankton-krill-whales food chain, with many more species involved at higher trophic levels ( Figure 3-22 ). In adittion, most of the krill-dependent predators are central-place foragers (they must forage close to breeding colonies to provision their offspring on regular intervals) whose diets typically contain high proportions of Antarctic krill. Therefore, to maintain the marine ecosystems of the Southern Ocean in good shape it essential to monitor not only the krill stock status and recruitment but also its abundance in sensitive areas. The CEMP was set up in 1989 aimed to detect and record significant changes in critical components of the marine ecosystem within the Convention Area, to serve as basis for the conservation of the Antarctic marine living resource (see scoring table 2.5.2 for more details on the CEMP). However, the challenge is to distinguish between changes due to harvesting of commercial species and changes due to environmental variability, both physical and biological. Several studies address the issue of the impact of the krill fishery on dependent predators (Plagányi and Butterworth, 2012; Hinke et al 2016; Descamps et al 2016) and how to the impact on those species in the fishery management system (Waters et al 2013, Hill et al 2016; Waters et al 2016).

Figure 3-22 . A generalised Southern Ocean food web from the level of krill upwards. Four main size groups of animals (each in a coloured ellipse) are shown. Source: from Southern Ocean Sentinel report. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/marine-ecosystem- change/soos As part of its work to develop a proposal for an MPA in the Watern Peninsula- South Scotia Arc (see next subsection), the WG-EMM has been reviewing and updating information on benthic important pelagic and benthic habitats and processes, important areas for predators life-history (breeding and feeding areas of penguins, seals and whales), prey distributions (cristal krill, salps, T.macrura), important areas for fish life cycles and important areas for zooplankton (WG-EMM 15-42). Some examples of the outcomes obtained are presented below.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 42

(b) (a)

(a) foraging distributions during the non-breeding season- gentoo penguins (b) new layer-foraging distributions during the non-breeding season- Killer whale-Type A (c) New layer- T. macrura density (d) Updated layer- Important areas for fish life cycles (0-150 m) The challenge for researchers is now to identify the ecological responses and resilience of Southern Ocean ecosystems to the impacts of climate change. (c) (d)

Figure 3-23. Examples of the layers generated by the WG-EMM. (a) Foraging distribution Gentoo penguin. Non-breading period; (b) Foraging distribution Killer whale. Non breading period; (c) Prey density. T macrura; (d) Important areas for fish life cycles. Source: WG-EMM 15-42

3.4.1.5. MPAs CCAMLR includes MPAs as one part of its approach to marine spatial protection to complement a variety of management tools such as fishing limits and gear restrictions. In paragraph 7.16 of the CCAMLR-XXVII Report (2008), the Commission recognised that a range of tools exist for implementing spatial management measures aimed at facilitating conservation of marine biodiversity. In addition, the Commission agreed that MPAs have a variety of forms and that the precise level of protection afforded to any specific area depends on the characteristics and qualities that require protection. Therefore, it agreed that it is important to develop a clear process for implementing MPAs concurrent with the ongoing scientific process which identifies where such areas should be located. CCAMLR’s approach to marine spatial protection complements Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMA) and Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) established by the Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. At present the implementation of marine spatial protection and management measures through the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ACTM) is coast-based and small-scale, but these measures are expected to contribute towards effective, representative and coherent spatial protection of marine biodiversity within the Antarctic Treaty Area. Area 48 contains the following Specially Managed and Protected Areas, all located at the tip of the Antarctica peninsula in Subarea 48.1 (Figure 3-24 ): (i) in South Shetland Islands: ASPA 144, Chile Bay, Greenwich Island; ASPA 145, Port Foster, Deception Island,; ASPA 152, Western Bransfield Strait; ASPA 149, Cape Shirreff, South Shetland Islands; ASPA 151, Lions Rump; ASMA 1, Admiralty Bay; ASMA 3, Deception Island; (ii) in Palmer Archipielago: ASPA 146, South Bay, Doumer Island; ASPA 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay; ASMA 7, Southwest Anvers Island.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 43

Figure 3-24. ASPAs and AMAs in Area 48, all located at the tip of the Antarctica Peninsula (Subarea 48.1). Source: CCAMLR GIS (https://gis.ccamlr.org/)

In 2009, CCAMLR established through CM 91-03 the world’s first high-seas MPA, the South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA, a region covering 94 000 km2 in the south Atlantic ( Figure 3-25 ). This Marine Protected Area is intended for the protection of the South Orkney Islands southern shelf. The Conservation Measure prohibits all types of fishing activities within the defined area, with the exception of scientific fishing research activities agreed by the Commission for monitoring or other purposes. The MPA also includes important foraging areas for Adélie penguins that breed at the South Orkney Islands, and important submarine shelf areas and seamounts. In 2011 CCAMLR adopted Conservation Measure 91-04 (CM 91-04) 'General framework for the establishment of CCAMLR Marine Protected Areas' in accordance with Article IX of the Convention to provide a framework for the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. CM 91-04 states that CCAMLR MPAs shall be established on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and shall contribute, taking full consideration of Article II of the CAMLR Convention where conservation includes rational use, to the achievement of the objectives specified (CM 91-04). The CAMLR Convention Area is divided into nine MPA planning domains (Figure 3-26 ). The division into these domains provides a mechanism by which to plan and report on the development of MPAs and as a means to organise future activities related to this effort. The planning domains are intended to reflect the scale and location of current and planned research efforts in order to be helpful as reporting and auditing units. The boundaries of the planning domains are not boundaries of proposed MPAs and are not intended to confine or restrict research or other work to develop MPAs.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 44

Figure 3-25. Map prepared showing the South Orkney Islands MPA (in dark grey), the boundary of the CCAMLR Planning Domain 1, CCAMLR management subareas within Area 48, estimated foraging ranges for Adélie penguin (in red), chinstrap penguin (in grey), and fur seal (in blue), important bird areas (yellow dots), and VMEs. Source: Map prepared by PEW (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact- sheets/2017/10/protection-for-the-antarctic-peninsula-region)

Figure 3-26. CCAMLR MPA Planning domains. Domain 1 : Western Peninsula – South Scotia Arc; Domain 2 : North Scotia Arc; Domain 3 : Weddell Sea; Domain 4 : Bouvet Maud; Domain 5 : Crozet – del Cano; Domain 6: Kerguelen Plateau; Domain 7: Eastern Antarctica; Domain 8 : Ross Sea; Domain 9 : Amundsen – Bellingshausen

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 45

Although it is located outside of the geographical boundaries of the UoA, it is relevant to mention that in October 2016 the Commission for the Conservation of Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) reached consensus on a New Zealand/United States proposal to establish a large-scale marine protected area in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. The Agreement entered into force on 1 December 2017. The Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (located within MPA Planning domain 8) covers 1.55 million square kilometres, of which 1.12 million square kilometres, or 72%, is fully protected (no fishing is permitted). Currently it is the world’s largest Marine Protected Area ( Figure 3-27 ). Further, there are another two MPAs proposed to the Commission as shown in Figure 3-27 . The Weddell Sea MPA it is within the MPA Planning domains 3 and 4 and falls within the the geographical boundaries UoA, although it would not overlap with krill fishing grounds. More relevant to the krill fishery is the fact that Chile and Argentina have been leading the work for identifying MPAs in MPA Planning domain 1 ( Figure 3-25 and Figure 3-26 ), and a preliminary proposal for an MPA was presented to the WG-EMM in its latest annual meeting held in Buenos Aires (Argentina) in July 2017. The WG recognized the work done and considered it as an important step towards an MPA in this area (WG-EMM 17 ).

Figure 3-27. Ross Sea MPA declared in 2017 and proposed East Antarctica and Wedell Sea MPAs. Source: Reuters (@ReutersGraphics)

In addition, large marine reserves have been established within the CAMLR Convention Area in areas within national jurisdiction (HIMI, South Georgia, Prince Edward and Marion Islands). In the case of the assessed fishery the South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands MPA (SGSSI MPA) is relevant as the krill fishery takes places within the SGSSI EEZ. The MPA was established in 2012 and covers a total area of 1.07 million km 2. Specifically key objectives of this MPA are:

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 46

° Protection of toothfish ( Dissostichus sp ) juvenile recruitment grounds ° Protection of mackerel icefish spawning andjuvenile recruitment grounds ° Avoid interactions between krill fishingand key periods of marine bird and mammal feeding and breeding ° Conservation of known benthic biodiversity ‘hotspots’ thatcontain endemic, rare or vulnerable marine species ° Linked To building resistance to impacts of invasive species and climate change The MPA management plan is available at the website (SGSSI 2013) although it is in process of being reviewed. Key protection measures applicable to the krill fishery are summarized below: ° No-take zonas (NTZs) extending 12 NM from the coast of South Georgia, Clerke Rocks, Shag and Black Rocks, protecting 16,237km2 from all fishing activity ° No-take Zone (NTZs) Extending 3nm around the South Sandwich Islands, protecting 2,272 km2 from all fishing activity. ° No-take pelagic zone (NTZs) extending 12nm around the South Sandwich Islands, protecting 15,769 Km2 from pelagic fishing. ° A network of benthic closed areas, with restricted access for experimental and research purposes. ° Temporal closure of the krill fishery in the summer (November 1 st until March 31st). ° No directed fishing in the portion of the Maritime Zone South of Latitude 60oS. ° Rigorous enforcement of CCAMLR Conservation Measures and additional fishing gear and effort restrictions (this implies to get an extra observer from the SGSSI on board when fishing in SGSSI waters)

Figure 3-28. South Georgia a& South Sandwich Islands MPA. Source: SGSSI 2013

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 47

Further, the International Whaling Commission has established a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean and that is cover in section 13.1.3.4.5.

3.4.2 UoC catch composition: species assigment to MSC P2 categories All species that may interact with the assessed fleet which are not covered under P1 shall be assessed under P2. In accordance to MSC FCRs SA3.1.3-3.1.5 and SA3.4.4-3.4.5 the assessment team considered each P2 species within only one of the primary species, secondary species or ETP species components.

3.4.2.1 Sources of information Before categorizing P2 species is important to indicate the different sources of information used by the team to assess the species impacted by the fishery: a. Data from observers on board UoC The assessed vessel only started its fishing operations on the 12 th December 2017 and finished its first fishing trip on the 19 th of February 2018. The report from the observer hired by the client and provided by INACH was handled to the assessment team on March 14. According to records taken by the observer, a total of 173 hauls were performed during the fishing trip (corresponding to 53 effective fishing days), while 75% of those hauls were observed. Incidental mortality and/or warp strikes of birds or mammals was observed in 124 hauls (72% of total hauls), while size sampling of krill together bycatch identification took place in 74 hauls (43% of total hauls). Krill and bycatch sampling was performed according to the protocol described in the scientific observer’s manual by CCAMLR. This manual establishes that 25 litres sample is taken directly from the gear once on board or from the factory. Out of the 25kg sample 500 krill individuals are taken to perform biological sampling on 200 of them, if other species turn up they are also recorded. Once the krill sampling is completed then a 10 kg subsample and two 1kg subsamples are taken in order to perform a more detailed identification of the accompanying fauna. All fish and non-fish species present in the subsamples are segregated, measured and weighted. In the 74 sampling and sub- samplings performed during the studied fishing trip, During the studied fishing trip bycatch was identified in 15 out of the 74 hauls where sampling (and sub-sampling) for bycatch identification took place. The following species were identified: (i) Fish species: Champsocephalus gunnari (ANI), Gymnoscopelus nicholsi (GYN), Notolepis coatsi (NOT), Electrona carlsbergi (ELC), Pseudochaenichthys georgianus (SGI), Neopagetopsis ionah (JIC), Cryodraco antarcticus (FIC), Gobionotothen gibberifrons (NOG), Chionodraco rastrospinosus (KIF); (ii) Non-fish species: Cephalopoda (CEP), Medusae (JEL). The scaled-up estimated weights for each species and haul ranged between <1kg and 18kg. Individual sizes ranged between 2 and 46 mm. Apart from bycatch estimation coming from the observer sampling, the report also states that bycatch was recorded by the crew in 24 hauls accounting for a total of 7,372kg, mostly consisting in mackerel icefish ( Champsocephalus gunnari ). Actually 7,000 tons were caught in a single trawl performed on the 2th February 2018 in subarea 48.2. Not a single interaction with seabirds or marine mammals was recorded by the observer in the 130 observed hauls. Records of birds and marine mamals were restricted to sightings (4 species of mammals –see Table 3-13 - and 14 species of birds including some ETP species such as Thalassarche melanophris, T. chrysostoma , Macronectes giganteus , M. halli and Procellaria aequinoctialis ). b. CCMALR data reviews on fish bycatches based on data from SISO and commercial data (C1) The report WG-EMM-14/31 Rev.1 and subsequent WG-FSA-16/04 provided an update on the fish bycatch in the krill fishery using data from SISO and commercial data (C1) to examine the frequency of occurrence (FOO), proportion by mass, length-frequency distribution and geographic provenance of

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 48

the key fish taxa reported. A total of 9,303 hauls collected on 60 cruise involving 18 different vessels over the period 2010-2014 were analysed to elaborate the report WG-EMM-14/31 Rev1. While for the most recent WG-FSA-16/04 updated this study using 2014-2016 data on fish by-catch in the krill fishery from commercial catch data (95,513 hauls) and CCAMLR SISO data (11,875 hauls). Results presented in WG-EMM-14/31 Rev1 show that 49 different fish taxa were compiled, FOO an biomass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) in the different subareas are presented in Table 3-7, Table 3-8 and Table 3-9. The length-frequency distribution of all taxa for which >100 fish were measured had modal size class of <10cm, therefore most fish catches are comprised by larvae and juveniles (fry or fingerlings). In both the C1 data and the SISO data the two most frequently occurring fish species were the Notheniid Lepidonoten larseni and the Channichthyid Chaenodraco wilsoni . The study states that any extrapolation of the available data on fish bycath to an overall catch of an individual fish taxa in the krill fishery must be approached with caution (and interpreted in that light). However, based on the mean mass ratios (scaled by the frequency of occurrence) a 200,000 t krill catch might be expected to cath of the order of 40t of C.gunnari and 38t of L. larseni (meaning 0.02% of the total catch in volume for each species). Noting that the extrapolated catch ±1SD would be in the range 0-150t and 0-445t respectively. In any case, and for the purpose of classifying the P2 fish species components for the current assessment, it has to be considered that even taking the upper range of the SD none single fish bycatch species would represent more than 0.2% of the total catches of the krill fishery. Champsocephalus gunnari (Mackerel icefish) is the most important commercial species found in the catches, as it is targeted by a demersal trawl fishery in Subarea 48.3, although Chaenocephalus aceratus (blackfin icefish), Notothenia rossii (marbled rockcod) and Pseudochaenichthys georgianus (South Georgia icefish) are also retained species in that fishery. The marbled rockcod was heavily exploited by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s, with catches exceeding 1000,000t in some seasons, almost disappearing from around South Georgia and by 1980 depleted throughout the Southern Ocean (Hønneland et al., 2015). Table 3-7. The frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of fish taxa in the krill fishery between 2010-2014 in Subarea 48.1. Source: WG-EMM-14/31 rev.1 (Table 1a) N FOO Mean sd Taxa Code samples (% samples) kg/kg kg/kg Channichthyidae ICX 205 7.045 0 0.001 Chaenodraco wilsoni WIC 164 5.636 0.005 0.014 Pleuragramma antarcticum ANS 149 5.12 0.005 0.04 Champsocephalus gunnari ANI 106 3.643 0.006 0.02 Chionodraco hamatus TIC 71 2.44 0 0.001 Lepidonotothen larseni NOL 65 2.234 0 0 Cryodraco antarcticus FIC 58 1.993 0.003 0.012 Chionodraco rastrospinosus KIF 52 1.787 0 0 Pseudochaenichthys georgianus SGI 52 1.787 0.001 0.003 Chaenocephalus aceratus SSI 48 1.649 0.001 0.002 Neopagetopsis ionah JIC 36 1.237 0.003 0.013 Nototheniidae NOX 15 0.515 0 0 Notothenia rossii NOR 14 0.481 0.014 0.039 Nansenia spp NAN 11 0.378 0.007 0.013 Chionodraco myersi MIC 8 0.275 0.041 0.113 Electrona spp ELT 7 0.241 0 0 Champsocephalus esox CES 6 0.206 0.007 0.008 Trematomus pennellii PTC 6 0.206 0.002 0.002 Anotopterus pharao ANH 4 0.137 0.002 0.001 Pagetopsis macropterus PMA 4 0.137 0.003 0.004 Trematomus loennbergii TLO 4 0.137 0.017 0.008

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 49

Electrona antarctica ELN 3 0.103 0 0 Notolepis coatsi NTO 3 0.103 0.003 0.003 Protomyctophum tenisoni PRE 3 0.103 0 0 Trematomus hansoni TRH 3 0.103 0 0 Trematomus spp TRT 3 0.103 0 0 Bathydraco marri BDJ 2 0.069 0 0 Electrona carlsbergi ELC 2 0.069 0.003 0.004 Gymnodraco acuticeps GYA 2 0.069 0.003 0.002 Gymnoscopelus nicholsi GYN 2 0.069 0.003 0.001 Muraenolepis microps MOY 2 0.069 0 0 Gobionotothen gibberifrons NOG 2 0.069 0.004 0.006 Lepidonotothen kempi NOK 2 0.069 0 0 (squamifrons) Racovitzia glacialis RGG 2 0.069 0 0 Bathydraconidae BTI 1 0.034 0.002 NA Trematomus bernacchii ERN 1 0.034 0.188 NA Harpagifer georgianus HBG 1 0.034 0.003 NA Notothenia coriiceps NOC 1 0.034 0 NA Lepidonotothen nudifrons NOD 1 0.034 0 NA Paranotothenia magellanica NOM 1 0.034 0 NA Lepidonotothen squamifrons NOS 1 0.034 0 NA Parachaenichthys georgianus PGE 1 0.034 0 NA Artedidraconidae PLF 1 0.034 0 NA Protomyctophum spp PVP 1 0.034 0 NA Table 3-8. The frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of fish taxa in the krill fishery between 2010-2014 in Subarea 48.2. Source: WG-EMM-14/31 rev.1 (Table 1b) N FOO Mean sd Taxa Code samples (% samples) kg/kg kg/kg Electrona antarctica ELN 25 2.413 0.001 0.001 Notolepis coatsi NTO 18 1.737 0.001 0.001 Myctophidae LXX 17 1.641 0.01 0.039 Champsocephalus gunnari ANI 13 1.255 0.005 0.01 Krefftichthys anderssoni KRA 11 1.062 0.001 0.001 Gymnoscopelus nicholsi GYN 10 0.965 0.003 0.002 Channichthyidae ICX 7 0.676 0.047 0.107 Electrona spp ELT 6 0.579 0.001 0 Chaenocephalus aceratus SSI 6 0.579 0 0 Chaenodraco wilsoni WIC 5 0.483 0 0 Notothenia coriiceps NOC 4 0.386 0 0 Cryodraco antarcticus FIC 3 0.29 0 0 Pseudochaenichthys georgianus SGI 3 0.29 0 0 Pleuragramma antarcticum ANS 2 0.193 0 0 Neopagetopsis ionah JIC 2 0.193 0 0 Gobionotothen gibberifrons NOG 2 0.193 0.004 0.004 Lepidonotothen larseni NOL 2 0.193 0 0 Protomyctophum tenisoni PRE 2 0.193 0 0 Electrona carlsbergi ELC 1 0.097 0.004 NA Muraenolepis microps MOY 1 0.097 0 NA

Table 3-9. The frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of fish taxa in the krill fishery between 2010-2014 in Subarea 48.3. Source: WG-EMM-14/31 rev.1 (Table 1c) Taxa Code N FOO Mean sd

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 50

samples (% samples) kg/kg kg/kg Lepidonotothen larseni NOL 646 27.642 0.002 0.025 Champsocephalus gunnari ANI 127 5.434 0.009 0.015 Chaenocephalus aceratus SSI 33 1.412 0 0.001 Myctophidae LXX 22 0.941 0.002 0.005 Gobionotothen gibberifrons NOG 18 0.77 0.003 0.01 Chionobathyscus dewitti CHW 11 0.471 0 0 Krefftichthys anderssoni KRA 11 0.471 0.021 0.164 Lepidonotothen kempi (squamifrons) NOK 10 0.428 0.018 0.028 Trematomus hansoni TRH 10 0.428 0 0 Muraenolepis microps MOY 8 0.342 0 0 Pseudochaenichthys georgianus SGI 8 0.342 0.012 0.012 Notothenia rossii NOR 7 0.3 0.02 0.049 Muraenolepis spp MRL 6 0.257 0 0 Zoarcidae ELZ 5 0.214 0 0.001 Nototheniidae NOX 5 0.214 0.014 0.03 Pleuragramma antarcticum ANS 2 0.086 0 0 Electrona carlsbergi ELC 2 0.086 0.004 0.001 Electrona antárctica ELN 2 0.086 0 0 Gymnoscopelus spp GYY 2 0.086 0.006 0.004 Protomyctophum tension PRE 2 0.086 0 0 Electrona spp ELT 1 0.043 0 NA Channichthyidae ICX 1 0.043 0 NA Neopagetopsis ionah JIC 1 0.043 0 NA Parachaenichthys georgianus PGE 1 0.043 0 NA Protomyctophum spp PVP 1 0.043 0.001 NA Results on fish bycath were updated WG-FSA-16/04 using an intensive set of data from 2014-2016 as explained above. Results for the 39 different fish taxa are summarized in Table 3-10 . As in the case of the previous study (WG-EMM-14/31), length-frequency distribution of all taxa for which >100 were measured had a modal size class of <10cm. Also matching with previous study ((WG- EMM14/31), in this case the Notheniid Lepidonoten larseni and the Channichthyid Chaenodraco wilsoni would account for most of the fish bycath volume. The estimated total annual mass of fish by-catch in a 300 000 t krill fishery would be 370 t (meaning 0.12% of total catch in volume), comprising 40% C.gunnari and 30% L.larseni . Table 3-10. Occurrence of fish by catch taxa in the krill fishery 2014-2016, including an estimated scaled-up mass to a total catch in a 300,000t krill fishery. Source: WG-FSA-16/04

Scaled Mean sd Taxa Code N Freq mass kg/kg kg/kg (ton) Champsocephalus gunnari ANI 193 0.07 0.0073 0.0472 147.94 Lepidonotothen larseni NOL 10344 0.36 0.0010 0.0139 110.46 Chaenocephalus aceratus SSI 109 0.04 0.0015 0.0056 17.08 Chaenodraco wilsoni WIC 317 0.11 0.0005 0.0021 15.06 Gobionotothen gibberifrons NOG 62 0.02 0.0020 0.0087 13.21 Pseudochaenichthys georgianus SGI 46 0.02 0.0024 0.0076 11.59 Nototheniidae NOX 33 0.01 0.0030 0.0118 10.51 Channichthyidae ICX 128 0.05 0.0007 0.0026 9.32 Pleuragramma antarctica ANS 171 0.06 0.0003 0.0005 5.01 Cryodraco antarcticus FIC 113 0.04 0.0004 0.0015 4.79 Chionodraco hamatus TIC 127 0.04 0.0003 0.0008 3.76

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 51

Myctophidae LXX 80 0.03 0.0004 0.0008 3.75 Fish nei 7 0.00 0.0047 0.0106 3.45 Chionodraco rastrospinosus KIF 144 0.05 0.0002 0.0005 3,316 Electrona antarctica ELN 15 0.01 0.0013 0.0021 2.13 Neopagetopsis ionah JIC 16 0.01 0.0012 0.0047 2.11 Notolepis coatsi NTO 9 0.00 0.0019 0.0031 1.78 Muraenolepis microps MOY 68 0.02 0.0002 0.0004 1.63 Melanostigma gelatinosum 50 0.02 0.0002 0.0001 0.87 Notothenia coriiceps NOC 3 0.00 0.0025 0.0022 0.78 Cryodraco spp 41 0.01 0.0001 0.0001 0.63 Halargyreus johnsonii 1 0.00 0.0058 NA 0.61 Notolepsis spp 5 0.00 0.0008 0.0017 0.44 Pachycara brachycephalum 1 0.00 0.0022 NA 0.23 Chionodraco myersi MIC 5 0.00 0.0004 0.0007 0.20 Notothenia rossii NOR 4 0.00 0.0004 0.0006 0.18 Protomyctophum tenisoni PRE 11 0.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.13 Dissostichus mawsoni 4 0.00 0.0002 0.0.003 0.09 Pagetopsis macropterus PMA 13 0.00 0.0001 0.0000 0.07 Lepidonotothen squamifrons NOK 4 0.00 0.0002 0.0002 0.07 Electrona carlsbergi ELC 2 0.00 0.0003 0.0004 0.06 Muraenolepis spp MRL 10 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.05 Krefftichthys anderssoni KRA 3 0.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.03 Racovitzia glacialis RGG 1 0.00 0.0003 NA 0.03 Trematomus pennellii PTC 1 0.00 0.0003 NA 0.03 Gymnodraco acuticeps GYA 3 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.01 Electrona spp ELT 6 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.01 Artedidraco spp 1 0.00 0.0000 NA <0.01 Channichthys rhinoceratus 1 0.00 0.0000 NA <0.01

c. PCR Olympic Seafood Krill Fishery The Norwegian company Olympic Seafood AS owns and operates the f/v ‘Juvel’, a specialized krill vessel that works in Area 48 using a midwater trawl gear (Omega 350m or Omega 300m) very similar to one used by the ‘Antarctic Endeavour’. This fishery got the MSC certification in 2015, and its Public Certification Report (Hønneland et al. 2015) presents a list of species (both fish taxa and non- fish taxa) recorded and sampled by SISO observers on board the ‘Juvel’ between 2010 and 2014. A total of 34 fish taxa, 1 mollusc taxa, 1 jellyfish taxa and 2 decapod species were identified (see Table 3-13 , source of information (d), to see the different taxa identified). Although no FOO or biomass estimations are provided (only N ind/year) the authors state that bycatch proportion makes up <5% of the Juvel’s total catch. Further, all observations and interactions with seabirds and marine mammals recorded by observers along this period (2010-2014) are also presented in the PCR (see scoring table 2.3.1 for further discussion on the results). Both seabird species that interacted with the gear during Juvel’s fishing operations and species of marine mammals that interacted with the gear and/or were observed around the vessel are presented in Table 3-13 (source of information (c)). d. PCR Aker Biomarine Antarctic Krill Fishery

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 52

Aker Biomarine is a Norwegian integrated biotech company that owns two fishing vessels involved in the krill fishery in Area 48, the f/v ‘Saga Sea’ (started operating in 2005/06 fishing season) and the f/v ‘Antarctic Sea’ (started operating in 2012). These vessels work with a continuous trawl system (patented as Eco-harvesting system) that allows continuous pumping from the codend to the vessel without hauling the net. This fishery got its first MSC certification in 2010 and was re-certified in 2014. The latest Public Certification Report (Hønneland et al., 2014) is available at the MSC website since January 2015. In 2012, in order to fulfill one of the conditions imposed to the fishery in the initial PCR (and before the f/v ‘Antarctic Sea’ incorporated to the fishery), Aker Biomarine hired MRAG to carry out a detailed analysis of the fish bycatch at the f/v ‘Saga Sea’ using data collected by SISO observers between 2007-2011. See Table 3-13 , source of information (d), to see the different taxa identified in this study. The authors estimated that all fish bycatches accounted for 0.2% in weight of the total UoC catches. The results showed that mycthophid (lantern fish) and Channichthyid (icefish) species dominated the bycatch, followed by notothenid species. Appart from the C.gunnarus (Mackerel icefish), P. georgianus (South Georgia icefish) and C.acceratus (blackfin icefish), another commercial species were also found in the catches: Antarctic toothfishes (Dissostichus spp . and D. mawsoni ). These species are targeted mainly by longliners in subareas 48.3 and 48.4 (although they are also caught by trawlers and a experimental pot fishery was also carried out around South Georgia). The PCR also presents all seabirds and marine mammal observations and interactions recorded by the SISO observers on board ‘Saga Sea’ and ‘Antarctic Sea’ between 2012 and 2014 (see scoring table on PI 2.3.1 for further discussion on the results). Both seabird species that interacted with the gear during Juvel’s fishing operations and species of marine mammals that interacted with the gear and/or were observed around the vessel are presented in Table 3-13 (source of information (e)). e. SISO data collected on board the f/v Betanzos. Arana & Rolleri (2017) prepared ‘ad hoc’ a report for the current assessement compiling all data recorded by the observers on board the former Chilean vessel targeting Antarctic krill (f/v Betanzos) between 2011 and 2016. This vessel was using exactly the same gears the assessed vessel is using now (also, they share one of the skippers and the CEO managing fishing operations). Therefore, catch composition of the assessed vessel are expected to be very similar. Table 3-11 presents data on catch composition collected by observers on board the Chilean f/V Betanzos in 12 fishing trips performed between 2011 and 2016 (out of a total of 22 fishing trips performed by the vessel in the period). A total of 1.096 25kg-samples were taken and 12,096 individuals identified, resulting in 19 fish taxa, 1 mollusc taxa, 3 crustacean taxa, 1 salp taxa and 1 jellyfish taxa. Incidental catches were found to account for 0.1% of the total weight of the samples taken. Among fish species Champsocephalus gunnari is the one caught in higher number and weight, and also presenting higher frequency of occurrence (data not shown), followed Chionodraco hamatus and Lepidonotothen larseni . Other than fish species, salps and amphipoda presented high frequencies of occurrence, and also weight in the case of salps. Observers also sample 1kg-samples to allow for a more detailed counting and identification of the species composition. Results from 1kg-sample are not shown in this report as (appart from including two more species: Electrona Antarctica and Electrona carlsbergi ) they showed similar results to those obtained with 25kg-samples, so they do not provide more relevant information to the one already presented in Table 3-11. Table 3-11 . Number and weight of all incidental catches recorded by observers on board Chilean f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016 (25kg samples). Source: Arana & Rolleri (2017) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Taxa N Kg N Kg N Kg N Kg N Kg N Kg FISH SPECIES

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 53

Champsocephalus gunnari 226 9.440 5 1.600 15 0.362 4 0.268 250 11.670 Chionodraco hamatus 9 0.013 83 0.165 95 0.084 192 6.989 Pseudochaenichthys georgianus 14 6,740 Pleuragramma antarcticum 18 0.230 9 0.04 4 0.004 39 0.074 70 0.348 Cryodraco antarcticus 2 0.006 17 0.041 16 0.035 35 0.083 Muraenolepsis spp. 3 0.003 2 0.004 5 0.007 Lepidonotothen larseni 18 0.014 550 1.004 24 0.039 592 1.057 Protomyctophum tenisoni 1 0.008 1 0.008 Chaenodraco wilsoni 15 0.019 12 0.04 9 0.033 36 0.092 Gymnodraco acuticeps 1 0.001 1 0.001 Channichthyidae 1 0.001 1 0.001 Chionodraco rastrospinosus 40 0.054 264 0.261 304 0.315 Myctophidae 15 0.037 1 0.003 16 0.04 Notolepis spp 7 0.003 3 0.003 10 0.006 Notothenia rossii 1 0.006 1 0.006 Nototheniidae 1 0.001 1 0.001 Dissostichus mawsoni 1 0.003 1 0.003 Unkown spp 2 0002 2 0.002 Artedidraco spp 1 0.001 1 0.001 MOLLUSCS Cephalopods 3 0.007 3 0.007 CRUSTACEA Crustacea 46 0.017 46 0.017 Amphipoda 2 0.002 3,018 0.652 1 0.004 3,021 0.658 Pandalidae 10 0.03 10 0.03 SALPS Salpidae 12 0.012 65768 3.527 1,713 2.806 7,493 6.345 JELLYFISHES Medusae 4 0.005 4 0.005 Total 226 9.44 46 8.583 160 0.631 9.602 5.791 2,071 3.259 12,096 27.691 Total weight of the samples 5,075 3,250 3,825 11,150 4,100 27,400 Weight incidental catches / 0.186 0.264 0.016 0.052 0.079 0.101 Total weight sample (%) N ind incidental catches / Kg 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.086 0.000 0.44 sample Further, Table 3-12 presents all interactions with seabirds and marine mammals recorded by observers on board the f/v Betanzos throughout this period (2011-2016) (see scoring table for PI 2.3.1 for further discussion on the results). These species are also included in Table 3-13 (source of information (e)), and those classified as ETP species are also listed again in Table 3-14 . 20 hauls out of a total of 791 observed hauls presented interactions with seabirds (2.53%), resulting in a total of 20 interacted seabirds, 3 of of them died (15%) and the remaining 17 birds were released alive. The 3 fatalities affected 2 species of petrels (snow petrel and Wilson’s storm petrel) and the southern fulmar. Out of the 6 seabird species interacted, only the Gentoo penguin is considered as an ETP species. The Antarctic fur seal is the only marine mammal found to interact with the f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016. Interactions were restricted to 1.4% of the observed hauls, resulting in a total of 9 interacted fur seals, 2 of them died (22%) and the remaining 7 individuals were released alive . All interactions were due to the animals getting entangled in the net. Table 3-12. Interactions with seabirds and marine mammals recorded by observers on board the f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 54

N observed hauls 0 168 57 207 245 114 791 Daption capense Dead 1 1 (Cape petrel) Injured Alive 2 3 5 Oceanites oceanicus Dead 1 1 (Wilson’s storm petrel) Injured Alive 4 4 Pygoscelis papua Dead (Gentoo penguin) Injured Alive 1 1 Fulmarus glacialoides Dead 1 1 Seabirds (Southern fulmar) Injured Alive 2 2 Pagodroma nivea Dead (snow petrel) Injured Alive 3 1 4 Thalassoica Antarctica Dead (Antarctic petrel) Injured Alive 1 1 Arctocephalus gazelle Dead 1 1 2 (Antarctic fur seal) Injured Marine

mammals Alive 2 5 7

Although, before it was mentioned that both Chilean fishing vessels (Betanzos and Antarctic Endeavour) are using the same fishing gears and therefore their catch composition is expected to be very similar, this is not the case for the interactions with seabirds as the assessed vessel counts with more advance technology (eg: a wireless net sounder and a laser bird scaring device –see scoring table on PI2.2.2 for more details) which are expected to reduce significantly impacts on seabirds compared to its compatriot predecessor.

3.4.2.2 P2 species classification following MSC requirements According to the different sources of information presented above, the assessment team elaborated the most complete list of all species susceptible to interact with the UoC, and they were classified into primary (main/minor), secondary (main/minor) and ETP species according to MSC requirements (see Table 3-13 ). Table 3-13. List of all species susceptible to interact with the UoC classified according to FCR SA3.1.3-3.1.5 and SA3.4.4.-3.4.5. Sources of information (see section 3.4.2.1) used for selecting each of the species is presented. Data deficient column was assessed against FCR7.7.6

P2 Source Data # Codes Scientific (and common) names P2 ETP Deficient subcomp. a b c d e component regulation (Y/N) FISH SPECIES (sorted by Family in alphabetical order) ANOTOPTERIDAE (Daggertooths) 1 ANH Anotopterus pharaoh Secondary Minor n/a √ Y ARTEDIDRACONIDAE (Barbeled 2 PLF Secondary Minor n/a √ Y plunderfishes) 3 ART Artedidraco spp Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 4 HBG Harpagifer georgianus Secondary Minor n/a √ Y BATHYDRACONIDAE (Antarctic 5 BTI Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y dragonfishes) 6 BDJ Bathydraco marri Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 55

7 GYA Gymnodraco acuticeps Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 8 RGG Racovitzia glacialis Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 9 PGE Parachaenichthys georgianus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y CHANNICHTHYIDAE (Crocodile 10 ICX Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y icefishes) 11 ICX Chionodraco sp. Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 12 KIF Chionodraco rastrospinosus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 13 MIC Chionodraco myersi Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 14 TIC Chionodraco hamatus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 15 WIC Chaenodraco wilsoni Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 16 YDB Cryodraco spp. Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 17 FIC Cryodraco antarcticus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 18 ANI Champsocephalus gunnari Primary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ N 19 SGI Pseudochaenichthys georgianus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 20 SSI Chaenocephalus aceratus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 21 JIC Neopagetopsis ionah Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 22 CES Champsocephalus esox Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 23 PMA Pagetopsis macropterus Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 24 Neopagetopsis ionah Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 25 CHW Chionobathyscus dewitti Secondary Minor n/a √ Y Channichthys rhinoceratus Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 26 RTX MACROURIDAE (Grenadiers) Secondary Minor n/a √ Y MICROSTOMATIDAE (Pencil smelts) 27 NAN Nansenia spp Secondary Minor n/a √ Y MURAENOLEPIDIDAE (Eel cods) 28 MRL Muraenolepis spp Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 29 MOY Muraenolepis microps Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 30 LXX MYCTOPHIDAE (Lanternfishes) Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 31 PRY Protomyctophum choriodon Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 32 PRE Protomyctophum tenisoni Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 33 ELT Electrona spp Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 34 ELN Electrona antarctica Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 35 ELC Electrona carlsbergi Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 36 GYN Gymnoscopelus nicholsi Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 37 GYY Gymnoscopelus spp Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 38 PVP Protomyctophum spp Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 39 KRA Krefftichthys anderssoni Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 40 NOX NOTOTHENIIDAE (Cod icefishes) n/a √ √ √ √ Y 41 ANS Pleuragramma antarcticum Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 42 NOM Paranotothenia magellanica Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 43 NOR Notothenia rossii Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 44 NOC Notothenia coriiceps Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 45 NOG Gobionotothen gibberifrons Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 46 NOK Lepidonotothen kempi (squamifrons) Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 47 NOL Lepidonotothen larseni Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ √ Y 48 NOD Lepidonotothen nudifrons Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 49 NOS Lepidonotothen squamifrons Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 50 NOT Patagonotothen brevicauda Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 51 TRT Trematomus spp Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 52 TRD Trematomus lepidorhinus Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 53 PTC Trematomus pennellii Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 54 TRH Trematomus hansoni Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 55 ERN Trematomus bernacchii Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 56 TLO Trematomus loennbergii Secondary Minor n/a √ Y

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 56

57 TOT Dissostichus spp. Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 58 TOA Dissostichus mawsoni Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y PARALEPIDIDAE (Barracudinas) 59 NTO Notolepis coatsi Secondary Minor n/a √ √ √ Y 60 Notolepsis spp Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y 61 ELZ ZOARCIDAE (Eelpouts) Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 62 AQM Themisto gaudichaudii Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 63 DCP Eusirus perdentatus Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 64 Melanostigma gelatinosum Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 65 Pachycara brachycephalum Secondary Minor n/a √ Y MORIDAE (Morid cods) 66 Halargyreus johnsonii Secondary Minor n/a √ Y MOLLUSCS (CEPHALOPODS) 67 SQQ TEUTHOIDEA (Squids) Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 68 CEP CEPHALOPODA Secondary Minor n/a √ Y CRUSTACEANS 69 CRUSTACEA Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 70 AMPHIPODA Secondary Minor n/a √ Y 71 PANDALIDAE Secondary Minor n/a √ Y SALPS 72 SALPIDAE Secondary Minor n/a √ Y JELLYFISHES 73 JEL MEDUSAE (Jellyfish) Secondary Minor n/a √ √ Y SEABIRDS (ONLY those species for which INTERACTIONS have been recorded) Fulmarus glacialoides 74 FUG Secondary Main √ √ √ N Southern fulmar Pagodroma nivea 75 PWP Secondary Main √ √ √ N (Snow petrel) Daption capense 76 DAC Secondary Main √ √ √ N (Cape petrel) n/a as Oceanites oceanicus 77 CCO Secondary Main IUCN (LC) and not √ √ √ N (Wilson’s storm petrel) included in ACAB Halobaena caerulea 78 HAC Secondary Main √ N (Blue petrel) Thalassoica Antarctica 79 Secondary Main √ N (Antarctic petrel) Larus dominicanus 80 LDO Secondary Main √ √ N (Kelp gull) Pygoscelis antarctica 81 PYN ETP n/a D225/1995 √ √ N (Chinstrap penguin) Pygoscelis papua 82 PYP ETP n/a D225/1995 √ √ N (Gentoo penguin) MARINE MAMMALS (ALL species for which INTERACTIONS AND/OR OBSERVATIONS have been recorded) Leptonychotes weddellii 83 SXX ETP n/a D225/1995 √ N (Weddel seal) Lobodon carcinophagus 84 SXX ETP n/a D225/1995 √ N (Crabeater seal) Arctocephalus gazella 85 SEA ETP n/a D225/1995 √ √ √ √ N (Antarctic fur seal) Mirounga leonina 86 SES ETP n/a D225/1995 √ N (Southern elephant seal) D225/1995 Orcinus orca 87 KIW ETP n/a Ley 20293 √ √ N (Killer whale) SO-IWC Sanctuary 88 FIN Balaenoptera physalus ETP n/a IUCN (EN) √ √ √ N

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 57

(Fin whale) CITES (Ap.I) D225/1995 Ley 20293 SO-IWC Sanctuary CITES (Ap.I) Balaenoptera acutorostrata D225/1995 89 MIW ETP n/a √ N (Minke whale) Ley 20293 SO-IWC Sanctuary CITES (Ap.I) Megaptera novaeangliae D225/1995 90 HUW ETP n/a √ √ √ N (Humpback whale) Ley 20293 SO-IWC Sanctuary CITES (Ap.I) Eubalaena australis D225/1995 91 EUA ETP n/a √ √ N (Southern right whale) Ley 20293 SO-IWC Sanctuary CITES (Ap.I) Hyperoodon planifrons D225/1995 92 SRW ETP n/a √ N (Southern bottlenose whale) Ley 20293 SO-IWC Sanctuary The difference between ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species lies on whether management is based on biological reference points (primary) or not (secondary). On the other hand, the difference between ‘Main’ and ‘Minor’ lies on the proportion (in weight) that a particular species represents in the catch. According to FCR SA3.4.2, the designated weigth treshold to differentiate between ‘Main’ and ‘Minor’ is 5% (or 2% in the case of less resilient species): species accounting ≥5% in weigth of the total catch are considered as ‘Main’, while species falling below that threshold are classified as ‘Minor’ (unless the total catch of the UoA is exceptionally large, such that even small proportions of a P2 species significantly impact the affected stock, FCR SA3.4.4).

3.4.3 Primary species impacted by the UoC The other commercial fisheries (appart from the krill fishery) happening within the area included in the UoC (48.1-48.4) are listed below: - Longline and pots fisheries targeting Patagonian toothfish ( Dissostichus eleginoides ) in subarea 48.3, regulated through CM 41-02 (2015) - Longline fishery targeting tootfish ( Dissostichus spp .) in suarea 48.4, regulated through CM 41-03 (2016) - Midwater trawl fishery targeting mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari ) in subarea 48.3, regulated through CM 42-01 (2015) Further, exploratory fisheries for toothfish (Dissostichus spp) in the Convention Area are allow as far as they comply with CM 41-01 (2016). The above listed fisheries are reviewed annually by the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA) and the Scientific Committee. A review of the fishery reports available at the CCAMLR website ( https://www.ccamlr.org/en/publications/fishery-reports ) show not only that stock assessments on the D.eleginoides in subareas 48.3 and 48.4 and C.gunnari in subarea 48.3 do provide advice based on biological reference points, but also that CCAMLR follows the scientific advice when setting limits for those fisheries CCAMLR through the above mentioned Conservation Measures. However, this is not the case for D.mawsoni as its available stock assessments in 48.2 and 48.4 do not provide reference points.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 58

As a result, C.gunnari is the only species listed in Table 3-13 considered as ‘Primary’ for this assessment, as its management is based on Biological Reference Points (no interactions with D.eleginoides have been recorded). As explained in previous section, weight extrapolations made in both CCMALR data reviews on fish bycatches based on data from SISO and commercial data (C1) (WG-EMM14-31 and WG-FSA16/04) show that total fish bycatches account for 0.1-0.2% (in volume) of total fishery catches. Also, precautionary fish bycatch estimates for the two MSC-certified vessels belonging to Aker Biomarine (f/v Antarctic Sea dn Saga Saga) provided by MRAG after analysing observers data between 2007 and 2011 indicate that fish-taxa bycatches account for 0.2% of total krill catches (results summarised in Hønneland et al 2014). Therefore, C.gunnari was classified as ‘Minor’.

3.4.4 Secondary species impacted by the UoC Apart from the mackerel icefish, all the other species listed in Table 3-13 that are not considered as ETP species (see next section) were classified as ‘Secondary’, in accordance with FCR SA3.1.4. The resulting comprehensive list include a total of 65 fish-taxa, 4 crustacean-taxa, 2 mollusc-taxa, 1 jellyfish-taxa, 1 salp-taxa and 7 seabird species. As explained in previous section, weight extrapolations made in both CCMALR data reviews on fish bycatches based on data from SISO and commercial data (C1) (WG-EMM14-31 and WG-FSA16/04) show that total fish bycatches account for 0.1-0.2% (in volume) of total fishery catches. Results reported by MRAG after analyzing observer’s data from Aker fishing vessels between 2007 and 2011 (results summarized in Hønneland et al 2014) also yields similar results for all fish-taxa bycatch (0.2% of total catch volume). Finally, data from observers on board f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016 found that total bycatch accounts for 0.1% (in weight) of the samples (Arana and Rolleri, 2017), and data from observers on board f/v Juvel between 2010 and 2014 found that fish bycatch makes up <0.5 of the total catch (Hønneland et al 2015). Therefore, all fish-taxa caught were classified as ‘Minor’. No weight extrapolations from counts of individuals of non-fish taxa bycatches have been provided. However, data from observers collected on board the f/v ‘Juvel’bycatch (Hønneland et al 2015) and also on board the f/v ‘Betanzos’ (Arana and Rolleri 2017) indicate that none of those taxa would account for a higher percentage of the total catches than fish-taxa. Therefore, they were all classified as ‘Minor’. Finally, interactions with seabird species are scarce and fatalities are limited to 20% of them (5 fatalities in the case of the f/v Betanzos between 2011-2016, 10 fatalities in the case of the f/v ‘Juve’ between 2010-2014, and 10 fatalities for both the f/v ‘Saga Sea’ and the f/v ‘Antarctic Sea’ between 2012-2014). For 7 out of the 9 seabird species found to interact with those vessels the ETP species definition is not applicable (see Table 3-13 ). Thus, in accordance with SA3.7.1.2 they shall be considered as ‘Main’, regardless of the degree of interaction.

3.4.5 ETP species impacted by the UoC According to MSC requirements (SA 3.1.5), the team shall assign ETP species as follows: a. Species that are recognize by national ETP legislation (in this case Chilean legislation). b. Species listed in binding international agreements given below: ° Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. ° Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), such as the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). c. Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 59

Fin whale is the only species listed as Endangered (EN) in the IUCN Redlist, none of the other species shown in Table 3-13 are listed as VU, EN or CE in the IUCN Redlist. The only binding agreement concluded under the CMS applicable to this fishery is the ACAB, but none of the seabird species listed in Table 3-13 is included in the ACAB. Finally, regarding the CITES only whales species are listed in Appendix 1 (with the only exception of the Killer whale). Chile joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1979, which in 1994 adopted a whale sanctuary covering the waters of the Southern Ocean around the Antarctica. Commercial whaling on any whale species is prohibited within this sanctuary. The precise geographical boundaries of the sanctuary are recorded in the Convention’s Schedule at paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b), but it covers the geographical area included in the UoC (see Figure 3-29 ).

Figure 3-29. Map showing the boundaries (in red) of the whale sanctuary covering the Southern Ocean. Source: http://mpatlas.org/

Furhter, Chilean fishing legislation (Decree Nº225/1995, later modified by Decree Nº135/2005, issued by SUBPESCA) established a 30 year extractive closure (nov1995-nov2025) for 70 marine species. The list of protected species include marine mammals, seabirds, sea turtles and reptiles (see Table 3-13 to check those identified as susceptible to interact with the UoC). Subsequently, Chile established a permanent ban on targeting cetaceans (DS No. 179 of 2008, Law 20293 in force since October 2008). This Law prohibits the killing, catching, storage, transformation or marketing of any species of cetacean. According to the information presented above, a total of 12 species susceptible to interact with the UoC were classified as ETP in this assessment (see Table 3-13 : 6 whale species, 4 seal species (1 Otariidae and 3 Phocidae), and 2 penguin species. In adittion to ETP species listed in Table 3-13 , other seabird species for which the ETP definition is applicable have been recorded by observers on board the ‘antarctic Endevaour’ and the other certified krill trawlers in the area (Hønneland et al. 2014 and Hønneland et al. 2015). The ETP seabird species observed nearby the vessels (but without any interaction with the gear) is listed in Table 3-14 . Also, other marine mammals species known to be present in the area for which the ETP definition is applicable are listed in Table 3-14 . Table 3-14. List of other seabird and marine mammal species present in the area for which the ETP definition is applicable (FCR SA3.1.5). The list of ETP seabird species was elaborated according to species recorded as sightings by observers in f/V ‘Juvel’ between 2010 and 2014 (Hønneland et al. 2015), and f/v ‘Saga Sea’ and f/v ‘Antarctic Sea’ between 2012 and 2014 (Hønneland et al. 2014). The list of ETP marine mammals list all those species known to be present in the area which were not included in table 3-12. IUCN Redlist # Code Scientific (common) name CITES ACAB Category

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 60

SEABIRDS 93 Spheniscus humboldti I VU n/a (Humboldt penguin) 94 DIC Thalassarche chrysostoma - EN No (Grey headed albatross) 95 DIX Diomedea exulans - VU YES (Wandering albatross) 96 DIM Thalassarche melanophris - n/a (NT) YES (Black browed albatross) 97 PHE Phoebetria palpebrata - n/a (NT) YES (Light-Mantled Sooty Albatross) 98 PHU Phoebetria fusca - EN YES (Sooty Albatross) 99 MAI Macronectes giganteus - n/a (LC) YES (Southern giant petrel) 100 MBX Macronectes halli - n/a (LC) YES (Northern giant petrel) 101 Procellaria cinerea - n/a (NT) YES (Grey Petrel) 102 Procellaria aequinoctialis - VU YES (White-chinned Petrel) MARINE MAMMALS 103 Balaenoptera borealis I EN n/a (Sei whale) 104 Balaenoptera bonaerensis I n/a (DD) n/a (Antarctic minke whale) 105 Balaenoptera musculus I EN n/a (Blue whale) 106 Physeter microcephalus I VU n/a (Sperm whale)

3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background The intent of MSC Principle 3 is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework appropriate to the size and scale of the UoA for implementing Principles 1 and 2 and that the management system is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with these Principles. To meet this goal the fishery must comply with all local ( if appropriate) , national and international regulations and have a management framework capable to respond to any change or circumstance affecting the fishery, but maintaining its long term sustainability.

3.5.1. Overarching framework Fisheries in the Southern Ocean are managed by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (hereafter referred as CCAMLR). This Convention is part of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) which governs existing and potential human activities in the Southern Ocean. The ATS was signed in 1959 and entered into force in 1961; as of 2016 the treaty has 53 parties. Article IX , paragraph f) of this Treaty explicitly refers to preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica, as one of the measures to which contracting parties must commit CCAMLR was signed in 1980 and entered into force in 1982; its regulations are applicable to the whole area located south of 60° South Latitude. As stated by Grant et al. (2013) a low fraction of this area falls under the jurisdiction of national governments (including the marine areas around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) some of which apply CCAMLR management measures.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 61

At present the Convention counts on the participation of 25 members (including the European Union), which are able to participate in the decision-making process, plus 11 acceding states.

3.5.2. CCAMLR’s Principles and objectives CCAMLR’s principles of conservation are widely recognized as an early articulation of the goals of Ecosystem Based Management. In fact, this Convention is generally credited as the first regional body to apply ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and CCAMLR has been praised as one of the best regional fisheries management organisations, having a good record in the implementation of conservation measures (see Cullis-Suzuki & Pauly, 2010). Precaution is the guiding principle in fisheries management in the Antarctic under CCAMLR (Constable, 2011). In order to ensure sustainability and orderly development, fisheries are not allowed to expand until the tools for management are developed, approved and a management plan has been developed. The fundamental management objectives of CCAMLR are set out in Article II of the Convention, which reads as follows: 1. The objective of this Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. 2. For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘conservation’ includes rational use. 3. Any harvesting and associated activities in the area to which this Convention applies shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and with the following principles of conservation: a. Prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population to levels below those which ensure its stable recruitment. For this purpose its size should not be allowed to fall below a level close to that which ensures the greatest net annual increment; b. Maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted populations to the levels defined in sub-paragraph (a) above; and c. Prevention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.

3.5.3. CCAMLR’s Structure and Functioning The Convention established the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as its decision-making body, constituted by all the member states and that adopts its decisions by consensus. This Commission is advised by a Scientific Committee (all members of the Commission are also members of the Scientific Committee) which, in turn, has the support of a number of scientific working groups, WGs (e.g. Fish Stock Assessment WG-FSA; Statistics, Assessments and Modeling WG-SAM; Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing WG-IMAF). For krill, these consist of the Working Group on Krill (WG-Krill) (1987±1994) and the Working Group for the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (WG-CEMP) (1986±1994). In 1994, the two Groups were combined into the Working Group for Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM; Miller and Agnew, 2000). In addition, the Commission also counts with the support of the Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC) and a Standing Committee on Administration and Finance (SCAF).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 62

The Executive Secretariat of CCAMLR (located in Hobart, Australia) is the body that receives, stores and manages the scientific data and makes the follow up of the Commission decisions´ compliance. In addition and among other duties, it is the Secretariat´s responsibility to facilitate the regular functioning of the Commission and the Scientific Committee; it is also in charge of organizing the regular meetings of the Commission and facilitating communications with and among the member states. Management actions (e.g.harvesting levels) and recommendations are implemented through regulations known as Conservation Measures (CM) which are binding for member states, as well as resolutions (non-binding instruments) issued by the Commission which must take into full account the Scientific Committee´s advise and recommendations. It is worth mentioning that the Scientific Committee takes into account the outcomes of research from national programs of CCAMLR members. Decision-making process in CCAMLR is well-defined and allows an appropriate participation and interaction with stakeholders, including environmental ONGs observers, fishing industry associations and international organizations.

3.5.4. Management of the Antarctic krill fishery Out of the total Southern Ocean harvest, the Antarctic krill fishery accounts for more than 90%. The multi-national Antarctic krill fishery is predominantly ruled by CCAMLR , but regulations set by flag states must also be taken into account. Krill fishery targets an epipelagic resource which is considered as a High Sea stock (see Maguire et al., 2006) subjected to an international cooperation framework, and with no indigenous /aboriginal component. Therefore, according to categories established by MSC (FCR SA 4.1.1) the exploited stock should be defined as a Straddling Stock. Antarctic krill in Statistical Area 48 (Atlantic-Antarctic) is assessed by CCAMLR as a single unit for the whole area. Access to the krill fishery in the Southern Ocean may be obtained by becoming member to the Convention and a fishing license from the flag state is required. A fraction of the krill fishing area in the Antarctic, specifically the South Georgia Maritime Zone (subarea 48.3), is under the jurisdiction of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands government (GSGSSI). Hence to harvest krill in this subarea - in addition to achieve the local management regulations- there is a need for a fishing license and paying a fee. Particular provisions have been set by CCAMLR for this sector (CM 31-01 (1986) & CM 33-01 (1995)). CCMALR fundamental approach in respect to krill is to minimize the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem rather than to maximize the harvest of the species. Management of Antarctic krill fisheries has generally focused on the three-way trade-off between the performance of the fishery, the status of the krill stock, and the status of selected krill predators (Grant et al., 2013). CCAMLR´s current rules allow for the simulated Antarctic krill stock to be depleted to 75% of its initial biomass. In others words, to account for the needs of predators in the system, a conservative reference level was set, where 75 percent of the pristine krill spawning biomass is required to be maintained. This compares with the maximum sustainable yield reference point which is widely used in other fisheries and allows depletion to around 40 - 60% of initial biomass (see Pikitch et al., 2012). On the other hand, the limit krill biomass has been set at 20% of the median unfished biomass. CCAMLR’s scientific working groups address two key issues in regard to the krill fishery, namely: the appropriate overall catch limit, and the spatial distribution of this limit so as to minimize local depletion of krill and its predators.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 63

The first issue led to the definition of the so called precautionary catch limit (PCL) in the south Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean (Statistical Area 48 ) where the fishery primary develops, and also in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2 located in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean. It is worth to note that after a period of more than two decades without activity, a re-initiation of commercial krill fishing occurred in sub-area 58.4 during the 2016/17 season, with a catch of 513 tonnes. Since CCAMLR first began to regulate the fishery, the Antarctic krill harvest from the Scotia Sea and southern Drake Passage (Area 48) has been capped at 620 000 tonnes per year. This figure is an interim catch limit, which is significantly less than the PCL (currently 5.61 millions tonnes/ yr-1) set for this Area 48 (CM 51-01 (2010)). In turn, this PCL represents about 1 % of the estimated virgin or initial krill biomass (60.3 millions tonnes) in Area 48, and defines the potential maximum harvest when the management approach allows the interim limit to be removed. In addition, to prevent excessive localized depletion of the krill stock, and consequent impacts on krill predators, if catches increase beyond the interim catch limit , there is an interim distribution of the trigger level in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4 (CM 51-07 (2016)) valid until the 2020/2021 season, as shown below. Table 3-15. Interim distribution of the trigger level in subareas 48.1-48.4

Subarea Percent Tonnes 48.1 25 155.000 48.2 45 279.000 48.3 45 279.000 48.4 15 93.000 PCL have also been established in Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2, amounting to 440,000 tonnes and 2.645 millions tonnes, respectively (CM 51-02 (2008) & CM 51-03 (2008)). Adding up PCL´s set for Area 48 and those for the above mentioned Divisions make a total of 8.6 millions tons nominally available per year for commercial harvesting, but the reality is that current catches are on average around 250,000 tonnes per year. In regard to the second issue placed in above paragraphs, CCAMLR has recognized the need to subdivide the precautionary catch limit in the south Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean (Area 48) into 15 small-scale management units (SSMUs) to address concerns of localized depletion and to minimize the impact that the krill fishery has on krill predators (Hewitt et al., 2004). In this context, work is ongoing within CCAMLR’s scientific working groups. In 2013 the development of a feedback management strategy for krill fishery -with full engagement of the commercial fleet- was advocated (see WG-EMM-13/2013) but work to implement such a strategy is still ongoing as a great deal of ecological information is required. In the meantime some advances have been presented and new possible options for management proposed (Trathan et al., 2015, Watters et al., 2016). In addition to all the above measures, regulations or activities, the management framework for krill fisheries under CCAMLR includes: a) The request for members intending to participate in the established krill fisheries to notify the Commission no later than 1 June prior to the annual meeting of the Commission immediately prior to the season in which they intend to fish (CM 21-03 (2016)). The notification should be accompanied by information on intended area of fishing, vessel capacity, expected level of catch, intended fishing subareas, fishing method and gear configuration. In order to progress analyses of uncertainty in green weight, specific detail of the method used to estimate catch on all of the krill-catching vessels is included in the notification process. The aim of the notification system is to strengthen management and

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 64

fishery monitoring and to alert management about the expected fishing activity in the coming year. b) The request for vessels to be marked so as to be readily identified (CM 10-01 2014) and to carry at least one on-board scientific observer (a plea is made to have an additional observer) throughout all fishing activities and to have a systematic observer coverage with a target rate of no less than 50% of vessels during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 fishing seasons; this rate will increase to no less than 75% in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons and will reach a 100% coverage subsequently (MC 51-06 (2016). c) The use of an automated satellite vessel monitoring system, VMS (CM 10-04 (2015) in order to regularly compile data on the position of the vessels operating within the Convention Area as a way to promote compliance with regulations. Provisions of the CM state that in the case of the krill fishery data must be transmitted every 4 hours. d) The inspection of fishing vessels in conformity with CM 10-03 (2015). Contracting parties have the obligation to conduct port inspections to at least 50% of the fishing vessels carrying species other than Dissostichus spp.(in this case krill) harvested in the Convention area and that have not been previously landed or transhipped at a port. e) The implementation of the Data Reporting System. In this respect CM 23-06 (2102) establishes that when the total reported catch is greater than or equal to 80% of the trigger levels, catches must be reported with a five-day frequency. If the reported catch is less than 80 % of the applicable trigger level, catches must be reported with a monthly frequency. This CM also states that at the end of each month haul by haul data must be obtained by the contracting parties and provided to the Secretariat in order to complete the CCAMLR fine- scale catch and effort data system. In addition CM 23-06 (2012) points that contracting parties must inform when fishing vessels enter to, exist from, and move between areas. In general, information provided by the vessels of the contracting parties participating in the krill fishery, and data collected by the scientific on-board observers is stored (data base) and reviewed and analyzed by experts of the member states at the annual meetings held by the Scientific Committee and some of the WG´s. Additionally, CCAMLR has established a number of programs to collect the data required for the effective management of the fisheries and the Southern Ocean. One of these programs is the Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP) which was established to detect changes, particularly with respect to krill-dependent predators (e.g. monitoring of predators population) and to evaluate whether observed changes are due to krill fishing or environmental factors. CCAMLR has in place a Compliance Evaluation Procedure, CCEP (CM 10-10 (2016)) applicable to all species, that evaluates Contracting Party implementation of, and compliance with, conservation measures in a responsible, open, transparent and non-discriminatory manner.

3.5.5. Chilean Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (LFA) and legal provisions regarding the Antarctic krill As with other fisheries under the umbrella of CCAMLR, the krill fishery is managed with a precautionary and ecosystem approach, which is fully consistent with the General Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (LFA) enacted by Chile and with principles and criteria held by MSC. In 1981 Chile enacted the text of the Convention as a national law (MINREL, 1981) legal body which in turn was published in the official gazette dated October 13, 1981. Therefore since 1981 Chile is a member state of the Convention and also has the merit of being one of the 12 original signatories countries of the Antarctic Treaty.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 65

Chile does not impose on its nationals any particular conservation measures on krill, but adopts the regulatory measures set by CCAMLR. In this way, Article 7 E of the LFA states that conservation and management measures for living marine resources adopted in the framework of treaties or international organizations, to which Chile is a party, shall be published (once approved) in the official gazette as well as in the SUBPESCA’ s website. To fulfill this requirement a Resolution was issued (SUBPESCA, 2017a) approving all the Conservation Measures adopted by the Commission at the 36 th Meeting, to be applicable at the 2017/18 season. Shortly after this resolution was published in the official gazette as of 29/11/2017. The only measure where krill is explicitly mentioned is the Decree N° 316 as of 1985, (MINECON, 1985) which permits processing of this crustacean to produce fishmeal. Notwithstanding Chilean flagged vessels operating in the Antarctic area must fulfill the applicable national fisheries legislation. The LFA and its amendments (Article 1B) declares as its objective “the conservation and sustainable use of the marine resources by applying the precautionary approach and the (fisheries) ecosystem- based management, as well as the protection of the marine ecosystems they live in” . For the purpose of the Law, protection of the ecosystems comprises the protection of habitats and biodiversity. In the case of national fisheries where a global catch quota has been set, LFA´s long term objective is Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY (Article 3 C of the Fishing Law). Although MSY-approach is not applicable to the krill fishery, management of this resource is conducted with a much more precautionary rule (i.e 75% BDo) than the stipulated in the Chilean LFA. FV Antarctic Endeavour was granted a permission by the Chilean Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA) to operate in the High Seas (SUBPESCA, 2017) and also has a permit to conduct fishing activities on Antarctic krill in CCAMLR Sub-areas 48.1; 48.2; and 48.3 (SUBPESCA, 2017b). This permit is valid for the fishing season 20117/18 and, as required by the Chilean LFA, a brief of this authorization was published in the official gazette (published on 12/12/2017). Vessel features listed in SUBPESCA permit, are validated by a certificate issued by the relevant Chilean Navy Agency (i.e. Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y Marina Mercante, in Spanish). This fishing vessel submitted the formal notification to CCAMLR Secretariat on the intent to fish krill during the current fishing season and it is listed in the Convention website as an authorized vessel (see Table 3-4 for details of the current licence issued). This is the only Chilean vessel attempting to harvest krill during the current 2017/2018 season.

3.5.6. Chilean Fisheries Institutional Framework and specific requirements to the vessel To meet the objectives pursued by the LFA, including fisheries and activities carried out in the Antarctic Area, the Chilean state has an institutional framework comprising several governmental entities, a Fisheries Research Institute, IFOP (currently not directly engaged in Antarctic or krill- related research), a National Fisheries Council and several Zonal Fisheries Councils. Recently (2013) the LFA created advisory or consultative bodies (i.e. fishery–specific Scientific Committees and Management Committees) for strengthening the management of the national fisheries, but at present these committees are not functional to the krill fishery. For the purpose of the present Preliminary Draft Report it is deemed sufficient to make an updated presentation of the institutional bodies which are functional to the Antarctic krill fishery. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MINREL): It is responsible to define the national Antarctic Policy; under the dependence of this Ministry is the Antarctic Directorate, which is the official link between the Convention and the national CCAMLR-related entities. The Antarctic Directorate plays the role of executive secretariat of the national CCAMLR Commission (Section) an operative body created by Decree N° 1579 as of 1991 (MINREL, 1991)- modified by Decree N° 165 as of 2017 (MINREL, 2017)- to carry on the duties related to the Convention and to coordinate all national activities on this matter. This Commission is headed by the Undersecretary for Fisheries and Aquaculture and

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 66

comprised by one representative of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Ministry for the Environment, Chilean Antarctic Institute, Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture, National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service, Fisheries Research Institute, Council of Rectors of Chilean Universities, National Oceanographic Institute, Chilean Navy, and private fishing sector. In practice for some time representatives of all fishing companies operating in the Antarctic area have been invited to join all the meetings of the Commssion. Under the umbrella of MINREL is also the Chilean Antarctic Institute (INACH), the agency in charge to execute the Antarctic Policy, a representative of which is the official Chilean delegate to the CCAMLR Scientific Committee. Ministry of Economy (MINECON): it is responsible for determining the national fisheries policy and to oversee the whole fishing sector. LFA authorises the Ministry to issue the byelaws inside the Law and also has the legal capacity to set some management regulations. Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA): a normative public agency subordinated to the above Ministry whose main function is the design and implementation of sectoral policies and conservation /management measures. It is the entity in charge of issuing the fishing permits to the industrial vessels operating in waters of national jurisdiction and the High Seas. National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (SERNAPESCA): an institution subordinated to the Ministry of Economy, in charge to watch over the compliance of fisheries regulations and collecting and processing catch and effort data (including those from the Antarctic Area) as well as production statistics. Surveillance and monitoring of Chilean fisheries is facilitated by the compulsory use of a satellite Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) whose data are received simultaneously both by SERNAPESCA and the relevant Chilean Navy Agency (i.e. Directorate of Maritime Affairs and Environment). Logbooks, land inspections and certification of the amount of landed resources also help in controlling fishing activities conducted within jurisdictional waters. Without prejudice of what may correspond to CCAMLR, surveillance of fishing activities carried out in the Convention area and application of sanctions must be conducted by member states. In the case of Chile SERNAPESCA and the relevant Navy Agency exercise an effective control over the Chilean flagged vessels. All movements of national fishing vessels are reported to CCAMLR Secretariat via the Chilean Navy Agency and this institution has also the duty to carry out at-sea inspections of the fishing vessels (other than the Chileans). The LFA contemplates several sanctions to Chilean vessels operating in the High Seas which infringe the fisheries regulations adopted in the framework of international conventions or treaties ratified by the country. Specific sanctions also exist for nationals working on board of foreign fishing vessels which infringe CCAMLR Conservation Measures. The authorization the Antarctic Endeavour has to operate in the Convention area (Resolution N° 3984 as of 2017) includes several provisions regarding the fulfillment of the national and international fisheries legislation, among them the measures stipulated in the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (rules for its implementation by Chilean fishing vessels are found in Decree N° 360 as of 2005 (MINECON, 2005). In regard to Chile´s commitment to combat the IUU Fishing, this is expressed in Decree N° 267 as of 2005 (MINECON, 2005 a). On the other hand, the permit issued to the Chilean–flagged vessel makes explicit mention and a short description of the CCAMLR conservation measures the vessel must fulfill, namely: 10-01 (2014); 10-02 (2016); 10-03 (2015); 10-04 (2015); 10-06 (2016); 10-07 (2016); 10-08 (2009); 10-09 (2011); 10-10 (2017); 21-03 (2016); 23-02 (2016)*; 23-03 (2016)*; 23-06 (2012)*; 24-01 (2013); 25- 03 (2016); 26-01 (2015); 31-01 (1986); 31-02 (2007); 32-01 (2001); 33-01 (1995); 51-01 (2010); 51-06

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 67

(2016); 51-07 (2016); 91-02 (2012) and 91-03 (2009). As established in the above permit the information to which those CMs market with * refer (catch and effort data) must (also) be provided by the ship owner to SERNAPESCA. Reduction of incidental catch of seabirds and marine mammals, protection of the marine environment in general and care on some areas of special interest are to be considered during the vessel operations (i.e. CM 25-03 (2016); 26-01 (2015); 91-02 (2012) and 91- 03 (2009)). In addition, the permit indicates the grounds for which it would be no longer valid or suspended.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 68

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment

Harmonisation process In accordance to FCR PB3.1 CABs assessing overlapping fisheries shall ensure consistency of outcomes so as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessment. All the MSC certified fisheries operating in CCAMLR Area 48 are listed below. No overlapping fisheries in assessment were found during the preparation of this report. Table 4-1. Other MSC certified (or in assessment) fisheries operating in CCAMLR Area 48 (updated in February 2018) Geograhical P2 main MCS Fisheries Fishery Fishing Method P1 species MSC Status area species CR version Continuous mid- Aker Biomarine water trawl Certified since CR v1.3 Antarctic krill system 2010 (Default tree) TM (Eco-Harvesting ) CCAMLR No P2 main subareas Antarctic krill species Certified in 48.1, 48.2, (Euphausia superba) (primary or 2015, self- Rimfrost Antacrtic Conventional mid 48.3 & 48.3 secondary) suspended CR v1.3 krill water trawl from 20 th June (Default tree) 2017 until further notice South Georgia Patagonian Only bait Bottom set Certified since Patagonian Toothfish species CR v1.3 longlines 2004 (Default tree) tootfish longline (Dissostichus (caught in other CCAMLR eleginoides) fishing grounds) South Georgia subarea 48.3 Patagonian Yellowfin Certified since icefish pelagic Pelagic trawl icefish notothen CR v1.3 (Champsocephalus (Patagonotothen 2010 (Default tree) trawl gunnari) guntheri) According to Annex PB 3.3.1 where an assessment overlaps with a certified fishery, the new assessment team shall use as their baseline the rationale and scores detailed for the previously scored fisheries. In order to accomplish with this requirement, BV team proceeded as follows: ° Rationales and scores of the other certified krill fisheries shown in Table 4-1 were considered as the baseline for assessing P1, P2 and P3. However, the team assessed more updated information and drew their own conclusions and scorings. Further, FCR Annex PB3.3.2 establishes that CABs shall undertake the following key activities to achieve harmonization: a. The use of common assessment trees where appropriate. In this case all the overlapping fisheries shown in Table 4 1 were assessed using CR version 1.3, while Deris fishery was assessed against CR version 2.0. In all cases default trees (Annex SA) of the above mentioned CR versions were used. According to Annex PB 2.1, in cases like this, harmonisation of the default trees shall not be required. b. Coordination meetings between CABs and mediation as necessary (particularly where the later CAB does not agree with the conclusions of the earlier CAB). c. The sharing of fishery information. d. The achievement of consistent conclusions with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 69

In accordance with Annex PB3.3.2, BV and the assessment team accomplished the following activities: ° After the Fishery Announcement was published at the MSC website, BV sent an email to the CABs that certified the two Antarctic krill fisheries shown in Table 4-1 informing that a new Antarctic krill fishery operating in the area would be assessed against the default assessment tree (SA) version 2.0, and encouraging open and stable communication among the CABs throughout the process. ° The team considered the scores and rationales as a baseline for the fishery under assessment. Scores where not significantly different to the overlapping krill fisheries (see Table 4-2), in particular taking into consideration that the other fisheries were assessed agains FCR 1.3 while the Deris, S.A. Fishery is being assessed against FCR 2.0. Therefore, further coordinaton meetings were considered unnecessary. Table 4-2. Table comparing scores obtained by the 3 overlapping fisheries targeting krill

Deris Krill Rimfrost Aker Biomarine Antarctic Performance Indicator (PI) (under assessment) Antacrtic krill krill

1.1.1 Stock status 90 100 100

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 95 95 Harvest control rules 1.2.2 85 80 80 & tools Information & 1.2.3 90 80 80 monitoring Assessment of stock 1.2.4 100 85 85 status Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 95 90 90 framework Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 100 95 95 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100 100 Fishery specific 3.2.1 90 90 90 objectives Decision making 3.2.2 95 95 95 processes Compliance & 3.2.3 85 100 100 enforcement Monitoring & management 3.2.4 90 90 90 performance evaluation

Cumulative impacts In relation to Cumulative P2 approach, table GSA3 provides the following guidance: “ Teams should note that the ‘overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at different levels depending on which PI is evaluated. For P2 primary species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact of overlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species. For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be considered in cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total catch. For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC UoAs needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species . All of the requirements for cumulative impacts for species are applicable to their respective Outcome PIs. For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 70

marine ecosystems (VMEs) are managed such that the impact of all MSC UoAs does not cause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs.” Therefore, in the case of the assessed fishery: ° As there is no main primary species, there is no need to assess cumulative impacts on the Primary component. ° The only main secondary species are out-of-scope species that incidentally interact with the fishing gear. Despite these species do not match with the definition provided in the Guidance, and therefore there is no need to assess cumulative impacts on the Secondary component, the assessment team included impacts on these species from the overlapping fisheries when scoring PI2.2.1. ° As explained in PI2.3.1 assessed ETP species are subject to a limit of zero commercial catches (Extractive ban), but there is no limit set to incidental mortality. The assessment team included impacts on these species from the overlapping fisheries when scoring PI2.3.1 and assessed it against the cumulative impact regarding the limit on commercial catches. ° In relation to assess cumulative impacts on the management oVMEs, the assessed fishery does not interact with VMEs (as defined by CCMALR in CM 22-06 and CM 22-07), and this is also the case of the other two krill fisheries. However, both the toothfish and icefish mackerel fisheries interact with the seabottom and therefore, CCAMLR management measures in place for protecting benthic habitats and VMEs in particular where assessed and scored in PI2.4.2.

4.2. Previous assessments The assessed vessel only entered in the fishery in December 2017. Therefore, there was no chance for the client operations to be previously assessed. However, in 2016 the client had already assigned Bureau Veritas to perform a pre-assessment restricted to P3. The pre-assessment report (signed by Italo Campodonico and Macarena García) concluded that the fishery should comply with P3 Certification Requirements as likely scoring levels for each of the PIs was found to be ≥80.

4.3. Assessment Methodologies The fishery was assessed against Version 2.0 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (1 st October 2014). The assessment team used the default assessment tree (SA) without adjustments. The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 (issued by MSC on the 8th October 2014) was used as basis for this report.

4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visit The visit was organized with the assistance of Patricio Arana, a Chilean fisheries consultant with extensive experience hired by the client who help the assessment team before and during the site visit. The 3 members of the assessment team (Beatriz Roel, Italo Campodonico and José Ríos) took part in the site visit. BV identified and contacted the most relevant stakeholders in order to elaborate a comprehensive agenda for the site visit. Meetings were scheduled and carried out in Santiago de Chile and Valparaiso (Chile) between the 1 st and the 3 rd of August 2017. Also, in those cases where face to face meetings where not possible, conference calls were organized during the site visit. The resulting agenda, including institutions visited and people met, is presented in Table 4-3. This site visit was witnessed by ASI as part of BV evaluation performance in implementing the accredited certification system. The ASI auditor (Sergio Cansado) accompanied the assessment team at all times and took part as an observer in all activities developed during the site visit (meetings, conference calls, pre-scoring meeting). As part of the ASI audit an opening meeting with the BV team

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 71

was held on August 1, before starting the surveillance activities. Also, a closing meeting with the BV team was held on August 3, once the surveillance audit had finished. Table 4-3. Details of the interviews maintained during the site visit. BV team members participated in all meetings detailed below. The ASI auditor (Sergio Cansado) also participated in all meetings as observer. Patricio Arana (consultant hired by the client) took part in all meetings except skype meetings and the pre- scoring meeting hold on August 3 (previously the participants had been consulted for the convenience of his participation and their goodwill had been obtained) Date Time Venue Attendees Company/ Institution 12:00 – MINREL Julio Méndez MINREL 13:00 headquearters Macarena Quetzada 13:30 - El Cid Restaurant Enrique Gutierrez DERIS, S.A. Aug 1 14:45 (Santiago de Chile) 16:00- Conference via César Cárdenas INACH 17:00 Skype Anelio Guayo 17:00- Hollyday Inn Hotel Javier Arata IDEAL (UACH) 18:30 Aurora Guerrero 09:00- SUBPESCA Karin Mundnich SUBPESCA 10:30 headquarters Alejandro Karstegl Aug 2 12:00- SERNAPESCA Daniela Catalán (Valparaíso) SERNAPESCA 13:15 headquarters Fernando Naranjo 15:00- DIRECTEMAR Mª Olga Paredes DIRINMAR- 16:00 headquarters Uaxel Lindermann DIRECTEMAR 09:00- Conference via Chris Darby CEFAS 10:00 Skype Diego Almagro 10:00- BV team Aug 3 Hotel meeting BV (Valparaíso) 13:30 –pre-scoring meeting- room 14:00- Portofino Enrique Gutierrez DERIS, S.A. 15:30 Restaurant

4.4.2 Consultations The announcement of the fishery enterying the MSC assessment process was made publicly available at the MSC website on May 22, 2017. In addition, a comprehensive list of 26 stakeholders was elaborated with the assistance of the client. This list included national management and inspection bodies (SUBPESCA, SERNAPESCA, Chilean Foreign Affairs, Chilean Navy), national and international research centres (Universidad Austral de Chile, Instituto Antartico Chileno, CEFAS), and conservacionist NGOs (WWF-Chile, WWF-international, WWF- Norway, Oceana, Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, Animal Welfare Institute). After the announcement was released all these stakeholders were contacted via e-mail and were encouraged to participate in the site visit and also to provide feedback to the assessment team at any moment throughout the process. After fishery announcement was published BirdLife International (Marine Programme) contacted the CAB to be included in the stakeholders list for this fishery. No other comments were received. As described in previous section the assessment team performed a site visit to Santiago de Chile and Valparaíso which included meetings with relevant fisheries managers, scientists and client’s representatives (see Table 4-3). Feedback obtained from all the interviewed stakeholders allowed the team to collect information on different details of the fishing operations at sea (sampling, handling, storing, logbook records, catch composition), offloading, inspections at port, grading, selling (sales notes, invoices), transport, processing of the catches, observers program, scientific monitoring, and other relevant issues. Information collected was used to elaborate Section 3

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 72

(Description of the fishery) and Section 5 (Traceability), and also to evaluate and score the assessed fishery using the default tree (Annex SA) as shown in Section 6 (Evaluation Results). A closing meeting with the client was held before finishing the surveillance audit as required by ISO 19011. BV submitted a request to the MSC’s Peer Review College to assign peer reviewers to this assessment process. The College compiled a shortlist of 4 potential experts to undertake the peer review for the PRDR. Thist list, including a summary of the experience and qualifications of the reviewers was published at the MSC website on September 7, 2017. No comments were received during the consultation period. Due to the delay in the beginning of the fishing operations of the assessed vessel (see section xx for more details) the CAB opened a new 30-day stakeholder’s consultation period on the 26th of February 2018, in accordance with FCR 7.34. No new comments were received at this stage.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques The full assessment was publicly announced on 22nd May 2017 at the MSC website and supplemented by emailing a list of relevant stakeholders (see section 4.4.2 ). This was also the method used for consultation on subsequent steps (e.g. peer reviewers announcement,…). See Section 4.4.2 for a detailed list of all consultations that took place at different stages along the process. However, meetings and conference calls held during the site visit constituted the main tool in guaranteeing the participation of relevant stakeholders. Additionally, the assessment team has reviewed documents sent by the client (Confirmation Notification prepared to be sent to CCAMLR, contract with the scientific observer, layout of the processing plant on board, technical leafltes of the gear sensors on boards and birdsaver implemented on board,…), scientific literature, Chilean fishery and environmental regulations, and CCAMLR conservation measures, documents and methods (eg. Secretariat strategic plans, FSA and EMM annual meeting reports, CEMP standard methods, scientific observers manual, external peer review reports, CCAMLR Science volumes, CCAMLR fishery summary sent to the fishing vessels…) and papers developed by the WG-EMM and WG-FSA. Scoring was performed according to the procedure established in Certification Requirement 7.10 (MSC FCR v2.0). The assessment team held a preliminary scoring meeting during last day of the site visit where the Performance Indicators of the fishery were evaluated jointly by the team in order to assess whether there was still information needs to be communicated to the client. After the site visit, each expert got in charge of finishing its part of the report before proceeding to a joint evaluation of every PI and the pertaining scoring systems during 2 scoring meetings which took place via conference call on 27 th of March (devoted mainly for P1 and P3) and 6th of April 2018 (devoted mainly for P2).

The Deris, S.A. Antarctic krill fishery ACHIEVED a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and DID NOT SCORE less than 80 for ANY of the set MSC Criteria. The assessment team therefore recommends certification of this fishery for the client Deris, S.A. As only 1 indicator scored less than 80 there is 1 condition. Default performance indicators and the scores allocated in the evaluation are enclosed in section 6.2 .

The set of the species scoring elements considered in Principle 2 was already presented in Table 3-13 (species susceptible to interact with the UoC) and Table 3-14 (other ETP sea bird and marine mammals present in the area), its identification and classification was justified in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.5 .

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 73

4.4.4 Risk Based Framework The Risk Based Framework (RBF) is designed for use with the default assessment tree specifically with stock status PI in Principle 1 and outcome PIs in Principle 2 and was adopted by the MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data-deficient situations. There are sufficient data available to estimate stock status for Antarctic krill and the impact of the fishery on the different ecosystem components: primary species, secondary species, habitats and ecosystems. Therefore, the Antarctic krill fishery under assessment is not considered a data-deficient fishery and the use of the Risk Based Framework is not invoked in this assessment.

5 Traceability

5.1. Eligibility Date FCR 7.6.1 states that “The CAB shall nominate a date from which product from a certified fishery is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel (the eligibility date). This shall be either: (7.6.1.1) The date of certification of the fishery; or (7.6.1.2) The publication date of the first Public Draf Report” . For this fishery, in accordance with the client’s will, the elegibility data will be the certification of the fishery .

5.2. Traceability within the Fishery

5.2.1 Processing and final product description Once the krill gets on board the net is emptied and the catch is placed in a conveyor belt where two operators are in charge of removing fish individuals or any catch which can be identified as non-krill. Then, krill catches are washed, steamed at 153ºC, decanted, vacuum dried, cooled down to 17ºC, and finally packed and labelled in 20kg alluminiun bags. The final product obtained is full fat dried krill. See Figure 5-1 for pictures of the final packed product and details included in the label. The 20kg bags will be stored on board until they are placed in containers during its transshipment to a Chilean supply ship which will sail them to Punta Arenas for its landing before being exported. Figure 5-1. Final product packed in 20kg labelled aluminium bags (left), and detail of the information included in the labels (right)

5.3.1 Determination of risk associated to traceability factors prior to entering CoC In accordance to MSC requirements Table 5-1 includes a description of factors that may lead to risks of non-certified fish being mixed with certified fish prior to entering CoC. For each risk factor, there is a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the fishery, and if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 74

Table 5-1. Traceability Factors within the Fishery. Adapted from MSC template

Determination Description of the risk factor including traceability Traceability Factor (Relevant/Not systems in place and mitigation measures (if needed) relevant) The fishing vessel included in the UoC uses only conventional midwater trawls. Prior to the beginning of the fishing season the vessel shall notifity to the National Fishing Authorities and CCAMLR its intention to operate within the Convention area. This notification includes details of the gears to be used on board (see Section 3.1.1 for more details on the fishing gears used by the assessed vessel). These details are available for public consultation Potential for non- at the CCAMLR The risk associated to certified gear/s to be (https://www.ccamlr.org/en/node/97817). It is not this traceability factor used within the allowed for the vessel to use other fishing gears on board is considered to be fishery than those communicated to CCAMLR. NOT RELEVANT The vessel undergoes inspections by the Chilean compentent Authorities (SERNAPESCA, Navy, Customs and PDI) prior and after every fishing trip, as described in detail in Scoring table for PI 3.2.3. SERNAPESCA is the Authority responsible for inspecting the fishing gears on board. Once the vessel is at sea there is always an observer on board checking the normal development of fishing operations.

The annual fishing licence issued by CCAMLR details authorised areas. In the case of the assessed vessel the licence for 2017-2018 includes Subarea 48.1, 48.2, and 48.3. As explained in Section 3.5 and Scoring table for PI3.2.3 the vessel is being continuously monitored trough VMS by two Chilean competent Authorities: SERNAPESCA and DIRINMAR. Further, DIRINMAR also sends VMS data to CCAMLR for monitoring purposes. The Chilean regulations in relation to VMS are more demanding in terms of reporting frequency than those from CCAMLR Potential for vessels (position is sent every 15 minutes, while CCAMLR from the UoC to fish establishes a reporting frequency of 4h). Also, Chilean The risk associated to outside the UoC or in regulation obligues to come back to port immediately in this traceability factor different case of VMS failure. Therefore, the assessed vessel carries is considered to be geographical areas on board two VMS (one acting as a spare device in case NOT RELEVANT (on the same trips or the first one fails). Prior to every fishing trip SERNAPESCA different trips) inspects the functioning and seal fo the two VMSs on board. As explained in section 3.1.2 a Precautionary Catch Level and also a Trigger Level for krill catches is established for Area 48 by CCAMLR. Further, all geographical information related to fishing operations carried out during fishing trips is recorded in the electronic logbooks (and VMS) and reported to CCAMLR.

Potential for vessels As indicated in section 3.1.1 the list of authorised vessels The risk associated to outside of the UoC for fishing Antarctic krill in Area 48 along the current this traceability factor or client group season (1st Dec 2017 - 30th Nov 2018) includes 10 vessels is considered to be

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 75

fishing the same from 5 different countries. NOT RELEVANT stock However, different traceability systems in place in the fishery (mandatory catch reporting via electronic logbook, 100% observer coverage, mandatory notification of transhipments, assessed vessel’s transhipments and offloadings subject to 100% inspection by SERNAPESCA) plus other trading documents (sales notes, etc) ensure that there is no risk of mixing between certified and non- certified fish prior to subsequente CoC associated to this factor.

After processing on board (see next row for details on the Risks of mixing processing on board) the product is packed and labelled between certified in 20kg alluminium bags that are stored at the hold of the and non-certified fishing vessel and later transhipped to a Chilean supply catch during storage, The risk associated to ship in containers for its landing (normally at Punta transport, or this traceability factor Arenas, Chile). Every container has a unique identification handling activities is considered to be code and once loaded it is sealed (the seal is also (including transport NOT RELEVANT identified) following normal procedures. Further, trading at sea and on land, documentation (bill of lading, sales notes, …) is generated. points of landing, Further, the 20kg labelled bags ensure the traceability of and sales at auction) the product back to the origin.

In the case of the assessed vessel all processing activities are performed on board straight after the catch gets on Risks of mixing board. The different stages during processing are between certified presented in Section 5.2.1 . The final product obtained is and non-certified full fat dried krill. The risk associated to catch during this traceability factor processing activities There will be no other products being processed on is considered to be (at-sea and/or before board. The assessed vessel will be dedicated exclusively to NOT RELEVANT subsequent Chain of the krill fishery, and the factory is prepared for the above Custody) mentioned processes and no others will be possible. The entire production will be MSC certified, if and when certification is ultimately granted.

For some fisheries (including krill fishery) managed by CCAMLR, transhipment at sea is regulated through CM 10-09 (2011). This CM states that transhipments shall be notified at least with 72 hourse in advance if tranship items are harvested marine living resources, bait or fuel, and with 2 hours in advance for any other items. The notification must provide details identifying vessels involved in the operations, proposed time and position, Risks of mixing and type and amount of catches and other goods. A list The risk associated to between certified of the notifications received are available on the this traceability factor and non-certified password-protected part of the CCAMLR website for its is considered to be catch during consultation by the Contracting Parties. NOT RELEVANT transhipment Catches of the assessed vessel will be transhipped to the Chilean supply ship ‘Antarctic Warrior’. This supply ship will work exclusively for the ‘Antarctic Endeavour’ no catches from other trawlers targeting krill in the Area will be transhipped to the ‘Antarctic Warrior’. A total of 7-8 transhipments per year are expected (one transhipment at the end of every fishing trip). According to the client, proposed locations for the transhipments are presented

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 76

in Table 5-2. In any case, as established by the Chilean regulation, every offloading/transhipment will be audited by Chilean inspectors. These inspectors will be transferred from Punta Arenas to the transhipment position by plane or vessel. DIRECTEMAR is represented at Filde Bay. Further, several trading documents will be generated during at this stage (bill of lading, sales notes…) that can be used to trace the product. As described in previous row, at this stage the product to be transhipped consist of labelled 20kg alluminiun bags. Any other risks of substitution between fish from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from The CAB did not identify any other risk related to - outside this unit traceability different to those stated above (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody As described in previous sections, the product obtained on board will be full fat dried krill packed in 20kg labelled alluminiun bags. Those bags will be stored on board until they are placed in containers during its transshipment to the Chilean supply ship ‘Antartic Warrior’ which will sail them to Punta Arenas for its landing before being exported. Change of ownership to a party not covered by the fishery certificate may happen at this point or later at landing, depending on the circumstances of each trading operation. Therefore, in the case that change of ownership takes place during transhipment this stage and subsequent transport will require MSC CoC certification, otherwise the fishery certificate will cover transhipment, transportation until landing, and also storage in sealed containers until change of ownership takes place. Al list of eligible transshipment and landing points is presented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2. List of eligible points for transhipment and landing. Source: the client Type of operation Place Jurisdiction Filde Bay (Snow Island, South Shetland Islands) near the Chilean Antarctic base Administered under the Bahía Chile (Greenwich Island, South Shetland Antarctic Treaty System Transhipment Islands) Signy Island (South Orkneys) Cumberland Bay (South Georgia Islands), near King British Overseas Territory Edward Point Base Punta Arenas (mainly), Puerto Montt, Talcahuano, Chile Valparaíso Landing Bahía Blanca, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires Argentina Montevideo Uruguay Deris, S.A. is the only eligible Company to use the MSC fishery certificate and sell products as MSC certificated . However, the Company will no make use of the ecolabel as the 20kg bags of full fat dried krill produced are not a customer-facing product. This product need further processing to produce:

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 77

i. Manufactured nutritional ingredients and medical foods out of the lipids obtained from the krill ii. Feeds for aquaculture and pet food out of the resulting krill meal obtained as a sub- product. Two different meal products (with different prices) are obtained depending on the fat content (<7% or 7-10%). Therefore, all chemical companies with the capacity to elaborate the products described above are eligible to buy the fishery certificated products. Most of the fat dried krill produced is expected to be exported to Israel, although other markets such as EEUU, Canada, China or Japan are also within the scope of Deris, S.A.

The product caught by the UoC and processed according to the description above is eligible to be sold by Deris, S.A. as MSC certified and enter further certified CoC. CoC should commence following the first point of change of ownership which may happen during transhipment or landing, depending on the circumstances of each trading operation. There are no restrictions on the fully certified product entering further CoC. Deris, S.A. does not require its own CoC.

5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody As explained in Section 3.4.2, a negligible percentage of the the catches (around 0.1-0.2% in volume according to recent and extensive reviews made by CCAMLR, WG-EMM 14/31 and WG-FSA 16/04) is comprised by several fish and non-fish taxa which are caught together with the krill and due to their small size (modal size class of <10cm, similar to the krill length-frequency distribution) and low percentage is not commercially feasible to separate it from the krill catch. They can only be detected and identified through observer’s sampling. A total of 73 taxa (66 fish taxa, 2 mollusc taxa, 3 crustacean taxa, 1 salp taxa, and 1 jellyfish taxa) were identified and assessed under P2 (see Table 3-13 ). Only the mackerel icefish (C.gunnari) was assessed as Minor Primary species, while all the others were assessed as Minor Secondary species. No ETP species were found. Finally, the only stock which is certified separately (South Georgia icefish pelagic trawl) corresponds to the mackerel icefish in subarea 48.3 (it is considered to be a separate stock from the rest of the CCAMLR Area 48). Therefore, in accordance to FCR 7.4.13.1 (b, c,d,e) all those catches shall be recognized as IPI stocks, with the only exception to those corresponding to C.gunnari from subarea 48.3. Due to the high selectivity of the krill fishery (almost 100% of the catches are comprised by Antarctic krill), the very reduced volume of C.gunnari from 48.3 that will end up in the krill-based final products carrying the ecolabel, the impracticability of avoiding that fishing area or segregating the catches on board, together with the fact that according to the most recent reviews on the issue carried out by CCAMLR no concerns have been raised in relation to the impact on the fish bycatch in the krill fishery, Bureau Verita requested to MSC an exemption against FCR 7.4.13.1 (e), so mackerel icefish from subarea 48.3 can also be recognized as IPI. Further, as the catch proportion of IPI stocks is much lower than 2% and the total catch of IPI stocks by the UoA does not create a significant impact on the IPI stocks as a whole (see scaled-up estimated volumes for the most relevant fish species shown in Table 3-10 and rationales provided in scoring tables for PI2.1.1 and PI 2.2.1). Therefore, in accordance to FCR 7.4.14 Bureau Veritas submitted to MSC a variation request to the requirements section 7.4 to the MSC to allow products considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter chains of custody, with an exemption to the additional assessment requirements for IPI stocsk given in PA4.2. These variation requests were accepted by MSC on the 19th of June 2016, and published at the MSC website.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 78

6 Evaluation Results

6.1. Principle Level Scores Table 6-1: Final Principle Scores

Principle Score

Principle 1 – Target Species 89.2

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 90.3

Principle 3 – Management System 94.2

6.2. Summary of PI Level Scores Table 6-2. Final Performance Indicator Scores Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85

One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 85 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95

2.1.1 Outcome 80 Primary species 2.1.2 Management strategy 75 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 95

2.2.1 Outcome 100 Secondary species 2.2.2 Management strategy 85 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 85

2.3.1 Outcome 95 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 85 2.3.3 Information strategy 90

2.4.1 Outcome 100 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 100 2.4.3 Information 85

2.5.1 Outcome 100 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 95

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 95

Three Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 100 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 79

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90

3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 Fishery specific management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 85

3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 90

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 80

6.3. Summary of Conditions Table 6: Summary of Conditions

Related to Condition previously raised number Condition PI condition?

The client shall provide evidence that the strategy in place 1 to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of mackerel icefish 2.1.2 NO (Champsocephalus gunnari ) will work.

6.4. Recommendations Recommendation 1 . Although CM51-06 targets a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/20 fishing season, it is recommended the assessed vessel implements it since the beginning of its operations (December 2017), as stated by the client during the site visit. Recommendation 2 . Despite previous concerns in the non-reporting of fish bycatch in the C1 data, WG-FSA has recognized (WG-FSA16/04) recent improvements in the reporting of fish bycatches by the commercial fishery (C1 form). However, frequencies of occurrence shown in C1 form are normally much lower than those reported by observers. Therefore, it is recommended that the UoA pays special attention to provide a detail record of bycatches in the C1 form. Recommendation 3 . New measures have been implemented on board the UoA to reduce interactions with birds (a wireless net sounder and a laser bird scaring device). It is recommended that the observer on board the UoA devotes sufficient effort to monitor warp strikes and incidental mortality of birds in the gear, so their effectiveness can be properly evaluated. Recommendation 4. It is not unnoticed to the assessment team that F/V Antarctic Endeavour is a new vessel which is just beginning krill fishing operations, but draws the attention to the need that skipper and all crew members are well aware of the current conservation measures in relation to dumping or discarding and ensure their compliance. Recommendation 5. It is not unnoticed to the assessment team that F/V Antarctic Endeavour is a new vessel which is just beginning krill fishing operations, but make it clear that there is a need to have on board all the instruments and tools required to properly comply with the fishery regulations in relation to provide accurate estimations of the green weight of krill caught.

6.5. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified . (Reference: FCR 7.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 81

References Arana, P.M., Plaza, G., Arata, J., Alegría, N., Viquerat, S. 2016. Finfish distribution and abundance in Subareas 48.1 and 48.2, years 2016-2018. WG-SAM-16/19. 10 June 2016. Arana, P., Rolleri, R. 2017. Informe técnico: captura incidental de organismos marinos y mortalidad de aves y mamíferos marinos en la pesca de krill (Euphausia superba), en registros efectuados en el buque factoría “Betanzos” (2011 a 2016). Escuela de Ciencias del Mar. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Valparaíso, septiembre 2017. Unpublished report. Arata, J.A. and Santa-Cruz, F. 2015. Analysis of the scientific observer program on the krill fishery. WG-EMM-15/57 Rev.1. June 2015 Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. A., Jessopp, M. J. and Loeb, V. 2009. A re-appraisal of the total biomass and annual production of Antarctic krill. Deep Sea Research Part I : Oceanographic Research Papers , 56: 727–740. Baker, A. de C. 1954. The circumpolar continuity of Antarctic plankton species. Discovery Reports 27: 201–218. Basson, M. 1994. Towards a distribution of M/K for krill ( Euphausia superba ) required for the stochastic krill yield model. CCAMLR-WG-Krill. 94/11, 16. Bengtson, J.L. (1984) Review of Antarctic marine fauna. In Selected Papers Presented to the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, 1982±1984. Part I. CCAMLR, Hobart. pp. 1–126. BirdLife International. 2017. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017. For Fulmarus glacialoides: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T22697870A111241466.en; Pagodroma nívea: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22697885A93645553.en; For Daption capense http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T22697879A111828859.en; For Oceanites oceanicus: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22698436A93683179.en; For Halobaena caerulea: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22698102A93661554.en ; For Thalassoica Antarctica: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22697875A93644735.en; for Larus dominicanus: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22694329A93448691.en Butterworth, D. S. 1988. - Some aspects of the relation between Antarctic krill abundance and CPUE measures in the Japanese krill fishery. In: Selected Scientific Papers, 1988 (SC-CAMLRSSP/5), Part I. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia: 109–125. Butterworth, D. S., Gluckman, G. R., Thompson, R. B., Chalis, S., Hiramatsu, K. and D. J. Agnew. 1994. Further computations of the consequences of setting the annual krill catch limit to a fixed fraction of the estimate of krill biomass from a survey. CCAMLR Science 1: 81–106. CCAMLR. 2014 – Krill Fishery Report 2014. WG-EMM-14/58. CCAMLR, 2015. CCAMLR Symposium. Report of the Co-Chairs. 5-8 May, 2015-Santiago, Chile. 49p. CCAMLR. 2015b. – Krill Fishery Report 2015. WG-EMM-15/30 CCAMLR. 2016 – Krill Fishery Report 2016. WG-EMM-16/07. CCMALR. 2016b. Fishery Report 2016: Champsocephalus gunnari South Georgia (Subarea 48.3) CCAMLR, 2017. Fishery Report. Krill Fishery Report 2017. 34 p. CCAMLR, 2017 a. Report of the Thirty –Sixth Meeting of the Commission. Hobart, Australia 16-27 October 2017. 219 p. Collins, L.G., Hounslow, M.W., Allen, C.S., Hodgson, D.A., Pike, J., Karloukovski, V.V. (2012) Palaeomagnetic and biostratigraphic dating of marine sediments from the Scotia Sea, Antarctica:

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 82

First identification of the Laschamp excursion in the Southern Ocean. Quaternary Geochronology 7 (2012) 67-75. www.elsevier.com/locate/quageo Constable, A. J., and de la Mare, W. K. 1996. A generalised model for evaluating yield and the long- term status of fish stocks under conditions of uncertainty. CCAMLR Science 3: 31–54. Constable, A. J., and de la Mare, W. K. 2003. Generalised Yield Model, version 5.01b. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia. Constable A. J., de la Mare, W. K., Agnew, D. J., Everson, I., and Miller, D. 2000. Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 778–791 (doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0725). Constable, A.J., Doust, S. (2009) Southern Ocean Sentinel – an international program to assess climate change impacts on marine ecosystems: report of an international Workshop, Hobart, April 2009. ACE CRC, Commonwealth of Australia, and WWF-Australia Constable, A.J. 2011. Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementation of the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12: 138-151. Croxall, J.P., McCann, T.S., Prince, P.A. & Rothery, P. 1988. Variation in reproductive performance of seabirds and seals at South Georgia, 1976±1986 and its implications for Southern Ocean monitoring studies. In Antarctic Ocean and Resources Variability (D. Sahrhage, ed.), pp. 261–285. Springer, Berlin. Croxall, J.P. 1990. Uses of indices of predator status and performance in CCAMLR fishery management. In Selected Papers Presented to the Scientific Committee of CCAMLR, 1989, pp. 353–363. CCAMLR, Hobart. Cullis-Suzuki, S. y D. Pauly. 2010. Failing the high seas : A global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy 34(5): 1036-1042. de la Mare, W. K. 1994a. Estimating krill recruitment and its variability. CCAMLR Science 1: 55–69. de la Mare, W. K. 1994b. Modelling krill recruitment. CCAMLR Science 1: 49–54. DIRANTARTICA, 2017- Política Antártica Nacional 2017. LIII Consejo de Política Antártica. Santiago, 10 de enero de 2017. 10 p. Douglass LL, Turner J, Grantham HS, Kaiser S, Constable A, et al. (2014) A Hierarchical Classification of Benthic Biodiversity and Assessment of Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean. PLoSONE 9(7): e100551. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100551 Everson, I. 2000. Distribution and standing stock. In: Krill: Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. Everson, I. (ed.) Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 6. x + 372 pp. Everson, I. and C. Goss. 1991. Krill fishing activity in the southwest Atlantic. Antarctic Sci . 3: 351 - 58. Fielding, S., Watkins, J. L., Trathan, P. N., Enderlein, P., Waluda, C. M., Stowasser, G., Flores, H., Atkinson, A., Kawaguchi, S., Krafft, B. A., Milinevsky, G., Nicol, S., Reiss, C., Tarling, G. A., Werner, R., Bravo Rebolledo, E., Cirelli, V., Cuzin-Roudy, J., Fielding, S., Groeneveld, J. J., Haraldsson, M., Lombana, A., Marschoff, E., Meyer, B., Pakhomov, E. A., Rombolá, E., Schmidt, K., Siegel, V., Teschke, M., Tonkes, H., Toullec, J. Y., Trathan, P. N., Tremblay, N., Van de Putte, A. P., van Franeker, J. A. and T. Werner. 2012. Impact of climate change on Antarctic krill. Marine Ecology Progress Series 458: 1–19. Grant, M. S., Hill, S.L., Trathan P.N., & Murphy E.J. 2013. Review Ecosystem services of the Southern Ocean: trade offs in decision-making. Antarctic Science 25 (5): 603-617.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 83

Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. 2013. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area Management Plan. August 2013. Version 2.0:31/8/13 Hart, T.J. (1942) Phytoplankton periodicity in Antarctic surface waters. Discovery Reports , 21: 261– 356. Hill, S.L., Phillips, T., Atkinson, A. (2003) Potential climate change effects on the habitat of Antarctic krill. WG-EMM-13/20 Hinke JT, Cossio AM, Goebel ME, Reiss CS, Trivelpiece WZ, Watters GM (2017) Identifying Risk: Concurrent Overlap of the Antarctic Krill Fishery with Krill-Dependent Predators in the Scotia Sea. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0170132. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0170132 Hewitt, R. P., G. Watters, P. N. Trathan, J. P. Croxall, M. Goebel, D. Ramm, K. Reid, W. Z. Trivelpiece, and J. L. Watkins. 2004b. Options for allocating the precautionary catch limit of krill among small- scale management units in the Scotia Sea. CCAMLR Science 11:81–97. Hønneland, G. Revenga, L. and Payne, A. 2014. MSC Public Certification Report Aker Biomarine Antarctic Krill Fishery. Prepared by Food Certification International, Ltd. For Aker Biomarine Antarctic. Available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/aker-biomarine-antarctic- krill/@@view Hønneland, G.; Payne, A.; Revenga, L.; Bekkevold, S. 2015. MSC Public Certification Report. Olympic Seafood Antarctic Krill Fishery. Available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/rimfrost- antarctic-krill/@@assessments Hough, A., Andrews, J., Piling, G. South Georgia icefish pelagic trawl. MSC Public Certification Report. June 2016. Prepared y Acour for Polar Ltd. Available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/south-georgia-icefish-pelagic-trawl/@@view Hewitt, R.P., Watters, G., Trathan, P.N., Croxal, J.P., Goebel, M., Ramm, D., Reid, K., Trivelpiece, W.Z., & Watkins, J.L. 2004. Options for allocating the precautionary catch limit of krill among small-scale management units in the Scotia Sea. CCAMLR Science, 11: 81-97. Hill, S. L. and M. Cannon 2013. A potential feedback approach to ecosystem-based management: model predictive control of the Antarctic krill fishery. CCAMLR Science , Vol 20 (2013) Hill, S. L., Atkinson, A., Darby, C., Fielding, S., Krafft, B. A., Godo, O. R., Skaret, G. Trathan, P. N. and J. L. Watkins. 2016. Is current management of the Antarctic krill fishery in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean precautionary? CCAMLR Science, Vol 23 (2016): 31-51. Ichii, T. 1990. Distribution of Antarctic krill concentrations exploited by Japanese krill trawlers and minke whales. In Proceedings of the National Institute of Polar Research Symposium on Polar Biology 3, pp. 36–56. Ichii, T. 2000. Krill harvesting. In: Krill Biology, Ecology and Fisheries, Everson, I. (ed) Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 6. pp 228–261. Johnston, P., Santillo, D., Page, R., and Dorey, C. 2009. Gambling with krill fisheries in the Antarctic: large uncertainties equate with high risks. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 01/2009. 12 pp. Kasatkina, S.M. and Shnar, V.N. (2016) Some aspects of spatial–temporal variability of hydrodynamic water circulation and krill distribution in the Scotia Sea. WG-EMM-16/39 Kawaguchi, S., de la Mare, W.K., Ichii, T. and Naganobu, M. 1998. Do krill and salp compete? Contrary evidence from the krill fisheries. CCAMLR Sci . 5: 205–216.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 84

Kawaguchi, S., Ishida, A., King, R., Raymond, B., Waller, N., Constable, A., Nicol, S., Wakita, M., & A. Ishimatsu. 2010. Risk maps for Antarctic krill under projected Southern Ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change 3, 843-847 (doi:10.1038/nclimate1937). Kawaguchi, S. 2016. Reproduction and larval development in Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ), In: Siegel V. (ed) The Biology and Ecology of Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba Dana, 1850. Springer, Cham, pp 225–246. Kinzey, D., Watters, G., and Reiss, C. S. 2013. Effects of recruitment variability and natural mortality on generalised yield model predictions and the CCAMLR decision rules for Antarctic krill. CCAMLR Science 20: 81–96. Kinzey, D., Watters, G. M. and C.S. Reiss. 2015a. Selectivity and two biomass measures in an age- based assessment of Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ). Fisheries Research 168: 72–84. Kinzey, D., G.M. Watters, and C.S. Reiss. 2015b. Estimating future krill catches that meet the CCAMLR and alternative decision rules for FAO Subarea 48.1 using an integrated assessment model. WG-EMM-15/51. Knox GA. 2007. Biology of the Southern Ocean 2nd ed. CRC Press, London UK. 621 pp. Kock, K-H, 2000. Understanding CCAMLR’s Approach to Management. K-H Kock (ed). ResearchGate. Kock, K.-H. & C.D. Jones. 2012. The composition, abundance and reproductive characteristics ofdemersal fish fauna in the Elephant Island-South Shetland Islands region and at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula (CCAMLR Subarea 48.1 in March-early April 2012. WG-FSA-12/10: 43 pp. Krafft, B. A., Skaret, G., Krag, L. A., Trathan, P., and Ying, Y. 2013. Studies of Antarctic krill, krill predators and trawl gear at South Orkney Islands, 2013. Institute of Marine Research Report 8. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/04/hi_imr-report_no_8-2013_antarctic_krill.pdf/en Leape, G., Gascon, V., Werner, R., Pearl, A., and Fischer, M. 2009. Analysis on the eligibility of Aker BioMarine’s krill fishery operations for MSC certification rationale in regards to a number of the performance indicators that are not achieving the minimum SG 60 necessary for MSC certification. Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP), The Pew Environmental Group, Washington, DC. Unpublished document. Lu, B. and R. Wang. 1996. Further study on distribution mixture analysis and its application to age- groups analysis of Antarctic krill. Oceanologica et Limnologica Sinica 27, 179–186. Maguire, J., M. Sissenwine, J.Csirke, R. Grainger y S. Garcia. 2006. The state of world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fishery resources and associated species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. N° 495. 84p. Mangel, M., and Switzer, P. V. 1998. A model at the level of the foraging trop for the indirect effects of krill ( Euphausia superba ) fisheries on krill predators. Ecological Modelling 105: 235–256. Marr, J.W.S. 1962. The natural history and geography of the Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba Dana). Discovery Reports 32: 33–464. Miller, D. 2003. Krill Species Profile. Unpublished CCAMLR document, May 2003. CCAMLR, Hobart. Miller, D. G. M., and Hampton, I. 1989. Biology and ecology of the Antarctic krill. A review. Biomass 9. SCAR and SCOR, Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, UK. 166 pp. Miller, D. and D. Agnew 2000. Management of krill fisheries in the Southern Ocean. In: Krill: Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. Everson, I. (ed.) Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 6. pp 300 – 337.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 85

MINECON, 1991. Decree N° 430. Fija el Texto Refundido, Coordinado y Sistematizado de la Ley N° 18.892 de 1989 y sus modificaciones posteriores, Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. MINECON, 2005. Decree N° 360. Reglamento para aplicar el Acuerdo para Promover el Cumplimiento de las Medidas Internacionales de Conservación y Ordenación por los Buques Pesqueros que Pescan en Alta Mar. MINECON, 2005 a. Decree N° 267. Aprueba el Plan de Acción Nacional para Prevenir, Desalentar y Eliminar la Pesca Ilegal, No Declarada y No Reglamentada. MINECON, 2017. Decree N° 76-2015. Aprueba Reglamento del Dispositivo de Registro de Imágenes para Detectar y Registrar Descarte.(F.D.O. 18.03.2017) MINREL, 1981. Decree N° 662. Promulga la Convención sobre la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos Antárticos, suscrita en Canberra, Australia el 11 de Septiembre de 1980. MINREL, 1991. Decree N° 1579. Determina integrantes de la Sección Nacional de la Convención para la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos Antárticos y funciones que tendrá. MINREL, 2017. Decree N° 165. Modifica Decreto Supremo N° 1.579, de 1991, del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, que determina integrantes de la sección nacional de la convención para la conservación de los recursos vivos marinos antárticos y funciones que tendrá. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Reconstrucción. 1995. Decreto 135 Exento, por el que se modifica el DS Nº225 de 1995. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Reconstrucción. 2005. Decreto 225 Exento, por el que se establece veda para los recursos hidrobiológicos que indica. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Reconstrucción. 2008. LEY-20293. Protege a los cetáceos e introduce modificaciones a la Ley Nºº8892 General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Reconstrucción. 2008. Decreto 179. Establece prohibición de captura de especies de cetáceos que se indican en aguas de jurisdicción Nacional Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia, 2008. Ley N° 20.285 Sobre Acceso a la Información Pública. Murphy EJ, Watkins JL, Trathan PN, Reid K, Meredith MP, Thorpe SE, Johnston NM, Clarke A, Tarling GA, Collins MA, Forcada J, Shreeve RS, Atkinson A, Korb R, Whitehouse MJ, Ward P, Rodhouse PG, Enderlein P, Hirst AG, Martin AR, Hill SL, Staniland IJ, Pond DW, Briggs DR, Cunningham NJ, Fleming AH. 2007. Spatial and temporal operation of the Scotia Sea ecosystem: a review of largescale links in a krill centred food web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B- Biological Sciences 362: 113-148 Nicol, S. 2006. Krill, currents, and sea ice: Euphausia superba and its changing environment. BioScience 56: 111–120. Nicol, S., Pauly, T., Bindoff, N. L., Wright, S., Thiele, D., Hosie, G. W., Strutton, P. G. and E. Woehler. 2000. Ocean circulation off east Antarctica affects ecosystem structure and sea-ice extent. Nature 406, 504-507 (doi:10.1038/35020053). Nicol, S., Foster, J. And S. Kawaguchi. 2012. The fishery for Antarctic krill – recent developments. Fish and Fisheries 13 : 30-40. Niklitschek, E.J. & G. Skaret. 2016. Distribution, density and relative abundance of Antarctic krill estimated by maximum likelihood geostatistics on acoustic data collected during commercial fishing operations. WG-EMM-16/P12. 9p.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 86

Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover,D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell,S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, E., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little fish, Big impact: Managing a Crucial link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean program. Washington, DEC. 108 pp. Plaganyi, E. E. and D. S. Butterworth. 2012. The Scotia Sea krill fishery and its possible impacts on dependent predators: modeling localized depletion of prey. Ecological Applications, 22(3), 2012, pp. 748–761. Quiroz, J.C., R.Wiff, M.A. Barrientos & F. Contreras. 2011. Discriminación de variables ambientales que influencian la captura por unidad de esfuerzo: el caso de la pesquería de krill antártico. Lat.Am.J. Aquat.Res 39(1): 71-81. Raymond, B. 2011. A circumpolar pelagic regionalisation of the Southern Ocean. CCAMLR WS-MPA, Brest, France, 29 Aug–2 Sep 2011. Reid, K. 2016. An initial examination of using CPUE as a fishery performance index for the krill fishery, CCAMLR Secretariat 2016 – WG-EMM 16/10. Reiss, C. S. 2016. Age, growth, mortality, and recruitment of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba In: Siegel V. (ed) The Biology and Ecology of Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba Dana, 1850. Springer, Cham, pp 101–144. Reiss, C. S., Cossio, A. M., Loeb, V. and D. A. Demer 2008. Variations in the biomass of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) around the South Shetland Islands, 1996–2006. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol 65, Issue 4, 2008, pp 497–508. Reiss, C.S., Cossio, A., Jones, C.D., Murray, A., Mitchell, G., Santora, J., Dietrich, K. Weiss, E., Gimpel, C., Walsh J. and Watters, G.M. (2015) Winter habitat selection by Antarctic krill will increase krill- predatorfishery interactions during ice free years. WG-EMM-15/05 Rusin, J., Kinzey, D. and G. Watters. 2016. Independent peer review of an integrated stock assessment model for Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) conducted by the Center for Independent Experts. CCAMLR WG-SAM 16-37. Santa Cruz, F., B. Ernst, and J.A. Arata. 2016; Spatio –temporal dynamic of Antarctic Krill Fishery: Identification of fishing hotspots.WG-EMM-16/52. 16 p. SC-CAMLR. 1993. Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. CCAMLR, Hobart. 431 pp. SC-CAMLR 2010. Report of the Fifth Meting of the Subgroup on Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods. In: Report of the Twenty-ninth Meeting of the Scientific Committee -SC-CAMLR XXIX, Annex 5 CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia: 159-250 . Schmidt, K., and A. Atkinson. 2016 - Feeding and Food Processing in Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba Dana). In: Siegel V. (ed) The biology and ecology of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba Dana, 1850. Springer, Cham, pp 175–224. SERNAPESCA, 2017. Fiscalización en pesca y acuicultura.Informe de actividades del año 2016, 66 p. Shreeve RS, Collins MA, Tarling GA, Main CE, Ward P, Johnston NM. 2009. Feeding ecology of myctophid fi shes in the northern Scotia Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 386: 221–236 Siegel, V. 2000a. Krill (Euphausiacea) life history and aspects of population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(S3): 130–150. Siegel, V. 2000b. Krill (Euphausiacea) demography and variability in abundance and distribution. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 151–167. Siegel, V. and Loeb, V. 1995 - Recruitment of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba and possible causes for its variability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 123: 45–56.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 87

Siegel, V. and Nicol, V. 2000. Population parameters. In: Krill: Biology, Ecology and Fisheries. Everson, I. (ed.) Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 6. pp 103–149. Siegel, V. and Watkins, J. L. 2016 Distribution, biomass and demography of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba Dana. In: Siegel V. (ed) The Biology and Ecology of Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba Dana, 1850. Springer, Cham, pp 21–100. Skaret, G, Krafft, B.A., Calise, L, Watkins, J. Pedersen, R., Godø O.R. 2015. Evaluation of Antarctic krill biomass and distribution off the South Orkney Islands 2011–2015. WGEMM 15/54. Smith, A.D., C.J. Brown, C.M. Bulman, E.A. Fulton, P. Johnson, I.C. Kaplan, H. Lozano- Montes, S. Mackinson, M. Marzloff, L.J. Shannon, Y.-J. Shin and J. Tam. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science , 333 (6046): 1147–1150. Söffker, M. 2017 From CEMP to krill fishing: data collection, availability and spatial distribution in Subarea 48.1. WG-EMM-17/50 Rev1 Sokolov S, Rintoul SR. 2007. On the relationship between fronts of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and surface chlorophyll concentrations in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research- Oceans SUBPESCA, 2017. Resolución Exenta N° 1305. Autoriza a DERIS S.A. para realizar actividades extractivas en Alta Mar. SUBPESCA, 2017a. Resolución Exenta N° 3889. Aprueba las medidas de conservación adoptadas en la Comisión para la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos Antárticos. SUBPESCA, 2017b. Resolución Exenta N° 3984. Autoriza a DERIS S.A. para operar nave en área que indica. Tarling, G. & Murphy, E. J. 2014. Interannual variability in Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ) density at South Georgia, Southern Ocean: 1997–2013. WGEMM-14/P04. Trathan, P. N., Watkins, J. L., Murray, A. W. A., Brierley, A. S., Everson, I., Goss, C., Priddle, J., Reid, K., Ward, P., Hewitt, R., Demer, D., Naganobu, M., Kawaguchi, S., Sushin, V., Kasatkina, S. M., Hedley, S., Kim, S. and T. Pauly. 2001. The CCAMLR-2000 Krill Synoptic Survey: a description of the rationale and design. CCAMLR Science , 8: 1–23. Trathan, P.N., Gode, O.R. & Hill, S.L. 2015. Possible options for the future management of the Antarctic Krill fishery in Subarea 48.2. WG-EMM-15/10. Watters, G. M., Hill, S., Hinke, J. T., and Trathan, P. 2009. The risks of not deciding to allocate the precautionary krill catch limit among SSMUs and allowing uncontrolled expansion of the krill fishery up to the trigger level. WG-EMM-09/12. CCAMLR , Hobart. Watters, G. M., Hill, S., Hinke, J. T., Matthews, J. and K. Reid. 2013. Decision-making for ecosystem- based management: evaluating options for a krill fishery with an ecosystem dynamics model. Ecological Applications 23(4), 2013, pp 710-725. Watters, G.M., Hinke, J.T., & Reiss, C. 2016. A feedback management strategy for the krill fishery in Subarea 48.1. WG-EMM-16/48. WG EMM-13, 2013. Report of the Thirty Second Meeting of the Scientific Committee for the conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources. SC. CAMLR-XXXII /Annex 4 . WG EMM-14/31. Update on the analysis of fish by-catch in the krill fishery using data from the CCAMLR Scheme of Scientific Observation. 8 July 2014. Preliminary version of the report prepared by the CCAMLR Secretariat

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 88

WG EMM-15/42. Report of the Second International Workshop for identifying Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Domain 1 of CCAMLR (Palacion San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentica, 25 to 29 May 2015) WG-EMM-17, 2017. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (Buenos Aires, Argentina, 10 to 14 July 2017). Preliminary version of the WG-EMM-17 Report. 60 p. WG FSA-16/04. Fish by-catch in the krill fishery:2016 update. 13 September 2016. Prepared by the CCAMLR Secretariat

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 89

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL PI 1.1.1 A The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guidep It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of ost above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem impacts where serious ecosystem above the point where could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? Y Y Y Justific Antarctic krill is managed by limiting the catch taken by the fishery. The actual catch limit is ation set on the basis of sustainable yield estimated using the Generalised Yield Model (GYM). The estimate of yield is chosen so that the probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% of its median pre-exploitation level over a 20-year harvesting period is 10% (WG-EMM 2016). The 20% of pre-exploitation level is considered a limit reference point beyond which recruitment would be impaired. Recruitment failure in krill would result in serious ecosystem impacts given the crucial role that krill plays in the ecosystem. On this basis, and taking into account MSC table SA9, it is highly likely (≥80 th %ile) that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could arise. Moreover, a trigger level catch has been set by management at 11% of the precautionary catch limit (see Table 3-3 for TACs and trigger levels established in recent years), resulting in fishing subarea closure when approached closely. Although krill annual catches have been increasing slowly since the mid-1990s (see Figure 3-16 ), they are still well below the overall trigger level set by management (eg. For the 2015/2016 fishing season trigger level was established at 620,000 tonnes while catches amounted 225,646 tonnes). Further, despite meeting formal management requirements, Antarctic krill could have declined as a result of adverse environmental conditions and/or increase in natural predator populations. However, there is no evidence that the krill population has declined since the circumpolar survey was conducted in 2000 (Hill et al. 2016), when krill biomass was estimated to equate to virgin biomass. The authors base such conclusion on the basis of an analysis of three time-series of biomass indices from local krill monitoring programs (see Section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.,Table 3-5). This finding strongly supports the view that the stock is well above 20% of virgin biomass, the point where there could be serious ecosystem impacts, with a high degree of certainty. SG60, 80 and 100 are met . b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with ecosystem needs. been fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 90

Met? Y N Justific The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) was ation a pioneer in the development of what has become known as the ‘ecosystem approach’ to the regulation of fisheries. An ecosystem approach does not concentrate solely on the species fished, but also seeks to avoid situations in which fisheries have a significant adverse effect on ‘dependent and related species’. CCAMLR was one of the first bodies to account explicitly for the requirements of natural predators of the species being fished, by setting a target level for krill at 75% of the median pre-exploitation biomass (SC-CAMLR 1994).The implementation of the Generalised Yield Model predicts that if catches are kept below the catch limit the stock will fluctuate about the reference target level with high probability. Precautionary management is implemented, so catches have been kept below the overall trigger level, which is currently 11% of the catch limit. On this basis we conclude that the stock is above 75% B0 (considered the target), and that falling below this level would also result in ‘serious ecosystem impacts’ in that this could limit predators’ food supply. A time-series of subarea-specific estimates presented by Hill et al 2016, is shown in Section 3.3.2, Table 3-6 of this report, as evidence in support of the statements on overall low exploitation rates. Recent studies that evaluated the impact of the krill fishery on predators (Smith et al. 2011, Plaganyi and Butterworth 2012, Watters et al . 2013) indicate that such a target would satisfy ecosystem needs. However, krill catches could result in an appreciable ecosystem impact if they are concentrated in small localized areas that simultaneously serve as important foraging grounds for dependent predators. Hill et al . (2016) estimate a long-term exploitation rate (annual catch divided by biomass) of <6% for the period 1996- 2014, which is below the 9.3% level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and to support krill predators. The actual exploitation rate in each subarea has remained <3%, suggesting that management is precautionary at the subarea level. SG80 is met . However, results presented by Hill et al (2016) are cautious extrapolations of the regional krill biomass in recent years based on local-scale monitoring programs established in three of the subareas to monitor krill biomass in survey grids covering 10,000 and 125,000km 2. The authors remark that finer-scale management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts which might arise as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas or climate change. Frequent assessment of the krill stock will enhance CCAMLR’s ability to manage these risks. Continuing the local monitoring programs will provide valuable information on krill variability, but more information is required on how the monitored biomass relates to biomass at the subarea. SG100 is not met . Butterworth (1988); WG-EMM 2015, 2016, 2017 (draft); Constable and de la Mare (1996); References Hill et al (2016); Plaganyi and Butterworth (2012); SC-CAMLR (1994); Smith et al (2011); Watters et al. (2013); Kock (2000) Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point Reference point used in scoring ≤10% probability of the 60,296,425/B 20% = 5 stock relative spawning biomass NOTE: Current biomass value to ecosystem dropping below 20% of 12,060,000 t corresponds to latest review impairment its median pre- performed in 2010 based on the (SIa) explotation level (B 0) 2000 circumpolar survey Reference point used in scoring Median escapement at stock relative the end of a 20-year 45,225,000 t 60,296,425/B 75% = 1.33 to ecosystem exploitation period is needs (SIb) 75% of B 0

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 91

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 92

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

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

Met? NA NA Justific Teams shall only score this PI when Stock Status PI 1.1.1 does not achieve an 80 score ation (SA2.3.1). b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost 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 simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified modelling, exploitation based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA Justific Teams shall only score this PI when Stock Status PI 1.1.1 does not achieve an 80 score ation (SA2.3.1) References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 93

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 Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 A SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 A SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 A SG80. Met? Y Y N Justific The main elements that constitute a harvest strategy are the management objectives and ation the tools designed to achieve those objectives. In the case of krill, the objectives are set out in Article II of the Convention and the tools implemented are the catch limits, area closures, enforcement of collection and reporting of catches, the observers-on-board scheme, data review by the Scientific Committee and monitoring of the environmental parameters (CEMP). The fundamental management objectives of CCAMLR are, as stated above, set out in Article II of the Convention. From the outset, the ecological importance of krill as a key species in the Antarctic marine ecosystem, and the consequent need to manage krill stocks in such a way as to minimise potential ecological risks to both krill and its predators was recognised. CCAMLR was the first international fisheries organisation to assume explicitly both precautionary and ecosystem approaches as basic management principles. Although CCAMLR’s role has focused on conservation, the Commission is also tasked with allowing the development of fisheries in the Convention Area. Therefore, although protection of krill-dependent predators needs to be implemented at critical times and in specific areas, it is deemed that such protection should not exert unnecessary, or unreasonable, restriction on the fishery (SC-CCMLR 1993). Given the dynamics of the krill stock, the stock boundaries are recognised relative to Subareas. The management areas currently in place (Subareas 48.1–48.6) are based on CCAMLR’s precautionary management regime for krill, given that is unlikely that krill move extensively between smaller areas and taking into account the oceanography of the whole Convention Area. The primary controls on the krill fishery remain catch limits, and CCAMLR does not set MSY as a target, because sustainable harvesting levels would most certainly be well below a single-species krill MSY. The precautionary catch limits (PCL) are set in accordance with estimates of potential yield. Although that estimate does not take into account the potential effects of harvesting krill on its dependent predators, the harvest control rule does (see PI 1.2.2 below). SG60 is met. Conservation measure CM 51-01 (2010) requires that although the total combined catch of krill in Subareas 48.1–48.4 be limited to 5.61 million tonnes in any fishing season, the total combined catch shall be further limited to 620,000 t per fishing season. That value is the so-called trigger level applied currently. The measure goes on to recognize that large catches up to the trigger level from areas smaller than the subareas (i.e. SSMUS WG-EMM- 14/58) be avoided, and that distribution of that trigger level should provide for flexibility in the location of fishing. Hence, according to CM 51-07, no more than 25% of the trigger level catch can be taken from Subarea 48.1 annually (155 000 t), 45% from each of 48.2

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 94

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place and 48.3 (279 000 t each), and 15% from 48.4 (93 000 t). Those percentages clearly add up to >100% and the trigger catches to >620,000 t, but because of the dynamics of fleet activity, it does not happen for more than one Subarea trigger to be reached at a time (in one year). The aim of the measures is of course to protect the local availability of food (krill) for predators. Watters et al . (2009) state that the overall management objectives may not be achieved if annual catches are made at the trigger level before smaller-area quotas are put in place. However, the establishment of the subarea trigger levels and their implementation through CM 51-07 (2016) has ensured that such a situation does not and is unlikely to arise. In fact, 48.1 was closed before the end of the season in seasons 2014 to 2017 (WG- EMM-17 preliminary Report) as reported catches were approaching the trigger level. Therefore, area closures and the trigger levels are elements of the harvest strategy that work together both to protect the stock as a whole, as the trigger level is well below the precautionary catch limit and, to prevent krill local depletion that could be detrimental to its predators. Thus achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 A SG80 is met . It is noted, however, that CCAMLR is aiming to develop a feedback approach to support ecosystem-based management of the Antactic krill fisheries. Recent scientific studies have suggested that feedback management is both feasible and a more-effective way to achieve the multiple objectives enshrined in the CCAMLR management objectives than the internationally traditional method of establishing fixed limits on catch. In CCAMLR, such an approach is still at a developmental stage, so at this point in time it is not possible to state unequivocably that the strategy is designed to achieve the stock management objectives of the fishery, mitigating SG100 being met . b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and argument. 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 Justific The harvest strategy has been tested by simulation using the GYM model. Recent ation investigations (Hill et al, 2016), based on cautious extrapolations of local surveys, show that there has been no decline in krill abundance in recent decades. This suggests that fishing at the trigger level would be equivalent to a long-term exploitation rate (annual catch divided by biomass) of <7%, less than the 9.3% level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock above target and to support krill predators. SG60 and 80 are met . However, the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. SG100 is not met c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 95

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justific Reporting of catch and effort is on a monthly basis. However, reporting is required on a ation five-day basis when the reported catch has exceeded 80% of the catch limit in a management subarea. Management on this basis requires close monitoring of compliance, and a robust programme for systematic and mainly country-independent observer coverage in the krill fishery was first implemented in 2010 (CM-51-06). Since then, a large proportion of the vessels participating in the fishery have carried observers on board, many for 100% of the time they are operating. The development of the observer scheme has allowed greater specification of data requirements too, to include data on length composition, sex and maturity stage, fish by-catch and the collection of acoustic data for krill. Monitoring by-catch, incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals is an ongoing issue for CCAMLR, and detailed information on fish by-catch reported from the krill fishery, including frequency of occurrence and taxonomic composition, is provided. Further, the Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP) keeps track of the impact of the krill fisheries on the ecosystem components, penguins in particular, which are apparently very sensitive to local depletion of krill. SG60 is met. d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justific CCAMLR strategy is to manage any expansion of the krill fishery in accord with its own ation management objectives (WG-EMM-08/46). Its primary controls remain catch limits, which are enforced by in-season monitoring of the uptake and area closures when those limits are reached. Precautionary catch limits on the krill fishery were first introduced by CCAMLR in 1991 and now cover much of the potential and actual fishing grounds in the CCAMLR Area. Each subarea has also had its own catch limit since 2009. These catch limits are under constant review and have been updated by CCAMLR on the basis of new information, particularly from large-scale scientific surveys (Hill et al. 2016). The annual meeting of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) examines all aspects related to management of the krill fishery in light of the most recent data and research developments. For example, the Scientific Observer Scheme, which is key in the framework to implement CCAMLR management objectives, is now in transition to mandatory 100% coverage by 2020 as a result of discussions and periodic review of the Scheme at WG-EMM. In 2003, CCAMLR agreed to the definition of a suite of small-scale management units (SSMUs) in area 48 that are based on the distribution of krill, its predators and the fishery, but no agreement on the allocation of catches to SSMUs has yet been reached. Overall, the harvest strategy is reviewed annually and modified accordingly when deemed necessary. SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific In accordance with SA2.4.3 this SI shall be scored when the target species is a shark. As the ation target species of the assessed fishery is not a shark species this Scoring issue is not scored f Review of alternative measures

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 96

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. of the target stock and they of the target stock, and they are implemented as are implemented, as

appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific In principle, no unwanted catches of the target stock (all the krill caught is processed on ation board) are anticipated therefore, this Scoring issue is not relevant. However, the first fishing report of the UofA records discard of the target stock under circumstances of malfunction of the vessel infrastructure during its first fishing trip. This resulted in decomposition of the target species which required disposal. The vessel is carrying an observer on board that would report any practice that could result in unwanted catch (as it was the case).

References CCAMLR 2011; WG-EMM-17; Hill & Cannon (2013); Hill et al 2016; Miller & Agnew (2000); Nicolet al (2012); Watters et al. (2009) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 97

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating that are expected to reduce exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level the exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y Justific Based on the krill stock assessment model, CCAMLR agreed to the current Precautionary ation Catch Limit (PCL) for krill of 5.61 million tonnes per season in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4 combined (CM 51-01 (2010)). The catch limit was based on an unexploited biomass (B 0) estimate of 60.3 million tonnes with a survey CV of 12.8% and a fraction of the population referred to as γ (gamma), estimated using the Generalised Yield Model (GYM). The two rules used to determine the PCL are the recruitment or threshold criterion (rule 1) that effectively includes a limit reference point of a general overfishing threshold equal to 20% of B 0, and the predator or escapement criterion (rule 2), which is a target reference point for spawning biomass equal to 75% of the pre-exploitation level (see Section 3.3.2 – HCRs for a full specification of the rules). Harvest Control Rules for a full specification of the rules). Together, they are well-defined and address Convention Article II objectives 3a and 3b. Further, the 20-year period relates to Convention objective 3c that allows for integration of expanding exploitation with sustainability and precaution, so is good management practice. The fishery has the potential to be spatially restricted, so could result in localised, possibly negative, ecosystem impacts. Acknowledging this risk, CCAMLR (CM 51/07, 2014 and 2016) introduced a trigger level of 620,000 t above which fishing activity cannot proceed. Further, that trigger level has been subdivided so that catches in any one season may not exceed 25% (155 000 t) of the trigger level in Subarea 48.1, 45% ( 279 000 t) in Subareas 48.2 and 48.3, or 15% (93 000 t) in Subarea 48.4. Although these percentages sum to >100% and the associated subarea trigger catches sum to >620 000 t, management experience has shown clearly that halting fishing in one subarea when its catches approach its trigger level virtually stops fishing anywhere in the management area, so the overall trigger level has yet to be reached. Notwithstanding, the precautionary catch trigger level in place (overall and for subareas) precludes the decision rule that results in the PCL having any practical effect on management and catches until small-scale management units (SSMUs) are accepted formally and then applied. The overall trigger level of 620 000 t is almost 100 000 t above the historical maximum annual catch in Area 48 (528 201 t in 1981/82; WG-EMM-14/58). However, the overall trigger level is just 11% of the PCL, meaning that the exploitation rate cannot approach either target or limit reference point; this system will remain in place until quotas for SSMUs are decided by CCAMLR and implemented. Management of Antarctic krill is therefore extremely conservative and, based on simulations, the rules implemented are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 98

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place consistent with B75%, which is appropriate taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. The implementation of SSMU quotas is still deemed by the Commission to be necessary to render the management procedure fully consistent with ecosystem requirements (Article II of the Convention), but although in 2000 the Commission estimated development of SSMU quotas would take 5–10 years, the practical issues of reporting, observer coverage, etc, still need to be dealt with before such a system becomes feasible. In summary, the two rules used to determine the PCL coupled with the establishment of trigger catch levels by subarea together constitute well-defined HCRs that exist in written form and have been agreed unanimously by the management agency, CCAMLR. SG60 is met.

Moreover, simulation testing has shown that the stock is likely to fluctuate above B MSY

given the 75% B 0 target, which is explicit in the HCRs implemented and is consistent with the outcomes measured in PI 1.1.1. SG80 and SG 100 are met b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main 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 Justific Although the assessment takes into account parameter uncertainty in the fishery and the ation ecosystem as well as model uncertainty (to the extent that different models have been developed and evaluated), it has been suggested that underestimation of uncertainty in key parameters of GYM may result in catch limits that are not precautionary. However, the total precautionary catch limit of 5.61 million tonnes per season for Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 combined is more than 25 times the current catch, catering adequately for uncertainty in catch levels for at least the immediate future. Moreover, the overall trigger level of 620,000 t above which the fishery cannot proceed represents 11% of the catch limit, so it is likely that HCRs are robust to uncertainties associated to the development of the fishery. SG60 is met . Uncertainties associated with, for example, variations attributable to climate change and the associated oceanography are not covered explicitly when testing the HCRs.Another source of uncertainty is the potential impact on krill of the increase in population numbers of some whale stocks which has not been quantified yet. Hence, it is possible that the HCRs are not robust to all the main uncertainties relevant for the management of Antarctic krill so SG100 is not met . c HCRs evaluation Guidep Evidence clearly shows that There is some evidence that Available evidence ost the tools in use are effective tools used or available to indicates that the tools in in achieving the exploitation implement HCRs are use are appropriate and levels required under the appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the HCRs. controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justific The management system, closing subareas once the trigger level catch is reached, requires

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 99

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place ation accurate and efficient catch reporting. In recent years, individual subareas were closed before the end of the season as a result of their individual trigger level being caught. Such ability to implement area closures swiftly indicates that the catch reporting system is effective and management control is good. SG60 and 80 are met . However, there is some concern about the inconsistency in the way the quantum of krill removed from the ecosystem is being recorded. In order to progress analyses of uncertainty in green weight, the specific details of the method used for estimating catch on all krill vessels is included in the notification process. This issue remains a consideration. Given these potential small inconsistencies in recording removals, and although annual catch is always well below the PCL, the tools in use appear not fully effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs; on this basis SG 80 is met but SG100 is not . References Johnston et al. (2009); Kinzey et al. (2013); Leape et al. (2009). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 100

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 Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such

as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justific CCAMLR collects data to follow as closely as possible the development of exploited stocks ation and newly developing fisheries. It also develops models to deal specifically with uncertainty in data collection.The information on krill fleet composition and activity is as good as or better than those in place for many certified fisheries around the world, including the notification system, the extensive use of VMS, observers, logsheets and (potentially) licensing information from the GSGSSI (Government of South Georgia and South Sandwic Islands); the reporting system is highly responsive, providing accurate and immediate data on fleet distribution. The estimated standing stock of krill in Area 48 is based on the CCAMLR-2000 Survey (Trathan et al. 2001), an estimate that has been revised over the years on the basis of methodological improvement in the processing and analysis of acoustic data (SC-CCAMLR-XXIX, Annex 5, paragraphs 2.40 to 2.44), specifically referring to target strength. The implementation of the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) has resulted in a programme for systematic observer coverage in the krill fishery (CM 51- 06). Scientific observers collect length, sex and maturity stage samples, fish by-catch and the collection of acoustic data on krill required for research on krill biology, ecology and distribution. WG-EMM 17 reports on a review of information available to be used as input to the krill risk assessment that has been used to provide management advice. The review identifies gaps in the available data, particularly in areas of overlap of the fishery and krill predators, and where information on predators is lacking. The Scientific Committee has requested that the development of the datasets continue. Analyses carried out recently have shown that fishing vessel data can be used to evaluate the dynamics of krill and vessels behaving as predators. Moreover, data from acoustic moorings could be used to advance interpretation of seasonal patterns. Laboratory and field studies on the age, growth, mortality and recruitment dynamics of Antarctic krill have greatly increased the knowledge of its life history over the past 30 years and although there are still areas that need further research the existing knowledgy on krill productivity is considered sufficient to support the harvest strategy (form more details see Section 3.3.1 –krill growth-) Antarctic krill is assessed and managed as a single stock. Although it is possible that it consists of several stocks, to date, formal stock distinction by any means, including genetrics (Siegel 2000b), has not been proven. CCAMLR monitors selected dependent species in CEMP (CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 101

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Programme) as part of its ecosystem approach. This programme has two broad aims: to detect and record significant changes in critical components of the ecosystem in order to provide information for conserving Antarctic marine living resources; and to distinguish between changes attributable to the harvesting of commercial species and changes attributable to environmental variability, both physical and biological. For these purposes, selected species in a few key areas and the parameters that were most likely to reflect changes in the ecosystem and the availability of harvested species, especially krill, are monitored. In addition, other environmental parameters, such as hydrographic and sea-ice cover information, were selected to monitor trends in the physical environment. Monitoring prey species and measuring environmental parameters and the links between these and predators helps to distinguish between changes attributable to harvesting and changes attributable to environmental variability. SG 60 and 80 are met . To conclude, there is no doubt that a comprehensive range of information, including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. However, there are still gaps about the krill stock structure and predator-fishery overlap data and, although they have been identified by WG-EMM and plans are in place to collect the relevant information, a full mark cannot be awarded to this PI at this point in time. Also, it must be taken into account that the difficulty to carry out a complete circumpolar survey (the latest was performed in 2000) is restricting the accuracy of the stock assessment. SG100 is not met . b Monitoring Guidep Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by ost removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest degree of certainty, and support the harvest control control rule , and one or there is a good rule. more indicators are understanding of inherent available and monitored uncertainties in the with sufficient frequency to information [data] and the support the harvest control robustness of assessment rule. and management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justific The Antarctic krill fishery is managed by enforcing precautionary annual catch limits. ation Moreover, in recognition of the risk of localized depletion that would have a negative ecosystem impact, much lower catch limits that trigger management action when taken have been implemented (trigger level). These types of control require a robust catch and effort reporting system which in the krill fishery is on a monthly basis until the reported catch in a management area reaches 80% of the catch limit. Where the reported catch exceeds 80%, then five-day catch and effort reporting is required. For an area where the five-day reporting requirement has been triggered in a season, then in all subsequent seasons the change from monthly to five-day reporting occurs when the catch reaches 50% of the catch limit. SG60 and 80 are met. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty. Also, there is good understanding of the uncertainties in the data and the robustness of the assessment and the underlying rationale that led to the implementation of precautionary trigger levels. SG100 is met . c Comprehensiveness of information

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 102

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justific There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. This is because ation practically the great majority of the catch is taken from the target area specified for the UoC fishery, with very little or no krill annually being caught in adjacent areas and none from outside the CCAMLR area, so all removals are well documented. Krill catches are virtually clean, with few other fish species being taken (see P2 scoring beneath). Finally, there are no incentives to misreport in the krill fishery. References CCAMLR 2017; SC-CAMLR 2010; Siegel (2000); CCAMLR WG-EMM-16/07 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 103

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 Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y N Justific The Antarctic krill biomass was assessed by means of a circumpolar biomass survey ation conducted in 2000. The CCAMLR-2000 survey was revised in 2010 on the basis of methodological improvements in the processing and analysis of acoustic data (WG-EMM 16/07). The Scientific Committee agreed in 2010 that the best estimate of krill biomass during the CCAMLR-2000 Survey was 60.3 million tonnes. The overall annual catch limit has changed from an initial 4.0 million tonnes in 2000 to 5.61 million tonnes in 2010, to take account of developments in the way in which acoustic data are processed (SC-CAMLR 2010). Localised surveys have taken place since 1996 and biomass indices have been computed by subarea on an annual basis. For instance, Kinzey et al (2015) provide biomass estimates for the local krill monitoring program in subaea 48.1 based on krill catches in scientific nets in addition to estimates based on acoustic data. None of the published numerical density and biomass time-series for krill show a decline since 2000. In addition, exploitation rates (catch metric divided by conservative biomass estimate for each subarea) are low ( 3%) compared to benchmarks for fisheries management in general and the krill stock in particular, suggesting that the stock is at present underexploited. The assessment is appropriate for the stock. No other synoptic survey has been conducted since 2000 given the enormous cost of such a survey. However, the appropriateness of the assessment needs to be considered in the context of a target stock distributed over a total area over 3.5 million km 2, which means that a synoptic survey is a major international effort. Therefore, a repeat synoptic survey is unlikely in the current economic climate (Hill et al. 2016). Moreover, given the implementation of a highly precautionary trigger level, the biomass estimate from the CCAMLR-2000 survey does not currently influence the total amount that the fishery is allowed to catch taking away the urgency in repeating such a survey. Further, the harvest control rules were developed based on the results from the Generalised Yield Model that uses the CCAMLR-2000 surveys as input data. The assessment is appropriate for the harvest control rule

Further, the use of fishery data such as catch per unit effort, to obtain indices of stock abundance has been investigated (see Section 3.3.2 -Biomass estimates- for detail and references for detail and references) and there is evidence that there is some relationship between the performance of the fishery and krill abundance. Fishing vessels are able to collect acoustic information during normal operations and fisheries observers already collect information on krill size, sex and reproductive status (Hill et al. 2016). SG80 is met . Biomass indices from local krill monitoring programmes show no evidence of a decline since the CCAMLR-2000 survey. However, those time-series are noisy and it is difficult to

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 104

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status separate systematic change from natural variability. Also, the relationship between local biomass indices and biomass of the whole stock is unknown. Most long-term studies indicate significant variability in krill biomass and abundance at various spatial scales (Fielding et al . 2014, Kinzey et al . 2015). It is unclear how the observed variability relates to variability at the scale of the CCAMLR-2000 survey area. However, and because of this uncertainty, it might be difficult to distinguish the effects on biomass or abundance indices of changes in the size of the whole stock vs. shifts in distribution. Nonetheless, there is increasing evidence that observed changes are linked to environmental factors, including sea-ice extent and climate fluctuations. With such variability, the single estimate from the CCAMLR-2000 survey is an uncertain representation of the stock biomass. Moreover, although none of the published krill numerical density and biomass time-series show a decline in krill biomass since 2000 (Hill et al . 2016), the absence of an up-to-date survey assessment of overall biomass is a concern. Recent work has highlighted that the GYM should be populated with better information on krill recruitment variability and natural mortality, in order to evaluate the impact of increasing catches in Area 48 in the event that they were to exceed the trigger level. However, total annual catch continues to be well below the trigger level, so potential shortcomings in the GYM may not be a source of concern at this point of development of the fishery. The development of an integrated stock assessment model intended to make use of multiple data sources such as the fishery, scientific surveys and krill predators, is the object of ongoing work by the CCAMLR’s Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM). SG100 is not met. b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justific The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points: 20% of its pre- ation fishing median level, called the threshold, depletion or recruitment limit reference point, and 75% of the unfished median spawning biomass (B0 ), the target or escapement target reference point. The conservation criteria used to estimate reference points have been set on the basis of general population dynamics considerations that are appropriate for the species category. The estimation of reference levels is based on data from the CCAMLR- 2000 Krill Synoptic Survey of Area 48 which provided data to estimate krill biomass in Subareas 48.1–48.4. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into ost major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justific A precautionary exploitation rate is estimated by means of the Generalised Yield model

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 105

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status ation (GYM). It represents the maximum proportion of B0 that model projections suggest can be taken each season while ensuring that the conservation criteria for the krill stock are met. Precautionary catch limits for krill are calculated probabilistically using Monte Carlo integration. The model incorporates natural variability in recruitment and uncertainty in growth, natural mortality and abundance. Therefore, the simulation model is used to calculate a distribution of possible population sizes both in the absence of fishing and at various fishing mortalities. The assessment therefore takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justific The assessment, based on the CCAMLR-2000 survey, has been tested and shown to be ation robust. Since that fulkly synoptic survey, several local-scale krill monoring programmes that provide annual estimates of krill biomass in smaller areas have been undertaken (Kinzey et al. 2015, Fielding et al. 2014). These programmes provide valuable information on interannual variability in krill biomass at a relatively small spatial scale. The study of Hill et al. (2016) demonstrates that these monitoring programmes are useful for the provision of management advice. Further, analyses of catch per unit effort and acoustic information from fishing vessels offer potential insights into krill stock dynamics. There is also ongoing work within CCAMLR WG-EMM to develop an integrated stock assessment model intended to make use of multiple data sources and to provide an alternative to synoptic surveys as a means of assessing krill stock status. SG100 is met. Further to these considerations, it needs to be reiterated that it is the trigger level, rather than the precautionary catch limit, that is currently the effective catch limit for the fishery. The biomass estimate from the CCAMLR-2000 survey does not have an impact on the current allowable catch. Moreover, the exploitation rates associated with current catches (≤3%) are low relative to benchmarks generally accepted in good fisheries management and the stock is therefiore considered underexploited. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justific Both the CCAMLR-2000 survey methodology and results and the Generalised Yield Model ation have been the published in the peer-reviewed literature (Constable and de la Mare 1996, Constable et al. 2000, Reiss et al. 2008). Likewise, work towards developing a feedback approach to ecosystem-based management has been published in peer-reviewed literature (Hill and Cannon 2013). Results from localized surveys and their implications for management are routinely presented to CCAMLR SG-ASAM (Subgroup on Acoustics, Survey and Analysis Methods), where they are subjected to thorough peer review. In 2015 a review of an integrated stock assessment method (Kinzey et al. 2015a and 2015b) which is intended to advance development of a

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 106

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status feedback management strategy in Subarea 48.1 was requested by the US Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division (AERD). Thus, external (independent of CCAMLR) peer review of the assessment does take place in the process of publication in the peer review literature and as a result of sporadic initiatives, but most of the annual review is through the CCAMLR WG system, where highly skilled stock assessment scientists from several countries meet annually to present and review recent scientific work. SG80 and SG100 are met.

Constable & de la Mare, W. K. (2003); Fielding et al (2014); Hill & Cannon (2013); Hill et al References (2016); Kinzey et al (2015a); Kinzey et al (2015a); Nicol et al (2012), Reiss et al 2008; Rusing et al 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 107

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guidep Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI species are above the PRI

and are fluctuating around

OR a level consistent with MSY. OR

If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the in place that are expected PRI, there is either evidence to ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 present all P2 species scoring elements considered in this ation assessment, including its assignment to the P2 species categories provided by MSC (‘Primary/Secondary/ETP’ and ‘Main/Minor’). Among a total of 106 scoring elements, the assessment team found that only the mackerel icefish ( Champsocephalus gunnari ) can be considered as ‘Primary’, as this is the only species managed based on biological reference points (see section 3.4.3 for more details). The following studies show that catches of this species are negligible, despite of being one of the taxa accounting for higher weight among incidental catches: ° Observer’s data on board the f/v Betanzos found this species to account for 0.04% of the total weight of the samples taken between 2011 and 2016 (Arana & Rolleri 2017). ° MRAG analysed all observers data collected on board the f/v Antarctic Sea and f/v Saga Saga between 2007 and 2011 and estimated that total only 0.2% of the catch composition can be considered as retained species other that krill (MRAG summarized results presented in Hønneland et al 2014), and between 43% and 72% of that bycatch would correspond to the icefishes group (Channichthyidae) (see table 2.1.1.1 ). ° CCAMLR has recently performed two reviews on fish bycatches in the krill fishery based on data from SISO and commercial catches. The most recent and extensive (WG FSA-16/04) estimated that catches of C.gunnari account for 0.048% in weight of total catches of the fishery, while previous review (WG EMM-14/31) estimated an even lower contribution (0.020%). Based on the above, it is clear that this species cannot be considered as ‘main’. Thus, as there are no ‘main’ species caught by the assessed fleet, this SI is considered as Not

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 108

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. relevant . b Minor primary species stock status Guidep Minor primary species are ost highly likely to be above the PRI

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? N Justific The only primary minor species caught by the assessed fleet is the mackerel icefish ation (Champsocephalus gunnari ). See previous SI for more details. Currently, there is a commercial fishery targeting the mackerel icefish around the South Georgia Islands (subarea 48.3) and the annual catch limit set for the latest fishing season (2016/17) was 2,074 tonnes. C.gunnari in subarea 48.3 is considered as a separate stock and it is assessed by the CCAMLAR WG-FSA. Its biomass was estimated at 59,081 tonnes in 2015, and since 2010 it has been estimated to be above 40,000 tonnes (CCAMLR 2016b). Limit reference point for this stock is set at 8,000 tonnes. Actually, the South Georgia Icefish Pelagic Trawl got certified by MSC in 2015 (including in its UoC the 3 vessels from Polar Ltd which at that time were using 100% of the TAC allocated). The fishery scored 90 in PI 1.1.1 (Hough et al 2016). Therefore, there is evidence that mackerel icefish in 48.3 is highly likely to be above the PRI. Fisheries targeting icefishes ( C.gunnari, C.aceratus and Chaenodraco wilsoni ) and also marbled rock fish ( Notothenia rossii ) in subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain closed since 1989, after drastic decline observed in these areas due to previous intensive fishing mainly exercised by the former USSR fleet. This conservation measure remains in place today. In recent years, special efforts have been made to determine the state of the fish living in Subareas 48.1 and 48.2. The populations studies have improved little in terms of biomass and abundance levels (references cited in Arana and Rolleri 2017). However, Kock & Jones (2012) reported a favorable recovery of N. rossii and C. gunnari when comparing their findings from a March-April 2012 study onboard the BI Polarstern with those of a previous cruise done in 2006/2007. More recently, during the austral summer of 2016, the Chilean Catholic University of Valparaíso (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso) performed a research survey to assess fish distribution and abundance around Elephant Island (Subarea 48.1) and South Orkney Islands (Subarea 48.2) using midwater and bottom trawls and acoustic information (Arana et al 2016). They found C.gunnari accounting for 99.5% (in weight) of the total fish species caught, with CPUEs of 5.9 Kg/h around Elephant island and 27.4 Kg/h around South Orkney islands. Biological information was also collected for this species (geographical distribution, sex ratio, size frequency distribution, growth, reproduction, feeding…). However, only preliminary results were obtained during the first phase and a second cruise is scheduled. Therefore, trends and recent surveys, together with the fact that no commercial fisheries

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 109

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. targeting icefishes are allowed in subareas 48.1 and 48.2 since 1989, are suggesting that mackerel icefish populations in these subareas may has recovered (as happened with population in subarea 48.3). However, as stock status remains unknown it cannot be concluded that they are highly likely above PRI. Further, SISO data shows that most of the individuals of C.gunnari caught correspond to fingerlings and juveniles of around 10cm length and only a few correspond to mature individuals (see figure 2.1.1.1 ),

Figure 2.1.1.1. length frequency distribution of C.gunnari in the krill fishery. Source: WG.FSA16/04 However, in its extensive and most recent review on fish bycatch in the krill fishery (WG FSA-16/04) it was estimated that total annual weight of C.gunnari in a 300.000t krill fishery would represent about 145 tons (0.048%), and the previous review (WG EMM-14/31) estimated that a 200,000t krill catch might be expected to catch of the order of 40t of C.gunnari (0.020%). Thus, despite uncertainty due to ±SD (eg. according to WG-EMM14/31 C.gunnari catches would range between 0 and 150t), results show that catches of C.gunnari are limited to a few tens of tonnes for the entire krill fishery. In the case of the assessed vessel, even considering the target catch for 2017/2018 notified to CCAMLR (45,000 tonnes of krill) it would mean a total bycatch of mackerel icefish of 21.8 tonnes for the 3 subareas included in the UoC (assuming the 0.048% calculated in SG- FSA16/04). Further, the notification specifies that this total catch is to be splitted as 15,000 tonnes of krill for each subarea (48.1, 48.2 and 48.3), meaning that a maximum of 10.9 tonnes of mackerel icefish fish would be caught in each subarea. For instance, in subarea 48.3 this value would represent less than 0.02% of the estimated biomass (59,081 tonnes in 2015). In addition, the target catch is just a maximum value notified to CCAMLR before the start of the fishing, but it is a highly unrealistic value which is very likely will never be achieved. For instance, Hønneland et al 2015 reported that the f/v Juvel notified a target catch for the 2014/2015 (35,000 tonnes) which doubled its previous annual catches. Thus, it is highly likely that total catch (and associated mackerel icefish bycatch) of the assessed vessel at the end of the current fishing season falls well below the target catch notified to CCAMLR. The MRAG study based on observers data collected on board the f/v Antarctic Sea and f/v Saga Saga (using continuous pumping gear) between 2007 and 2007 (results presented in Hønneland et al 2014) included precautionary estimates of fish bycatches (presented in

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 110

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. species groups) for subareas (48.1, 48.2 and 48.3) and for a normal ice year and a for low ice year (see table 2.1.1.1 ). It can be seen that estimated total catches of icefishes (Channichthyidae –ICE-) would range between 1.7 and 2.8 tonnes for the 3 subareas in a normal ice year and in a low ice year respectively. Table 2.1.1.1. Precautionary total fish bycatch estimates (numbers and tonnes) by subarea, species group and season for a normal ice year and a low ice year. ICE: Icefish group, LAN: Lanterfish group, NOT: Notothenid group. Source: Analysis of larval bycatch report, MRAG 2012, cited in Hønneland et al 2014 .

Sometimes, very rarely trawlers targeting krill can get significant catches of adult mackerel icefish which is feeding on krill. These catches are separated from the krill at the entrance of the factory and they are estimated and recorded as bycatch in the C1 form (catches of small individuals are only detected and identified through observer’s sampling) and were taken into account in the CCMALR reviews on fish bycatch. Data reported by the observer on board the assessed vessel during the first (and so far only) fishing trip performed showed a catch of 7 tons of adult mackerel icefish in a single haul (see Section 3.4.2.1 ). The client ensured that this was an exceptional circunstances as they normally avoid catching anything but krill (actually the vessel is not equipped for processing other catches and the vessel was forced to move north of 60ºS to discard this catch as reported by the observer). In summary, despite there are abundant signs that expected catches of mackerel icefish due to the krill fishery are very limited, the stock status in subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain unknown and preliminary data from the first fishing trip accounted for significant catches of mackerel icefish in subarea 48.2. Therefore, the assessment team cannot state that there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of this species. SG 100 is not met. References Arana et al 2016; Arana and Rolleri 2017; CCAMLR 2016b; Hønneland et al 2014;

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 111

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. WG EMM -14/31 ; WG.FSA16/04 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 112

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 rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA 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 Guidep There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to above which are highly likely to be the point where above the point where recruitment would be recruitment would be impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justific As there is no impact on ‘main’ primary species (Table 3-13 ) the SG60 and SG80 can be ation excluded. The krill fishery managed under CCAMLR has several elements that all together represent a cohesive and strategic arrangement designed to monitor that any impact on other species than krill are kept at minimum levels, in accordance with ecosystemic objectives set in Article II of the Convention. Fisheries operating within the Convention Area are subject to several regulations relevant to this SI: ° A set of Conservation Measures that allow control of the fleet accessing the fishery, including licensing and inspection obligations (CM 10/02, CM 10/03), VMS (CM 10/04), notification of intent to participate in the krill fishery (CM21/03), technical characteristics of the fishing gear (CM 10/01, 22/01, 22/02) ° Enforcement of collection and reporting of all catches (CM23/01, CM 23/02, CM 23/03, CM 23-06), including haul by haul data to complete CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data form (Form C1). ° Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) targeting a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/2020 fishing season (CM 51/06). To quantify bycatches and record biological data by species caught is listed in Annex 1 of SISO among the tasks to be performed by the observers, and a standardized sampling procedure for determining bycatches is detailed at the CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ). The Observer’s data log includes 2 specific designed for this purpose: K10(i) form- protocol for fish sampling (including juveniles), and K10 (ii) form- protocol for fish sampling (length measurements). CCAMLR also provides guides for the identification of bycatch in longline and trawl fisheries (eg. WG-FSA 16/17 and WG-EMM 15/06) and identification training tools for the observers (WG-16/11). The CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ) identifies the determination of the level of bycatch of fish, including fish larvae as a priority research task for the Scientific Committee, and encourage observer’s tasks to conform with scientific objectives. ° Data reviews on bycatches (based on data from SISO and commercial catches) by the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (SG-EMM) and

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 113

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA). The high number of samples and their geographic distribution allows these reviews to analyze the data at the sub-area level. In the case of the assessed vessel the Company is committed to ensure a full (100%) on- board observer’s coverage since the beginning of the fishing operations (December 2017). During the site visit the CEO of the Company explained to the assessment team that placed next to the conveyor belt at the entrance of the processing plant there are two operators in charge of removing anything different from krill (however, they can only detect bigger individuals). They are not interested in incidental catches going through processing; as that may alter the chemical composition of their product (and bigger individuals can also damage the machinery). They normally remove everything not being krill, unless in those very exceptional circumstances where a significant a volume of icefish is caught (as happened in the first fishing trip of the assessed vessel when 7 tonnes of mackerel icefish were caught and discarded north of 60ºS, as reported by the observer). In any case the characteristics of the fishing gear used in this fishery coupled with the highly specific type of processing onboard the assessed vessel and the highly controlled chemical composition of the final product (tested by the customer at reception before further processing) are forcing the assessed vessel to avoid other catches than Antarctic krill and perform a highly selective fishing activity (according to the Deris CEO they are the first ones moving away from an area with fish or salp bycatch is higher than expected). Otherwise the vessel would be risking damaging the fishing gear or the processing machinery or ruining the quality of the product. The observer’s report from the first fishing trip of the assessed vessel shows that a total o 2,399.710 tons of krill were caught, while bycatch recorded amounted to a total of 7.327 tons, accounting for a 0.003% of the total catches. Although there are no fishery specific measures establishing limits on bycatch of mackerel icefish, the strategy detailed above is considered to be appropriate taking into account to the low frequencies of occurrence and weight of C.gunnari bycatches. As stated in WG-FSA 16/04: “In recent year the introduction of a systematic method for observers to record bycatch, as well as the increase in observer coverage in the krill fishery has provided an increase in the amount, and ongoing improvements in the quality, of data available with which to examine this issue” . Regular reviews recently carried out by CCAMLR competent Working Groups (WG-FSA in 2016 and WG-EMMM in 2014) on fish bycatch in the krill fishery allow the Scientific Committee to raise a flag about the need to modify fishing practices in the case unacceptable impacts would be detected. SG100 is met . B Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the fishery comparison with similar about the fishery and/or and/or species involved. fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y N N Justific Fisheries managed by CCAMLR are subject to proven regulatory framework which includes ation access control, obligations to collect and report data and scientific monitoring. Further, as explained in previous SI the characteristics of the assessed fishery (fishing gear used, type of processing on board and characteristics of targeted final product) constitute a plausible

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 114

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. argument to consider the assessed vessel will avoid catching other species than krill, and the krill fishery in general as a highly selective fishery. Due to the limited set of data from the assessed vessel, the assessment team considered appropriate to compile and review data from the former Chilean vessel targeting krill. This vessel (retired from the krill fishery in 2016) was using the same fishing gear as the assessed vessel, and also one of the skippers and the fleet manager is the same. Therefore catch composition of both vessels are expected to be at least very similar. Data from observers collected between 2011 and 2016 on board the former Chilean vessel (f/v Betanzos) showed that total bycatches account for just 0.101% (in weight) of the samples taken, with mackerel icefish accounting for 0.42% of that bycatch (Arana & Rolleri 2017). See section 3.4.2.1 (e) and table 3-9 for more details on this set of data. Extensive CCAMLR reviews on fish bycatch in the krill fishery using data from SISO and commercial data (fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms) between 2010 and 2016 have been recently carried out by competent CCAMLR Working Groups (WG-EMM and WG-FSA). Data from thousands of hauls from different cruises and vessels were analyzed to perform these reviews (see section 3.4.2.1 for more details). Results confirm that mackerel icefish accounts between 0.02% (WG-EMM 14/31) and 0.048% (WG-FSA 16/04) in weight of total krill catches, meaning reduce catches of this species as explained in SI 2.1.1. Finally, stock assessment performed on the separated stock of mackerel icefish in subarea 48.3 estimated a biomass of 59,081 tonnes in 2015 (CCAMLR 2016b), and midwater trawl fishery targeting this stock got the MSC certification in 2010 and was re-certified in 2015. Based on information presented above, SG60 is met . However, stock status of the species on subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain unknown, despite efforts have been made to determine the state of the fish living in these subareas (Kock and Jones 2012, Arana and Rolleri 2016). Further, data from the observer on board the first (and so far only) fishing trip performed by the assessed vessel showed that 7 tonnes of adult mackerel icefish were caught in a single haul performed in subarea 48.2. Due to the unknown stock status of C.gunnari in subareas 48.1 and 48.2, together with the fact that data from the assessed vessel are still too limited and not conclusive regarding the impact on this species, the assessment team cannot consider that there is objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place will work. SG80 is not met . A condition is raised on this SI (See Appendix 1.2). c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully . successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justific Chile is responsible for ensuring the assessed vessel fulfills with all commitments in ation relation to licensing, VMS and catch data reporting, observer coverage, etc. Although the vessel has just started its operations in December 2017, Chile has experience managing, monitoring and inspecting the former Chilean vessel targeting krill, the f/v Betanzos. At the CCAMLR website can be checked that the assessed vessel is included in the list of

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 115

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. authorized vessels for catching krill for the current fishing season. Competent Authorities are normally performing their monitoring and inspection activities and reporting to CCAMLR. During the site visit none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding compliance of the assessed vessel with CCAMLR measures. Sampling performed by observers on board is an essential part of the implemented strategy for managing catches other than krill. Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015) and concluded that occurrence of scientific observers onboard had improved significantly from 2010 onwards since the first adoption of CM 51-06 in 2009. In the case of Chile, mean observer’s coverage between 2013 and 2014 was found to be 58% (N of days at sea with observer on board in relation to total N days at sea), and therefore above 50% required in CM 51-06 for that period of time (only 3 out of the 15 vessels analyzed fall below 50%). Arata and Santa- Cruz also analyzed the bycatch sampling effort determining that on average observers devoted only 30% of the days at sea to bycatch sampling (Chilean observers well above that average, with 48%). They concluded that having a good representation of bycatch species by subareas requires a larger number of samples that those taken between 2013 and 2014. Recent review of fish bycatch performed by WG-FSA in 2016 (WG-FSA 16/04) acknowledged that previous analyses have pointed to issues with data quality and reporting of fish bycatch in the krill fishery, in particular in the non-reporting of fish bycath in the fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms as well as inconsistencies in the reporting by observers. However, a reduction in the confidence intervals around the frequency of occurrence data is observed in recent data set (2014-2016), and based on that the study recognized that the systematic method for observers to record fish bycatch and increases in observer coverage has allowed to increase data quality. This review also report an increase in the fish bycatch reported in the commercial krill fishery data (fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms) in the last two years (see table 2.1.2.1 ), although frequencies of occurrence from commercial data are always much lower. Table 2.1.2.1 . Occurrence (number of hauls in which the taxa was reported) of fish bycatch taxa in the krill fishery 2014-2016 reported in commercial data. Source: WG-FSA 16/04

During the site visit, Deris, S.A. representatives confirmed that the assessed vessel will have a full (100%) observer’s coverage. The assessment team could check that bycatch sampling and fish length measurements were included among the tasks included in the type of contract prepared to be signed by the observers. All fishing trips performed while current assessment was being prepared were covered by at least one observer. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy described in SI(a) is not only being implemented successfully but also achieving its overall objective as reflected in PI 2.1.1.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 116

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. SG80 is met . However, during the site visit INACH recognized is not prepared to provide adequate training to observers working in the CCAMLR area and coordination between IFOP (the institution responsible for all observers programs within Chilean waters) is needed. Further, WG-EMM14/31 highlighted the difference in the frequency of occurrence of bycatch as reported in the commercial (C1) data and the observer data for the same vessel (table 2.1.2.2 ). The frequency of occurrence of bycatch in the C1 data has increased over the past three seasons from 1.34% of hauls in 2013, 3.76% in 2014 and 12.88% for the 2015 (noting that 2015 data was incomplete). These frequencies of occurrence are much smaller than those reported in the SISO data (39.14%, 48.48% and 56.46% for2013, 14 and 15 respectively). This is also the case for the only Chilean vessel targeting krill at that time (f/v Betanzos): 0% C1 FOO Vs 36.5% SISO FOO in 2013, and 0.4% C1 FOO Vs 65.5% in 2014. Table 2.1.2.2. The percentage of hauls in which bycatch occurred in the krill fishery from 2013, 2014 and 2015 (up to April 2015), from C1 data and SISO data. In the C1 data N indicates the number of hauls (or haul periods) and n is the number of hauls for which bycatch was reported and in the SISO data N is the number of hauls (or haul periods) sampled for bycatch and n is the number of those hauls for which the observer reported bycatch. * No observer data available but note that the 2015 data is incomplete. Source: SG-EMM14/31

Finally, available SISO data from the assessed vessel are still limited to preliminary data from the first observer’s report. Based on all the above the assessment team considers that it cannot be claimed that there is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective. SG100 is not met . d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific For this assessment, a comprehensive list of species (92 different taxa) that may be caught ation or interacted by the assessed vessel was elaborated ( see table 3-12 and table 3-13 ) consulting different sources of information (see section 3.4.2 ). However, not a single shark

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 117

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. species is included in this list. Therefore, this SI is not relevant for the assessed fishery. e Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y Justific As explained in previous SI there is no main primary species. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are ation met by default. All C.gunnari catches are unwanted and therefore all management measures detailed and assessed in previous SI are aimed at minimizing UoA-related mortality. As reported by different sources and extensively reviewed by WG-FSA (WG-FSA 16-04) and WG-EMM (WG-EMM 14-34) C.gunnari frequency of occurrence and expected bycatches are negligle and therefore no alternative measures are needed. However, WG-FSA compiles and report these data on its annual report, and recent reviews on the fish bycatch issue were performed in 2014 (WG-EMM 14-34) and 2016 (WG-FSA 16-04). Therefore SG100 is met .

References WG-EMM 14-34; WG-FSA 16-04 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 118

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 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 primary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree main primary species with impact of the UoA on the of certainty the impact of respect to status. main primary species with the UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to

status.

OR OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adeqaute to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justific The different sources of information presented in PI 2.1.1. provie adequate quantitative ation information to assess with a high degree of certainty that there is no ‘main’ primary species caught by the UoA, and therefore there is no impact. SG100 is met by default . b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? N Justific Quantitative information from SISO data is adequate to estimate total bycatch of the krill ation fishery on mackerel icefish, in particular data collected since 2014 as data from last years has greater data availability and improved quality (WG-FSA 16/04). The assessed vessel will contribute to improve SISO data base as it is expected to have 100% observer coverage. However, although there is adequate information from observers to estimate total bycatch on mackerel icefish, stock status of this species on subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain unknown, despite efforts have been made to determine the state of the fish living in these subareas (Kock and Jones 2012, Arana and Rolleri 2016). Currently, stock assessment (performed by the WG-FSA) is restricted to subarea 48.3. Therefore, SG100 is not met (it would only be met in subarea 48.3).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 119

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary 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 Y Justific Two sources of quantitative information are available to estimate fish bycatches, including ation mackerel icefish (the only minor primary species caught by trawlers targeting krill in the assessed area): ° Fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms to be filled by commercial fleet ° SISO data collected by observers on board Despite previous concerns in the non-reporting of fish bycatch in the C1 data, WG-FSA has recognized (WG-FSA16/04) recent improvements in the reporting of fish bycatches by the commercial fishery (C1 form). Further, it was found a high degree of overlap in the most frequently reported taxa in the C1 data and SISO data. However, frequencies of occurrence reported in SISO data are significantly higher than those reported in C1 data ( see table 2.1.2.2 ). Therefore, WG-FSA is using only SISO data to estimate total fish bycatch of the krill fishery, and in particular data collected since 2014 as the systematic method for observers to record fish bycatch and increases in observer coverage has allowed to increase data quality. Taking into account low frequency of occurrence of C.gunnari and its estimated scaled-up catches, the assessment team considers that SISO data provide adequate information to support the strategy to manage this species and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is ensuring that the UoA is maintaining or not hindering recovery of this species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met .

References Kock and Jones 2012, Arana and Rolleri 2016; WG-FSA16/04 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 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 Guidep Main Secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based

limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures limits, there is either in place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place rebuilding. 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 Justific Apart from the mackerel icefish, all the other species listed in Table 3-13 that are not ation considered as ETP species (see next section) were classified as ‘Secondary’, in accordance with FCR SA3.1.4. The resulting comprehensive list include a total of 65 fish-taxa, 4 crustacean-taxa, 2 mollusc-taxa, 1 jellyfish-taxa, 1 salp-taxa and 7 seabird species. Only the seabird species were classified as ‘Main’ in accordance to SA 3.7.1.2 (see section 3.4.4 for more details on the classification). It must be noted that no interactions with the assessed vessel have been recorded with any seabird. However, due to the limitations of the data set available from the UoA (it only started fishing in December 2017) the assessment team decided to review records of observers on board other MSC-certified vessels and also the former Chilean vessel targeting krill (f/v Betanzos) and include that information in the current assessment. As a result, 7 seabird species were found to interact with those 3 vessels: 5 petrel species, 1 fulmar and 1 gull (see table 3-13 ). 6 of those species were reported to interact with the f/v Juvel (Hønneland et al 2015), 5 with the f/v Antartic Sea and/or f/v Saga Saga (Hønneland et al 2014), and 5 with the f/v

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 121

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Betanzos (Arana & Rolleri 2017). All these 7 species are classified as Least Concern at the IUCN Red List according to version 3.1 of the Categories and Criteria adopted by IUCN in 2001 (see table 2.2.1.1 ). Table 2.2.1.1. Red list categories and assessment details of the primary secondary species identified in current assessment. EOO standing for geographical extent of occurrence. Source: IUCN Red list of threatened species. Assessments available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Wilsons Southern Snow Cape Blue Antarctic Storm Kelp gull fulmar petrel petrel petrel petrel petrel

Red list LC LC LC LC LC LC LC Category

Year of latest 2017 2016 2017 2016 2016 2016 2016 assessmen t

EOO 127 66.6 188 22 96.5 77.5 163 (km 2*10 6)

Population 4 4 2 12-30 3 10-20 3.3-4.3 (ind*10 6)

Current Increasin population Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable g trend

Full Full Full Movement Full Full Full Not migra migran migran pattern migrant migrant migrant migrant nt t t

Oil spills, avian Climat cholera Climate e Climate Climate and Threats - - change chang change change botulism, e interacti ons with trawlers

The IUCN Red List Categories (see figure 2.2.1.1 for the structure of categories) and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction based on quantitative criteria: (i) geographic range, (ii) population trend and (iii) population size. The Red List Criteria should be applied to a taxon based on the available evidence concerning its numbers, trend and distribution. According to IUCN, extensive consultation and testing in the development of the classification system strongly suggest that it is robust across most organisms. IUCN considers the system places species into the threatened categories with a high degree of consistency.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 122

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Figure 2.2.1.1 . Structure of IUCN Red List Categories

A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category. In the case of the 7 assessed seabird species, recent stock assessments have been performed by Birdlife International for all species (BirdLife International, 2017). The justification provided by the assessors for their classification as Least Concern is practically the same for all of them, and it is as follows: “This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). The population trend appears to be stable, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern”. The only difference is that in the case of the Kelp gull instead of saying “the population trend appears to be stable” it says ‘increasing’. Table 2.2.1.1 presents some details of the assessments. Full assessment for all species can be consulted on line and download them at http://www.iucnredlist.org/ . In summary, the status of all main minor species have been recently assessed by BirdLife International against IUCN Criteria, and all species were found to be well above thresholds (reference points) for Vulnerable Category under any established criteria (range size, population trend and population size). Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a high degree of certainty that assessed species are within biologically based limits. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep Minor secondary species are

ost highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 123

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Y Justific A comprehensive list of minor secondary species that may be caught by the assessed ation vessel was elaborated (see table 3-12) consulting different sources of information (see section 3.4.2 ). This list includes a total of 65 fish-taxa, 4 crustacean-taxa, 2 mollusc-taxa, 1 jellyfish-taxa, 1 salp-taxa. Only the Antarctic toothfish ( Dissosstichus mawsoni ) in subareas 48.2and 48.4 is assessed by theWG-FSA, for all the other species there are no stock assessments. Thus, biologically based limits are not establish and their status remain unknown. As detailed in sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 data from observers collected on board 3 different vessels (Hønneland et al 2014 and Hønneland et al 2015) show that fish bycatches account for 0.2-0.5% of total catches of those vessels (Antarctic Sea, Saga Saga, and Juvel), while Arana & Rolleri (2017) reported that total (including non-fish taxa) bycath accounted for 0.1% of f/v Betanzo’s catches. Extrapolation of bycatch levels Scaled-up are only provided (at species group level) in the MRAG study cited in Honneland et al 2014 (see table 2.1.1.1 ). Estimates provided range between 1.7 and 2.8 tonnes for Channichthyid (icefish), between 0.3 and 2.0 tonnes for mycthopids (lantern fish) depending on the ice level, and 0.2 tonnes for Notothenids independently on the ice level. These estimates refer to annual catches for both assessed vessels (Antarctic Sea and Saga Saga). Further, CCAMLR Working Groups (WG-FSA and WG-EMM) have recently conducted extensive reviews on fish bycatches in the krill fishery based on data from SISO and commercial data (C1) (WG-EMM14-31 and WG-FSA16/04). Both reviews coincide in determining that length-frequency distribution of all taxa for which >100 fish were measured had modal size class of <10 cm. Results show that total fish bycatches account for 0.1-0.2% (in volume) of total fishery catches. WG-FSA 16/04 estimate that a 300,000 tonnes krill fishery would yield 370 tonnes of fish by-catch, comprising 40% Champsocephalus gunnari (already assessed in PI 2.1.1) and 30% Lepidonotothen larseni . Therefore, despite high confidence intervals around the frequency of occurrence data, it can be ensured that total catches of fish taxa due to the krill fishery are very limited. No weight extrapolations from counts of individuals of non-fish taxa bycatches have been provided. However, data from observers collected on board the f/v ‘Juvel’bycatch (Hønneland et al 2015) and also on board the f/v ‘Betanzos’ (Arana and Rolleri 2017) indicate that none of those taxa would account for a higher percentage of the total catches than fish-taxa (being salps the taxa accounting for higher frequencies of occurrence and volumes). The assessment team considers that frequencies of occurrence reported by the assessed vessel and different reports (Arana & Rolleri 2017, Hønneland et al 2015) together with available extrapolations of expected fish bycatch levels (WG-FSA 16/04, WG-EMM 14/31, MRAG study cited in Hønneland et al 2014) provide enough evidence that the assessed vessel does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor secondary species. SG 100 is met

References Arana & Rolleri 2017; BirdLife International. 2017; Hønneland et al 2014; Hønneland et al 2015; WG-EMM14-31; WG-FSA16/04 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 124

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 125

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA 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 Guidep There is a strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial strategy in ost for the UoA for managing place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for the main and minor secondary are expected to maintain or UoA that is expected to species. not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder main secondary species rebuilding of main at/to levels which are highly secondary species at/to likely to be within levels which are highly likely biologically based limits or to be within biologically to ensure that the UoA does based limits or to ensure not hinder their recovery. that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y Y Justific The krill fishery managed under CCAMLR has several regulations in place to ensure an ation effective monitoring and manage of the whole fishing activity, including all catches and interactions. Below are presented the main elements of this strategy which are relevant to this SI: ° A set of Conservation Measures that allow control of the fleet accessing the fishery, including licensing and inspection obligations (CM 10/02, CM 10/03), VMS (CM 10/04), notification of intent to participate in the krill fishery (CM21/03), technical characteristics of the fishing gear (CM 10/01, 22/01, 22/02) ° Enforcement of collection and reporting of catches (CM23/01, CM 23/02, CM 23/03, CM 23-06), including haul by haul data to complete CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data form (Form C1). ° Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) targeting a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/2020 fishing season (CM 51/06). This scheme includes a standardized sampling procedure for determining bycatches which is detailed in the CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ). CCAMLR provides guides for the identification of bycatch in longline and trawl fisheries (eg. WG-FSA 16/17 and WG-EMM 15/06) and identification training tools for the observers (WG-16/11). To record entanglement and incidental mortality of birds and mammals is listed in the Annex 1 of Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) among the tasks to be performed by the observers on board. Observer’s data log includes 2 specific formats designed for this purpose: (i) K5 form to report incidental mortality on seabirds and marine mammals; (ii) K9 Protocol to record interactions with the wire. The CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ) identifies the determination of the level of warp strikes and incidental mortality of seabirds and seals as a priority research task for the Scientific Committee, and encourage observer’s tasks to conform with scientific objectives. ° Data reviews on bycatches (based on data from SISO and commercial catches) by the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) and Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (WG-FSA). The high number of samples and their geographic distribution allows these reviews to analyze the data at the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 126

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. sub-area level. Interactions with seabirds and marine mammals are updated by the WG-EMM in the annual krill fishery report. ° In response to concerns over the decline in albatross populations, and the potential for this to be exacerbated by interactions with CCAMLR fisheries, in 1994 the Commission decided to create an ad hoc Working Group on Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing (IMAF). WG-IMAF met annually until 2009 when, in response to the reductions in incidental mortality of seabirds, the decision was made to meet in alternate years. At its meeting in 2011 the Scientific Committee decided that while there remains a need to retain the issue of incidental mortality on its agenda, WG-IMAF should meet in future to address specific issue(s) identified by the Scientific Committee (rather than have a fixed meeting schedule). So far, WG-IMAF has not met again since then. ° CEMP monitoring includes as indicator species the Anctarctic and Cape petrels (see PI 2.3.2 and 2.5.2 for more details on the CEMP) As explained in previous PI main secondary species are restricted to 7 seabird species (see table 3-13 ) in accordance to SA 3.7.1.2 (see section 3.4.4 for more details on the classification). Recent CCAMLR Conservation Measure 25-03 (2016) aims to minimize the incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals in the course of trawl fishing in the Convention Area. This CM includes the adoption of the following measures for all trawl fisheries: ° The use of net monitor cables on vessels in the CCAMLR Convention Area is prohibited (since fishing season 2016-2017) ° Vessels operating within the Convention Area should at all times arrange the location and level of lighting so as to minimize illumination directed out from the vessel, consistent with the safe operation of the vessel. ° The discharge of offal and discards shall be prohibited during the shooting and hauling of trawl warp ° Nets shall be cleaned prior to shooting to remove items that might attract birds. ° Vessels should adopt shooting and hauling procedures that minimize the time that the net is lying on the surface of the water with the meshes slack. Net maintenance should, to the extent possible, not be carried out with the net in the water. ° Vessels should be encouraged to develop gear configurations that will minimize the chance of birds encountering the parts of the net to which they are most vulnerable. This could include increasing the weighting or decreasing the buoyancy of the net so that it sinks faster, or placing colored streamers or other devices over particular areas of the net where the mesh sizes create a particular danger to birds. In relation to dumping offal or discards it must be noted that previous CM 26-01 (2015) had already prohibited it for vessels fishing south of 60ºS. Therefore prohibition in CM 25- 03 refers to vessels fishing north 60ºS. The observer on board monitors that measures included in CM 25-03 and CM 26-01 are accomplished. In the case of the assessed vessel the Company is committed to ensure a full (100%) on- board observer’s coverage since the beginning of the fishing operations (December 2017). During the site visit, Deris representatives confirmed that (in accordance with CM 25-03) the net will be wireless monitored using the Marport Speed Explorer © to decrease warp strikes compared to previous fishing operations performed on board the f/v Betanzos (where the net was monitored using a cable). This new device is a single wireless headline-

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 127

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. mounted package which combines the functions of a trawl eye headline sounder with a trawl speed sensor. Further, it was also confirmed that fishing gear configuration would be adjusted to accomplish with recommendations CM 25-03: (i) net buoyancy will be decreased compared to previous settings used on board f/v Betanzos; (ii) A laser deterrent device (apart from mandatory tori lines) will be used to prevent interactions with birds. This device (SeaBird Saver©) emits visual stimulus generated through a powerful wide laser beam that is made to have a deterring effect on marine birds. The SeaBird Saver© was the 2014 winner of the prestigious WWF SmartGear Award for Tuna Bycatch Reduction Prize (https://www.worldwildlife.org/initiatives/international-smart-gear- competition ). The laser beam has been calibrated in the correct wavelength for bird eye sightability in combination with optimal strength to be effective on water. The laser beam and the associated “dot” and scattering effect when it hits the waves is a powerful bird deterrent. Marine birds feel threatened by the physical presence of the laser point and beam, and their natural response to this threat is to avoid contact and move away. All measures detailed above are considered to represent a cohesive arrangement comprising a comprehensive set of measures designed to manage the impact on both main secondary species (7 seabird species) and also minor secondary species (a wide range of fish and non-fish taxa bycath). The collection and reporting of catches and bycatches, together with SISO data collected by observers and the regular compilation and review of those data by the WG-EMM in the annual krill fishery report allow an understanding of how the implemented measures work to manage impacts on all secondary species in accordance with ecosystemic objectives set in Article II of the Convention. CCAMLR structure and functioning (e.g: regular meetings of the WGs and Scientific Committee, CMs, etc) contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (as it was the case with mortality of seals, see PI(2.5.2) for more details). These measures and regulations are considered appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor secondary species and SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or and/or species involved. UoAs/species). species involved. Met? Y Y N Justific Fisheries managed by CCAMLR are subject to proven regulatory framework which includes ation access control, obligations to collect and report data and scientific monitoring. Further, recent Conservation Measure 25-03 includes a set of measures specifically targeting to minimize mortality in birds, and observers on board are checking their implementation and recording entanglement and incidental mortality of birds. On the other hand, the characteristics of the assessed fishery (fishing gear used, type of processing on board and characteristics of targeted final product) constitute a plausible argument to consider the fishery will avoid catching fish and non-fish bycatch. SG60 is met . Data collected by the observer on board the assessed vessel during the first fishing trip (2 month trip from December 2017 to February 2018) confirmed that no interactions with birds occurred (see section 3.4.2.1). A total of 126 hauls (72% of the total hauls

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 128

Wilsons Gentoo Southern Snow Cape Blue Antarctic Kelp penguin Vessel name Fate Storm Fulmar petrel petrel petrel petrel gull (ETP) Petrel

Antarctic Dead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Endeavour Alive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dead 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Betanzos Alive 2 4 5 4 0 1 0 1

N interactions 3 4 6 5 0 1 0 1

% dead 17.86% 18.18% 17.81% 15.38% - 0.00% - 0.00% In summary: (i) results collected on board the Betanzos showed that fatalities were restricted to 3 non-ETP birds in 791 observed hauls; (i) gear configuration and technical improvements on boar the assessed vessel are expected to reduce birds interactions compared to the f/v Betanzos; (iii) No interactions have been recorded during first trips of the assessed vessel. In relation to fish and non-fish bycatch, results from observers collected on board the Antarctic Endeavour ( Section 3.4.2.1 ), Betanzos ( table 3-11 ), Juvel (Honneland et al 2015), and Saga Saga and Antarctic Sea (Honneland et al 2014 and MRAG study cited therein) have shown that bycatch accounts for a negligible part of the total catch 0.1-0.5% (in weight). Further, annual catch extrapolation by fish groups for both Saga Saga and Antarctic Sea (see table 2.1.1.1 ) estimate that reduced volumes of fish taxa are caught. Extensive CCAMLR reviews on fish bycatch in the krill fishery using data from SISO and commercial data (fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms) between 2010 and 2016 have been recently carried out by competent CCAMLR Working Groups (WG-EMM and WG-FSA). Data from thousands of hauls from different cruises and vessels were analyzed to perform these reviews (see section 3.4.2.1 for more details). Results confirms that fish bycatch accounts

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 129

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. for 0.1-0.2% (in weight) of total krill catches (WG-FSA 16/04 and WG EMM-14-34), and catch extrapolations estimate a total of 370 tonnes of fish bycatch for a 300,000 tonnes krill fishery (see previous PI for a detailed discussion on this issue). In the case of bird interactions there are no such extensive reviews as for the fish bycatch. However, the WG-EMM compiles and review data on bird and seal mortality on the annual krill fishery report. After reviewing the latest krill fishery reports (since 2013) the assessment teal could check that no concerns have been raised on this issue (most of the analysis is devoted to seal mortality). As discussed in PI 2.2.1, status of the 7 seabird species classified as main secondary has been recently assessed by BirdLife International against the IUCN Red List Criteria and they were all classified as Least Concern, further their population trends are stable or increasing. Climate change was pointed by BirdLife International as the main threat for these species, fishing interactions mentioned only in relation to kelp gull. Based on the above the assessment team considers that there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG 80 is met . However, the assessment team consider that review provided by the WG-EMM on the annual krill fishery report is not as exhaustive as those recently performed for the fish bycatch issue (eg. WG-FSA 16/04). Besides, since the assessed vessel has only recently started its fishing operations, SISO data from the assessed vessel are still too limited in time to claim that testing support high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA, in particular when the effectiveness of reduced buoyancy, wireless device to monitor the net and the laser deterrent device still have to be proved. SG100 is not met c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully . successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justific Chile is responsible for ensuring the assessed vessel fulfills with all commitments in ation relation to licensing, VMS and catch data reporting, observer coverage, etc. Although the vessel has just started its operations in December 2017, Chile has experience managing, monitoring and inspecting the former Chilean vessel targeting krill, the f/v Betanzos. At the CCAMLR website can be checked that the assessed vessel is included in the list of authorized vessels for catching krill for the current fishing season. Competent Authorities are normally performing their monitoring and inspection activities and reporting to CCAMLR. During the site visit none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding compliance of the assessed vessel with CCAMLR measures. Sampling performed by observers on board is an essential part of the implemented strategy for managing catches other than krill. Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015) and concluded that occurrence of scientific observers onboard had improved significantly from 2010 onwards since the first adoption of CM 51-06 in 2009. In the case of Chile, mean observer’s coverage between 2013 and 2014 was found to be 58% (N of days at sea with observer on board in relation to total N days at sea), and therefore above 50% required in CM 51-06 for

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 130

During the site visit, Deris, S.A. representatives confirmed that the assessed vessel will have a full (100%) observer’s coverage. The assessment team could check that recording interactions with birds and mammals, and also sampling bycatch and fish length measurements were included among the tasks included in the type of contract prepared to be signed by the observers. The observer’s report from the first fishing trip performed by the assessed vessel confirmed the mandatory marine mammals exclusion device, the tori- lines and also the laser deterrent device were properly installed and in use during fishing operations. This report also shows that 72% of the total hauls were observed for incidental mortality and/or warp strikes of birds or mammals, while bycatch identification took place in 43% of the total hauls. Recent review of fish bycatch performed by WG-FSA in 2016 (WG-FSA 16/04) acknowledged that previous analyses have pointed to issues with data quality and reporting of fish bycatch in the krill fishery, in particular in the non-reporting of fish bycath in the fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms as well as inconsistencies in the reporting by observers. However, a reduction in the confidence intervals around the frequency of occurrence data is observed in recent data set (2014-2016), and based on that the study recognized that the systematic method for observers to record fish bycatch and increases in observer coverage has allowed increasing data quality. This review also report an increase in the fish bycatch reported in the commercial krill fishery data (fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms) in the last two years (see table 2.1.2.1 ), although frequencies of occurrence from commercial data are always much lower. Also, annual krill fishery reports updates info on seabirds interactions and mortality, and review recent trends Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy described in SI(a) is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met . However, during the site visit INACH recognized is not prepared to provide adequate training to observers working in the CCAMLR area and coordination between IFOP (the institution responsible for all observers programs within Chilean waters) is needed. Further, WG-EMM14/31 highlighted the difference in the frequency of occurrence of bycatch as reported in the commercial (C1) data and the observer data for the same vessel

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 131

implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justific All seabird interactions are unwanted and therefore all management measures detailed ationt and assessed in previous SI are aimed at minimizing UoA-related mortality. As described in SI(a) WG-IMAF was created in 1994 in response to high rates of bird mortality and met annually until 2009. The WG has not met again since 2011, but it would to address specific issue identified by the Scientific Committee. Observer’s data show that bird mortality associated to the krill fishery is kept at very reduced levels. However, the need to reduce the incidental mortality of, or injury to, seabirds from fishing operations led to the recent publication of CM 25-03 (2016) adopting several measures targeting this objective. Further, in the annual krill fishery report the WG-EMM updates data on incidental mortality on birds. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. Also, all fish and non-fish bycatches are unwanted and therefore management measures detailed and assessed in SI(b) are aimed at minimizing UoA-related mortality. As reported by different sources (Arana & Rolleri 2017, Hønneland et al 2014, Hønneland et al 2015) and extensively reviewed by WG-FSA (WG-FSA 16-04) and WG-EMM (WG-EMM 14-34) frequency of occurrence and expected bycatches are negligible and therefore no

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 132

References Arana & Rolleri 2017; Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015; Honneland et al 2015; WG-EMM 15/06; WG-FSA 16/17 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 133

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 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 Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree main secondary species impact of the UoA on main of certainty the impact of with respect to status. secondary species with the UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? Y Y N Justific Quantitative information from SISO data is adequate to assess the impact of the krill ation fishery on non-ETP seabird species, as recognized by the WG-EMM in the annual fishery report. In the case of the assessed vessel, at least one Chilean observer will always be on board on every fishing trip (when fishing under the SGGSSI jurisdiction is mandatory to also get on board an international observer). Therefore, the UoA ensures a 100% observer coverage. The assessment team could check that recording and reporting (using K5 and K6 SISO forms) entanglement and incidental mortality of birds is listed among the tasks included in the type of contract prepared to be signed by the observers. The observer on board during the first fishing trip observed for bird mortality or warp strikes in 126 out of the 173 hauls performed (72%). No interactions were recorded despite the high effort devoted by the observer. On the other hand, assessments of bird species populations classified as main secondary are available and updated (BirdLife International 2017). Any of the assessed species is classified by BirdLife International as Data Deficient. Therefore, some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. SG60 and 80 are met. However, since the assessed vessel has only recently started its fishing operations, observers data on bird interactions are still too limited to claim that quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species. This will depend not only on the observer’s coverage but also on the sampling effort devoted to this task by the observer on board (and the quality of the data collected). SG100 is not met . b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative

ost information is adequate to

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 134

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? N Justific Quantitative information from SISO data is adequate to estimate total bycatch of the krill ation fishery on fish bycatch, in particular data collected since 2014 as data from last years has greater data availability and improved quality (WG-FSA 16/04). The assessed vessel will also contribute to improve SISO data base as it is expected to have 100% observer coverage. However, although there is adequate information from observers to estimate total fish bycatch, stock status of those species remain unknown, despite efforts have been made to determine the state of the fish living in these subareas (Kock and Jones 2012, Arana and Rolleri 2016). Further, non-fish bycatch is not being systematically recorded by observers. SG100 is not met . c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . Met? Y Y Y Justific Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM ation (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015) and concluded that occurrence of scientific observers onboard had improved significantly from 2010 onwards since the first adoption of CM 51- 06 in 2009. In the case of Chile, mean observer’s coverage between 2013 and 2014 was found to be 58% (N of days at sea with observer on board in relation to total N days at sea), and therefore above 50% required in CM 51-06 for that period of time (only 3 out of the 15 vessels analyzed fall below 50%). Further, sampling effort regarding bird interactions was compiled in the 2014 Krill Fishery Report (CCAMLR 2015b), showing that between 2011 and 2015 observers devoted a total of 2,666 days for warp strike observations (49% of the total observed fishing days in that period) ( table 2.2.2.2 ). Finally this information is compiled by the WG-EMM in annual krill fishery reports. No concerns have been raised on this issue. Data on bird interactions reported by Chilean observers on board the f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016 has been properly compiled, analyzed and reported in Arana & Rolleri 2017. Further, assessments of bird species populations classified as main secondary are available and updated (BirdLife International 2017). Based on the above, the assessment team considers that information is adequate to support a strategy to manage non-ETP bird species. SG60 and 80 are met . Two sources of quantitative information are available to estimate fish bycatches: ° Fine-scales catch and effort C1 forms to be filled by commercial fleet

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 135

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

° SISO data collected by observers on board Despite previous concerns in the non-reporting of fish bycatch in the C1 data, WG-FSA has recognized (WG-FSA16/04) recent improvements in the reporting of fish bycatches by the commercial fishery (C1 form). Further, it was found a high degree of overlap in the most frequently reported taxa in the C1 data and SISO data. However, frequencies of occurrence reported in SISO data are significantly higher than those reported in C1 data ( see table 2.1.2.2 ). Therefore, WG-FSA is using only SISO data to estimate total fish bycatch of the krill fishery, and in particular data collected since 2014 as the systematic method for observers to record fish bycatch and increases in observer coverage has allowed increasing data quality. Data on non-fish bycatches are not being systematically recorded by the observers. However, Arana & Rolleri (2017) presented data for non-fish bycatches collected between 2011 and 2016 on board the f/v Betanzos, as it also happened with recent data reported from observer’s on-board the assessed vessel. This set of data proves that Chilean observers are trained to collect comprehensive bycatch data. Taking into account low frequency of occurrence of fish and non-fish bycatches, the assessment team considers that SISO data provide and in particular those collected on board the UoA provide adequate information to support the strategy to manage these species and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is ensuring that the UoA is maintaining or not hindering recovery of these species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SG100 is met

References Arana & Rolleri 2017; Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015; Birdlife International 2017; CCAMLR 2015b; Honneland et al 2015; Kock and Jones 2012; WG-EMM 15/06; WG-FSA 16/17 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 136

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 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 Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost 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 the there is a high degree of the population/stock are MSC UoAs on the certainty that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are known effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits. and highly likely to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Y Y Y Justific Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 present all P2 species scoring elements considered in this ation assessment, including its assignment to the P2 species categories provided by MSC (‘Primary/Secondary/ETP’ and ‘Main/Minor’). Among a total of 106 scoring elements, the assessment team identified a total of 26 ETP species reported by observers on board 5 different vessels, comprising 12 seabird species, 4 species of seals and 10 species of whales (see table 2.3.1.1. for the complete list of ETP species recorded). However, interactions reported are restricted to 1 species of penguin (Gentoo penguin) and 2 species of seals (Weddel seal and Antarctic fur seal), while for the remaining 23 ETP species only sightings from the vessels (with no interactions) were recorded. The set of data reviewed covers the assessed vessel (REF), the f/v Betanzos (former Chilean trawler targeting krill with the same fishing gear the assessed vessel is using), and the 3 fishing vessels comprising the other two UoCs from overlapping fisheries (Juvel, Saga Saga and Antarctic Sea).

Table 2.3.1.1. ETP species recorded by observers on board the following vessels: (i) assessed vessel (REF); (ii) Betanzos (Arana and Rolleri 2017); (iii) Juvel (Honneland et al 2015); (iv) Saga saga and Antartic Sea (Honneland et al 2014). Interactions are restricted to 2 species, for all the other were species only sightings were reported.

Interaction Scientific name Common name (Y/N)

Pygoscelis Antarctica Chinstrap penguin NO

Pygoscelis papua Gentoo penguin YES

Spheniscus humboldti Humboldt penguin NO

Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey headed albatross NO

Diomedea exulans Wandering albatross NO

Thalassarche melanophris Black browed albatross) NO

Phoebetria palpebrata Light-Mantled Sooty Albatross NO

Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross NO

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 137

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Macronectes giganteus Southern giant petrel NO

Macronectes halli Northern giant petrel NO

Procellaria cinerea Grey Petrel NO

Procellaria aequinoctialis White-chinned Petrel NO

Spheniscus humboldti Humboldt penguin NO

Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey headed albatross NO

Diomedea exulans Wandering albatros NO

Thalassarche melanophris Black browed albatross NO

Phoebetria palpebrata Light-Mantled Sooty Albatross NO

Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross NO

Macronectes giganteus Southern giant petrel NO

Macronectes halli Northern giant petrel NO

Procellaria cinerea Grey Petrel NO

Procellaria aequinoctialis White-chinned Petrel NO

Leptonychotes weddellii Weddel seal YES

Lobodon carcinophagus Crabeater seal NO

Arctocephalus gazella Antarctic fur seal YES

Mirounga leonine Southern elephant seal NO

Orcinus orca Killer whale NO

Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale NO

Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whale NO

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale NO

Eubalaena australis Southern right whale NO

Hyperoodon planifrons Southern bottlenose whale NO

Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale NO

Balaenoptera bonaerensis Antarctic minke whale NO

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale NO

Physeter microcephalus Sperm whale NO

In 1994 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted a whale sanctuary covering the waters of the Southern Ocean around the Antarctica (the geographical area included in

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 138

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species the UoC falls within this sanctuary, see figure 3-12 ). Commercial whaling on any whale species is prohibited within this sanctuary. Chile also established a permanent ban on targeting cetaceans (DS No. 179 of 2008, Law 20,293 in force since October 2008). This Law prohibits the catching, killing, storage, transformation or marketing of any species of cetacean. Moreover, Chilean fishing legislation (Decree Nº225/1995, later modified by Decree Nº135/2005) established a 30 year extractive closure (nov1995-nov2025) for 70 marine species. The list of species protected by these regulations includes marine mammals, seabirds, sea turtles and reptiles. All species listed in table 2.3.1.1 are protected by these two Chilean regulations. Therefore, there are different regulations protecting ETP species listed in table 2.3.1.1 and prohibiting their intentional capture and trade. That means they establish a zero catch limit for commercial catches, but they do not determine limits for dead individuals due to incidental interactions. Article II of the Convention clearly establishes that fisheries that are developed under CCAMLR management must be carried out in a manner that minimizes their impact on marine ecosystems. According to the harvest strategy in place (see following PI) it is compulsory not only to report all interactions and incidental catches of birds and marine mammals, but also to minimize them. Among the tasks of the SISO observers on board (100% coverage in the case of the assessed vessel) is the report of interactions and accidental deaths of seabirds and marine mammals. Results reported by the observer on board during the first trip performed by the assessed vessel between 8th December 2017 and 24th February 2018 reported no interactions with marine mammals or seabirds. However, due to the limited set of data from the UoA, the assessment team considered appropriate to review observers data collected between 2011 and 2016 on board the former Chilean vessel targeting krill presented in Arana & Rolleri 2017. It must be noticed that, although the f/v Betanzos used the same fishing gear as the one used by the assessed vessel, the f/v Antarctic Endeavour presents several improvements that are expected to reduce warp entanglements of birds: (i) reduced buoyancy; (ii) wireless device to monitor the net; (iii) laser deterrent device in addition to tori lines. Results from observers on board the f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016, reported that in 791 hauls observed for interactions with birds and mammals, only 2 Antarctic fur seals died as a result of incidental entangling with the fishing net (see table 3-12 for a complete account of interactions of this vessel with birds and marine mammals). Therefore, the effects of the UoA on the populations of the ETP species listed in table 2.3.1.1 are known and likely to comply with the extractive closure as only incidental interactions have been reported. SG60 is met . There are another four overlapping MSC UoAs (see table 4-1). They are all subject to CCAMLR management and therefore they are obliged to report and minimize its interactions with seabirds and marine mammals. They all have 100% SISO observer coverage. Data reported from observers on board the other fishing vessels comprising the two overlapping UoAs targeting krill (Juvel, Saga Saga and Antarctic Sea) show that the only interaction with ETP species which ended up in fatality was an Antarctic fur seal that died after being incidentally entangled with the f/v Antarctic Sea fishing gear in 2013. The time period covered by the observer’s data set on board the f/v Juvel included 2010-2014, while data collected on board f/v Saga Saga and f/v Antarctic Sea included 2012-2014. Regarding the UoA targeting icefish in subarea 48.3 with trawls, fatalities due to incidental interactions are restricted to seabirds (about 20 birds/vessel*fishing season, mainly white chinned petrels).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 139

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Finally, in the case of the UoA targeting Patagonian toothfish in subarea 48.3 with longline, fatalities recorded accounted for 3 antarctic fur seals in 5 five years, 1 dead sperm whalte (the cause of the death was uncertain) and one remarkable incident with one vessel that accounted for 74 dead white chinned petrels in 2014. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the populations of the ETP species listed in table 2.3.1.1 comply with the extractive closure as only incidental interactions have been reported. None of the vessels licensed for fishing krill, icefish or Patagonian toothfish in the Convention area will intentionally catch, process and sell any of the species listed in table 2.3.1.1. SG80 and SG100 are met. On the other hand, it is pertinent to evaluate the impact of mortality on those species due to incidental interactions, and that it is assessed in SI(b) below b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of the Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of ost UoA are likely to not hinder UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP no significant detrimental species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justific Results collected by the observer on board during the first trip performed by the assessed ation vessel (8/12/2017- 24/02/2018) reported no significant interactions with marine mammals or seabirds. Interactions were restricted to seabirds gathering around the fishing gear during hauling (including ETP species of albatrosses and petrels around the fishing gear mainly during hauling, in particular Thalassarche melanophris ), and sightings of whales ( M. novaeangliae and B.physalus ) and unidentified seals sailing within the first 300m from the vessel. No entangling or contact with the gear was recorded. The observer’s report confirms the assessed vessel is operating with the marine mammal exclusion device and also with tori-lines and the laser bird scaring device (SeaBird Saver©) described in PI 2.2.2. Due to the limited set of data still available from the assessed vessel, the assessment team considered appropriate to compile and review data from the former Chilean vessel targeting krill. This vessel (retired from the krill fishery in 2016) was using the same fishing gear as the assessed vessel, and also one of the skippers and the fleet manager is the same. Data collected by observers on board the f/v Betanzos between 2011 and 2016 (see table 3-12 ) showed that in 791 observed hauls a total of 10 individuals from ETP species interacted with the gear: 1 Gentoo penguin interacted with the gear (no more details were provided) but resulted alive and with no injures, 7 Antarctic fur seals got entangled with net but resulted alive and with no injures, and 2 Antarctic fur seals died as a consequence of getting entangled with the net. Further, data collected by observers on board the MSC-certified f/v Juvel between 2010 and 2014 show that interactions with ETP species were limited to 9 individuals of chinstrap penguin which resulted alive, 1 individual of Gentoo penguin which also resulted alive, and 1 Weddel seal that climbed onto the net while hauling and then slipped off on the trawl ramp resulting alive and apparently unharmed (Honneland et al 2015). Juvel also uses a traditional midwater trawl (Omega-300 and Omega-350) similar to the one used by the assessed vessel (actually the one used by the f/v Juvel is bigger). Based on the above, the assessment team considers that SG60 and SG80 are met . The Antarctic Fur Seal is the only ETP species for which deaths have been recorded due to vessels operating the same way as the assessed vessel does, and those deaths are

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 140

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species restricted to 2 individuals despite the wide time range of the observations considered in the case of the fishing vessels Betanzos and Juvel. Further, Antarctic fur seals are the most abundant species of Fur Seal and are classified as Least Concern by IUCN in its latest assessment published in 2016 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2058/0 ). According to IUCN assessment, the greatest threat to this species is considered to be the impact of climate change on its physical environment and populations of its prey. The impacts of other threats, including the impact of incipient fishing industries on prey populations and entanglement in anthropogenic debris, remain low. Therefore, despite data from the assessed vessel are still very limited in time since it has only recently started its fishing operations, the assessment team considers that there is enough evidence to claim that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. SG100 is met . c Indirect effects Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are thought confidence that there are to be highly likely to not no significant detrimental create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y N Justific Indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species could be those caused to krill-predator species ation by the fishing removals, in particular when overlapping with foraging areas exists. Nicoll and Douglass (2012) showed that the krill fishery overlaps with foraging areas of Antarctic fur seals around the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. Also, the krill fishery overlaps with areas where foraging, land-based predators, particularly penguins, capture krill to feed their young during the rearing phase. This is the reason why penguins are known to be the most responsive krill-predator group to the effects of the krill fishery (Chris Darby pers.comm). Mangel and Switzer (1998) suggested that the required level of krill forage by penguin offspring, and adult foraging behaviour and relative local reproductive success, could be inversely correlated with the fraction of the total krill biomass caught by the fishery. Hewitt et al. (2004) estimated the annual consumption of krill by different species in Area 48, and showed that fur seals would eat 706.7 thousand tonnes per year, whales 2,360 thousand tonnes, fish 2,963.9 thousand tonnes and penguins up to 9,192.1 thousand tonnes. These estimates add up to 15,223 thousand tonnes of krill potentially consumed annually by the different predators. As removals by the fishery have been estimated to be several orders of magnitude less than both the demand from predators and the biomass available for both predators and the fishery, it is considered that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. Precautionary management is implemented, so catches have been kept below the overall trigger level, which is currently 11% of the catch limit. Recent studies that evaluated the impact of the krill fishery on predators (Smith et al. 2011, Plaganyi and Butterworth 2012, Watters et al. 2013) indicate that such a target would satisfy ecosystem needs. However, krill catches could result in an appreciable ecosystem impact if they are concentrated in small localized areas that simultaneously serve as important foraging grounds for dependent predators. Conservation Measure 51-07 allocates trigger levels in Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 in order to avoid local depletion of the krill population. Hill et al. (2016) estimate a long-term exploitation rate (annual catch divided by biomass)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 141

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species of <6% for the period 1996-2014, which is below the 9.3% level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and to support krill predators. Although subarea catch limits exceed 9.3% of conservatively estimated subarea biomass in up to 20% of years due to high variability in krill biomass indices, the actual exploitation rate in each subarea has remained <3% suggesting that management is precautionary at the subarea level. Based on the information presented above the assessment team considers that SG80 is met . However, results presented by Hill et al (2016) are cautious extrapolations of the regional krill biomass in recent years based on local-scale monitoring programs established in three of the subareas to monitor krill biomass in survey grids covering 10,000 and 125,000km 2. The authors remark that finer-scale management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts which might arise as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas or climate change. Frequent assessment of the krill stock will enhance CCAMLR’s ability to manage these risks. SG100 is not met .

Arana and Rolleri 2017; Hewitt et al. (2004); Hill et al (2016); Honneland et al 2014; References Honneland et al 2015; http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2058/0 ; Mangel and Switzer (1998); Nicoll and Douglass (2012); Smith et al. 2011, Plaganyi and Butterworth 2012, Watters et al. 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 142

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) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justific As explained in PI2.3.1 SI(a), there are different regulations protecting ETP species listed in ation table 2.3.1.1 and prohibiting their intentional capture and trade. That means they establish a zero catch limit for commercial catches, but they do not determine limits for dead individuals due to incidental interactions. It is clear that none of the fishing vessels licensed to fish krill intentionally catches, processes and sells any of the species listed in table 2.3.1.1 . Article II of the Convention clearly establishes that fisheries that are developed under CCAMLR management must be carried out in a manner that minimizes their impact on marine ecosystems. According to the harvest strategy in place (see following PI) it is compulsory not only to report all interactions and incidental catches of birds and marine mammals, but also to minimize them. Also, SISO establishes that observers on board (100% coverage in the case of the assessed vessel and all the other MSC overlapping UoAs) shall record and report interactions and accidental deaths of seabirds and marine mammals. Further, the use of marine mammal exclusion devices on trawls is mandatory in the krill fishery (CM 51-01) and several measures aimed to minimize the incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals in the course of trawl fishing in the Convention Area has been implemented through recent CM 25-03. See following SI(b) below for more details on the measures in place. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impacto on ETP species which is designed not only to achieve a zero catch limit for commercial catches, but also to minimize any incidental mortality. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 143

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. Met? Y Y Y Justific The krill fishery managed under CCAMLR has several regulations in place for managing the ation krill fishery impact on ETP species. Below are presented the main elements of this strategy which are relevant to this SI: ° A set of Conservation Measures that allow control of the fleet accessing the fishery, including licensing and inspection obligations (CM 10/02, CM 10/03), VMS (CM 10/04), notification of intent to participate in the krill fishery (CM21/03), technical characteristics of the fishing gear (CM 10/01, 22/01, 22/02) ° Enforcement of collection and reporting of catches (CM23/01, CM 23/02, CM 23/03, CM 23-06), including haul by haul data to complete CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data form (Form C1). ° The use of marine mammal exclusion devices on trawls is mandatory in the krill fishery in accordance to CM 51-01 (2010). ° Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) targeting a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/2020 fishing season (CM 51/06). This scheme includes a standardized sampling procedure for determining bycatches which is detailed in the CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ). CCAMLR provides guides for the identification of bycatch in longline and trawl fisheries (eg. WG-FSA 16/17 and WG-EMM 15/06) and identification training tools for the observers (WG-16/11). To record entanglement and incidental mortality of birds and mammals is listed in the Annex 1 of Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) among the tasks to be performed by the observers on board. Observer’s data log includes 2 specific formats designed for this purpose: (i) K5 form to report incidental mortality on seabirds and marine mammals; (ii) K9 Protocol to record interactions with the wire. The CCAMLR Scientific Observer’s Manual (available to be downloaded at the CCAMLR website ) identifies the determination of the level of warp strikes and incidental mortality of seabirds and seals as a priority research task for the Scientific Committee, and encourage observer’s tasks to conform with scientific objectives. ° Interactions with seabirds and marine mammals are updated by the WG-EMM in the annual krill fishery report. Further, the Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP) was established to detect changes, particularly with respect to krill-dependent predators (e.g. monitoring of predators population) and to evaluate whether observed changes are due to krill fishing or environmental factors (see PI 25.2 for more details on CEMP). In response to concerns over the decline in albatross populations, and the potential for this to be exacerbated by interactions with CCAMLR fisheries, in 1994 the Commission decided to create an ad hoc Working Group on Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing (IMAF). WG-IMAF met annually until 2009 when, in response to the reductions in incidental mortality of seabirds, the decision was made to meet in alternate years. At its meeting in 2011 the Scientific Committee decided that while there remains a need to retain the issue of incidental mortality on its agenda, WG-IMAF should meet in future to address specific issue(s) identified by the Scientific Committee (rather than have a fixed meeting schedule). So far, WG-IMAF has not met again since then.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 144

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. Further, a recent CCAMLR Conservation Measure 25-03 (2016) aims to minimize the incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals in the course of trawl fishing in the Convention Area. This CM includes the adoption of the following measures for all trawl fisheries: ° The use of net monitor cables on vessels in the CCAMLR Convention Area is prohibited (since fishing season 2016-2017) ° Vessels operating within the Convention Area should at all times arrange the location and level of lighting so as to minimize illumination directed out from the vessel, consistent with the safe operation of the vessel. ° The discharge of offal and discards shall be prohibited during the shooting and hauling of trawl warp ° Nets shall be cleaned prior to shooting to remove items that might attract birds. ° Vessels should adopt shooting and hauling procedures that minimize the time that the net is lying on the surface of the water with the meshes slack. Net maintenance should, to the extent possible, not be carried out with the net in the water. ° Vessels should be encouraged to develop gear configurations that will minimize the chance of birds encountering the parts of the net to which they are most vulnerable. This could include increasing the weighting or decreasing the buoyancy of the net so that it sinks faster, or placing colored streamers or other devices over particular areas of the net where the mesh sizes create a particular danger to birds. In relation to dumping offal or discards it must be noted that previous CM 26-01 (2015) had already prohibited it for vessels fishing south of 60ºS. Therefore prohibition in CM 25- 03 refers to vessels fishing north 60ºS. The observer on board monitors that measures included in CM 25-03 and CM 26-01 are accomplished. In order to avoid overlap between the krill fishery and krill land- based predators (especially penguins and fur seals) during their breeding seasons, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Government established a Marine Protected Area in 2012, with a no-take zone around the islands, a seasonal closure of the fishery for Antarctic krill from 1 November to 31 March, and additional closed areas to protect sensitive benthic fauna and provide refugia for Patagonian toothfish. Additionally, there are nine benthic closed areas within their territorial waters (see section 3.4.1.5 for more details on the SGSSI MPA) In the case of the assessed vessel the Company is committed to ensure a full (100%) on- board observer’s coverage since the beginning of the fishing operations (December 2017). During the site visit, Deris representatives confirmed that (in accordance with CM 25-03) the net will be wireless monitored using the Marport Speed Explorer © to decrease warp strikes compared to previous fishing operations performed on board the f/v Betanzos (where the net was monitored using a cable). This new device is a single wireless headline- mounted package which combines the functions of a trawl eye headline sounder with a trawl speed sensor. Further, it was also confirmed that fishing gear configuration would be adjusted to accomplish with recommendations CM 25-03: (i) net buoyancy will be decreased compared to previous settings used on board f/v Betanzos; (ii) A laser deterrent device (apart from mandatory tori lines) will be used to prevent interactions with birds (see PI2.2.2 SI(a) for more details on this device).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 145

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. The collection and reporting of any interaction with birds and marine mammales, together with data collected by observers under SISO and the regular compilation and review of those data by the WG-EMM in the annual krill fishery report allow an understanding of how the implemented measures work to manage impacts on ETP species in accordance with ecosystemic objectives set in Article II of the Convention. CCAMLR structure and functioning (e.g: regular meetings of the WGs and Scientific Committee, CMs, etc) contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts (as it was the case with mortality of seals, see below SI(e) for more details). These measures constitute a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses and management measures and responses. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA (and the krill fishery) does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective basis The ost considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive based on plausible measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on argument (e.g. , general work, based on information information directly about experience, theory or directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species comparison with similar and/or the species involved. involved, and a quantitative fisheries/species). analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justific Fisheries managed by CCAMLR are subject to proven regulatory framework which includes ation access control, obligations to collect and report data, scientific monitoring and mandatory marine mammal exclusion devices. Further, recent Conservation Measure 25-03 includes a set of measures specifically targeting to minimize mortality in birds and marine mammals (see previous SI for more details on management measures in place). SG60 is met . Data collected by the observer on board the assessed vessel during the first fishing trip (2 month trip from December 2017 to February 2018) confirmed that no interactions with birds occurred (see table 3-12). However, due to the limited set of data from the UoA and also because of the need to assess cumulative impacts of other MSC UoAs in PI 2.3.1, longer data series collected by observers on board another vessels targeting krill in the area were also reviewed and assessed under PI2.3.1, showing that interactions with seabirds and marine mammals are rare, and fatalities are very unusual events (3 death Antarctic fur seals caused by the 3 assessed vessels along observed periods ranging from 3 to 5 years depending on the vessel). Further, the WG-EMM compiles and review data on bird and seal mortality on the annual krill fishery report. After reviewing the latest krill fishery reports (since 2013) the assessment team could check that no concerns have been raised in relation to interactions with seabirds, while interactions with Antarctic fur seals are very low since the Commission agreed to amend the general mitigation provisions in CM 25-03 to introduce the mandatory use of mammal exclusion devices on trawls in the krill fisheries in Area 48 (CM 51-01) and Divisions 58.4.1 (CM 51-02) and 58.4.2 (CM 51-03). For instance, the WG-EMM 16/07 reports that a total of 3 seals died and 7 more were entangled in the gear but

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 146

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. released alive, and no seal mortalities were reported in 2016. SG80 is met . However, the assessment team considers that review on interactions with marine mammals and in particular with seabirds provided by the WG-EMM on the annual krill fishery report is not as exhaustive and accurate as those recently performed for the fish bycatch issue (eg. WG-FSA 16/04). For instance, WG-EMM 16/07 states that “There were no seal mortalities reported between 2008 and 2014 (…)”, while data reviewed by the assessment team confirms that at least 1 seal died in 2013 (as a result of interacting with the f/v Antarctic Sea), and another one died in 2014 (as a result of interacting with the f/v Betanzos). Besides, since the assessed vessel has only recently started its fishing operations, SISO data from the assessed vessel are still too limited in time to claim that testing support high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA, in particular when the effectiveness of reduced buoyancy, wireless device to monitor the net and the laser deterrent device still have to be proved. SG100 is not met d Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/strategy is the 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 Justific Chile is responsible for ensuring the assessed vessel fulfills with all commitments in ation relation to licensing, VMS and catch data reporting, observer coverage, etc. Although the vessel has just started its operations in December 2017, Chile has experience managing, monitoring and inspecting the former Chilean vessel targeting krill, the f/v Betanzos. At the CCAMLR website can be checked that the assessed vessel is included in the list of authorized vessels for catching krill for the current fishing season. Competent Authorities are normally performing their monitoring and inspection activities and reporting to CCAMLR. During the site visit none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding compliance of the assessed vessel with CCAMLR measures. Sampling performed by observers on board is an essential part of the implemented strategy for managing impacts of the fishery on ETP species. Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015) and concluded that occurrence of scientific observers onboard had improved significantly from 2010 onwards since the first adoption of CM 51-06 in 2009. In the case of Chile, mean observer’s coverage between 2013 and 2014 was found to be 58% (N of days at sea with observer on board in relation to total N days at sea), and therefore above 50% required in CM 51-06 for that period of time (only 3 out of the 15 vessels analyzed fall below 50%). On the other hand, sampling effort regarding bird and marine mammals interactions was compiled in the 2014 Krill Fishery Report (CCAMLR 2015b), showing that between 2011 and 2015 observers devoted a total of 2,997 days to observe incidental mortalities associated with the fishery –IMAF days- (51% of the total observed fishing days in that period) ( table 2.2.2.2 ). Table 2.2.2.2. An inventory of observer effort in Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3 for the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 147

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. period 2011 to 2015. No. of days fished is the sum of the number of days fished by each vessel, similarly the number of days on which the listed observer data were collected is the sum across all observers in that subarea in that year. Source: CCAMLR 2015b

During the site visit, Deris, S.A. representatives confirmed that the assessed vessel will have a full (100%) observer’s coverage. The assessment team could check that recording interactions with birds and mammals, and also sampling bycatch and fish length measurements were included among the tasks included in the type of contract prepared to be signed by the observers. The observer’s report from the first fishing trip performed by the assessed vessel confirmed the mandatory marine mammals exclusion device, the tori- lines and also the laser deterrent device were properly installed and in use during fishing operations. This report also shows that 72% of the total hauls were observed for incidental mortality and/or warp strikes of birds or mammals. Also, annual krill fishery reports updates info on seabirds and marine mammal interactions and mortality, and review recent trends. Vessels fishing within the SGSSI waters are obligued to get a local inspector on board. Further, at-sea inspections are also carried out by the South Georgia Fisheries Patrol Vessels. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy described in previous SIs is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met . However, during the site visit INACH recognized is not prepared to provide adequate training to observers working in the CCAMLR area and coordination between IFOP (the institution responsible for all observers programs within Chilean waters) is needed. Finally, SISO data available from the assessed vessel are still too limited in time (only a 2 month fishing trip) and only preliminary data from the first report could be assessed for this report. Based on all the above the assessment team considers that it cannot be claimed that there is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective. SG100 is not met e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 148

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. Met? Y Y N Justific Observer’s data show bird mortality associated to the krill fishery is kept at very reduced ation levels. However, the need to reduce the incidental mortality of, or injury to, seabirds from fishing operations led to the recent publication of CM 25-03 (2016) adopting several measures targeting this objective. SG60 is met . As described in SI(a) WG-IMAF was created in 1994 in response to high rates of bird mortality and met regularly until 2011 to review results and measures implemented, but it would to address specific issue identified by the Scientific Committee. In CCAMLR 2015b it is described the long process that led to introduce the mandatory use of mammal exclusion devices on trawls in the krill fisheries in 2009. This process illustrates how CCAMLR performed a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise incidental mortality on the Antarctic fur seal. The explanation provided in WG-EMM15/30 is copied below because it provides an useful insight which is relevant to this SI: “Prior to 2003, no incidental fur seal catches had been reported from the krill fishery. In 2003, discussions on the level of Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) mortality associated with the krill trawl fishery first took place in the Working Group on Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing (WG-IMAF). This was prompted by information included in the Report of Members’ Activities that in the krill fishery in Area 48, between 13 March and 26 August 2003, 73 Antarctic fur seals had been caught by one vessel in the krill fishery (of which 26 were killed and 47 were released alive). WG-IMAF recommended that vessel operators and researchers collaborate to develop and implement mitigation methods and requested that the Scientific Committee address how best to arrange appropriate reporting from the krill fishery. In 2004, data collected as part of SISO indicated that 292 fur seals were caught in Subarea 48.3. Some Members investigated and documented the use of mitigation devices to reduce seal entrapment in krill trawl nets and reported on the efficacy of seal-exclusion devices (SEDs). The Commission endorsed a recommendation by the Scientific Committee that a description of all methods be compiled into one document and distributed amongst CCAMLR Members. WG-IMAF also discussed the apparent inconsistencies and inadequacies of observer data on incidental mortality of fur seals and recommended the Commission require all krill trawl vessels to carry an observer to improve by-catch mitigation management efforts. In 2005, the number of seals observed captured in Area 48 was reduced to 97, however, the Scientific Committee reiterated its recommendations that every krill fishing vessel should employ a SED and that observers should be required on krill trawls to collect reliable data on mortalities and efficacy of mitigation devices. Observer reports were only received from four of nine trawl vessels in Area 48 in 2005 and this level of observer coverage was considered insufficient to estimate the total seal mortality in the fishery. WG-IMAF again recommended 100% coverage on all krill trawl vessels. One fur seal was captured in each of 2006 and 2007, although the level of observer coverage remained less than 100%. The Scientific Committee stressed the continued need for monitoring of incidental mortalities and for an improved reporting process on the use of mitigation devices within the trawl fishery in order to document which measures were successful. In 2008, six seal mortalities were observed in Subarea 48.3 and the Scientific Committee suggested the krill fishery notification pro forma should be amended to include specific information on gear configurations such as mesh size, net opening, presence and design of SEDs. The Commission agreed to amend the general mitigation provisions in CM 25-03 to introduce

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 149

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. the mandatory use of mammal exclusion devices on trawls in the krill fisheries in Area 48 (CM 51-01) and Divisions 58.4.1 (CM 51-02) and 58.4.2 (CM 51-03). The conservation measures were adopted by the Commission and are still in force.” Therefore, SG80 is met . However, last WG-IMAF meeting took place in 2011. The introduction of mandatory use of marine mammals happened in 2009, and no other measures were taken until the recent publication on the CM25-03 to minimize incidental mortality on seabirds and mammals. The WG-EMM update the information on interactions and incidental mortality of seabirds and mammals on the annual krill fishery report and provide some comments on recent trends, but that cannot be considered as a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise krill fishery related mortality ETP species. The assessment team even detected some inconsistencies in the data presented (see previous SI). This review is not comparable to the comprehensive and extended effort done by the WG-FSA (WG-FSA 16-04) and WG-EMM (WG-EMM 14-34) to review fish bycatches. Therefore SG100 is not met

References Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015; CCAMLR 2015b; WG-EMM 14/34; WG-FSA 16/04 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 150

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: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and

may be a threat to injuries and the OR protection and recovery of consequences for the the ETP species. status of ETP species.

If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes for information is adequate to ETP species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justific Quantitative information from SISO data is adequate to assess the impact of the krill ation fishery on ETP species, as recognized by the WG-EMM in the annual fishery report. In the case of the assessed vessel, at least one Chilean observer will always be on board on every fishing trip (when fishing under the SGGSSI jurisdiction is mandatory to also get on board an international observer). Therefore, the UoA ensures a 100% observer coverage. The assessment team could check that recording and reporting (using K5 and K6 SISO forms) entanglement and incidental mortality of birds is listed among the tasks included in the type of contract prepared to be signed by the observers. The observer on board during the first fishing trip observed for incidental mortality and/or warp strikes in 124 out of the 173 hauls performed (72%). No interactions were recorded despite the high effort devoted by the observer. Due to the limited set of data from the UoA, the assessment team also considered appropriate to review observers data collected between 2011 and 2016 on board the former Chilean vessel targeting krill presented in Arana & Rolleri 2017. This vessel (retired from the krill fishery in 2016) was using the same fishing gear as the assessed vessel, and also one of the skippers and the fleet manager is the same (see section 3.4.2.1 and table 3- 10 for more details). Detailed quantitative information on interactions was recorded and it is presented in table 3-12 . Therefore, some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG60 and 80 are met.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 151

However, since the assessed vessel has only recently started its fishing operations, observer’s data on interactions with seabirds and marine mammals are still too limited to claim that quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. This will depend not only on the observer’s coverage but also on the sampling effort devoted to this task by the observer on board (and the quality of the data collected). SG100 is not met b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage species. impacts on ETP species. impacts, 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 Y Justific Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM ation (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015) and concluded that occurrence of scientific observers onboard had improved significantly from 2010 onwards since the first adoption of CM 51- 06 in 2009. In the case of Chile, mean observer’s coverage between 2013 and 2014 was found to be 58% (N of days at sea with observer on board in relation to total N days at sea), and therefore above 50% required in CM 51-06 for that period of time (only 3 out of the 15 vessels analyzed fall below 50%). Further, sampling effort regarding bird and marine mammals interactions was compiled in the 2014 Krill Fishery Report (CCAMLR 2015b), showing that between 2011 and 2015 observers devoted a total of 2,997 days for observing incidental mortalities –IMAF observations- (51% of the total observed fishing days in that period) ( table 2.2.2.2 ). Finally this information is updated by the WG-EMM in annual krill fishery report and comments are provided on recent trends. No concerns have been raised on this issue. Based on the above, the assessment team considers that information is adequate to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. SG60 and 80 are met . Detailed data on interactions with birds and mammals during the first fishing trip performed by the assessed vessel were presented to the team. Also a detailed report on the data collected by observers on board the f/v Betanzos (Arana & Rolleri, 2017) were presented to the team. This set of data proves that Chilean observers are trained to collect IMAF and warp interactions data. Taking into account low frequency of occurrence of interactions with birds and mammals, the assessment team considers that SISO data provide and in particular those collected on board the UoA provide adequate information to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.. SG100 is met

References Arana and Rolleri 2017; Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 152

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 153

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justific In accordance to SA3.13.3.1, a commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat ation that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA. The krill fishery operates with midwater trawls designed to operate in the water column, between 5 and 400m depth, without any contact with the sea bottom (as they would be seriously damaged). Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment epipelagic and mesopelagic habitats are considered as commonly encountered habitats. Raymond 2011 performed a pelagic bioregionalization of the Southern Ocean south of 40ºS providing a spatial and environmental subdivision of the study area into 20 cluster types ( Figure 3-21 ). Comparing the map obtained by Raymond 2011 against the maps showing the historical pattern of the fishing activity of the f/v Betanzos (Figure 3-8, Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 ), and also knowing that the observer reported that during the first fishing trip of the assessed vessel hauls concentrated around Elephant Island and King George Island (South Shetland Islands) in Subarea 48.1 and around Orkney Islands in Subare 48.2, the five cluster types showed in table 2.4.1.1 are considered by the assessment team as the most likely to be encountered by the assessed vessel. Table 2.4.1.1. Pelagic habitats (as defined in Raymond 2011) considered as the most likely to be encountered by the assessed vessel.

#1 Description

1 Moderately shallow (to ~1000m) with ice cover ~20–50% and SST <2°C.

2 Low ice cover (~0–20%) and cold sea surface temperatures (<2°C).

Sea ice zone. Clusters 8–11 form an approximately latitudinal, deep water 10 continuum of increasing ice cover and decreasing SST. The northernmost limit (of cluster 10) is generally just south of the mean maximum winter sea ice extent.

Shallow (200-100m) parts of the northern Kerguelen, Crozet, and South Georgia 13 plateau areas, Conrad rise

1 Cluster number as referred in Raymond (2011)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 154

20 Shallow, ice-free, and with warm SST (~10–20°C).

Functions provided by pelagic habitats are determined by their physico-chemical parameters. Regionalization provided by Raymond (2011) is based on four physico- chemical variables: surface temperature, depth and sea ice formation. These were also the variables used in a primary regionalization performed in 2006 by Grant et al. 2006 (cited in Raymond 2011). It is clear that these parameters are not influenced by the fishing activity. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and habitats to a point where habitats to a point where function of the VME there would be serious or there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justific CCAMLR has defined and identified a series of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), ation according to the CM 22-06 and CM 22-07. CM22-06 establishes a set of measures for the management, assessment, monitoring and control and data collection, reporting and scientific research for bottom fishing. For the purposes of this CM, the term ‘vulnerable marine ecosystems’ in the context of CCAMLR includes seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold water corals and sponge fields . CM 22-07 establishes some requirements in order to acquire additional data to contribute to assessments and advice on a long-term precautionary approach to avoiding significant adverse impacts on VMEs. For the purpose of this measure, VME indicator organism’ means any benthic organism listed in the CCAMLR VME Taxa Classification Guide (available from the CCAMLR Secretariat and on the CCAMLR website). The f/v Antarctic Endeavour operates two types of conventional midwater trawls (i.e. bringing the codend on board at regular intervals): Gloria 192M and Omega 200 nets (see Table 3 2 for its technical characteristics). Details on the technical characteristics of these gears can be found in the observer’s report and in the notification of intend to participate in the krill fishery sent to the CCAMLR Secretariat before the start of the fishing season. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain) any contact with the sea bottom would jeopardize the integrity of the gear, and therefore there is little potential for damaging any type of benthic habitat. SG60 and SG80 are met . The first observer’s report from the UoA shows that average depth of the 173 hauls performed along 53 effective fishing days was 47m, while average depth while trawling was 507m. This is consistent with data collected by observers on board the f/v Juvel in 2013 and reported in Honneland et al 2015 (fishing average depth was found to be 37m, while bottom depths ranged between 80 and 917 m). Besides, since there is no contact with the sea bottom, it is very unusual that a fishing gear can be accidentally lost. The Deris manager (former manager of the company running the f/v Betanzos) confirmed that the f/v Betanzos never lost a gear during its 6 years of fishing activity. Honneland et al 2015 also reported that no gear has ever been reported as lost by the f/v Juvel since its first operation in 2009. Any loss of gear shall be reported by the observer onboard shall include this type of information in their reports. SG100 is met .

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 155

ost 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 Justific Minor habitats are defined by MSC as those which do not fall within the classification of ation Commonly Encountered Habitats or VME (SA3.13.3). Taking into consideration information presented in SI(a) and SI(b), for the purpose of this assessment all benthic habitats excluding seamounts, hydrothermal vents, cold water corals and sponge fields are be considered as Minor habitats. As explained in previous SI the midwater trawl used in the krill fishery is designed to operate in the water column without any contact with the sea bottom, data from observer’s reports confirm that they operate far away from the sea bottom, and the loss of gear is a very rare event that has never been recorded neither in the case of the f/v Betanzos nor on the f/v Juvel, both of them operating similar gears to the assessed vessel. SG100 is met.

References Grant et al. 2006; Raymond 2011 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 156

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 a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of expected to achieve the expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Y Y Y Justific Fisheries operating within the Convention Area are subject to several regulations relevant ation to this SI: ° A set of Conservation Measures that allow control of the fleet accessing the fishery, including licensing and inspection obligations (CM 10/02, CM 10/03), VMS (CM 10/04), technical characteristics of the fishing gears (CM 10/01, 22/01, 22/02), and in the case of the krill fishery a notification of intent to participate (CM21/03). ° Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) targeting, in the case of the krill fishery a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/2020 fishing season (CM 51/06). Depth and fishing depth are recorded on each haul. ° The use of bottom trawling gear in the high-seas areas of the Convention Area is restricted to areas for which the Commission has conservation measures in force for bottom trawling gear (CM22-05). Bottom trawling in all high seas areas within the Convention Area has been prohibited along with a complete prohibition on the use of gillnets. The only current CCAMLR high-seas fisheries are pelagic trawling for krill, demersal longlines, and pots for crabs and finfish. For the latter gears, in order to protect shelf-based benthic systems, bottom fishing is prohibited in water shallower than 550 m around the entire Antarctic continent. ° CM22-06 establishes a set of measures for the management, assessment, monitoring and control and data collection, reporting and scientific research for bottom fishing, in particular in relation to encounters with VMEs. ° The procedures to be followed by vessels to monitor and report encounters with potential VMEs during the course of bottom fishing are described in CM 22-07. These require fishing vessels to collect and report all catches of a suite of “VME- indicator taxa” that are described in CCAMLR’s VME Taxa Classification GuideFishing is also restricted around the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP) management sites. ° The ‘CCAMLR VME Registry’ records the locations and characteristics of VMEs and associated areas in the Convention Area which are notified under Conservation Measure 22-06 and Conservation Measure 22-07. Some of the information provided in this registry is displayed on the Online GIS . This registry is a requirement of Conservation Measure 22-06, and contributes to the global database of information on VMEs in areas beyond national jurisdiction established under the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 61/105. In accordance with the Antarctic Treaty System, there are different means of spatially managing and protecting the marine environment. Annex V of the Protocol on Environmental Protection recognises the outstanding values in the Southern Ocean, and

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 157

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. offers tools for its spatial management, such as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMAs). At present the implementation of marine spatial protection and management measures through the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ACTM) is coast-based and small-scale, but these measures are expected to contribute towards effective, representative and coherent spatial protection of marine biodiversity within the Antarctic Treaty Area. In 2009, CCAMLR designated the first high seas marine protected area called the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area. The South Orkney Islands southern shelf MPA encompasses an area just under 94,000 km 2 and came into force in May 2010. No fishing is allowed within the MPA (see section 3.4.1.5 for more details and maps on this and also the following MPAs mentioned). More recently, in October 2017, at its annual meeting in Hobart (Australia), CCAMLR agreed unanimously to designate the Ross Sea (MPA planning domain 8) as a new MPA. This is the world largest MPA (1.55 million km 2 of which 1.12 million km2 are designated as no take zone), although the Ross Sea falls outside of the geographical scope of the UoA and no krill fishing takes place in the area. There are another three MPAs proposed to CCAMLR: (i) East Antarctica MPA (MPA planning domain 7, including parts of Subareas 58.4.1 and 58.4.2; (ii) Weddell Sea MPA (1.8 million km 2 in MPA planning domain 3, including parts of the Subareas 48.5 and 48.6); (iii) Chile and Argentina have been leading the work for identifying MPAs in Domain 1 (which includes parts of the subareas 48.1 and 48.2), and a preliminary proposal for an MPA was presented to the WG-EMM in its latest annual meeting held in Buenos Aires (Argentina) in July 2017. The WG recognized the work done and considered it as an important step towards an MPA in this area (WG-EMM 17). In its annual meeting the SG- EMM reviews and discusses any progress made in relation to the existing MPAs or the establishment of new ones. The SGSSI MPA established in 2012 includes several measures to ensure the protection of benthic habitats (and land-based krill predators), such as: (i) the prohibition of all bottom trawling; (ii) a ban on all bottom fishing at depths less than 700 m and greater than 2,250m meaning that 92% of the seafloor is completely protected from fishing activity; (iii) No-take zones, extending 12 nautical miles from the coast, were created around South Georgia, Clerke Rocks, Shag and Black Rocks and the South Sandwich Islands, totalling 20,431 km2. The different measures in place to monitor and control the fishing activity within the Convention Area, together with the range of CMs in place to address the protection of VMEs, the creation and monitoring of two MPAs, and also the work done within the framework for the establishment of new MPAs (including one in Subareas 48.1 and 48.2) allow an understanding of how the implemented measures work to manage impacts caused on habitats by fisheries operating within the Convention Area. Further, CCAMLR structure and functioning (e.g: regular meetings of the WGs and Scientific Committee, CMs, etc) contains mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the UoA comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats and/or habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Y Y Y

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 158

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Justific As explained in PI2.4.1 SI(b) the midwater trawl used in the krill fishery is designed to ation operate in the water column without any contact with the sea bottom, data from observer’s reports confirm that they operate far away from the sea bottom, and the loss of gear is a very rare event that has never been recorded neither in the case of the f/v Betanzos nor on the f/v Juvel, both of them operating similar gears to the assessed vessel. Further, vessels are tracked with the use of VMS (and also through observers on board), and in the case of Chilean vessels they have never been warned because of entering in a no-take-zone or temporary closed area. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justific At the krill fishery level, observer’s report provide evidence that the assessed vessel and ation other vessels operating with the same gear such as the f/v Juvel operate far above from the sea bottom and no gear are lost. At CCAMLR level the annual reports by the WG-EMM provide evidence of the work done in relation to preserve VMEs, monitor existing MPAs or creating new ones. The ‘CCAMLR VME Registry’ records the locations and characteristics of VMEs and associated areas in the Convention Area which are notified under Conservation Measure 22-06 and Conservation Measure 22-07. Some of the information provided in this registry can be consulted at the Online GIS . SG80 and 100 are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative There is qualitative ost evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with both its complies with both its complies with its management requirements management requirements management requirements and with protection and with protection to protect VMEs. measures afforded to VMEs measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific CM22-06 establishes a set of measures for the management, assessment, monitoring and ation control and data collection, reporting and scientific research for bottom fishing, in particular in relation to encounters with VMEs. The procedures to be followed by vessels to monitor and report encounters with potential VMEs during the course of bottom fishing are described in CM 22-07. These require fishing vessels to collect and report all catches of a suite of “VME-indicator taxa” that are described in CCAMLR’s VME Taxa Classification Guide. However, all VMEs defined and identified by CCAMLR are benthic habitats, and thus CM 22-06 and 22-07 are only applicable to ‘bottom fishing activities’ (defined as the use of any

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 159

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. gear that interacts with the bottom), which is not the case of the krill fishery.

References WG-EMM 17 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 160

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution and The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood . habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence

relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. OR intensity of the UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA:

If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the

types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justific The krill fishery operates in the water column, with no contact with the sea bottom as ation explained in PI2.4.1 SI(b). Therefore, pelagic habitats are considered as main habitats for the UoA. Raymond (2011) performed a pelagic regionalization of the Southern Ocean south of 40ºS. Regionalisation analyses are used to classify the environment across a region into a number of discrete classes, thereby providing a spatial and environmental subdivision of the study area. These types of analyses are typically undertaken as part of spatial management and modelling activities. Raymond (2011) found a series of latitudinal bands in open ocean areas, consistent with oceanic fronts. Around islands and continents, the spatial scale of the pattern is finer, and is driven by vatiations in depth and sea ice (Figure 3-20 ). Therefore, pelagic habitats are driven by physico-chemical parameters without any relation to the fishing activity developed in the water column. The characterization of pelagic habitats provided at a regional level by Raymond (2011) it is considered appropriate to the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG60 and SG80 are met. Benthic habitat types were identified through the benthic bioregionalization work developed by Douglass et al. 2014, based on physical proxies such as depth, seabed slope, water column or seabed temperature and primary productivity ( Figure 3-21 ). However, Compared to many global ocean areas where bottom fishing occurs, the Southern Ocean is characterised by extremely limited data on both the prevailing bottom topography and associated benthic marine ecosystems. This is exemplified by the proportion of new species discovered by recent focused research efforts to study the marine benthic fauna of the region. CCAMLR recognizes this shortage and tries to overcome it by engaging the vessel to monitor and report encounters with potential VMEs during the course of bottom fishing as described in CM 22-07. SG100 is not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 161

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the ost broadly understand the allow for identification of gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the been quantified fully. of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, habitats, including spatial and there is reliable overlap of habitat with information on the spatial fishing gear. extent of interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is

adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justific As explained in PI2.4.1 SI(b) the midwater trawl used in the krill fishery is designed to ation operate in the water column without any contact with the sea bottom, data from observer’s reports confirm that they operate far above from the sea bottom and no gears are lost. Further, vessels are tracked with the use of VMS (and also through observers on board). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Monitoring Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk measured. to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justific Some environmental parameters, such as hydrographic and sea-ice cover information, are ation being monitored (by means of remote sensing, oceanographic buoys, etc.) as part of the CEMP to determine trends in the physical environment. The findings are incorporated within ecosystem and ocean current models (such as OCCAM). SG80 is met . However, monitoring benthic habitats in the Antarctic area and tracking their changes is a difficult and expensive task that has not been accomplished so far. SG100 is not met.

References Raymond 2011 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 162

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem point where there would be point where there would be structure and function to a a serious or irreversible a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justific The krill fishery is characterised by high catch selectivity, minimal interactions with birds ation and marine mammals, and a zero impact on benthic habitats. In this area, other invertebrates and mesopelagic fish are only important as prey in years when krill recruitment has been poor, and the reproductive performance of krill predators is generally down in those years also (Murphy et al, 2007). However, as explained in detail in PI 1.1.1A SI(a), there is no evidence that the krill population has declined since the circumpolar survey was conducted in 2000; krill estimated biomass used since as a proxy for unexploited biomass (Hill et al . 2016). Therefore, recruitment failure as a result of overfishing is highly unlikely at the current estimated krill biomass Thus, this fishery (and therefore the UoA) may impact on the key elements underlying the Antarctic marine ecosystem structure by triggering cascade-effects caused by the removal of krill from the food web. However, Hewitt et al. (2004) estimated the annual predator demand for krill in Area 48 as orders of magnitude higher than the current fishery uptake. Nicoll and Douglass (2012) also agree that removals by the krill fishery have been estimated to be orders of magnitude below the demand from predators and the biomass available to both predators and the fishery.. SG60 and SG80 are met. Krill catches could result in an appreciable ecosystem impact if they are concentrated in small localized areas that simultaneously serve as important foraging grounds for dependent predators. Nicoll and Douglass (2012) showed that the krill fishery overlaps with foraging areas of Antarctic fur seals around the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula. de Hinke et al 2016 examines the overlap of the fishery, three penguin species and a seal population and on a range of spatiotemporal scales throughout the Antarctic Peninsula region. Our results demonstrate that direct overlap of krill-dependent predators with the krill fishery on small spatiotemporal scales is relatively common throughout the Antarctic Peninsula and South Orkney Islands region. Recognizing the risk of localized, potentially negative ecosystem impacts by the fishery CCAMLR introduced a trigger level of 620 000 tonnes above which the fishery cannot proceed. The trigger level has been subdivided such that catches in any one season may not exceed 155 000 tonnes in Subarea 48.1 and 279 000 tonnes in Subareas 48.2 and 48. 3 (CM 51-07). The overall trigger level, which corresponds to 11% of the estimated sustainable catch limit, is in place until a mechanism to distribute catches in a manner designed to avoid localized impacts is agreed. In 2003 CCAMLR agreed to the definition of a suite of small-scale management units (SSMUs) in Area 48 that are based on the distribution of krill, krill-predators and the fishery, however no agreement has been reached yet on the allocation of catches at this scale. Notwithstanding, recent studies that evaluated the impact of the krill fishery on predators indicate that limiting catches at the trigger level would satisfy ecosystem needs

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 163

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. (Smith et al. 2011, Plaganyi and Butterworth 2012, Watters et al. 2013).Further, Hill et al. (2016) estimated a long-term exploitation rate (annual catch divided by biomass) of <6% for the period 1996-2014, which is below the 9.3% level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and to support krill predators. Therefore, at the current harvest rate there is evidence that the krill fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm (and therefore the degree of certainty is even higher in the case of dealing solely with the UoA). SG100 is met .

Hewitt et al. (2004); Hill et al. (2016); Hill et al. 2016; Murphy et al, 2007; Nicoll and References Douglass (2012); Plaganyi and Butterworth 2012; Shreeve et al; Smith et al. 2011; Watters et al. 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 164

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 serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which place, if necessary, which consists of a plan , in place take into account the takes into account available which contains measures to potential impacts of the information and is address all main impacts of fishery on key elements of expected to restrain the UoA on the ecosystem, the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on the and at least some of these ecosystem so as to achieve measures are in place. the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justific Fisheries operating within the Convention Area are subject to several regulations relevant ation to this SI: ° A set of Conservation Measures that allow control of the fleet accessing the fishery, including licensing and inspection obligations (CM 10/02, CM 10/03), VMS (CM 10/04), technical characteristics of the fishing gear (CM 10/01, 22/01, 22/02) and, in the case of the krill fishery, a notification of intent to participate (CM21/03),) ° Enforcement of collection and reporting of catches (CM23/01, CM 23/02, CM 23/03, CM 23-06), including haul by haul data to complete CCAMLR fine-scale catch and effort data form (Form C1). ° Scheme of International Scientific Observation (SISO) targeting, in the case of the krill fishery a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/2020 fishing season (CM 51/06). The following tasks related to this SI are included among the observers duties: (i) to identify and sample bycatches (i) to record incidental mortality of birds and mammals and warp strikes; (ii) to inspect whether environmental requirements included in CM 26-01 (see below) are being accomplished and report non-compliances ° CM 51-01 (2010) included the mandatory use of marine mammal exclusion devices on trawls in the krill fishery, and it also establishes a trigger limit of 620,000 tonnes for catches in Subareas 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4. ° CM 51-07 (2016) establishes an interim distribution of the trigger level determined in CM 51-01 between the different subareas (see table 3-14 for details on the different percentages). This distribution aims to alleviate the potential for adverse impacts of the fishery in coastal areas on land-based predators, while SSMUs-based management is not adopted. ° CM 25-03 establishes a set of measures to all trawl fisheries in order to minimize incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals (see PI 2.2.2 for more details) ° CMs 22-05, 22-06 and 22-07 aims to protect benthic habitats, in particular VMEs (see PI 2.4.2 for more details) ° CM 26-01 establishes a set of measures to protect the marine environment. There are measures regulating the disposal of plastic packgagin bands and the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 165

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. translocation of poultry, and also prohibiting the discharge in high latitudes. Other elements of the CCAMLR managing strategy relevant for this SI are described below: ° The CEMP, implemented in 1985, is a circumpolar research effort designed to detect changes in predator populations and distinguish between changes attributable to fisheries and environmental variation. In particular, the CEMP includes measurements intended to provide information across a range of spatiotemporal scales, from short-term and local-scale impacts (i.e., assessments of foraging effort, diet, chick growth, and reproductive success during the breeding season) to longer-term and larger-scale impacts that integrate over the non-breeding period in habitats remote from local breeding areas (e.g., trends in population size and survival rates). The predators were chosen because they are central-place foragers (they must forage close to breeding colonies to provision their offspring on regular intervals) whose diets typically contain high proportions of Antarctic krill. In addition krill as a harvested species and major prey item and certain key environmental variables are also included. CCAMLR envisions to achieve a feedback management for the krill fishery which integrates information from CEMP, but work to implement such a strategy is still ongoing. In the meantime some proposals have been presented (Trathan et al., 2015, Watters et al., 2016). ° The WG-IMAF was created in response to concerns over the decline in albatross populations, and the potential for this to be exacerbated by interactions with CCAMLR fisheries. It met regularly for 16 years until in 2011 decided that while there remains a need to retain the issue of incidental mortality on its agenda, WG- IMAF should meet in future to address specific issue(s) identified by the Scientific Committee (rather than have a fixed meeting schedule). So far, WG-IMAF has not met again since then. ° In 2011 CCAMLR adopted Conservation Measure 91-04 (CM 91-04) 'General framework for the establishment of CCAMLR Marine Protected Areas' in accordance with Article IX of the Convention to provide a framework for the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. Currently, two MPAs have been adopted by the Covention: (i) the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA in 2009; (ii) The Ross Sea MPA in 2017. Three more MPAs have been proposed to CCAMLR: (i) Eastern Antarctica MPA; (ii) Weddell Sea MPA; (iii) a new preliminary proposal for an MPA in the Western Peninsula – South Scotia Arc presented to the WG-EMM in its last annual meeting held in Argentina in July 2017. ° WG-EMM updates and reviews information on the krill fishery (including bycatches and incidental mortality), MPAs (monitoring on the existing ones and progress on the proposed ones), and CEMP data. This information is compiled in several documents (eg. the annual krill fishery report, the WG-EMM annual meeting report). Further, in order to avoid overlap between the krill fishery and krill land- based predators (especially penguins and fur seals) during their breeding seasons, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Government established a Marine Protected Area in 2012, with a no-take zone around the islands, a seasonal closure of the fishery for Antarctic krill from 1 November to 31 March, and additional closed areas to protect sensitive benthic fauna and provide refugia for Patagonian toothfish. Additionally, there are nine benthic closed areas within their territorial waters (see section 3.4.1.5 for more details on the SGSSI MPA) The different measures in place to monitor and control the fishing activity within the Convention Area (including limiting total and subarea catches, bycatch and incidental mortality of birds and marine mammals), together with the comprehensive monitoring activity developed within the CEMP, the range of CMs in place to address the protection of

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 166

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. VMEs, the effort done in developing MPAs in accordance with CM 91-04 and the creation of two MPAs, and the regular compilation and review of those data by the WG-EMM are key elements of CCAMLR strategy to implement an ecosystem approach to manage fisheries. Further, CCAMLR structure and processes (e.g: regular meetings of the WGs and Scientific Committee, a body of Conservation Measures (CMs)) permit modification of fishing practices when unacceptable ecosystem impacts are detected. Feedback management (FBM) is an approach that would use decision rules to adjust distribution and level of krill catch in response to estimates of the state of the ecosystem. FBM claims to be a more effective way to achieve multiple objectives of ecosystem-based management than catch limits (Hill and Cannon 2013). Despite that FB is still on a developmental stage CCAMLR has in place a strategy that consists of a plan, which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the UoA comparison with similar about the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved fisheries/ ecosystems). ecosystem involved Met? Y Y N Justific There is no evidence that the krill population has declined since the circumpolar survey ation was conducted in 2000 (Hill et al. 2016) and estimated a krill biomass which has been used as a proxy for unexploited biomass. This finding supports with a high degree of certainty the view that the stock is well above the point where there could be serious ecosystem impacts, as assessed in PI 1.1.1A. Also, Hill et al. (2016) estimated that long-term exploitation rate in this fishery is below the level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and to support krill predators, also at subarea level. Reports from observers, including extensive reviews provided by CCAMLR prove that bycatch of fish and non-fish species is restricted to negligible percentages of the catch (0.1-0.2% of total volume of catches) as assessed in detailed in PIs 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2. Also, data from observers and information reported in the annual krill fishery reports prepared by the WG- EMM show that the impact on non-ETP birds and ETP species (birds and marine mammals) are very limited as assessed in detail in PIs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Thus, there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures in place will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved, SG60 and SG80 are met. Studies on feedback management suggest that this would be an effective approach for ecosystem-based management (Hill and Cannon 2013, Watters et al. 2016) and spatially resolved models that simulate krill-predators-fishery interactions have been developed to evaluate candidate management measures (Watters et al. 2013). However, FBM has not yet been fully tested and results so far do not yet support high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or ecosystem involved. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 167

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. implemented successfully . successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justific Catches of the fishery have always remained below the trigger level. For the last three ation consecutive fishing seasons the management system has probed the capacity to enforce the closure of Subarea 48.1 before the end of the season in accordance with CM 51-07, as reported catches were approaching the trigger level. Chile is responsible for ensuring the assessed vessel fulfills with all commitments in relation to licensing, VMS and catch data reporting, observer coverage, etc. Although the vessel has just started its operations in December 2017, Chile has experienced managing, monitoring and inspecting the former Chilean vessel targeting krill, the f/v Betanzos. At the CCAMLR website can be checked that the assessed vessel is included in the list of authorized vessels for catching krill for the current fishing season. Competent Authorities are normally performing their monitoring and inspection activities and reporting to CCAMLR. During the site visit none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding compliance of the assessed vessel with CCAMLR measures. Sampling performed by observers on board is an essential part of the implemented strategy for managing impacts of the fishery on ecosystems. Observer’s coverage and sampling effort in the krill fishery was reviewed by the WG-EMM (Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015 ), and results are above standard. See PI 2.3.2 SI (d) for a detailed discussion on the results. WG-EMM updates and reviews information on the krill fishery (including bycatches and incidental mortality), MPAs (monitoring on the existing ones and progress on the proposed ones) and CEMP data. This information is compiled in several documents (eg. the annual krill fishery report, the WG-EMM annual meeting report) that can be requested to the CCAMLR Secretariat through the CCAMLR website. Vessels fishing within the SGSSI waters are obliged to get a local inspector on board. Further, at-sea inspections are also carried out by the South Georgia Fisheries Patrol Vessels. CEMP data are being used for scientific publications proposing future management measures for the krill fishery (eg. Trathan et al., 2015, Watters et al., 2016). Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy described in previous SIs is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met . Further steps towards developing the implementation of an ecosystem-based management strategy for the krill fishery are still under discussion, and neither the ambitious feedback management including SSMUs (Hewitt et al 2004, Watters et al 2013) nor the development of the risk-based system based in overlapping indices (Hinke et al 2017) have been implemented. During the site visit INACH recognized is not prepared to provide adequate training to observers working in the CCAMLR area and coordination between IFOP (the institution responsible for all observers’ programs within Chilean waters) is needed. Finally, SISO data available from the assessed vessel are still too limited in time (only a 2 month fishing trip) and only preliminary data from the first report could be evaluated for this report. Based on the above the assessment team concludes that there is no clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective. SG100

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 168

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. is not met

References Arata and Santa-Cruz, 2015; Hill and Cannon 2013; Hill et al. (2016); Trathan et al., 2015; Watters et al. 2013; Watters et al. 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 169

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 Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements of broadly understand the key the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justific Ecosystems are defined by their combined physical and biological processes. Different ation locations in the Southern Ocean are dominated by different suites of physical processes and have different food webs (Constable and Doust, 2009). For example, the Ross Sea is different from the Weddell Sea and the Kerguelen Plateau is different from the Scotia Sea (Knox 2007). The importance of Antarctic krill varies throughout the Southern Ocean. Antarctic krill dominate in the southwest Atlantic around the Antarctic Peninsula, Scotia Arc and Weddell Sea (i.e. the area included in the UoA) (Shreeve et al 2009). The role of krill in the ecosystem is crucial, because the resource provides the major link between LTL production and consumption by higher trophic level predators across the Scotia Sea (Murphy et al. 2007). In a subsequent research article aiming at improving understanding of the structure and functioning of polar pelagic ecosystems, Murphy et al. (2016) state that the Antarctic krill is the main prey species in the areas of the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) and over the South Georgia shelf (two polar regions they selected specifically for their study), although they recognise that other species of meso- and macrozooplankton are important in energy flow to fish and other larger species (see section 3.3.1 for more details on this study However, it is important to remark that Southern Ocean food webs are more complex than the oft-cited simple phytoplankton- krill-whales food chain, with many more species involved at higher trophic levels (Figure 3 22). Therefore, key elements of the Scotia Sea ecosystem are: (i) krill, (ii) krill-dependent predators, and (iii) primary production and physical environmental variables affecting krill biomass and distribution. The krill-dependent species identified (and monitored) by the CEMP are: Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae ), Chinstrap penguin ( P.antarctica ), Gentoo penguin ( P.papua ), Macaroni penguin ( Eudyptes chrysolophus ), black-browed albatross ( Thallasarche melanophrys ), Antarctic penguin ( Thalassoica Antarctica ), Cape petrel ( Daption capense ), Antarctic fur seal ( Arctocepahalus gazella ). Monitoring at CEMP-sites has been providing valuable information on their distribution, forage behavior, population trends and response to environmental parameters ( https://www.ccamlr.org/en/science/ccamlr- ecosystem-monitoring-program-cemp ). Some krill-dependent species, such as crabeater seal ( Lobodon carcinophagus ), while considered likely to respond to changes in krill availability, have not been used in monitoring because they live in the pack-ice and so are not amenable to repeated/annual monitoring. Different studies have investigated environmental factors affecting krill biomass and distribution. Using transfer function models Quiroz et al (2011) found that atmospheric pressure at sea level (APSL) influences CPUE of Antarctic krill. Kasatkina and Shnar (2016) showed that the presence or absence of krill in a subareas/SSMUs in the Scotia Sea is in a greater degree a reflection of the dynamics of krill geostrophic transport, and is not determined by the krill stock state or not determined by the influence of krill fishery. Finally, CEMP also monitors environmental parameters, such as hydrographic and sea-ice cover information, were selected to monitor trends in the physical environment.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 170

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

The Southern Ocean ecosystem will be the first part of the global marine system to experience the full suite of physical changes expected from climate change (Constable 2009). The Australian Antarctic Division summarizes in its website (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/climate-processes-and-change/marine-ecosystem- change ) observed and expected changes in this marine ecosystem as follows: “Changes have been observed in the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities, with some species becoming more dominant; the movement of temperate species south and a contraction in the range of polar species; and changes in the ability of some organisms to form shells, due to ocean acidification. The current recovery of many higher predators (whales and seals) from historic over-exploitation will impose further change on Southern Ocean ecosystems. In the future, a predicted reduction in sea ice will cause a loss of habitat for ice-associated organisms, from microbes to seals. It will also change the amount of light penetrating the ocean surface and surface water stratification (water layers of different salinity and temperature). These changes may reduce the extent of the ice edge algal bloom that is crucial to the productivity in the Southern Ocean and that supports the specialised food chain linked to krill” . Therefore, the challenge for researchers is now to identify the ecological responses and resilience of Southern Ocean ecosystems to the impacts of climate change. The ability to detect and understand ecological changes in the Southern Ocean requires a carefully designed program of observations, experiments, monitoring and modelling. Existing initiatives include the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP), Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), and the Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS). Despite the challenges posed by the impact of climate change on these marine ecosystems, there is no doubt that information is adequate to identify and broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem in the Southern Ocean (and therefore in the Scotia Sea). SG60 and 80 are met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between ost these key ecosystem these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be from existing information, from existing information, inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail . investigated in detail . Met? Y Y Y Justific Information collected in the logbooks and, in particular, data collected by the observers on ation board provide detailed information on impacts of the krill fishery (including the UoA) on krill stock and krill-dependent species. Key environmental factors (sea ice cover, APS, etc.) are not affected by the fishery activity (it actually works the other way around). SG60 is met. The impact of the krill fishery on the krill stock have been investigated in detail by the WG- EMM as explained in section 3.3.2 and assessed in PI 1.2.4. On the other hand, CEMP's major function is to monitor the key life-history parameters of selected dependent species to detect changes in the abundance of harvested species. Suitable ‘indicator species’ (see previous SI for details on the 8 indicator species selected for krill) should show measurable responses to changes in the availability of the harvested species, for example in changes in population size, breeding success, body mass and foraging behaviour. CEMP is implemented since 1990, and in some instances national programmes were in place over a decade prior to that time. The CEMP database consequently forms a very powerful archive with which to study ecosystem interactions (Everson 2000). Information resulting from the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 171

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. CEMP monitoring has provided the basis to analyze in detail the overlap between the fishery and krill-predators in the Scotia Sea (eg. Hinke et al 2017) and it has also fed ecosystem models which are being evaluated as decision making tools for an ecosystem- based management of the fishery (Plangányi et al 2012, Watters et al 2013, Trathan et al 2015). Further, other studies have investigated the interactions between krill-dependent species and the krill fishery using data independent from the CEMP. For example, Descamps et al (2016) tracked Antarctic petrel to quantify the overlap between the krill fishery and the distribution of this species, and even performed stomach content studies to describe the length frequency distribution of Antarctic krill consumed by Antarctic petrels to compare it with results from the fishery, as well as diet studies in other krill predators. On the other hand, the potential climate change effects on the krill fishery are starting to be investigated (Hill et al, 2013), including its effects on the krill-predator-fishery interactions (Reiss et al, 2015). Based on the information presented above SG80 and SG100 are met. c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known . these components in the ecosystem are understood . Met? Y Y Justific The impacts of the UoA on P1, primary, secondary, ETP species and habitats are identified ation as it was reflected in PIs 1.1.1A, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and 2.4.1. Most of those components constitute key elements of the Southern Ocean ecosystem (krill and krill-dependent predators) as defined and explained in SI(a). As explained in previous SIs those key elements are being monitored (krill has a stock assessment and CEMP is focused on the 8 selected krill-depedent predators listed in SI(a)) and their main functions in the ecosystem are understood. The main functions performed by the rest of the components (fish species caught as bycatch, non krill-dependent predators or krill-dependent predators such as the crabeater seal and whales) in the Southern Ocean marine ecosystems are understood (Murphy et al 2003, Murphy et al 2016, Everson 2000). The WG-EMM also compiles, review and analyses data on other foraging behavior or whales (based on at-sea sightings), prey distribution including fish species and salps (from data collected during research cruises conducted by the U.S. AMLR Program and the Palmer LTER Program or Germany surveys) or important areas for fish life cycles (WG-EMM15-42). For instance this information has been updated and analysed as part of the spatial analysis needed to develop the preliminary proposal for an MPA in the Western Peninsula – South Scotia Arc presented to the WG-EMM in its last annual meeting held in Argentina in July 2017 The challenge now is placed on detecting and understanding the ecological changes in the Southern Ocean ecosystems. Several international initiatives are monitoring and modelling this ecosystems to gain a deeper knowledge on their underlying processes (see SI(a)). SG80 and SG100 are met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 172

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Met? Y Y Justific The information collected by the SISO observers provides detailed information of the ation impact of the krill fishery on the affected different components (fish bycatch, seabirds, marine mammals) at a species level. This information is recorded following standardized protocols and compiled and analysed by the WG-EMM. The predators were chosen as indicator species in the CEMP because they are central- place foragers (they must forage close to breeding colonies to provision their offspring on regular intervals) whose diets typically contain high proportions of Antarctic krill. The restricted foraging space and dietary preference of these predators during the breeding season suggest that fishing activity near breeding colonies may have measurable impacts on the predators (Hinke et al 2017 and references cited therein). For example, endangered African penguins exhibited a reduction in foraging effort and an increase in chick survival after a no-take marine protected area was established around their breeding colonies, demonstrating that predator performance can be sensitive to the spatial distribution of fishing. Similarly, the predators studied within the CEMP are considered useful indicators for developing fisheries management advice. Further, other studies based on data other than information collected through the CEMP provide information on the overlap of the krill fishery at a species level (e.g. Descamps et al 2016 assess competition between krill fishery and does it for the Antarctic petrel). Therefore, fishery-dependent data (information collected by the observers), CEMP monitoring and other specific studies provides adequate information on the impacts of the krill fishery (and therefore on the impacts of the UoA) at a species level (ecosystem elements) to allow the main consequences for the ecosystema to be inferred. SG80 and SG100 are met. e Monitoring Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justific CM 51-06 (2016) establishes an observer coverage target rate of no less than 50% of ation vessels during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 fishing seasons; this rate will increase to no less than 75% in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons and will reach a 100% coverage subsequently. The assessed vessel will carry 100% observer coverage in all fishing trips. Hinke et al (2017), based on references cited therein, summarizes the following: “Despite the long tenure of the CEMP, however, parameterization of the functional responses of krill-dependent predators to variations in krill biomass and krill catches remains difficult. This difficulty likely arises for myriad reasons, including: 1) massive inter-annual variations in krill standing stock due to recruitment, advection, and changes in krill assessment methodology; 2) strong climate signals in predator reproductive performance and demography; 3) oceanographic and bathymetric conditions that appear to aggregate krill locally; and 4) temporary catch quotas intended to minimize local depletion of prey. Additionally, the predators are highly mobile and often disperse widely throughout the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 173

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Southern Ocean during the austral winter. Such dependence on distant foraging habitats may dilute an assessment of local fishing impacts. Nonetheless, krill-dependent predators and the fishery ultimately have a functional overlap; both are dependent on krill. If predators and the fishery use the same population of krill, it follows that removal of krill by one group may limit availability to the other. In the absence of clear functional responses, other metrics of predator fishery interactions may be useful for informing management decisions. In systems with resource competition, actors typically minimize competition by partitioning their use of available resources in space and time. Therefore, quantitative descriptions of spatiotemporal overlap between predators and the fishery provide an index of the risk of potential competition for a shared resource. Locations with high overlap might be considered locations where the risks of negative impacts by the fishery are highest.” Also, Hill et al 2016 uses data from local-scale monitoring programs established in 3 subareas to assess the risk to fail maintaining the krill stock and support krill predators. SG80 is met. Hill et al. 2016 remarks that finer-scale management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts which might arise as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas or climate change. Hinke et al (2017) also argue that finer scale indices of overlap would be relevant to decisions regarding the spatial and temporal distribution of catch. These authors stress that the extent of concurrent overlap between predator foraging areas and fishing locations is unknown in the Scotia Sea, but potentially widespread throughout coastal regions, especially near breeding areas. Bycatches of penguins and seals in krill fishing nets are rare, but have been recorded, indicating that overlap can occur at the finest possible scale. A precautionary approach to allocating krill catches in space would be to avoid large increases in catch where overlap on small spatiotemporal scales is common. However, despite the fact that different ecosystem models are being evaluated as decision making tools for an ecosystem-based management of the fishery (Plangányi et al 2012, Watters et al 2013, Trathan et al 2015), there are still gaps in the data available particularly where the fishery occurs but information on predators is lacking that are delaying implementation of the feedback management (WG-EMM-17/50 Rev.1). Hill et al. 2016 argue that understanding the effects of the fishery on krill and on dependent and related populations requires improved information on the krill stock (biomass, stock structure and production) at scales that are relevant to CCAMLR’s conservation objectives. SG100 is not met.

Constable and Doust, 2009; Descamps et al (2016); Everson 2000; Hill et al 2016; Hill et al, 2013; Hinke et al 2017; Kasatkina and Shnar (2016); Knox 2007; Murphy et al 2003; References Murphy et al 2016; Murphy et al. 2007; Plangányi et al 2012; Quiroz et al (2011); Reiss et al, 2015; Shreeve et al 2009; Söffker, M. 2017; Trathan et al 2015; Watters et al 2013; WG- EMM15-42; WG-EMM-17/50 Rev.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 174

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

Met? Y Y Y Justific At the global level the Antarctic krill fishery is ruled by CCAMLR provisions, which fully fit to ation the precautionary approach and the ecosystem-based management and meet the international requirements on sustainable fishing. Management system is subjected to international cooperation which includes data collection, sharing and dissemination of scientific information, efforts to update the stock assessment, definition and implementation of agreed and binding conservation measures and a comprehensive MCS system. Measures implemented by the Convention properly consider protection of habitats and the entire ecosystem (e.g. Marine Protected Areas). See subsections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 for more details on CCAMLR Principles, objectives, structure and functioning. Chile participates in the krill fishery as a full member of the Convention to which became adhered in 1981. The country enacted the text of the Convention as a national law and all the conservation measures annually dictated by the Commission are formally adopted as domestic regulations. At national level (Chile) the General Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture, LFA (see MINECON, 1991) provides a legal framework which fully meet the international requirements and standards for sustainable fishing. Long-term objectives of LFA detailed in PI 3.1.3 are in line with Principle 2 of MSC. On the other hand, the recently proposed new National Antarctic Policy (DIRANTARTICA, 2017) states that one of its objectives is to protect and promote the care of the Antarctic environment, including the marine environment as well as the dependent and associated ecosystems. Sectoral national institutions (e.g. SUBPESCA, SERNAPESCA, INACH) are legally and duly coordinated and ready for cooperation. Krill-related ministerial coordination (i.e. MINECON, MINREL) also exists. As there is an effective national legal system an dbinding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2, SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Resolution of disputes Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 175

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective . of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justific The text of the Convention (Art. XXV) explicitly considers mechanisms for the resolution of ation disputes or conflicts which may arise within the fishery, including external arbitration as described below: 1. If any dispute arises between two or more of the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, those Contracting Parties shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice. 2. Any dispute of this character not so resolved shall, with the consent in each case of all Parties to the dispute, be referred for settlement to the International Court of Justice or to arbitration; but failure to reach agreement on reference to the International Court or to arbitration shall not absolve Parties to the dispute from the responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it by any of the various peaceful means referred to in paragraph 1 above. 3. In cases where the dispute is referred to arbitration, the arbitral tribunal shall be constituted as provided in the Annex to this Convention. At national level (Chile) the management system considers transparent and effective mechanisms to resolve conflicts or disputes. Any stakeholder or interested group may appeal to the governmental sectoral institutions to present its claims or enforce its rights; in practice interested parties are all well aware about the procedures to be followed. If necessary, stakeholders may appeal to the judicial system , and verdicts of the civil tribunal may be resorted at a higher level (i.e. Appealing Courts). Therefore, management system incorporates (both at a Regional and at a National level) 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. SG60 and SG80 are met. However, during the site visit conducted by the assessment team no evidence about the existence of legal conflicts emerged and no documents on this issue were available either. One of the Chilean senior representatives in the meetings of the Commission and WGs indicates that he has never known of disputes within the organisation (P. Arana, pers. com.) Therefore the team can not confirm whether the mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes have been tested and proven to be effective. SG100 is not met. c Respect for rights Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the legal observe the legal rights formally commit to the rights created explicitly or created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly established by custom of established by custom of or established by custom of

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 176

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. people dependent on people dependent on people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood fishing for food or livelihood fishing for food and in a manner consistent with in a manner consistent with livelihood in a manner the objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC consistent with the Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justific No indigenous or aboriginal groups participate in the Antarctic krill fishery . Chilean vessels ation operating in the krill fishery all belong to the industrial fishing sector and so no artisanal fleet has ever been involved in this fishery either. CCAMLR guarantees the opportunity to participate in the krill fishery to all vessels that meet the notification requirements (CM 21-03 (2016)), commit with full compliance of obligations set in CM 10-02 (2016) and are no listed in the IUU Fishing vessel lists (CM 10-06 (2016) and CM 10-07(2016)). Further, fishing rights of the Chilean vessel Antarctic Endeavour are legally guaranteed as long as conditions stipulated in the permit are not violated. MSC P1 objectives are to have a fishery conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of target stock(s). In this context, the fishing license issued to the vessel (which is the via for granting of legal rights) explicitly demands – in addition to compliance with general fisheries regulations- the fulfillment of Conservation Measures 51-01 (2010); 51-06 (2016) and 51-07 (2016). All of these measures relate to the sustainability of the target stock. MSC P2 objectives are to have fishing operations that allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends, including habitats and other species. In this context the fishing license issued to the vessel (which is the via for granting of legal rights) explicitly demands – in addition to compliance with general fisheries regulations- the fulfillment of Conservation Measures 25-03 (2016); 26-01 (2015); 91-02 (2012); 91-03 (2009) and 33-01 (1995). All of these measures relate to minimisation of environmental impact of krill fishing. Therefore, the CCAMLR management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG60, SG80 are SG100 are met.

References [CCAMLR Annual Fishery Reports; CCAMLR website (www.ccamlr.org); DIRANTARTICA, (2017); MINECON, (1991); Text of the Convention, (1982). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 177

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 Guidep Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and ost individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities are generally understood . are explicitly defined and are explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justific CCAMLR as the international organization responsible for the conservation of marine ation resources, protection of the marine ecosystem and fisheries management in the Southern Ocean, has a structure where roles (functions) and responsibilities for each body are distinctly defined. The Commission is the ultimate decision-making body which regularly sets and reviews the conservation measures as well as other management actions. Its work is guided and supported by the Scientific Committee (SC) which in turn is helped by specialized Working Groups (WG). Data collection and scientific information are key elements for SC and WG´s. The Executive Secretariat plays a role of broad coordination and also is in charge of the maintenance and updating of the database. A Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC), examines and evaluates compliance of regulations, looks after the IUU Fishing and makes proposals to improve the Inspection System and the Scheme of International Scientific Observation. As mentioned in Section 3.5.3. a strategic plan was developed by the CCAMLR Secretariat which describes the core services provided to members and other stakeholders for the period 2015 to 2018. At a National level the LFA defines the institutions involved in the fishing sector and management process. In regard to the krill fishery, the sectoral institutional framework is comprised by governmental agencies (i.e. SUBPESCA, SERNAPESCA, Antarctic Directorate, INACH, Chilean Navy) and ministries (i.e. MINECON, MINREL) whose functions are clearly defined, as well as advisory /consultative bodies such as the national CCAMLR Commission (see Section 3.5.6 for more details on the different roles performed by the Institutions). In general terms the participation of Chile in the CCAMLR activities proceeds as follows: the Antarctic Directorate (Ministry of Foreing Affairs), is the official representative at the Commission meetings and the formal communication link between Chile and CCAMLR; this Directorate which also acts as secretariat of the CCAMLR National Section, receives all the inputs and information from SUBPESCA (notification and authorization of fishing vessels), SERNAPESCA (catch and effort data, port inspections), Navy-Directorate of Maritime Affairs and Aquatic Environment (at-sea inspections of foreign vessels, movements of vessels within the CCAMLR area, data of VMS) and INACH (observers programme)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 178

Further, representatives from SERNAPESCA and the Navy attend the meetings of the SCIC, and experts from INACH participate in the meetings of the Scientific Committee (SC) as well as the meetings of the WG-EMM; representatives from SUBPESCA attend the meetings of the Commission and this institution also coordinates with the Antarctic Directorate the participation of Chilean scientists in the SC and working groups (WG). Notifications of Chilean vessels to fish krill are first analized by SUBPESCA and the Antarctic Directorate and then go to CCAMLR, where pass through WG EMM, the SC and the Commission. In addition, and although no included in the sectoral institutional framework, it is worth to mention the research center IDEAL. This entity is financed by the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) of Chile, through the Fund of Research Centers in High-priority Areas (FONDAP). Its main goal is to measure and understand the impacts of environmental stressors caused by global change, on the productivity of the marine ecosystems in the antarctic and subantarctic regions, and the implications for the communities that depend on them. It is led by the University Austral of Chile (UACh), being its associate institutions the University of Concepcion (UdeC) and the Research Center of the Quaternary, Fuego-Patagonia and Antarctica (CEQUA) in Punta Arenas. The logistic financing for antarctic research is provided by the Chilean Antarctic Institute (INACH).

Other entities created by the LFA in recent years such as the Scientific Committees, Management Committees, and Fishing Councils (national and regional) are meant to advice on the management of fisheries operating in National waters and are not applicable to the krill fishery. Based on the information presented above the assessment team concludes that –both at a Regional and at a National level - all areas of responsibility are well understood and specifically assigned to the relevant bodies. SG60, SG80 and SG 100 are met . b Consultation processes Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost 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 local information, including local including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information of the information and obtained. explains how it is used or not used . Met? Y Y Y Justific CCAMLR functioning considers formal and regular consultation processes at a ation multinational level. The most important are those conducted via annual meetings of the Commission, the Scientific Committee and the Working Groups, as well as the Committee on Implementation and Compliance. Given that the above meetings may have the attendance of all the Convention members as well as external stakeholders (i.e ONG’s), the consultation processes gather a wide range of data and information, which is jointly reviewed and updated. Discussions and results of the meetings are promptly available to

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 179

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 all interested parties by mean of formal reports (e.g. Fishery Reports) schedules (e.g. Conservation Measures) and other documents. During the site visit the assessment team collected evidence that proposals made by members of the Convention are taken into account and incorporated into the regulations. For example, Chile and Norway promoted within the SC the requirement of 100% coverage of scientific observers in krill fishing. In 2016 the Commission agreed to revise CM 51-06 (2016) and this measure will be put into force starting from the 2020/21 season. The International CCAMLR Symposium held in Chile in 2015 co-sponsored by Australia, Chile and United States, is another example of a consultation process that seek and accept relevant information. One of the many and various issues emerged from this symposium was the need to conduct a new external review of the performance of the Convention. At the 2016 meeting CCAMLR decided to carry out this revision, which was implemented during the intersessional period 2016-2017. At national level (Chile) the management system also considers consultation processes, fully implemented in the case of local industrial and artisanal fisheries (i.e. mainly Scientific and Management Committees). As regards the krill fishery, the most important consultative entity is the national CCAMLR Section constituted by a broad range of representatives which meets four times a year, and its subsidiary Scientific Group. Minutes of the meetings of the Section are available at the request of the interested parties. This national Section is headed by the Undersecretary for Fisheries and Aquaculture and comprised by one representative of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Ministry for the Environment, Chilean Antarctic Institute, Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture, National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service, Fisheries Research Institute, Council of Chilean Universities, National Oceanographic Institute , Chilean Navy, and private fishing sector. In December 2016 the CCAMLR National Section, together with other sectoral Chilean institutions, organized a training workshop directed to private operators with the aim to disseminate relevant information about the Convention, including its conservation measures. This activity was the result of a proposal made by Chile at the XXXV anual meeting of the Commission, with the purpose to reduce the non- compliance incidents. Based on the information presented above SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Participation Guidep The consultation process The consultation process ost provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justific As noted above there are many consultation processes in the framework of CCAMLR, ation which allow for a broad participation of all interested parties. All formal meetings are announced well in advance, and working documents are widely and timely distributed, which improves participation. CCAMLR meetings are attended by different ONG´s (e.g. Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition) as observers and prior to official meetings there may be discussion sessions

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 180

CCAMLR website ( www.ccamlr.org ); Interviews (2017) with representatives from Antarctic References Directorate, INACH, Navy, SERNAPESCA & SUBPESCA; MINECON, (1991); Text of the Convention, (1982). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 181

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives ost guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justific All the fisheries under the umbrella of CCAMLR are managed taken into account the ation precautionary approach, a practice that is totally consistent with the sustainability standard of the MSC. Overarching objectives are clearly stated in article II of the text of the Convention and are summarized as follows (see also text of Principle 3): i) The fundamental objective is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, where the concept of conservation includes the rational use of these resources. ii) Any harvesting and associated activities shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles of conservation: • prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population to levels below those which ensure its stable recruitment. For this purpose its size should not be allowed to fall below a level close to that which ensures the greatest net annual increment; • maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted populations, and; • prevention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. At national level (Chile) Art 1°B of the LFA explicitly states that its objective is “ the conservation and sustainable use of aquatic resources through the application of the precautionary approach, the ecosystem approach to fisheries regulation, as well as the protection of the marine ecosystems where these resources live”. In this context protection of the ecosystems includes protection of habitats and biodiversity. On the other hand, the current new proposal of the National Antarctic Policy (DIRANTARTICA, 2017) establishes as some of its guiding principles, the following: • “ Protect and promove the care of the antarctic environment, including the marine environment and its dependents and associated ecosystems “; and • “ Faciliate the development of economic activities, permitted by the Antarctic Treaty System, including sustainable and responsible fisheries….….” In this context Chile promotes the strengthening of the conservation measures of CCAMLR and supports the creation of a representative marine protected area system within the southern ocean, aimed to protect the Vulnerable Ecosystems. Chile also

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 182

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. endorses the combat to IUU Fishing. The assessment team concluded that long term objectives are clear and explicit and also required to be met by the management system . SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

References DIRANTARTICA, (2017); MINECON, (1991); Text of the Convention, (1982). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 183

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Objectives , which are Short and long-term Well defined and ost broadly consistent with objectives , which are measurable short and long- achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving term objectives , which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, with achieving the implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the outcomes expressed by specific management fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y Partial Justific According to the Chilean LFA (Art. 3, c), mid and long term objective in all fisheries with an ation annual TAC is maximum sustainable yield. However, given the particular nature of the krill fishery, CCAMLR management approach (i.e. minimize the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem rather than to maximize the harvest of the target species ) takes priority over the domestic legislation. The fisheries management system in CCAMLR has explicit long and short term objectives, which were described in Section 3.5.2 and in PI 3.1.3 above. These conservation objectives are valid for all the fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Convention and by logical entailment they are applicable to the krill fishery. CCMALR fundamental approach in respect to krill is to minimize the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem rather than to maximize the harvest of the species. CCAMLR´s current rules allow for the simulated Antarctic krill stock to be depleted to 75% of its initial biomass. In others words, to account for the needs of predators in the system, a conservative reference level was set, where 75 percent of the pristine krill spawning biomass is required to be maintained. On the other hand, the limit krill biomass has been set at 20% of the median unfished biomass. To achieve the objectives the main strategy is the setting of an overall precautionary catch limit in Area 48 (5.61 millions tons per year) and Divisions 58.4.1 – 58.4.2 (3.08 millions tons per year); the setting of an interim catch limit in Area 48 (620,000 tons per year ); and the provisional distribution of the interim catch limit in subareas 48.1 to 48.4. It must be noted that actual catches in the fishery (Area 48) are much lower than the interim limit. Work is ongoing within CCAMLR’s scientific working groups to subdivide the precautionary catch limit in Area 48 into 15 small-scale management units (SSMUs) to address concerns of localized depletion of the target stock and to minimize the impact that the krill fishery has on krill predators. The assessment team deems that the specific objectives set by CCAMLR are explicit and consistent with Principe 1 and 2 of the MSC Standard (SG 80 is met). SG60 and SG80 are met. Nevertheless, objectives are better defined and measurable in respect to Principle 1 and are operationally less measurable in regard to Principle 2. In view of the team, objectives will be effectively consistent with Principle 2 when a feedback management strategy,

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 184

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. which incorporates decision rules such as those proposed in WG-EMM 16/48 (see Watters et al., 2016), is adopted. These rules refer to the adjustment of krill catch limits for every single fishing season, depending on the state of the penguin populations and the predicted krill recruitment (see Watters et al., 2016). Other authors (Hinke et al 2017) are proposing, as an interim measure while feedback management is agreed and adopted, to use indices of overlap with krill-dependent predator for indicating where risks of fishing are highest. SG 100 is partially met

References CCAMLR website ( www.ccamlr.org ); MINECON (1991); Text of the Convention, (1982); Watters et al. (2016). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 185

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 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 Guidep There are some decision- There are established ost making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justific The conservation measures and other management actions taken in the framework of ation CCAMLR in respect to the krill fishery emerge from formal, regular, well known, and widely participative decision processes. The most important decision-making processes are those occurring within the Commission and the Scientific Committee, as they affect the core of the management system. At a national level (Chile), no domestic decisions regarding the fishery regulations are made, but recommendations to strengthen and improve actual management tools are developed and provided to the Commission and Scientific Committee. SG60 and SG 80 are met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guidep Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes ost respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justific Decision-making processes in respect to the krill fishery refer to serious and important ation issues (i.e. interim catch limits) and the system is capable to respond promptly when the circumstances so require (i.e. Subarea 48.1 fishing cessation when trigger levels have been reached). SG60 and SG 80 are met. Although there exists a bulk of new data, and new models and approaches to estimate the biomass of krill have been developed, and even though the current standing stock estimate (based upon the survey conducted in the 2000) has been revised- a comprehensive update of the stock assessment has not been carried out yet. Also, finer- scale adaptative management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts which might arise as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas (Hill et al 2016, Hinke et al 2017) .Therefore, the assessment team deems that the decision-making process does not take into account all relevant issues of the management system. SG 100 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 186

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Guidep Decision-making processes ost use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justific The precautionary approach is embodied in all the conservation measures and ation management actions taken in respect to the krill fishery. Since the beginning of the fishery harvest in Area 48 has been capped at 620 000 tonnes per year, representing an interim catch limit or trigger level which is a value extremely low as compared with the estimated virginal biomass. In addition, there is an interim distribution of the trigger level in Subareas 48.1 to 48.4 (CM 51-07 (2016)) valid until the 2020/2021 season. Krill is known to be a key component of the Antarctic ecosystem and its harvest is attempted on the basis of the best available scientific information, not only about the stock status but also about the status of other components of the ecosystem. Scientific uncertainties and challenges such as the climate change, are some of the recurrent issues in CCAMLR´s discussions which force the use of a precautionary approach. SG80 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guidep Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all ost fishery’s performance and 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 emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justific All participants and stakeholders of the fishery are provided with a formal report of the ation recent performance of the fishery and the conservation and management actions implemented (i.e. Fishery Report). For instance, the CCAMLR Krill Fishery Report 2017 provides detailed information on catches reported in 2016 and 2017; number of vessels operating; size frequency distributions of krill; scientific observation coverage; by catch; incidental mortality of seabirds and marine mammals; effort spatial distribution, current management measures, and notifications of intent to fish for krill in 2018, among other matters. In addition, annual reports of the Commission and the Scientific Committee, as well as exhaustive reports of the working groups are readily available through the CCAMLR´s webpage. On the other hand CCAMLR regularly provides to the stakeholders an updated report containing information on topics such as vessels fishing, total reported catch per management area, closure date per subarea, catches projections per subarea and collection of acoustic data by fishing vessels. A copy of the report for the season 2016-17 (identified as Report KRI48¬-_20170814) was provided by Deris S.A. to the assessment team.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 187

In addition, it is appropriate to mention here that in Chile the access to public information is ruled by law N° 20.285 as of 2008, also known as the Transparency Law (see Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia, 2008). This legal body is applicable to all the entities or public Services under the State Administration and establishes that the administrative acts and resolutions, their foundations, supporting documents, and related procedures, are public (with the exceptions established by the same law). In virtue of this law, all information produced and actions taken by fishery-related public services are readily available to all interested parties and subject to accountability. All of the above shows that the management system fully satisfies the accountability and transparency requirements. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . e Approach to disputes Guidep Although the management The management system or The management system or ost authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justific There is a general respect and compliance of the management system implemented by ation CCAMLR in regards to the krill fishery (see also PI 3.2.3). There are currently no legal disputes pending in this fishery and after a review of documents and interviews conducted during the site visit, the assessment team found no evidence that legal disputes or conflicts are an issue of concerns in the Antarctic krill fishery. No IUU Fishing has been recorded in this fishery either, at least in recent times. The text of the Convention includes a special article (applicable to all fisheries) to deal with disputes (i.e. Art.XXV) which privileges mechanisms such as negotiation, mediation and conciliation – among other- to reach agreement between the parties in case of legal conflicts. The annual meetings of the Commission, preceded by the SC and SCIC meetings, which in turn take place after the working groups meeting are - in practice- a mechanism acting in direction of preventing conflicts or legal disputes, since all parties have had in advance the chances to reach technical and political agreements. SG60, SG80 and SG 100 are met.

References CCAMLR website (www.ccamlr.org); Ministerio Secretaria General de la Presidencia, (2008); MINECON, (1991); Text of the Convention, (1982); Watters et al., (2016). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 188

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guidep Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive ost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has in the fishery and there is a fishery and has been implemented in the reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to fishery and has they are effective. enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justific There is a well implemented Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) system operating ation in the CCAMLR krill fishery which mainly comprises the VMS system (CM 10-04 (2015)), a scientific observer programme (CM-51-06 (2016)), at sea and port vessel inspections system (CM 10-02 (2016) & 10-03 (2015)), catch and effort data collection and reporting (CM-23-06 (2012)), control over transshipment (CM-10-09 (2011)) and measures to prevent IUU fishing (CM 10-06 (2016); 10-07 (2016) & 10-08 (2017)). Surveillance of the krill fishery is primarily the responsibility of the flag states. In Chile this role is accomplished by the relevant Navy agency and SERNAPESCA. Since 2015 the Chilean Navy has at its disposal a special patrol ship ( Marinero Fuentealba ) to inspect foreign vessels operations in the Antarctic zone. In the 2016/17 season, at-sea inspections were carried out by the OPV-83 Marinero Fuentealba and AP-46 Almirante Oscar Viel . According to Chilean rules, the second commanders of Navy vessels participating in the annual Antarctic campaigns are designated as CCAMLR inspectors. The Chilean normative regarding the VMS system requires data transmission every 15 minutes and all national vessels fishing in the Antarctic zone must comply this standard, which is stringent than that of CCAMLR (only requires transmission every 4 hours). The data of the VMS system are received simultaneously by the Chilean Navy and SERNAPESCA and in case of failure of data transmission the vessel must return to port (vessels operating in the subantarctic and antarctic zone usually have 2 VMS systems). Personnel of the Navy carries a continuous control of the VMS system (24 hours per day, seven days per week) and any relevant movement of the fishing vessels within the Convention area is reported to CCAMLR in the next 48 hours. In addition to operate the VMS system, SERNAPESCA supervises the compliance of the CCAMLR conservation measures and is the depository of the catch data-base. This Service is also the governmental agency in charge of the implementation of the on-board cameras system. As stated in the Chilean LFA industrial fishing vessels (as well as artisanal vessels larger than 15 m. length) must install on-board image devices that allow recording and detect any discard action that occurs. The bylaw on this matter was published in 2017 (see MINECON, 2017) and it is expected that in 2018 the system will start operating nationally. Professionals from SERNAPESCA have inspected the F/V Antarctic Endeavour and all the necessary assistance to install the cameras has been offered. Vessel at-port inspections prior to set sail are carried out by SERNAPESCA as well as the relevant Navy agency. This inspection involves checking of marks of the vessel, buoys, and

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 189

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. fishing gears, examination of holds, incinerator, and functioning of ther VMS system. Upon return of the vessel to port, the certification of the catch is added to the inspection and other agencies (eg. Customs) also participate in the inspection. At national level, the scientific observers programme is coordinated by INACH; when a request for an observer is received, this agency selects and proposes a candidate. Once a labour contract between the company and the potential observer is ready CCAMLR is informed; should any observation or objection arises this is comunicated to INACH. In addition to the sampling of the fishing hauls, activities of the on-board observers include the recording of sighting and interactions with seabirds and marine mammals, as well as cuantification (count and weight) of discards SG 60 is met. An example of the ability of the system to enforce relevant measures is the successful and complete reporting of catch and effort data by the fishing vessels which permit an accurate control of the catch limits. Another example, closely related with the previous, is the subarea closures (e.i. 48.1) once the trigger catch levels are reached; these actions require accurate and efficient catch reporting and coordination. Subarea 48.1 was closed before the end of the season in seasons 2014 to 2017 (WG-EMM-17 preliminary Report) as reported catches were approaching the trigger level. In the season 2016/2017 the closure of the fishery in this subarea occurred on 10 July 2017; this closure date was later than in the two previous years when the fishery was closed on 28 May (both 2015 and 2016). According to the Commission Report, XXXVI Meeting (CCAMLR, 2017a) during the 2016/17 season, 16 fishery management areas (all species) have been closed by the Secretariat as a result of reported catches approaching the relevant catch limits. SG 80 is met Further, based on the information presented above, the assessment team considers the MCS system instituted by CCAMLR and Chile is deemed comprehensive and adequate to detect any problems that may arise in the fishery overall. For instance, in respect to the observers programme, it must be noted that Chile does not have a national plan /program for an specialized training of this type of personnel. At domestic level this has been recognized as a weakness, but efforts are being made to overcome the situation. Actually, to address this issue a training course was carried out by experts from INACH (Punta Arenas, Chile) in October 2017. Around 30 people attended this course including on board observers working with IFOP, marine– sciences related professionals with interest in this matter, personnel of the armed forces, and students from several universities, among others. SG100 is met. b Sanctions Guidep Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- ost compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justific Sanctions to deal with non-compliance in the krill fishery exist, and they must be applied ation by the flag states or involved parties. The LFA contemplates several sanctions to Chilean vessels operating in the High Seas which infringe the fisheries regulations adopted in the framework of international conventions or treaties ratified by the country (e.g. Art. 110, h ; Art 110 ter c). Specific penalties also exist for nationals working on board of foreign fishing vessels which infringe CCAMLR Conservation Measures (i.e. Art 134). The license issued to the Antarctic Endeavour lists several grounds which could result in the invalidity or

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 190

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. suspension of the permit, which -in the view of the assessment team- is a very dissuasive kind of sanction. Given than the vessel Antarctic Endeavour has no history in the krill fishery, the assessment team deemed appropriate to present the experience of the F/V Betanzos to evaluate the performance of Chile in regards to this scoring issue. Betanzos was the former Chilean vessel in the krill fishery (2011-2016) and was owned by a Holding related to that of Antarctic Endeavour. The information provided to the assessment team (table 3.2.3.1) shows that in the last 4 years (2013-2016) five notifications were sent to the f/v Betanzos, and all of them were investigated. Two of these incidents were finally removed by the SCIC as the result of the investigation confirmed the observer’s notification was based on inaccurate facts; one event was effectively accredited as non-compliance; one was classified as a minor non- compliance; and there is no registry of the final status for the fifth event. Table 3.2.3.1 Summary of non-compliances notified to the f/v Betanzos between 2013- 2016 (Source: Department of Enforcement, SERNAPESCA)

Compliance Conservation Implementation Response Final Event Event Measure Summary Contracting Party Status

The delegation of Chile acknowledges The observer reported that the instance of non no net cleaning prior to compliance even shooting was undertaken though the operators by the vessel. of the Betanzos declared that they 91126 25-03 (2011) Removed Period: 10 June-10 August were unaware of the 2015 non-compliance. The Subarea 48.3 Chilean inspection authority request a plan of action to prevent repetition of the event

The delegation of Chile acknowledges The observer reported that the instance of non no net cleaning prior to compliance even shooting was undertaken though the operators by the vessel. of the Betanzos declared that they 91127 25-03 (2011) Removed Period: 28 January-26 were unaware of the March 2016 non-compliance. The Subareas 48.1 and 48.2 Chilean inspection authority request a plan of action to prevent repetition of the event

Chile was invited to The observer reported that comment on the the vessel discharged implementation of CM organic waste without any 26-01 concerning maceration or screening in these two incidents. No 26-01 (2009) subareas 48.1 and 48.2. Chile noted that Non-compliance information Periods: 21 January-23 action had been taken March 2015 (Krill fishing) in relation to these and 27 March- 02 June incidents and was 2015 (longline fishing) working to prevent further occurrence

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 191

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.

The details of the All VMS units installed in Chilean flagged implementation of the Partially vessels have two tamper-proof compliant. seals, one of the requirements for VMS SCIC Chilean Navy and the units were not provided in identified other of the National 80464 10-02 (2011) the licence notification for non- Fisheries Service. The this vessel as required by compliance national regulations CM 10-02, paragraph 3 (xi). of a technical establish high or minor Period: 2013 sanctions to anyone nature who attempts to tamper the units

Catch and effort data was received on 21 May 2013 for fishing in Subarea 48.1 (21 March - 18 April, 2013). All the catch and Data for 6 to 17 April 2013 effort data has been No registry of 80584 23-06 (2012) (52 hauls) was identified as sent until 25 August the status missing. Chile was notified 2013. regarding the missing data on 20 June 2013 and provided it on 23 June 2013.

As mentioned in the above table, the Chilean inspection authority requested the owner of the vessel a plan of action that includes, among other things, a compulsory training for all the crew members and officers regarding the scope of the CCAMLR measures in force. In this context and taking into account the CM 10-10 (2016) a wide-scope training course was held in December 2016 (Valparaíso, Chile) with the purpose to encourage compliance with CCAMLR regulations. The workshop was attended by several representatives of the private fishing industry as well as government officials. In the case of infringements in subarea 48.3, the British Government issues a sanction and fishing access in the future is subject to previous payment. Further, the fine will also be sent to the Chilean courts and if it is sanctioned, it must be paid again since it is not considered exempt for having paid the Britis Government. The report on fishing and aquaculture activities corresponding to 2016 prepared by SERNAPESCA (2017) shows that inspection activities are regularly conducted in Chile and in cases of infringements to the fishery legislation, reports are submitted to the tribunals, which apply sanctions according to the provisions of the LFA. No infringements related to the krill fishery are recorded in this report issued by SERNAPESCA. Based on the information presented above, the assessment team considers that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. SG60 and SG80 are met . However, as the assessment team did not have access to the amount of the sanctions imposed. Further, it cannot be argue that sanctions demonstrably provide effective deterrence, therefore SG 100 is not met. c Compliance Guidep Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of ost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 192

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justific In general, participants in the krill fishery comply with the substantial requirements of the ation system. This includes providing information before (i.e. notification of intent to fish) during and after the harvesting activities (e.g. catch and effort data; VMS data, on-board observers data) as well as the compliance of other conservation measures, such as those regarding the environmental protection during fishing. In July 2016 Deris S.A. was incorporated as a member of the Association of Responsible Krill Harvesting Companies (ARK) which denotes the commitment of this Chilean company to comply with all fishing management standards. SG60 is met. CCAMLR´s structure includes a Standing Committee on Implementation and Compliance (SCIC), which meets annually to review the operation of conservation measures and compliance systems (see also PI 3.1.2 a). Annual compliance draft reports are distributed to the parties well in advance to the official meetings and responses to these reports are analyzed by the SCIC. During the site visit no concerns in relation to compliance were raised by any of the stakeholders interviewed. Also no comments were received by the CAB on this behalf during the consultation periods which are part of the current assessment. On the other hand, regarding the provision of information, fishers or fishing vessels do provide valuable information to the management of krill by collecting and delivering catch and effort data, reporting incidental catches, conducting research surveys and localized standing stock/acoustic campaigns, among others. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the Scientific Committee's Subgroup on Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods (SG-ASAM) is developing methods to use fishing-vessel- based acoustic data to provide essential information on the distribution and relative abundance of krill. SG-ASAM has prepared an instruction manual which details the collection of acoustic data and associated data, and the validation of echosounder performance. Fishing vessels operating in the krill fishery are encouraged to participate in the collection of acoustic data along nominated transects in areas for which vessels are licenced to fish for krill Recent contributions of Chile to the knowledge and management of the fishery are expressed in some scientific papers dealing with the spatial temporal dynamic of the fishery (Santa Cruz et al., 2016), geostatistical analysis of acoustic data collected by commercial vessels (Niklitschek & Skaret, 2016) and environmental variables influencing the CPUE index (Quiroz et al., 2011). SG80 is met. The F/V Antarctic Endeavour started commercial fishing operations on 8 December 2017 and the first fishing trip extended until 24 February 2018. According to the report issued by the on-board observer, a total of 138.422 tons of krill were discarded at sea (subarea 48.1) of which 132.509 tons correspond to processed product and 5.903 tons to non processed krill. Discards were done during navigation time, while no fishing was occuring. As pointed out in PI 1.2.1 scoring issue f) discards

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 193

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. were consequence of malfunction of the processing plant; this resulted in decomposition of the target species which required disposal. On the other hand, a total of 7,372 kg of fish (several species) were caught as secondary catch. This amount included around 7,000 kg of Champsocephalus gunnari caught in subarea 48.2 as secondary catch, which were discarded in waters north of 60° S. The remainder of fish bycatch (372 kg) was discarded in the fishing area during navigation time, while no fishing was occuring. Conservation measure 26-01 (2015) states that vessels fishing south of 60°S shall be prohibited from dumping or discharging offals and discards. Discards are defined as whole fish or other organisms returned to the sea dead or with low expectation of survival, as described in Observer Logbook L5 form. The conservation measure notes that fish or other organisms taken during fishing operations with high expectation of survival, and other benthic organisms may be returned to the sea, only after fulfilling some relevant requirements (which are specified). Therefore, although discards of krill may be the result of an exceptional circumstance, this action and the discard of 372 kg of fish do not comply with CCAMLR regulations. The assessment team leaves proof that these discards are registered both at the logbook and at the observer’s report, and will be looking forward to see the path and final destiny of this information next year. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the team has formulated a recommendation about this topic (see Section 6.4 - Recommendation 4). The report of the on-board observed also noted that -even though the estimation of the green weight of krill in each haul is made by the method of flow scale mass correction, using the equation M*(1-F) (where M is the mass of krill and water combined and F is the fraction of water in the sample) – it was not possible to calculate F, since there is no instrument on board the F/V Antarctic Endeavour to measure the amount or flow of water. In the view of the assessment team this makes difficult to estimate the green weight of krill caught as indicated in Annex 21-03/B (CM 21-03 (2016)) and impede an accurate estimation of the catch of the target species. A recommendation is made on this matter (see Section 6.4; Recommendation 5 ). SG100 is not met. d Systematic non-compliance Guidep There is no evidence of ost systematic non-compliance. Met? Y Justific According to the information provided during the site visit by the Chilean representatives ation in CCAMLR (Antarctic Directorate, SERNAPESCA, Navy) there is no concern at the level of the Commission or the SCIC regarding a systematic non-compliances in the krill fishery. At domestic level the historical record of the former Chilean vessel in this fishery indicates that within a 5 years time framework only 1 non-compliance and another minor non- compliance were notified Therefore the assessment team deems that there are no evidences of systematic non- compliance in the krill fishery. SG 80 is met .

CCAMLR, (2017a); Interviews (2017) with representatives from SERNAPESCA, Navy, INACH, References Antarctic Directorate & SUBPESCA; MINECON, (1991); MINECON, (2017); Niklitschek & Skaret, (2016); Quiroz et al., (2011); Santa Cruz et al.,(2016); SERNAPESCA, (2017); Text of

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 194

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. the Convention (1982); WG-EMM-17, (2017). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 195

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guidep There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in ost place to evaluate some place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of parts of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system. Met? Y Y Y Justific Key components of the management system such as the decision processes, MCS system, ation stock assessment procedures, harvest strategy, level of compliance, and research needs are evaluated by the participants and stakeholders on a regular basis. Meetings of the Commission, Scientific Committee, Working Groups and SCIC are the formal ways/mechanisms to do these evaluations. SG60 and SG 80 aremet . Other relevant elements of the management system such as fishery policy and international cooperation were addressed at the CCAMLR international symposium held in Chile in May, 2015. This event also provides coverage for discussions regarding core issues such as the level of accomplishment of the ecosystemic goals of the Convention (this taken into account some new challenges as climate change, and the level of fulfilling against Art II (3) b) and c) of the text of the Convention). On the other hand, two overall revisions of the performance of CCAMLR have been undertaken over the last nine years (see scoring issue b), which have provided the overarching management system with clear indications of whether the Convention is meeting the intended objectives. Considering all the above the assessment team deems that there are mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the management system. SG 100 is met . b Internal and/or external review Guidep The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific ost 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 Y N Justific Annual/periodic meetings of the relevant bodies of the Convention (i.e. Commission, ation Scientific Committee, Working Groups, SCIC, etc) and planned intersessional meetings provide the opportunities for a continuous internal review of the CCAMLR management system both at the overall level as with respect to specific fisheries (e.g. krill). In 2008 a CCAMLR performance review was carried out which resulted in several recommendations addressing distinct issues for the Commission and the Scientific Committee to consider and implement, as appropriate. This review was conducted by an external committee (9 experts) appointed by the Commission focusing mainly in the objectives and principles (Art. II) of the Convention. The full document with the recommendations of the advisory group is available at the webpage of CCAMLR (https://www.ccamlr.org/en/organisation/first-ccamlr-performance-review ).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 196

In May 2015, a CCAMLR symposium co-sponsored by Australia, Chile and United States , was held in Santiago Chile, with the purpose to take stock of the work done by the Commission and to exchange views regarding the future challenges of the organization. A report of the co-chairs of the symposium (Volume 1) was provided to the assessment team during the site visit (see CCAMLR, 2015). In 2016 CCAMLR decided to implement a new performance review and early in 2017 an ad-hoc committee was created (8 specialists ) to leader this second review. The task was carried out in the inter-sessional period (2016/2017) and its results were presented at the XXXVI Meeting of the Commission (October, 2017). This second performance review poses 29 recommendations addressing a wide range of topics; many improvements in CCAMLR activities were noted and progress in implementing the recommendations from the first review was evaluated as significant. The review also considered the discussions of the 2015 CCAMLR Symposium held in Santiago, Chile. The final report of the review is available at the website of CCAMLR (https://www.ccamlr.org/en/document/publications/second-performance-review-ccamlr- %E2%80%93-final-report-panel ) Based on the information presented above the assessment team deemed that the management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external reviews. SG60 and SG80 are met. Taken into account the long period elapsed between the two external reviews (8 years). SG100 is not met .

References CCAMLR, (2015); CCAMLR website ( www.ccamlr.org ); Interviews (2017) with representatives from SUBPESCA; Text of the Convention (1982). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 197

1.2 Appendix 1.3 Conditions Table A1.3: Condition 1

2.1.2.- There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements Performance measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Indicator SI(b)- There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved.

Score 75

Stock status of the mackerel icefish ( Champsocephalus gunnari ) on subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain unknown, despite efforts have been made to determine the state of the fish living in these subareas (Kock and Jones 2012, Arana and Rolleri 2016). Fisheries targeting icefishes ( C.gunnari, C.aceratus and Chaenodraco wilsoni ) in subareas 48.1 and 48.2 remain closed since 1989, after drastic decline observed in these areas due to previous intensive fishing mainly exercised by the former USSR fleet. This conservation Rationale measure remains in place today. Further, data from the observer on board the first (and so far only) fishing trip performed by the assessed vessel showed that 7 tonnes of mackerel icefish were caught in a single haul performed in subarea 48.2. Due to the unknown stock status of C.gunnari in subareas 48.1 and 48.2, together with the fact that data from the assessed vessel are still too limited and not conclusive regarding the impact on this species, the assessment team does not consider that there is objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place will work.

Condition The client shall provide evidence that the measures/partial strategy in place to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of mackerel icefish ( C.gunnari ) will work.

Year 1.- By the first surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its first fishing year, based both on data from the C-1 form and the observer’s reports; No re-scoring foreseen at this stage. Year 2. - By the second surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its second fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 2 year data) (iii) Proposal of additional measures, if necessary, to minimise mortality caused to mackerel icefish. Milestones In the case the client can provide some evidence that the strategy in place will work

SG80 would be achieved at this stage Year 3.- In the case complementary measures to minimise mortality were needed and proposed during the second year, by the third surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its third fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 3 year data); (iii) preliminary review of the effectiveness of the complementary measures implemented to minimise the mortality (based on 1 year data); No re-scoring foreseen at this stage.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 198

Year 4 .- By the fourth surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its fourth fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 4 year data); (iii) An analysis of the effectiveness of the complementary measures implemented to minimise the mortality (based on 2 year data); In the case the client can provide evidence that the strategy in place will work SG80 would be achieved at this stage

General aspects (years 2018-2022): Deris S.A. will make sure to permanently keep in its krill fishing operations Scientific Observers, which must be provided by the Chilean Antarctic Institute (INACH). Although these Observers are paid by the company, the supervision of their reports is carried out by INACH. For this reason, and as a way of encouraging the Observers to reinforce the acquisition of information on some aspects required in the certification process, clauses have been added to their contracts, in order for them to devote more attention to the determination and registration of accompanying fauna in the fishing tasks. Also, Deris S.A. will take care, on a daily basis, that the Captain, Fishing Master and Officers of the Antarctic Endeavor fill, with the greatest care, the information required in the forms provided by the CCAMLR for the Antarctic krill fishery (forms C1, catch every 5 days, etc.). Year 1: An analysis of the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2017- 2018 will be carried out. This labor will be entrusted to a prestigious research expert, institution or university at a national level, in order to develop a report that can be available for the audit that will be carried out one year after the approval of the certification. A special objective of the mentioned analysis will be to determine the incidence in the capture of icefish (C. gunnari) and the possible mitigation measures, if applicable.

Client action plan In addition, if the evaluation of the krill resource in Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3, proposed by the Association of Responsible Krill Harvesting Companies (ARK) for the year 2019, which would be similar to that made in the year 2000, is approved by CCAMLR, Deris S.A., as a member of that business association, will participate with its ships. Year 2: With the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2018-2019, in addition to the one obtained in the previous year, a new analysis will be carried out that will also be entrusted to a prestigious research expert, entity or university. The objective will be to prepare a new report for this biannual period, in order to be available for the audit that will be carried out on the second year after the approval of the certification. According to the results obtained and, in the case that recommendations are defined, the appropriate measures will be adopted to be implemented in the next fishing season. Year 3: With the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2019-2020, in addition to that obtained in the previous two years, a third analysis will be carried out, which will also be entrusted to a prestigious research expert, entity or university. The aim will be to develop a new report containing the information collected during these three years, which will be available for the audit to be conducted upon completion of the third year after the approval of the certification. According to the results obtained and possible recommendations to be defined, the appropriate measures will be adopted to be implemented in the next fishing season. Year 4: As in previous years, the recollection of information will continue and, at the end of the fishing season 2020-2021, with the global information obtained between 2018-2021, a fourth analysis will be carried out. This labor will, once again, be

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 199

entrusted to a prestigious research expert, institution or university. This analysis must be available for the audit that will be carried out on the fourth year after the approval of the certification. According to the results that emerge from this report, it will be defined if it is necessary to take new measures in the operation of the ship.

The action plan proposed by the client does not rely upon the involvement, funding Consultation on and/or resources of other entities. Therefore, its acceptance by the CAB is not subject condition to consultation to other stakeholders.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 200

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewer A

Fishery Assessment Detail s

Fishery Deris S. A. Antarctic Krill fishery.

Peer Review College Dan Hoggarth contact details

Peer Review Due Date 10 May 2018

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes presented in the assessment report?

Justification: The assessment team has evaluated the comments of the reviewer and although There is some uncertainty due to suggested rescoring of one we can see the basis for the suggested PI, but it appears that a reduced score would not result in rescoring of PI 1.2.4, our opinion, as failure to achieve an overall passing score for Principle 1. stated in the formal response to the comment below, is that the reviewer is incorrect in his assertion that the score needs to drop. Detail is provided in the response to that PI.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses]

Justification: No comments.

If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? Yes [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

Justification: No comments

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 201

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 information used to score this the fishery’s documentation where possible. been used to Indicator support performance to Please attach additional pages if score this the given score? the SG80 level? necessary. Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support (Yes/No) your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 Yes No NA The information provided does not Comments in Appendix 1 have been addressed. Changes have adequately support the given score now been made to both the background and the scoring table because the rationale is not been to support the given score. Tables 3 and 7 from Hill et al. have well supported by evidence. Also been included in the report as Tables 3-5 and 3-6 respectively. the rationale is not consistently Other time-series that may provide evidence on stock status clear and sometimes self- are referenced in the text. contradictory (see detailed comments in Appendix 1).

1.1.2 NA NA NA

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA See appended comments

1.2.2 Yes No The harvest control rules are not The HCRs are fully described in background section 3.3.2 under fully described. It is important to the corresponding subtitle and referenced appropriately in the note that the limit includes a scoring table. probability of <0.1 that the stock

will not fall below 20% B 0 and that the target states that the stock

should not fall below 75%B 0 after 20 years of continuous fishing

1.2.3 Yes Yes

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 202

1.2.4 Yes No It is stated: “The development of Comments appear to refer to SI a) but this was not specified by an integrated stock assessment the reviewer. It is true that the statement referred by the model intended to make use of reviewer is not part of the rationale for meeting SG80, and multiple data sources such as the therefore the sentence was confusing placed right before fishery, scientific surveys and krill stating the SG80 is met. Therefore, the sentence was moved to predators, is the object of ongoing the end of the rationale, before stating hat SG100 is not met. work by the CCAMLR’s Working However, we disagree on the comment that SG80 is not met as Group on Ecosystem Monitoring appropriateness of the assessment needs to be considered in and Management (WG-EMM). the context of a target stock distributed over a total area over SG80 is met.” 3.5 million km 2, which means that a synoptic survey is a major However this survey has not yet international effort. Therefore, a repeat synoptic survey is been developed, there has been no unlikely in the current economic climate (Hill et al. 2016). synoptic survey since 2000 and Moreover, given the implementation of a highly precautionary subarea-scale estimates are highly trigger level, the biomass estimate from the CCAMLR-2000 uncertain. survey does not currently influence the total amount that the It seems that SG 80 is not met. fishery is allowed to catch taking away the urgency in repeating such a survey. Further, the harvest control rules were developed based on the results from the Generalised Yield Model that uses the CCAMLR-2000 surveys as input data. The assessment is appropriate for the harvest control rule (i.e. meeting SG 80).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 203

1.2.4 Cont. The CCAMLR-2000 survey was revised in 2010 on the basis of methodological improvements in the processing and analysis of acoustic data (WG-EMM 16/07). Localised surveys have taken place since 1996 and biomass indices have been computed by subarea on an annual basis. None of the published numerical density and biomass time- series for krill show a decline since 2000. In addition, exploitation rates (catch metric divide d by conservative biomass estimate for each subarea) are low ( 3%) compared to benchmarks for fisheries management in general and the krill stock in particular, suggesting that the stock is at present underexploited. The assessment is appropriate for the stock, so SG80 is met. Biomass indices from local krill monitoring programmes show no evidence of a decline since the CCAMLR-2000 survey. However, those time-series are noisy and it is difficult to separate systematic change from natural variability. Also, the relationship between local biomass indices and biomass of the whole stock is unknown. So, there is no definitive evidence of the absence of a post-2000 decline.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 204

1.2.4 Cont(2) A state-of-the-art stock assessment model that would integrate available survey and fishery data is currently being developed, as stated in the background text and the scoring table. The model should improve the ability to assess the current status and productivity of Antarctic krill in Subarea 48.1 and has received a recent international, positive review (Rusin et al. 2016, now included in the Report) but, it is not yet in place. SG100 is therefore not yet met. SI(a) has been modified to make this rationale explicit

2.1.1 Yes Yes

2.1.2 Yes Yes

2.1.3 Yes Yes

2.2.1 Yes Yes

2.2.2 Yes Yes

2.2.3 Yes Yes

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 205

2.3.1 Yes Yes

2.3.2 Yes Yes

2.3.3 Yes Yes

2.4.1 Yes Yes

2.4.2 Yes Yes

2.4.3 Yes Yes

2.5.1 Yes Yes

2.5.2 Yes Yes

2.5.3 Yes Yes

3.1.1 3.1.1 Yes Yes

3.1.2 3.1.2 Yes Yes

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 206

3.1.3 3.1.3 Yes Yes

3.2.1 3.2.1 Yes Yes Neither the score nor rationale are Information on the present status of predator populations is questioned here, but it It is stated available through monitoring at CEMP-sites. As highlighted in that decision rules ‘refer to the Section 1 as a strength, CEMP monitoring has been providing adjustment of krill catch limits for valuable information on the distribution, forage behavior, every single fishing season, population trends and response to environmental parameters depending on the state of the of selected krill-dependend species. This information has been penguin populations and the presented in several parts of the report and used, in particular predicted for assessing the impact of the fishery on ecosystem (PIs 2.5.x). krill recruitment (see Watters et Despite the CEMP aims to detect changes in krill predator al., 2016)’ This implies there is populations and distinguish between changes attributable to information on the present status fisheries and environmental variations, this is still a hard task of predator populations as well as and parametrizacion of the functional responses of krill- krill recruitment prospects……if dependent predators to variations in krill biomass and krill there is such information then it catches remains difficult (as highlighted in Section 1 as a should be presented somewhere in weakness). CCAMLR envisions to achieve a feedback this report as it is highly relevant to management for the krill fishery which integrates information stock status (see previous from CEMP, but work to implement such a strategy is still comments on P1.1.1) ongoing. In the meantime some proposals have been presented (Watters et al 2016 being one them).

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 207

3.2.1 (cont.) 3.2.1 Yes Yes Local krill monitoring programmes include a long time-series of krill density and recruitment indices (see Section 3.3.2 – Harvest strategy-). The information available on recruitment is explained in Section 3.3.1 (-krill growth-, -longevity, N, recruitment-), while in Section 3.3.2 it is explained how this information is considered in the stock assessment, including its limitations. As stated in different parts of the report it is recognized that better information is required about recruitment variability and natural mortality to assess the sustainability of increasing catches in Area 48 much beyond the trigger level. This is one of the reasons why the precautionary approach and the trigger level are in place. To develop a spatially resolved model that simulates krill- predator-fishery interactions, Watters et al 2016 made use of the available information on krill recruitment and data from CEMP-sites. Therefore this paper does not use new information or information that has not been considered to evaluate the P1 and even the P2

3.2.2 3.1.1 Yes Yes

3.2.3 3.1.2 Yes Yes

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 208

3.2.4 3.2.4 Yes Yes

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 209

Appendix 1. Peer Reviewer comments on scoring of P1.1.1A-Key LTL species The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem impacts a) Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment It is concluded that: ‘Antarctic krill could have declined as a result of adverse environmental conditions and/or increase in natural predator populations. However, there is no evidence that the krill poluation has declined since the circumpolar survey was conducted in 2000 (Hill et al. 2016), when krill biomass was estimated to equate to virgin biomass. This finding strongly supports the view that the stock is well above 20% of virgin biomass, the point where there could be serious ecosystem impacts, with a high degree of certainty. SG60, 80 and 100 are met.’

In stating that ‘there is no evidence that the krill poluation has declined since the circumpolar survey was conducted in 2000’, the reader is left to wonder whether there is any evidence that the population has not declined, especially considering statements such as; p.34 ‘The krill fishery now mainly operates from late summer to mid-winter, and this has been made possible by the reductions in winter sea-ice around the Antarctic Peninsula as a result of climate change. Another important environmental issue emerging is the effect of ocean acidification. Southern Ocean ecosystems are expected to be rapidly affected by ocean acidification.’ In fact there is no evidence provided on this issue either way. Furthermore, there is no evidence presented in the report to support conclusions on stock status in general. The only time series of information presented is on annual krill catch. This is a very important point because certification of such a fishery on a keystone LTL species in such a vulnerable (low diversity) ecosystem requires that the stock status is well known and that the fishery is precautionary. The case has been made in the literature that this is true (Hill et al 2016), but this has not been convincingly conveyed in this report. It is suggested that the time series of biomass estimates from various subareas be presented here (Hill et al 2016, Table 3), that the analyses of these data be noted and that the analyses support the conclusion that the population appears to have declined since the 1980s but it is unlikely that it has declined further since 2000.

It is stated that ‘the stock is well above 20% of virgin biomass, the point where there could be serious ecosystem impacts,’. It should be clarified here that this 20% level referes to the point of euphausiid recruitment failure, and so the ‘serious ecosystem impacts’ referenced here would be those effects due to the catastropic event of euphausiid recruitment failure. b) Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs To clarify the subtle differences between SGa and SGb it is recommended that it be initially pointed out here that the stock is also above 75% B0 (considered the target), and that falling below this level would also result in ‘serious ecosystem impacts’ in that this could result in limitation of predator food supply. It is recommended here that the time series of subarea-specific exploitation rate estimates be presented (Hill et al 2016, Table 7), as evidence in support of the ststements on overall low exploitation rates.

It is implied elsewhere that there are other data series that might provide information on stock status either directly or based on predator populations; if this is so, then some of this evidence should be presented. Examples; p.31 Combined Standardised Indices (CSI) of krill-dependent predator performance (see WG-EMM 16/09) data suggests (at least qualitatively) some relationship between the performance of the fishery and krill abundance. This is obviously an area of future development.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 210

p. 93 Further, the Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (CEMP) keeps track of the impact of the krill fisheries on the ecosystem components, penguins in particular, which are apparently very sensitive to local depletion of krill. SG60 is met.

Unclear or conflicting statements; p. 24. The current best estimate of krill biomass is 60.2 million tonnes…….. As much as 152–313 million tonnes of krill are thought to be consumed by various predators of krill each year. How can consumption by predators exceed the total biomass? Does the 60.2 million tons refere to SSB? CAB RESPONSE . Despite much research on Euphausia superba , estimates of total biomass and production are still very uncertain. The best estimate of krill biomass in Area 48 estimated by the CCAMLR – 2000 survey is 60.3 million tonnes with a survey CV of 12.8% (WG-EMM-16/07). In a recent study Atkinson et al. (2009) estimate a krill total biomass of 379 million tonnes and a gross post-larval production which is estimated conservatively at 342–536 Mt yr −1 . The authors argue that these values lie within the envelope of what can be supported from the Southern Ocean primary production system and what is required to support an estimated predator consumption of 128-470 Mt yr −1 . The team concludes that a standing stock biomass lower than predator consumption is not necessarily a contradiction in the case of a highly productive species like Euphausia superba . Atkinson,, A., Siegel, V. Pakhomov, E. A., Jessopp, M. J. and V.Loeb 2009 A re-appraisal of the total biomass and annual production of Antarctic krill. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers Volume 56, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 727-740. p. 26. Few studies have demonstrated a clear and consistent relationship between simple environmental factors and krill, and no single environmental factor has shown a predictable relationship with krill density (Siegel and Watkins 2016). p. 29. Interannual changes correlate most clearly with sea-ice variability, indicating strong environmental control on the ea overall magnitude to the overall trend observed in some of the time-series. Interannual changes correlate most clearly with sea-ice variability, indicating strong environmental control on the early life cycle and hence on recruitment success and population size of krill (Flores et al. 2012). These statements are contradictory. CAB RESPONSE . The first statement refers to lack of a clear relationship between krill density and a single environmental factor. The second statement refers to a correlation between interannual changes in abundance and sea-ice variability. There is no contradiction between the two statements. p.29 Available time-series of data of krill abundance from nets, acoustics and predator studies show considerable (tenfold) inter- and intra-annual variation. This interannual variability in abundance is therefore of similar overall magnitude to the overall trend observed in some of the time-series. This statement is unclear. It is also misleading, implying great year-to-year variation in population size, which is unlikely in a lightly-exploited population of long-lived animals. The reality is that this variability is at the small- scale subarea level, and so is likely due to annual changes in distribution. CAB RESPONSE. Although the reviewer is correct in that inter-annual variability in krill distribution at the small- scale subarea level has been identified, the reference quoted (Flores et al. 2012) clearly refers to variability in abundance at the regional level. This is supported by other studies such as Hill et al. (2016) who state that long-term studies indicate significant variability in krill biomass and abundance at various spatial scales. However, biomass indices from local krill monitoring programmes are noisy and that needs to be taken into account when interpreting such data.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 211

Peer Reviewer B

Fishery Assessment Details

Fishery Deris SA Krill

Peer Review College Dan Hoggarth contact details

Peer Review Due Date 10 th May 2018

Summary of 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 The findings of the report are based on evidence and are all very well justified. All parts of the report have been researched, written and presented excellently. It has been a delight to review this report.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses]

Justification: The CAB has made the appropriate modifications to adjust the wording of The conditions and milestones are appropriate; one very minor the condition to match the narrative and point is that the SG80 outcome of the relevant PI refers to an metric of the SG80 requirements “…objective basis for confidence that the measures / partial strategy wlll work… ”; but the condition asks for “… evidence that the strategy in place […] will work. ” It would be appropriate to adjust the wording of the condition to match the narrative and metric form of the SG80 requirements.

If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

Justification: No comments The client action plan should be sufficient to provide the information required by the milestones and to enable the SG80 requirements to be met.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 212

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 documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified and appropriate.

1.1.2 NA NA NA No comment – no need to score this PI when PI 1.1.1 scores ≥80.

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

1.2.4 Yes No NA For SIc, it is not clear how the SG100 SI c) refers explicitly to the uncertainty in the requirements are met given the comments assessment and the rationale presented on uncertainty in the assessment made supports the SG100 based on the previously in PI1.2.1 SIb. Either some assessment taking into account uncertainty explanation should be presented, or a score and evaluating it in a probabilistic way. This of 80 may be more appropriate for this SI. is despite the uncertainty associated with a single snap-shot estimate of krill biomass provided by the CCAMLR-2000 Survey which is discussed in PI 1.2.4 a). PI 1.2.1 b) refers to harvest strategy and we conclude that it is achieving its objectives.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 213

2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes The scoring is well justified, and applies a sensible & precautionary approach in response to the uncertain status of the C. gunnari stock in subareas 48.1 & 48.2.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

The team are commended for correctly including non-ETP “out of scope” species here.

2.2.2 No No NA For SIe there is no evidence presented to The comments is appropriate, in particular show that there is a biennial review of the taking into to consideration that PI 2.3.2 SI(e) potential effectiveness of alternative was scored 80 based on the lack of bienial measures to minimise UoA-related catch of review for seabirds and marine mammals all secondary species, as required at SG100. (and 7 seabird species were also assessed A score of 80 would seem more appropriate as secondary species). The rationale was for this SI. modified in accordance with that provided in PI 2.3.2 SI(e). The score of PI 2.2.2 was changed from 90 to 85

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 214

The consideration of cumulative impacts of certified UoAs is very thorough and commendable.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is highly commendable. This is the first pelagic fishery assessment I have peer reviewed that has evaluated impacts on pelagic habitats in scoring this PI rather than the absence of impacts on benthic habitats.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 215

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified. The assessment team interprets that “ in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC P1 For SIc, although the score seems and P2 ” means that the management system has appropriate it would be helpful to fully explain a formal commitment with legal rights……. as how the commitment in the management long as these rights are compatible or do not system operates in a manner “… consistent pose a risk/collide, or are a threat to the with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 & 2. ” objectives of the Principles. P1 objectives are to have a fishery conducted in a manner that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of target stock(s). In this context, the fishing license issued to the vessel (which is the via for granting of legal rights) explicitly demands – in addition to compliance with general fisheries regulations- the fulfillment of Conservation Measures 51-01 (2010); 51-06 (2016) and 51-07 (2016). All of these measures relate to the sustainability of the target stock.

P2 objectives are to have fishing operations that allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends,

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 216

including habitats and other species. In this context the fishing license issued to the vessel (which is the via for granting of legal rights) explicitly demands – in addition to compliance with general fisheries regulations- the fulfillment of Conservation Measures 25-03 (2016); 26-01 (2015); 91-02 (2012); 91-03 (2009) and 33-01 (1995). All of these measures relate to minimisation of environmental impact of krill fishing. SI(c) has been modified to made this rationale explicit.

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified. A explicit statement will be included at the end of the SIa rationale. For SIa, the team may wish to state explicitly in the scoring rationale that SG60 and 80 are met.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 217

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified. No response is required

The approach adopted of citing the performance of a comparable Chilean krill vessel operating in the CCAMLR area in SIb is innovative, informative and provides excellent evidence to support the score awarded.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The scoring is well justified.

Optional : General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

This is the most complete, thorough and clear MSC assessment report I have ever seen. All of the team members are to be commended for their respective assessments. It has been a pleasure to read and review this report.

I have noted a few minor typographic errors in the draft report, none of any significance. CAB response: The CAB has corrected the typographic comments indicated.

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 218

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

1. The report shall include: a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in FCR 7.15.4.1. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR 7.15.4.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.

(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 219

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

1 On-site audit 2 auditors on-site No rationale needed. The requirement FCR 7.23.4.1 is met.

2 On-site audit 1 auditor on-site with Considering that milestones indicate that the remote support from condition can be closed in year 2, the CAB proposes 1 auditor to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected.

3 Off-site audit 2 remote auditors The condition should have been closed in year 2. The information from the client and the other stakeholders can be gathered remotely.

4 On-site audit 2 auditors on-site No rationale needed. The requirement FCR 7.23.4.1 is met.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit

Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit

1-3 September 2018 10 September 2018 Anniversary date of the fishery

4 March 2018 10 March 2018 Enough time to carry out the surveillance site visit at the same time as the re-certification on-site audit.

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level

Level 5 On-site surveillance Off-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit audit audit audit & re- certification site visit

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 220

Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

DERIS S.A ANTARTIC KRILL FISHERY – Public Comment Draft Report page 221