SCS Global Services Report

Southern Gulf of Thread Herring , Sinaloa & Nayarit, MSC Fishery Assessment Report Announcement Comment Draft Report

Authors Client

Andrew Bystrom, Team Leader Maz Sardina, S.A. De C.V.

Dr. Carlos Alvarez, Principal 1 Ing. Armando Coppel Azcona

Dr. Hans Hartmann, Principal 2 Estero De Urías S.N. int. D, Col. Urías, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México, 82099 Mariano Castro, Principal 3

July 14, 2021 SCS Global Services Report

1 Table of Contents

Southern Gulf of California Thread Herring Fishery, Sinaloa & Nayarit, Mexico 1

MSC Fishery Assessment Report 1

1 Table of Contents 2

2 Table of Figures 4

3 Glossary 5

4 Executive Summary 7

5 Report Details 9 5.1 Authorship and peer review details 9 1.2 Version details 12

6 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 13 6.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 13 6.2 Assessment results overview 15

7. Traceability and eligibility 17 7.1 Eligibility date 17 7.2 Traceability within the fishery 17 7.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody 19 7.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody19

8 Scoring 20 8.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores 20 8.2 Principle 1 22 8.3 Principle 2 59 8.4 Principle 3 151

9 Appendices 182 9.1 Assessment information 182 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 189 9.3 Peer Review reports 191 9.4 Stakeholder input 191 Conditions 192 Condition 1-1 193 Condition 1-3 (Part A) 197 Condition 1-5 201 Condition 1-6 205 Condition 1-7 207 Condition 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 208 Condition 2-5 214 Condition 2-6 219 Condition 3-2 222 Condition 3-3 228

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 2 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 3-6 233 9.5 Client Action Plan 235 9.6 Surveillance 235 9.7 Harmonised fishery assessments 236 9.8 Objection Procedure 237

10 References 238

11 Template information and copyright 253

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 3 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

2 Table of Figures Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) ...... 7 Table 2. program documents versions ...... 12 Table 3. Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification ...... 13 Table 4. Principle level scores ...... 15 Table 5. Summary of conditions ...... 16 Table 6. Traceability within the fishery ...... 18 Table 7. Summary of Draft Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores...... 20 Table 8. Draft Principle Scores ...... 21 Table 9.Actively versus passively managed small pelagics. Small pelagic categorized for two main forms of management in the November 2012 Fisheries Management Plan for Small Pelagics in the Gulf of California Mexico...... 33 Table 10. Biologically Acceptable Catch in t of thread herring for 2021 in the southern Gulf of California and parameters used in the calculations. Data from Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo (2020)...... 35 Table 11. Catch history in metric tons and effort of small pelagics in the southern Gulf of California. Data from Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2020)...... 36 Table 12. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data...... 39 Table 13. 2015-2010 observed catch in tons from the Sinaloa thread herring fishery (Inapesca 2015- 2020) ...... 62 Table 14: Observed catch in tons from 2015-2020 separated by retained catch and discards (alive and dead) (Inapesca 2015-2020) ...... 63 Table 15: Observed mammal and seabird sightings and sea turtle discards (number of individuals) from 2015-2020 (Inapesca 2015-2020) ...... 65 Table 16. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation ...... 66 Table 15. Summary of previous assessment conditions ...... 182 Table 18. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations ...... 189 Table 19. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4) ...... 191 Table 20. Summary of Stakeholder Submissions ...... 191 Table 21: Summary of conditions for the 2016 assessment ...... 192 Table 22 Condition X NEW ...... 234 Table 23. Fishery surveillance audit ...... 235 Table 24. Timing of surveillance audit ...... 235 Table 25. Surveillance level rationale ...... 235 Table 26. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization...... 236 Table 27. Overlapping fisheries...... 236 Table 28. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization ...... 236 Table 29. Rationale for scoring differences ...... 236

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 4 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

3 Glossary BAC Biologically Acceptable Catch CCNNA Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria) CEPA State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura) CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CNP National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera) CNPA National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura) CONANP The National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas) CONAPESCA National Council of Fishing and Aquaculture (Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura) DOF Official gazette (Diario official de la Federación) EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species F Fishing mortality FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FIDEMAR Fidecomiso del Mar FMP Fishery management plan IFQ Individual Fishing Quota INAPESCA National Fisheries Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesca) IPI Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg Kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LGPAS Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables) LOA Length Over-All M Million (lbs.) MCS Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum sustainable yield nm nautical mile NOM Official Mexican Norms (Norma Oficial Mexicana) OFL Over-Fishing Level OY Optimal Yield PI Performance Indicator PRI Point where recruitment is impared PROFEPA Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 5 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PROMAR Mexican Fund for Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (Fondo Mexicano para el Desarrollo Pesquero y Acuícola) SAGARPA Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadaría, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación) SCS SCS Global Services SEMARNAT The Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) SI Scoring Issue MANAGEMENT PLAN Small Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 6 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

4 Executive Summary

This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the purse seine fishery for small pelagics in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico, currently targeting thread herring (Opisthonema spp.). The assessment was conducted and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC- accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body. The assessment was completed in accordance with MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing as prescribed in MSC Certification Requirements v2.2 (September 2020) and associated MSC guidance. The fishery was assessed against a modified version of the Default Assessment Tree, which was altered to assess a stock complex rather than a single stock. The stock complex is comprised of three commercially indistinguishable thread herring species: O. libertate, O. bulleri and O. medirastre.

The formal identification for the fishery is the Southern Gulf of California small pelagics fishery, but for the purposes of this report, the fishery can also be referred to as the “Sinaloan & Nayarit, or Southern thread herring fishery”.

Maz Sardina S.A. de C.V. is a commercial fishing operation with eight vessels, each with approximately ten fishers onboard, landing in Mazatlán in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. All vessels operate within the Mexican Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) using purse-seine gear. Maz Sardina is a subsidiary of Grupo PINSA, which also includes the Pesca Azteca tuna-fishing fleet, a sophisticated processing facility, cold storage area, and marketing subsidiaries. The fleet fishes primarily for thread herring and other small pelagic species including Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), and bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus).

The proposed Unit of Certification is comprised exclusively of the eight Maz Sardina vessels assessed in this report. Therefore, the Unit of Assessment is equal to the Unit of Certification, and there are no other eligible fishers.

Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.a) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.b) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.c) Opisthonema spp. in Mexican Purse seine nets Eight vessels in Maz Sardina fleet (See: territorial waters in the states appendix, assessment information, of Sinaloa and Nayarit, inside vessel list) the Gulf of California

The four-member assessment team collectively meets the MSC’s requirements. The team members are:

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 7 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

. Andy Bystrom, Team Leader . Dr. Carlos Alvarez, Principle 1 Expert . Dr. Hans Hartmann, Principle 2 Expert . Mr. Mariano Castro, Principle 3 Expert

In this report, we provide detailed rationales for draft scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. Tentatively, no PIs fail to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles is above SG80. The team identified seven scoring issue-level draft conditions for PIs that do not currently meet the SG80 level.

In Principle 1, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock status is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, and it is fluctuating around maximum sustainable yield. Additionally, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. Three of the PIs (1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4) did however receive draft scores under SG80. Scores related to 1.2.2 reflect the UoA’s need to develop harvest control rules that are robust to the main uncertainties. Scores for 1.2.3 relate to an existing condition for monitoring stock abundance that will be carried over into the year one surveillance audit per the MSC’s Derogation 6: Covid-19 Fishery Conditions Extension. Scores for 1.2.4 take into account an approved variation request on May 18, 2021 by the MSC allowing the fishery to carry over condition 1-6 (1.2.4c) relating to harvest control rules, the stock assessment not addressing the main uncertainties, and unresolved questions regarding acoustic estimates for size differences among the three assessed species. This PI’s scores also reflects open condition 1-7 and the need for a stock assessment peer review, the progress of which will be reviewed by the team during the fourth-year surveillance audit.

In Principle 2 the overall score is highlighted by the fishery’s work to close conditions related to primary and secondary species and auspicious scores for and ecosystem outcome. Three of the PIs (2.3.3, 2.4.3, 2.5.2) did however receive scores under SG80. Scores for 2.3.3 and 2.5.2 partially reflect open conditions 2-5 and 2-6 which the team anticipates will be carried over into the year one surveillance audit per the MSC’s derogation. PI 2.3.3 also requires additional evidence that observer information is sufficient to support a management strategy and 2.4.3 requires more habitat information on sets at depths less than five fathoms.

In Principle 3 the UoA received high scores for the three governance and policy PIs that are harmonized with other Mexican MSC certified fisheries, in addition to strong scores for the fishery specific management system PIs. One PI (3.2.1) received a score under SG80 related to the absence of an updated management plan.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 8 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

5 Report Details

5.1 Authorship and peer review details

Audit Team

Andrew Bystrom – SCS Global Services – Team Leader

Mr. Bystrom has 13 years of industrial and small-scale fisheries management and sustainable development experience in the and the Caribbean. He has consulted for diverse fishery stakeholder groups including the North Carolina dusky smooth hound fishery relating to the Shark Conservation Act S. 850, the High Seas Alliance and its work to develop a new UNCLOS implementing agreement in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, the Costa Rican and Ecuadorian governments, the University of Costa Rica, and the UNDP. Prior to joining SCS Global Services in 2020, he managed a portfolio of fisheries and blue economy projects for Eastern Research Group, Inc. in North America, , Mexico, and the Caribbean.

Mr. Bystrom’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Leader as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2):  Completed training meeting requirements in Table 1 of GCRV2.4, as evidenced by the certificate of passing auditor training for the ISO course 19011  Holds a Masters in natural resource management) and has over 10 years of experience in the fisheries sector related to research, development, and stakeholder management and facilitation  Completed the latest MSC training modules applicable to this assessment within the past five years (V2.2 Team Leader MSC modules in February 2020)  Has undertaken several MSC fishery assessment and surveillance audits as a team leader and principal 2 expert: Surveillance for the southern Gulf of California Thread Herring Fishery in Sinaloa & Nayarit Mexico, the Small Pelagics fishery in Sonora, Gulf of California, the Baja Mexico Red Rock Lobster fishery, and the Mexican Pacific coast Industrial Shrimp fishery  Has demonstrated experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques, as verified by SCS audit witness records and previous audit reports  Is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques, and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques, as verified by the completion of ISO 19011 auditor training.  Has affirmed he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment

Dr. Carlos Alvarez – Oceanides Conservacion y Desarrollo Marino –Principle 1 Expert

Dr. Alvarez gained a PhD in Fisheries from the University of Washington. He has devoted his professional career working in marine mammal and fish stock assessment and ecosystem impacts of fisheries. Some of his investigations involved the bycatch of dolphins in the pelagic purse seine tuna fisheries of the Eastern Tropical Pacific, the hunt of beluga whales in West Greenland, the hunt of bowhead whales in

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 9 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Canada, the bycatch of albatrosses in pelagic fisheries of the central Pacific and the modeling of factors that could further affect the fate of the albatross populations. More recently, Carlos has been involved with investigations examining the status and potential of fisheries for green crab in the Gulf of California and spiny lobster in the southern Mexican Caribbean. These assessments were done in the context of their work towards certification by the Marine Stewardship Council. Dr. Alvarez is also on the assessment teams for the Gulf of California sardine and thread herring fisheries.

Dr. Alvarez’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2):  With relevant degree as a Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Fisheries of the University of Washington  Has undertaken several MSC fishery audits relevant to this assessment as a team member in the last 5 years including: Surveillance for the southern Gulf of California Thread Herring Fishery in Sinaloa & Nayarit Mexico and the Small pelagics fishery in Sonora, Gulf of California.  Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years (January 2020).  Affirms he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.

Dr. Hans Hartmann – Independent Consultant – Principle 2 Expert

Formerly tenured as Associate Professor of Marine Biology at La Rochelle Université in France, Dr. Hartmann has recently retired and has been granted Emeritus status at the Université. With a Ph.D. in Fisheries Science from the University of Washington, he is internationally known for his research and expertise in marine ecology, with emphasis on plankton ecology, fisheries, wetlands/mangroves and socio-economic factors in coastal conservation and resource management. Earlier in his career, he worked, among others, with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (USA), and has more recently focused his attention on tropical and small-scale fisheries, working with academic, NGO, government, consultant and stakeholder partners primarily in Central America, Mexico and Indonesia. He has, among others, taught on transdisciplinary topics related to integrated coastal management with emphasis on ecosystem- fisheries interactions. Dr. Hartmann received the Medal of Merit for Distinguished Collaborators from the University of Costa Rica in 2015. Among his over 40 peer-reviewed published papers and book chapters, he has co-authored on topics concerning fish habitat ecology, small scale fisheries, fisheries and mangrove management, ornamental fisheries and participatory methods for coastal resource assessment.

Dr. Hartmann’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2):  With relevant degree (Ph.D. Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA) and over 25 years of research experience in marine ecology with specialties in plankton/microbial ecology, small-scale fisheries, mangroves/wetlands, and socio-economic factors in coastal conservation and resource management.  Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years (DATE).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 10 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

 Has passed new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before undertaking assessments using these modifications such as enhanced bivalves, salmon and other modifications that may be developed in the future. (DATE of completion of modules)  Affirms he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.

Mariano Castro – Independent Consultant – Principle 3 Expert

Mariano Castro is a lawyer with more than eight years of experience providing advice on public, environmental and international law and policy. He has consulted for a significant number of NGOs on matters such as climate change adaptation, consolidation of Marine Protected Areas and analysis of environmental and fisheries regulations. He has vast experience working with government authorities and key stakeholders in promoting and coordinating strategies to guarantee a sustainable management of natural resources.

Mariano Castro’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2):  With relevant degree (Advanced LLM in Public International Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands), and over 5 years of research experience in environmental management.  Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years (2020).  Has passed new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before undertaking assessments using these modifications such as enhanced bivalves, salmon and other modifications that may be developed in the future. (2021)  Affirms he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.

Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewer information to be completed at the Public Comment Draft Report Stage.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 11 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

1.2 Version details

Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 12 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

6 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview

6.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification

6.1.1 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification

This assessment includes one Unit of Assessment (UoA). The UoA’s target species is the thread herring stock complex (Opisthonema spp.), made up of three subspecies (O. libertate, O. medirastre and O. bulleri), or sardina crinuda and arenque de hebra in Spanish. The UoA covers purse seiner vessels subject to Mexican National Standard Number 003, which operate in the Mexican territorial waters of the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit, Mexico. The eight vessels belonging to the client group Maz Sardina land their catch at the Maz Industrial processing plant and meet these characteristics.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.2 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

. Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5) . The fishery does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for shark finning within the last 2- years (FCP 7.4.2.10) . There are mechanisms for resolving disputes in place (FCP 7.4.5.1), and the fishery has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. . Is not an enhanced fishery, is not based on an introduced species and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.8-13) . Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted in respect of violation of a forced or child labour law within the last 2 years. (FCP 7.4.2.4) . The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (FCP 7.5).

Functionally the scope of the UoA(s) and the UoC(s) share the same characteristics (target stock, fishing gear type, fishing fleets). Nonetheless, only product From Maz Sardina vessels landed at the Maz Industrial processor is considered eligible to be sold as MSC-certified product.

Table 3. Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification

UoA and UoC Description

Opisthonema spp. ( O. libertate, O. medirastre, O. bulleri) (Günther, 1867; Berry & Species Barrett, 1963; and Regan, 1904, respectively) This assessment was conducted inferring that thread herring in the southern Gulf of California is part of a single UoA represented by a stock complex composed of three Stock Opisthonema species, O. libertate, O. medirastre and O. bulleri. O. libertate has the widest range and dominates thread herring landings in the Sinaloa & Nayarit fishery,

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 13 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

with O. bulleri as the least abundant species of the complex. In the neighboring unit of assessment from the Sonora small pelagics fishery, the Opisthonema complex is disproportionately dominated by O. libertate, with small amounts of O. bulleri and O. medirastre present. For this reason, this stock is managed largely for O. libertate, and for MSC assessment purposes, O. bulleri and O. medirastre are considered IPI species. Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Purse Seine type(s)

Client group Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V.

Other eligible fishers The UoA and UoC are the same size; there are no other eligible fishers.

Mexican territorial waters in the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Fishing occurs between Geographical area 26° N at Punta Ahome near the northern border of the State of Sinaloa with Sonora and 20.5° N near Cabo Corrientes in the State of Jalisco.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 14 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

6.2 Assessment results overview

6.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

The determination of the fishery is drafted at the final report and completed at the PCR.

6.2.2 Principle level scores

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

Table 4. Principle level scores

Principle UoA 1

Principle 1 – Target species

Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts

Principle 3 – Management system

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 15 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

6.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

Table 5. Summary of conditions

6.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 16 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

7. Traceability and eligibility

7.1 Eligibility date The target eligibility date of the UoA is set to be equivalent to the certification date, as permitted under MSC FCPv2.2 7.8.1.

7.2 Traceability within the fishery

Vessels in the Maz Sardina fleet each have four to six wells in their holds, where the number of wells varies depending on vessel size, which are named according to their location on the vessel (i.e. port and starboard sides). The majority of sets are species-specific, targeting thread herring or other small pelagic species. Information on volumes and wells for different species are recorded under the “General Observations” section in the vessel logbook (Diario de Maquina) by the on board motor engineer. When there is a surplus of catch, transshipment occurs exclusively between vessels within the Maz Sardina fleet, all of which are within the UoA. Transshipment events are also documented under the “General Observations” section in the vessel logbook as required by the Navy. There is no processing at sea.

The fishery does not handle Opisthonema spp. catch from outside the UoA and therefore no segregation system for this species complex is needed onboard UoA vessels. There are capture management and fishery traceability systems in place. The capture management system defines that Opisthonema spp. catch containing a maximum of 2% other small pelagic species can be classified as certified product. If the catch contains more than 2% other small pelagic species, it is not classified as MSC product and is segregated from MSC product and processed separately. Vessels communicate whether they carry MSC product to the Maz Sardina ship supplier which in turn communicates this information to the quality control manager at the beginning of MSC production. Management systems related to traceability are documented via the vessel logbook and landing ticket (Aviso de Arribo de Embarcaciones). The landing ticket contains information on the date of landing, name of vessel, fishing area, fishing permit and volume for the different species (i.e. thread herring and bocona).

The assessment team determined that the traceability and segregation systems required to separate certified product from non-certified product at the processing plants are in place as traceability systems are consistent with those in place during the first certificate cycle. The client has in place the necessary measures to deal with under-assessment product. For the first receivers listed on the certificate, their ability to handle under-assessment product will be evaluated/confirmed by their respective chain of custody CAB/auditor.

The Maz Sardina fleet and Maz Industrial processing plant are affiliate companies under the umbrella of the PINSA Group, and thus considered to be part of a vertically integrated supply chain. When landed onto vessels, fish are owned by Maz Sardina. The first change of ownership occurs at the point of unloading, when receiving for Maz Industrial takes on ownership of the fish, as the product moves into processing.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 17 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Description of Tracking, Tracing and Segregation Systems

The following traceability evaluation is for the UoA covering the Maz Sardina owned thread herring purse sein fleet based in Mazatlan, Mexico. Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the UoA fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step:

1. Capture of product: All MSC certified product is captured by UoA vessels owned by Maz Sardina 2. On-board processing: The is no on-board processing. There is no on-board separation of certified product from non-certified product. The total catch is classified as either certified product (containing up to 2% of other small pelagic species) or non-certified product (containing more than 2% of other small pelagic species). 3. Product unloading: All certified product is landed at the Maz Industrial processing plant 4. Product transport: There is some transshipment of product between UoA vessels 5. Product storage: Product is stored on-board vessels in wells before being landed at the Maz Industrial processing plant 6. Product sale and first change of ownership: First change of ownership occurs at the Maz Industrial processing plant

Table 6 below includes an evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.

Table 6. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)? No

Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? No

At-sea activities: Maz Sardina vessels catch Opisthonema spp. and other small pelagic species. Certified product may contain up to 2% non-target small pelagic species. If vessel catch contains more than 2% of other small pelagic species, it is classified as non-certified product. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-

certified products during any of the activities covered by the On-land activities: A landing ticket or arrival fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea activities and notice is generated by the processing plant on-land activities. administration department. It contains logbook

information detailing weigh of each species caught

among other information. The vessel also advised the processing plant if the catch can be classified as MSC product. At offloading processing plant personnel are aware of whether or not the product is MSC certified. Certified product is then processed separately from non-certified product.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 18 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Does transshipment occur within the fishery? Transshipment: Some transshipment occurs.

7.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

The team has determined that the product originating from the UoA will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The point of intended change of ownership of product is the first sale from Maz Sardina owned vessels to the Maz Industrial processing plant. The team has determined that the point of first sale is also the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required. Lists of documents to be solicited by the CoC auditor at the point where CoC is required [ i.e. : Invoices from the company for sales of thread herring, the landing ticket, and the CONAPESCA transport permit] must be requested by the CoC auditor.

Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label:

List of eligible landing points: Maz Industrial owned processing plant, Mazatlan, Mexico

7.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

No species in this fishery were categorized as IPI. The three Opisthonema species in this assessment are assessed as a stock complex via a modified assessment tree and were not assessed as IPI species because all three species comprise >15% of the catch in any given year. Relative percentages of the three Opisthonema species in catches fluctuate from year to year.

There are over 50 different non target minor retained species which, according to observer data, jointly represent less than 5% of the total volume of the UoA. These species may be considered IPI, however, the CAB in conjunction with the client opted against this option, primarily because of information deficiencies on stock status, reliable data on proportion and weight of catch of these stocks and absence of management measures for several of these species. The CAB recommends that Maz Sardina develop techniques to effectively separate those sets with non-target minor retained species from those sets that are considered “clean”.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 19 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8 Scoring

8.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores Table 7. Summary of Draft Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores. Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 >80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 75 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 >80 One Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 60-79 Management 0.667 tools 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 60-79 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 60-79 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 >80 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 >80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 60-79 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 2.4.3 Information 0.333 60-79 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 60-79 2.5.3 Information 0.333 >80 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 >80 framework Governance and policy 0.5 Consultation, roles & 3.1.2 0.333 >80 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 >80 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 60-79 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 >80 Fishery specific 0.5 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 >80 Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 >80 performance evaluation

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 20 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Table 8. Draft Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 88.3

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 21 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.2 Principle 1

8.2.1 Principle 1 background

Life History Information

Taxonomic classification

Class: Actinopterigii : Clupeiformes : Clupeidae : Opisthonema Species: O. libertate, O. bulleri, O. medirastre

Biology

The fishery for thread herring operates under the assumption that the group is made up of three different species, O. libertate, O. bulleri, and O. medirastre. In practice, however, these species are difficult to distinguish in the field by means of immediate identification of external characteristics such as size, shape, color, fin features, etc. To assign individuals to one of the three species, it is necessary to count the number of gill rakers (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013a), which is not practical during commercial operations.

The MSC system has a mechanism that allows for Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) species to be assessed together, if and when one species comprises <15% of the total overall landing of a fishery in which there is a target species from which it cannot be distinguished for commercial purposes (V1.3, CR 27.4.9.1 c). In this case, none of the species qualified as IPI: when the catch history was examined through time, each species regularly comprised >15% of total landings in different years.

Pacific thread herring (Opisthonema libertate)

Pacific thread herring (O. libertate) are small forage fish (size ~12-30 cm). Predominantly a coastal species that remains near surface, also known to dive as deep as 100 m. As low level consumers, Pacific thread herring forms very dense schools that attain large biomasses (between 50 and 80 metric tons), and are therefore usually restricted to high primary productivity areas. The Pacific thread herring is omnivorous, consuming both phytoplankton and zooplankton throughout its lifetime. Thread-fin herrings are named for the last thread-like ray on their dorsal fins. Other common names include deep-bodied thread herring and sardina crinuda (México). O. libertate is distinguishable from other Pacific ocean Opisthonema spp. only by the number of gill rakers, with O. libertate having between 63 and 100. This situation is a clear example of a stock-complex in the definition of the MSC standard, where some or all of the stocks cannot be individually assessed so are managed as a group.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 22 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Slender thread herring (Opisthonema bulleri)

Like other members of the genus Opisthonema, O. bulleri is distinguished by the long filamentous ray on the dorsal fin and may be very difficult to differentiate from other Opisthonema species. This species is about the same size, and presents the same number of rays in the dorsal and anal fins as other species of the same genus. The most distinctive feature of this species is the presence of 25 to 36 lower gill rakers in individuals over 14 cm, which is the lowest number of gill rakers found among Opisthonema species.

Middling thread herring (Opistonema medirastre)

This species is very similar in size and morphology to the other two members of the genus described above. The distinctive feature is the presence of 41 to 69 lower gill rakers in fish over 14 cm which places the species between O. libertate and O. bulleri in the number of distinctive gill rakers. This is generally the least abundant species of the complex in Sinaloa & Nayarit waters.

Behaviour

All species in the Crinuda complex share the same coastal – pelagic schooling behavior, feeding on diatoms, and pteropods (FAO, 1985; Lopez-Martinez et al., 1999). It has been proposed that Pacific thread herring migrates northward up the Gulf of California during summer and southward during winter (Fig. 1). These migrations have been attributed to feeding and spawning (Lluch-Belda et al., 1986; Perez- Quiñonez et al., 2018).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 23 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. Proposed migration patterns for O. libertate sampled in Mazatlán (M), Guaymas (G) and Magdalena Bay (B); size of arrows does not represent intensities of currents, just indicative of direction. Reproduced from Perez-Quiñonez et al. (2018).

Growth and Natural Mortality

Estimates for natural mortality for O. libertate are inconsistent across different publications. Gallardo- Cabello et al. (1993) mentions that the maximum age for O. libertate is 8.94 years and the natural mortality (M) of 0.335. Jacob-Cervantes (2012), using the constant method of Jensen (1996), computed M = 0.65. These values differ from the high value of M= 0.86 published in FishBase, these variations are most likely due to different values in K. Using the regression approach of Hewitt and Hoenig (2005) with the maximum age of 8.94 gives a M = 0.47, if age was reduced to 7 years, M = 0.6. Uncertainty in somatic growth rate and longevity are the main impediments to obtain a consistent estimate of natural mortality for this species.

A recent study for O. libertate based on otolith reading proposes that growth was affected by environmental conditions, with effects more visible in 0.5 year old thread herrings (Payan-Alejo et al., 2020a). For O. medirastre, it has been observed that a pair of hyaline and opaque bands form in the otolith on a yearly basis (Payan-Alejo et al., 2020b).

Reproduction and Recruitment

Pacific thread herring is an indeterminate batch spawner (oviparous), producing a large number of eggs in batches spread over many months. The eggs and larvae are pelagic (free floating). In the waters off Sinaloa, O. libertate spawns at a water temperature range from 25 to 29°C, mostly in the summer-autumn

months with a high incidence of immature in winter. Different values of length at maturity (L50) have been computed for this thread herring species, but the latest approach estimated a mean length at maturity of 162 mm (Cotero-Altamirano et al., 2014).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 24 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

O. medirastre spawns most of the year with a peak in September and weaker pulses in January and April. It has been reported that temperatures above 20°C trigger the reproductive activity, becoming more

intense at 31.5°C. The estimated mean length at maturity (L50) is 143 mm (Cotero-Altamirano et al., 2014). O. bulleri mostly spawns in summer in southern Gulf of California region; estimated mean length at maturity (L50) is 151 mm (Cotero-Altamirano et al., 2014).

Distribution and Stock Structure

The Pacific thread herring O. libertate is distributed along the eastern Pacific coast extending from the Gulf of California northward to Southern California, USA, and southward to Peru, including the Galapagos Islands. This species is abundant throughout most of its range, with the exception of the outer coast of Baja California, where it is considered to be rare (Watson and Sandknop, 1996). O. medirastre is distributed from Los Angeles, USA to Sechura Bay in Peru. O. bulleri is found in coastal and pelagic waters of the eastern Pacific from Mazatlán (Mexico) to Punta Picos (Peru); this is the least abundant of the three Opisthonema species (Berry and Barret 1963).

Status of stocks

Acoustic based surveys

Fisheries independent estimates of biomass abundance are regularly obtained via hydroacoustic surveys. In the fall of 2020, the survey obtained acoustic data together with biological and oceanographic information, the survey track is shown in Figure 2 (Vallarta-Zárate et al. 2020).

From 2012 to 2020, the biomass estimated using acoustic methods has fluctuated around an average near 600,000 t without a clear trend (see Figure 3). In 2020, total abundance of the thread herring complex, estimated using hydroacoustic methods, was 690,796 t (CI95% = 552,925 – 828,666 t), close to the average for the previous 9 years.

In the first MSC certification assessment, the acoustic survey data was used to estimate biomass abundance using an assumed parameter in a regression that calculates the acoustic target strength for clupeids. This assumption was questioned as it could yield to different estimates of biomass and lead to different BAC levels. In consequence, a Condition was placed associated to the PI of information requiring a different treatment of the assumption, either from obtaining the species specific value for thread herrings, testing for robustness in the use of the assumption, or any other formal consideration. To address the Condition on PI 1.2.3, the INAPESCA staff conducted experiments to obtain species specific b20 values, which resulted in similar numbers with those previously used under the clupeid assumption (González-Máynez et al. 2021). The report of the experiment indicates: It is noted that in terms of estimating acoustic biomass, the results in this study indicate that for the thread herring, the biomass estimates obtained so far for this species, using the models of Foote (1987) and Barange et al. (1996), will not differ much from the estimates obtained using the TS-LT models here. In other words, the new estimated biomass values, with the models determined here, will be similar to the previously estimated values.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 25 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

While these results are relevant to the question posed in the first full assessment, it remains to be shown how “similar” are the estimates of biomass obtained with the new TS estimates compared to that using the clupeid assumption.

Model based stock assessment

The thread herring fishery has a history of application of a variety of population models to estimate population parameters and the status of the stock. Previous efforts included surplus production models (De Anda y Lyle-Frith 1987; Cisneros-Mata et al. 1988; Ruiz-Luna 1995; Jacob-Cervantes 1996); VPA (Jacob- Cervantes 2012) and a multi-specific surplus production model (Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015).

The last three years, a statistical catch at age population model (SCA) was fit to indices of abundance obtained with acoustic methods during vessel surveys independent from the fishery and to other data (Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo 2020). Fishery dependent data inputs for these assessment models include annual catch and effort in number of trips, size, weight, sex, maturity and age from otolith samples. Additionally, gill-raker samples were also obtained for species identification. Fishery independent data to be used in the SCA model included the acoustic based estimated biomass and a biomass index obtained from egg and larval surveys. Although the model is conceptually correct, its implementation has presented issues that were pointed out at the last surveillance audit (Anhalzer et al. 2020). Difficulties in implementing these types of models are usual and it is always complicated to do proper handling of the main uncertainties making the model robust to the intrinsic variability. For this reason, although the fishery has a history of searching not only for the most appropriate model but to improve their implementation, they continue to have unresolved issues that led them to consider dropping off the use of ad hoc implementations and look for a functional platform that has been proved to be efficient under a wide variety of cases. Presently, the current assessment of stock status continued to provide estimates to calculate the BAC, at the same time they are already working towards the implementation of an integrated model using Stock Synthesis (Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo 2021).

The trend in biomass was estimated using statistical catch at age and shows a relatively stable trend since 2011 around an approximate average of 550,000 t (Figure 2). The model estimated total biomass at 516,802 t while SSB was estimated at 353,609 and an estimated B of 201,097. This places the SSB far above the estimated level producing MSY. MSY

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 26 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 2. Survey design for fisheries acoustic and oceanographic sampling in the southern Gulf of California. Reproduced from Vallarta-Zárate et al. (2020).

Figure 3. Estimated biomass (solid line) and 95 CI (dotted lines) of thread herring complex in the southern Gulf of California. The population model was fit under the assumption of M=0.55. Green dots are biomass estimates obtained using acoustic methods during independent vessel surveys.

Trend in fishing mortality F

The trend in fishing mortality rate F shows that most of the time it has been under the estimated level producing MSY (Figure 3). The estimate of F in 2020 was 0.178 while the estimate of in the same year was 0.24. 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 27 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Fishing mortality rate and harvest rate for the thread herring (Opistonema spp.) in the southern Gulf of California. The red line represents Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo (2020).

𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 Status relative to and 𝑭𝑭 combined

𝐵𝐵𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 When the status of the Opistonema complex is presented in a Kobe plot to show the stock trajectory in time relative to the levels of biomass and F producing MSY (Figure 4), it is seen that for more than 10 years the stock has been in the green quadrant of the plot, indicating that the stock has not been depleted (overexploited) and that overfishing has not happened for several years.

Figure 5. Kobe plot for the thread herring complex in the southern Gulf of California. Dark vertical and horizontal lines represent status of F and SSB respectively, relative to their levels producing MSY. Blue numbered circles represent the status of the stock in the corresponding year. Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo (2020).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 28 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Stock status by species

The individual status of the three Opistonema species, is shown in Figure 5. The estimated biomass trend of the three species has been above their estimated levels producing MSY (left panels). On the other hand, F has been under in O. libertate for the last 15 years, but before 2000 fluctuated widely around . In O. medirastre, F has wide fluctuations around , currently under the reference point. O. bulleri has 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 been most of its history under except for a period between 2007 and 2010. 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Figure 6. Model based estimated trends of biomass (left) and fishing mortality rates (right) for O. libertate, top panels, O. medirastre, center panels, and O. bulleri, lower panels. Horizontal lines in color represent the parameter value producing MSY. Green dots in left panels are abundance estimates from acoustic surveys. Continuous lines in right panels are F, dotted lines are harvest rates. Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo (2020).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 29 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Seasonal Operation of the Fishery Fishing grounds for thread herring fishery are found in Mexican territorial waters in the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Fishing occurs between 26° N at Punta Ahome near the northern border of the State of Sinaloa with Sonora and 20.5 N near Cabo Corrientes in the State of Jalisco (Figure 7). The waters off Sinaloa and Nayarit are part of the Gulf of California, a 1,130 km long semi-enclosed sea located between the mainland Mexico and Baja California peninsula, with marine depths ranging from less than 10 m in the north of a maximum of ~3,600 m (Lluch-Cota et al. 2007).

Figure 7. Fishing grounds for the thread herring fishery based in Mazatlán. Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2020).

Recent analysis (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2020) show that the number of boats that operated during the 2020 fishing season was almost constant throughout the year (7 boats), with less boats working during November (3 boats), and June to August (6 boats). Average fishing trips per boat was 40, with maximum of 89 and minimum of 4. Out of the 442 fishing trips registered in the 2020 season, most of the trips were directed to Zone IV (209), followed by Zone III (105); there were 51 and 69 fishing trips to zones I and II, respectively. Fishing zone V was the least visited during the 2020 season, with only 8 trips (Figure 8). The fishery currently operates seasonally for as long as the season is predetermined to last or until the limit established by the BAC is reached. The fishery operates during fishing seasons that are defined through Technical Opinions issued by the INAPESCA. The seasons are established with the purpose of protecting reproductive periods and recruitment. For the thread herring fishery, the fishery closure for 2020 was established from August 20th until November the 20th. The closure is to be observed in the zone extending from Parallel 26° N to Parallel 20° N.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 30 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 8. Total trips per fishing boat (a) and fishing zone (b) for the thread herring 2020 fishing season. From Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2020 (PAT). Boat number represents ID of boat and not total number of boats.

Fishing and Management

The Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables, LGPAS) (2007, as amended in 2014) is the main legislative document governing the conservation, preservation, and management of all aquatic flora and fauna under exploitation in Mexico. Additionally, the National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP) provides overarching legislation for all fisheries in Mexico and undergoes a process of periodic review with the potential to enact or modify conditions and regulations on fisheries. Mexico uses a series of Official Mexican Standards (Norma Oficial Mexicana, often called NOMs or normas) which are compulsory standards and regulations for diverse activities in Mexico. (Hernandez and Kempton 2003). The small pelagic fishery is a subset of fisheries in Mexico regulated by the NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 which specifies a series of input and output controls. Both the NOM and the CNP have binding value under the national fisheries law, although the CNP is only binding for the authorities, not the fishers. All fisheries official regulations are published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación, the Federation Official Gazette. In addition, the LGPAS dictates that Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) are one of the three instruments for fisheries management recognized by the law in Mexico. However, the full scope of FMPs is reached only when they are embedded in another of the three instruments known as the Programa de Ordenamiento Pesquero. For the small pelagic fishery (sardines, anchovies, mackerel and related species) an official (published in the Official Gazette) FMP outlines the harvest strategy for all small pelagics in the Mexican Pacific region.

Carta Nacional Pesquera

The 2018 National Fisheries Charter (CNP) still refers to NOM-003-PESC-1993 and regulatory agreements in determining 160 mm as the minimum standard length for thread herring (as a complex). For thread herring there is no defined maximum proportion of fish in the catch under the size limit. For Pacific

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 31 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

sardines the proportional volume of fish under the size limit is set at 20% of the total catch, compared to 30% of previous versions of the CNP. It is assumed that this proportion also applies for all small pelagics with a size limit.

The CNP 2018 does not include the 2012 recommendation of 0.25 exploitation rates for all small pelagics, but still limits fishing effort in terms of nominal trips by not granting more commercial fishing permits for small pelagics, unless they are to substitute for vessels currently permitted. The 2018 CNP also recommends exploring new fishing zones and explore the possibility to carry out mid-water trawls in Baja California Peninsula’s waters.

NOM-003-SAG-PESC-1993

From the time the thread herring went through its first MSC full assessment, two relevant changes took place that represent an improvement in the management of this fishery and have an impact on different aspects of the associated conditions. The NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 was published in the Official Gazette on March 12th, 2019, and at the time of the 3rd surveillance audit, it had been already legally binding for 17 months. Amongst other aspects, the NOM’s Section 4 establishes the general applicable regulations for the operation of all fisheries harvesting small pelagic fish with purse seine gear in the Mexican Pacific, including the Gulf of California.

Section 4.14 of NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 is relevant to the fishery’s Certification Conditions because it allows for the formal implementation of the HCR by explicitly referencing the mechanism that informs the fishery about stock status and the resulting harvest limits for the following fishing season. Other relevant changes or dynamic definitions that the fishery may require are also covered by this definition, including new systems, gear, fishing areas, limits on effort, incidental catch, and size limits. Section 4.15 indicates that regulatory measures presented in the aforementioned Agreements must consider the opinion of the Small Pelagics Technical Committee and the Technical Committee for the Management of the Fishery.

Regarding the need for the incorporation of procedural linkages in management measures, the new NOM- 003-SAG-PESC-2018 established a minimum legal size for thread herring (160 mm) except for the southern Gulf of California, for which a specific limit had to be determined and published in the official Gazette through a regulatory Agreement. This Agreement was published in October 2019 and defined that, while size limits for all other small pelagic species remained the same, for the thread herring in the southern Gulf of California the size limit should be 140 mm with a new permissible proportion of the total catch under the size limit of 38% (DOF 2019). Additionally, NOM-003- SAG-PESC-2018 (sections 4.13.5.1– 4.13.5.5) sets bycatch limits for individual groups of organisms including finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, elasmobranchs, and cnidarias. The NOM also establishes the volume of the fishery’s total catch that can be composed of bycatch species (1.00–0.20% depending on organism class), minimum size limits for thread herring and other small pelagic species, and the % of their catch that can be under the minimum size.

Regarding the need for the fishery to develop a strategy with measures relevant to the main risk to estuarine communities which is likely to be mortality of juvenile fish, per the 2015 full assessment, section

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 32 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

4.13.5.1 of the NOM now sets a bycatch limit for finfish at a maximum of 1.0% per individual trip and an overall annual fishery catch of 0.50%. Furthermore, the new legislation prohibits fishing activity to occur within a radius of 2.5 km around 28 river mouths, coastal and bays, and lagoons located along the Mexican Pacific (4.13.7.1–4.13.7.28). The NOM also addressed fishing effort and stipulates that the growth of the fleet (increased number of vessels) is not permitted.

Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan

The main objectives of the Management Plan are to keep stocks at sustainable levels, conserve yield and economic benefit, reduce impacts to the ecosystem, and stimulate economic benefit to society.

The Management Plan includes objectives, reference points, control rules, definition of a scientific support committee and research objectives.

The Plan also details that some species are to be actively managed if a control rule is used as described below, while others will be passively managed if default harvest rates are used. The purpose of these two categories of management is to use institutional resources as efficiently and effectively as possible to meet management goals. Species in each group are given in Table 9.

Table 9.Actively versus passively managed small pelagics. Small pelagic species categorized for two main forms of management in the November 2012 Fisheries Management Plan for Small Pelagics in the Gulf of California Mexico.

Actively Managed Passively managed Pacific sardine: Sardinops sagax Japanese sardine: Etrumeus teres Blue thread herring: Opisthonema bulleri Bocona sardine: Cetengraulis mysticetus Middling thread herring: Opisthonema medirastre Northern anchovy: Engraulis mordax Pacific thread herring: Opisthonema libertate Charrito: Trachurus symmetricus Chub mackerel: Scomber japonicas Pineapple sardine: Oligoplites. spp.

The Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) of Mexico defines the Biologically Acceptable catch as a catch limit computed by means of multiplying a biomass estimate times a harvest rate. Also, because in practice a harvest rate (HR) is the ratio of catch over biomass, the HR used to compute the BAC can be used as surrogate reference point and evaluate the performance of the fishery every season (i.e. comparing the recorded HR of the season vs the BAC based HR). In the CNP, for the small pelagics fishery, a default value of the HR reference point was set to 0.25. This value was obtained from a simulation study of Pacific sardine which indicated that a fishing mortality rate that is 90% of the “would not only produce higher economic returns and be safer biologically, but would also reduce intrinsic population 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 oscillations, which for management purposes is a desirable characteristic of an exploitable resource” (Nevárez-Martínez et al., 1999). The default value of 0.25 was taken to the FMP and set as an upper allowable limit for the proportion of the estimated biomass that could be removed by the fishery (i.e. a harvest rate). The Plan states that a Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) is a “prudent level of catch” that

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 33 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

can vary between 5 and 25% of the estimated biomass. This value is also used in the FMP as a default HR for passively managed species and is multiplied to the estimated biomass of reproductive adults. According to the FMP, overfishing occurs if the catch of any particular season exceeds the BAC. The FMP also defines the Optimum Sustainable Yield as the amount of fish that provides the greatest benefit to the nation, particularly with regard to food production and jobs, and takes into account the protection of the marine ecosystem; and is prescribed based on the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). OY is determined in reference to the BAC and is required to be less than the BAC to avoid overfishing. Such language suggests OY as desirable state of the system which would define a target reference point. During the first MSC full assessment of this fishery, the definition of the BAC was interpreted as a limit reference point, while the OS was interpreted as the target. While the first has an explicit equation to be obtained numerically, the OSY did not have any guidance to be computed other than being a level lower than the BAC.

As the FMP had been recently published, it had not been implemented and the team could not evaluate the fishery’s performance other than what was defined in the FMP. At that time, consideration was made to the MSC Certification Requirements V 1.3 indicating in PI1.1.1 that for SIb, that the stock has to be “at or fluctuating around its target reference point”, and PI1.1.2, that “the target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome”. The full assessment concluded that being the BAC lower than the OSY and therefore considered as a limit based on MSY, it was a conservative approach and was acceptable following the Guidance to the MSC CR V1.3 GCB2.3.3: a management strategy based solely around a limit reference point shall imply that there is a target reference point close to or at BMSY (or some other measure or surrogate that maintains the stock at high productivity), and at a level that is well above the limit reference point.

And further adds: There may be situations where the limit reference point is set higher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired. Where this results in more precautionary management, the SG100 statement about “following consideration of relevant precautionary issues” would apply.

Currently, the fishery is being assessed using V2.01 of the MSC Fisheries Standard, which eliminated the PI requiring identification of reference points. However, GSA2.2.3 maintains that:

All management systems should thus have reference points of some sort, as confirmed in PI 1.2.4 (scoring issue (b)). Where these are not stated explicitly they should be implicit within the decision rules or management procedures, and the fishery should be assessed using these implicit reference points.

As GSA2.2.3.1 indicates that the use of reference points relates to the determination of stock status and not in relation to control rules, it should be clarified that in assessing the thread herring fishery in the southern Gulf of California, the team observed that FMP has been operationally active for at least three

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 34 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

years. In these years, management advice has been provided by application of the HCR which computes the BAC and works as a cap to the catch every year. The BAC is calculated as = ( ) (1 ), where is a biomass level which, if reached, the fishery must stop operations. is 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵 − 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∗ estimated−𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 every year together with in the stock assessment and are used to calculate the allowable − 𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 catch of the following season. Under these conditions, beyond interpretations about how the BAC and 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 the OSY relate to limit and target reference points, operationally, the fishery is using the BAC obtained with the currently estimated as a TAC for the fishing season about to begin. On the other hand, is operating as a limit which forces the fishery to stop if reached. Above , the total allowable 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 catch would decline if the estimated biomass were declining. Further, in stock assessments, stock status 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is evaluated using Kobe plots using both / and / together with trends in F and HR that are compared to . Consistently, the present MSC assessment will no longer use definitions 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐵𝐵𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐵𝐵𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 of target and limit reference points in relation to the OY and the BAC, but will consider what the fishery is 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 using in practice to determine stock status, namely, the estimates of and . For the point where recruitment is impaired (as used in PI 1.1.1), the assessment uses the estimate of . These definitions 𝐵𝐵𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 are in compliance with the standard as defined in this paragraph. 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Calculations for the BAC in 2021 show that the BAC computed for the entire complex of thread herring is lower than the sum of the BAC obtained for each species separately (Table 10). It is also noticeable the difference in the BAC for the total complex (71,313 t) to the BAC of the main species in the catch, O. libertate (41,319 t).

Table 10. Biologically Acceptable Catch in t of thread herring for 2021 in the southern Gulf of California and parameters used in the calculations. Data from Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo (2020).

Species Opistonema sp. 353,609 19,182 201,097 0.240 71,313 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑩𝑩𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝑩𝑩𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝑩𝑩𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 𝑭𝑭𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑨𝑨𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 O. libertate 222,152 6,774 81,521 0.213 41,319 O. medirastre 44,182 4,437 24,439 0.443 14,224 O. bulleri 87,673 8,711 49,722 0.315 21,336 Total by adding 354,007 19,922 155,682 76,879 species

A meeting of the Technical Committee (Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores) was held on February 4-6, 2020 as a way of facilitating collaboration between the Sinaloa and Sonora fisheries. During the meeting the results of and internal revision and corrections of the Management plan were presented by INAPESCA. A report detailing the external review and revision of the management plan and other components of the management system was anticipated for 2020; however, the pandemic caused the suspension of various activities related to this work, though meeting minutes for the Committee and results of an internal revision and corrections of the Management plan were presented to the audit team by INAPESCA.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 35 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Catch profiles

Total catches in this fishery have had wide variations, in volume and species composition, with seasons with low catch levels <10, 000 ton (fishery early years – 1973 to 1981) but also with catches above 60,000 ton (1990, 2000 – 2002); Crinuda accounts for over 60% of total catches, while bocona was more abundant during 1997 – 2002. From 2006 to 2012, catches were greater than 80,000 ton with decreasing trends afterwards. Catches in 2015 were 29.31% lower than 2014 and 50.71% lower than 2013. In 2016, catches were 41,268 ton, representing 8.1% less than the previous year. Over the last four years, Crinuda has represented almost 100% of total catch. Effort has also been variable in the fishery, going from merely 200 fishing trips in 1997 to over 800 in 2012. Catch and effort in 2020 were slightly lower than previous year with a total of 442 fishing trips and 1,203 fishing days (Figure 9,Table 11).

Figure 9. Total landings of the thread herring complex and bocona sardine, from 1973 to 2020 in Mazatlan (a); Historic total catch and effort for thread herring fishery in the southern region of the Gulf of California (b). Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2020).

Table 11. Catch history in metric tons and effort of small pelagics in the southern Gulf of California. Data from Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2020).

Total Catch Pacific herring Effort Effort Year (complex) Catch (fishing trips) (days) 1972 1,818 831 8 14

1973 5,592 4,239 44 79

1974 6,402 6,259 42 74

1975 7,071 6,904 43 76

1976 9,326 8,766 55 97

1977 4,874 3,344 36 64

1978 5,189 3,049 48 85

1979 8,811 8,386 84 150

1980 7,714 6,421 61 108

1981 5,405 3,502 44 79

1982 33,083 14,755 136 242

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 36 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

1983 25,520 6,099 78 138

1984 13,301 9,303 90 160

1985 25,323 13,069 112 198

1986 27,164 9,401 194 344

1987 13,935 10,023 103 182

1988 14,491 7,776 121 215

1989 46,950 19,243 270 480

1990 54,671 31,971 416 739

1991 45,017 36,201 463 822

1992 13,259 12,803 244 434

1993 10,557 10,359 181 321

1994 3,340 2,945 44 79

1995 12,004 11,464 126 223

1996 28,795 20,041 416 739

1997 52,877 23,165 226 755

1998 35,342 13,010 329 559

1999 45,430 20,503 418 578

2000 64,345 15,987 606 704

2001 54,928 15,907 453 511

2002 62,881 14,640 494 617

2003 42,436 33,815 336 640

2004 54,935 49,857 433 784

2005 60,197 55,588 455 790

2006 81,059 66,611 582 885

2007 81,224 76,218 588 884

2008 87,314 70,223 587 924

2009 105,521 98,590 698 1,214

2010 81,622 74,212 569 1,277

2011 110,870 78,515 720 1,228

2012 133,302 58,729 920 1,683

2013 88,901 68,075 696 1,208

2014 63,554 61,456 552 1,285

2015 44,930 43,382 468 1,289

2016 41,268 41,213 417 1,088

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 37 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

2017 70,358 69,714 563 1,168

2018 70,443 70,443 543 1,112

2019 71,756 71,756 545 1,203

2020 69,514 64,793 442 812

Monthly specific catch during 2020, from identification of 12,884 organisms in samplings (on board and dockside) showed that O.libertate accounted for over 50% of catches, while O. medirastre had a relative high abundance during January (4.26%), February (3.23%) and November (6.32%). O. bulleri was more abundant during October (70.11%). Overall, the 2020 fishing season was unlike previous years, where O. libertate is more frequent, followed by O. medirastre and O. bulleri (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Proportional contribution of each Opisthonema species to the total catch of thread herring fishing seasons (a), monthly proportional contribution for the 2020 fishing season (b), and 2020 total proportional contribution of each species (c). Yearly proportions based on samples taken from commercial fishery, reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes (2015). 2020 fishing season contribution data from Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2020.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 38 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

Table 12. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data.

Effort N. of Species Year Catch (mt) (days Source vessels fishing) Opisthonema complex 65,604 Pacific herring stock assessment 2020 TAC 2020 (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2020) Opisthonema complex 65,604 Pacific herring stock UoA share of assessment 2020 2020 TAC (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2020) 812 7 Opisthonema complex 65,604 Pacific herring stock UoA share of assessment 2020 2020 total TAC (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2020) Opisthonema complex 64,793 Total green O. libertate 44,384 weight catch by 2020 PAT report 2020 O. medirastre 1,101 UoC O. bulleri 19,308 Opisthonema complex 71,756 Total green O. libertate 39,179 Total and species weight catch by 2019 1,203 9 O. medirastre 11,194 specific catch 2019 UoC O. bulleri 21,383

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 39 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.2.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty post above the point where stock is above the PRI. that the stock is above the PRI. recruitment would be impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

To achieve an SG80 score, the fishery needs to show evidence that it is highly likely that the stock is above the point of recruitment impairment. Different approaches have been conducted to estimate the status of the Opistonema complex in southern Sinaloa (Jacob-Cervantes, 2012; Jacob-Cervantes 2015).

All approaches to estimate stock status have historically placed the spawning abundance of the complex above the estimated level producing MSY. The most recent assessment has determined that, individually, all three Opistonema species are still above the level producing MSY, however it is noticeable that while the abundance of O. libertate has been increasing since 2013, O. medirastre has a declining trend that started in 2009 and O. bulleri has been declining as well since 2011. As these are low trophic level species, it is expected that they present some level of environmentally driven fluctuation, therefore, these declining trends are not of concern yet, but will be something to monitor in the future. Presently the three stocks are above the PRI with a high degree of certainty and meet SG100. b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty post fluctuating around a level that the stock has been fluctuating consistent with MSY. around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

To achieve SG80 for this SI, the fishery needs to present evidence that the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. As mentioned in SIa, the three Opistonema species of this complex are found to be above the level producing MSY. Additionally, the trend in the fishing mortality rate for O. libertate has been under Fmsy since 2004 although in some years it has been barely under. The trend in the fishing mortality rate for O. medirastre shows broad fluctuations around the MSY level for the entire data history of the fishery since 1987. Finally, the trend in fishing mortality rate of O. bulleri has always been under the estimated MSY level except for a period from 2007 to 2010. While the evidence indicates that biomass in the three species of this stock complex have been above the level producing MSY, therefore meeting the requirements at SG80, the stock assessments still have issues to resolve

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 40 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

which introduce model related uncertainties, the scope of which, is still undetermined. Thus, there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY SG100 is not met. References

Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020. Evaluación de las poblaciones de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California 2020. Informe técnico de investigación. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 36pp. Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference The FMP defines a HCR Variable, estimated every SSB2020 = 353,609 t point used in where the BAC, which is a year. In 2020 = 19,182 t function of Fmsy, has been scoring stock Opistonema sp 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 interpreted as a limit 𝐵𝐵 relative to BAC2021 = 71,313 reference point. PRI (SIa) = 19,182 In practice, the HCR O.𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 libertate requires , which, to 𝐵𝐵 BAC2021 = 41,319 calculate the BAC, has been 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 6,774 used by the𝐵𝐵 authorities as a O. medirastre point where Allee effects 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 preclude reproduction. BAC2021 = 14,224 Operationally, this is a limit = 4,437 used to stop the fishery if O. bulleri 𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 reached while fishing BAC2021 = 21,336 pressure declines with = 8,711 abundance. 𝐵𝐵 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 Reference The stock assessment uses Variable, estimated every point used in Bmsy and Fmsy to year, in 2020: scoring stock determine stock status. Opistonema sp. Opistonema sp. relative to The HCR computes the BAC Fmsy = 0.24 Bmsy = 201,097 MSY (SIb) as a function of Fmsy.

O. libertate O. libertate Fmsy = 0.213 F/Fmsy = 0.2/0.213=0.94 Bmsy = 81,521 t B/Bmsy = 381,966/81,521=4.69 O. medirastre O. medirastre Fmsy = 0.443 F/Fmsy = 0.165/0.443=0.37 Bmsy = 24,439 t B/Bmsy = 62,855/24,439=2.57 O. bulleri O. bulleri Fmsy = 0.315 F/Fmsy = 0.223/0.315=0.71 Bmsy = 49,722 B/Bmsy = 129,072/49,722=2.6

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 41 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 42 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not 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

Rationale

NA, stock does not require rebuilding.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, timeframe. or previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance that rebuild the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

NA, stock does not require rebuilding.

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range <60 / 60-79 / ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 43 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score NA

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 44 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve 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 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The Fisheries Standard requires for SIa, not only that a harvest strategy must be responsive to the state of the stock, but that the elements of the strategy work together to achieve the objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 at the level of SG80. The Guidance further details in GSA2.4, that the elements of the strategy include, the control rules and tools, the information system, monitoring stock status and how the management system responds to stock status. Overall, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and has the expected components, an information and monitoring system, stock assessments, a control rule, and other tools, all working together to meet the management objectives. The harvest strategy for all fisheries of small pelagics is outlined in a dedicated Management Plan which contains all technical guidance required to make management decisions. The Management Plan operates under the definition of “sustainable levels” that are consistent with MSY, expecting to keep biomass above the level producing MSY. The HS in the thread herring fishery keeps the SSB at or above the level producing MSY through use of a control rule applied to species that are subject to active management. The HCR was built with the intent to keep a minimum amount of biomass unfished to protect the stock. If the minimum biomass is reached; the fleet is expected to stop fishing. If the SSB is fluctuating around its estimated level producing MSY, then F, the harvest 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 rate and the catch are all consistent with𝑩𝑩 MSY, usually under the MSY level (see Figures XX). As the season progresses, the management monitoring system follows the amount of catch accumulated throughout the season and periodically notifies the industry how far they are to reach the preestablished BAC. When the fishery is approaching the BAC, the fleet is notified and together with the authorities, reach agreements to stop operations, thus assuring the BAC is not exceeded. If, for some reason the catch limit was exceeded, or the requirements of other regulations were not met, the Management Plan establishes the application of emergent actions that include temporal or area closures, modifying size limits or changing allowable catch and restrictions on fishing effort. The fishery has presented evidence that all the steps to implement the harvest strategy are consistently being applied. Monitoring occurs before the season starts and as the season progresses. Because the HCR sets the level of allowable catch based on , it is not expected that F estimated for the last season exceeds , but it is checked nevertheless to verify compliance. To be sure that the allowable catch is not exceeded, the fishery 𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 monitors the catch in real 𝑭𝑭time so there is a good estimated of the cumulative catch as the season𝑭𝑭 progresses, with this information the authorities inform the industry how close they are to the limit and stop operations when necessary. Additionally, at the beginning of the season, the proportion of juveniles is monitored and fishing is not allowed to start if adults are in full reproductive state or if there is still a large percentage of

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 45 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

juveniles. The monitoring strategy is not inscribed in official documents but works through informal agreements between authorities and fishers meeting periodically. The fishery monitors stock status by conducting a vessel survey that collects acoustic data used to estimate biomass abundance. These surveys also provide information on the species proportions find at sea, size and age distribution, as well as data on environmental conditions. Official catch is recorded at the landing points and reported using the formal landing format known as “aviso de arribo” or landing notes. Species composition, age and size are also recorded from samples of the landings. Both data from the fishery and the independent surveys are used in a stock assessment model that estimates the current status of the fishery relative to the SSB and F that produce the MSY, which are also estimated by the model. Results from the stock assessment are the inputs used by the HCR to calculate the BAC. The stock assessment methodology has gone a long process of development attempting to reduce or better represent and evaluate uncertainties associated to the data, to the natural processes involved and the model structure itself. However, to date, it still has not been able to apply a satisfactory approach and several issues remain unsolved. By Law, the Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INAPESCA) is responsible for scientific research applied towards the making of management decisions. The Management Plan has however formalized the creation and function of a Technical Committee to assist INAPESCA with different aspects of the research needed. The Management Plan has proposed research priorities related to population dynamics, biomass assessment, meta-population analysis, environmental impacts and ecosystem analysis, predictive models and experimental fishing. Socioeconomic studies are also proposed. The strategy thus, includes an information and monitoring system that collects all the information required by a stock assessment model that estimates stock status relative to reference points. The results of the stock assessment are used to calculate a biologically acceptable catch which is a function of the estimated fishing mortality that produces MSY and the estimated biomass. As biomass declines, the catch declines until it could become zero it the minimum allowable biomass is reached. With this, it can be concluded that the strategy is effectively responsive to stock status. At the present, the strategy appears to be working in its purpose to achieve the goals of sustainability with a fishery that has worked for many years and persevered in the face of environmental variability. There is currently no indication that the target stock is overfished or that overfishing is occurring, and the stock appears to maintain its ability to replace itself. All the elements described are embedded in the Management Plan which explicitly states that its main purpose is: To assess biomass and recruitment, conserve yield and economic benefit, reduce the impact of environmental interactions, promote economic benefit for the society and ensuring the quality of fishery products. To achieve full utilization, overfishing, optimum yield, and the indicators of sustainability (maximum sustainable yield- based control rules) were explicitly defined in the Small Pelagics fishery; as well as emergent actions to be taken when benchmarks are reached or exceeded. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy (but not its design) work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and therefore meet the score of 80 but not 100. b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the post to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 46 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

All elements of the harvest strategy described in the previous section are expected to work because the management aims to avoid exceeding the reference points and to prevent growth and recruitment overfishing (e.g. reference points based on MSY criteria, low biomass limit, size restrictions, time and area closures, restrictions on the number of vessels and/or fishing effort). The harvest strategy has been working for a few years with decisions taken by authorities after agreements with the fishers and based on the realized performance of the fishery. There is no concern for the status of the stock because the results of the stock assessments confirm the expectation that the strategy is working. Within the few years fishery has operated under the Management Plan, the system the system has learnt to operate under the requirements of the Plan. The harvest strategy has not yet been fully tested, therefore it is currently unknown how robust is to known uncertainties. In addition, the stock assessment itself still has some issues to resolve. However, the team had access to a report on the progress about these issues and was informed that the fishery has hired a consultant to assist in the implementation of a new assessment approach using Stock Synthesis which will allow better handling of the uncertainties, will be able to produce diagnostics, and possibly to test the performance of the strategy. The team considered that the fishery meets the standard at SG 80 but not at SG100. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes

Rationale

The performance of the fishery is evaluated at the end of the fishing season by comparing the estimated SSB and fishing mortality against the respective values producing MSY. Additionally, the proportion of juveniles in the catch is observed at the beginning and as the fishing season progresses. INAPESCA, in coordination with the industry, also collects data on catch, size and age, and conducts acoustic surveys, all of them, inputs required by the stock assessment model to evaluate stock status. The fishery meets the standard at SG60. d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? No

Rationale

At the SG100 level, the standard requires that the harvest strategy is reviewed periodically and if necessary, improvements are applied. The National Fisheries Chart (CNP), the Fisheries Management Plan and the NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 are the main official documents that contain the harvest strategy and the tools required for its implementation. Of these, the CNP has been reviewed on several occasions, however, for the specific case of the small pelagics fishery, the main modification, representing a significant change in the way the fishery operates, was made in 2018 to the NOM. No revision of the Management Plan has been published in the Official Gazette despite its directive to be reviewed every two years. The team however had access to a draft of a new version of the Management Plan dated 2019, this version of the Plan includes most of the changes that have been already implemented to make operational the guidance in the Plan. Although the draft is already two years old and the team has no information about what the status of the process is to publish it, we have evidence that the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 47 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

revisions are already implemented. While changes to the NOM and Management Plan have allowed the formal implementation of the HCR and accounted for other significant issues such as the implementation of dynamic limits to the catch of fish of minimum size, the standard requires for periodical revisions which either are not happening or take too long to occur. For the time being, the fishery cannot meet the standard at SG100. e Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

This fishery does not target sharks, therefore this scoring issue does not need to be scored.

f Review of alternative measures

Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post 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? NA NA NA

Rationale

“Unwanted catch” is interpreted in section S.A.3.1.6 of the Fisheries Standard as “the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid, and did not want or chose not to use”. Further, the Guidance in section G.S.A.3.1.6 suggests “here a UoA has a management plan, some species and sizes may be considered and designated to be ‘unwanted catch’” (team’s underlining). In this fishery, the only possible unwanted catch is the fraction of the stock that is under the size limit that is caught during regular operations. However, this catch does not qualify for the definition above because even if it is unintentional catch, it is kept and utilized. Not scored.

References

DOF. 2012. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012. DOF. 2018. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer la actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 11 de junio de 2018. DOF. 2019. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California. SADER. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 12 de marzo de 2019. Jacob-Cervantes, M., E. Delgado-Robles, J. Payán-Alejo, J.E. Osuna-Soto y J.C. Díaz-Figueroa. 2021. Análisis integral de la pesquería de pelágicos menores del sur del Golfo de California durante el 2020. Informe final de investigación. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 70 pp.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 48 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Jacob-Cervantes, M. y J. Payán-Alejo. 2020. Evaluación de las poblaciones de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California 2020. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 36 pp. Jacob-Cervantes M.L. y J. Payán-Alejo. 2021. Historia, evolución y perspectivas en la evaluación de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp) y de las tres especies que lo componen (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California. Informe Técnico. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 27 pp

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 49 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

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

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account level consistent with (or the ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key LTL stock, most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

At SG80 the standard requires that HCRs are well defined and in place, ensuring that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and expected to keep the stock fluctuating around or above a target consistent with MSY. The small pelagics Fisheries Management Plan as published in the Official Gazette, is one of the main management instruments defined under the General Fisheries Law of Mexico. It presents an explicit, written harvest control rule (HCR) that is used for actively managed species, such as the thread herring complex. = ( ) (1 ) −𝐹𝐹 This rule reduces the catch as biomass declines𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 at𝐵𝐵 a −constant𝐵𝐵𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ∗ rate− (1𝑒𝑒 ) until B reaches . This structure is acceptable for the standard as manifest in the first example of GSA2.5:− “teams𝐹𝐹 should note that HCRs based 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 on taking a constant percentage of the year’s estimated biomass should− 𝑒𝑒 not be regarded as meeting𝐵𝐵 the requirement of avoiding the PRI unless some lower threshold is defined”. The HCR is therefore, well defined. The control rule calculates the Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) for each species independently and for the entire Opistonema complex, however, the fishery is managed using the estimate of for the entire complex and calculates a single BAC for the complex. During the initial assessment, the team did not have evidence that 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 the different thread herring species have meaningful differences in their estimated 𝐹𝐹 and , therefore, it was assumed that, among them, they were close enough to have similar parameter values and operate with a 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 single HCR. The current evidence from parameters obtained in the latest stock assessment𝐹𝐹 suggest𝐵𝐵 that there may be differences that require attention, particularly if there is enough variability in the species catch composition such that there is an elevated risk that fishing effort for the entire complex falls on a single stock (see Table 9; Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo 2020). At this step, the team will still consider that the HCR is explicit and in place, but the uncertainty described above will be considered in scoring SIb. As described in detail in PI 1.2.1, SIa, the management system has a complete mechanism to first estimate the parameters necessary to compute the BAC. Then, this number is communicated to the industry by means of a formal technical document. The fleet in operation reports the catch directly to the authorities so that the cumulative catch of the season can be monitored. The fleet is periodically informed about the progress in catch and how far it is from the BAC. Evidence was provided that in technical meetings the fleet was informed of this progress in the cumulative catch of the season, with the agreement to inform when 90% had been reached. At the end of the 2020 season, the cumulative catch (64,793 t) represented 98. 76% of the BAC, whereas in the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 50 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

2019 season, the cumulative catch represented 95.7%. of the BAC for that year. This evidence supports the conclusion that the HCR is effectively in place. In conclusion, the evidence indicates that a well-defined HCR computes a BAC based on the current estimate of , which reduces the take as biomass declines; if a low threshold is reached, the fleet does not go out fishing

the𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 next season. The HCR being based on , is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around the level producing𝐹𝐹 MSY. The fishery meets SG100. 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a post 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? No No

Rationale

One of the main uncertainties in this fishery is that it targets a complex of three species that are difficult to identify unless samples are taken to a laboratory. Because of this, the application of the HCR has assumed that parameters and were similar or comparable among them and therefore a single BAC could be applied to the entire complex. Evidence (Jacob-Cervantes and Payan-Alejo 2020) however has shown that these 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑛𝑛 parameters are𝐹𝐹 indeed𝐵𝐵 different among the three species and the stock assessment has computed the corresponding BAC even if a single one is used in practice. Evidence has not been provided that in different years, the proportions of each species in the catch are approximately fluctuating around a constant or stable average. If such proportions fluctuate enough so that a member of the complex could be inadvertently overharvested, then the current use of the HCR may not support the system to meet the management objectives. Presently, the fishery cannot meet SG80 because the HCR is not robust to one of the main uncertainties. c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Following GSA2.5.2, this scoring issue must evaluate the ability of tools associated to the HCR to achieve the exploitation level resulting from its application. Determination of the effectiveness of the HCR can be demonstrated by evidence showing that F has been equal or less than .

In the thread herring fishery of the southern Gulf of California, the main𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀tools to implement the HCR are the legal instruments that make the HCR be in place, such as the monitoring system to follow the progression of the cumulative catch, and the agreements that lead to consensus in the decision to stop operations as the BAC of the year is being approached. The effectiveness is verified by observing the trend in fishing mortality which has been under the estimated for at least 10 years (Figure 1). While the system appears to be working as expected, the assumption that the parameters of the BAC applied in the same way to all the species of the 𝐹𝐹𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑌𝑌

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 51 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

complex may not hold as current parameter estimates show important differences. This does not necessarily invalidate the effectiveness of the HCR but reduces the confidence that it is achieving its objectives. The fishery meets SG80 but not SG100. References

Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020. Evaluación de las poblaciones de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California 2020. Informe técnico de investigación. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 36pp. Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020. Regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opistonema spp) en el sur del Golfo de California, 2020. Dictamen Técnico. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 9 pp. Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020. Regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opistonema spp) en el sur del Golfo de California, 2021. Dictamen Técnico. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 8 pp. Jacob-Cervantes, M., E. Delgado-Robles, J. Payán-Alejo, J.E. Osuna-Soto y J.C. Díaz-Figueroa. 2021. Análisis integral de la pesquería de pelágicos menores del sur del Golfo de California durante el 2020. Informe final de investigación. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 70 pp. Multiple minutes of meetings between INAPESCA staff and the industry available upon request.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Table with the history of proportions of the different species in the catch. Need to verify that the proportions are more or less constant and that the risk of one species to receive the bulk of F is low. Another useful evidence would be if monitoring of the cumulative catch level exists at the species level such that it could be demonstrated that operations could be agreed to stop if any single species-specific BAC were approached. In the Minute dated February 2020, Agreement 2 reads: “In case the optimum yield is reached fishing would be temporarily and voluntarily suspended”. However, the rest of the document refers to the BAC, hence it appears as if the INAPESCA staff is making the OY equal to the BAC, which supports previous discussion to drop precautionary considerations made during the full assessment (see background section on the Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan). If the industry or INAPESCA have a different opinion about this, please prepare documentation explaining and supporting the alternative perspective.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 52 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

INAPESCA’s small pelagics scientific program is collecting information serving different aspects of the stock assessment and the HCR. There is detailed information about the number and characteristics of the ships that constitute the fishing fleet. Data on effort can be modelled and analysed, while catch is also recorded with a reasonable level of accuracy. Samples are regularly collected and taken to a laboratory to determine the proportion of each Opisthonema species in the catch. Length data are also collected together with otoliths for age estimation, both from samples in the commercial catch and vessel surveys to estimate abundance and observe juvenile proportions in the water. Acoustic surveys are being conducted to obtain estimates of abundance independent of the fishery and used to fit a model based estimate of the biomass trend. Harvest rates are computed at the end of the fishing season and size of the fish is recorded as the season progresses. An observer program has already been implemented with an average coverage from 2015 to 2020 of 38.41%. Overall, it is concluded that a wide range of information is available, including stock structure, productivity, fleet composition, abundance, removals and environmental information. According to the preliminar analyses that have been conducted to explore the characteristics of the data to insert into Stock Synthesis, it may be possible that some of the data would have to be revised and maybe some sampling protocols modified. At the present the team does not have any additional evidence and concludes that the fishery meets SG80, supporting the stock assessment and HCR at the level of the complex combined. However, SG100 cannot be met yet as differences in information by species are only beginning to be detected. b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by post 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 degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 53 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Catch is recorded regularly as the season progresses with a level of accuracy that allows determination of its status relative to the BAC for each species in the complex. Size of fish is measured to determine the proportion of juveniles in the catch. Both are important pieces of information related to the tools in the harvest strategy. Acoustic surveys are being conducted regularly to obtain estimates of biomass that are independent of the fishery and serve as inputs in the stock assessment methodologies. INAPESCA deemed it necessary to provide a target strength (TS) parameter (b20) that is species specific for the thread herring (González-Máynez et al. 2021) and not use a generic value for clupeids as currently used in the acoustic estimation model (see Vallarta-Zárate et al. 2020). Experiments to measure target strength for live thread herring individuals under controlled conditions were then done. Results indicated that the parameters of regression to estimate the TS for thread herring are appropriate for abundance estimation and therefore, biomass estimates with the previous assumptions will not differ by much from biomass obtained with the new parameters of regression. However, no actual estimates have been presented to show that estimated biomass (and the consequent BAC) would not be different enough to accept the continued use of the clupeid assumption. The results of the surveys are still at the level of the entire Opistonema complex. The control rule needs to assure that the individual elements in the complex will achieve the management objectives as reflected in the reference points. The methodology needs to improve such that even if a single estimate is presented for the complex, a procedure needs to be implemented to detect a negative change in one of the species in the complex. The fishery meets the requirements at SG60. However, given the critical importance of abundance indicators in the stock assessments, the fishery needs to complete the process of demonstrating that using the assumption on clupeids effectively does not represent a relevant difference in biomass estimates and the resulting BAC. Also, monitoring of the individual species needs to include a mechanism to detect negative changes in biomass anyone of the species in the complex. The fishery does not meet SG80. This score reflects open condition 1-5 that will be carried over into the first surveillance audit per the MSC’s Derogation 6: Covid-19 Fishery Conditions Extension. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

Although the team did not receive information about this SI, it is assumed that no thread herring is taken by small purse seiners or other gear types that may need to be accounted for in stock assessment in the southern Gulf of California. The northern portion of the fishery is dominated by O. libertate and managed separately, so is not scored here. Therefore, the fishery meets SG 80. References

González-Máynez V.E., A. Valdez-Pelayo, M.O. Nevárez-Martínez y C. Enciso-Enciso. 2021. Mediciones Ex situ de Fuerza de Blanco (TS) acústico de la sardina crinuda Opisthonema libertate en el Golfo de California, México. Informe Técnico. INAPESCA-CRIAP Guaymas. 26 pp Vallarta-Zárate J.R., L. Huidobro-Campos, V.H. Martínez-Magaña, M.L. Jacob-Cervantes, M. Vázquez-Ortiz, L. Altamirano-López, D. Hernández-Cruz, E.V. Pérez-Flores y R.I. Rojas-González. 2020. Evaluación acústica de

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 54 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

peces pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California durante el otoño del 2020. Informe Técnico No. 10. Serie de informes técnicos B/I Dr. Jorge Carranza Fraser. INAPESCA. 101 pp.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator How is the acoustic estimates biased by differences in size among the three species and how can this be resolved? Please provide 1. Biomass estimated with clupeid parameters as in the past, compared to estimates with parameters estimated in the thread herring specific experiments; and 2. The BAC calculated with each two of the procedures described in 1. If differences in the BAC values requested in 2 are important, please provide a possible approach to make decisions about how the BAC would be calculated.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 55 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of the rule. species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes No

Rationale

According to GSA2.7, the purpose of this SI is to determine the appropriateness of the stock assessment to provide an understanding of stock status and how effective the harvest strategy is. The fishery has a history of research and development of an appropriate model to evaluate stock status, and recent assessments have aimed to do this in relation to reference points. The first attempts considered the whole complex as a single stock without consideration of each of the species in the complex and made several assumptions that were not tested or discussed. Another assessment included a procedure to analyse the situation of each species based on a single history of effort. More recently, both a multispecies model and a catch at age model, included a more accessible way to present the status of the stocks by means of Kobe plots showing the status of the fishery in terms of biomass (to determine whether the stock is over-exploited) and in terms of fishing mortality (to determine whether the stock is being over-fished). Substantial efforts were made developing an analytical methodology to estimate biological parameters and stock status in a robust and reliable way, however, by the third surveillance audit uncertainties prevailed preventing the harvest strategy to be fully reliable (see appendix in the third surveillance audit report). Presently, the INAPESCA staff provided a report summarizing the history of development of the stock assessment and how they have decided to upgrade their model to be implemented into the Stock Synthesis framework (Jacob-Cervantes and Payán-Alejo 2021). The process is being supported by an external assessor who prepared an addendum to the report describing the preparations, discussions and description of the model that will be developed. In summary, the Stock Synthesis (SS) approach will develop an “integrated assessment model”, which improves the way data can be incorporated to the analysis with proper standardization procedures, facilitates the implementation of alternatives in timescales that are shorter than a year and may be more appropriate for species such as small pelagics. The framework also reduces the time to produce robust assessments, diagnostics, and improves the efficiency of communicating results. In addition, the tool allows for the development of management strategy evaluation (MSE) analysis, which is a powerful tool to investigate the efficiency of the harvest strategy. According to this report, the consultancy work has made considerable progress in doing critical exploratory data analyses and preparing the data to enter SS. At this point, although preparations have gone a long way, the potential and limitations in the available data to provide satisfactory results are unknown. Also, the plan is to implement simpler models to begin with and then increase complexity as the technical capacity grows and the data are better prepared to enter SS. For this reason, there is no stock assessment completed under the new framework yet. Presently, the current estimates of parameters, stock status, and the calculations for the BAC, were obtained under the structure of the last model approach. That approach is appropriate at a basic level for the stock and the HCR and meets SG80, however, as mentioned above, uncertainties related to data, model structure and process are still a concern, and these issues are addressed in scoring issue c. The fishery does not meet SG100.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 56 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

It was finally concluded that although work is still needed, the assessments are appropriate for the stock and the control rule and meet the requirements at SG80 but not at SG100. b Assessment approach

Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The stock assessment’s current approach estimates stock status relative to the SSB producing MSY and the fishing mortality rate F that also produces MSY. The results are presented as a historical trend relative to the last estimate of the reference point and in the form of a Kobe plot that combines the status of biomass with the status in terms of F. The fishery meets SG80. c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The evidence indicates that from the early stages the fishery has identified several sources of uncertainty leading to changes in model structure and the overall estimation approach. The current implementation still works assuming parameter values such as natural mortality and changing the assumption to investigate the sensitivity of the model. This form of accounting for uncertainty associated to model parameters has been observed to improve model implementation. Other relevant issues that are still unresolved, and that were listed in recommendations included in the third surveillance audit, relate to the structure of the statistical model and specification of some parameters of management. Under these circumstances, the fishery meets SG60 but not SG80. As the team has received a stock assessment report used to compute the next BAC, this SI continues to be unresolved at the fourth surveillance audit. However, this situation was already anticipated by INAPESCA staff, seeking for a more appropriate solution. As INAPESCA started to work with the new approach, it became evident that they would not be able to have a functional model at the time of reassessment. Given the progress in the work towards a new implementation, the fishery requested additional time to complete the process, and an extension was granted by the MSC. Presently, the report that includes the description of the new approach, indicates that several sources of uncertainty that include certain characteristics of the data and the associated model structure, have been identified and are being analysed to determine appropriate standardizations or even new protocols to collect data. The fishery has provided the workplan towards implementation of a new assessment framework, with a timeline and explicit milestones that are online with the current progress and observations about deficiencies in the model. These milestones will be of value to define a workplan to close the condition within the timeline allowed by the MSC extension. d Evaluation of assessment

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 57 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No

Rationale

No testing for robustness under a formal design has been conducted. This Scoring issue does not meet SG100.

e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? No No

Rationale

The latest assessments currently in use by the management authorities have not been subject to peer review. Therefor this scoring issue does not meet SG80. This score reflects open condition 1-7. The team will review client progress towards closing this condition during the fourth-year surveillance audit. References

Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 2012. Evaluación y manejo de pelágicos menores: Aplicación bioeconómica al stock de la región sur del Golfo de California. Tesis doctoral. Posgrado en Ciencias Biológico-Agropecuarias y Pesqueras. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. 79 pp. Jacob-Cervantes M. y M.A. Cisneros-Mata. 2015. Evaluación de la pesquería de pelágicos menores del sur del golfo de California con un enfoque multiespecífico. Informe de investigación (documento interno). INAPESCA- CRIAP Mazatlán. 12 pp. Jacob-Cervantes M.L. y J. Payán-Alejo. 2021. Historia, evolución y perspectivas en la evaluación de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp) y de las tres especies que lo componen (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California. Informe Técnico. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 27 pp.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator It will be useful for the full assessment, to have an update of the progress in the implementation of the new assessment framework, if possible with a revised timeline and milestones.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 58 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.3 Principle 2

8.3.1 Principle 2 background

Observer Programs/Information Sources

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained for sale or personal use (assessed under Performance Indicator 2.1), bycatch species that are discarded (Performance Indicator 2.2), and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated, or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die because of contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die because of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).

Observer program

In 2012 the main fleet in the Southern Gulf of California, Maz Sardina SA de CV, in collaboration with INAPESCA, started the Onboard Observers Program for the Small Pelagics Fishery in the Southern Gulf of California to record interactions between the Sinaloan small pelagic fishery and components of the ecosystem. The work was part of the Lower Pelagic Program led by CRIP-Mazatlan INAPESCA and the National Small Pelagics Program of INAPESCA, SAGARPA. The first onboard observer season expanded from April 2012 to April 2013.

Since the full assessment initiated in 2015, the fishery has implemented additional measures to strengthen data collection systems and mitigate the impact of the fishery on Principle 2 elements. The progress on these areas are detailed in this section and in the sections below as they relate to the time period between the 2nd and 3rd surveillance audits.

Up to 2017, INAPESCA was responsible for the operational aspects of the observer program. However, for the 2017-2018 season the Program became part of an independent entity (Global Grupo A.C.), increasing its coverage. Global Grupo’s management of the onboard observer program was suspended in September 2019. In January 2020, Fidecomiso del Mar (FIDEMAR) assumed responsibility and operates the program with four onboard observers and one port observer. Onboard coverage has increased from 27.7% to 40.4% between 2015-2020 with 533 and 552 fishing trips observed over the last two fishing seasons.

In 2016, Maz Sardina with INAPESCA proposed a port-observer program. The port observers collect information on volumes, species, and sizes of small pelagics and bycatch species. The past problems detailed in the 2nd surveillance audit in terms of access to specific information have been attended to.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 59 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

INAPESCA, using the information collected by FIDEMAR, produced an annual report of the data it collected in 2019, thus resolving any previous program shortcomings.

The observer program is supported by the mandatory use of logbooks by all vessel captains in which they record information on the results of each set by species and size, climatic data, and data related to bycatch. The latter includes information on fish and sharks, crustaceans, birds, marine mammals, and turtles. Previous and current observer data indicate that an improvement in the fleet with respect to the percentage of discards in relation to the last three fishing seasons has been made. In addition, the incidental catch of ETP species continues to demonstrate negligible amounts. Observer data made it possible to show that organisms in special protection status (birds, marine mammals, mantas, and turtles) are not being affected. In addition, despite the few records, the implementation of mitigation measures continues to be implemented by crew members.

In 2016 the captain's logbook data collection procedures were modified to include additional information to be included on the Landing Tickets with the intention that the crew would record more detailed data on discards, retention and transshipment of small pelagic species, and capture of bycatch and ETP species (retained and discarded) and their status (live or dead). Currently, logbooks are used on all 8 vessels in the UoA, though there are information gaps stemming from instances of non-use. Information available to support management now comes from three sources: . The observer program: For the last three years observer coverage has increased to now reach 58%. Global Grupo no longer is responsible for the program as it has been passed to FIDEMAR which operates with 4 observers. FIDEMAR’s operations began in April 2019. . Port observations: Port observations have increased to 25%. FIDEMAR provides 1 observer to this program. . Logbooks: All vessels are required to keep logbooks and their information is summarized yearly in reports provided by the client.

Overview of Species Classification

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes the following types of species: . Primary species: Those species for which management tools and measures are in place that are intended to achieve stock management objectives, reflected in either limit or target reference points. . Secondary species: Those species that cannot be classified as primary or ETP species. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species (SA3.1.5.3). . Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species: Species that are recognized by national ETP legislation or by selected international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) or agreements under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Remember that a species can only be considered in one of the species components (i.e. primary, secondary or ETP). A species’ ETP status supersedes its assessment under one of the other categories.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 60 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

In the MSC system, primary and secondary species that comprise the non-target catch are scored in the following manner: . Main: Species that comprise >5% of the total catch by weight, or if they are species with vulnerable life histories that make up >2% of the catch. If a species is out-of-scope (birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians) then it is automatically designated as Main and also Secondary. . Minor: All species below these thresholds are classified as minor species unless the team provides explicit rationale to justify that the catch is perhaps exceptionally large or if the state of the stock is so poor that all impact by the UoA is important enough to consider, even if the catch proportion would normally mean that this would be a minor species.

Overview of Non-target Catch

A total of over 30 non-target species of fish (with catch totals equal to at least 0.01% of the total catch by weight) were recorded in observed sets from 2015-2020. Elasmobranch catch was also recorded in weight during these years. Additionally, mammal, seabird, and sea turtle interactions and/or observation were recorded in numbers of individuals. There were no recorded mammal or seaturtle deaths in the data set. In 2015 there were six brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) death, one laughing gull (Leucophaeu satricilla) death, and one brown booby (Sula leucogaster) death. Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 present these species respectively.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 61 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Table 13. 2015-2010 observed catch in tons from the Sinaloa thread herring fishery (Inapesca 2015-2020) Common name Species 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 (English) TOTAL Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total Percent PERCENT of catch of catch of catch of catch catch of catch Thread herring Opisthonema spp 11163.56 99.34% 14083.50 95.69% 35133.58 96.19% 27182.77 96.63% 22149.00 98.51% 96.73% Pacific jack Trachurus mackerel symmetricus 45.15 0.40% 245.75 1.67% 383.00 1.05% 400.00 1.42% 60.01 0.27% 0.77% Chub mackerel Scomber japonicus 5.03 0.04% 220.21 1.50% 779.95 2.14% 1.00 0.00% 10.00 0.04% 0.69% Pacific anchoveta Cetengraulis (Bocona sardine) mysticetus 0.02 0.00% 1.00 0.01% 0.00% 30.20 0.11% 5.00 0.02% 0.45% Pacific bumper orqueta 1.54 0.01% 100.89 0.69% 7.61 0.02% 55.96 0.20% 5.89 0.03% 0.31% Mexican barracuda Sphyraena ensis 4.68 0.04% 3.03 0.02% 21.29 0.06% 74.74 0.27% 80.08 0.36% 0.17% Peruvian moonfish Selene peruviana 0.63 0.01% 20.72 0.14% 38.22 0.10% 120.11 0.43% 15.29 0.07% 0.14% Silver stardrum Stellifer illecebrosus 0.03 0.00% 0.07 0.00% 33.27 0.09% 33.75 0.12% 1.35 0.01% 0.07% Pacific sierra Scomberomorus sierra 0.92 0.01% 1.44 0.01% 1.25 0.00% 35.87 0.13% 45.27 0.20% 0.07% Silver drum Larimus argenteus 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 40.37 0.11% 40.99 0.15% 18.05 0.08% 0.07% Striped weakfish Cynoscion reticulatus 0.51 0.00% 3.09 0.02% 0.55 0.00% 18.23 0.06% 23.53 0.10% 0.06% Raucous grunt Haemulopsis leuciscus 0.28 0.00% 0.48 0.00% 0.67 0.00% 26.69 0.09% 6.06 0.03% 0.05% Chilhuil sea catfish Bagre panamensis 2.15 0.02% 2.54 0.02% 1.38 0.00% 4.18 0.01% 0.21 0.00% 0.04% Diapterus Peruvian mojarra peruvianus 0.20 0.00% 0.10 0.00% 2.75 0.01% 11.08 0.04% 13.81 0.06% 0.03% Shining drum Larimus effulgens 0.59 0.01% 1.67 0.01% 2.03 0.01% 1.88 0.01% 2.02 0.01% 0.03% Orthopristis Brassy grunt chalceus 0.60 0.01% 0.66 0.00% 15.12 0.04% 18.12 0.06% 2.04 0.01% 0.03% Orangemouth Cynoscion weakfish xanthulus 0.21 0.00% 0.66 0.00% 0.12 0.00% 0.27 0.00% 0.04 0.00% 0.02% Micropogonias Slender coraker ectenes 0.35 0.00% 0.72 0.00% 0.16 0.00% 19.78 0.07% 2.08 0.01% 0.02% Silver weakfish Isopisthus remifer 0.09 0.00% 0.03 0.00% 16.15 0.04% 6.52 0.02% 0.19 0.00% 0.02% White stardrum Stellifer fuerthii 0.30 0.00% 0.28 0.00% 0.96 0.00% 1.32 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Pliosteostoma Yellowfin herring lutipinnis 0.15 0.00% 0.08 0.00% 0.38 0.00% 0.07 0.00% 15.12 0.07% 0.02% Steeplined drum Larimus acclivis 0.00% 0.03 0.00% 0.10 0.00% 1.84 0.01% 21.61 0.10% 0.02% Haemulopsis Shining grunt nitidus 0.21 0.00% 0.37 0.00% 0.13 0.00% 0.26 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 62 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Common name Species 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 (English) TOTAL Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total catch Percent Total Percent PERCENT of catch of catch of catch of catch catch of catch Selar Bigeye scad crumenophthalmus 0.00 0.00% 20.03 0.14% 0.04 0.00% 0.82 0.00% 0.01 0.00% 0.01% Pacific sardine (South American pilchard) Sardinops sagax 0.00% 0.00% 20.00 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Striped herring Lile stolifera 0.00% 0.00% 7.60 0.02% 7.00 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% Anchovies Anchoa spp. 5.11 0.05% 1.47 0.01% 0.35 0.00% 0.83 0.00% 0.03 0.00% 0.01% Cominate sea Occidentarius catfish platypogon 0.09 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02 0.00% 0.02 0.00% 0.01% Polydactylus Yellow bobo opercularis 0.00 0.00% 0.30 0.00% 4.18 0.01% 8.28 0.03% 0.00% 0.01% Haemulopsis Shining grunt nitidus 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Polydactylus Blue bobo approximans 0.03 0.00% 0.18 0.00% 0.11 0.00% 0.93 0.00% 1.60 0.01% 0.01% Pacific crevalle jack Caranx caninus 1.53 0.01% 1.36 0.01% 1.73 0.00% 1.66 0.01% 0.07 0.00% 0.01%

Table 14: Observed Elasmobranchii catch in tons from 2015-2020 separated by retained catch and discards (alive and dead) (Inapesca 2015-2020) Common name Species 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 TOTAL (English) CATCH Retained Discarded Retained Discarded Retained Discarded Retained Discarded Retained Discarded catch alive catch alive catch alive catch alive catch alive dead dead dead dead dead Golden cownose Rhinoptera 0.0795 -- 0.68 0.36 1.13 4.2225 ray steindachneri 0.043 0.01 0.47 0.23 1.0 0.01 0.01 0.2 Mobula mobular 1.3 Spinetail devil (former M. 0.075 1.11 0.01 0.06 ray japanica) 0.023 0.02 -- -- Scalloped 0.661 hammerhead 0.482 0.003 0.01 0.04 shark Sphyrna lewini 0.018 0.06 -- 0.04 ------0.024 0.01 0.5 0.54 Munk’s devil ray Mobula munkiana 0.01 -- -- Pacific Rhizoprionodon -- -- 0.14 0.252 sharpnose shark longurio 0.022 0.04 0.05 -- Spotted eagle Aetobatus 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.163 ray narinari 0.02 0.02 -- 0.03 --

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 63 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Hypanus longus 0.1475 (former 0.005 0.02 0.02 Longtail longa) 0.0005 0.09 -- 0.004 0.002 -- Diamond 0.02 0.1135 stingray Dasyatis brevis 0.0035 0.02 0.00005 0.07 0.045 0.07 Bentfin devil ray Mobula thurstoni 0.02 Peckled Pseudobatos -- 0.01 0.055 guitarfish glaucostigmus 0.005 0.04 -- Round stingray Urolophus halleri 0.028 0.01 0.038 Carcharhinus 0.024 Silky shark falciformis 0.004 0.01 0.01 Whitesnout Rhinobatos 0.01 guitarfish leucorhynchus 0.01 Speckled (slaty- 0.0069 spotted) Rhinobatos 0.003 guitarfish glaucostigma 0.0039 -- Munda round 0.006 ray Urotrygon munda 0.003 0.003 California Gymnura 0.003 butterfly ray marmorata 0.003 Spotted round Urobatis 0.0001 0.0008 ray maculatus 0.0007 --

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 64 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Table 15: Observed mammal and seabird sightings and sea turtle discards (number of individuals) from 2015- 2020 (Inapesca 2015-2020) Common Species 2015- 2016-2017 2017- 2018-2019 2019- TOTAL Total name (English) 2016 2018 2020 SIGHTINGS/ Dead/Injured DISCARDS Mammals Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata 862 1775 5709 2474 3665 14485 Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus 454 1202 1276 416 0 3348 California sea Zalophus lion californianus 979 543 362 560 297 2741 Long-beaked common Delphinus delphis dolphin (former D. capensis) 175 1456 656 2287 Heaviside’s Cephalorhynchus Dolphin heavisidii 431 431 Chilean Cephalorhynchus dolphin eutropia 81 22 103 Seabirds Pelecanus 6 Brown pelican occidentalis 7285 4533 21631 26178 4767 64394 Magnificent fregatebird Fregata magnificens 1966 5389 17105 17650 7175 49285 Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni 8832 6171 8520 2346 25869 Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla 897 809 17,043 16137 231 35117 1 Royal tern Thalasseus maximus 1142 1169 3682 2906 30 8929 Blue-footed booby Sula nebouxii 493 826 91 653 265 2328 Brown booby Sula leucogaster 583 82 466 204 418 1753 1 Neotrophic Phalacrocorax cormorant brasilianus 58 30 151 420 0 659 Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans 77 77 Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica 2 63 65 Yellow-footed gull Larus livens 15 15 Double-crested Phalacrocorax cormorant auritus 10 10 American Pelecanus white pelican erythrorhynchos 1 0 1 Sea turtles Olive Ridley Lepidochelys sea turtle olivacea 14 4 17 21 2 58 Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 2 8 4 2 15 Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 1

The catch revealed that no non-target species represents 5% or more of the UoAs total catch (2% for less resilient species). Furthermore, the UoA’s target species catch is less than 400,000t/yr and it is not classified as “exceptionally large” by the MSC (GSA 3.4.4) and therefore species whose catch percentages are below the aforementioned ones were not taken into account by the assessment team when it determined main species.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 65 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Seabirds and sea mammals that do not meet ETP species requirements were designated as secondary main species by the team.

The assessment team categorized non-target species into the following MSC classifications: primary minor, secondary minor, ETP (Table 16).

Table 16. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation Common name Scientific name Managed Less Resilient MSC Classification

Magnificent frigatebird Fregata magnificens No Yes Secondary-main Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla No Yes Secondary-main Royal tern Thalasseus maximus No Yes Secondary-main Blue-footed booby Sula nebouxii No Yes Secondary-main Brown booby Sula leucogaster No Yes Secondary-main Phalacrocorax No Yes Secondary-main Neotropic cormorant brasilianus Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica No Yes Secondary-main Yellow-footed gull Larus livens No Yes Secondary-main Double-crested No Yes Secondary-main cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus American White Pelecanus No Yes Secondary-main Pelican erythrorhynchos Cephalorhynchus No Yes Secondary-main Heaviside’s Dolphin heavisidii Cephalorhynchus No Yes Secondary-main Chilean dolphin eutropia Chub mackerel Scomber japonicus Yes No Secondary-minor Bocona sardine Cetengraulis mysticetus Yes No Secondary-minor Pacific jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus Yes No Secondary-minor Rhinoptera No Yes Secondary-minor Pacific cownose ray steindachneri Pacific bumper Chloroscombrus No No Secondary-minor orqueta Mexican barracuda Sphyraena ensis No No Secondary-minor Peruvian moonfish Selene peruviana No Yes Secondary-minor Silver stardrum Stellifer illecebrosus No No Secondary-minor Pacific sierra Scomberomorus sierra No No Secondary-minor Silver drum Larimus argenteus No No Secondary-minor Striped weakfish Cynoscion reticulatus No No Secondary-minor Raucous grunt Haemulopsis leuciscus No No Secondary-minor Chilhuil sea catfish Bagre panamensis No No Secondary-minor Golden cownose ray Rhinoptera No Yes Secondary-minor steindachneri Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis No Yes ETP

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 66 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Heermann's gull Larus heermanni No Yes ETP Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans No Yes ETP Olive Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea No Yes ETP Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas No Yes ETP Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta No Yes ETP Pantropical spotted No Yes ETP dolphin Stenella attenuata Common bottlenose No Yes ETP dolphin Tursiops truncatus California sea lion Zalophus californianus No Yes ETP Long-beaked common Delphinus delphis (D. No Yes ETP dolphin capensis) Spinetail devil ray Mobula japanica No Yes ETP Munk’s devil ray Mobula munkiana No Yes ETP Bentfin devil ray Mobula thurstoni No Yes ETP Scalloped No Yes ETP Hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini

Primary Species

According to the 2015-2020 catch data, no primary species were designated; none of the listed P2 species are actively managed and therefor do not have in place a full stock assessment, a scientifically established TAC, or known limit or target reference points. There are no management tools and measures in place intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. All bycatch species were classified as secondary or ETP species.

Secondary Main Species

The assessment team used the catch volumes from the 2015-2020 observer data to determine secondary main and minor designations. Based on data collected, there are no main species that represented 5% of the catch or 2% in the case of less resilient species. There were, however, out-of-scope seabird species that by definition are classified as secondary main species. Similar bird types were grouped (gulls, terns, boobys, cormorants) and the most at risk species was identified according to its IUCN Red List category, population trend, and the amount of interactions it has with the UoA according to the 2015-2020 observer data. Species representatives for all major seabird groups (frigatebird, gull, booby, tern, cormorant, pelican) are either reviewed as secondary main or ETP species.

Species – Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens)

Biology

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 67 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

This species is distributed along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of America, from California (U.S.A.) to Ecuador (including the Galapagos), and from Florida to south Brazil. One relict population once existed at Cape Verde off the coast of Africa, but is now feared extinct (Orta et al. 2018). The species often nests in mangroves. It feeds mainly on flying-fish and squid, but also jellyfish, baby turtles, seabird eggs and chicks, offal and fish scraps. Female magnificent frigatebirds lay a single egg three to four weeks after the beginning of breeding season. The incubation period for this species is not known but has been estimated at 50 days. Because female parent involvement continues for much longer than male parental involvement, females only mate every other year (Birdlife International, 2021a).

Status

The IUCN Red List considers its population trend in the Americas to be decreasing and lists it as Least Concern. The Red List estimates the population size to be 130,000 mature individuals while experiencing a moderate decline. This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. It has maintained its Least Concern category since 2004.

Management

Hunting likely occurs at numerous breeding sites, causing slow but significant population declines. Development of commercial and domestic areas in the Caribbean is responsible for local declines in populations and their breeding success, alongside the loss of coastal roosting sites that are vitally important to the species as it does not rest on water during the day. The UoA offers no special protection for this species.

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoA’s observer program noted 49,285 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for every year.

Species – Laughing gull (Leucophaeus atricilla)

Biology

This species is distributed along the Pacific coast of Mexico, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the East coast of the United States. The population also extends into southern Peru in the Pacific and northern Brazil in the Atlantic. The species breeds in colonies with thousands of nests; sometimes associated with other species of gulls or terns. Nest sites are on the ground among grass or bushes. In more southerly areas, they may be among denser growth, under shrubs or vines, perhaps for protection from sun. Laughing gulls lay two to four eggs with incubation taking about 20 days. Their diet includes crustaceans, insects, and fish.

Status

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 68 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The IUCN Red List considers its population trend to be increasing and lists it as Least Concern. The Red List does not estimate its population but notes that the species has undergone a large and statistically significant increase over the last 40 years in North America (344% increase over 40 years, equating to a 45.2% increase per decade (Butcher and Niven 2007).

Management

At one time, the Laughing Gull was hunted and killed for its fine plumage which was then used by milliners to make hats. Over the years, it has been protected, and is no longer threatened.

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoA’s observer program listed the species as Larus atricilla, and Leucophaeus atricilla. The total of L. atricilla over the 5-year period was 35,586 observations. A mean observer coverage of 38,5% equates to an estimate of 92,431 of possible observed individuals in the UoA or 18,486 individuals per year.

Species – Gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica)

Biology

This species is distributed globally. The species breeds colonially in monospecific groups of 5-500 pairs (occasionally up to 1,000 pairs), or as solitary pairs amidst colonies of other species. The northern populations are migratory, dispersing widely after breeding before travelling southwards to the wintering grounds. It breeds in a variety of locations with bare or sparsely vegetated islands, banks, flats, or spits of dry mud and sand including barrier beaches (shoals), dunes, saltmarshes, saltpans, freshwater lagoons, , deltas, inland lakes, rivers, marshes and swamps. It is an opportunistic feeder and is largely insectivorous, consuming adult and larval terrestrial and aquatic insects as well as spiders, earthworms, small reptiles, frogs, and small fish.

Status

The IUCN Red List considers its global population trend to be decreasing and lists it as least concern. The Red List estimates the population size to be 150,000-420,000 individuals. The species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. The population is however suspected to be in decline owing to habitat loss and degradation in the core of its range (Bird Life International 2021d).

Management

The species has been identified as particularly susceptible to abandonment of breeding sites due to human disturbance. The UoA offers no special protection for this species. There are conservation actions underway for the European population that include the protection of gull and tern breeding colonies in

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 69 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

coastal lagoons and deltas (Bird Life International 2021d). The UoA offers no special protection for this species.

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 65 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for the 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 fishing seasons.

Species – Brown booby (Sula leucogaster)

Biology

This species is distributed globally. The Brown Booby can be found throughout the pantropical oceans with few exceptions. Breeding sites include the Caribbean, the Atlantic coasts of Brazil and Africa, oceanic islands off Madagascar, the Red Sea, northern Australia, many oceanic islands in the western and central Pacific, as well as off the coast of Mexico and Peru. The species is strictly marine, generally feeding on inshore waters. Its diet is comprised mainly of flying-fish and squid, but also some halfbeak, mullet, and anchovy. Prey is usually caught by plunge-diving and it can also snatch prey off the surface of water. The brown booby’s breeding season is dependent upon food availability. Events such as El Niño can drastically shift its normal breeding season for a few years. In the Caribbean and east Pacific, peak breeding months are December to February. After eggs are laid, parents take turns incubating for 42 days. Usually, brown boobies lay 2 eggs but only raise one chick past the fledgling stage (Mellink 2000).

Status

The IUCN Red List considers its global population trend to be decreasing and lists it as least concern, a category it has held since 2004. The global population, according to the Red List, is estimated to number >200,000 individuals. The species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. Even though the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (Bird Life International 2021e).

Management

The species is highly sensitive to human disturbance, with the presence of humans 10-20 m from the nest enough to cause the birds to leave. Introduced rats are also thought to impact on the species through reduction of reproductive success on invaded islands (Bird Life International 2021e). The UoA offers no special protection for this species as it is not listed in NOM-059.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 70 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 1753 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for reviewed fishing seasons.

Species – Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)

Biology

Double-crested cormorants breed across North America, as far north as southern Alaska. They winter in North America as far south as Sinaloa, Mexico, and are common on marine and inland waters throughout their range. Double-crested cormorants breed between April and August, with peak activity occurring in May through July. After nest construction is complete, the female lays 1 to 7 (usually 4) pale bluish-white eggs with a chalky coating. The eggs are laid 1 to 3 days apart. Both parents incubate the eggs, which hatch asynchronously after 25 to 28 days. Double-crested cormorants do not breed until they are at least 2 years old (Hatch and Weseloh 1999).

Status

The IUCN Red List considers its North American population trend to be increasing and lists it as least concern. According to the Red List, the overall population trend is increasing, although some populations may be stable, and others have unknown trends. The species’ southwestern population, which includes northwestern Mexico, is estimated to be between 90,000-179,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2006).

Management

Populations of double-crested cormorants have increased dramatically over the last thirty years. This species has no special protection under CITES or the Endangered Species Act. It is, however, protected under the U.S. Migratory Bird Act. The UoA offers no special protection for this species as it is not listed in NOM-059.

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 10 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for the 2017-2018 fishing season only.

Species – Marine Mammals: Dolphins

Species –Heaviside’dolphin (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii), Chilean (black) dolphin (Cephalorhynchus eutropia)

Biology

Heaviside’s Dolphin

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 71 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The Heaviside’s dolphin is one of the most poorly known of all cetaceans. The species is known only off southwest Africa (endemic of the Benguela ecosystem), so sightings in the Eastern Tropical Pacific coastal waters must be considered with extreme caution. It is most unlikely to occur in Mexican waters. They are sighted in pairs, trios, and generally in groups of less than ten. With a life span of at least 26 years, both sexes reach maturity at 5-9 years, with females producing claves only every two to four years. Adults reach about 1.7m in length. They are known to feed mostly on demersal fish and cephalopods. Known predators are orca and possibly sharks. These dolphins are attracted to boats and frequently seen bow-riding (Elwen, 2018)

Chilean Dolphin The Chilean Dolphin is another endemic species of the Cephalorynchus genus, found in shallow coastal waters. It is endemic to the Humboldt current and is considered, as the Heaviside’s dolphin, a species preferring cold-water. It so far only has been found along the Chilean coast (30°S to 56°S), with unusual recent sightings recorded in Southern Argentina, in groups of Commerson’s Dolphins (Cephalorynchus commersonii) (Heinrich and Reeves, 2018; Morgenthaler et al 2014). It is most unlikely to occur in Mexican waters.

Status

Heaviside’s Dolphin Originally listed by IUCN as data deficient, it is listed as NT (near threatened) since 2017. Off South Africa and Namibia, all surveys register less than 10,000 individuals, with high uncertainty (e.g. 6345 CV = 95% for 150km of the South African Atlantic coast. There are no published official reports of sightings of this species in the Pacific Ocean.

Chilean Dolphin The IUCN redlist has classified the Chilean Dolphin as NT (near threatened) since 2008 (updated in 2008 and 2017; Heinrich & Reeves, 2017). The total number of mature individuals is estimated to be in the low thousands at most (Heinrich and Reeves, 2017). Impacts on this population have been severe over the last three decades (Dawson, 2009).

Management

Heaviside’s Dolphin Heaviside’s Dolphins are listed in Appendix II of the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species. It has no special status in Mexico.

Chilean Dolphin The Chilean Dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. It has no special status in Mexico.

Information

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 72 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The two species of the genus Cephalorhynchus (C. heavisidii and C. eutropia) are not listed in Mexico under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. They are listed near threatened under the IUCN Redlist, occur in restricted cold-water regions (Humboldt and Benguela current systems, respectively) with low population estimates (in the low thousands for each species), with unknown (C. heavisidii or decreasing (C. eutropia) population trends. The sightings and estimated interactions with of C. heavisidii (on average 195 per year) and C. eutropia (on average 39 per year) need to be confirmed, as these species are out of their known range in the Gulf of California and there are no published sightings in the Northern hemisphere. Moreover, due to their small population size, the observed record of 2017-18 sightings for C. heavisidii (973 individuals) appears unlikely. For this reason the assessment team chose to include information on these species but not score them until further evidence regarding their occurrence in the UoA can be evaluated. The team is awaiting additional information from the client during the site visit in order to be able to assess them.

Secondary Minor Species

All Secondary Minor species in the UoA are taken at low levels. These include three small pelagic species that contribute the highest percentages to the UoA’s total catch. These were the Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) that represents 0.77% of the catch, chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) representing 0.69%, and bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus) making up 0.45% of the total UoA catch. The NOM-003 defines passive management regulations for these species. Various other finfish species are considered secondary minor species as well. The observed catches of these species indicate that they are exploited at very low levels.

The team also determined that the bycatch amounts of the Pacific cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri) deserve analysis and the species is included in the outcome PI’s element scoring.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 73 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species

Species – Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)

Biology

Brown pelicans are primarily found in the Americas where they breed along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and range from as far south as Tierra del Fuego to as far north as Canada. The species nest in colonies in secluded areas, and their movements and migrations tend to depend on local conditions. The timing of breeding of brown pelicans depends on their latitude, and ranges from year-round in the tropics to spring- time breeding in the extreme north of its range. Brown pelicans eat primarily fish, targeting, among others, sardines and anchovies. Where there is abundant prey, they group in large congregations and plunge-dive for prey from as high as sixty feet above water (Audubon 2021).

The bulk of California brown pelicans (P. occidentalis californianus) range along the Pacific coast of North America from Jalisco (Mexico) to British Columbia (Canada). Most (80-85%) nest in Mexico (Audubon, 2021). From their southern nesting areas, they disperse north seasonally in search of food, with small numbers reaching as far as southern British Columbia.

Roosting and loafing sites are important for brown pelicans, because their feathers can become waterlogged; after feeding, they roost out of the water while they dry and preen their plumage (Stinson, 2014). Interactions with fishing gear such as purse seine fisheries known to introduce oil to feathers, may cause problems for pelican or other seabirds, increasing their tendency to become water-logged and to regulate temperature. While this relates to crude oil, research indicates that fish oil may have many of the same impacts (Jaques 2013, 2014; Morandin and O’Hara, 2014).

Status

Brown pelicans were considered endangered in North America in the 1970s, primarily due to pesticides such as DDT. Since 2009, they have been delisted from the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are considered a species of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN Redlist (BirdLife International 2018, 2021). Its entire population was estimated in 2006 at 300,000 individuals (Delany and Scott, 2006). While the Brown pelican population as a whole is believed to be increasing, there is uncertainty for some subpopulations. The metapopulation of California brown pelicans has been estimated at 70,000 - 71,000 breeding pairs (Audubon, 2021; Stinson 2014), making up about half of the entire population.

In Washington State, annual peak numbers of California brown pelicans increased markedly from <100 during 1979-1986 to a high of >16,000 in 2009. Since that time, numbers have been declining, possibly in response to declining sardine abundance, itself a response to cyclic ocean conditions; the September aerial survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted 7, 018 in 2013, the lowest such count since 2001. Since California brown pelicans feed primarily on small schooling fishes, including Northern anchovies, Pacific sardines, and Pacific mackerel, fluctuations in ocean conditions (e.g. El Niño Southern Oscillation) and forage fish abundance may cause periodic fluctuations in brown pelican populations

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 74 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

(Stinson, 2014). In 2014, warm persistent surface waters in the Gulf of California produced low productivity and a decline in breeding success (Jaques 2016). Additional threats are related to human disturbances in breeding colonies and fishing operations in the Gulf of California, Mexico and Costa Rica (Birdlife International 2018). Some observers raise questions and concerns about recruitment to this breeding population (Audubon, 2021). Currently, there is uncertainty about their population status, requiring long-term monitoring over their entire range and a full subspecies review (Jaques 2014, Anderson et al 2017).

Management

While Brown pelicans as a whole are considered a species of ‘least concern’ by the IUCN (BirdLife International 2021), the California brown pelicans were listed in Mexico in 2010 (NOM-059-SEMARNAT- 2010) under the “A” category (threatened species) and listing continues to date (Anderson et al, 2017).

Information

Brown pelicans were the most common seabirds recorded by observers between 2015 and 2020, with 67,711 sightings, making up 34.16% (interannual range: 23.8% to 36.0%) of total bird sightings during that period. This proportion is markedly lower than reported earlier (62.74% in 2012-13). There is evidence that the relative ranking of Brown pelicans has been diminishing over time, to the advantage of Fregata magnificens: Top ranking was not consistent, Brown pelicans ranked first in 2013-14 and three of five years thereafter but ranked second more recently (2016-17 and 2019-20). A total of six dead birds were reported (during three of the five observer periods), making it the most vulnerable bird to death from interactions with fishing operations during this period.

In 2017, observers began reporting the effectiveness of bird mitigation measures. Over the five semesters for which data are available from the observer reports (April 2017 – August 2019), observers registered bird response to mitigation measures in 25.9% of all fishing sets (571 sets observed for mitigation behavior out of a total of 2205 fishing sets). These observations allow estimates of the number of birds directly exposed to fishing gear during fishing operations, which may induce unrecorded offsite mortalities of injured or stressed birds (Gibble et al. 2016). Beyond direct mortality onsite and possible offsite mortality from interaction with fishing gear, Brown pelicans may be directly affected by fluctuations of prey species caused by overfishing and fluctuations in ocean conditions (e.g., El Niño Southern Oscillation).

Species – Elegant tern (Thalasseus elegans - formerly Sterna elegans)

Biology

This species is distributed along the Pacific coast from California, USA to northern Chile. During the winter months, Elegant terns range along the Pacific coast from Nayarit, Mexico to as far south as Puerto Montt, Chile. The breeding range of elegant terns extends throughout southern California, Baja California, and the Gulf of Mexico, with five known breeding colonies. Nesting begins in April when mated pairs dig nests by scraping indentations in the ground. Elegant terns lay eggs within 24 hours of building their nests.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 75 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Elegant terns require small, isolated nesting areas with other breeding terns or gull species in the vicinity (Bird Life International 2021c).

Status

The IUCN Red List considers its population trend to be stable and lists it as Near Threatened since 2004 because it has a restricted breeding range and is subject to large population fluctuations in response to climatic effects (El Niño events and subsequent fluctuations in fish populations), human disturbance and overfishing (decline in fish stocks due to overfishing). The Red List estimates the population size to be 51,000-90,000 individuals with up to 95% breeding on Isla Rasa in the Gulf of California. At least three other Mexican islands are used at least occasionally. In addition, small populations breed on Bolsa Chica (50-4,000 pairs, first recorded in 1987), in bay (500-800 pairs) and in Los Angeles Harbour (Bird Life International 2020).

Management

The elegant tern is listed in the NOM-059-SEMARNAT as a species afforded special protection, the lowest risk category (Pr).

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 77 observed individuals (representing 0.128% of total birds observed) and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were only noted for the 2017-2018 fishing season.

Species – Heermann’s Gull (Larus heermanni)

Biology

Larus heermanni is a coastal species ranging from Southern British Columbia to Costa Rica and estimated to have a population of 350,000 mature individuals, with 283,000 to 300,000 breeding adults (Kushlan et al. 2002; Partners in Flight 2019). The species breeds very synchronously and at high densities (up to 110 nests/100m2) on remote rocky coasts and islets, from Southern California south to Nayarit (Mexico) and islands San Benito and San Roque, but about 92% nest on Isla Rasa in the Northeast-central Gulf of California (Velarde 1992, 1999; Burger and Gochfeld, 1996). At Isla Rasa, there have been significant fluctuations with a low of 55,000 pairs in 1975 (Burger and Gochfeld 1996). Nests are typically on ground level, made of soil, or grass and weeds, and are lined with feathers. Heerman’s gulls typically lay 2-3 eggs, incubated by both sexes for 28 days. Both parents feed the young, and first age of flight is not well known (Audubon 2021). The gulls feed largely in inshore waters and the littoral zone, but also in oceanic waters surrounding the breeding islands. They often pirate food from other birds, by stealing fish from the pouch of a pelican or harassing birds to drop their catch. They feed primarily on small fish, but also are known to eat crustaceans, mollusks, and insects, eggs of other birds, refuse, or carrion (Audubon 2021).

Status

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 76 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The Heermann’s Gull has a restricted breeding range, with over 90% of the world population breeding on a single small island (Isla Rasa in the Gulf of California). Nesting populations fluctuate widely in response to climatic events (e.g. El Niño) and compounded by overfishing on key prey species. Nevertheless, these fluctuations have to date been less than one order of magnitude (Birdlife International 2020). Increasing frequency of El Nino events will likely facilitate increasingly rapid and severe population declines in the decades to come (Velarde and Ezcurra 2018). Heermann’s Gulls may also be at risk from egg poaching at nesting sites (Audubon 2021) and pollution, as unusually high Cadmium levels have been reported from coastal Sinaloa (Ceyca et al. 2016).

Management

The Heermann’s Gull is listed in the IUCN Redlist as NT (near threatened) (Birdlife International 2020). The species is also listed in Mexico through NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 under the ‘Pr’ category (subject to special protection). Due to its restricted breeding range and vulnerability from climatic events and/or local anthropogenic changes, active measures to protect breeding populations on islands, interactions with fisheries and continued monitoring in response to climate fluctuations are recommended. (Birdlife International 2020).

Information

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 22,400 observed individuals (representing 11.88% of total birds observed). The observers recorded large interannual variations, ranging from 1.52% (in 2018-19) to 22.21% (in 2019-20) of the total number of observed birds. No deaths or injuries were reported during fishing operations. As for Brown pelicans and Magnificent frigatebirds, Heermann’s gulls were observed to directly interact with fishing gear during specific observations in 2018- 19 and 2019-20 made to estimate the effectiveness of bird mitigation measures. Beyond direct mortality onsite and possible offsite mortality from interaction with fishing gear and due to stress, the Heermann’s gulls are known to be directly affected by fluctuations of prey species caused by overfishing and fluctuations in ocean conditions (e.g., El Niño Southern Oscillation with resulting changes in prey availability).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 77 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Species – Sea turtles

Chelonia mydas agassizii—Green Sea turtle

Caretta caretta—Loggerhead Sea turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea—Olive Ridley Sea turtle

Biology

Five of the seven known species of sea turtle occur in waters of the Baja California peninsula and neighboring mainland Pacific coast. The most common species, the Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), use the region primarily as developmental and foraging habitat. They originate on nesting beaches as far away as southern Mexico and Japan, respectively. The species known to nest in Baja California is the Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). The Baja California coast represents the northern extreme of the nesting range for both species. Finally, the fifth species (Hawksbill turtle, Erethmochelys imbricata) has become exceedingly rare in waters of the Gulf of California due to the fishery for its shell. The region provides critical feeding and developmental grounds for all five sea turtle species as they feed on the abundant marine algae, seagrass, and (Nichols, 2003).

The Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is a circumglobal species that is susceptible to over-exploitation as a food resource and incidental mortality in fisheries. Efforts to recover regional green turtle populations have been hampered by a lack of information on their biology. In particular, turtle movements and home ranges in neritic foraging habitats are not well understood. Green turtles occur in tropical and subtropical regions throughout the world’s oceans. Due to of eggs and turtles as a food resource and, to a lesser extent, incidental mortality relating to marine fisheries and degradation of marine and nesting habitats, populations have declined throughout the world (Groombridge & Luxmoore, 1989; Limpus, 1995). Despite a worldwide increase in research and conservation of green turtles, their foraging biology and habitat requirements remain poorly understood (Bjorndal 1997). In the eastern Pacific Ocean, green turtles have experienced important declines due to human overexploitation (Caldwell, 1963; Cliffton et al., 1982; Figueroa et al., 1993). Despite calls for increased protection (National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), conservation efforts have been hindered by a poor understanding of the critical foraging grounds and the patterns of habitat use in this region (Seminoff et al., 2002).

Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) are characterized by their transoceanic migratory patterns in the North Pacific Ocean, as individuals of this species originating from nesting beaches in Japan are known to forage along Mexico’s Baja California Peninsula (BCP). The nearshore waters of BCP serve as important foraging habitat for growth and development; however, the implementation of appropriate management strategies has been hindered by the paucity of data on the biology and distribution of the species, particularly for juveniles during their developmental migrations (Zavala-Norzagaray et al., 2017).

Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) are the most abundant sea turtle species worldwide. The turtles nesting on the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica average the smallest, include the smaller recorded nesters, and have the smallest average clutch (Hirt, 1980). The largest known nesting

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 78 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

aggregations of L. olivacea are on mainland beaches (Mexico, Costa Rica and India). During “arribadas” a large number of eggs are destroyed by nesting females, with a resulting low reproductive rate (off-spring produced per female). The latter may be compensated by a relatively greater hatchling success through escape from shallow-water predators, when large numbers of hatchlings enter the water about the same time (Hirt, 1980).

Reliable data on sea turtle abundance and on the numerous causes of turtle deaths, which are necessary for accurate population assessments, are generally not available. In addition to a lack of data, it has proved difficult to identify all the factors that influence the abundance of sea turtles. As mentioned, because of the sea turtles´ highly migratory nature and the large number of hatchlings coupled with low survival rates, it is difficult to estimate overall populations (FAO, 2009).

Status

The world populatin of the Green sea turtle has been IUCN redlisted as endangered (EN) since 1996, due to a declining trens at 32 Index Sites of 48% to 67% in the number of mature females nesting annually over the las 3 generations. (Seminoff, 2004).

The IUCN lsting of the world population of the Loggerhead Turtle has been calssified as vulnerable (VU) since 2015, after a listing as endangered in 1996 (Casale & Tuckker, 2017). At the global level, both geographic distribution and population size are much larger than required to qualify for a threatened category. However, the available long-term series of nest counts show an important decrease in the past (47%). Nevertheless, the IUCN assessment cautions that global assessment cannot be considered as an indicator of the true of the species, and that priority should be given to the subpopulation assessments. Positive as well as negative trends have been observed in the 10 recognized subpopulations (Casale & Tuckker, 2017).

The IUCN lsting of the world population of the Olive Ridley Turtle has been calssified as vulnerable (VU) since 20O8, after a listing as endangered in 1996 (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2008). However, IUCN cautions that the assessment currently needs updating. In spite of the Olive Ridley being the most abundant sea turtle, available quantitative information is extremely scarce and unevenly distributed across regions. While commercial exploitation of Olive Ridleys for international markets has effectively been eliminated, significant factors continue to impact individual rookeries (egg exploitation, bycatch) including in the Eastern Pacific. Global declines over 3 generations have been estimated between 30% and 50%, which justifies its vulnerable status.

Management

In 1994 the Mexican Fisheries Secretariat established a total and indefinite ban for different species, among them the sea turtles in waters of federal jurisdiction of the Pacific Ocean, including the Gulf of California. Currently, these species are all considered as species indanger of extinction in the NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010 (Category “P” under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010). Besides their respective IUCN Redlist categories, the three species observed in the UoA operating area are all listed in a number of international

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 79 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

and supraregional conservation agreements: CITES appendix1, CMS Appendices 1 and2, and the SPAW protocol of the Cartagena Convention. Of regional relevance is their listing in the Interamerican Convention for the protection and conservation of Sea turtles (IAC).

The Secretariat, after conducting studies on the selectivity of fishing gear, considered it necessary to incorporate the use of marine turtle excluder devices (TEDs) (DOF, 2013). In Mexico Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) has been mandatory since 1995. Each year vessel inspections are carried out by CONAPESCA personal before starting the fishing season to ensure compliance with Mexican regulation for proper installation of TEDs. On basis of these inspections, the US certifies that Mexico’s TEDs program is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. program. On May 1, 2017, the Department certified Mexico on the basis that their sea turtle protection programs is comparable to that of the United States (NOAA, 2017).

In the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, in a vast study representing 10.3% of total fishing activity, purse seine fisheries were found to have a considerable impact on marine turtles, with only 75% of all turtles captured in purse seine being released alive (Bourjea et al., 2014). In South Pacific Ocean tuna purse seine fisheries, observers reported a 17% mortality rate in the WCPO purse seine fishery (SPREP 2001).

Information

From 2015-2020, a total of 75 turtles were observed and released due to sightings/interactions during fishing operations. The most frequently observed was the Olive Ridley turtle (every year, for a total of 58 individuals, representing 77.3% of all observations, followed by Green turtles (15 individuals between 2016 and 2020 making up 20% of the total) and the Loggerhead turtle (2 individuals in 2016-17). Leartherback and Hawksbill turtles were not observed.

Species – Marine Mammals: Dolphins

Delphinus capensis = D. delphis Long-beaked common Dolphin Tursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin Stenella attenuata Pantropical spotted dolphin

Biology

Long beaked common dolphin Long-beaked common dolphins can be found in large social groups in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. This highly social and energetic species prefers shallow, tropical, subtropical, and warmer temperate waters closer to the coast and on the continental shelf Long-beaked common dolphins are small, measuring 6 to 8.5 feet long and weighing between 160 and 500 pounds. Males are around five percent larger than females. Long-beaked common dolphins feed in relatively shallow waters on small schooling fish (e.g., anchovies, hake, pilchards, and sardines), krill, and cephalopods (e.g., squid). They typically travel in large social groups numbering between 10 and 50 dolphins, and occasionally, hundreds if not thousands (NOAA, 2021). The long-beaked dolphin seems to favor shallower, warmer waters and generally lives closer to shore along the length of the Peruvian coast up to 180 km from shore.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 80 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Common bottlenose dolphin Common bottlenose dolphins are found throughout the world in temperate and tropical coastal and offshore waters. Bottlenose dolphins can live at least 40 years, with some females outliving males at 60 years or more. Typically living in groups ranging from just a few individuals to more than 100, they form several types of groups, which include nursery groups, juvenile groups, and groups of adult males. Females are usually reach sexual maturity at an age between 5 and 10 years, and males between 8 and 13 years. Once calves are born, they nurse for up to 20 months and generally stay with their mothers for 3 to 6 years. On average, females give birth every 3 to 6 years. Females as old as 45 have given birth.

Pantropical spotted dolphin The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin is one of the most abundant cetaceans in tropical and subtropical waters around the globe. They are gregarious, associating in schools ranging from 100s (coastal groups) to several thousand individuals (offshore). In the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) offshore groups feed largely on small fishes, squids, and crustaceans. They associate with yellowfin tuna, spinner dolphins and other pelagic predators (Robertson and Chivers 1997, Scott et al. 2012), a behavior that makes them vulnerable to purse seine fisheries, as the latter use the dolphin aggregations to locate the yellowfin and skipjack tuna schools. The diet of the coastal subspecies (S. attenuata graffmani) is thought to consist mainly of larger fishes, perhaps mainly bottom-living species (Perrin 2001, 2018).

Status

Long beaked common dolphin The IUCN Red List considers the species’ global population trends to be unknown, classifies the species as data deficient, and lists it as Least Concern. According to IUCN, in the entire Eastern tropical Pacific, their population was last estimated to be 3,127,203 individuals, with 279,000 individuals off the Baja California and California coasts in 2011 (Braulik et al. 2021)

Common bottlenose dolphin The IUCN Red List considers the species’ global population trends to be unknown and lists it as Least Concern. Their global population size is estimated to be 750,000 individuals. While there are no population estimates for Mexican Pacific coast waters, it is estimated that there are 243,500 in the entire Eastern tropical Pacific, an estimate that is over 25 years old (Wells et al., 2019). It can be assumed that the species’ coastal abundance is much less: in coastal California, Oregon and Washington Waters, estimates range from 624 to 1924 (CV = 54%) (Wells et al., 2019). They are vulnerable to many stressors and threats including disease, biotoxin, pollution, habitat alteration, vessel collisions, human harassment, and interactions with commercial and recreational fishing (NOAA 2021).

Pantropical spotted dolphin The IUCN Redlist considers the global population trend as unknown and lists it as least concern. Nevertheless, the conservation status of subspecies and some regional populations suggest that those may qualify for a threatened Red List category. In the Eastern tropical Pacific (ETP) the coastal subspecies

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 81 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

(S. a. graffmani) was estimated as 278,155 (CV=59%) in 2006, while offshore stocks numbered about 1,297,092 (CV = 23 – 29%) a reduction of 76% from the estimated size in 1959. These ETP populations may be recovering, albeit slowly. Mortality caused by small vessels that do not carry observers, under- reporting of mortality, and ecosystem change may contribute to the species’ slow recovery in this region (Kiszka and Braulik, 2018).

Management

Long beaked common dolphin One of the main threats to long-beaked common dolphins is entanglement in fishing gear (e.g., driftnets, gillnets, purse seines, and trawls). They can become entangled or captured in commercial fishing gear such as gillnets, seines, trawls, trap pots, and longlines. Long-beaked common dolphins are particularly susceptible to domoic acid poisoning, which is a neuro-toxin produced by algae. When harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur, sardines and anchovies eat the harmful algae, and they are eaten by long-beaked common dolphins (NOAA 2021). The species is managed internationally by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, which imposes bycatch limits for the Common dolphin on tuna purse seiners (Braulik et al. 2021). The species is listed in the NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (Category “Pr”, subject to special protection). Moreover, the Mexican Forest Law (Ley General de Vida Silvestre, DOF 2015) prohibits commercial and subsistence extraction of all marine mammals and requires liberation if accidentally captured.

Common bottlenose dolphin One of the main threats to bottlenose dolphins is getting caught in fishing gear. Dolphins can become entangled or captured in commercial fishing gear such as gillnets, seines, trawls, trap pots, and longlines (NOAA 2021). A bottlenose dolphin usually eats a wide variety of food including crustaceans, fish, and squid. Each day an adult can eat 15 - 30 pounds (6.8 - 13.5 kg) of food (Animalia 2021). The species is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and on Appendix II of the Convention for Migratory Species (CMS). In Mexico, it is listed in the NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010 (Category “Pr”, subject to special protection). Moreover, the Mexican Forest Law (Ley General de Vida Silvestre, DOF 2015) prohibits commercial and subsistence extraction of all marine mammals and requires liberation if accidentally captured.

Pantropical spotted dolphin The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The species is managed internationally by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, imposing annual stock mortality limits (Kizka and Braulik, 2018). The species is listed in the NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (Category “Pr”, subject to special protection). Moreover, the Mexican Forest Law (Ley General de Vida Silvestre, DOF 2015) prohibits commercial and subsistence extraction of all marine mammals and requires liberation if accidentally captured.

Information

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 82 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

From 2015-2020, a total of 20,654 Dolphins were observed (sightings/interactions during fishing operations) during the UoA’s fishing operations. The most frequently observed was Stenella attenuata (every year, for a total of 14,485 individuals (70.13%), followed by Tursiops truncatus (every year except 2019-20, 3,384 individuals = 16.21%) and Delphinus capensis (2,287 individuals = 11.1%, none observed 2016-17 and 2017-18).

Species – Marine Mammals: California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus)

Biology

The California Sea Lion is a sexually dimorphic species; adult males weigh three to four times more and are up to 1.2 times longer (up to 255 cm and 523 kg) than their female counterparts (King 1964, Wright et al. 2010). Already by two weeks of age, male pups are larger and heavier (75.7 cm, 9.01 kg) than their female counterparts (72.3 cm, 7.6 kg; Le Boeuf et al. 1983). Females produce one pup/year. Pupping and breeding take place from May to July. Maximum specific life span is 19 years for males and 25 years for females (Hernandez-Camacho et al. 2008). Most rookeries are found on islands from Los Islotes in Baja California Sur to the Channel Islands in southern California. Subadult males move north to British Columbia, and south to the southern tip of Baja California, islets off Mazatlán and Puerto Vallarta in Mexico. Overall, the species ranges from the Aleutian Islands to the Southern Gulf of California, occasionally south to Costa Rica. Generally, California Sea Lions exploit continental shelf and slope zones, also frequenting coastal areas and river mouths. They consume a wide variety of regionally varying pelagic and some demersal fish species and cephalopods. Prey availability is reduced during El Niño events, when large number of pups die of starvation, except in the Gulf of California (Aurioles and Le Boeuf 1991, Szteren et al. 2006). Predators include orcas, sharks and coyotes. Interactions with fisheries are common, causing conflicts with fisheries, poaching, and high incidences of Sea lion entanglement (e.g. Aurioles-Gamboa et al. 2003).

Status

Exploitation during the 19th and 20th century reduced the population, but protective measures beginning in the 1970s in the USA and Mexico have been effective. Thus, in the Channel Islands, the population increased from a low level of 64,000 individuals to over 153,000 in 2007 (Odell 1971; Caretta et al. 2014). The population in the Gulf of California as a whole declined by 44%, and pup production by 36%, between 1979 and 2016, from an estimated maximum level of 32 000 in the early 1990s. The population appears stable since 2010 (around 18,000 individuals), with fluctuations related to sea surface temperature anomalies that influence prey availability). Local environmental factors in particular impact female survival and juvenile recruitment (Masper et al. 2019). The total California Sea Lion population is currently estimated at 387,646 individuals (180,000 adults) (Aurioles-Gamboa and Hernandez-Camacho, 2015). This population appears stable with zero growth The IUCN Red List categorizes it as ‘Least Concern’ since 2008.

Management

The California Sea Lion is listed in the Mexican NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 in the “Pr” category (being subject to special protection). The Mexican federal government’s National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas) has conducted annual censuses and

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 83 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

monitors the health of the California Sea Lion populations in the Gulf of California since 2011 (Aurioles- Gamboa and Hernandez-Camacho, 2015).

Information

From 2015-2020, a total of 2741 California Sea Lions were observed during the UoA’s fishing operations (on average 548 individuals observed/year), making up 11.71% of all marine mammal observations. Its observations ranked third, after Stenella attenuata (14 485 individuals = 61.9%) and Tursiops truncatus (3384 individuals = 14.31%), but before Delphinus delphis(2287 individuals = 9.77%).

Species – Elasmobranchs: Scalloped Hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini)

Biology

The Scalloped Hammerhead is a coastal and semi-oceanic pelagic shark, found over continental and insular shelves and nearby deep water, ranging from the intertidal and surface usually to 275 m depth, (Moore and Gates 2015). Adults spend most of the time offshore in midwater and females migrate to the coastal areas to pup (Clarke 1971, Stevens and Lyle 1989). They reach a maximum size of 370–420 cm total length (TL) (Ebert et al. 2013). Males mature at 140–198 cm TL and females at 200–250 cm TL (Compagno 1984, Harry et al. 2011). Reported annual litter sizes range from 12–41, and a size at birth of 31–57 cm TL (Clarke et al. 2015, Gallagher and Klimley 2018). Based on bomb radiocarbon analyses female age-at-maturity is estimated at 13.2 years and maximum age is 35 years. Scalloped hammerheads feed on a mixture of fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods, with squid as a primary prey item (Gallagher and Klimley, 2018).

Status

Two distinct population segments (DPS) have been identified in the Pacific Ocean, the Eastern Pacific DPS and the Indo-West Pacific DPS. While the IUCN redlist classifies this species as critically endangered (“CR”) with a decreasing trend throughout its range (Rigby et al 2019), the U.S.A. lists the Eastern Pacific PDS as endangered and the Indo-Pacific DPS as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (79 FR 38213, July 3, 2014).

Systematic monitoring of population abundance does not exist for any of the scalloped hammerhead DPSs. Data from shark deterrent programs, diver and fishermen surveys, and catch per unit effort (CPUE) from fisheries-dependent monitoring are used to track population trends.

Eastern Pacific DPS

Based on diver observations collected from January 1993 to December 2013 in Cocos Island, Costa Rica, scalloped hammerhead relative abundance declined 45% during the period (White et al. 2015). Although dives were not entirely standardized (e.g., there was no defined field of view), the protocols were consistent throughout the study, with respect to dive depths and times and data recording (White et al. 2015). Peñaherra-Palma et al. (2018) used divers’ perceptions about changes in relative abundance of

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 84 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

sharks in the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). Based on divers’ categorical trend scores and percentage of abundance change from the 1980s through the early 2010s, the authors concluded that the divers perceived a 50% decline in hammerhead shark abundance across the three decades.

Management

Since 2013 S. lewini and two other hammerhead shark species are included in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), to monitor and limit trade (exports are be accompanied by permits based on findings that parts are sourced from legal and sustainable fisheries). Mexico is party to CITES and officially co-sponsored the CITES trade proposal on hammerheads. Since 2014, S. lewini was listed on Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The species is also covered by the CMS Memorandum of Understanding for Migratory Sharks, which is aimed at facilitating conservation. Worldwide, proposals by IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission) and other regional fisheries management bodies (ICCAT, WCPFC, IOTC) to ban hammerhead landings or set regional fishing limits, based on scientific advice, have so far been defeated or have not yet been adopted (Rigby et la, 2018). To date, Mexico has not listed hammerheads in its critical species list (NOM-059-SEMARNAT- 2010), while environental groups have initiated legal action to obtain the NOM-059 for Sphyrna lewini and two other hammerhead species (Center for Biological Diversity, 2020).

Existing Mexican regulations do address shark-fishing (NOM-029-PESC-2006) but allow directed, indiscriminate catch of sharks, and thus do not distinguish between threatened and less-threatened shark populations. Regulations also allow sharks to be caught and killed before they breed.

The scope of NOM 029 PESC-2006 concerning sharks and rays is defined as follows:

1.1 Intended to induce sustainable use of sharks and rays, as well as contribute to the conservation and protection of elasmobranchs and other species that are caught incidentally.

1.2 This standard is mandatory for holders of permits, licenses and authorizations for directed fishing of sharks and rays, as well as for those who catch these species as bycatch.

Specific operational measures articulated in NOM-029 relevant to sharks and rays include the following possible activities and requirements:

Clause 0.20 “Due to the need that exists to verify the geographical distribution of species regulated by this standard (sharks and rays), it is necessary that permit holders for concessions and authorizations for shark fishing, as well as those that have authorization in other fisheries which by their nature may capture the species under this Standard, in an incidental manner, that carry logbooks on board their vessels to record catches of these species.

0.21 To the effect of the previous [articles], identification guides of the main species can be used, both by the fishers, as by the staff involved in logging information for fishing activities, verification, inspection and surveillance.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 85 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

4.2.1. All shark individuals must be retained on board commercial fishing vessels for full use except for the species listed in paragraph 4.2.2. The exclusive use of the fins of any shark species is prohibited. In no case shark fins can be landed whose bodies were not on board.

4.2.2. Under no circumstances is it permissible to capture and retain individuals of any of the following species: whale shark (Rhincodon typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), sawfish (Pristis perotteti, P. pectinata and P. microdon) and giant manta ray (Manta birostris, Mobula japanica, M. thurstoni, M. munkiana, M. hypostomata and Mobula tarapacana). Any organism of these species caught incidentally must be returned to the water. These species may not be retained, live, dead, whole or some of its parts and therefore may not be subject to human consumption or marketing.

4.2.3. In order to induce an optimal sustainable use, the Secretariat, in accordance with information from the National Fisheries Charter and / or studies that exist and are validated by the National Institute of Fisheries and establish periods closed areas to catch sharks and rays, during major periods of reproduction, birth and growth of new generations of these species by the method established in Mexican Official Standard NOM-009-PESC-1993.

The Secretariat in accordance with the results of the studies conducted, will announce well in advance the start and end dates of the closures, based on the procedure established in the Mexican Official Standard NOM-009-PESC-1993 through notices to be published in the Official Gazette.

4.2.4. The Secretariat will establish a national system of scientific information on sharks and rays that makes available the data for the various species of shark and ray populations to determine the population size, the size structure of the catch, the state of sexual maturity and any other biological, ecological or ecosystem parameter. This system will be fed with information from logbooks and notices of arrival as well as observers and by scientific information from research institutions performing work on the subject.

Information

Between 2015 and 2020, observers on boats of the UoA’s fishery recorded a total of 0.656 tons of Sphyrna lewini catches, of which 0.121 tons were retained, 0.535 tons were reported as brought on board and discarded alive, and none were reported as discarded dead. Retained catches occurred in the first three periods (2015-2018), while the live discards occurred in the last four periods (2016 -2020). The bulk of catches were recorded in one single period (2016-17), when discards made up 0.482 tons (= 79.6% of total catches recorded (retained plus discarded). Retained and discarded individuals varied widely in size, from embryo size (total lengths = 82 – 122 mm, n= 6) in 2016, to adults (TL = 917 mm, n=1) in 2015. No data on the shark’s sizes were published in observer reports from 2017 on, despite the fact that biological data on captured species were taken, according to the methods sections. Hammerhead sharks, and in particular Sphyrna lewini, have one of the highest at-vessel (AVM) and post-vessel mortalities (PVM) of all Elasmobranchs, independent of gear type. Many studies report 70-90% and some have recorded 100% AVM. AVM’s were averaging 62%, independent of gear type. Post-release mortality was reported to be

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 86 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

100%. Moreover, juveniles are more susceptible to fisheries-related mortality than adults (reviewed by Ellis et al, 2017).

Species – Elasmobranchs: Devil rays

Spinetail devil ray (Mobula japanica (M. mobular)) Munk’s (Pygmy) devil ray (Mobula munkiana) Bentfin devil ray (Mobula thurstoni)

Biology

Spinetail devil ray

M. japanica has recently been identified as a junior of the Giant Devil ray M. mobular. Therefore, it is now listed as M. mobular (Marshall et al, 2020). M. mobular is a large ray, with males growing to 3.10 m in length and an average width of 2.40 m. The species is assumed to have a circum-global distribution in tropical-subtropical and warm temperate waters (17.5 – 29°C), both neritic and oceanic (White et al. 2006), usually in the upper 50m but occasionally to over 1000 m in depth.

The southern Gulf of California is believed to serve as an important spring and summer mating and feeding ground for adults (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988). Pupping appears to take place offshore, Ebert (2003) suggesting around offshore islands or seamounts. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara (1988) suggested that this species may be able to tolerate lower water temperatures than other mobulids. Although it is observed in small aggregations, it is not believed to be a schooling species. Size, but not sexual, segregation has been observed within the Gulf of California, México (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988). It occurs singly or in groups and feeds on euphausiids, and to a lesser extent on copepods and larvae and small fishes. It is ovoviviparous, with embryos feeding initially on . After the egg hatches, the pup remains in the oviduct and receives nourishment from the mother by absorption of a milky secretion. The single pup is 70–85 cm in disc width at birth. Due to its low fecundity, with one pup produced every one to three years, its resilience is extremely low, with a minimal population doubling time of 13 years (Marshall et al, 2020).

The species is probably circumglobal in all temperate and tropical seas, but its distribution is not completely defined. It is a large devil ray (reaching 310 cm disc width) that is found in inshore, offshore and possibly oceanic environments. The southern Gulf of California is believed to serve as an important spring and summer mating and feeding ground for adults (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988). Pupping appears to take place offshore, Ebert (2003) suggesting around offshore islands or seamounts. Notarbartolo-di- Sciara (1988) suggested that this species may be able to tolerate lower water temperatures than other mobulids. Although it is observed in small aggregations, it is not believed to be a schooling species. Size, but not sexual, segregation has been observed within the Gulf of California, México (Notarbartolo-di- Sciara 1988).

Munks devil ray

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 87 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Mobula munkiana is the smallest species of devil rays (1.1 m width). Unlike M. japanica (M. mobular), its distribution is limited to the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) ranging from the Gulf of California to Peru, and offshore to Cocos, Malpelo and Galapagos Islands. Preferring the upper euphotic zone (0-30m) in coastal and oceanic waters, it filter-feeds on mysids, zooplankton and small schooling fish. It can be observed to leap out of the water, exhibiting diverse acrobatic maneuvers. It also can be found near the seabed. As other Mobula species, it is ovoviviparous, with a single pup being born, and thus with very low population resilience. (Marshall et al. 2019a).

Bentfin devil ray

Mobula thurstoni is a large (to 1.97 m disc width) ray that is circumglobal in temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters worldwide. It occurs in both shallow, neritic waters and in pelagic waters from the surface down to depths of 100 m. The species has one of the widest distributions of all the mobulids but populations occur most often in productive upwelling areas, but also in productive neritic waters. (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988, Gadig et al. 2003, Croll et al. 2016). The species is not considered a schooling species, but aggregate seasonally in productive areas. (Casas et al. 2006). As other Mobula species, it is ovoviviparous (aplacental viviparous), with a single pup or occasionally two pups being born, and thus with very low population resilience. (Marshall et al. 2019b).

Status

The IUCN redlist assesses the Spinetail and Munk’s devil rays as ‘EN’ (engangered) and the Bentfin devil ray as ‘VU’ (vulnerable), all with decreasing population trends.

There are no stock assessments for Mobulids, however, information on population trends is available for some species and areas based on long time series of sightings at diving sites. Devil rays are a bycatch component of many small and large-scale fisheries, with much of this catch aggregated and reported as Mobula spp. The lack of comprehensive species-specific catch, fishing effort, and population data necessitates the use of genus-wide inferences to assess population reductions. Based on a combination of declining sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) data from monitored populations, catch landings data and evidence of depletions, significant population declines have been inferred (Fernando and Stevens 2011, Couturier et al. 2012, Hall and Roman 2013, Ward-Paige et al. 2013, Lewis et al. 2015, Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). For Mobulids in general, in areas where catch data are available, population declines of 50-99% over the last three generations (38 years; from 1980-2018) have been inferred, with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056) (Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017).

Concerning M. mobular, based on actual levels of exploitation, steep declining population trends, a conservative life history, and the increasing trade demand, a global population reduction of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (38 years) is suspected, with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056). Therefore, the IUCN redlist of threatened species assesses the Spinetail devil ray as Endangered (Marshall et al, 2020).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 88 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Concerning M. munkiana, although specific data are lacking, with current and future potential levels of exploitation, it is suspected that this species has undergone a population reduction of 30–49% over the last three generations (38 years), with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056). Therefore, the IUCN redlist of threatened species has assessed the Munk’s devil ray as Vulnerable (Marshall et al. 2019a).

Available data on M. thurstoni show severe population reductions in known regional aggregation areas (including, among others, the Eastern Tropical Pacific,) with suspected local and regional declines of 50- 99% over the last three generations. Its global population is suspected to have declined by 50-79% over the same period (about 38 years), with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056). Therefore, the IUCN redlist of threatened species has assessed the Munk’s Bentfin devil ray as Endangered (Marshall et al. 2019b).

Management

Mobulids were listed in 2014 on Appendix I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and in 2016 on Appendix II of the CITES convention. Moreover, in 2015 the IATTC prohibited Mobula species from being retained and sold, mandating release. Exceptions for small-scale Eastern Pacific fisheries are meant to allow only domestic consumption. The IUCN global Devil and Manta Ray Conservation Strategy urges among others, for efforts to minimize bycatch mortality, protocols for safe release, and codes of conduct for responsible tourism, and full implementation of commitments agreed through international treaties (Lawson et al., 2017).

All three Mobula species are included since 2019 in the Mexican NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 list of protected species, being subject to special protection (“Pr” categrory)

The scope of NOM 029 PESC-2006 concerning sharks and rays, detailed in the scalloped hammerhead description above, also applies for the assessed devil ray species.

Information

Between 2015 and 2020, observers on boats of the UoA’s fishery recorded a total of 1,907 tons of Devil Ray catches, of which none were retained, 1.834 tons (= 96.17%) were reported as brought on board and discarded alive, and 0.073 tons (=3.83%) were reported as discarded dead. Live and dead discards were observed for all three species. Mobula mobular had the greatest and regular discards (1.298 tons = 68.1% of the total Devil Ray catch, between 2016 and 2020, of which 3.43% were dead), followed by M. munkiana (0.544 tons = 28.5%, between 2016 and 2020, with 1.87% dead) and M. thurstoni (0.065 tons = 3.4% in 2016-17, with 44.4% dead). In the observer reports, measures on total lengths of Mobulids were not taken in the first two years of the evaluation period and subsequently were not published from 2018 on. There was no survival for entangled Mobulid specimens. Studies on post-vessel mortality (PVM) of discarded live Devil Rays in purse seine fisheries remain rare, they have shown PVM as ‘possible’, but with insufficient sample size (n= 3 – 4) (Ellis et al, 2017). Nonetheless, estimates may be obtained from an average of other ray species. In purse seine fisheries of Menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico, of the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 89 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Elasmobranchs discarded alive, 46% died, 23% had an unknown fate, and only 31% remained healthy (De Silva et al, 2001).

Habitat Impacts

Overview

The Gulf of California has unique physical and oceanographic features and is characterized by a variety of different marine environments, from deep-water trenches and coastal and island rocky reefs to the sandy and shallow waters of the Colorado River delta. Due to its constant tidal and wind-driven upwelling systems, the Gulf is highly productive and provides 70% of Mexico’s National fisheries (Johnson et al. 2021). Over 6,000 species of fauna, with over 4,800 species, have been registered in the Gulf (Garcia and Gastelum, 2015). To protect the diverse marine communities and ecosystems the Mexican government has established protected areas for the Islas Marias and Isla Isabel located off the coast of Nayarit (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Map of Protected Areas in the Gulf of California (CINAMP, 2021)

The Gulf of California between the Baja California peninsula and the Mexican Mainland is an area of outstanding marine diversity, productivity, and economic importance. Nearly 900 species of fish are endemic to the Gulf, comprising 39% of the world’s total number of species of marine mammals and a third of the world’s marine cetacean species. Many fish species rely on different habitats during their life- cycle stages. Juveniles often confine themselves to structurally complex habitats where they can find

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 90 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

shelter and feed, moving further offshore when they are large enough to evade common predations. The knotted, complex roots systems of mangrove forests provide sanctuary for the juveniles of many commercial species, which migrate to rocky reefs during their adult lives.

With respect to the marine habitats of Sinaloa and Nayarit within the UoA, sand, silt, and submerged rocky reefs and outcrops with varying relief dominate of the area. With respect to rocky substrate, many of these reefs occur from the surface down to 200 m, many at depths where light can penetrate and photosynthesis can occur. They provide solid 3-dimensional structure to what may otherwise be a 2- dimentional, sedimentary seafloor environment. Coastal intertidal zones are dominated by mangroves. Sargassum, a brown algae, is often found floating in shallow areas. Johnson et al. (2021) did not map any seamounts or coral communities within the UoA. There are also considerable areas of sand and silt (Jacob Cervantes et al., 2015).

Sensitive and Protected Areas

Discussion with the client indicated that key sensitive and protected areas in the Gulf of California do not occur within the range of the Sinaloa & Nayarit fleet. Furthermore, several gaps between conservation objectives and designation of protected areas have been identified (Ulloa et al 2006) Protected areas are established as zones of multiple use Mexico, with approximately only 5 to 11% of their area restricted to commercial fishing (Bourillón and Torre 2012).

Information based on species, habitat, ecosystems and biophysical process was evaluated and used to propose 54 conservation priority areas in the Gulf of California and the west coast of southern Baja California. Two of these 54 conservation priority areas are located in the coastal areas off Nayarit and Sinaloa. These areas include sandy sand, wetlands, AIB of marine invertebrates, mangroves and complex bottom substrates which are important for primary productivity and recruitment zones for sardines and other commercial fish species (Ulloa et al. 2006). The eastern side of the Gulf of California is covered by extensive mangroves found inside coastal lagoons, numerous marine species use of the edge of mangroves as nursery and feeding grounds (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008).

Gear Impacts

The fleet is assumed to operate in mid-water and therefore has been believed to have minimal impacts, causing little or no damage to biogenic habitats. Information gathered from the onboard observer program and VMS data shows that fishing activities take place very close to shore (Figure 12), with records from the observer data with a distance from shore as low as 0.25 mn. In zones III and IV where fishing occurs in shallowest waters and closest to shore, 13.5% of observed sets for the Mazatlán-based fleet occurred in 0-5 fathoms (0-9.14 meters) (Figure 14). Given the characteristics of the fishing nets that range from 30 to 60 meters (16.4 to 32 fathoms) in length, it is likely that at these shallow depths the net comes into contact with the benthic substrate. Catches also include benthic species including white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), Jaiba Callinectes spp. and the longtail stingray ( longus), a species associated with demersal fisheries in the region, which also indicates that nets are likely to be interacting with the bottom substrate.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 91 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 12. Sample from VMS track of vessels in the small pelagics fleet based in Mazatlan. Source: Maz Sardina

The interaction with the bottom may result in damage of benthic structure and communities. The distribution of sediments in the platform of the central Pacific ocean in front of the coasts of Nayarit show a pattern were the coarser and more sandy substrates are found closer inshore, while the exterior section of the platform are covered in silt and clay (Figure 13). Research carried out in 2004 by CRIP with Support from SAGARPA-CONACYT evaluated the impact of bottom trawlers from the shrimp and demersal finfish fisheries in the bottom substrates in the Gulf of California. Despite the changes in sediment structure as a result of the suspension and redisposition of organic matter, the study did not find significant changes in benthic communities affected by bottom trawls (López-Martínez et al. 2010). The study suggested that this was due to the high energy process in this area where benthic communities are capable of absorbing the impact of the bottom trawls (Sanchez et al 2009). There is no documented evidence that this purse seining or purse seine fishing elsewhere, even when touching bottom, has had irreversible effects on marine habitats. Geographic location of sets obtained from the Observers Program was overlaid with habitat maps of substrate types (Figure 13). The findings indicate that in the northern state of Sinaloa fishing occurs in areas dominated by sandy substrates, in the central area the fishery operates on sediment dominated by clay and silt fractions, and in the southern section of Sinaloa and the northern state Nayarit most of the hauls were in sandy and silt substrates (Jacob Cervantes et al. 2015d). The 2021 research by Johnson et al. highlights the extent of rocky substrate present in the UoA.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 92 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 13. Spatial distribution of the sediment types in relation to fishing intensity from 2012 to 2014. Sediment types include Arena (Sand, blue dotted), Roca (Rock, black), Arena-Grava (Sand-Gravel, orange), Limo-Arena (Silt-Sand, green dotted), Limo-Arcilla (Silt-Clay, grey dotted) and Lances (Sets). (Jacob Cervantes et al., 2015).

Nearshore mangrove habitat in the Sinaloa and Nayarit coastlines is an important nursery and recruitment zone for marine species (Johnson at al. 2021). Impacts of purse seine gear on nursery habitats are not well understood as there is no size data for bycatch species. Research on bycatch composition of shrimp bottom trawlers in the Gulf of California indicates that a high percentage of bycatch species in this fishery are captured at small sizes (Acevedo-Cervantes et al. 2012).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 93 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 14: Observed sets at depths >5 fathoms (black) and <5 fathoms (grey) for the UoA's 2019-2020 fishing season

Information from interviews performed during the 2016 assessment indicated that bottom contact should be avoided as the damage to the fishing gear can be substantial. NOM-003 does not prohibit inshore fishing in areas < 5 fathoms. In contrast, NOM-002 prohibits shrimp trawls from operating in areas 0-5 fathoms in depth, with the intent of protecting populations of inshore benthic juvenile finfish and crustaceans. The observer program report for 2019-2020 shows that 13.5% of sets happen in areas < 5 fathoms and that currently there is no zoning or depth regulation for the purse seine fleet (Figure 14).

Ecosystem Impacts

Trophic Relationships

As explained by Cury et al. (2000), most large marine ecosystems, such as the Gulf of California contain (1) a very large number of species at the lower (e.g., planktonic) trophic levels, (2) a large number of species (e.g., predatory fishes, elasmobranchs, large coelenterates, seabirds, marine mammals, etc.) that, as adults at least, feed at the top level, and (3) a few but crucial intermediate small, plankton-feeding pelagic fish species, like sardines, anchovies and thread herring. These plankton-feeding pelagic fish species transfer energy from the lower to the higher trophic levels (Bakun et al. 2009; Cury et al. 2000). In the Gulf of California ecosystem, high primary productivity due to year-round nutrient availability regulated by tidal mixing, coastal upwelling and complex eddy structures (e.g., Lluch-Cota et al. 2011, Mercado-Sanana et al 2017) supports a number of lower trophic level small pelagic species exploited by fisheries (Del Monte et al 2011; DOF 2012) through which energy is transmitted to higher trophic levels. The small-pelagic fish productivity in the Gulf of California is also affected by climate variations, in particular the El Nino Southern Oscillation with concomitant effects on fisheries, fishing pressure on the stocks and on predators of these species (e.g. Velarde et al, 2004; Giron-Nava et al 2021).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 94 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Ecosystem interactions relevant to the Gulf of California small pelagics fisheries include thus impacts of the removal of low trophic level fish biomass on the structure and function of the Gulf of California Ecosystem. Removing lower trophic-level species has the potential to impact the dynamics and abundance of their predator populations (Cury et al. 2000). Until recently, research has focused on the central Gulf of California system, where the Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) and the Pacific anchoveta (Cetengraulis mysticetus) play an important role in structuring the ecosystem and has been recognized to support higher-level predators in in competition with fisheries (e.g. Morales Zarate et al, 2004; Velarde et al, 2015; Hernandez-Padilla et al., 2017; Arreguin-Sanchez et al, 2021).

In the southern Gulf of California, the thread herring species stand out as a major part of the small-pelagics fishery, yet understanding of ecosystem as well as fish population dynamics in that part of the Gulf has been lagging behind that of the Central/Northern Gulf. Overall, few published studies have focused on thread herring (Opisthonema spp.) and Pacific anchoveta [Bocona sardine] (Cetengraulis mysticetus) prey in the Southern Gulf of California. Jacob- Cervantes et al (2015) indicate that large pelagic predators in this ecosystem have a broad diet that includes other small pelagic species, including the South American pilchard or Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), as well as mollusks and cephalopods. Nevertheless, Opisthonema spp. were an important item in the diets of blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxii), contributing 37.1% of its diet (Jacob Cervantes et al. 2015). While the bocona sardine is considered a main retained species, it is also an important prey component in the diet of royal tern (Thalasseus maximus). Velarde et al. (1994) found that a change in prey stock abundance may result in a change in diet of other seabirds feeding on small pelagic fishes (Heermann’s gull – Larus heermanni and Elegant tern – Thalasseus elegans). These seabird populations may be sustained, in case of decline of their preferred prey species, by adjusting their diet to temporarily more abundant species, or by searching for food elsewhere (Velade et al. 2015). On the long term those populations may permanently shift their ranges, as is currently being observed for the California brown pelican (Anderson et al. 2017).

Moreover, the shifting diet and decrease in nesting success of these and other seabirds associated with the small pelagics fisheries in the Gulf of California have been identified as early warning indicators of fishery declines (Velarde et al. 2013). Likewise, the Bryde`s whales (Balaenoptera edeni) in the Gulf of California feed mainly on Pacific sardines and thread herring (Urbán-Ramirez and Flores 1996). Salvadeo et al. (2011) found a strong relationship between the abundances of these whales and the amount of sardine capture in the Gulf of California that both coincided with El Niño events.

Scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) in the Gulf of California feed on dart squids and bony fishes (, Gerreidae, Scombridae, Clupeidae). It is an opportunistic predator, type and amount consumed is determined by prey abundance and availability (Torres-Rojas et al. 2006, 2014). A risk of competition for prey between the UoA fishery and S. lewini exists, as the fishery targets and/or retains clupeids (e.g. Opisthonema spp., Etremeus teres), Carangids (Trachurus symetricus) and Scombrids (Scomber japonicus).

In summary, most species studied that prey on thread herring are sufficiently flexible predators and can also feed on a variety of other species. Nevertheless, while the small-pelagics fisheries in the Southern

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 95 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Gulf of California do not immediately seem to affect the structure and function of the relationships between some predator species in the ecosystem, others react to prey shortages (e.g. El Niño events) by migrating elsewhere, with potential long-term consequences on the pelagic ecosystem status and dynamics.

Ecological Models and Management

There are a number of ecological models used to study the trophic dynamics of small pelagics in the Gulf of California (Arreguín-Sánchez & Calderón-Aguilera 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez & Martínez-Aguilar 2004; Rosas-Ruíz et al. 2008; Lercari 2006; Morales-Zarate et al. 2004). Morales-Zarate et al (2004) used 29 functional groups in Ecopath and Ecosim models to study the trophic structure of the Pacific sardine in the north Gulf of California, concluding that predation and competition had a higher impact than fishing activities. Del Monte-Luna et al. (2011) conclude that the documented scientific evidence “supports the notion that the small pelagics fishery in the Gulf of California does not measurably affect the physical habitat or the functional relationships between the species comprising the pelagic ecosystem”. However, the majority of these studies have focused on the northern part of the Gulf and on Pacific Sardine (Sardinpos sagax) as it is frequently the most exploited species in the Gulf of California.

Hernández-Padilla et al. (2017) used an Ecopath model to study the role of one thread herring species (Opisthonema libertate) and the bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus) in the structure, organization and functioning in the southern gulf of California with 39 functional groups (21 fish, mostly families and including the aforementioned two species, 12 invertebrates, 2 primary producers and one for birds, sea turtles, zooplankton and detritus each). The findings indicate that both species contribute highly to the maintenance of the structure and organization of the ecosystem, indicating their particular importance for energy transfer through the food web, which take part in a bottom-up energy flow control in the food web. The authors suggest that an adaptable strategy might help preventing negative effects on the sustainability of the Southern Gulf of California ecosystem. permissible harvest rates for these species. The results from this model point out the importance of disaggregating small pelagic species (Arreguín- Sánchez et al. 2017) and that special consideration should be given to include more major predators for the respective species.

More recently, Arreguin Sanchez and coworkers have attempted to answer the question on “How much biomass must remain in the sea after fishing in order to maintain the functions in the ecosystem“ (Arreguin Sanchez et al. 2021). Their original concept of the Noxicline (Arreguin-Sanchez et al, 2017) was recently developed for the Southern Gulf of California through an enlarged Ecopath model with 90 functional groups including Clupeidae, Opisthonema spp. and Engraulidae and an increased list of major predators (Arreguin-Sanchez and Rodriguez-Vite, 2020). Based on the entropy concept (the ecosystems gain entropy when biomass is extracted), at a certain limit of extraction, through the rise of entropy, the system will lose its resilience and sustainability, perturbing ecosystem functioning and organization. The authors applied increasing levels of fisheries extraction in proportion to the existing biomass (harvest rate) for the three groups of exploited species to the model to obtain their critical inflection point (i.e. Noxicline). While the authors obtained a maximum theoretical limit harvest rate of Opisthonema spp of 41%, they caution that they must be reduced in practice through application of precautionary principles: factors such as

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 96 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

external input variates (climate, fisheries, contamination), climate change which affects the entire ecosystem, and dynamic instead of deterministic (Ecopath) modeling will induce variability which need to be taken into account (Arreguin-Sanchez and Rodriguez-Vite, 2020).

Current estimates of biomass and exploitation levels of the thread herring resource, based on models using fishery data (catch-MSY models), show levels of Biomass decline of Opisthonema spp. over the last decades, suggesting that this resource is currently ‘at the point of full exploitation’ (Ruiz-Dominguez, 2019). The result is in accordance with data presented in a draft of an improved management plan for the Gulf of California small-pelagics fisheries (Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, 2020). These results must be examined to take into account guiding principles for ecosystem management based on maintenance of forage fish biomass above a limit reference level that sustains pelagic marine ecosystems (e.g. Cury et al, 2011). The authors emphasize the need for applying suitable precautionary management measures that account for ecosystem effects of the fisheries in the development of an improved management plan.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 97 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence 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? NA NA NA

Rationale

Per SA3.2.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. As there are no main or minor primary species that interact with this UoA, it is presumed that SG 100 would be met because there is no impact on primary species.

b Minor primary species stock status

Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI.

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? NA

Rationale

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 98 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Per SA3.2.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), if a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI. As there are no main or minor primary species that interact with this UoA, it is presumed that SG 100 would be met because there is no impact on primary species.

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 99 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 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 measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post 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 be above which are highly likely to be the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? NA NA No

Rationale

According to GSA3.5.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), as there is no (or negligible) impact on this component, scoring issue (a) does not need to be scored for SG60 and SG80. Given that only the most commercially important species are actively managed in Mexico, none of these species interact with the artisanal shrimp fishery and noting the “if necessary” part of the SG60 and SG 80 scoring levels, it is expected that SG 80 would be met for this fishing gear. For SG100 to be met, a strategy would be needed specific to the primary species component (Table SA8 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01). There is no strategy focused on possible impacts on primary species. Therefore, SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the fishery similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

See SIa. According to GSA3.5.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), and the intent of the MSC1, SG 60 and 80 are automatically met as there are no main or minor primary species, and the ‘if necessary’ clause applies to scoring

1 Although it is not specified in the requirements, the MSC’s intent is that the ‘if necessary’ in scoring issue (a) also pertains to scoring issues (b) and (c). If the fishery does not need to have measures or partial strategy because there is no or negligible impact on Primary, Secondary, Habitats or Ecosystem components, it would meet at least the SG80 level in scoring issues a-c. However, additional scoring issues like shark finning, unwanted catch or compliance with management requirements for VMEs would still need to be scored at all levels if they apply (the shark finning scoring issue is only scored if there is a secondary species that is a shark, as indicated by the curly brackets and confirmed in the guidance). https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2-PI-2-1-2- 1527262011402

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 100 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

issue b. The SG80 level is met. There is no evidence that there is ‘testing’ in place for the UoA that would support an SG100 score.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? NA No

Rationale

See SIa. According to GSA3.5.1(MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), and the intent of the MSC, SG 60 and 80 are automatically met as there are no main or minor primary species, and the ‘if necessary’ clause applies to scoring issue c. There is no clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a) and therefor SG100 is not met for either UoA.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No primary species are sharks and this SI is not scored (SA3.5.1 MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01)

e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post 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? NA NA NA

Rationale

The alternative measures SI does not apply per SA3.2.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01) and the intent of the MSC2 References

2 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2- 5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 101 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 102 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post 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 of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

There are no main primary species in the UoA. Per SA3.3.1 (MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01), the information PI shall still be scored at the SG100 level despite the team determining that the UoA has no impact on a particular component.

The UoA collects information from three sources that supports management decisions:

. The observer program: For the last 5 years observer coverage has averaged 38.41% with the FIDEMAR program operating with four observers. . Port observations: Port observations have increased to 25%. FIDEMAR provides 1 observer to this program. . Logbooks: All vessels are required to keep logbooks and the information is summarized yearly in reports provided by the client.

There is evidence of continuous training and improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program and development of additional data collection systems (port observers, and logbooks). These measures contribute to a partial management strategy that provides regular and broad types of information. Taken together, the fishery’s development of multiple bycatch data collection systems, increasing coverage of these systems, and data analysis methods and capacity is evidence that the components of a partial management strategy is being developed and implemented by fishery managers. The following table demonstrates that the level of observer coverage since the 2016 full assessment has been increased.

Season Total trips Observer trips Coverage (%) 2015/16 383 106 27.7 2016/17 532 117 22

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 103 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

2017/18 533 236 44.3 2018/19 552 318 58 2019/20 292 118 40.4

The NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 defines bycatch limits therefore fulfilling the need for the aforementioned information collection system/strategy. What the UoA lacks, however, is a data quality control system that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling) for authentication and accuracy. As discrepancies were identified by the assessment team concerning the proper identification of some bycatch species. For this reason the quantitative information available is not adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status and SG100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Yes

Rationale

The UoA does not impact primary minor species. The bycatch data collection system detailed in SI(a) provides some quantitative information that is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status, and the SG100 level is met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

No main primary species were identified for the UoA. However, the ongoing collection of observer, logbook, and port data, driven by Mexican legislation (NOM-003) at the current levels is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. Because it is unclear the level of coordination between these three data collection systems and the lack of a data control system does not allow the assessment team to determine that there is a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, SG60 and 80 are met, but SG100 is not met.

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 104 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 105 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such rebuilding. 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 have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? All species: Yes All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

According to data provided by the client, seabirds (out-of-scope species) are the UoA’s only secondary main species.

Magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) The IUCN Red List considers the species’ population trend in the Americas to be decreasing and lists it as Least Concern. The Red List estimates the population size to be 130,000 mature individuals while experiencing a moderate decline. The species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the Red List’s range size criterion. It has maintained its Least Concern category since 2004. Between the years 2015-2020, the UoAs observer program noted 49,285 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for every year of the fishing season.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 106 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Observer coverage averaged 38.41% from 2015-2020, meaning that there could be an estimated 140,000 sightings/interactions of/with this species per year in the UoA. Though no injuries or deaths were recorded by observers, it is reasonable to assume that given the number of observed interactions, there could some deaths/injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities.

Birdlife International (2021a) notes that 90% of the world’s population of magnificent frigatebirds breeds on Isla Rasa, Mexico and that climatic events and local anthropogenic changes pose the greatest threats to the species. The island is protected under the Executive Order that established a refuge and reserve zone for migratory birds and wildlife for inlands within the Gulf of California (DOF 1978).

BirdLife International in its 2019 position paper on threshold criteria for seabird bycatch suggests the following equation be used when determining threshold values for assessing Member States’ Good Environmental Status (GES). The threshold, Birdlife advises, is only a way of assessing member states’ achievement of GES and should not be used as a minimum trigger for managing the impact of fisheries and other human activities on seabirds (BirdLife International 2019). It does, however, serve as a tool for evaluating fisheries related impacts. The threshold mortality rate from incidental catch should be 1% of natural annual adult mortality for a species. For the magnificent frigatebird, it could be determined via the following procedure: . 130,000 (adult population) . 5% natural adult mortality = 6,750 birds . 1% threshold for incidental catch: 68 birds

Though the population trend in the Americas is declining, there are measures in place by the UoA, provided to the assessment team by the client, that mitigate seabird interactions. These include the use of water curtains, horns, safety bars around winches, and crew use of rain jackets to startle birds. The effectiveness of their use is noted in the observer data that does not show any mortality of this species. The mitigation measures, together with the Mexican government’s protection of the species’ critical breeding site, form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits given its declining population trend, and it does not meet SG100.

Laughing gull (Leucophaeus atricilla) The IUCN Red List considers its population trend to be increasing and lists it as Least Concern. The Red List does not estimate its population but notes that This species has undergone a large and statistically significant increase over the last 40 years in North America (344% increase over 40 years, equating to a 45.2% increase per decade (Butcher and Niven 2007).

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoA’s observer program listed the species as Larus atricilla, and Leucophaeus atricilla. The total of L. atricilla over the 5-year period was 35,586 observations. A mean observer coverage of 38,5% equates to an estimate of 92,431 of possible observed individuals in the UoA or 18,486 individuals per year.

The species’ population trend throughout much of North American, Central America, the Caribbean, and northern South America, the mitigation measures, and no recorded deaths or injuries together form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits because of the possibility that the UoA ‘s activites result in deaths and the lack of population estimates, and it does not meet SG100.

Heermann's gull (Larus heermanni) The IUCN Red List considers its population trend in along the Pacific coast of Mexico and the United States to be unknown and lists it as Near Threatened. The Red List estimates the population size to be 350,000 mature

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 107 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

individuals. The species is considered Near Threatened as it has a restricted breeding range, with 90% of the world population breeding on the island of Isla Rasa, Mexico.

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 25,869 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries, meaning that there could be an estimated 75,000 sightings/interactions of/with this species per year in the UoA given the observer coverage. Observed individuals were noted for every year except the 2017-2018 fishing season. Though no injuries or deaths were recorded by observers, it can be assumed that given the number of observed interactions, there could some deaths/injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities.

Like the magnificent frigatebird, Birdlife International (2021b) notes that 90% of the world’s population of heermann’s gull breeds on Isla Rasa, Mexico and that climatic events and local anthropogenic changes should be monitored as they pose the greatest threats to the species. The island is protected under the Executive Order that established a refuge and reserve zone for migratory birds and wildlife for inlands within the Gulf of California (DOF 1978).

Using BirdLife International’s 2019 bycatch threshold criteria to determine Good Environmental Status based on a population of 350,000 mature individuals, the 1% threshold for incidental catch could be 175 individuals.

Considering that the population trend in the Americas is unknown, there are measures in place by the UoA, provided to the assessment team by the client, that mitigate seabird interactions as described above. The mitigation measures, together with the Mexican government’s protection of the species’ critical breeding site, form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits because of its population trend uncertainties, and it does not meet SG100.

Gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) The IUCN Red List considers its global population trend to be decreasing and lists it as least concern. The Red List estimates the population size to be 150,000-420,000 individuals. The species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. The population is however suspected to be in decline owing to habitat loss and degradation in the core of its range (Bird Life International 2021d).

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 65 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for the 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 fishing seasons. The total UoA estimate for sightings of this species could be about 180.

Given the species’ global population and the data available to the assessment team, it is not possible to estimate the population more precisely within the Eastern Pacific. The mitigation measures, the low instances of species interactions, and no recorded deaths or injuries together form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits because of its decreasing population trend, and it does not meet SG100.

Brown booby (Sula leucogaster) The IUCN Red List considers its global population trend to be decreasing and lists it as least concern, a category it has held since 2004. The global population, according to the Red List, is estimated to number >200,000 individuals. The species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion. Even though the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (Bird Life International 2021e).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 108 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 1753 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for reviewed fishing seasons. Given the species’ global population and the data available to the assessment team, it is not possible to estimate the population more precisely within the Eastern Pacific and an estimate of BirdLife International’s 2019 bycatch threshold would not provide the assessment team with relevant information for its assessment of this UoA’s impacts.

Similar to the assessment team’s rationale for the gull-billed tern, the UoA’s mitigation measures, the low instances of species interactions, and no recorded deaths or injuries together form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits because of its decreasing population trend, and it does not meet SG100.

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) The IUCN Red List considers its North American population trend to be increasing and lists it as least concern. According to the Red List, the overall population trend is increasing over the last 30-years, although some populations may be stable, and others have unknown trends. The species’ southwestern population, which includes northwestern Mexico, is estimated to be between 90,000-179,000 individuals (Wetlands International 2006).

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 10 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries. Observed individuals were noted for the 2017-2018 fishing season only.

Using BirdLife International’s 2019 bycatch threshold criteria to determine Good Environmental Status based on the southwestern population of 90,000 mature individuals, the 1% threshold for incidental catch could be 45 individuals.

As with other seabird species assessed under this PI, the UoA’s mitigation measures, the low instances of species interactions, and no recorded deaths or injuries together form a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the species, therefore meeting SG60 and SG80. There is not a high degree of certainty that the species is above biologically based limits because of its decreasing population trend, and it does not meet SG100.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guide Minor secondary species are post highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? All species: No

Rationale

The team adopted an all or none approach to assessing secondary minor species. According to data from the client’s logbooks, there are over 50 species classified as secondary minor in this UoA and all are taken at low levels. These include three small pelagic species that contribute the highest percentages to the UoA’s total catch. These were the Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) that represents 0.77% of the catch, chub

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 109 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

mackerel (Scomber japonicus) representing 0.69%, and bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus) making up 0.45% of the total UoA catch. The NOM-003 defines passive management regulations for these species which in part regulate the permissible percentage of total bycatch by the UoA. For nearly all other secondary minor species their status and productivity is not well known, and the impact of the fishery upon the bycatch species is not well understood. Therefore, the assessment team concludes that evidence has not been provided that all minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits and SG100 is not met.

The Pacific cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri), according to the IUCN Red List, is Near Threatened with a decreasing population trend in coastal Mexican, Central American, Colombian, Ecuadorian, and southern Peruvian waters. According to the species’ Red List population description, its numbers were relatively stable in the Gulf of California and along the West coast of the Baja Penninsula over the past 20-25 years. Intense fishing pressure further south throughout its range is, however, driving population decline.

The observed retained and discarded (dead) catch in the UoA was 1.97 t from 2015-2020. For the same time frame 2.25 t were released alive. Considering the percentage of observer coverage over these years, the UoA’s estimated retained and discarded (dead) catch was around 6 t.

While the northern portion of the population may be less exploited than the southern portion, the overall population’s declining trend and UoA impacts mean that it is not highly likely to be above biologically based limits and SG100 is not met.

References

Bird Life International. 2019. Birdlife International 2021b Bird Life International 2021d Butcher and Niven 2007 Wetlands International 2006

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.2.1 Element Scoring Calculation Element SI a SI b Element PI score score

Magnificent frigatebird 80 N/A 80

Laughing gull 80 N/A 80 80

Gull-billed tern 80 N/A 80

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 110 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Brown booby 80 N/A 80

Double-crested cormorant 80 N/A 80

Pacific jack mackerel N/A No 80

Chub mackerel N/A No 80

Bocona sardine N/A No 80

Pacific cownose ray N/A No 80

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 111 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain 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

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which to be above biologically are highly likely to be above based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to that the UoA does not ensure that the UoA does hinder their recovery. not hinder their recovery. Met? All seabird species: Yes All seabird species: Yes All seabird species: No All secondary minor species: No Rationale

The NOM-003 (sections 4.13.5.1–4.13.5.5) sets bycatch limits for individual groups of organisms including small pelagics, finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, elasmobranchs, and cnidarias. The NOM also establishes the volume of the fishery’s total catch that can be composed of bycatch species (0.2 – 1.0% depending on organism class), minimum size limits for thread herring and small pelagic species included in this assessment, and the % of their catch that can be under the minimum size.

Seabirds The continual maturation of the fishery’s onboard observer program (including the percent of UoA coverage which averaged 38.41% from 2015-2020); bycatch mitigation strategies that include the use of water curtains, horns, rain jacket flapping, and bars around winches; and measures to increase survivorship of unwanted catch that is discarded all constitute a cohesive arrangement of measures, thereby forming a partial strategy to restrain impacts of the UoA on seabird species and it reaches both the SG60 and SG80 levels.

Pacific jack mackerel, chub mackerel, bocona sardine These species are subject to the NOM-003 regulations according to section 4.1. The NOM also establishes the volume of the fishery’s total catch that can be composed of bycatch species, minimum size limits for thread herring and small pelagic species included in this assessment, and the % of their catch that can be under the minimum size. There is a processing plant observer program in place that monitors bycatch percentages of the total catch and logbook data can be used to corroborate bycatch amounts of these species.

Pacific cownose ray NOM-003 section 4.13.5.4 established a bycatch limit for all elasmobranch species at 0.20% of the total catch. The UoA’s observer program and processing plant observer program both collect catch data on the species. The observer program also records fata and condition data that can be used to manage impacts.

Because the team was not presented with evidence of mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts, the team determined that the aforementioned management approach is not a strategy as the MSC defines it and the UoA and all elements do not meet SG100.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 112 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g. general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA similar UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

All species The fishery’s scientific monitoring system (observer program) operates according to a program clearly defined by its goals, methods, sampling intensity, and required information. The NOM is also a regulatory mechanism that allows management measures proposed by INAPESCA and based on information collected by the fishery’s scientific monitoring system, to be legally binding, thus demonstrating that it has an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or rules through this process. These regular and broad types of information collection systems, with appropriate samples sizes, provide reliable information that can be used by managers to support a fishery bycatch management strategy. Evidence of this is seen in the observer data and low/no UoA mortality of secondary seabird species, UoA bycatch limits, and efforts to mitigate impacts on elasmobranchs through discards (a result of the NOMs bycatch limits). Because the team was not provided with evidence of testing, the UoA meets SG60 and SG80 but not SG100.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? Yes No

Rationale

All species The client provided various documents that detailed the methods, implementation, and results of the UoA’s partial strategy to mitigate its impacts on secondary species through its various observer programs. These programs include Programa de Observadores en Planta de la Flota Sardinera del Sur del Golfo de California, Programa de Observadores a Bordo de la Flota Sardinera del Sur del Golfo de California, and Diarios de navegación. The information collected by these programs is evidence of secondary species management strategies. Furthermore, no observer recorded deaths of secondary seabird species is evidence that the measures the UoA takes to mitigate interactions with these animals are being implemented successfully, and the UoA meets SG80.

There is a lack of evidence provided to the assessment team that the UoA adheres to all of the NOM’s stipulated bycatch percentage amounts established in 4.13.5.1 – 4.13.5.5 for finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, elasmobranchs, and cnidarias. An example of this is for the 2019-2020 fishing season where data from INAPESCA showed that finfish bycatch was 1.16%, an amount that is above the permissible 0.50% This

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 113 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

demonstrates that there may be some bycatch reduction strategy implementation shortcomings, specifically for finfish. As such there is no clear evidence that the partial-strategy is being implemented successfully and therefore SG100 is not met.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Mexico banned shark finning in 2007. The national standard NOM-029-PESC-2006 (DOF, 2007) prohibits the exclusive use of fins of any shark species. Fishers cannot land shark fins whose bodies are not on board. There are no reports of finning in the onboard observer reports and processing plant observer reports that the team reviewed.

The scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) is the most prevalent shark species caught according to 2015-2020 observer reports. It has not been retained since the 2017-2018 season and individuals have been discarded alive since that time according to these reports. Similarly, the Pacific sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon longurio) is the second most encountered shark species by the UoA and has not been retained since 2015-2016 and all discards were alive for the last two fishing seasons. Additionally, there is no mention of shark filling occurring in the observer reports, nor was there evidence that it occurred in the processing plant observer reports. For these reasons, it is highly likely that sharkfinning is not taking place and SG60 and SG80 are met. Because observer coverage does not cover 100% of the fleet’s activities, there is not a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place and SG100 is not met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post 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 secondary species. of main secondary species of all secondary species, and and they are implemented they are implemented, as as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Seabirds The assessment team was provided with evidence that the effectiveness of seabird interaction mitigation methods is regularly reviewed. Evolving strategies to achieve this objective have been implemented as a result of this process. Examples of this include the development of winch guards to deter perched birds from being drawn into moving gear parts when cables are retracted. Crew has also developed and disseminated the technique of flapping/waving colourful rain coats as an effective way of scaring birds out of the net before it is closed. INAPESCA also compiled and reviews the annual observer data and disseminates extensive reports with detailed analysis of seabird bycatch. This regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species meets SG60 and SG80.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 114 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

While there are ongoing observer trainings and the UoA produces instruction manuals, the assessment team was not provided with evidence of a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of seabirds and SG100 is not met.

Secondary minor species As these elements are only scored at the SG100 level, the same rational at the one the team wrote for seabirds applies to these species as the UoA did not demonstrate the existence of a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of secondary minor species and therefore SG100 is not met References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 115 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the respect to status. secondary species with 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 adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Seabirds The FIDEMAR onboard observer program (38.5% coverage for the last five years) records seabird species observations, interactions, and deaths by fishing zones. While not directly related to seabird species, the processing plant observer program (25% coverage), and the UoA logbooks also produce information on bycatch amounts. The extensive annual reports that the programs produce are evidence that some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species and the UoA meets SG60 and SG80. Since seabird interactions will not be recorded by the processing plant observers the need for a data quality control system that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools, like the one mentioned in 2.1.3, is not needed to the extent that it is for Primary Species, and therefore the team agrees that the available information is sufficient to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status and the UoA meets SG100.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? Yes

Rationale

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 116 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Data for all non-target species that interact with the UoA are collected though the FIDEMAR observer program, which maintains 38.41% UoA coverage. Additional information, in the form of landings at the processing plant and logbook data provide CPUE data for all landed species. Together, these programs provide some quantitative information adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status and SG100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

All species Information via the onboard and processing plant observer programs and logbook data is collected by the UoA to support the NOM-003’s regulations for bycatch amounts. More specifically, information on number of retained organisms and volume is currently sufficient to support the strategy for permissible amounts of bycatch landings for individual groups of organisms including small pelagics, finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, elasmobranchs, and cnidarias as outlined in NOM-003 (sections 4.13.5.1–4.13.5.5) and the UoA’s Mitigation Measures Protocol. The assessment team was presented with analyzed data sets by INAPESCA and FIDEMAR where secondary species catch was quantified and compared to the NOM’s permissible amounts. Therefore, the assessment team concludes that this information is adequate to support a strategy to manage main secondary species and SG60 and SG80 are both met. Since many secondary minor species lack even basic biological information, let along stock assessments, the information produced by FIDEMAR is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, and SG100 is not met. References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 117 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of population/ stock are known UoAs on the population certainty that the combined and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. likely to be within these within these limits. limits. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no national or international requirements that set limits for the ETP species that interact with this fishery. Per SA3.10.1.1 (MSC standard v2.01) this SI is not scored. b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of post UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? All species: Yes All species: Yes All species: No

Sea bird species California brown pelican - Pelecanus occidentalis Observer coverage in the UoA averaged 38.41% from 2015-2020 with a total of 64,394 Brown pelicans observed. There thus could be an estimate of at least 167,600 sightings/interactions of/with this species over five years (on average 33,520 interactions per year) in the UoA. Six deaths were recorded by observers, giving an estimated minimum of 16 dead birds over the five-year period (on average 3.2 deaths per year). It is reasonable to assume that given the number of observed interactions, there could also be unobserved injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities, potentially leading to unobserved offsite deaths, and death from stress to individuals attempting to avoid fishing gear.

BirdLife International in its 2019 position paper on threshold criteria for seabird bycatch suggests the following equation be used when determining threshold values for assessing Member States’ Good Environmental Status (GES). The threshold, Birdlife advises, is only a way of assessing member states’ achievement of GES and should not be used as a minimum trigger for managing the impact of fisheries and other human activities on seabirds (BirdLife International 2019). It does, however, serve as a tool for evaluating fisheries related impacts. The threshold mortality rate from incidental catch (observed and unobserved mortalities) should be 1% of natural annual adult mortality for a species.

For the California brown pelican (the subspecies population present in the fishing zone), it could be determined via the following procedure: . 140,000 (minimum adult meta-population)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 118 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

. 5% natural adult annual mortality = 7,000 birds . 1% threshold for annual incidental catch: 70 birds . Observed annual incidental mortalities are estimated to be 3 birds per year. . In addition, unobserved annual mortalities can be estimated from the average annual number of birds observed (33,520), applying BirdLife’s 5% and 1% rules, respectively: . 1676 bird deaths due to natural mortality, . 17 unobserved bird deaths due to fishing gear interactions . Total (observed + unobserved mortalities): 20 bird deaths per year, making up 28,6% of BirdLife’s estimated threshold for incidental catch.

Given the California metapopulation is deemed to fluctuate, its IUCN status is Least Concern, the UoA’s known direct effects are likely to not hinder recovery of the species and it meets SG60. Because the annual number of deaths/injured individuals estimated for the UoA is below the BirdLife’s 1% threshold, and represents 0.03% of the estimated adult metapopulation, it is highly likely that the UoA does not hinder the species’ recovery and SG80 is met. However, due to the fact that estimated incidental mortalities make up 28.6% of BirdLife’s threshold for incidental catch, that a majority of the metapoluation breeds in the Gulf of California and adjacent waters where UoA is operating, and that the species is listed as a threatened species in Mexico (NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010), with continued reported human, fishing and climate effects and concerns about recruitment, there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on this species. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Elegant tern - Thalasseus elegans Observer coverage in the UoA was 44.3% in 2017-18 with a total of 77 Elegant terns observed. There thus could have been an estimated 174 sightings/interactions of/with this species in the UoA during that season. No deaths or injuries were reported. It is possible that there could also be unobserved injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities, potentially leading to unobserved offsite deaths.

Similar to Heerman’s gulls, Birdlife International (2020) notes that 95% of the entire population of Elegant terns breed on Isla Rasa, Mexico and that climatic events, fishing activities (overfishing of prey) and human disturbance produce large population fluctuations should be monitored as they pose the greatest threats to the species. The island is protected under the Executive Order that established a refuge and reserve zone for migratory birds and wildlife for inlands within the Gulf of California (DOF 1978).

Applying the threshold values proposed by Birdlife International (2019), the threshold mortality rate from incidental catch (observed and unobserved mortalities) should be 1% of natural annual adult mortality for a species.

For the Elegant tern it could be determined via the following procedure: . 51,000 – 90,000 (estimated population size) . 5% natural adult annual mortality = 2,550 to 4,500 birds . 1% threshold for annual incidental catch: 25 to 45 birds . There were no annual incidental mortalities observed. . Unobserved annual mortalities as low as 2 birds per year (1% of 174 estimated annual interactions) represent 8% of the lower incidental catch death threshold of 25 birds.

Given the low level of sightings/interactions, the UoA’s known direct effects are likely to not hinder recovery of the species and it meets SG60. Because the annual number of deaths/injured individuals estimated for the UoA has been very low (<1 bird/year), it is highly likely that the UoA does not hinder the species’ recovery and SG80 is met.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 119 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Because total annual mortalities are estimated to be 8% of the recommended IUCN death threshold values, and because the species undergoes large fluctuations and has a restricted breeding range, there is not a sufficiently high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on this species. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Heermann’s gull - Larus heermanni The IUCN Red List considers the population trend of Heermann’s gull along the Pacific coast of Mexico and the United States to be unknown and lists it as Near Threatened. The Red List estimates the population size to be 350,000 mature individuals. The species is considered Near Threatened as it has a restricted breeding range, with 90% of the world population breeding on the island of Isla Rasa, in the Gulf of California.

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 22,400 observed individuals and no deaths or injuries, meaning that there could be an estimated 11,664 sightings/interactions of/with this species per year in the UoA given the 38,41% observer coverage. Though no injuries or deaths were recorded by observers, it can be assumed that given the number of observed interactions, and the observed direct interactions with fishing gear obtained during mitigation observations, there could be unobserved deaths/injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities.

Birdlife International (2021b) notes that 90% of the world’s population of Heermann’s gull breeds on Isla Rasa, Mexico and that climatic events and local anthropogenic changes should be monitored as they pose the greatest threats to the species. The island is protected under the Executive Order that established a refuge and reserve zone for migratory birds and wildlife for inlands within the Gulf of California (DOF 1978).

Using BirdLife International’s 2019 bycatch threshold criteria to determine Good Environmental Status based on a population of 350,000 mature individuals, the 1% threshold for incidental catch could be 175 individuals. In addition, unobserved annual mortalities may be estimated from the average annual number of birds observed (11,644), applying BirdLife’s 5% and 1% rules, respectively: . 582 bird deaths due to natural mortality, . 6 unobserved bird deaths due to fishing gear interactions . Total (observed + unobserved mortalities): 6 bird deaths per year, making up 3.4% of BirdLife’s estimated threshold for incidental catch.

Considering that the population trend in the Americas is unknown, together with the Mexican government’s protection of the species’ critical breeding site, the UoA’s known direct effects are likely to not hinder recovery of the species and it meets SG60. Because the annual number of deaths/injured individuals estimated for the UoA is below the BirdLife’s 1% threshold (representing between 3 and 4% of that threshold), it is highly likely that the UoA does not hinder the species’ recovery and SG80 is met. However, because its unknown population trend, its listing as near threatened by IUCN and subject to special protection in Mexico (NOM-059-SEMARNAT- 2010), its breeding to 90% restricted to one island in the Gulf of California, and its vulnerability to climatic changes and overfishing (variability in food supply), there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on this species. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Sea Turtles Green Sea turtle (Chelonia mydas agassizii) Loggerhead Sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Olive Ridley Sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) All three turtle species observed during 2015-2020 are classified as endangered under NOM-059-SEMARNAT- 2010. Internationally, they are IUCN redlisted as either endangered (Green Turtle) or Vulnerable (Olive Ridley and Leatherback Turtles) and listed on several international conservation agreements (CITES, CMS, Cartagena Convention, IAC). Their world population trends are decreasing (as estimated from index breeding sites) and population numbers are difficult to estimate.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 120 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted 75 observed individuals and no deaths or evident injuries. Given the overall observer coverage of 38,41%, there were an estimated total 192 sightings/interactions of/with this species, corresponding to 38 individuals per year. Observer reports mention variable degrees of interaction with the fishing operations, without specifying species: In 2016-17, they mention ‘freed individuals without injuries’ (for the total of 7 observed interactions = 32 estimated interactions) and two observed “netted and released individuals” each in 2017-18 and 2018-19 (of 25 observations in each year). Therefore, it can be assumed that a minimum of 15% of the observed turtles (11 of 75 individuals) were in direct contact with gear at some moment of the fishing operations, with an increased risk of unobserved (offsite) deaths/injuries due to the UoAs fishing operations. By comparison globally, in large-scale studies of purse-seine fisheries, sea turtle mortality/injury rates of 17 to 25% have been reported (Bourjea et al, 2014; SPREP 2001).

Considering that the populations of these species are declining, and that they are nationally and internationally protected, but that there were no on-site observed deaths or injuries during fishing operations and a less than 80% chance of unobserved deaths/injuries, the UoA’s known direct effects are highly likely to not hinder recovery of the three species and the UoA meets SG60 and SG80. However, there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on these species, because there is a minimum 85% chance of unobserved deaths/injuries. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Sea Mammals: Dolphins Pantropical spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata) Common bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Long-beaked common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) (D. capensis)

Three Dolphin species (S. attenuata, T. truncates and D. delphis) observed during 2015-2020 are classified as ‘Pr’ under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. They are IUCN redlisted as least concern (LC). They are variably subject to listings on International Agreements (Cites Appendix II for S. attenuata and T. truncatus) and CMS Appendix II for T. truncatus). The IATTC imposes bycatch limits in tuna purse seining for S. attenuata and D. delphis. Their world population trends are unknown, while Eastern Pacific populations have been estimated between 200,00 and 300,000 individuals for each species, with estimates of coastal regional populations in the low thousands (e.g., T. truncatus).

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted a total of 20,654 observed individuals and no deaths or evident injuries. Given the overall observer coverage of 38.41%, there were an estimated 54,215 sightings/interactions of/with this species, corresponding to 10,843 individuals per year, second to birds. Though no injuries or deaths were recorded by observers, it can be assumed that given the large number of observed interactions, and the observed direct interactions with fishing gear obtained due to mitigation measures (escapement from purse seine prior to closing), there could be unobserved deaths/injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities (due to unobserved injuries and death from stress).

Considering that the populations status of the three major Dolphin species observed are globally unknown and locally much lower than available regional estimates, and that they are nationally protected and included in diverse international agreements (CIES, CMS) and subject to international management measures (IATTC) , but that there were no on-site observed deaths or injuries during fishing operations and a low chance of unobserved deaths/injuries, the UoA’s known direct effects are highly likely to not hinder recovery of the three species and the UoA meets SG60 and SG80. However, the assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on these three species. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Sea Mammals: California Sea Lion (Zephalus californianus) Zephalus californianus is classified as ‘Pr’ under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Its Gulf of California population is closely monitored by the Mexican National Commission of Natural Protected Areas. Recent estimates in

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 121 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

the Gulf of California are 32 037 individuals, compared to a total population of 180,000 adult individuals over its entire range. The species is currently IUCN redlisted as least concern (LC).

Between the years 2015-2020 the UoAs observer program noted a total of 2741 observed individuals and no deaths or evident injuries due to interactions with fishing operations. Given the overall observer coverage of 38,41%, there were an estimated total 8,550 sightings/interactions of/with this species during all fishing operations, corresponding to 26.77% of the estimated Gulf of California population (5.33% per year).

Though no injuries or deaths were recorded by observers, it can be assumed that given the large number of observed interactions, and the observed direct interactions with fishing gear obtained due to mitigation measures (escapement from purse seine prior to closing), there could be unobserved deaths/injuries to individuals resulting from fishing activities (due to unobserved injuries and death from stress). Unobserved deaths can be estimated as <5.35% per year.

Considering that the populations status of the California Sea Lion species is IUCN lest concern with a slow increasing trend, and that its population status in the Gulf of California is closely monitored, that there were no on-site observed deaths or injuries during fishing operations with an low chance of unobserved deaths/injuries (5.33% of the total Gulf of California population), the UoA’s known direct effects are highly likely to not hinder recovery of the California Sea Lion and the UoA meets SG60, SG80. Nevertheless, the Assessment Team does not have a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on the California Sea Lion, thus SG100 is not met.

Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) Internationally, Sphyrna lewini is IUCN redlisted as “CR” (critically endangered) throughout its range with a decreasing population trend, including evidence that Eastern Pacific population segment has declined by 50% over the last three decades. The species is also listed on other international agreements (Appendices II of CITES and CMS, and the CMS MoU for Migratory Sharks). To date, Mexico has not listed hammerheads in its critical species list (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010).

Between the years 2015-2020, the UoAs observer program noted the capture of 0.656 tons of S. lewini of very small to moderate size classes (from 82 to 917 mm). Given the range of annual observer coverage of 21.8% to 40.4%, the UoA caught an estimated total of 2.778 tons of S. lewini during that period, of which 0.444 tons were retained (15.98%), and the remainder were discarded alive (2.334 tons = 84.02%). Observer reports note that the UoA has not retained any individuals since the 2017-2018 fishing season.

Scalloped hammerheads are particularly vulnerable to post-release mortality. Given scientific information on post-release mortality of live specimens including juveniles (70 – 100%, Ellis et al., 2017), an unobserved death rate of 85% (range average) implies in fact that 1.984 tons of the discarded individuals died, for a total (retained specimens + unobserved deaths) of 2.428 tons, i.e., 87.4% of all S. lewini caught.

It must be noted that these estimates are low compared to estimates of total catch published in observer reports: For example, for 2016-17, by using a combination of observed data and those provided by the production sector, the observer report (Jacob Cervantes et al. 2017) estimated a total catch of 4.70 tons by the UoA, with 0.54 tons retained and 4.16 tons discarded alive (as compared to the 2.50 tons caught, with 0.289 tons retained and 2.211 tons discarded during that period, when estimated from observer data alone). The two estimates vary by a factor of 1.88. Thus, over the five-year period, it can be estimated that 2.43 to 4.56 tons of S. lewini were retained or died unobserved due to fishing operations, corresponding to an average of 0.486 to 0.912 tons per year, composed primarily of juveniles and small adults.

Considering the “CR” IUCN redlisting of S. lewini, declining global and Eastern Pacific populations trends, its recent inclusion in international agreements (ICES, CMS), scientists recommend that mortalities of S. lewini must be minimized. The aforementioned evidence that there has been no observed retained catch since the 2017-2018 season demonstrates the UoA’s to do this. The known observed retained and unobserved

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 122 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

mortalities are therefore highly likely to not hinder recovery of S. lewini and the UoA meets SG80. However, given the ongoing discussion in inter-regional management bodies on setting binding catch limits (IATTC, among others), the uncertainty of both catch and unobserved mortality estimates from the fishery and that discards have not diminished recently, there is not a high degree of confidence that the direct effects of the UoA do not hinder the species’ recovery and the UoA does not meet SG100.

Mobulids (Devil Rays) Spinetail devil ray (Mobula japanica (M. mobular) Munk’s (Pygmy) devil ray (Mobula munkiana) Bentfin devil ray (Mobula thurstoni) Internationally, the three species of Devil Rays (M. mobular, M. thurstoni, and M. munkiana) are IUCN redlisted as “EN” (endangered – M. mobular and M. thurstoni) and “VU” (M. munkiana) throughout their respective ranges with decreasing population trends of 50-79% (M. mobular and M. thurstoni) and 30-49% (M. munkiana) over their last three generations, respectively. The species are also listed on international agreements (Appendix I and II of the CMS and Appendix II of the CITES conventions). Moreover, since 2015 the IATTC mandated release of Mobula species. All three species are included in the Mexican NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 list of protected species as “Pr” (subject to special protection). Their retention is prohibited in Mexican waters under NOM 029 PESC-2006.

Between the years 2015-2020, the UoAs observer program noted the capture of 1.907 tons of Devil rays, which were released alive (96.2%) or dead (3.8%). Given the range of annual observer coverages of 21.8% to 40.4%, the UoA caught an estimated total of 4.875 tons of Mobulids during that period, of which most (4.587 tons) were discarded alive, and the remainder (0.288 tons) was discarded dead. M. mobular represented 64.9% of the total estimated catch (3166 tons, of which 3.016 tons were released alive), followed by M. munkiana (28.9%=1.411 tons, with 1.365 tons released alive) and M. thurstoni (6.1%=0.298 tons with 0.206 tons released alive).

Data on post-release mortality of Mobulids from purse seine fisheries are few and restricted to small sample sizes (Ellis et al., 2017). Through tagging specimens caught in a purse seine fishery off New Zealand, Francis and Jones (2016) estimated a post-release mortality of 57.1% for M. mobular (M. japanica). By applying this rate to all Mobulids released alive by the UoAs fishery, unobserved deaths are estimated to be 1.772 tons for M. mobular, 0.779 tons for M. munkiana and 0.118 tons for M. thurstoni.

The total of dead discards plus unobserved deaths of all Mobulids is thus estimated as 2.669 tons (0.534 tons per year), corresponding to 60.7% of the total Mobulid catch.

Considering the “EN” and “VU” IUCN redlisting of the three Mobulid species, declining population trends throughout their respective ranges, their inclusion in international agreements (ICES, CMS), and federal Mexican regulations imposing their release after capture, high post-release mortalities (likely to be above 50%) may pose a potential thread to the recovery of the species. In absence of population estimates and knowledge on the size structure of captured individuals, the impacts of the estimated observed and unobserved direct mortalities of the UoA on the three species are difficult to quantify.

In summary, the known observed retained and unobserved mortalities of all three species are likely to not hinder their recovery and the UoA meets SG60. Concerning M. japanica and M. mobular, given their regular yearly catches, their observed total mortalities are not highly likely to not hinder their recovery, and the scoring element does not meet SG80 nor SG100. Concerning M. thurstoni, their estimated total mortalities were low and sporadic (observed only in 2016-17), thus the known direct effects of the fishery are highly likely not to hinder their recovery, and SG 80 is met. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on this species, and SG 100 is not met.

c Indirect effects

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 123 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered for the UoA and confidence that there are are thought to be highly likely no significant detrimental to not create unacceptable indirect effects of the UoA impacts. on ETP species. Met? All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

Seabirds Seabirds’ diets in the Gulf of California (in particular California Brown Pelicans, Heermann’s Gulls and Elegant Terns) show significant relations with CPUE of small pelagics fisheries: a declining proportion of sardines in the sea birds, related to an El Niño warm water anomaly, predict declines in sardine fisheries (Velarde et al, 2013). This suggests a potential competition between the bird species and the fisheries for the same resource (Velarde 1994, Velarde et al. 2015), which will likely exacerbate with an increasing frequency of El Niño events (Anderson et al, 2017, Velarde and Ezcurra, 2018). It is nevertheless highly likely that the UoA does not create unacceptable impacts and SG80 is met.

Sea Turtles Green turtles are primarily herbivorous and also consume benthic invertebrates and discarded fish. Olive Ridley turtles are omnivorous, consuming algae, and benthic macro-invertebrates. Loggerhead turtles are carnivores, consuming floating invertebrates and bottom invertebrates (crabs, lobsters, bivalves) (NOAA, 2021). The species not known to consume small pelagic fish and therefore it is assumed that the UoA catch does not impact their dietary habits. Substratum interactions could impact tunicate habitat (a known dietary component notably of the Olive Ridley turtles), however these impacts are likely to be small. For these reasons, the UoA’s indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts and the scoring element reaches SG80. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that these impacts do not occur and therefore the scoring element does not reach SG100

Dolphins Cephalorhynchus For most dolphin species observed, there are possible indirect effects due to competitions for food for small pelagic fish targeted by the UoA (Common dolphin, Bottlenose dolphin, Chilean dolphin) and from indirect effects from interactions with fishing gear (Bottlenose dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin) (Wells et al 2019, Diaz Gamboa et al. 2017, Kownacki 2020, Kizka and Braulik, 2018, Heinrich and Reeves, 2017 a,b, NOAA 2021). Overall, the UoA’s indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts and the scoring element reaches SG80. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that these impacts do not occur and therefore the scoring element does not reach SG100.

California Sea Lion California sea lions feed mainly offshore in coastal areas. They eat a variety of prey—such as squid, anchovies, mackerel, rockfish, and sardines—found in upwelling areas. They also interact with commercial fishing gear, taking fish from a variety of gears (NOAA, 2021). In the Northern Gulf of California, they feed on a wide variety of fish, including several small pelagic species abundant in the Gulf (Garcia-Rodrigues and Aurioles-Gamboa (2004). As for bird species preying on small pelagic fish, prey availability is reduced during warm-water events (Masper et al. 2019). Interactions with fisheries are common (e.g., Aurioles-Gamboa et al. 2003). Given this information, and taking into account the California Sea Lions overall un-threatened status (IUCN ‘least concern’), the UoA’s indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts and the scoring element reaches SG80. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that these impacts do not occur and therefore the scoring element does not reach SG100.

Scalloped hammerhead shark Scalloped hammerhead sharks feed on fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods, with squid as a primary prey item (Gallagher and Klimley, 2018). In the Gulf of California, the diet is mainly dart squids and bony fishes

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 124 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

(Carangidae, Gerreidae, Scombridae, Clupeidae). It is an opportunistic predator, with the type and amount consumed determined by prey abundance and availability (Torres-Rojas et al. 2006, 2014). A risk of competition for prey between the UoA fishery and S. lewini exists, as the fishery targets clupeid species. As both, the UoA’s target species and S. lewini share open water, fishing operations may impact their habitat. The UoA’s indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts and the scoring element reaches SG80. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that these impacts do not occur and therefore the scoring element does not reach SG100.

Mobulids (Devil Rays) As the three species of Mobula consume primarily zooplankton (primarily euphausiids in the Gulf of California, Sampson et al. 2010, Coasaca-Cespedes et al. 2018), it is assumed that the UoA catch does not impact their dietary habits. However, as both target species and Mobulids share open-water, fishing operations are likely to impact their habitat. Given this, the UoA’s indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts and the scoring element reaches SG80. The assessment team does not have a high degree of confidence that these impacts do not occur and therefore the scoring element does not reach SG100.

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly available documents.

Diaz Gamboa et al. 2017 Francis M. and Jones 2016 Heinrich and Reeves, 2017 a,b, Jacob Cervantes et al. 2017 Kizka and Braulik, 2018 Kownacki 2020 NOAA 2021 Wells et al 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 125 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 Element Scoring Calculation Element Element SI b SI c PI score score

Brown pelican 80 80 80

Elegant tern 80 80 80

Heermann’s gull 80 80 80

Green turtle 80 80 80

Olive Ridley 80 80 80

Loggerhead 80 80 80

Long beaked common 80 80 80 dolphin

Common bottlenose 80 80 80 80 dolphin

Pantropical spotted 80 80 80 dolphin

80 80 80 California Sea Lion Scalloped Hammerhead 80 80 80 shark

Spinetail devilray 80 80 80

Munk’s (Pygmy) devilray 80 80 80

Bentfin devilray 80 80 80

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 126 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post 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? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no national or international requirements that set limits for the ETP species that interact with this fishery. Per SA3.11.2.2 (MSC standard v2.01) this SI is not scored.

b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post 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. Met? All: Yes All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

Sea Birds The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines measures to minimize seabird mortality, including installations to prevent birds from going through pullies and the power blocks, a scarecrow pr jacket, water hoses and sounds to scare birds. Yearly courses are taught by INAPESCA personnel to educate captains and crew on the implementation of these measures and to correctly fill out navigation logbooks. There is no requirement for such a strategy to achieve either national or international requirements, as neither exists for these seabird species. The measures in place are appropriate for the scale, which are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery of the bird species. Therefore, SG80 is met.

Sea Mammals (Common, Bottlenose, Pantropical spotted, Chilean, Heaviside’s Dolphins, California Sea Lion)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 127 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines release guidelines for the release of large animals in general. The yearly courses used to educate captains and crew on the implementation of mitigation measures began including specific dolphin measures in 2021. This measure alone cannot yet comprise an appropriate strategy, given the scale and nature of dolphin and California sea lion interactions, to manage the fishery’s impact on the marine mammals. Marine mammals are protected in Mexico via NOM-059. Therefore, there is a strategy in place that is expected to not hinder the recovery of these ETP species. Therefore a score of 80 is met.

Sea Turtles Sea turtles are protected in Mexico via NOM-059.The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines mitigation measures to minimize turtle mortality interacting with fishing operations, including methods so safely return live turtles caught in nets to sea, and reanimation methods for drowned turtles. Yearly courses are taught by INAPESCA personnel to educate captains and crew on the implementation of these measures and to correctly fill out navigation logbooks. Therefore, there is a strategy in place expected to not hinder the recovery of these ETP species and SG80 is met.

Scalloped Hammerhead shark, Mobulas (Devil Rays) The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines mitigation measures to minimize elasmobranch mortality caught in the nets and then returned to sea. These include active methods to safely handle sharks for assuring their survival upon their return to the water, gear to handle and liberate large species (in particular devil rays), as well as a grid to prevent large animals from entering the boat’s hold. Yearly courses are taught by INAPESCA personnel to educate captains and crew on the implementation of these measures and to correctly fill out navigation logbooks. Signs have been posted around the landing facility and in management offices advising crew and other personnel that mobula and hammerhead retention is not permitted by the UoA.

As Mobulas are protected by Mexican law (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010), there are trainings in place for applying correct releasing procedures of live specimens, and the large majority of the released specimens are classified as ‘alive’, it can be considered an effective strategy, not a comprehensive one however, that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG 80 is met but SG 100 is not met.

Sphyrna lewini is not protected under NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, but is largely protected by international agreements, and the UoA has adopted improved voluntary measures applied by the fleet to not retain the species. Observer data shows that no individuals were retained since the 2017-2018 fishing season. Given this, there is a strategy, not a comprehensive one however, in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.SG 80 is met but SG 100 is not met.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive post considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about (e.g., general experience, based on information the fishery and/or species theory or comparison with directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? All species: Yes All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

Seabirds The effectivity of sea-bird mitigation measures on the three ETP bird species has been evaluated by observers since the 2017-18 season, yet sufficient data on the observations were only published in 2018-19. Those results

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 128 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

allow auditors to get an idea of the effectivity of the mitigation measures, between 0% (scarecrow) and 92% (water hose), median =46% for 4.9% observer coverage and few birds observed (320 Brown pelicans), which implies large statistical confidence intervals. Based on this information, it can be assumed that an objective basis exists that allow to evaluate the effectiveness of each mitigation measure. SG80 is met for all sea birds.

Sea Mammals, Sea Turtles, Devil Rays There are measures and/or a strategy in place appears to have been improved over time as there were no recorded mortalities of mammals or turtles. There was no retained devil ray catch during the years that the assessment team reviewed observer reports (2015-2020). Furthermore, 96.17% of the observed catch of devil rays was discarded alive. However, there is no quantitative analysis of any management measures for these three species groups, nor evidence of best practices that would support a high degree of confidence in the management strategy for ETP species at the 100 level, therefore the elements reach SG80.

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Based on the information directly about the fishery and the species, specifically pertaining to the amount of discards over the last five years and the absence of observed retained individuals since 2017-2018, the measures are considered likely to work and this species scores at the 80 but not the 100 level.

d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

Sea Birds, Sea Mammals, Sea Turtles There is photographic and video evidence that documents implementation of the measures for birds, mammals and turtles. Therefore SG 80 is met. More formalized evidence is required to demonstrate successful implementation and objectives being met, therefore SG 80 but not SG100 is met.

Elasmobranchs (Scalloped Hammerhead shark, Devil Rays - Spinetail, Munks and Bentfin) The observer reports register live and dead discards of scalloped Hammerhead sharks and devil rays, which the team considers evidence that the measures prohibiting their retention are being implemented. However, the observer program does not provide information on whether these organisms are injured at the time of release. This being the case, the evidence, though not clear evidence, is sufficient to allow that the strategy is being implemented successfully for all Elasmobranchs. SG80 but not SG100 is met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post 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

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 129 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? All species: Yes All species: Yes All species: No

Rationale

Sea birds There is ongoing attention to areas where interactions are considered a problem, such as the required use of mitigation measures. Data on interactions and deaths are also collected by observers and presented in annual reports. Bycatch and mitigation measures are regularly treated by the UoA and included in Navigation and Mitigation manuals and courses. On this basis, SG60 is met. Observers have initiated measuring the effectiveness of bird mitigation measures in 2017, although the information is incomplete and the effectiveness-related observer coverage has been lower than the overall observer coverage (a mean of 9,3% , in comparison for an overall observer coverage of 38.41%). Based on this information, the assessment team concluded there is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of the birds and they are implemented as appropriate; SG80 is met. However, the review process is not considered to rise to the level of biennial review and SG100 is not met.

Sea Turtles There is ongoing attention to areas where interactions are considered a problem, such as the required use of mitigation measures, such as teaching fishers to resuscitate comatose turtles prior to their release, data on interactions are collected by observers and presented in annual reports. Bycatch and mitigation measures are regularly treated by the UoA and included in Navigation and Mitigation manuals and courses. On this basis, SG 60 is met. Review of those measures (e.g. yearly training) is considered a regular review of effectiveness and practicality, therefore SG80 is met.

Sea Mammals Data on interactions are collected by observers and presented annually in reports, without detailing the nature of interactions, important for estimating post-release mortalities. Bycatch and mitigation measures are regular item treated by the UoA and included in Navigation and Mitigation manuals and courses. On this basis SG60 is met. Review of those measures (e.g. yearly training) may be considered a regular review of effectiveness and practicality, therefore SG80 is met

Scalloped Hammerhead shark, Devil Rays Data on bycatch are collected by observers, results are presented annually in reports, bycatch is on the agenda of the UoA and its fishing and mitigation manuals. On this basis SG60 is met. Fate data demonstrating the level of discards and condition data are evidence that measures are achieving their goal(s). Regular trainings and annual observer reports serve as reviews of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of hammerheads and devil rays and they are implemented as appropriate, therefore SG80 is met. As the team was not presented with evidence of a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures, SG100 is not met.

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 130 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.2 Element Scoring Calculation Element SI b SI c SI d SI e Element PI score score

Brown pelican 80 80 80 80 80

Elegant tern 80 80 80 80 80 Heermann’s gull 80 80 80 80 80 Green turtle 80 80 80 80 80 Olive Ridley 80 80 80 80 80 Leatherback 80 80 80 80 80 Long beaked common 80 80 dolphin 80 80 80

Common bottlenose 80 80 80 dolphin 80 80 80

Pantropical spotted 80 80 dolphin 80 80 80

80 80 California Sea Lion 80 80 80 Scalloped Hammerhead 80 80 shark 80 80 80

Spinetail devilray 80 80 80 80 80 Munk’s (Pygmy) devilray 80 80 80 80 80 Bentfin devilray 80 80 80 80 80

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 131 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA and enhancement activities impacts on ETP species, including: - 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

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a impact of the UoA and assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the associated enhancement on mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA- and ETP species. determine whether the UoA associated enhancement and associated related impacts, mortalities OR enhancement may be a and injuries and the threat to protection and consequences for the status if RBF is used to score PI recovery of the ETP species. of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate productivity and if RBF is used to score PI susceptibility attributes for 2.3.1 for the UoA: ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? All species: Yes All species: No All species: No

Rationale

The UoA’s observer program produces sufficient quantitative information to assess UoA related mortalities of observed impacts for bycatch species. This information, and its presentation, could be improved. Qualitative and quantitative observer data are, at times, insufficient to determine unobserved mortalities that can result from interactions with UoA activities. Other data discrepancies that the team encountered during its review of bycatch information include the following:

Sea birds: Brown pelican mortality was not recorded in data sheets but described in text form only in the observer reports. Mortality was not reported in summary evidence presented during courses for crew and captains. This causes the team to question reliability concerning observed bird deaths for all three bird species (Brown pelican, Heermann’s gull and elegant tern).

Marine Mammals: There are discrepancies between observer reports and video evidence provided by the UoA (dolphins and California sea lion). For dolphins, entanglements were recorded in video observations, made by crew members (according to the information provided by the client). Observers recorded “sightings/interactions” but did not specify the types of interactions that may have occurred.

Sea Turtles: inconsistencies in the observer reports for interactions reported for sea turtles. Entanglements were recorded in video observations (information provided by the client). Observers recorded “sightings/interactions” but did rarely specify the types of interactions that may have occurred.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 132 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Elasmobranchs: For Sphyrna lewini, data from the productive sector were used in some, but not all, observer reports to estimate total catch, while this was not done for Devil rays, nor for any other ETP species. Biological data (e.g., size of discarded individuals) are particularly important for estimating unobserved elasmobranch mortality, but biological data published in the observer reports on Elasmobranchs are questionable (concerning measurement units) and only carried out in two seasons (2015-16 and 2016-17). Biological data on incidental catch species were not carried out or not published in the observer reports since the 2017-18 season. The assessment team acknowledges the difficulty of collecting biological data on species that are returned to the seas alive, as can be the case for Sphyrna lewini.

SI (a) has an open condition (2-5) requiring that the fishery demonstrate that it has a data quality control system in place that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (observer program, logbooks, processing plant observer program) in terms of ETP interactions. Due to the MSC’s Covid derogation 6, the fishery has until the first surveillance of the next assessment cycle to present this evidence and therefore close the condition. The team believes that the implementation of such a system will resolve the aforementioned issues. b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? All species: Yes All species: No All species: No

Rationale

Observer information on ETP species in technical reports (2015-16 and 2016-17 , Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2017a,b) and research reports (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, Jacobs-Cervantes et al. 2018, Jacobs-Cervantes et al. 2019a, Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2019b) is adequate to assess the UoA’s impacts on ETP species. There are, however, some questions among team members as to how well it quantitatively represents the fleet.

Up to 2017, INAPESCA was responsible for the operational aspects of the observer program. For the 2017-2018 season the Program became part of an independent entity (Global Grupo A.C.), increasing its coverage. Global Grupo’s management of the onboard observer program was suspended in September 2019. In January 2020, FIDEMAR assumed responsibility and operates the program with four onboard observers and one port observer. Nevertheless, throughout the period (2015-2020), INAPESCA remained the publisher of the report, and most authors participated in all reports.

The format of the reports changed between 2016-17 and 2017-18, the latter becoming shorter and with less information treated in the results and discussion section, although the methods section remained identical. For example, biological information on species including ETP species (e.g. size measurements for fish and elasmobranchs) and some other methods are included in the methods section of all reports. However, the results on all data collected according to the methods section are presented only in the first two technical reports (2015-16 and 2016-17). Results on biological data, among others, are missing in the subsequent three research reports. Some text sections of the report of 2017-18 on ETP species have been copied into the report of 2018-19, making it difficult to verify their origin and questioning the 2018-19 report and perhaps others. Data for observation on the effectiveness of mitigation measures on birds are missing from the 2017-18 report, even though an observer coverage rate and methods for that activity were provided. Exploitable data for this

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 133 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

activity were presented only in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 reports. Moreover, the observer coverage for these types of information so far remains inadequate (Median = 4.9%).

No data on the effectiveness of mitigation measures have been reported for the other species groups (mammals, turtles, elasmobranchs) in these reports, there is progress reported in the 3rd Surveillance Report. More and complete data on the effectiveness of mitigation measures on birds in particular, and on the other ETP species groups are necessary to better reveal interaction trends which could be used to better determine management strategies for these animals.

Uncertainty remains for understanding the nature of dolphin and sea lion interactions with the fishing observations as their nature is not recorded in the observer reports.

As a final note, catch volumes for ETP species (elasmobranchs), as provided in observer reports, make it challenging for the team to assess impact.

Uncertainty remains for understanding the nature of shark interactions with the fishing observations, as none have been detailed in the observer reports, although the species have been retained (scalloped hammerhead) and discarded dead (devil rays) and alive (all four species). Uncertainty remains in terms of understanding whether the interactions observed are quantitatively representative of the fleet, given discrepancies about fleet-wide catch estimates calculated from observer data, and those mentioned in the observer reports using a combination of observer and production sector data.

In conclusion, the assessment team agrees that the UoA meets SG60 for all ETP species assessed but that certain information gaps and questions concerning the way information is presented in the observer reports means that information is not adequate, in its presented form, to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species and the UoA does not reach SG80. References

Anderson, Daniel W.; Godínez-Reyes, Carlos R.; Velarde, Enriqueta; Avalos-Tellez, Rosalía; Ramírez-Delgado, David; Moreno-Prado, Hugo; Bowen, Thomas; Gress, Franklin; Trejo-Ventura, Jesus; Adrean, Lindsay; Meltzer, Lorayne (2017). "Brown Pelicans, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Aves: Pelecanidae): Five decades with ENSO, dynamic nesting, and contemporary breeding status in the Gulf of California". Ciencias Marinas. 43 (1): 1–34. doi:10.7773/cm.v43i1.2710. ISSN 2395-9053 EL Universal, 2018. Seabirds threatened by Baja California’s sardine industry. News e-report. https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/english/seabirds-threatened-by-sardine-industry-baja-california, accessed 01 June 2021. Jacob-Cervantes ML, D. Becerra Arroyo, J. Rendón Martínez, O. Jiménez-Díaz, R. Gallegos-Aguilar, J.R. Vallarta- Zárate. 2017a. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California. Resultados del Programa de Observadores a bordo de la flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2015-2016. Informe Técnico anual, temporada abril 2015 a marzo 2016. SAGARPA-INAPESCA-DGIPP-MAZATLÁN. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México. 132p. Jacob-Cervantes ML, D. Becerra Arroyo, J. Rendón Martínez, O. Jiménez-Díaz, R. Gallegos-Aguilar, J.R. Vallarta- Zárate. 2017b. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California. Resultados del Programa de Observadores a bordo de la flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2016-2017. Informe Técnico anual, temporada abril 2016 a marzo 2017. SAGARPA-INAPESCA-DGIPP-MAZATLÁN. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México. 112p. Jacob-Cervantes ML, Rendón-Martínez JR, Jorge Payán-Alejo, Efraín Delgado-Robles, J. Carlos Díaz-Figueroa. 2018. Programa pelágicos menores CRIAP: Mazatlán, Observadores a bordo 2018-2019. Informe de investigación. SAGARPA-INAPESCA-CRIP-MAZATLÁN. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México 77p. Jacob-Cervantes ML, Jesús E. Osuna-Soto, Jorge Payán-Alejo, Efraín Delgado-Robles, J. Carlos Díaz-Figueroa. 2019a. Programa pelágicos menores CRIAP: Mazatlán, Observadores a bordo 2018-2019. Informe de investigación. SAGARPA-INAPESCA-CRIP-MAZATLÁN. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México. 78p.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 134 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Jacob-Cervantes ML, Jesús E. Osuna-Soto, Jorge Payán-Alejo, Efraín Delgado-Robles, J. Carlos Díaz-Figueroa. 2019b. Programa pelágicos menores CRIAP: Mazatlán Observadores a bordo 2019-2020. Avances abril-agosto 2019. Informe de investigación. SAGARPA-INAPESCA-CRIP-MAZATLÁN. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México. 76p. Velarde, E., Ezcurra E., Horn, MH., Patton, RT. 2015. Warm oceanographic anomalies and fishing pressure drive seabird nesting north. Science Advances 2015;1:E1400210. Downloaded 1 June 2021.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought on how data is compiled, and observer reports produced due to data analysis discrepancies.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 135 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, 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

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Purse seine vessels fishing in midwater are considered to have minimal impacts, causing little or no damage to biogenic habitats. However, data from the on-board observer program continues to indicate, as it did during the 2016 assessment, that nets are set in shallow areas, close to the coast. The FIDEMAR observer program notes that for the 2019-2020 season 13.5% of sets occurred at a depth < 5 fathoms. For the 2016 assessment the team noted that 14% of observed sets occurred in areas at a depth of 0 to 5 fathoms, meaning that UoA spatial activity at these depths is unchanged. Benthic species including crustaceans, eagle rays, and long tail and diamond stingrays, were recorded as bycatch, indicating that the nets are interacting with the bottom substrate.

A CRIP evaluation overlapping substrate types with location of sets obtained from the on-board observer program concluded that fishing is occurring predominantly in substrates with sand, clay and silt fractions. It was estimated that close to 99.7% of sets occurred in soft bottom substrates. The substrate conditions were found to be consistent with those from studies conducted to evaluate the impact of the shrimp trawl fishery in the Gulf of California. Research on the impact of shrimp trawls concludes that shrimp trawls affect the grains size and organic content of sediments, however, because these systems are characterized by high energy processes with infaunal communities that are adapted to regular disturbance events, there are no significant impacts on the productivity of these habitats. Considering that purse seine nets have a minor magnitude of contact with the bottom substrate, it can be inferred that it is highly unlikely that the gear type used in this fishery can reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, and the UoA meets SG60 and SG80. Since the team was not provided with evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, it does not reach SG100.

b VME habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME habitats function of the VME habitats reduce structure and to a point where there to a point where there function of the VME habitats would be serious or would be serious or to a point where there irreversible harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 136 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The fishery does not interact with any VMEs and so this scoring issue is not relevant.

c Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the post 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? NA

Rationale

The UoA does not interact with minor habitats and this scoring issue is not relevant.

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 137 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for post place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

INAPESCA has studied the interactions of small pelagic fisheries relative to the types of marine substratum that come into contact with purse sein nets (INAPESCA 2015). Geomorphology (seafloor topography) and substratum types are known within the UoA as well as their location relative to fishing activities, the majority of which being rock, sand and clay sediments. There are measures in place, including avoidance of rocky substrate areas, monitoring of depth and location of sets, and evaluation of this information, which together are considered a partial strategy that works to prevent damage to the habitat, reaching SG80. In order to achieve SG100 the fishery would need to present evidence of a strategy that involves non-MSC fisheries in UoAs fishing grounds that manages impacts on habitats. As this was not presented to the assessment team, the UoA does not reach SG100.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA and/or comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information obtained from studies of set location and interaction with bottom substrates, combined with evaluations that combine data from this fishery with studies of impact for the bottom-trawls shrimp fishery, provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, reaching SG 80. As no evidence of testing was presented to the assessment team, SG100 is not reached. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 138 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Yes No

Rationale

The on-board observer program is being implemented successfully, however, it is only considered part of a partial strategy thus this element is scored at SG 80. Information obtained from studies of set location and interaction with bottom substrates, combined with evaluations that combine data from this fishery with studies of impact for the bottom-trawls shrimp fishery, provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, reaching SG 80. A score of SG100 is not possible as there is no strategy in place.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures measures afforded to VMEs afforded to VMEs by other by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, MSC fisheries, where where relevant. relevant. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

This scoring issue is not scored as there are no VMEs in the UoA.

References

INAPESCA 2015

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 139 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all post 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 OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is UoA information of the distribution of benthic habitat substrate types, the vulnerability of these substrata, the location of protected areas, the complexity of bottom substrates, areas of primary productivity and areas of biological importance for marine invertebrates in the Gulf of California. Specifically, the distribution of sandy, rocky, clay, and silt substratum is mapped for the UoA. Substratum associated with observed sets can be determined via information presented in observer reports. Available information provides an understanding of the likelihood of interaction of the gear with bottom substrates and it is generally understood that no significant alternation occurs in these habitats as a result of interaction with purse seine nets. As such, the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA, and it reaches SG80. To meet SG 100, information provided should distinguish if there are any vulnerability variations across the different categories of soft bottom substrates. The team was not provided this information and the UoA does not meet SG100.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. of gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with spatial extent of interaction fishing gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing OR gear.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 140 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: 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? Yes No No

Rationale

The observer program provides information on set depth and location. This information, combined with the substratum data available for the UoA. This information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear and the UoA meets SG60.

According to the most recent three observer reports, fishery activity took place in < 5 fathom depths at the following frequency: . 13.5% of sets in 2019-2020 . 9.7% of sets in 2018-2019 . 19.6% of sets in 2017-2018

While the spatial overlap of substratum can be determined with the available data, there is a lack of information relating to gear interactions with substratum and impacts to benthos, more specifically gear interactions with biota (characteristic floral and/or faunal groups) at depths < 5 fathoms. Furthermore, the team was not provided with data regarding when nets came into contact with the seafloor. As nets are more than 5 fathoms long, we assume that all sets at these depths interact with the substrate to some extent. There is also a lack of information as to how these impacts are mitigated. As a final note, Johnson et al. (2021) determined that rocky substrate is prevalent in the UoA. Evidence of its location relevant to fishing activity that contacts the seafloor was not provided to the team.

For these reasons, the information presented to the team is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, and meet SG60, it is not adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on all main habitats, and there is not sufficient quantity of reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear on all main habitats and SG80 is not reached.

c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat post continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Yes No

Rationale

The observer program’s coverage remains well above 30%. Information collected by the program is compiled by INAPESCA officials whose members review that the data was collected and recorded according to the established protocols taught during the instruction of new observers. Specific to information inputs, data on the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 141 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

areas and depths of sets continue to be collected and can be used to detect changes in the spatial location of sets as to detect an increase in risk to benthic habitats (though evidence of this happening, specifically in fishing areas < 5 fathoms was not made available to the assessment team).

Regarding VMS use, the monitoring system also allows for information to be collected (in addition to that obtained by the observer programs) to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats and SG80 is met. Since evidence of the measurement of changes in all habit distributions over time was not presented to the team, the SG100 level is not met

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought on

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 142 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Ecosystem interactions include impacts of the removal of low trophic level fish biomass.

Until recently, research relevant to interactions and impact of the Gulf of California small pelagics fisheries on the structure and function of the Gulf of California ecosystem has focused on the central/northern Gulf of California system, where the Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) and the Pacific anchoveta (Cetengraulis mysticetus) play an important role in structuring the ecosystem. They have been recognized to support higher- level predators in in competition with fisheries (e.g. Morales Zarate et al, 2004; Velarde et al, 2015; Hernandez- Padilla et al., 2017; Arreguin-Sanchez et al, 2021).

In the southern Gulf of California, the thread herring species and the bocona sardine stand out as a major part of the small-pelagics fishery yet understanding of ecosystem as well as fish population dynamics in that part of the Gulf is less developed to date. Jacob Cervantes et al. (2015) found that Opisthonema spp. were an important item in the diets of blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxii), contributing 37.1% of its diet (and the bocona sardine in the diet of the royal tern (Thalasseus maximus). Moreover, Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni), while not observed during the UoA fisheries observations over the last 5 years, feed mainly on Pacific sardines and thread herring (Urbán-Ramirez and Flores 1996). Other potential predators, while so far not recognized as primarily dependent on the targeted species, include other highly mobile predators interacting with the fishery and exploiting small pelagic fishes, such as bird species (Anderson et al, 2017), California Sea lion (Masper et al., 2019) and scalloped hammerhead shark (Torres-Rojas et al., 2014).

Recent modelling specific to the Southern Gulf’s ecosystem has confirmed the keystone role of the thread herring species and the bocona sardine, indicating their particular importance for energy transfer, playing a key role in the bottom-up energy flow control within the food web (Hernandez-Padilla et al 2017).

Current estimates of biomass and exploitation levels of the thread herring resource, based on models using fishery data (catch-MSY models) show important levels of Biomass decline of Opisthonema spp. over the last decades (-26.5%), suggesting that this resource is currently ‘at the point of full exploitation’ (Ruiz-Dominguez, 2019) with a risk that the stock will decline below BMSY (Ruiz-Dominguez, 2019). The result is in accordance with data presented in the current draft of an improved management plan for the Gulf of California small- pelagics fisheries (Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, 2020), which indicate that the fishing mortality rate in 2018 was above FMSY for the three thread herring species (O. libertate, O. medirastre, O. bulleri), and the 2018 catch of O. medirastre was 5.3% above the biologically acceptable limit.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 143 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

In summary the UoA is currently 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 SG 80 is met. Because of the recognized keystone role of the target species which are approaching full exploitation and a risk of falling below BMSY , together with limited understanding as to what is the required biomass to sustain key ecosystem components, this scoring issue does not meet 100. References

Anderson et al, 2017 Arreguin-Sanchez et al, 2021 Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, 2020 Hernandez-Padilla et al., 2017; Jacob Cervantes et al. (2015) Morales Zarate et al, 2004; Ruiz-Dominguez, 2019 Urbán-Ramirez and Flores 1996 Velarde et al, 2015

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 144 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that post if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are a number of measures in place in the Small Pelagics fishery that consider impacts of the fishery on ecosystem structure and function:

The NOM 003 and Small Pelagic Management Plan have measures to manage the harvest of thread herring and bocona sardines. The 2012 Fisheries Management Plan, currently under revision (Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, 2020) specifies that each species in the small pelagic fishery should be managed using a Harvest Control Rule. As an actively managed species the harvest control rule for thread herring also includes a Biomass minimum value, intended to assure that the health of the stock is maintained by leaving a minimum of biomass for periods of low abundance.

The Small Pelagics Management Plan also includes measures for investigation and research program that consider impacts of the fishery on the ecosystems. These include the on-board and port observer programs, hydroacoustic surveys, meta-population studies and the use of ecosystem modelling to document the degree of potential interaction between the fishery and the ecosystem.

Collectively these measures are considered to be a partial strategy. This scoring issue therefore reaches SG80. It does not reach SG100 because there is no evidence that these measures operate collectively as part of a designed, specified process, and which has not been revised in the new draft plan project.

Management strategy evaluation b Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA similar UoAs/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved. ecosystem involved. Met? Yes No No

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 145 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

The measures in place would work as part of the implementation of the small pelagics fisheries. The new draft plan includes revised measures for determining closure time when the catch reaches established biologically acceptable limits. NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 has redefined size limits for Opisthonema specific to the Southern Gulf of California. Port observer programs and boat logbooks have been installed to improve bycatch data collection. However, currently Bmin is used only to manage stock health and cannot serve one of its primary purposes, i.e. to prevent damages to the ecosystem structure. Furthermore, linkages to management measures that help prevent ecosystem damages are not evident, neither are there defined endpoints for ecosystem measures. Moreover, results of modelling underway, while providing insights on the effect of fishing on ecosystem structure and function, are imprecise and require variance testing to facilitate the definition of management rules according to the precautionary principle (Arreguin-Sanchez and Rodriguez-Vite, 2020).

According to open condition 2-6, the client should present a plan to incorporate biomass limits for thread herring into the fishery’s management measures and present a report with the main results after the implementation of the ecosystem model. PI 2.5.2 is included in the MSC’s Covid derogation 6 and the client has until the first year surveillance audit to close it. Therefore the UoA reaches SG60.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post 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? Yes No

Rationale

Pelagic Ecosystems There is evidence that some measures to consider ecosystem impacts are being implemented successfully. These include the onboard observer program being expanded to port observation, investigative reports resulting from that program, the continued development of ecosystem models, hydroacoustic surveys and improvement in their calibration, and establishment of NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 which, among other measures, prohibits of fishing in nearshore waters, with no substantial evidence of non-compliance by the fishery. This element is scored at SG 80 However, overall, implementation is not reached at a general level, because the aforementioned measures are part of a partial strategy, as explained in issue (a). References

Arreguin-Sanchez and Rodriguez-Vite, 2020 Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 146 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 147 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements of the broadly understand the key ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Information obtained from landings, stomach content analyses, the observer programs and modeling is available and is considered accurate enough to provide an understanding of the function of thread herring, bocona sardine and some of their potential predators in the Southern Gulf of California ecosystem. The SG 80 is met b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the post these key ecosystem elements these key ecosystem elements UoA and these ecosystem can be inferred from existing can be inferred from existing elements can be inferred from information, but have not been information, and some have existing information, and have investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The main impacts of the fishery on non-target species have been partially investigated as part of the observer programs. Interactions of thread herring with other ecosystem elements have also been investigated through predator stomach content analyses and ecosystem modelling. There is an understanding of effect of some environmental factors, such as temperature variations, on the small pelagics fishery in the Southern Gulf of California) Therefore, SG80 is met. However, other key ecosystem elements are not understood and cannot be, or only insufficiently be inferred from existing information (e.g. metapopulation dynamics, off-site mortalities of ETP species are not studied or taken into account). This includes understanding of the fishery effects combined with environmental factors on other key elements of the ecosystem. Therefore, SG 100 is not met.

c Understanding of component functions

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 post components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, species, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats) in the Habitats are identified and the ecosystem are known. main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 148 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

There is a general knowledge on the functions of the ecosystem components (P1 and P2 species, ETP species, habitats). The main role of thread herring as a key ecosystem structuring element are understood from modelling. The SG 80 is met . However, the scoring issue does not meet SG100 because those modelling results require field testing and confirmation through independent data (data obtained outside of the fishery context). Moreover, the understanding of the precise role as forage species for secondary and ETP species requires further investigation, and better understanding keystone role in the ecosystem must be obtained. d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of the available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to UoA on the components and allow some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is a general knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, retained and ETP species. The main inter- relationships of thread herring as a forage species are understood through modelling. The information available on the impacts of the fishery is currently not sufficient to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Efforts on ecosystem models, while shedding a light on the role of thread herring as a keystone species assemblage, are not at a stage to infer the main consequences of the removal of thread herring and bocona sardines in the southern Gulf Ecosystem. The SG 80 is met. However, The SG 100 is not met, because the information on components as well as elements is insufficient in detail to allow to infer consequences on the Southern Gulf’s ecosystem. Information from Central/Northern Gulf of California models and field observations may help to infer some of the main consequences.

e Monitoring

Guide Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to post collected to detect any increase support the development of in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Data being collected (observer programs, captans logbooks, improved hydroacoustics and modelng for stock biomass estimations, catch statistics) are adequate to detect an increase in risk level. SG80 is met. However, those data alone are insufficient, they require confirmation and consolidation through external data and studies on environmental and ecosystem components (e.g. Lanz et al. 2008; Masper et al., 2019) and development of management measures directly addressing ecosystem effects outside of sustainable stock management. Therefore, SG100 is not met. References

Lanz et al. 2008 Masper et al. 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 149 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 150 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.4 Principle 3

8.4.1 Principle 3 background

National Level Management

Institutional framework and Roles and Responsibilities

The management of the thread herring fishery involves multiple institutions that comprises different jurisdictional scopes and government branches. The following description provides an overview of the institutional framework that intervene in this fishery according to their hierarchy and governmental branch:

Fisheries

. Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadaría, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, SAGARPA) is the competent authority for the administration and regulation of fisheries and aquaculture. . National Council of Fishing and Aquaculture (Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CONAPESCA) is the administrative entity of SAGARPA that addresses fisheries and aquaculture. CONAPESCA is in charge of the management, coordination and policy development. Its responsibilities include: o Propose and coordinate national rational and sustainable use policies for the fishery and aquaculture industries o Promote fisheries and aquaculture activities and the participation of members of these sectors o Administer and regulate the use and conservation of fisheries and aquaculture resources . National Fisheries Institute (Instituto Nacional de Pesca, INAPESCA), is the administrative body created to provide scientific and technical advice to the fishing and aquaculture sector. . National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CNPA) is an intersectoral forum formed by representatives of the Federal regulatory organizations, social organizations, and fisheries and aquaculture producer groups to coordinate, provide advice and promote policies that enhance the fisheries management. . State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura, CEPA) is integrated by federal entities at a State level to provide opinions and observations regarding resource use requests. . Mexican Fund for Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (Fondo Mexicano para el Desarrollo Pesquero y Acuícola, PROMAR): promotes the creation of financial schemes for the development of a sustainable management of fishing and aquaculture resources.

Agriculture

. Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria CCNNA) is an advisory committee for SAGARPA with the following objective: Propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture,

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 151 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

livestock, aquaculture and fisheries. In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing oversees this sector. The Committee and sub-committee members belong to the governmental, industrial, productive, academic, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries.

Environmental protection

. The Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, SEMARNAT) is the federal agency responsible for promoting the protection, restoration and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources and environmental goods and services in Mexico. The Secretariat is not directly responsible for fishing management. However, its scope of action includes the protection of marine resources through the establishment of protected areas and regulations for specific species, such as marine mammals. SEMARNAT also participates in the elaboration of the National Fisheries Chart, which provides information about the status of fisheries in Mexico. SEMARNAT comprises a series of undersecretaries and commissions. . Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente, PROFEPA). This decentralized agency oversees compliance of environmental regulations and the inspection and surveillance of endangered marine and aquatic species. . The National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, CONANP) is also a decentralized agency from SEMARNA and is in charge of the administration of Natural protected areas.

Navy and marine forces

. Secretariat of the Navy (Secretaría de Marina): manages the navy and according to the Fisheries Law oversees the surveillance of marine areas and the compliance of fishing regulations.

Legal framework and Decision-Making Processes

All fisheries in the country are managed under federal jurisdiction and on this regard, the Mexican Constitution determines in Article 27 that “The Nation has full ownership over all continental shelf, seabed and subsoil natural resources,” thus supporting the federal government’s authority to manage all marine and inland fisheries resources found within federal national waters (DOF 2020a). The constitution, as a hierarchical superior norm, gives rise to a series of norms and regulations that address this fishery from the general to the specific aspects.

The Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables, LGPAS is the main and overarching legal instrument concerning fisheries in the country. The objectives of this law are “Regulating, promoting, and managing the use of fishery and aquaculture resources [….] establishing the basis for the application of management activities by the federation, states, and municipalities in accordance with the participation of fishers and the overarching principles related to the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture” (DOF 2018). The LGPAS define several specific objectives, including the promotion of principles to regulate, the application of sustainable management processes, improvement of the quality of fisher’s life, access rights, establishment of norms for the sustainable use of resources, inter-agency coordination measures, basis for participatory mechanisms, support for research, establishment of a

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 152 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

permit system, quality and certification of fisheries and aquaculture products, enforcement, infringement and sanctions, and assurance that fishing and aquaculture are prioritized for food production. . The LGPAS establishes that INAPESCA will be in charge of the National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP), which is a binding instrument for the fishery authorities’ decision- making process. For all fisheries included in the CNP. It includes a diagnosis and assessment of the fishery, fisheries and conservation indicators, and management recommendations issued by INAPESCA. Updates of the CNP are prepared by INAPESCA every two or three years, but before the updates of the CNP are published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Gazette, DOF), the draft update undergoes a public review process. This allows the public, non-governmental organizations, and the academic sector, among others, an opportunity to provide input on the fisheries’ status. The latest version of the CNP was published in 2021 (DOF 2021)

The LGPAS stipulates three different instruments for fisheries management: . Fishery management programs: contain the precise delimitation of the area that the program will cover; a list of users in the region; the fishing resources subject to exploitation the Fisheries management plans sanctioned and published. . Fishery management plans: include the objectives defined by the National Fisheries Council and the State Fisheries and Aquaculture Councils; the biological description of the species subject to exploitation; the way in which the administration of the area will be organized and participation mechanisms; the catch cycle and state of the fishery; the geographical location of the areas of use; socioeconomic indicators and the authorized fishing gear and methods. . Concessions and permits: title granted for a determined period by the authorities to carry out commercial fishing or aquaculture activities.

In 1992 Mexico adopted the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal de Metrología y Normalización) (DOF 1992) which established the integration of the Official Mexican Norms (Norms/NOMs). The NOMs, which are legally binding, are technical regulations that control a diverse range of production processes including sectors from manufacturing to fisheries. According to Article 40 of the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization provides that NOMs should establish the characteristics and specifications on issues such as products and processes that may constitute a risk to health and security of humans, plants, animals and the environment in general or that may protect and improve the health of ecosystems, humans, animals or plants.

Environmental regulations also align with the management of the fishery. On this regard, The General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente) considers habitat effects that may occur from fishing operations and industrial fishing processes. Measures for protected species are covered by the General Law of Wildlife and its Regulations (Ley General de Vida Silvestre). Mexico has also adopted specific regulations for the management of certain species, such as NOM-029-PESC-2006 that regulates the management and conservation of sharks and rays. Based on this NOM, in 2021 SAGARPA established a temporal ban for the capture of sharks and rays in the coastal states of the Pacific Ocean, from the southern border with Guatemala to the north with the United States, and in some states of the Gulf of Mexico. The ban extendes from May 1 to July 31 for the Pacific Coast and until June 31 on the Gulf of Mexico.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 153 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Fishing product processes and fishing operations at sea are regulated by The General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste (Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Intergral de los Residuos) and its regulations together with the Law of Dumping in the Mexican Marine Areas (Ley de Vertimientos en las Zonas Marinas Mexicanas). Fish processing plants are also regulated in their use of water by the Law of National Waters (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) and its regulations and the Federal Law of Environmental Liability (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental). More recently, the fishing industry has to follow some regulations of the General Law of Climate Change (Ley General de Cambio Climático). Mexico has also adopted specific regulations for the management of certain species, such as sharks and rays. NOM-029-PESC-2006.

Procedurally, the fisheries management sector is regulated by the Federal Law on Administrative Procedure (Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos), that specifies protocols for the development of new administrative procedures and regulations.

Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance

Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance (MCS) activities complement a larger national security policy whose objective is ocean and fisheries management. To accomplish this, CONAPESCA relies on its colaborative efforts with the Secretaría de Marina-Armada de México (Mexican Navy), PROFEPA, and CONANP to undertake inspection, monitoring, and control activities according to the organizations’ respective competencies.

Regarding the reporting of illegal activities, CONAPESCA has a 24-hour telephone line dedicated to receiving complaints regarding illegal fishing activity, and when necessary, these reports are investigated by the corresponding authorities (mentioned above). MCS activities take place in landing sites, piers, and ports, reproduction sites including estuaries and bay and lagoons systems, and in processing and distribution installations.

PROFEPA handles environmental disputes related to all types of environmental protected species, such as dolphins. PROFEPA also performs inspections and provides inspection training to SAGARPA staff to help catch and discourage IUU fishing practices that present an environmental threat. They also participate during COANPESCPA inspection operations in the cases when a protected species is caught, or fishing occurs inside a Natural Protected Area.

Since 2012 the National Inspection and Monitoring Program performs an internal evaluation of the efficiency of its results with a “Logical Framework”. The two indicators are used for measuring performance are related to coverage: (1) Percentage of verifications for compliance with the fisheries and aquaculture regulations and (2) Percentage of fisheries with regulation attended by inspection and surveillance operatives.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 154 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

According to NOM-062-SAG/PESC-2014 (DOF 2015), fishing operations are tracked by a VMS system to monitor the location of vessels at all times and to enforce the non-entrance into natural protected areas. At CONAPESCA’s central office the National Centre of Vessels Satellite Tracking and Monitoring is in charge of monitoring all fishing vessels that have to use the VMS system. This center works 24 hours during the 365 days of the year.

Fishery-Specific Management

The small pelagic fishery under consideration mainly targets thread herring, which is comprised of three species (Opistonema libertate, O. bulleri and O. mediraste), and represents nearly 97% of the landings, with less than 1% of the catch composed of Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), and bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus).

The fleet is based in the port of Mazatlan, Sinaloa and is composed of eight fishing vessels with a hold capacity between 150 to 250 metric tons each and with approximately 10 fishers onboard (Appendix 6.1). All vessels fish with purse-seine nets with sizes between 250 and 600 m of length and 30 to 60 m fall (depth), with a 25.4 mm of mesh size. Depending on the captain’s experience and the volume of the catch, the set of the net can last between 1.5 to 3 hours.

All fishing vessels have a fishing permit issued by CONAPESCA based on the technical opinion issued by INAPESCA, after analyzing the statutes of the fishery. The permits have to be renewed every 5 years and fishing vessels are required (enforced) to use Vessel Monitoring System equipment (VMS system) for tracking the spatial position of fishing operations.

Objectives for the Fishery

In 2018, the NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 was published to provide specific regulations for the exploitation of minor pelagic fish species with purse seine vessels, in waters under federal jurisdiction of the Pacific Ocean, including the Gulf of California. This NOM covers aspects such as:

. Minimum sizes for Opisthonema spp. (160 mm, except for the southern region) and the tolerated percentage of catches below this size. . Designates fishing permits for specific regions and limits the number of vessels per region. . Characteristics of fishing vessels and gear . Protection of marine species

The thread herring fishery is regulated by the Small Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan (DOF, 2012). The main objectives of the Management Plan are to promote the assessment of the biomass and recruitment of sardines, anchovies, mackerel and associated species in northwestern Mexico, to preserve the yield and economical benefit of their fisheries, to reduce the impact of their environment interactions, to promote economic benefits to society, and to assure the quality of their fisheries products. The Management Plan includes a diagnosis of the fishery, the objectives of the plan, a set of management measures, a research program, an estimation of cost of management, enforcement issues and measures

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 155 of 175 SCS Global Services Report for the implementation and update of the plan. The plan is reviewed annually (DOF, 2012) through an internal process, only when there is a relevant event or amend an updated version of the Management Plan is made public.

The Management Plan also contains a research program focused on the development of adaptive reference points for management. Most of the research outlined in the Management Plan is related to Pacific sardines. The program covers two main areas: 1) Scientific and technological research, and 2) Socioeconomic research.

For scientific and technological research, the program identifies eight main issues:

. Population dynamics: in order to understand mortality, recruitment and migration rates. The monitory of landings at all ports should continue, complemented by research fishing cruises. For the fishery based in Sinaloa at least one test fishing cruise per year should be carried out. . Periodic Biomass Assessment: biomass estimation and evaluation of population structure should be carried out at least once a year. Hydroacoustic methods and other simpler methods should be considered for these assessments. . Meta-population Dynamics: preliminary data suggest that the Pacific sardine stocks in California, Magadalena Bay and in the Gulf of California are related. To confirm this information, tagging experiments and ichthyoplankton are suggested. . Environmental influences: it is necessary understand how environmental changes affect small pelagic populations and to include this knowledge in the management system. . Bi-national studies: Pacific sardine stocks are shared with the USA and the program suggests strengthening bi-national research studies to support the management of the shared stocks. . Ecosystem approach: use of Observer Program(s) to document the degree of interrelationship of fishing operations and the ecosystem, and to develop models that use the ecosystem approach. . Predictive Models: models that consider the biology, environment and the effect of fishing on population structure should be developed to predict short- and medium-term abundance and catches. This model should also consider economic variables. . Exploratory and experimental fishing: preliminary results show high abundance of sardines in midwater depths. In order to verify this information and to assess the possible development of a fishery, experimental fishing with midwater trawls should be done.

The socioeconomic aspects of the program suggest the development of economics and market studies. The economic studies also need to include social aspects in order to strength the process for taking management decisions. The market studies should focus on the research of new markets for the small pelagic products and to evaluate alternative uses of these resources.

Fishing indicators

In Mexican fisheries, fishing indicators are based on the MSY rationale where fisheries’ seasonal catches are compared to the Optimal Yield level (OY). The OY is the catch level that is equal to or less than the Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) (DOF 2012a). The BAC is a precautionary measure, with acceptable values of 5% to 25% of the estimated biomass. In the practice the OY is determined with respect to the BAC, where OY is lower than BAC to avoid overfishing. Harvest control rules for small pelagic fisheries vary

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 156 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

depending on the nature of the species. For the bocona sardine “passive stock management” is applied and in this case the BAC value is set at 25% of the most recent adult biomass estimation (Jacob-Cervantes 2015). Thread herring species, in contrast, are considered an “actively managed species”. The harvest control rule “intends to reduce the catch when there is a biomass decline. This is achieved through the determination of a threshold of minimum biomass to guarantee a sustainable use of the stock.”

When a reference point is reached, or passed, emergent measures are taken when considered permissible and feasible according to biological, ecological, legal, administrative and socioeconomic factors (DOF 2012a). In the Management Plan four control rule-triggered measures are considered:

. Temporal or spatial closures . Temporal changes in particular areas of the allowable minimal size . Establishment or change of total allowable catch per species . Restrictions in the allowable effort

Fisheries Regulations to Meet Objectives

NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 provides the terms and conditions for the operation of this fishery. Fishing seasons are determined in accordance with NOM-009-SAG/PESC-2015, where closed periods and areas are established with the objective of having a dynamic management, avoid interaction with other fisheries and contribute to the conservation of other biological resources and the ecosystem. Closed periods and zones are announced in the Official Gazette.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 157 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 15: Fishery closures (DOF, 2020)

In 2020, CONAPESCA, based on the technical assessment of INAPESCA, established a temporal closure for all small pelagic species within the federal jurisdiction of the Gulf of California as follows (DOF 2020b):

. Zone I: for fishing vessels with a base port in Sonora, from 00:00 hours on August 1 and until 24:00 hours on September 30, 2020, in the area that ranges from the Upper Gulf of California, to the 25 ° latitude north parallel, following an imaginary line across the Gulf of California between Baja California Sur and Sinaloa . Zone II: for fishing vessels with a base port in Sinaloa, from 00:00 hours on August 20 and until 24:00 hours on November 20, 2020, in the area that extends from parallel 26 ° Latitude north to parallel 20 ° north latitude.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 158 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Access Rights

Not all the fishing vessels operate every fishing season, due to economic reasons or mechanical failures. According to an official document issued by CONAPESCA in May 2021 there are eight vessels with licenses to operate (DGIV 2021).

Review and Audit of the Management Plan

The Small Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan was published in 2012 (DOF, 2012), with the objective of setting the actions for the development of this fishery in a sustainable way. The preparation and publication of the Management Plan is a competency of INAPESCA and CONAPESCA is in charge of its implementation. The segment of the plan that addresses review, monitoring and updating establishes that it should be reviewed annually.

A draft proposal for a new Management Plan was prepared in 2019 to diagnose and conserve the stocks at sustainable levels.

Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions

This fishery operates off the coast of the Sinaloa, Nayarit and Jalisco states, from Punta Ahometo Bahia Banderas in the south, from 2 nautical miles off the coast (around 6 m depth) to a maximum allowed of 20 nautical miles (~37 km) This fishing area is located in Pacific waters under the jurisdiction of the United Mexican States (Mexico). Due to the distribution of the fishing operations within the national EEZ and the biology of species, the fishery is considered to be under a single jurisdiction managed by Mexico.

NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 establishes fishing regions as following:

. Region A: Coast of the Peninsula of Baja California. Including the sardine fleet of Baja California (Puertos de Ensenada e Isla Cedros) and Baja California Sur (Puertos de Adolfo López Mateos y San Carlos). Delimited to the north by the border with the United States of America and to the south limited by an imaginary line that passes through the parallel of 23 ° 00 'North latitude. . Region B: Gulf of California and coast of Sinaloa – Nayarit and north of Jalisco. Includes the sardine fleet of the Gulf of California (Puertos de Guaymas y Yavaros) and South of the Gulf of California (Puerto de Mazatlán). Delimited to the south to an imaginary line that passes through parallel 20 ° 00 'North latitude. . Region C: Marine zone delimited by the parallel of 20 ° 00 'North Latitude and the limits with the Republic of Guatemala. It includes from the north of Jalisco to Chiapas.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 159 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 16: Geographic regions. Vessel limits are as follows: Region A: 34; Region B: 60; Region C: 3 (NOM-003- SAG/PESC-2018)

The NOM also regulates the fishing effort allowed on each region, which can only be varied by the technical criteria of INAPESCA and the characteristics of vessels and fishing gear. In Mexico, the capture of small pelagics must be carried out using vessels equipped with purse seine, a “pangón” which is an auxiliary boat that supports the positioning and collection of the purse seine, and mechanical refrigeration system. Moreover, the NOM establishes the measures allowed for the nets and the compulsory use of satellite monitoring devices.

Recognized Interest Groups

The client is the only fishery group that targets the small pelagics in the area.

Other groups that have an interest in the fishery are NGOs, Academic Centers, and Universities, and may include: Sustainable Fishery Partnerships (SFP, eNGO), Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI, eNGO), ProNatura (eNGO), World Wildlife Fund Mexico, EDF Mexico; Isla (eNGO), Niparaja (eNGO), Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa (UAS); Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias del Mar (CICIMAR).

Arrangements for On-going Consultations

The assessment team is not aware of any planned education and training for interest groups or any details of other non-MSC fishery users or activities, which could affect the UoA, and arrangements for liaison and co-ordination.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 160 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective post legal system and a legal system and organised national legal system and framework for cooperation and effective cooperation binding procedures with other parties, where with other parties, where governing cooperation with necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver other parties which delivers management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

At the national level, the specific instrument for Mexican fisheries legislation is the LGPAS, providing guidelines for fisheries regulation. Linked to the LGPAS are NOMs and the CNP that define management measures. Article 1.II of the LPGAS notes that one objective is to establish and define the principles to manage, promote, and regulate fisheries and aquaculture to ensure the sustainable use of the resources, taking into consideration social, technological, productive, biological, and environmental considerations. The article also establishes “the basis for the exercise of those attributions of the federation, states, and municipalities under the overarching principles of concurrence and with the participation of fishers […] with the purpose of promoting the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture”. Article 1.IX of LPGAS specifically addresses the need to consider ecosystem elements (e.g., ecosystem protection as defined in the Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente). The law establishes “the basis for the planning, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of those ecosystems in which these resources occur”.

The Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización) (DOF 1992) established the integration of NOMs which are legally binding technical regulations that control a range of production sectors such as manufacturing and fisheries. Article 40 of the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization establishes that a NOM “Regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary, seeks preferential access rights, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in the places they occupy and inhabit.” The CNP is another binding instrument that includes a diagnosis and assessment of a fishery, fisheries and conservation indicators, and management recommendations by INAPESCA.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 161 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The intersection of the law, the NOMs and the CNP, along with the addition of tools specified in the law such as Management Plans, demonstrates an effective national legal system that cooperates with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This scoring issue meets the standard at SG100. b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post 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 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 of to be effective. the UoA. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At the national level, the Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo (Federal Law of Administrative Procedure) outlines administrative actions that the federal government can take to levy sanctions on individuals for non- compliance with federal laws (DOF 1994). Specific to fisheries, the LGPAS outlines appeal mechanisms assuring due process to any legal proceeding.

Section V of the General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection describes specifications for environmental impact assessments that are put in place when fishing activities threaten the preservation of one or more aquatic species. Chapters IV, V and VI outline the corresponding legal procedures to be taken in the event an infraction is found to have occurred (DOF 1988).

At the SG 80 there is evidence that a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes exists in the specifications of the LGPAS, articles 127-130, that specify the process through which field fisheries officers must submit cases to the Public Ministry, an independent body responsible for investigating infractions. The legal framework is effective in dealing with most fisheries issues as the LGPAS’s Chapters 1-3 (articles 6-16) explain the distribution of governmental responsibilities at the federal, state and municipal levels for dealing with fishery issues.

Considering this framework, the management system is subject by law to transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes and is appropriate to the context of the fishery and effective in dealing with most issues thereby meeting SG80. However, there is no evidence that the system has been tested, or that its effectiveness has been evaluated. Therefore, SG100 is not met. c Respect for rights

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the has a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 162 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The LGPAS sets the basis for the development of fisheries in Mexico under the principle of sustainability and accounting for other biological, environmental, and socio-economic factors. For example, article 72 of the LGPAS allows subsistence fishers and those whereby fishing is a form of livelihood preservation to do so without permits. Article 72 prohibits the selling of products fished for these reasons. The rights for indigenous peoples to subsistence fish and to fish as a form of cultural expression are given priority and special considerations (OECD 2013; 2019) as stipulated in the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization which establishes that a NOM “regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary to seek preferential right to access, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in those places that they occupy and inhabit” (DOF 1992).

It is therefore concluded that the management system has mechanisms committed to the legal rights created explicitly for people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 and meets the standard at SG100. References

Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2018a)

DECRETO por el que se aprueba el programa sectorial de mediano plazo denominado Programa Nacional de Desarrollo de la Pesca y sus Recursos 1990-1994. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1990)

Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1988) OECD. 2013. Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2013 (DOI:10.1787/rev_fish-2013-en)

Oñate González, Erick & Amezcua, Felipe & Buszkiewicz, John & Castellanos-Cendales, Alba & Amezcua, OECD. 2019. Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development. OECD Rural policy Reviews. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/regional/Indigenous-Communities-Policy-Highlights.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 163 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post 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 are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The Mexican governance framework relevant to fisheries contains well defined roles and responsibilities for all of its components described in the Principle 3 background section of this report and, more specifically, found in the LGPAS’ Second Title of the Responsibilities and Concurrence on Matters of Fishing and Aquaculture which establishes coordination frameworks among federal agencies. Among these, SAGARPA is charged with administering fisheries and aquaculture legislation (DOF 2018). CONAPESCA is an administrative entity of SAGARPA responsible for management, coordination, and policy development related to the sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources, and whose responsibilities include enforcement, issuing quota, and permitting. Additionally, SAGARPA’s Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria (Normalization of Agricultural Food Production Advisory Committee) proposes, compiles, reviews, approves, modifies, publishes, and promotes Mexican official norms related to agriculture, aquaculture, and fisheries food production activities, with the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing being in charge of fisheries and aquaculture (DOF 2012a).

INAPESCA is responsible for providing scientific advice to relevant government institutions as well as the fishery itself. SEMARNAT is the federal agency responsible for protecting, restoring, and conserving ecosystems, natural resources, and environmental goods and services. The role of SEMARNAT and SEMAR is to provide support in activities of surveillance, enforcement and in the general fisheries legal system and is continuously evolving as evidenced by the recent agreement to reallocate much of this responsibility from SEMARNAT to SEMAR (CONAPESCA 2020).

The agencies involved in management processes have explicitly defined and well understood functions, roles, and responsibilities for all areas of responsibility and interaction, meeting the requirements at SG100. b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 164 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

including local knowledge, to knowledge. The knowledge. The inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At the national level, formalized consultation processes, defined in Article 44 of The Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización), inform the NOM. These processes include Comites Consultivos Nacionales de Normalización (National Consulting Normalization Committees, CCNN). For fisheries, the CCNN is known as the Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización de Pesca Responsable and includes representatives of government, industry, and academia. Other national normalization organizations may also submit drafts to Comites Consultivos Nacionales de Normalización for consideration and integration into NOMs. A consultation process exists for stakeholders, including on-going processes at the municipal, regional, and national levels and ad hoc consultation for specific measures.

Other examples of consultation processes, above the fishery-specific level, outlined in the LGPAS, take place through the National Council for Fisheries and Aquaculture Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura (CNPA) and the State Councils for Fisheries and Aquaculture Consejos Estatales de Pesca y Acuacultura (CEPA). The CNPA, an inter-sectorial forum chaired by SAGARPA, supports, coordinates, consults, and assists in the fisheries management decision-making process. The CNPA includes representatives from Federal regulatory organizations, the social sector, and the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Additionally, national and state Councils are responsible for defining management objectives written into Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2012a).

The evidence indicates that the national management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek, accept, and consider relevant information, including local knowledge, and it therefore meets the requirements at SG80. The team did not receive clear evidence of how the information is used or not and therefore the fishery does not meet the requirement at SG100. c Participation

Guide The consultation process The consultation process post 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? Yes Yes

Rationale

The CNPA and CEPA function as inter-institutional forums that include members from different government agencies, industry groups, and academia. The participants propose and inform INAPESCA regarding objectives to be included in fishery specific Management Plans (DOF 2012b). During the development of a Management Plan, INAPESCA holds a series of Public Consultation Meetings to provide a space for the public’s participation in the planning process. This consultation measure facilitates the participation of stakeholders in the responsible fishery management process.

The Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing allows stakeholders to propose, compile, review, approve, and publish Mexican official norms related to fisheries. Stakeholders include members from the government, industry,

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 165 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

academia, non-governmental organizations, and other citizen groups (DOF 2012a). Furthermore, the Mexican government’s public consultation processes, as they relate to fisheries management, encourage and facilitate active stakeholder engagement through regular meetings of the committees involved in drafting NOMs, the CNP, and Management Plans before these documents are published in their final version.

Therefore, the consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement, and it meets the requirements at SG100.

References

CONAPESCA. 2020. Firman Agricultura y Marina convenio de colaboración para proteger recursos pesqueros en materia de inspección y vigilancia. Gobierno de Mexico. https://www.gob.mx/conapesca/prensa/firman- agricultura-y-marina-convenio-de-colaboracion-para-proteger-recursos-pesqueros-en-materia-de-inspeccion-y- vigilancia-239471

NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Diario Oficial de la Federación (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2012b)

Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2012c) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 166 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision-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? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The LGPAS states 15 long-term objectives that guide decision-making processes consistent with MSC Principles and the precautionary approach. LGPAS defines one of its prime objectives as establishing the basis for the planning, conservation, protection, repopulation, and sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as for the protection and rehabilitation of ecosystems. The LGPAS also states that to conserve and protect fishery resources and ecosystems, CONAPESCA must adopt the precautionary approach. Additionally, Mexico is a signatory of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and compliance with its principles is embedded in the country’s Plan Sectorial (SAGARPA, 2013).

According to the analyzed evidence, there are clear, explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach required by management policy thus meeting the requirements at SG100.

References

Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2018a)

FAO, 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1995. Pp 41. http://www.fao.org/3/a-v9878e.pdf

SAGARPA, 2013. Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Pesquero y Alimentario 2013-2018. https://www.gob.mx/agricultura/documentos/programa-sectorial-de-desarrollo-agropecuario-pesquero-y- alimentario-2013-2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 167 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 168 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable post broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management specific management 1 and 2, are explicit within the system. system. fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Partial No

Rationale

NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 establishes the terms and conditions for the fishery of small pelagic in accordance with a sustainable use as provided by the LGPAS. Management regulations in the NOM are consistent with MSC’s principles 1 and 2, including minimum size catch limits (4.2), spatial regulations including closures (4.3 – 4.6), gear specifications (4.7 – 4.10) , bycatch limits for individual groups of organisms including small pelagics, finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, elasmobranchs, and cnidarias. The NOM also establishes the volume of the fishery’s total catch that can be composed of bycatch species (0.2 – 1.0% depending on organism class), minimum size limits for thread herring and small pelagic species included in this assessment, and the % of their catch that can be under the minimum size.

The NOM is interpreted in concordance with the LGPAS and the NOMs that determine closures and the mandatary use of satellite tracking systems, also provided by NOM-062-SAG/PESC-2014. Similarly, the SPMFP mentions in its general objectives: the evaluation of biomass and recruitment, conservation of the performance and economic benefit, reduction of the impacts of environmental interactions, promotion of economic benefits for society and ensuring the quality of fishery products. To achieve this, optimal yield and performance indicators were defined.

In addition to the NOM, and specific to Principal 1, the CNP and the Fisheries Management Plan are the documents that define the use of a harvest strategy and the tools required for its implementation. The NOM-003-SAG/PESC- 2018 was recently updates from the former NOM-003-SAG-PESC-1993, and the CNP has been reviewed on several occasions. Regarding the Management Plan, while there is a draft update to the present version, no revision of the Management Plan has been published in the Official Gazette since 2012 despite a directive to be reviewed every two years.

With this in mind, the assessment team determined that short and long-term objectives are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and are implicit within the fishery-specific management system and therefore the UoA meets SG60. The absence of updated objectives across the NOM, CNP, and Management Plan represents a situation where a portion of the UoA’s management system is not consistent nor sufficiently explicit in regards to this SI and the UoA only partially meets SG80.

References

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 169 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California (DOF 2019)

Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DOF 2012)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought regarding the process of updating the UoA’s Management Plan. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 170 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in 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? Yes Yes

Rationale

NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 is a binding instrument for the management of small pelagic species. The norm provides that SAGARPA (through CONAPESCA) will establish aspects such as minimum sizes (section 4.2), spatial delimitation (section 4.3), regulation of fishing effort (section 4.4) and temporal closures (section 4.6). Closures are determined with the aim of establishing a dynamic management of the fishery, avoiding interaction with other fisheries and contributing to the conservation of other biological resources. Together with this NOM, fishery regulations are provided by the LGPAS, the National Fisheries Chart and the Management Plan. The regulatory framework includes a range of institutions with different roles and hierarchies involved in the management of this fishery (see institutional framework in background section).

INAPESCA holds regular meetings to demonstrate how technical decisions are adopted. The participation of the industry can be verified through attendance records. For example, the client provided the minute of a meeting held on February 21, 2020. According to this minute, representatives from the industry and government authorities (INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) participated. The agenda included the following issues: a) results from research of the fishery corresponding to 2019, b) evaluation of the thread herring stock for 2019, c) advances from the research related to bycatch in the thread herring fishery (2019-2020), d) results from the capture of minimum sizes for thread herring up to February 2020 and e) general aspects.

Therefore, there is evidence that established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives are in place for the UoA, thus meeting SG80. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes post respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues identified in relevant important issues identified in identified in relevant research, monitoring, relevant research, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take 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? Yes Yes No

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 171 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

As described above, NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 establishes binding regulations to guarantee sustainable use of small pelagic fisheries. The NOM also stipulates that when decisions are made by the fishing authorities, they must be published in the official gazette, together with the technical inputs.

According to section 4.14, new systems, equipment, fishing gear, fishing areas or methods that are authorized, as well as fishing effort limits, allowable catch volumes of the target species, bycatch values, minimum sizes of catch and those related to the updating of specifications of fishing equipment, gear and systems authorized can be modified through research and technological development programs. New agreements will be notified on the official gazette and will consider the opinion of the technical committee.

For example, in 2020, CONAPESCA established a temporal closure for all small pelagic species in the Gulf of California and sanctions in case of non-compliance (DOF 2020b). The official announcement was based on the technical opinions developed by INAPESCA (No. RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/0691/2020 and RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/0709/2020).

Similarly, in 2019 SAGARPA (through CONAPESCA) published the minimum catch sizes and maximum percentages allowed below the minimum catch size (DOF 2019) based on the technical opinion of INAPESCA (RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/1312/2019).

Moreover, evidence from the minutes of meetings held between the industry and INAPESCA shows that decisions are made considering monitoring and evaluation of the fishery. For example, minute from the first trimestral meeting of 2021 mentions that CONAPESCA and INAPESCA will warn in due time if BAC reaches 90% (1era reunion trimestral 2021). Therefore, evidence shows that decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions, thus meeting the requirements at SG 80. However, there is not sufficient evidence to determine that decision-making processes respond to all issues, hence it does not meet SG 100. c Use of precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes post use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes

Rationale

The Management Plan explicitly mentions in section 2 that it is in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995) and with a precautionary approach. This is also included as one of the general principles provided by the LGPAS, that establishes that authorities should apply it to conserve fishery resources and ecosystems and that it includes the definition of applicable catch and effort limits, as well as the evaluation and monitoring of the impact of fishing activity on the long-term sustainability of the populations.

Apart from the Plan being outdated and mired in a drawn out review process, the above mentioned shows that decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information, thus meeting SG 80.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 172 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all post 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 fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is discussed on trimestral meetings held between CONAPESCA and the industry, as evidenced on the minutes from these meetings made available by the client. The agenda of the most recent meeting included the following items (1era reunion trimestral.pdf): . Presentation of the analysis results of the 2020 fishing season . Presentation of the analysis results of the first trimester of 2021 (January - March) . 2021 BAC . Review of the action plan for the 4th MSC assessment . General matters

In addition, the following four agreements resulted from the meetings: . INAPESCA will assist MAZ SARDINA to migrate to a more advances model for stock assessments. . INAPESCA will make the necessary arrangements to migrate to this new model . INAPESCA and CONAPESCA will notify the industry in case that BAC limits exceed 90% . INAPESCA and MAZ SARDINA will carry on with their joint research on small pelagic species

The information of the fishery is presented and discussed at the meetings of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics, which has been recognized as the technical advisor for INAPESCA on the small pelagic fisheries in the Management Plan. In 2020 the committee analyzed the technical reports made by INAPESCA on the thread herring stock and an acoustic evaluation. Moreover, the committee made recommendations to improve future analyses on these regards. (Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores 2020).

The LGPAS provides on Article 17 that the formulation of the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Sustainable Policy should be based on a set of principles, including: transparency on administrative procedures regarding permits and fisheries management and the participation of communities and producers. Likewise, article 39 of this same norm establish that Management Plans should include participation mechanisms for individuals and communities.

Minutes from meetings, technical reports and the regulation in place shows that information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, thus meeting SG 80. Notwithstanding, there is no formal reporting system in place to provide comprehensive information to all the relevant stakeholders and thus SG 100 is not met. e Approach to disputes

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 173 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or post 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 arising rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or from any legal challenges. decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Specifications about infractions, administrative sanctions, responsibilities and review processes are described and detailed in Chapters I, II, III and IV of Fourteenth Title of the LGPAS (DOF 2007). Non-compliance provisions of NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018 and the SPMFP also refer to this chapter. The client provided evidence of inspection reports conducted by CONAPESCA showing compliance of applicable regulations. The following reports show compliance on minimum size catches: . April 2020 (DGIV/SIN/230420/076-01) inspection of the boat MAZ SARDINA VIII. . April 2020 (DGIV/SIN/230420/110-01) inspection of the boat MAZ SARDINA IV . June 2019 (DGIV/SIN/110619/236-01) inspection of the boat MAZ SARDINA VII . June 2019 (DGIV/SIN/110619/235-01) inspection of the boat MAZ SARDINA II.

Additionally, an official document issued by CONAPESCA in May 2021 states that all eight vessels comply with NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018 (DGIV 2021). The document shows that all vessels have valid fishing permits, that at the moment of inspection all catch complies with minimum size and bycatch regulations. In addition, the document also shows that some of the nets exceed the authorized lengths, which may be a result of the use and maintenance.

The client also submitted evidence of infractions by one vessel (Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf).

The management system or fishery complies in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges, thus meeting SG 80. However, there is no evidence that demonstrates that the fishery is proactively avoiding legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges and thus SG 100 is not met. References

1era reunion trimestral.pdf

Actas de inspección

Actas de inspección en flagrancia

Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2012)

Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores 2020

DGIV 2021

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 174 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2020b. ACUERDO por el que se establecen las épocas y zonas de veda para la captura de todas las especies de pelágicos menores en aguas marinas de jurisdicción federal del Golfo de California para el 2020. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 31 de julio del 2020

Inspection reports DGIV/SIN/230420/076-01, DGIV/SIN/230420/110-01, DGIV/SIN/110619/236-01 and DGIV/SIN/110619/235-01

Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2018a)

Minute from Meeting held on February 21, 2020 to present the results of the fishery of small pelagic from 2019 on the southern region of Baja California

NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2019)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 175 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

CONAPESCA and INAPESCA conduct monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery to ensure the compliance with current regulations. In the case of thread herring, landings are monitored, and samples and regular inspections take place at ports of landing/processing plants and on fishing vessels.

The client has effective communication with INAPESCA, which is evidenced by the minutes from the technical meetings. The minutes show that results from research are shared and that actions are supported by data. INAPESCA informs during these meetings about how BAC is determined, the percentage of thread herring that was caught below the minimum size limit, and the percentage of bycatch. Evidence of this meetings can be found on the minutes provided by the client. The most recent meeting took place on 12 April 2021 (1era reunion trimestral.pdf). This minute also evidences that INAPESCA and CONAPESCA are monitoring BAC to guarantee that limits are not exceeded.

CONAPESCA carries out vessel inspections, as evidenced by the actas de inspecciones, showing that most vessels are complying with regulations. The most recent evidence provided by the client shows 10 inspections in 2018, 2 from 2019 and 2 from 2020 without any infractions. However, there is also evidence of non-compliance, as shown in the acta flagrancia (2006) and acta de depósito (2011).

An official document issued by CONAPESCA in May 2021 states that all 8 vessels registered by the fishery are in compliance with NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018 (DGIV 2021). The document shows that all vessels have valid fishing permits, that at the moment of inspection all captures comply with minimum size and bycatch regulations. In addition, the document also shows that some of the nets exceed the authorized lengths, which may be a result of the use and maintenance.

The third surveillance audit report shows an increment in the fishery’s observer coverage, which expanded since the 2015 full assessment from 17.8% coverage to 58%. The program includes 4 onboard observers, 1 port observer, and mandatory logbook use by captains. All of the recorded data is analyzed by INAPESCA and the results disseminated in technical reports, presentations, and workshops and evidence of this was presented to the audit team. Moreover, after analyzing evidence and meeting with INAPESCA and CONAPESCA, the team concluded that the fishery is in a low-risk category.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 176 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

All fishing operations are monitored by Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 24 hours during 365 days of the year, as mandated by NOM-062-SAG/PESC-2014.

Therefore, a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, and thus meeting the requirements for SG80. However, the system has yet to show consistency over time and thus it does not meet SG 100.

As a caveat to this score, the assessment team would like to see additional evidence that demonstrates the implementation of minimum size limit monitoring procedures that determine whether or not the UoA is in compliance with the NOM’s 4.2.4 (percentage of catch below the minimum size limit for thread herring and other small pelagics). The team also requests clarification regarding gear irregularities, particularly net lengths, that do not conform with the established standard (see SI(b) below).

b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post 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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Chapters I, II, III and IV of Fourteenth Title of the LGPAS include specifications on infractions, administrative sanctions, responsibilities and review processes, respectively (DOF 2007).

The client has presented evidence of sanctions to deal with non- compliance (Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf). Furthermore, the third surveillance audit report confirm at least 14 inspections where no sanctions or irregularities were issued.

The client provided an evaluation of conformity (evaluacion de conformidad.pdf), which is an official document issued by CONAPESCA in May 2021 that states that all 8 vessels registered by the fishery are in compliance with NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018 (DGIV 2021).The document shows that all vessels have valid fishing permits, that at the moment of inspection all captures comply with minimum size and bycatch regulations. In addition, the document also shows that some of the nets exceed the authorized lengths, which may be a result of the use and maintenance. Additionally, in the third surveillance audit report the team reported that the client views this fishery as low-risk.

The evidence presented is sufficient to determine that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, that they are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence and thus meeting SG 80. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that such sanctions provide effective deterrence, thus it does not meet SG 100.

c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers 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,

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 177 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

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? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Evidence of inspection records by CONAPESCA (Actas de Inspección.pdf) have been provided by the client and there are no issues of non-compliance in at least 14 reports since 2018 and two from 2020.

Minutes from meetings between the industry and INAPESCA show that there is adequate information, such as how INAPESCA determines BAC, the volume of bycatch and captures of specimens below the minimum size, to effectively manage the fishery. Moreover, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA monitor BAC to avoid exceeding pre- established limits (see 1era reunion trimestral.pdf)

The client provided an evaluation of conformity, an official document (evaluación de conformidad.pdf) issued by CONAPESCA in May 2021 confirming that the fishery complies with NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018 (DGIV 2021) The document shows that all vessels have valid fishing permits, that at the moment of inspection all captures comply with minimum size and bycatch regulations. In addition, the document also shows that some of the nets exceed the authorized lengths, which may be a result of the use and maintenance.

Taken together, the information provided shows that some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery and thus meeting SG 80. However, the evidence provided does not reflect a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment. Morevoer, the evaluation of conformity shows that some nets exceed the authorized lengths and the acta flagrancia (2006) and acta de depósito (2011) also evidence infractions. Thus, it does not meet SG 100.

d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Yes

Rationale

Documentation provided by the client such as minutes from trimestral meetings with INAPESCA (1era reunion trimestral.pdf), inspection reports (actas de inspección) and official documentation issues by CONAPESCA demonstrates compliance with NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018 (DGIV 2021). The document shows that all vessels have valid fishing permits, that at the moment of inspection all captures comply with minimum size and bycatch regulations. In addition, the document also shows that some of the nets exceed the authorized lengths, which may be a result of their use and maintenance.

This demonstrates that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance and thus meeting the requirements for SG 80.

References

1era reunion trimestral.pdf

Actas de Inspección.pdf

Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 178 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2018a)

DGIV 2021

Evaluación de la conformidad

Minuta primera reunión técnica 02-21-20.pdf

Monitoreo Satelital de Embarcaciones Pesqueras (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2015)

Marine Sterwardship Council (2021). Derogation 6: Covid-19 Fishery Conditions Extension. Available at: https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/program-documents/chain- of-custody-supporting-documents/msc-derogation-6-covid-19-fishery-conditions-extension.pdf

NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-062-SAG/PESC-2014, Para la utilización del Sistema de Localización y Monitoreo Satelital de Embarcaciones Pesqueras (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2014)

NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2019)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 179 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

According to NOM-003-SAG / PESC-2018 (section 4.14), SAGARPA will carry out research programs to determine new systems, equipment, fishing gear, fishing zones or methods that are authorized, as well as fishing effort limits, allowable catch volumes of the target species, incidental catch values, minimum catch sizes and those related to the updating of specifications of authorized fishing equipment, gear and systems. Fishing effort can also be modified according to the biological availability determined by INAPESCA.

INAPESCA has an active research program based at the CRIP-Mazatlan. The program collects information on the catch and biological sampling to assess the performance of the fishery and the status of the stock. Results from research are presented in regular meetings held between INAPESCA and the industry. These meetings also serve to discuss relevant issues leading to improvements in the management system, as evidenced on the minutes.

The above evidence demonstrates that mechanisms are in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system and therefore scoring SG 80 is met by the UoA. b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional internal subject to regular internal subject to regular internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

On the Third Surveillance Audit Report the team highlighted that the fishery must present a technical report including internal and external review process of the Management Plan and the entire management system. In this regard, the client provided a technical report elaborated by the Small Pelagic Technical Committee that analyzed reports issued by INAPESCA on thread herring stock and acoustic evaluation. This report also incorporates recommendations to improve future analyses. (Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores 2020).

References

(Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores 2020)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 180 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 2019)

Minutes from Meetings

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought / Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 181 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

9 Appendices

9.1 Assessment information

Vessel list The following is a list of vessels in the UoA: Maz Sardina I Maz Sardina IV Maz Sardina V Maz Sardina VII Maz Sardina VIII Maz Sardina IX Maz Sardina X Pancho Villa

Previous assessments

The Southern Gulf of California thread herring fishery, Sinaloa & Nayarit, Mexico is in its 2nd re-assessment. The first certificate cycle was from 2016-2022.

There were 22 conditions for the fishery. As of the conclusion of the 3rd annual surveillance audit, 10 conditions were closed. Those conditions impacted by the MSC’s Derogation 6: Covid-19 Fishery Conditions Extension were extended for 12 months. The MSC granted a deadline extension (variation) to a condition for PI 1.2.4. Copies of the first assessment are available here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/southern-gulf-of-california-thread-herring/@@assessments

Table 17. Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification

Insert condition number Insert PI State year of closure, if Insert justification and summary applicable.

The fishery has made important progress in several aspects in the requirements of this 1-1 1.2.1a On target condition, such as improving the stock assessment and consolidation of the harvest control rule, therefore, progress

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 182 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

is on target. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

There was an oversight and target reference points are being evaluated in 1.1.2. No 1-2 1.2.1c Closed (2nd Surveillance) condition was placed on PI 1.1.2 in PCDR, therefore this condition was incorrectly issued.

The fishery is ready to close this condition if by the fourth year it can demonstrate that mechanisms to limit, reduce, or cease fishing when the 1-3(A) 1.2.2a On target biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being approached will be applied explicitly, systematically, and effectively. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

1-3(B) 1.2.2a Closed (3rd Surveillance) As the intention of this Condition was that the fishery demonstrated effective communication and participation to make the harvest control rule effectively in place, the team considers that the Condition has been met satisfactorily and closed.

The fishery presented evidence that the stock assessment included estimates of FRMS which was used to calculate the BAC which in turn was used to 1-4(A) 1.2.2a Closed (2nd Surveillance) set the catch limit for the 2018 fishing season. This is improvement satisfies the requirements of the Condition and it was closed.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 183 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

There was an oversight and target reference points are being evaluated in 1.1.2. No 1-4(B) 1.2.2a Closed (2nd Surveillance) condition was placed on PI 1.1.2 in PCDR, therefore this condition was incorrectly issued.

The fishery needs to resolve the selectivity of the gear utilized for verification of the detections using acoustic instruments and 1-5 1.2.3b Behind target another to present a value for the parameter b2 used to calculate the Opistonema specific target strength. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

The team considered that the fishery met the requirements for the third-year milestones as far as the implementation of an improved methodology for evaluating the stock and therefore is on target. 1-6 1.2.4c On target Nevertheless, the fishery still has a significant amount of progress to make in its application of an improved model. The MSC granted a deadline extension (variation) to this condition.

As a means of subjecting the stock assessment to peer review, the fishery presented 1-7 1.2.4e On target evidence that paper was submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

Evidence is being collected that 2-1 PI 2.1.2c On target the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 184 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

successfully. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

There is evidence of continuous training and improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program and development of additional data collection systems (port observers, and logbooks). These measures contribute to a partial management strategy that provides regular and broad types of information. Taken 2-2 PI 2.1.3d Closed (3rd Surveillance) together, the fishery’s development of multiple bycatch data collection systems, increasing coverage of these systems, and data analysis methods and capacity is evidence that the components of a partial management strategy is being developed and implemented by fishery managers.

Evidence is being collected that the partial strategy for 2-3 PI 2.2.2c On target cownosed rays is being implemented successfully. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

There is evidence of continuous training and improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program and development of additional data collection systems (port rd 2-4 PI 2.2.3d Closed (3 Surveillance) observers, and logbooks). These measures contribute to a partial management strategy that provides regular and broad types of information. Taken together, the fishery’s development of multiple

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 185 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

bycatch data collection systems, increasing coverage of these systems, and data analysis methods and capacity is evidence that the components of a partial management strategy is being developed and implemented by fishery managers.

Observer coverage and logbook use is demonstrating that sufficient information is available to allow fishery related 2-5 PI 2.3.3a On target mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

The client has yet to present a plan to incorporate biomass limits for thread herring into the fishery’s management 2-6 PI 2.5.2b Behind target measures and present a report with the main results after the implementation of the ecosystem model. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

The client provided the audit team with a series of reports and minutes that served as 2-7 PI 2.5.2b Closed (3rd Surveillance) evidence for the protection of the ecosystem and demonstrate an implemented strategy to protect estuarine communities.

The evidence presented by the client demonstrated application of a control rule, the measures rd 3-1 PI 3.2.2a Closed (3 Surveillance) to mitigate the fishery’s impacts of the ecosystem, and INAPESCA’s minutes of its technical meetings’ objectives,

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 186 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

results, decisions taken, stated industry compliance (in the form of signatures to the meeting minutes), and meeting attendees together serve as a technical report that is sufficient evidence for the audit team to close this condition.

In 2019 CONAPESCA performed on-the-water and in port inspections of 4 vessels and found no nonconformities. The authority’s SISMEP system that uses VMS to alert officials when illegal fishing activity is detected has not registered a call to this fishery’s vessels during the surveillance timeframe. These antecedents place the fishery in a low risk category according to 3-2 PI 3.2.3a On target conversations the audit team had with CONAPESCA and INAPESCA officials, meaning that there is little need to increase the frequency of inspections. This evidence and these conversations were enough for the audit team to determine that the fishery’s progress towards completing this condition meets the 3rd year milestones. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

The client brought it to the attention of the audit team that they anticipate producing a document evaluating the 3-3 PI 3.2.3b Behind target fishery’s level of conformity according to the NOM’s description in section 8 (8.1- 8.7). This document, if received by the audit team, will be considered sufficient evidence

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 187 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

to close this condition. MSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

Evidence now exists that demonstrates fishers comply with the management system under assessment in the form of 14 inspections with no violations. Taken together, the 3-4 PI 3.2.3c,d Closed (3rd Surveillance) evidence provided to the audit team by the client demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment and that there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance.

The main purpose of this Condition is that the fishery has a research program that is described in a formal document with the characteristic outlined 3-5 PI 3.2.4a Closed (1st Surveillance) in CR CB4.10.3. Although the actions stipulated in the client’s action plan were not achieved (See FCRv2.0 7.23.13.1), the condition is considered met and closed.

While the client did not present the audit team with a technical report of the fishery’s external review, it did provide various documents that included minutes and outcomes from a review meeting. These 3-6 PI 3.2.5b On target outcomes included the Comité’s proposed revisions to the fishery’s Management Plan. The fishery must present a technical report by the 4th surveillance audit that contains the results of the internal and external review process of both the Management Plan and the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 188 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

entire management systemMSC Derogation 6 applies to this PI.

Small-scale fisheries This fishery is not a small-scale fishery.

9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques

Site visits Information will be included at the client and peer review draft report stage.

Table 18. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 189 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.

Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.

Scoring and Report Development Process

ACDR: The Announcement Comment Draft Report was completed on June 21, 2021. The client decided to continue with the full assessment.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCP v2.2 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues is considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 17 determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements3’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 17.

3 MSC FCPV2.1 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 190 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Table 19. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4) Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there. 75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCPV2.2 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology utilized.

When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS interprets the terms in Table 2 as follows: . Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few. . Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some. . Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

9.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage.

9.4 Stakeholder input

To be included at the Client and Peer Review Draft Stage. Stakeholder input at the ACDR stage will be posted on the MSC database.

Table 20. Summary of Stakeholder Submissions

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 191 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Conditions

Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate Table 21 is a summary of all conditions and their status after the 3rd annual surveillance audit.

Table 21: Summary of conditions for the 2016 assessment Condition Performance PI original Status PI revised score number indicator (PI) score 1 1-1 1.2.1a On target 70 Score not revised 2 1-2 1.2.1a Closed (2nd Surveillance) 70 Score not revised4 3 1-3(A) 1.2.2a On target 70 Score not revised 4 1-3(B) 1.2.2a Closed (3rd Surveillance) 70 Score not revised 5 1-4(A) 1.2.2a Closed (2nd Surveillance) 70 80 6 1-4(B) 1.2.2a Closed (2nd Surveillance) 70 Score not revised5 7 1-5 1.2.3b Behind target 75 Score not revised 8 1-6 1.2.4c On target 65 Score not revised 9 1-7 1.2.4e On target 65 Score not revised 10 2-1 PI 2.1.1a On target 75 Score not revised 11 2-2 PI 2.1.3d Closed (3rd Surveillance) 75 80 12 2-3 PI 2.2.2c On target 75 Score not revised 13 2-4 PI 2.2.3d Closed (3rd Surveillance) 75 80 14 2-5 PI 2.3.3a On target 75 Score not revised 15 2-6 PI 2.5.2b Behind target 70 Score not revised 16 2-7 PI 2.5.2b Closed (3rd Surveillance) 70 75 17 3-1 PI 3.2.2a Closed (3rd Surveillance) 70 80 18 3-2 PI 3.2.3a On target 60 Score not revised 19 3-3 PI 3.2.3b Behind target 60 Score not revised 20 3-4 PI 3.2.3c,d Closed (3rd Surveillance) 60 70 21 3-5 PI 3.2.4a Closed (1st Surveillance) 75 80 22 3-6 PI 3.2.5b On target 75 Score not revised

Open Conditions at reassessment announcement The following tables provide information on all open conditions for the UoA.

4 Condition was inaccurately assigned and therefore removed. No revised score issued. 5 Condition was inaccurately assigned and therefore removed. No revised score issued.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 192 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 1-1

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 1.2.1 SIa 70 The fishery must provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of Condition the stock. A robust stock assessment and a harvest control rule with agreed outcomes must be active and working together towards achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Surveillance 1 (2017) At this stage, INAPESCA will discuss the implementation of changes in thread herring stock assessment and define the approach that will be used. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a report with the information of the agreements reached in the discussion. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of changes on thread herring stock assessment and the start of changes to the management system (negotiations between key parties, drafting of agreements, etc.). Expected Outcome: Same outcome as surveillance 1 (2017) Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated further

progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with the achievement of the condition within the allowed four years. Expected Outcome: The client will provide evidence of the implementation of a robust thread herring stock assessment; reports with the progress in the changes in the management system will be provided; in case of carrying out meetings, minutes with the agreements reached will be submitted. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: same outcome as surveillance 3; also, active control rule for thread herring sardine will be applied effectively and systematically. Expected score: 80

The fishery will provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. A robust stock assessment and a harvest control rule with agreed outcomes will be active and working together towards achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Client action plan The client will collaborate with INAPESCA (Technical/Scientific body) in the research

respect to thread herring for the implementation of a robust stock assessment to determine the status of each thread herring species. The outcomes of this stock assessment will be taken into account for the estimation of the Control Rule; these results will be reflected in a technical report that will be the basis

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 193 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

for decision making for the management, ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk for the populations of thread herring.

Control rule outcomes will be announced through a technical meeting early year and/or seasonal to the industry and CONAPESCA (Administrative body) for systematic and effective implementation.

The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.

The client presented results of a new approach to assess the status of the thread herring stock in the southern Gulf of California. The new model with age structure is fit to the acoustic indices of abundance and catch data. Model predicted abundance is estimated for the whole complex and each species separately. The outputs include management oriented parameters such as harvest rate and fishing mortality rates. This is considered a significant improvement in the assessment of the TH stock complex, however it still Progress on needs considerable development and improvement. A relevant observation is that Condition [Year 1] development of the model is paired with a discussion of what reference points are appropriate for the stock and whether they can be estimated.

Overall the team considers that the fishery is on target with this condition. However, the fishery needs to evaluate the time needed to incorporate further model developments and testing and assure compliance with the milestones of year 2 without sacrificing achievement of the main goals to close the condition.

The fishery continues working with an age structured model and explored the performance of the model under alternative assumptions about the stock-recruitment relationship. The INAPESCA scientific staff continues searching for ways to address uncertainties that have been identified such as the estimation of natural mortality. Model implementation is also an area of investigation. On the other hand, the fishery also worked to improve the biomass estimates obtained from fishery independent acoustic surveys.

The fishery demonstrated using the control rule providing a biologically acceptable catch level early in the season. Technical meetings were held to discuss the catch as the season progressed and how the catch was approaching the pre-determined limit. The fishery Progress on provided evidence that they agreed to stop operations at the time the catch had reached Condition [Year 2] 91% of the BAC, reserving the remaining catch for the last days of the season avoiding overfishing. The fishery re-opened after the BAC was adjusted and finished close but under the BAC. In October, the scientific staff provided in a regular technical meeting an updated abundance estimate to re-calculate the BAC and the fishery resumed operations until they reached the end of the season without exceeding the new agreed limit.

Shortly before the second surveillance audit, the long-time awaited modification of the official Norm (NOM) was published in the Official Gazette as NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018. This NOM includes a provision for issuing “Regulatory Agreements” that allow the government to establish measures with the goal to “apply a dynamic management of the fishery” based on Technical Opinions prepared by the INAPESCA. This regulatory

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 194 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

tools as defined in the NOM are now binding and allow formal implementation of the HCR as described in the Management Plan.

The fishery provided evidence of improvements as expected in the Client Action Plan and is on target for this Condition.

The fishery continues working with the same implementation of an age structured model and evaluated its performance under alternative assumptions about the stock- recruitment relationship. However, during the surveillance audit, some questions were raised introducing further uncertainties in the model structure which have been identified as needs to review model performance, in particular with regards of the estimates of stock status relative to reference points. INAPESCA staff suggested during the audit that the definition of the reference points may change.

The assessment team notes that the updates in the assessment model could lead to changes in the reference points impacting the fishery successfully meeting P1 conditions during the timeframe allotted by the MSC. As the fishery is in the 3rd of 4 surveillance audits, managers should realize that at this point, any drastic changes to reference point definitions could hinder their ability to successfully close this condition by the 4th surveillance audit.

Another point of concern is the limited improvement in the estimates of abundance using acoustic methods because no progress was reported in the development of an Progress on Opistonema specific target strength value. Condition [Year 3] The fishery presented evidence of the scientific staff of INAPESCA informing stakeholders about the results of the stock assessment. These communications took place during decision making meetings where catch limits were presented after application of the control rule. Evidence was also presented that quarterly meetings took place to inform about the cumulative catch as the season progressed and evidence was also presented that the fishery agreed to stop operations before the end of the season even before the limit was reached.

The fishery has made important progress in several aspects in the requirements of this condition, such as improving the stock assessment and consolidation of the harvest control rule, therefore, progress is on target. However, the client is advised to be aware of the timing for pending actions and move forward in both the development of a more robust assessment model and to consolidate a thread herring specific approach to estimate abundance using acoustic methodology to avoid uncertainties that could jeopardize the decision making process. So far, the harvest has been estimated to be well below the limits established by the control rule, however, the level of certainty

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 195 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

while reaching these conclusions may be reduced if fishing effort increases while model and abundance estimate uncertainties are not addressed.

Status of condition On target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 196 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 1-3 (Part A)

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 1.2.2 SIa 70 Condition The fishery must provide evidence that the Harvest Control Rule is effectively in place to ensure that exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Surveillance 1 (2017): The client and INAPESCA will initiate meetings in order to propose the most acceptable mechanisms for limiting, reducing or ceasing fishing when the BAC is being approached. Expected Output: Minute of the meetings signed by the participants with all the agreements reached will be submitted; the main agreed mechanisms will be provided. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some changes toward the closure of the condition. The mechanisms for limiting, reducing or ceasing fishing when the biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being achieved will be announced. A meeting will be carried out where INAPESCA and the client will discuss the methods to implement the mechanisms for limiting, reducing and ceasing. Some tests of the mechanisms chosen will be carried out to determine their feasibility when the BAC is being approached. Expected Output: The minute of the meeting signed by participants with the agreements reached will be provided; a report of the mechanism selected will be presented; and a report of progress made after first testing the mechanisms will be provided. Milestones Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA will review and discuss the actions that will be done when the BAC is being approached and they will propose the official document where it will be published (MP, CNP, regulatory agreement, etc.). Expected Outcome: The minute of the meeting signed by the participants for the discussion and review of the mechanisms will be provided. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. The mechanisms to limit reduce or cease fishing when the biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being approached will be applied explicitly, systematically and effectively. Additionally, these mechanisms will be included in the MP o other regulatory document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected Outcome: The mechanisms will be established and published by the Official Federal Gazette. Expected score: 80

Client action plan Explicit mechanisms will be presented to limit, reduce or cease fishing as the BAC of the year is being approached, systematic and effective implementation.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 197 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for implement systematic monitoring at the catch levels to determine the time when the BAC of the year is being achieved. INAPESCA will announce these results through a technical report that will be the basis for decision making for the management (limit, reduce or cease fishing as the BAC of the year is being approached), ensuring that the fishery does not a pose a risk for the populations of thread herring. These mechanisms are defined in the Management Plan.

For the implementation of these mechanisms, the technical report will be release through technical meeting between industry, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA for their systematic and effective application and publication in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF).

The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.

Minutes were presented with evidence of discussion about the need to determine the potential mechanisms to shut operations as the real time cumulative catch of the season approaches 90% of the allowable catch of the year. Minutes were also presented where actual decisions made together between the industry and the authorities to stop operations based on results of in-season monitoring of abundance and size. This is a positive setting to future determinations on the mechanisms that could be agreed to implement the operation of the control rule and make the harvest strategy effective in reducing effort as the stock approaches the limit reference point.

A relevant situation was discussed at the onsite point out the difficulties to implement a Progress on control rule over a stock complex that could require a low allowable catch level on one Condition [Year 1] component of the complex while other components are abundant but could not be harvested in full because the fishery cannot separate the least abundant species from the most abundant. The client needs to be aware of this problem to discuss with the scientific staff and start working to develop a strategy to address this issue.

------

At the second surveillance the updated NOM has been already published in the official gazette. For the following years, the CAB will be looking for the regulatory agreements produced before the start of the fishing season with the BAC of the year, and the procedures that would have to be followed as the BAC is approached.

On March 12th 2019 the revised Norm regulating the small pelagics fishery in Mexico was published in the Official Gazette as NOM 003-SAG-PESC-2018. Section 4.6 of the NOM states: “The Secretariat may establish periods and closed areas for the capture of smaller pelagics in order to apply dynamic management of the fishery, avoid interaction with other fisheries, as well as contribute to the conservation of other biological Progress on resources and the ecosystem. Such periods and closure zones will be announced through Condition [Year 2] Regulatory Agreements that will be published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, based on the technical opinion issued by INAPESCA for such purpose, prior to the socialization of the measure”.

This regulatory mechanism makes binding any measure proposed by the INAPESCA as a technical opinion designed to manage the fishery. It fits the need of a mechanism to

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 198 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

transform a definition in the Management Plan, which is the technical management guidance, into an actual management regulatory action.

At the time of the second surveillance audit, the corresponding Regulatory Agreement to present the proposed BAC and how to apply it was not produced in 2018 because the NOM had not been published yet. Nevertheless, the fishery presented evidence of the computation of the BAC based on results of a stock assessment, the communication of the results to the industry and other authorities, and a signed agreement to stop the fishery for three months as it was approaching the limit set. Another agreement was signed to re-open the fishery as the BAC was revised based on new data from an acoustic survey and evidence indicates that the catch of the year did not exceed the BAC.

From the perspective of the CR and the Action Plan, the fishery produced the expected outcome of the milestone for year 2 and is ready to fulfill the requirements in PI 1.2.2. by next year if evidence is presented of the emission of the Regulatory Agreement to set the catch limit for the following season and evidence that the fishery operated according to the content of the Agreement. Progress on this condition is evaluated relative to two different aspects, the implementation of the control rule and the effective application of the tool to control size in the catch.

The recently updated NOM regulating the fishery for small pelagics in Mexico, indicates in section 4.14 that if results from research allow for new systems, fishing gear, fishing grounds, methods, limits on effort, allowable catch of target and bycatch species and size limits, the Secretary shall notify about the above through publication of a regulatory Agreement in the Official Gazette. The surveillance audit team was notified that administrative complications prevented the publication of the formal Agreement with the allowable catch for 2019. However, the fishery presented evidence of four quarterly reports that included technical information from data collected during fishing operations. The fishery also presented minutes from two technical meetings, one to present results of research towards the revision of size limits, the results of the stock Progress on assessment up to 2018, and to deliver the technical document informing about the Condition [Year 3] Biologically Acceptable Catch for 2019 as obtained after application of the HCR; during the second meeting results from the acoustic survey were presented, as well as the progress of the fishing season to determine the current catch relative to the BAC and other investigations. Although the first technical meeting to inform about the BAC took place once the fishing season had already started, the meeting occurred early in the season so that the catch was still in the low levels compared to the limit. For the upcoming fishing season, the audit team anticipates that managers will make efforts to have the first technical meeting to inform about updates in abundance estimates and the new BAC before the beginning of the season.

It is relevant to note that the 2019 publication in the Official Gazette for a closure of the small pelagic fisheries in the Gulf of California, did not include the entire region of the Sinaloa shoreline (DOF 2019). The team however had access to the official Agreement for 2020 which now included the information on the closure applied to the thread herring fishery of Sinaloa (DOF 2020).

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 199 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The following aspects are noteworthy. 1) The scientific staff of INAPESCA is working in coordination with the industry to collect data and to conduct research pertinent to satisfy the demands of the harvest strategy; 2) Despite complications, the submitted evidence is indicative of communication efforts from INAPESCA scientific staff to inform stakeholders about results from research, the application of the control rule and performance as the fishing season progresses; 3) Even if the formal notification of season closure was not in place when needed, the industry agreed to a voluntary cease of operations that lasted from August 27th to November the 20th. These observations are indicative of the commitment from all parties to make the control rule operational and can be considered in place.

In addition, the fishery had informed that there would be a revision of the size limits for thread herring as it had been observed that the fish in the upper portions of the Gulf have a tendency to be larger than those in the south. In fact, this has been a permanent source of concern because of the consistent tendency of the catch to have a proportion of fish under the legal size limits for Opistonema, larger than permitted by regulations in the past (see Figure 20 in Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2019). On October the 8th 2019 the Agreement to present the new size limits and allowable proportions under the limit for small pelagics in the Mexican Pacific was published. The new size limit for Opistonema in the southern Gulf of California is 140 mm with a tolerance of 38% under the limit. This change placed most of the catch of the complex over the size limit with a few exceptions in months where either O. medirastre or O. bulleri presented higher proportions under the limit (see Figure 34 in in Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2020).

The fishery is ready to close this condition if by the fourth year it can demonstrate that mechanisms to limit, reduce, or cease fishing when the biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being approached will be applied explicitly, systematically, and effectively. The team points out attention to details that may represent an obstacle to such ends. For example, the language found in some of the submitted documents supporting the decision-making process. While the technical opinion (Dictamen técnico) on the control rule of February 2020 (last paragraph in p. 6 of Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020) indicates that a suspension of fishing would apply as the allowable catch for that year is approached, the technical opinion document for year 2019 (last paragraph in p. 6 of Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2019) only proposed that the suspension was applied once the allowable catch was reached. Similarly, the minutes of the first quarterly technical meeting indicate that it was agreed that in case the optimal catch was exceeded, a voluntary temporal suspension would be implemented, and that INAPESCA will send notification to CONAPESCA and the industry when 90% of the optimal catch was reached. While the team does not advocate for any particular decision, the evidence has shown that the industry is being informed about the amount of catch accumulated at the time of the meeting where the objective was to stopped fishing before the BAC was reached, an approach that could cause the pre-established limit to be exceeded. We therefore suggest consistency in the language so that there is no room for confusion. Status of condition On target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 200 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 1-5

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 1.2.3 SIb 75 Because stock assessments are key elements of a harvest strategy, and stock assessments require reliable indices of abundance, the acoustic surveys need to be Condition conducted on a regular basis to feed this important element of the harvest strategy. These surveys need to be consolidated and their methods refined to be able to support the control rule.

Surveillance 1 (2017) Continuation with the biomass assessment by hydro acoustic methods. Expected Outcome: The client will present a report of progress of the hydroacoustic surveys Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of changes in the thread herring biomass assessment by hydro acoustic methods in the Southern Gulf of California. The analysis for specific thread herring complex assessment will be initiated. Results will be announced through reports that will be presented in technical meetings attended by stakeholder. Expected Outcome: The client will submit technical reports of progress with the main results of the specific thread herring complex assessment. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Milestones

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) Systematic acoustic researches and specific evaluation of the stock of thread herring will be continued. Also, technical meetings among stakeholder for the application of the specific evaluation for thread herring in the control rule will be carried out. The use of “Target strength” will be analyzed and discussed so that it can be applied with more robustness in assessments of thread herring. Expected Outcome: The minutes of the meetings signed by all participants will be provided; also, minutes of the discussion, analysis and agreements of the use of specific target strength for thread herring will be submitted. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: A final technical report with the results of the hydroacoustic survey will be provide. Expected score: 80

Client action plan The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for conducting research for biomass assessment through acoustic methods. This research will be regular and focused on the

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 201 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

analysis and consolidation of its methods for that “Target strength” parameters used can be applied with more strength to the thread herring.

In addition, these assessments will tend to be carried out at specific level including different species of Opisthonema complex. This will allow obtain abundance index independents of the fishery, systemic and reliable, that can be include in the harvest strategy. Obtained results in this research will be announced through a technical meeting to stakeholder for their effective and systematic application in Control Rule.

The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.

The INAPESCA scientific staff presented reports indicating that two hydroacoustic surveys were conducted in 2017 even if unsuccessful because the fish apparently was scattered in the surveyed area. The staff also informed that a new echosounder has been acquired and is being calibrated. The staff also informed that experiments to determine specific signal recognition for thread herring and other small pelagic fish will soon be Progress on conducted and that the setting is ready for the experiments. Condition [Year 1]

The progress on this condition is acceptable but the client needs to be aware that for Surveillance audit 2 it will be expected that detailed progress will be presented on 1) fishing gear selectivity; 2) echosounder performance and 3) experiments towards specific TH signal discrimination. The INAPESCA staff presented evidence of dedicated training to improve the interpretation of acoustic data and a report of an acoustic survey which produced an estimate of biomass independent from the fishery.

Overall, the activities conducted by the INAPESCA meet the description of expected outcomes for milestone 2. However, the description of progress for year 1 mentioned Progress on that it would be expected to report progress that would also include 1) fishing gear Condition [Year 2] selectivity; 2) echosounder performance and 3) experiments towards specific TH signal discrimination. Of these three, there is a description related to point 2, but not about 1 and 3. Since they are not part of the milestone for year 2, the team agrees to acknowledge the progress during the second year and considers the work to be on target. However, the team also emphasizes the need to pay attention to the other two aspects described in the section about progress in year 1. The fishery continued conducting acoustic surveys to estimate biomass abundance independent from the fishery. Results from the 2019 survey reported that, on this occasion, data were analyzed using the b2 parameter for clupeids only, which is a departure from previous approaches that also used the b2 value for Sardinops. Technical Progress on support for this decision is presented in the minutes of the XXVII annual workshop on Condition [Year 3] small pelagics (Anonymous 2019) where a discussion was held about the pertinence of using the surrogate parameters for Sardinops and Opistonema. Dr. Hector Villalobos indicated that it is valid to use target strengths from other species, as it is done worldwide, where it is common practice to use the target strength from one species to evaluate another similar one. Dr Villalobos suggested that the value available for

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 202 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

clupeids can be used to estimate thread herring abundance. The team acknowledges Dr Villalobos as an expert in acoustic research and requests that fishery managers present a more thorough discussion about the implications of using this value. In particular, the team is interested in understanding the range of departure the thread herring could have from the general clupeid parameter and how it translates to actual biomass. The team recalls that the difference between the value for clupeids (-71.7; noting that INAPESCA is actually using -71.9) and Sardinops ocellatus (-70.5) led to estimates of biomass of 678,518 t and 936,616 respectively, therefore, it is apparent that small differences in the b2 parameter values imply large differences in estimated biomass. The team also notes that a paper presented as reference for the b2 value for clupeids (Foote 1987), reported that: For the data gathered on 46 herring and sprat in 1971, TS= 20 log l - 71.7, while, for data from 60 herring measured in 1980, TS =20 log l - 72.5, which suggests that differences in the value of b2 are present not only among different species of the same family but within the same species at different times with a range of variation that appears small but that may represent a large divergence in the final estimate of biomass. This requires a formal description of how these issues are factored in when making a final decision about what parameter value is used to obtain an estimate of abundance.

This information implies that, there was no progress relative to the proposed analysis and discussion of Target strength” parameters and how they can be applied with more strength to the thread herring. Additionally, at the second surveillance audit, three relevant aspects were required in the discussion about the reliability of the estimates, 1) fishing gear selectivity; 2) echosounder performance and 3) experiments towards specific TH signal discrimination. The report of the second surveillance audit indicates that echosounder performance testing was conducted but no information was provided about gear selectivity nor about progress on TH signal discrimination. For the third surveillance audit, the fishery presented a report on the performance of the purse seine gear used in the small pelagics fishery, however, interesting as it is, the content does not relate to the requirement of discussing selectivity of the mid-water trawl gear used to validate species identification during the acoustic survey scans. The purpose of the request was to determine if the gear was effectively selecting for the target species that is supposed to be detected by the acoustic scan and assure correct verification of the acoustic detection.

In summary, the same two issues mentioned in the results of the second surveillance audit are still unresolved with little to no progress at the third surveillance audit, therefore the fishery is behind target for this Condition. It appears, however, that the scientific staff of INAPESCA is moving towards use of the clupeid value as suggested by Dr. Villalobos. The team considers acceptable that the target strength for clupeids is finally used as the parameter in the calculation of the target strength, however, a more in-depth justification is needed with a discussion about the implications of such decision.

Remedial action: (FCP 2.1) 7.28.16.1 b As described in the previous section, the fishery has two aspects to resolve about this condition. One referring to the selectivity of the gear utilized for verification of the detections using acoustic instruments and another to present a value for the parameter

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 203 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

b2 used to calculate the Opistonema specific target strength. The first could be satisfied if a document is prepared describing the history of success of the gear to match the catch with the detection. Other alternatives are possible as the team does not prescribe solutions, only generic possibilities to satisfy the condition. As for the Opistonema specific value of b2, as described in previous paragraphs, the fishery has the option to conduct the experiments to obtain the value for thread herring, or if so desired, to present an in-depth justification to settle for the generic approach using the value for clupeids. Again, other options are acceptable if they are fully supported with the technical information that validates the choice. Status of condition Behind target .

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 204 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 1-6

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 1.2.4 SIc 65 The stock assessment methodology must be improved to resolve the current Condition inconsistencies shown between the VPA and Multispecies Production models. This type of model uncertainty must be accounted for to increase the reliability of the assessment methodology to support the harvest strategy. Surveillance 1 (2017) Analysis and discussions will be carried out to design the methodology that will be used to solve inconsistencies in VPA and Multispecies Production models for thread herring to increase the reliability of the assessment methodology. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report with the progress obtained in this issue.

Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured by analyzing the inconsistencies between the VPA and multispecies production models. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report with the analysis of the Milestones inconsistencies. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition; progress may be measured by implementing a more robust methodology for evaluating the stock taking into account the involved uncertainties. Expected Outcome: A report of progress will be provide with partial results. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition is expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: A final technical report with the main results will be submitted.

Expected score: 80

The client will collaborate with INAPESCA to improve the methodology in stock assessment and provide estimations more robust of biologic and management parameters where take into account involved inconsistencies. Client action plan

In addition, factors will be analyzed contributing to the main uncertainties such as differences in the abundance estimated between assessment methods; the models sensitivity in assumptions on parameters such as natural mortality; or information type

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 205 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

included in data, to assess the results validity and increase the reliability assessment methodology that support the harvest strategy.

The client presented results of a new approach to assess the status of the thread herring stock in the southern Gulf of California. The new model with age structure is fit to the acoustic indices of abundance and catch data. Model predicted abundance is estimated for the whole complex and each species separately. The outputs include management oriented parameters such as harvest rate and fishing mortality rates. This is considered Progress on a significant improvement in the assessment of the TH stock complex, however it still Condition [Year 1] needs considerable development and improvement.

Overall the team considers that the fishery is on target with this condition. However, the fishery needs to evaluate the time needed to incorporate further model developments and testing and assure compliance with the milestones of year 2 without sacrificing achievement of the main goals to close the condition. The milestone for year 2 indicated that “Progress can be measured by analysing the inconsistencies between the VPA and multispecies production models”. It is clear to the audit team that said inconsistencies have been resolved by adopting a different more appropriate methodology to estimate thread herring biomass and management parameters. In a way, the fishery has advanced to the expectations in the milestone of year 3 and continues to work in developing improvements in model structure, particularly in the handling of uncertainty. Progress on

Condition [Year 2] The fishery has demonstrated progress towards closing this condition. However, it needs to advance more rapidly to the definition of a more robust approach. Generic aspects that have been identified include as an example releasing assumptions about model parameters and allowing their free estimation within the model (e.g. natural mortality); exploring model free estimation of yearly recruitment; running diagnostics to understand what factors are influencing the most the estimation process and to detect potential conflicts in data sets or model structure. At the second surveillance audit, the findings indicated considerable progress in the implementation of an age structured model. At the third surveillance audit, it was noted that the model used is based on the structure provided by Haddon 2011, and continued development of the model is required and ongoing (for details see background and recommendations sections). Compared to the results in Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2020), it is possible that the outcome of an improved stock assessment may not be critically different, particularly in trends, but noticing the different estimates of the BAC resulting Progress on from the two tested versions of the model (Beverton-Holt vs Ricker recruitment), Condition [Year 3] differences with a model with improved specifications could be important when calculating allowable catches for the fishery. These uncertainties suggest that the fishery has two options: 1) Continue to improve the specifications of the current model in aspects that were pointed to in the surveillance audit 2) apply another model.

The team considered that the fishery met the requirements for the third-year milestones as far as the implementation of an improved methodology for evaluating the stock and therefore is on target. Nevertheless, the fishery still has a significant amount of progress to make in its application of an improved model. The assessment team recognizes that

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 206 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

federal budgetary constraints pose challenges for the research staff to address these improvements to the stock assessment model within the required timeline, and that these are circumstances outside the fishery’s control. SCS will monitor the progress of the situation carefully. Status of condition On target

Condition 1-7

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 1.2.4 SIe 65 Condition The stock assessment must be subject to peer review.

Surveillance 1 (2017) No improvement or outcome expected Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of the assessment presentation at the Workshop of Small Pelagic Forum. Expected Outcome: The Workshop of Small Pelagic proceedings will be provide. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the progress may be measured by a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal for a peer reviewing. Expected Outcome: A manuscript which will be subject of reviewing will be submitted. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Output: A Stock Assessment paper (in press) will be provided. Expected score: 100

The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for that the assessments be subject to peer review. Client action plan The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.

Progress on No outcome was expected after the first year. Condition [Year 1] Evidence was provided that results of the stock assessment were presented at the annual meeting of the technical committee and that the report was sent to two external reviewers. Progress on

Condition [Year 2] The fishery is showing progress according to the action plan, however, the team warns the client that the milestone for year 3 is set so that the stock assessment is submitted for publication and should be at least in the peer review process.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 207 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The fishery presented evidence that the paper was submitted for publication in a peer Progress on reviewed journal. Condition [Year 3]

Status of condition On target

Condition 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4

Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score number(s) guidepost text Performance 2.1.2 SI c 75 Indicator(s) & 2.1.3 SI d 80 Score(s) 2.2.2 SI c 75 2.2.3 SI d 80 2-1 (PI. 2.1.2) Evidence must be presented that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented successfully.

2-2 (PI. 2.1.3) Demonstrate that sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level for spotted eagle rays and devil rays Condition 2-3 (PI. 2.2.2). Present evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully for cownose rays.

2-4 (PI. 2.2.3), Demonstrate that sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to cownose rays.

Surveillance 1 (2017) ( All Conditions) The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will initiate the implementation of biological sampling of commercial landings for the whole fleet by port observers, with special emphasis on sharks, rays and other non-target species of the small pelagic fishery. The client will support Observer Program of INAPESCA with resources for the addition of observer on port. On board observer program continues to operate with 20 % coverage. Expected Output: The client will present evidence that the design of the sampling strategy (port sampling, on board observers and fisher logbooks) is cohesive and feasible, and that the selected monitoring tools, goals and data analysis will provide accurate and reliable data to respond to the conditions for the management and Milestones information conditions for retained and bycatch species. Client will present evidence

that fishers have received training to collect information on logbooks; Client will present report of finding for corresponding fishing season from on board observer program.

Expected Score: No changes in scores are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) ( All Conditions)

At this stage, the fishery will have shown some progress toward closing.

Expected Output: Client will present evidence that logbooks on board the fleet are in place and that estimates for volume of retained and discarded species are collected

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 208 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

alongside spatial information of fishing events; data from the on board program continues to be collected for the registration of retained and discarded species, detailed information on the biology of eagle and devil rays (size, maturity, sex, etc.) and other non-target species of the fishery; Information on retained species from port observers.

Expected Score: No changes in scores are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) ( All Conditions) At this stage, the on board observer program and on port observer program will have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with the achievement of the condition within the allowed four years. Expected Output: Same output as Surveillance 2.

Expected Score: No changes in scores are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) ( All Conditions) At this stage the action plan provides evidence that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented successfully. The data collected and analyzed respond to the condition. Expected Output: The client will present reports from on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling, which show the sampling strategy is implemented and in place; the client will present evidence that there is in place a data quality control system that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling) for authentication and accuracy.

Expected Score: 80

Evidence will be present to show that the strategy for managing retained and bycatch species is being carried out s, successfully, and that information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk levels.

The client will cooperate with the INAPESCA to carry out a sampling strategy resulting in obtaining timely and adequate information concerning the biology (size structure, maturity, sex, weight, etc.) of the spotted eagle rays and other non-target species of the fleet. This strategy will be implemented by the observer on board vessels as well as observer from port. The biological information obtained will processed, analyzed and Client action plan compared with the scientific information available for the species.

The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will continue to implement the mitigation measures established on all boats and will obtained records of these events in the blogs and photo files.

The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will implement the use of logbooks in all vessels of the sardine fleet in order to obtain detailed record of the target catch, incidental, ETP and retained species, as well as registration of the implementation of mitigation measures complying with the provisions of NOM-029-PESC.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 209 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The implementation of the action plan will be systematic and effective to achieve the objectives of the strategy for managing retained species on Principle 2.

During the first surveillance the client presented reports from the on-board observer program from fishing seasons through 2012 to 2017. For the current on-going fishing season (2017-2018), the sampling of the observer program has been increased from two to seven out of the nine vessels in the fleet. Observer coverage has continued to increase since the first year of the observer program in 2012. Evidence presented also indicated that the observers participated in multiple training sessions to improve data collection methodologies and species identification. The client also developed in 2016 a port-observer program and expanded the captain’s logbook data format to include data collection on non-target species. These two programs were also implemented starting the 2017-2018 fishing season, data collected from these programs was not available for this surveillance audit. The client in coordination with INAPESA led their fifth workshop for best-practices for crew members to share mitigation measures.

Results from the final 2012-2017 observer program report indicates that retained catch of bycatch species has decreased from ~500 t ( 3.3.% of catch of UoA) in the 2012-13 Progress on fishing year to ~160 t (1.1.% of catch of the UoA) in the 2016-17 fishing season. Likewise, Condition [Year 1] the proportion of discarded catch of all bycatch species has decreased from 415 t (50% of discards of UoA) to 9.2 t (8% discards of the UoA). The elasmobranch group shows overall reduction in relative catch volumes from 2.2 t to 0.7 tons. The cause of the reduction in retained and discarded volumes of bycatch could be due to the fleet moving away from more shallow and coastal areas (See Outcomes on Fishery Impact). These changes in fishing behavior could be the result of best-practices workshops, mitigation measures and the implementation of economic incentives for trips with ≤ 2% bycatch.

The assessment team concludes that continuous training, improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program, and development of additional data collection systems (port-observers and logbooks) are important measures to implement a system to control data quality.

The decrease in catch contribution of bycatch species also indicates that the fishery has been able to put in place measures (best-practices workshop and economic incentives for clean catch) to reduce impact of the fishery on such as rays.

During the second surveillance the client presented evidence that there are records of the certified fleet and that data is being collected about the retained and discarded species and their volume for each fishing set. Progress on Through the organization Global Management and Research Group in Marine Sciences Condition [Year 2] and Technologies, Environment, Social Development and Food, A.C. (Global Grupo) an observer program is carried out aboard the sardine fleet with which he works closely. The results of this program for 2018 are presented by the client.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 210 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Likewise, a report on the results of the pilot program "DIARIOS DE NAVEGACIÓN" implemented on board the sardine fleet of the southern Gulf of California for the period 2016-2018 has been presented. Results from the 2018 observer program report indicates that the monitoring total fishing set number with scientific observers It was 986 made by seven boats. For the period reported, the greatest fishing effort was carried out between the months of January and March (Figure 2), during which 46.8% of fishing sets were made with observed on board. In terms of biomass, the group with the greatest abundance in the catch are the small pelagics, the target group of capture, which represented 98.9% of the total catches. The bycatch represents only 1.1% of the total catch. During the 2012- 2013 season, the percentage of incidental catch was 3%, which has led to a significant reduction in the following fishing seasons. The second most abundant group in the catch, in terms of biomass, was that of bony fish with 443.99 t, which represent only 1.1% of the total catch. The elasmobranchs represented only 0.002% of the total catch. Although none of the species is listed in NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (DOF, 2010) With respect to the group of crustaceans, some species of commercial importance were reported, such as brown shrimp, white shrimp and blue shrimp ; however, due to its demersal nature, this group of species contributed a very small catch of 0.014 t, which represents an insignificant percentage of the total catch. The remaining groups (mollusks and echinoderms) had a negligible abundance, and even no record of a single species of echinoderm was obtained. In Table 3, the percentages of incidental capture by groups of species can be consulted.

The assessment team concludes that continuous training, improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program, and the proper functioning of the data collection systems (port-observers and logbooks) are adequate measures that allow to adequately monitor the impact of the fishery. The decrease in catch contribution of bycatch species also indicates that the fishery has been able to put in place measures (best-practices workshop and economic incentives for clean catch) to reduce impact of the fishery on vulnerable species such as rays.

Conditions 2-1 and 2-3: There is evidence of continuous training and improvements in sampling coverage of the observer program and development of additional data collection systems (port observers, and logbooks). These measures contribute to a partial management strategy that provides regular and broad types of information. Taken together, the fishery’s Progress on development of multiple bycatch data collection systems, increasing coverage of these Conditions [Year 3] systems, and data analysis methods and capacity is evidence that the components of a partial management strategy is being developed and implemented by fishery managers. While the fishery experienced a change in the observer program from the participation of Global Grupo to FIDEMAR, coverage has increased yearly since the 2013-2014 season as evidenced by the following table:

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 211 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Season Total trips Observer trips Coverage (%) % bycatch 2012/13 959 83 8.65 1.5 2013/14 458 65 14.2 2.6 2014/15 500 89 17.8 0.9 2015/16 383 106 27.7 0.2 2016/17 532 117 22 1 2017/18 533 236 44.3 0.57 2018/19 552 318 58 1.83

This data represents further progress towards the closure of these conditions for spotted eagle rays, devil rays, and cownose rays. Additionally, bycatch mitigation strategies are now well documented and implemented for seabirds, rays, and dolphins. The NOM defines bycatch limits therefore fulfilling the need of a management strategy.

For Surveillance year 4 the fishery needs to demonstrate that it has a data quality control system in place that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling) for authentication and accuracy in order to close these conditions.

Conditions 2-2 and 2-4: Information available to support management now comes from three sources: . The observer program: For the last three years observer coverage has increased to now reach 58%. Global Grupo no longer is responsible for the program as it has been passed to FIDEMAR which operates with 4 observers. FIDEMAR’s operations began in January 2019. . Port observations: Port observations have increased to 25%. FIDEMAR provides 1 observer to this program. . Logbooks: All vessels are required to keep logbooks and their information is summarized yearly in reports provided by the client.

The client provided various documents that detailed the methods and results of these programs including Programa de Observadores en Planta de la Flota Sardinera del Sur del Golfo de California: Avances 2019-2020, Informe observador a bordo semestral 2019-2020, Informe observador a bordo semestral 2018-2019, and Informe diario de navegacion 2019. According to these documents, elasmobranch bycatch totaled 0.003 t during the 2018-2019 fishing season. Because of the low instances of ray interaction with this fishery, the audit team determined that the current level of observer coverage compared with the level of ray interaction (as well as dolphin interaction not mentioned in the conditions but detailed in the full assessment) is sufficient to estimate species specific impacts. The team also determined that the infrequent interaction of the fishery with rays does not necessitate, at this time, biological studies for these species. Along these lines, information collected for the last three fishing seasons clearly shows infrequent interactions with the species stipulated in these

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 212 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

conditions (in addition to dolphin interactions) and when appropriate catch mitigation measures are implemented.

The information produced by these three programs in terms of spotted eagle rays, devil rays, and cownose rays is sufficient to support the partial strategy for rays outlined in the NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018. Bycatch of these species has been documented for multiple years in the fishery to be below the NOM’s permissible rates for these species according to section 4.3.5. It is also evident that sufficient data will continue to be collected and the likes of which will serve to detect any increase in risk level to these species.

These regular and broad types of information collection systems, with appropriate samples sizes, provide reliable information that can be used by managers to support a fishery bycatch management strategy. Because of this evidence, the audit team concludes that conditions 2-2 and 2-4 are closed with the caveat that ongoing observer program information should be presented by the client and reviewed during surveillance year 4.

Condition Status 2-1 On target Status of conditions 2-2 Closed 2-3 On target 2-4 Closed

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 213 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 2-5

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 2.3.3 SIa 75

Condition Demonstrate that sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

Surveillance 1 (2017) Fishers will be trained on the use and implementation of logbooks on board vessels of the fleet for the registration of ETP species.

Expected Output: The client will provide the files of the fishers training (diplomas, attendance, photos, report, etc.).

Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will demonstrate further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with use logbooks on board vessels of the fleet for the registration of species with special protection status (ETP). Expected Output: The client will present evidence that logbooks on board the fleet are in place and the sighting and application of mitigation measures of ETP species are collected alongside spatial information of fishing event data and evidence (photographs) from on-board observer program continue to be collected for the registration of Milestones information on ETP species and detailed information of the application of mitigation measures.

Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the fishery will have shown some progress toward closing this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of quantitative information on sightings and implementation of mitigation measures of organisms found on a special protection status (ETP) within the vessels of the fleet of small pelagic southern Gulf of California. Expected Output: Same output as Surveillance 2. Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Output: The client will present reports using the information obtained by captains logbooks and pictures as evidence to demonstrate that strategy for special protection status species (ETP) is being implemented in place; The client will present evidence that there is in place a data quality control system that evaluates consistency

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 214 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

between the three monitoring tools (on board observers and fisher logbooks) for authentication and accuracy.

Expected Score: 80 The information from the implementation of logbooks to record species with special protection status (ETP) will be sufficient to allow reliable quantitative estimate of the impact of fishing on species.

Customer will cooperate with the INAPESCA to implement the use of logbooks Client action plan systematically aboard vessels in the fleet for the quantitative record of sighting,

mortality and implementation of mitigation measures dolphins and other species in special protection status (ETP) in order to obtain data and more accurate and representative information that reveal with greater certainty the impact of fishing on these species. This includes training of fishermen to the success of action plan.

In 2016 the captain's logbook (Bitacora de capitan) was modified to include additional information n on discards, retention and transhipment of small pelagic species, capture of bycatch and ETP species and whether these were retained and discarded and their status (live or dead). During the first surveillance audit the assessment team confirmed that the logbooks are already in use, however, it was noted that implementation is still low, and that most logbooks are incomplete in the sections for non-target species.

Progress on The crew has attended a number of workshops on best practices, the workshops have Condition [Year 1] focused on conducting exercised for the crew to practice use of the logbooks and review of identification guides to help standardize use of common names. The results of surveys conducted at the end of the workshops indicates that the use of logbooks is still low, however the knowledge of the logbook appears to be improving based on the survey results between the fourth and fifth workshops. The client has provided evidence that the logbooks are being implemented and that the crew has received training.

The client presents evidence, through the observer program carried out by the Global Grupo entity, that logbooks on board the fleet are in place and the sighting and application of mitigation measures of ETP species are collected alongside spatial information of fishing event data and evidence (photographs) from on-board observer program continue to be collected for the registration of information on ETP species and detailed information of the application of mitigation measures. Progress on As part of the ongoing training program for the southern Gulf of California sardine Condition [Year 2] industry conducted by INAPESCA-CRIAP-Mazatlán and in order to guarantee the implementation of good fishing practices for small pelagic species, in 2018 the 6th Course of Good Practices of Fishing of Pelagic Minor directed to the main involved in fishing operations and fleet management. The main topics of this course were the following: • Feed the fishermen of the sardine industry on aspects such as the legislation in force for the pelagic minor fishery and the certification thereof.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 215 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

• Reinforce the knowledge of the different mitigation measures for species of remarkable importance for the ecosystem and species that are in the status of protected, threatened and endangered. • Publicize the results about the Daily Navigation Pilot Program. • Train fishermen to fill out the new update to the Journal of Navigation format. Evidences of the course program, number of participants and graphic documents of the conference are presented. In the framework of the Observer Program implemented by the Global Grupo, and in relation to seabird species and ETP species, during 2018 improvements were made to the logbooks of seabirds and the mitigation measures applied.

The collection of information was carried out within the systematic records of the On- Board Observers. The observer's log includes the registration of seabirds, for which the following information is recorded for each fishing set: • Information on the observation of Seabird groups: o Species, common name o Total number of individuals, adults and juveniles o State / condition of sighting o Number of birds swimming inside and outside the net o Number of birds with wet plumage in and out of the net o Dead birds inside and outside the net and in power block o Damaged birds o Total dead birds sighted in the water • Information on the observation of mitigation measures: 1. Species, common name 2. State / condition of sighting 3. Mitigation measure used 4. Duration 5. Birds chased away 6. Operation of the mitigation measure o Seabird mitigation measures that have been registered by the observers are the following: 1. Water curtains It consists of throwing water in the form of a fan using a wash hose, forming a breeze that drives away the seabirds (Figure 13). It is one of the mitigation measures most used by the crew 2. Sound through horns 3. Support devices The mitigation measure with the greatest use is the device of power block, since it is a fixed device, this represented 83% of the mitigation measures, followed by the horn and the water fan.

The mitigation measures were directed to Pelecanus occidentalis, Fregata magnificens and Sula leocogaster. In that sense, it was recorded that 80% of the mitigation measures were directed by Fregata magnificens since these birds prostrate themselves in greater quantity in the cable lines of the vessel. The efficiency of the mitigation measure used in

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 216 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Fregata magnificens specimens was 100% survival for these species. In 98% of the cases, the observers recorded that the mitigation measures did work. The most widely used mitigation measure is the water fan and the (fixed) device in block. This is carried out during the collection of the network and prevents the birds from being captured. The second of them, is installed in the block and prevents birds from being caught during fishing manoeuvres.

In the 2015 full assessment, the audit team noted that there was a problem between the patchiness of dolphin mortality events and low observer coverage. To solve this, the use of captains’ logs or a similar documentation source to obtain better coverage of quantitative estimates because of rare interactions was needed. During the 2018-2019 season, the fishery continued to develop its onboard observer program (58% coverage). Observer data contain dolphin interactions and sightings. The fishery’s 2019 summary of logbook data (Informe Diario de Navegación 2019) and its 2019-2020 observer data (Informe Observadores a Bordo Semestral 2019-2020) record ETP species interactions to the species level. Taken together, these two data collection systems provide information to quantitatively estimate the fishery’s ETP interactions.

Regarding dolphins and other species of marine mammals, for the most recent year and for all years dating back to the 2013-2014 fishing season, no deaths have been recorded by this fishery. Additional ETP interaction data for the 2019-2020 season includes the following: . 4 sea turtle sightings (2 green and 2 olive ridley) and no recorded deaths . 15,232 sightings of seabirds with an 18% use of mitigation strategies . Elasmobranch bycatch recorded by observers was 0.003 t.

Progress on Observer reports also mention that bycatch mitigation strategies are not needed to Condition [Year 3] impede the catch of elasmobranchs, marine mammals, and sea turtles given their infrequent interaction with this fishery.

Specific to the need for logbooks to be used by captains identified during the 2015 full assessment, captains now record the following: . Retained catch . Discarded catch (alive and dead) . Transshipment amounts (amount received from other vessels and amount offloaded to other vessels)

During the 2018-2019 fishing season, logbook coverage was 100% though INAPESCA’s analysis of this data showed that some vessels did not register information for some trips that occurred in the second month of the season. Information collected through the observer program and logbooks includes spatial-temporal data as well. At its current amounts, the audit team concludes that the information collected is sufficient to support management decisions and adequate to determine the fishery’s impact on ETP species.

Additionally, the fishery has at its disposal a bycatch mitigation manual presented during surveillance year 2.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 217 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Similar to conditions 2-1 and 2-3, and according to condition 2-5’s milestones, for surveillance year 4 the fishery needs to demonstrate that it has a data quality control system in place that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools in terms of ETP interactions in order to close this condition.

Status of condition On target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 218 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 2-6

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 2.5.2 SIb 70 Demonstrate that partial strategy for small pelagic takes into account available Condition information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the pelagic ecosystem

so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

Surveillance 1 (2017) Collection of information available and necessary to feed the ecosystem model. Expected Output: The client will create a database which will have information of the species involved in the fishery, the gut content, preys, predators, type of information (scientific literature, grey literature, theses, reports, etc.) on board and on port observers information, etc. Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) The stakeholders will continue the process of organizing and analyzing the information available to facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem model. Information needed for ecosystem analysis is also generated. Moreover, different groups carry out technical meetings to discuss the incorporation of explicit procedures and linked to management measures. Expected Output: The client will present the information gathered in the database and that will be organize for the implementation of the ecosystem model; the client will provide reports of the meetings that will be carried out in order to discuss the incorporation of procedural linkages. Milestones Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) At this stage, the fishery will demonstrate further progress toward the closure of the condition. The processing and analysis of available information being to facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem model “Ecopath with Ecosim”. In addition the groups involved in technical meetings will provide proposals to establish procedures relating to management measures.

Expected Outcome: At this stage, the client will initiate the process of analyzing the information in order to implement the ecosystem model and obtain some results; the stakeholders will provide some proposals in the meetings to establish procedural linkages in management measures; the client will provide reports of the meetings that will be carried out in order to discuss the incorporation of procedural linkages. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) It is expected that the condition has been met in full. Expected Output: The client will present a report with the main obtained results after the implementation of the ecosystem model; also, the client will provide reports with

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 219 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

evidence of agreements reached in all the meetings carried out to incorporate procedural linkages in the management measures. Expected Score: 80

Identify key species and the necessary biomass for the function of the ecosystem through ecosystem models, as well as the incorporation of systematic procedures and linked to measures of management and protection, which is considered a strategy to reduce impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will obtain and analyze timely and sufficient information including available data of the small pelagic fishery to apply a ecosystemic Client action plan model “Ecopath with Ecosim”, which results will determine key species and necessary biomass for the pelagic ecosystem function, allowing implement measures for reduce fishery potential impacts to the pelagic ecosystem.

The client in collaboration with INAPESCA and CONAPESCA (Monitoring and surveillance) will establish explicit, systematic and effective procedures to apply management and protection measures in case to find some negative potential on the ecosystem and link these procedures with the current regulations for the fishery of these resources. The client presented evidence that the fishers Collection of information available and necessary to feed the ecosystem model. Expected Output: The client will create a database which will have information of the species involved in the fishery, the gut content, preys, predators, type of information Progress on (scientific literature, grey literature, theses, reports, etc.) on board and on port Condition [Year 1] observers information, etc.

Expected Output: The client will provide the files of the fishers training (diplomas, attendance, photos, report, etc.). According to the data provided by the client during the site visit, information is being collected and organized to feed the database that will be the basis for the implementation of the ecosystem model required in this condition. Evidence is presented by PPT presentation as well as reports and minutes of meetings of the progress made so far. Progress on The client has also made some advances on conducting a literature review to gather Condition [Year 2] information on food chains and diet composition as part of a database to inform ecosystem models (Jacob Cervantes 2017e.)

Given that in the second year of monitoring there are no specific goals, so it is considered that it is progressing properly, according to the action plan. The client presented the audit team with studies related to the impacts of the fishery on the pelagic ecosystem (Hernandez-Padilla et al., 2017; Arreguín-Sánchez and Rodríguez- Progress on Vite, 2020). These studies estimate harvest limits related to available biomass for thread Condition [Year 3] herring and other small pelagic species in terms of levels of ecosystem impacts. The studies also state that allowable catch rates for the Pacific thread herring and the Pacific

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 220 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

anchovy under an adaptability strategy might prevent undesirable effects on ecosystem sustainability.

Together, these studies demonstrate progress toward the processing and analysis of available information being used to construct an ecosystem model.

Regarding the milestone for this condition that states that stakeholders will provide some proposals in the meetings to establish procedural linkages in management measures, the client and stakeholders noted that additional information is still needed to present a formal proposal. More to this point, ecosystem-based biomass estimates needed to not disrupt ecosystem function were presented as a question in a PowerPoint presentation given to the audit team rather than a proposal. The client also noted in written form that they are working with researchers from the Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CICIMAR-IPN) to develop a plan to incorporate biomass limits for thread herring into the fishery’s management measures.

Because no proposals were presented to the audit team, we determined that the fishery’s progress towards completing the milestones associated with this condition is behind target for year 3.

Remedial action: (FCP 2.1) 7.28.16.1 b According to the milestones, the client should present a plan to incorporate biomass limits for thread herring into the fishery’s management measures and present a report with the main results after the implementation of the ecosystem model. The client will need to close this condition at the time of the 4th surveillance audit and reassessment in May 2021 (estimated).

Status of condition Behind target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 221 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 3-2

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 3.2.3 SIa 60

Condition Demonstrate that the monitoring, control, and surveillance system has an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or rules.

Milestones for this conditions were revised to provide a include more detail and provide a more clear stepwise approach to closing the condition. Surveillance 1 (2017) Begins monitoring on port and on board vessels, and take agreements between stakeholder (The client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) about procedures for the control of minimum sizes, allowable catch and general management tools fishery. No improvement or outcome expected. Expected output: Fishery complies with the rules approved.

Surveillance 1 (2017) Begins monitoring on port and on board vessels, and take agreements between stakeholder (The client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) about procedures to protect the stock based on size, allowable catch and general management tools fishery. No improvement or outcome expected. Expected output: The fishery advances in the operation of the current monitoring, control and surveillance system which is presently focused on supporting management decisions. The system in this stage informs stakeholders and discuss with them the Milestones consequences of findings to agree on alternative actions when needed.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) Monitoring on port and on board vessels continues.

Expect output: Fishery continues complies with the rules approved.

Surveillance 2 (2018) The fishery consolidates the scientific monitoring system on port and on board vessels. The on port enforcement monitoring program is expanded to have a more frequent and systematic approach.

Expect output: The fishery presents: a) The scientific monitoring and sampling program is consolidated and a report is produced describing methodological details and results; b) The first stage of the expansion of the CONAPESCA surveillance program is developed and started producing records of frequent inspections directed to detect irregularities in fishing operations and records of infractions observed by inspectors if any. A report is provided with a description of achieved improvements.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 222 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Surveillance 3 (2019) Progress can be measured in terms of fishery monitoring and control. The client will present the results of the monitoring on port and on board vessels and agreements between stakeholders (in case). Expect output: Monitoring control and surveillance system are enforced. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) The fishery’s scientific monitoring system is fully operational and informs the fishery to make management decisions. The CONAPESCA surveillance program presents significant improvements.

Expected output: The fishery’s scientific monitoring system operates according to a program clearly describing goals, methods, sampling intensity and required information. This program regularly informs the fishery and stakeholders about results, proposed course of actions and results. The fishery presents documentation about the program and a report of activities and results. The CONAPESCA surveillance program has developed a systematic approach, increasing the frequency of inspections and reporting activities and observed infractions.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80 The client will collaborate with CONAPESCA and INAPESCA in the necessary actions to consolidate and improve the monitoring, control and surveillance system through Client action plan landing place and on board fishing vessel inspections to enforce management measures, strategies and rules. Yearly reports of improvements, activities and records of inspections and a final report will be submitted.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 223 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

The evidence indicates a clear collaboration between the industry and the INAPESCA scientific staff with quarterly reports of activities including sampling the catch to obtain trends in the size of fish in the commercial fishery. Results of this sampling program indicate that the fishery continues catching fish under the size limit in large proportions in violation of the rulings in the NOM-003-PESC-1993 and the CNP. Although the revision of the NOM apparently will modify the current definition regarding size restrictions, the publication of the revised NOM is taking too long and there is no clear definition yet about how the alternative will be specified. The client presented evidence of procedures in which the industry met the INAPESCA and CONAPESCA to discuss the results of surveys and sampling indicating not only unusual distribution of TH, but making emphasis in the size distribution of the catch, noting an intense reproductive activity. The discussion of this process led to an agreement to stop operations for three months with the purpose of protecting the stock. A formalization of these type of procedures leading to regular Progress on meetings to review the performance of the fishery after the regular monitoring activities Condition [Year 1] can be discussed in the future as an acceptable system to meet part of the requirements of this condition. However, the team stresses out that the MCS system must have a more explicit and effective connectivity with the authorities with the capacity to directly impose sanctions when violations are detected. This approach to monitoring contrasts with the current approach in which monitoring is effective from the scientific perspective to support management, but is not acting to detect infractions and impose sanctions. The fishery met the milestone for year 1. After the onsite, the team noticed that the original definition of the milestones may lack the clarity required for the client and the fishery to fulfil the requirements of this condition. The milestones were therefore modified to better reflect the expectations after execution of the action plan and to propose more realistic goals for the given timeline.

The fishery continues showing an effective communication with the INAPESCA to monitor and evaluation of performance of the fishery in terms of the biological and management aspects that are required by current regulations. The proportion of fish smaller than the legal minimum under NOM-003-PESC-1993 continues exceeding the 20% proportion allowed by the updated CNP of 2018.

On March 12th, a revision of NOM-003-PESC-1993 was published in the Official Gazette Progress on so that NOM-003-SAG-PESC-2018 substitutes the old NOM. In this new NOM, there still Condition [Year 2] is a size limit of 160 mm for thread herring, however, section 4.2 indicates that “The Secretariat will establish and, if applicable, modify for each season or period, the minimum catch sizes for the various species of small pelagic fish, including the percentages allowed below that size, for the exploitation of smaller pelagics that consider the differences by region (ecosystems ) and the dynamics of the populations, according to the technical opinion of INAPESCA, which will be announced through Regulatory Agreements published in the Official Gazette of the Federation”.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 224 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

To complement the definitions in the revised NOM, the INAPESCA conducted analyses of the size at which 50% of the fish had acquired sexual maturity or L50. The report concluded that regulations under the old NOM should not be applicable to the Opistonema complex in the southern Gulf because it does not represent the biological status of the group with management purposes.

When size distributions for each Opistonema species is confronted with the new proposed sizes, most of the catch is above of what would be the new thresholds for the three species.

At the time of the second surveillance audit, progress to resolve the violation to the size limit regulations has taken the path of better informing the management system about the biological characteristics of the three species involved and the regulatory framework now can be adjusted not only to the particular features of the species in the region but to temporal changes in size which can occur as described in the INAPESCA report. The next step is that INAPESCA should produce a report about size every year with recommendations about size limits which in turn would be included in Regulatory Agreements for the fishery to operate in the following season. It is clear that the fishery can use the new approach to meet the requirements in the regulatory framework. In the future however, the fishery needs to demonstrate the capacity to avoid exceeding the 20% limit established in the CNP in case that conditions in any given year present fish smaller than expected.

In relation to ETP species, the group of elasmobranchs represented only 0.002% of the total catch. Although none of the species is listed in NOM-059-SEMARNAT2010 (DOF, 2010).

However, concern has been expressed for the group of rays due to their inherent vulnerability (Álvarez and Anhalzer, 2018). The capture of the devil blanket (Mobula japonica) was 0.008 t which were discarded. Another species of interest is the sparrow hawk (Aetobatus narinari) whose capture was 0.038 t, which corresponds to 6 discarded individuals. The largest catch in the group of elasmobranchs corresponds to the black hawk (Rhinoptera steindachneri) with 0.592 t, corresponding to 93 estimated individuals. The capture of the world ray (Urotrygon munda) was 0.055 t (0.00013). In terms of percentage of total catch, the rest of the species had a value lower than 0.06% These catches are very small, and most individuals are returned to the sea alive according to the observer program information. Given its importance, it should be maintained, and if possible, increase, the effort of this program to have better information of the catches of rays in the fishery. The fishery also presented evidence that inspections from CONAPESCA did not find other type of violations. It is evident however that the inspection did not include the proportion of fish in the catch that is under the size limit. For future reporting and to meet the requirements of this Condition, it will be necessary that the inspection explicitly observes the catch to verify if the fisher

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 225 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

For now, the team considers that this Condition is on target relative to the milestone for the second year.

The fishery’s observer coverage has expanded since the 2015 full assessment from 17.8% coverage to 58%. The program includes 4 onboard observers, 1 port observer, and mandatory logbook use by captains. All of the recorded data is analyzed by INAPESCA and the results disseminated in technical reports, presentations, and workshops and evidence of this was presented to the audit team. In 2020 the percent of thread herring catch below the minimum size limit in within the level stipulated by the NOM-003. Observer and logbook data show interactions with manta rays and mobulas to be insignificant, no evidence of increasing fishery interactions, and appropriate mitigation measures are used to reduce fishery interactions with other ETP species including seabirds. There is effective information flow between the observer program and INAPESCA

The fishery’s scientific monitoring system operates according to a program clearly defined by its goals, methods, sampling intensity, and required information. This program regularly informs the fishery and stakeholders about results, proposed course Progress on of actions and results as evidenced by the use of this data by INAPESCA (trimestral Condition [Year 3] technical meetings) to determine the BAC and inform fishers as to the percent of the thread herring catch that was below the minimum size limit and the percent of bycatch as a way of determining if these levels conformed with the percentages stated in the NOM. The NOM is also a regulatory mechanism that allows management measure proposed by INAPESCA, and based on information collected by the fishery’s scientific monitoring system, to be legally binding, thus demonstrating that has an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or rules through this process.

In 2019 CONAPESCA performed on-the-water and in port inspections of 4 vessels and found no nonconformities. The authority’s SISMEP system that uses VMS to alert officials when illegal fishing activity is detected has not registered a call to this fishery’s vessels during the surveillance timeframe. These antecedents place the fishery in a low risk category according to conversations the audit team had with CONAPESCA and INAPESCA officials, meaning that there is little need to increase the frequency of inspections. This evidence and these conversations were enough for the audit team to determine that the fishery’s progress towards completing this condition meets the 3rd year milestones.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 226 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Status of condition On target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 227 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 3-3

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 3.2.3 SIb 60

Condition Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Original Milestone Surveillance 1 (2017) Biological and fleet catch monitoring starts by on board and on port observers to provide systematic and timely follow at the fishery evolution in order to meet with current management measures.

Expected output: Fishery complies with current regulation.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Modified (As part of the remedial action to get the fishery back on target)

Surveillance 1 (2017) The fishery holds meetings with CONAPESCA to conduct a diagnostic review of the problems leading to the inconsistencies in the application of sanctions. Expected output: The fishery presents a report describing the current structure of the process to impose sanctions, identify challenges to consistent application of sanctions to non-compliances in the small pelagics fishery in the southern GoC and suggest improvements.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) Progress can be measured in terms of analyze current regulations Milestones for the improvements implementation in monitoring, control and surveillance and where stakeholder participate (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Through technical meeting between stakeholder to achieve agreements. Review of the decision making process starts for its implementation and improvement respect with fishery actions that could adversely affect sardine population.

Expect output: Fishery complies with the rules approved.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) The fishery and CONAPESCA develop a proposal to make the necessary amendments to institutional procedures to assure that application of sanctions takes place when required.

Expected output: The fishery and CONAPESCA present a proposal to improve specific aspects of the regulatory system so that imposing sanctions is possible when required. It would be expected that this proposal includes explicit mention of limitations and obstacles and how to overcome them.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 228 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Surveillance 3 (2019) Progress can be measured in terms of the improvements implementation in monitoring, control and surveillance and where stakeholder participate (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Assessment results and measures monitoring will report in technical meeting among stakeholder. Decision making process continues and is expect to achieve agreements among parties for the implementation and improvement respect fishery actions and that could adversely affect sardine population.

Expect output: Fishery complies with the current rules.

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) The fishery initiates the administrative process to make changes to the MCS system so that sanctions can be promptly imposed after infractions have been detected

Expected output: A report describing procedures implemented to the Monitoring Control and Surveillance system to ensure sanctions are consistently applied

Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Expected output: Records demonstrating consistent application of sanctions are provided.

Expected score: 80 The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will continue to the biological monitoring and fleet catch through on board and on port observers to follow the fishery development and will collaborate with CONAPESCA to have a better monitoring, control and surveillance to detect wrongdoing cases in fishing activities.

Client action plan The client will facilitate meetings and process with CONAPESCA as needed to determine the causes preventing the timely application of regulation. The client will also participate actively in discussions to develop solutions and their implementation.

The client presents inspection records as well as the infringement and punishment if any.

The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.

The milestone for Year 1 for this condition required that biological and fleet catch monitoring start (via on board and port observer programs) with the aim that it provide systematic information to help the fishery meet the management measures. During the Progress on onsite the team confirmed that the on board and port observer programs have Condition [Year 1] commenced implementation, however, there is no evidence that this information that the information compiled by these monitoring programs is informing the monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) system. The purpose of the Observer Programs is to collect scientific fisheries data and not to report on compliance with fisheries

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 229 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

regulations. For this reason the progress of this condition is deemed to be ‘Behind Target’.

The evidence indicates a clear collaboration between the industry and the INAPESCA scientific staff with quarterly reports of activities including sampling the catch to obtain trends in the size of fish in the commercial fishery. Results of this sampling program indicates that the fishery continues catching fish under the size limit in large proportions in violation of the rulings in the NOM-003-PESC-1993 and the CNP. Although the revision of the NOM apparently will modify the current definition regarding size restrictions, the publication of the revised NOM is taking too long and there still is not a clear alternative idea about how to resolve this issue. No record of sanctions related to violations on size limits has been presented. There was no mention of any other meeting, procedure or agreement towards resolving the issue of non-compliance with size limit regulations.

After the onsite, the team noticed that the original definition of the milestones did not reflect the requirements of this condition appropriately. In particular, the expectations in the milestones were more closely related to actions that do not seem to be sufficiently directed to resolve the problem of consistent application of sanctions when violations to the regulations are detected. The milestones were therefore modified to better reflect the needs of this Condition and an attempt was made to propose more realistic goals for the given timeline.

The client has provided different information regarding the current procedures of the existing system of sanctions by CONAPESCA. This information is contained in the following documents:

CIRCULAR relating to administrative procedures for inspection and qualification of infringements in aquaculture and fisheries matters. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food, 2003 NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-062-SAG / PESC-2014, For the use of the Location System and Satellite Monitoring of Fishing Vessels. In addition, in the fifth title of the inspection, infractions and sanctions, of the Regulation of the Fishing Law of 1999 (modified 2004) Progress on Condition [Year 2] The publication of the new Official Mexican NORM (NOM-003-SAG / PESC-2018) that replaces that of 1993, modifies the restrictions of the previous norm in relation to the sizes of capture and percentages allowed. Thus, section 4.2.4 stipulates the following:

A catch volume is established below the minimum size determined in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 corresponding to 20% of the total volume of the annual nominal catch. Percentages allowed below this size will be modified according to the technical opinion of INAPESCA, which will be announced through regulatory agreements published in the Official Gazette of the Federation

In relation to the control and surveillance of fishing operations, the client has provided an official letter from the General Directorate of Inspection and Surveillance, which

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 230 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

includes a list of all inspections carried out by the MAZ SARDINA fleet inspection service. , SA DE C.V. in 2018 (10 inspections) and by which it is affirmed that no irregularities have been found in any of them. There is no evidence of sanctions related to violations of size limits. In this sense, the information provided is consistent with the milestones of year 1 of the Customer Action Plan for condition 3-3 and that was considered as Behind Target in the surveillance of 2017.

In relation to the milestone for year 2, the client, together with CONAPESCA, had to present a proposal to improve specific aspects of the regulatory system so that it is possible to impose sanctions when necessary, including explicit mention of the limitations and obstacles and how to overcome them. The changes proposed in the new draft for a minimum size, represent amendments to the regulatory framework that will reduce the number of infractions on account of violations to the minimum size. This is considered to partially fulfil the year two milestone.

However, neither during the visit nor in the information provided by the client was the cited proposal.

Remedial action: (FCP 2.1) 7.28.16.1 b

Rationale: SCS discussed the outcome of the surveillance related to this condition with the client and they are aware that they are behind target and indicated they will request a meeting with CONAPESCA to discuss implication. The client understands they need to be on target in 2019 when the site visit takes place close to the certification date in October.

During the 3rd year audit, the client provided documentation of 4 Ordenes de Inspección emitted by CONAPESCA’s Inspección y Vigilancia department’s General Director. The documentation confirms that no irregularities were found. This builds off the 10 inspections presented to the audit team during the 2nd surveillance that also found no irregularities and no sanctions issued. Taken together, these inspection results demonstrate the fishery’s level of compliance with its legal requirements.

Regarding the percent of thread herring catch below the minimum size limit, the new Progress on NOM-003 (section 4.2.2) establishes minimum size limits for the Gulf of California and Condition [Year 3] all other areas of the Mexican Pacific except in the southern region of the Gulf of California where the size limit will be determined through studies and published in the D.O.F. (Diario Oficial). In accordance with these procedures, the fishery established a minimum size limit of 140mm in 2019 which it published as an “acuerdo regulatorio” (regulatory agreement published on September 25, 2019 in the D.O.F.). The NOM allows 38% of the annual thread herring catch to be below this size which the fishery complied with. This process demonstrates that a legal framework and an MCS system are in place that establish catch parameters and monitor the fishery’s adherence to them.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 231 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Regarding incidental catch amounts, the new NOM establishes a permissible volume of bycatch for the fishery per organism group (fin fish, crustaceans, molluscs, elasmobranchs, etc.) and the aforementioned management measures allow for these levels to be monitored and controlled in the event such action becomes necessary.

The new NOM and its designation of permissible volumes of incidental catch and the percentage of the target species catch below the minimum size limit fulfil the year 2 milestone that the necessary amendments to institutional procedures are established that assure that application of sanctions take place when necessary.

Regarding the 3rd year milestone, the client did not present evidence that demonstrates that tools are in place that permit the implementation of an effective MCS system so that sanctions can be promptly imposed after infractions have been detected.

Remedial action: (FCP 2.1) 7.28.16.1 b The client brought it to the attention of the audit team that they anticipate producing a document evaluating the fishery’s level of conformity according to the NOM’s description in section 8 (8.1-8.7). This document, if received by the audit team, will be considered sufficient evidence to close this condition. Status of condition Behind target

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 232 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Condition 3-6

Performance Insert relevant PI Insert relevant scoring issue/ scoring Score Indicator(s) & number(s) guidepost text Score(s) 3.2.5 Sib 75

Condition Demonstrate that the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

Surveillance 1 (2017) The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for the monitoring of the fishery catch in the whole season.

Expect output: At the end of the fishing season, the client will present a technical report of the fishery internal review issued by INAPESCA. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 2 (2018) See surveillance 1. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019 2020) The client will collaborate with the Technical Committee of Small Pelagic for an external review of the fishery.

Expected output: At the end of the fishing season, the client will present a technical report of the fishery external review issued by the Technical Committee of Small Pelagic. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.

Surveillance 4 (2020 2021) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80

The client will support systematic internal review for the monitoring and analysis of fishery assessment carry out by INAPESCA and it will submit the corresponding Client action plan inspection records as well as request the external review results that are subject.

The fishery presented minutes where the INAPESCA staff from different regional offices involved in small pelagics fishery research discussed several aspects about the performance of the current management system including details of the current Progress on definitions in the harvest strategy. The fishery is required to continue holding this Condition [Year 1] meetings regularly and discuss relevant issues leading to improvements in the management system.

In agreement with the expressed by the client and collected in the Minute of the meeting Progress on of the workshop to attend the observations to the fishery of Pelagic Minor that Condition [Year 2] facilitated the consultant team, they consider that the management system is subject to an internal and external review. The INAPESCA oversees carrying out the internal

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 233 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

evaluations while the external one is carried out through the Pelagic Minor Technical Committee.

In accordance with the new norm (NORMA Oficial Mexicana) NOM-003-SAG / PESC- 2018, the regulatory provisions included in the Agreements referred to in number 4.14 must consider the opinion of the Technical Committee for the study of the Small Pelagic and the Committee Fishery Management Technician. These Agreements include new systems, equipment, fishing gear, fishing zones or methods that are authorized, as well as limits of fishing effort, allowable volumes of capture of the target species, values of bycatch, minimum sizes of capture and those related to the updating of specifications of fishing equipment, gear and systems authorized in this Norma A meeting of the Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores was held on February 4-6, 2020 as a way of facilitating collaboration between the Sinaloa and Sonora fisheries. During the meeting the results of an internal revision and corrections of the Management Plan were presented by INAPESCA. The fishery is also planning to publish results of the external review of the Management Plan and other aspects of the management system (per the client’s comments). These proposed revisions still need to be revised by CONAPESCA. Because of the pandemic, the fishery was unable to stage a meeting with the Comite Técnico to receive its consultation and external review of the management system.

Progress on Moving forward, the fishery still needs to draft a formal report that encompasses the Condition [Year 3] external review findings and proposed changes to the management system.

While the client did not present the audit team with a technical report of the fishery’s external review, it did provide various documents that included minutes and outcomes from the February meeting. These outcomes included the Comité’s proposed revisions to the fishery’s Management Plan. The pandemic did not allow the Comité to hold a scheduled meeting in June 2020. Despite these challenges, the audit team determined that the fishery’s progress is sufficient to maintain its on target status. The team does, however, highlight that the fishery must present a technical report by the 4th surveillance audit that contains the results of the internal and external review process of both the Management Plan and the entire management system. Status of condition On target

9.4.1 New conditions & Client Action Plan To be added at the Client and Peer Review Draft stage.

Table 22 Condition X NEW Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification text here. If condition relates to a previous condition or one raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 234 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

9.5 Client Action Plan

To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage.

9.6 Surveillance

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

Table 23. Fishery surveillance audit Table 24. Timing of surveillance audit

Table 25. Surveillance level rationale

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 235 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

9.7 Harmonised fishery assessments The assessment team harmonized scores with the following fisheries:

Table 26. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization. Fishery Status Principles for Harmonization 1 Small pelagics fishery in Sonora, Certified Principal 3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) gulf of Mexico Jan 2018 2 Mexico Baja California red rock Certified Principal 3 (3.1.1-3.1.3) lobster fishery Dec 2016

Table 27. Overlapping fisheries Supporting information

Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes. There are no overlapping fisheries with the UoA under assessment

Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising?

Date of harmonisation meeting

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.

Table 28. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization PI Fishery 1 Fishery 2 3.1.1 95 95 3.1.2 95 95 3.1.3 100 100

Table 29. Rationale for scoring differences If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6) No scoring differences occurred across the fisheries for harmonization.

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is an agreement between or among teams on this determination

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 236 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

9.8 Objection Procedure

To be added at Public Certification Report stage

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 237 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

10 References Abreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T11534A3292503. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11534A3292503.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021. Aburto-Oropeza, Octavio, et al. "Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.30 (2008): 10456-10459.

Anderson, Daniel W.; Godínez-Reyes, Carlos R.; Velarde, Enriqueta; Avalos-Tellez, Rosalía; Ramírez- Delgado, David; Moreno-Prado, Hugo; Bowen, Thomas; Gress, Franklin; Trejo-Ventura, Jesus; Adrean, Lindsay; Meltzer, Lorayne (2017). "Brown Pelicans, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (Aves: Pelecanidae): Five decades with ENSO, dynamic nesting, and contemporary breeding status in the Gulf of California". Ciencias Marinas. 43 (1): 1–34. doi:10.7773/cm.v43i1.2710. ISSN 2395-9053

Audubon 2021. Guide to North American Birds. https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/ consulted 14 May 2021.

Audubon, 2021. Pacific Brown Pelican Survey. https://ca.audubon.org/brownpelicansurvey, downloaded on 23/05/2021.

Aurioles-Gamboa, D. & Hernández-Camacho, J. 2015. Zalophus californianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41666A45230310. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T41666A45230310.en. Downloaded on 28 May 2021.

Aurioles-Gamboa, D. and Le Bœuf, B. J. 1991. Effects of the El Niño 1983 on the California sea lion population in México. In: F. Trillmich and K. A. Ono (eds), Pinnipeds and El Niño: Responses to environmental stress, pp. 112-118. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., Fox, C., Sinsel, F. and Tanos, G. 1984. Prey of Californian sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in the Bay of La Paz, Baja California. Journal of Mammalogy 65: 519-521.

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., García-Rodríguez, F., Ramírez-Rodríguez y, M. and Hernández-Camacho, C. 2003. Interactions between the California sea lion and the artisanal fishery in La Paz Bay, Gulf of California, Mexico. Ciencias Marinas 29(3): 357-370.

Berry D.H. and I. Barret. 1963. Gillraker analysis and in the thread herring genus Opisthonema. Bulletin of Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, 7(2): 137-190. Bird Life International. 2019. BirdLife position on Good Environmental Status threshold criteria for Descriptor 1: seabird bycatch and population abundance. https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/Incidental%20bycatch%20WS%201-2019- 647/MeetingDocuments/BirdLife%20position%20D1criteria_02092019_FINAL.pdf

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 238 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Bird Life International. 2021a. Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/magnificent-frigatebird-fregata-magnificens

Bird Life International. 2021b. Heermann's Gull Larus heermanni http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/heermanns-gull-larus-heermanni

Bird Life International. 2021c. Elegant Tern Thalasseus elegans. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/elegant-tern-thalasseus-elegans

Bird Life International. 2021d. Common Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/common-gull-billed-tern-gelochelidon-nilotica/text

Bird Life International. 2021e. Brown Booby Sula leucogaster. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/brown-booby-sula-leucogaster

BirdLife International (2021) Species factsheet: Pelecanus occidentalis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 19/05/2021.

BirdLife International. 2018. Pelecanus occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22733989A132663224. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22733989A132663224.en. Downloaded on 25 May 2021.

BirdLife International. 2020. Larus heermanni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22694296A178958787. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 3.RLTS.T22694296A178958787.en. Downloaded on 14 May 2021.

BirdLife International. 2020. Thalasseus elegans. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22694552A178970750. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020- 3.RLTS.T22694552A178970750.en. Downloaded on 26 May 2021.

Bourillón, L. y J. Torre. 2012. Áreas marinas protegidas del Golfo de California para mitigar los efectos de la pesca de arrastre en la biodiversidad: Limitaciones y propuesta de nuevo enfoque. En: López-Martínez J. y E. Morales-Bojórquez (Eds.). Efectos de la pesca de arrastre en el Golfo de California. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C. y Fundación Produce Sonora, México, pp. 399-411

Bourjea J. Sandra Clermont, A. Delgado, H. Murua, J. Ruiz, S. Ciccione, P. Chavance 2014. Marine turtle interaction with purse-seine fishery in the Atlantic and Indian oceans: Lessons for management. Biological Conservation 178, 74-87.

Braulik, G., Jefferson, T.A. & Bearzi, G. 2021. Delphinus delphis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T134817215A50352620. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021- 1.RLTS.T134817215A50352620.en. Downloaded on 28 May 2021.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 239 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M. 1996. Laridae (Gulls). In: del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. (ed.), Handbook of the birds of the world, pp. 572-623. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.

Butcher, G.S., Niven, D.K. 2007. Combining Data from the Christmas Bird Count and the Breeding Bird Survey to Determine the Continental Status and Trends of North America Birds. National Audubon Society.

Carretta J.V. Oleson E., Weller D.W., Lang A.R., Forney K.A., Baker J., Hanson B., Martien K., Muto M.M., Orr A.J., Huber H., Lowry M.S., Barlow J., Lynch D., Carswell L., Brownell R.L. Jr. and Mattila D.K. 2014. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments; 2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-532.

Casale, P. & Tucker, A.D. 2017. Caretta caretta (amended version of 2015 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T3897A119333622. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T3897A119333622.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021

Casas, A.L.S., Cunha, C.M., Intelizano, W. and Gonzalez, M.M.B. 2006. Record of a pregnant bentfin devilray, Mobula thurstoni (Lloyd) (Elasmobranchii, Mobulidae) caught in southeastern Brazil. Pan- American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 1(1): 66-68.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2020. Groundbreaking Lawsuit Pushes Mexico to Protect Hammerhead Sharks. Press release, 11 March 2020. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press- releases/groundbreaking-lawsuit-pushes-mexico-protect-hammerhead-sharks-2020-03-11/

Ceyca, J., Castillo-Guerrero, A., García-Hernández, J., Fernández, G. and Betancourt-Lozano, M. 2016. Local and interannual variations in mercury and cadmium in eggs of eight seabird species of the Sinaloa coast, México. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35(9). DOI:10.1002/etc.3402

Cisneros-Mata M.A., J.A. De Anda M., J. Estrada-García, F. Páez-Barrera y A. Quiroz S. 1988. Pesquería de Sardina del Golfo de California y costa de Sinaloa (Informe 1986/87 y Diagnostico). In Informe Técnico del Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (inédito), p. 67. Guaymas, Son. México: SEPESCA, Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. CRIP Guaymas.

Clarke, S., Coelho, R., Francis, M., Kai, M., Kohin, S., Liu, K.M., Simpfendorfer, C., Tovar-Avila, J., Rigby, C., and Smart, J. 2015. Report of the Pacific Shark Life History Expert Panel Workshop, 28-30 April 2015. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

Clarke, T.A. 1971. Ecology of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, in Hawaii. California Wild (formerly known as Pacific Science) 25: 133–144.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 240 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

CONAPESCA. 2020b. Firman Agricultura y Marina convenio de colaboración para proteger recursos pesqueros en materia de inspección y vigilancia. Gobierno de Mexico. https://www.gob.mx/conapesca/prensa/firman-agricultura-y-marina-convenio-de-colaboracion-para- proteger-recursos-pesqueros-en-materia-de-inspeccion-y-vigilancia-239471

Comité Técnico para el Estudio de los Pelágicos Menores. 2020. Reporte sobre los Informes Técnicosde Investigación del INAPESCA.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species to date. Part II (Carcharhiniformes). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, FAO, Rome.

Cotero Altamirano C.E., Haro H., Enciso Enciso C., y Jacob Cervantes M.L. 2014. Memorias del XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 29 pp.

Couturier, L.I.E., Marshall, A.D., Jaine, F.R.A., Kashiwagi, T., Pierce, S.J., Townsend, K.A., Weeks, S.J., Bennet, M.B. and Richardson, A.J. 2012. Biology, ecology and conservation of the Mobulidae. Journal of Fish Biology 80: 1075-1119.

Croll, D.A., Dewar, H., Dulvy, N.K., Fernando, D., Francis, M.P., Galván-Magaña, F., Hall, M., Heinrichs, S., Marshall, A., McCauley, D., Newton, K.M., Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara, G., O'Malley, M., O'Sullivan, J., Poortvliet, M., Roman, M., Stevens, G., Tershy, B.R. and White, W.T. 2016. Vulnerabilities and fisheries impacts: the uncertain future of manta and devil rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26(3): 562-575. p declines in sightings of manta rays and devilrays (Mobulidae) in southern Mozambique. PeerJ Preprints 5: e3051v1.

Cury, P. M., Boyd, I. L., Bonhommeau, S., Anker-Nilssen, T., Crawford, R. J., Furness, R. W. & Piatt, J. F. (2011). Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds. Science, 334(6063), 1703-1706

Cury, P., et al. 2000 "Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems." ICES Journal of Marine Science: 603-618.

De Anda J.A. y L. Lyle. 1987. Evaluación del recurso sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp) de las costas de Sinaloa Nayarit y Jalisco. In VII Congreso Nacional de Oceanografía, pp. 20-24. Ensenada, B.C.

Del Monte-Luna , S. E., Lluch-Cota , C. J., Salvadeo & D. Lluch-Belda. (2011) Ecosystem-Level Effects Of The Small Pelagics Fishery In The Gulf Of California. CICIMAR Oceánides 26(1): 51-62

Dawson, S.M. 2009. Cephalorhynchus dolphins C. heavisidii, C. eutropia, C. hectori, and C. commersonii . In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, Second edition, pp. 200-204. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 241 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

De Silva J.A., Condrey R.E., Thompson B.A. 2001. Profile of shark bycatch in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico menhaden fishery. N American J of Fisheries Management 21: 111-124.

Delany, S. and Scott, D. 2006. Waterbird population estimates. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 1988. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 1990. DECRETO por el que se aprueba el programa sectorial de mediano plazo denominado Programa Nacional de Desarrollo de la Pesca y sus Recursos 1990-1994. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 17 de octubre de 1990.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 1992. Ley Federal de Metrología y Normalización. Nueva Ley publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 1 de julio de 1992. Última reforma publicada DOF 30- 04-2009. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/107522/LEYFEDERALSOBREMETROLOGIAYNORMALI ZACION.pdf

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 1994. Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 4 de agosto de 1994.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2006. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-029-PESC-2006, Pesca responsable de tiburones y rayas. Especificaciones para su aprovechamiento. Publicada el 14 de febrero del 2007. https://www.gob.mx/profepa/documentos/norma-oficial-mexicana-nom-029-pesc-2006

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2012a ACUERDO por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 8 de noviembre del 2012. https://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/documentos/Planes-de-Manejo-Pesquero/Pacifico/Plan-de- Manejo-Pesquero-para-la-Pesqueria-de-Pelagicos-Menores.pdf

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2012b Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas para la creación, integración, organización y operación del Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 26 de noviembre de 2012.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2015. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-062-SAG/PESC-2014, Para la utilización del Sistema de Localización y Monitoreo Satelital de Embarcaciones Pesqueras. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 3 de julio del 2015. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/mex146744.pdf

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 242 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2015. Ley General de Vida Silvestre. Cámara de Diputados del Honorable Congreso de la Unión. Mexico, D.F. 68 p.Downloaded on 28 May 2021. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2016. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-009-SAG/PESC-2015 Que establece el procedimiento para determinar las épocas y zonas de veda para la captura de las diferentes especies de la flora y fauna acuáticas, en aguas de jurisdicción federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 12 de febrero del 2016

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2018. Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables. Nueva Ley publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 24 de julio de 2007. Última reforma publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 24 de abril de 2018. Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión, Secretaría General, Secretaría de Servicios Parlamentarios. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LGPAS_240418.pdf

DOF. 2018. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer la Actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 11 de Junio 2018.

DOF. 2019. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacifico, incluyendo el Golfo de California. Diario Oficial de la Federación 12 de marzo 2019.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2019. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SAG/PESC-2018, Para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de peces pelágicos menores con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de jurisdicción federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Pubicado el 12 de marzo del 2019. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5552552&fecha=12/03/2019#:~:text=NORMA%20Oficial% 20Mexicana%20NOM%2D003,incluyendo%20el%20Golfo%20de%20California

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2020a. Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Constitución publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 5 de febrero de 1917. Última reforma publicada DOF 08-05-2020.

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2020b. ACUERDO por el que se establecen las épocas y zonas de veda para la captura de todas las especies de pelágicos menores en aguas marinas de jurisdicción federal del Golfo de California para el 2020. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 31 de julio del 2020

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). 2021. Acuerdo mediante el cual se aprueba la actualización de la Carta Nacional Acuícola. Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 15 de abril del 2021. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5615929&fecha=15/04/2021

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 243 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Dirección General de Inspección y Vigilancia (DGIV). 2021. Oficio DGIV – 00425/21. (Evaluación de conformidad.pdf) https://scsglobalservices.sharefile.com/home/shared/fo1364dd-1cae-454d-ab9f- e0e8d9d6c3b3

Doode-Matsumoto, O.S. 1999. Los claros y oscuros de la pesquería de sarina en Sonora: contradicciones para un desarrollo equilibrado. CIESAS. 375 pp.

Ebert, D.A., Fowler, S. and Compagno, L. 2013. Sharks of the World. A Fully Illustrated Guide. Wild Nature Press, Plymouth, United Kingdom.

Ellis J.R., Mccully Philips S.R. and Poisson F. 2017. A review of capture and post-release mortality of Elasmobranchs. J. Fish Biology 90: 653 – 722.

Elwen, S. & Gopal, K. 2018. Cephalorhynchus heavisidii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T4161A50352086. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T4161A50352086.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021.

Fernando, D. and Stevens, G. 2011. A study of Sri Lanka’s Manta & Mobula Ray Fishery. Manta Trust.

FAO. 1985. Species catalogue Vol. 7. Clupeoid fishes of the world. (Suborder CLUPEOIDEI) An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the herrings, sardines, pilchards, sprats, anchovies and wolf-herrings. Part 1. Chirocentridae, Clupeidae and Pristigasteridae.Whitehead, P.J.P. FAO Fish. Synop., (125) Vol.7 Pt. 1:303 p. Gadig, O.B.F., Namora, R.C. and Motta, F.D.S. 2003. Occurrence of the bentfin devil ray, Mobula thurstoni (: Mobulidae), in the western Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83:869–870.

Gallagher, A.J. and Klimley, A.P. 2018. The biology and conservation status of the large hammerhead shark complex: the great, scalloped, and smooth hammerheads. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 28(4): 777-794.

Gallardo-Cabello, M., A. Laguarda-Figueras y R. Corrales-Urrea. 1993. Análisis de la edad, crecimiento y mortalidad de la sardina crinuda Opisthonema libertate (Gunther, 1868) de las aguas del sur del Golfo de California. Ciencia Pesquera, 9: 137-146.

Garcia, A. Gabriela and Gastelum N. Ernesto. 2015. Informe Técnico de las Especies Asociadas a la Pesqueria de Pelagicos Menores del Golfo de California. COBI

Gibble CM, Henkel LA, Nevins HM, Miller MA, Ziccardi MH (2016). Summary of California Brown Pelican Mortality: An Evaluation of Live and Dead Strandings in California during 2014. Technical Report, U.S Fish&Wildlife Service, Pacific SW Region, Sacramento, California. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33253.40169 downloaded 25/05/2021.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 244 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

González-Máynez V.E., A. Valdez-Pelayo, M.O. Nevárez-Martínez y C. Enciso-Enciso. 2021. Mediciones Ex situ de Fuerza de Blanco (TS) acústico de la sardina crinuda Opisthonema libertate en el Golfo de California, México. Informe Técnico. INAPESCA-CRIAP Guaymas. 26 pp.

Hall M. and Roman M. 2013. Bycatch and Non-Tuna Catch in the Tropical Tuna Purse Seine Fisheries of the World. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.

Harry A. V., Macbeth W. G., Gutteridge A. N. and Simpfendorfer C. A. 2011. The life histories of endangered hammerhead sharks (Carcharhiniformes, Sphyrnidae) from the east coast of Australia. Journal of Fish Biology 78: 2026-2051.

Hatch, J., D. Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Pp. 1-36 in A Poole, F Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 441. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc.

Heinrich, S. & Reeves, R. 2017. Cephalorhynchus eutropia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T4160A50351955. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 3.RLTS.T4160A50351955.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021.

Hernández-Camacho C., Aurioles-Gamboa, D., Laake, J. and Gerber, L.R. 2008. Survival rates of the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, in Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 89(4): 1059-1066. Hewitt D.A. and Hoenig J.M. 2005. Comparison of two approaches for estimating natural mortality based on longevity. Fish. Bull. 103:433–437.

INAPESCA 2015. Interacción entre la actividad pesquera de la flota sardinera y las características texturales del fondo marino del sur del Golfo de California. Mazatlán, Sinaloa. 37 p.

Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 1996. Análisis de la pesquería de sardina crinuda, basado en las capturas comerciales, en el puerto de Mazatlán, de las temporadas 1972/73-1990/91. Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Mazatlán, Sin. 115 p.

Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 2012. Evaluación y manejo de pelágicos menores: Aplicación bioeconómica al stock de la región sur del Golfo de California. Tesis doctoral. Posgrado en Ciencias Biológico- Agropecuarias y Pesqueras. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. 79 pp.

Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., Payán Alejo J., Becerra Arroyo D., y de León Herrera R. 2013. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California; Análisis biológico-pesquero. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 93 pp.

Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., y Becerra Arroyo D. 2013a. Memorias del XXI Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 34 pp.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 245 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 2015. Estimación de la biomasa y regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina bocona (Cetengraulis mysticetus) en el sur del Golfo de California. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 7 pp.

Jacob Cervantes M, J R Vallarta-Zárate, J R Rendón-Martínez, D Becerra-Arroyo Y J Payán-Alejo. 2015. Efecto de la pesquería de peces pelágicos menores sobre el ecosistema del sur del golfo de California. In Informe de investigación (documento interno), p. 100. Mazatlán, Sinaloa: SAGARPA-INP-CRIP-MAZ. Jacob-Cervantes M. y M.A. Cisneros-Mata. 2015. Evaluación de la pesquería de pelágicos menores del sur del golfo de California con un enfoque multiespecífico. Informe de investigación (documento interno). INAPESCA-CRIAP Mazatlán. 12 pp.

Jacob-Cervantes y Payán-Alejo 2020. Evaluación de las poblaciones de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California 2020. Informe técnico de investigación. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 36pp.

Jacob-Cervantes, M.L., E. Delgado-Robles, J. Payan-Alejo, J.E. Osuna-Soto, J.C. Diaz-Figueroa. 2020 (PAT). Analisis integral de la pesqueria de pelagicos menores del sur del Golfo de California durante el 2020. Informe final de investigación. Programa de Pelagicos Menores del Sur del Golfo de California. DGIAPP. Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura. 70 pp.

Jacob-Cervantes M.L. y J. Payán-Alejo. 2021. Historia, evolución y perspectivas en la evaluación de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp) y de las tres especies que lo componen (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri) del sur del Golfo de California. Informe Técnico. INAPESCA, CRIAP Mazatlán. 27 pp.

Jaques D.L. 2016. California Brown Pelican monitoring Summary 2014, the year of the Blob. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service, Ventura, California. 47 + vi pp.

Jaques, D.L. 2013. Brown Pelicans and Fish Waste Handling Conflicts in Northern California Harbors Summer 2012. Pacific Eco Logic, Final Report to the Kure/Stuyvesant Trustee Council.

Jaques, D.L. 2014. Brown Pelican Injury Prevention Project: Northern California Harbors. Pacific Eco Logic, Final Report to the Kure/Stuyvesant Trustee Council.

Jensen A.L. 1996. Beverton and Holt life history invariants result from optimal trade-off of reproduction and survival. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 53(4):822-822.

Johnson, A.F., Girón-Nava, A., Moreno-Baez, M., Cisneros, A., Suárez, A., Aburto-Oropeza, O. 2021. Marine hábitat distributions in the Gulf of California. DataMares. InteractiveResource. http://dx.doi.org/10.13022/M3S59N

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 246 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Jurado Molina, J., Hernández-López, C. H., Villaseñor-Talavera, R., & García-Meléndez, J. J. (2020). Propuesta de manejo para reducir la abundancia de organismos pequeños en la captura de la pesquería de pelágicos menores del Golfo de California. HIDROBIOLÓGICA, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.24275/uam/izt/dcbs/hidro/2020v30n1/Jurado

King, J.E. 1964. Seals of the World. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Kiszka, J. & Braulik, G. 2018. Stenella attenuata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T20729A50373009. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T20729A50373009.en. Downloaded on 28 May 2021.

Kushlan, J. A.; Steinkamp, M. J.; Parsons, K. C.; Capp, J.; Cruz, M. A.; Coulter, M.; Davidson, I.; Dickson, L.; Edelson, N.; Ellio, R.; Erwin, M.; Hatch, S.; Kress, S.; Milko, R.; Miller, S.; Mills, K.;…authors continued in notes. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Publications Clearinghouse, Shepherdstown, U.S.A.

Lanz, E., Nevárez-Martínez, M. O., López-Martínez, J., & Dworak, J. A. (2008). Spatial distribution and species composition of small pelagic fishes in the Gulf of California. Revista de Biología Tropical, 56(2), 575-590.

Lawson, J.M., Fordham, S. V, O'Malley, M.P., Davidson, L. N. K., Walls, R. H. L., Heupel, M. R., Stevens, G., Fernando, D., Budziak, A., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Ender, I., Francis, M. P., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., and Dulvy, N. K. 2017. Sympathy for the devil: a conservation strategy for devil and manta rays. PeerJ 5:e3027 : doi: 10.7717/peerj.3027.

Le Boeuf, B. J., Aurioles, D., Condit, R., Fox, C., Gisiner, R., Romero, R. and Sinsel, F. 1983. Size and distribution of the California sea lion population in Mexico. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 43: 77-85.

Lewis, S.A., Setiasih, N., Dharmadi, Fahmi, O’Malley, M.P., Campbell, S.J., Yusuf, M. and Sianipar, A. 2015. Assessing Indonesian Manta and Devil Ray Populations Through Historical Landings and Fishing Community Interviews. PeerJ Preprints: available online at https://peerj.com/preprints/1334/

Lluch-Belda D., F.J. Magallón and R.A. Schwartzlose. 1986. Large fluctuations in the sardine fishery in the Gulf of California: Possible causes. CalCOFI Rep., XXVII. P. 136-140

López-Martínez J., M.O. Nevárez-Martínez, R.E. Molina-Ocampo and F.A. Manrique-Colchado. 1999. Overlap in the type and size of the prey that compose the diet of the pacific sardine Sardinops caeruleus (Girard, 1856), thread herring Opisthonema libertate (Gunther, 1867) and northern anchovy Engraulis mordax (Girard, 1856) in the Gulf of California. Ciencias Marinas 25(4):541-556.

López-Martínez, J., E. Herrera-Valdivia, N. Hernández-Saavedra, E. Serviere- Zaragoza, J. Rodríguez-

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 247 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Romero, C. H. Rábago-Quiroz, G. Padilla-Arredondo, S. Burrola-Sánchez, R. Morales-Azpeitia, S. Pedrín- Aviles, L. F. Enríquez-Ocaña, M. O. Nevárez-Martínez, A. Acevedo-Cervantes, E. Morales-Bojórquez, M. R. López- Tapia y J. Padilla-Serrato. 2012. Efectos de la pesca de arrastre del camarón en el Golfo de California. Síntesis de las investigaciones desarrolladas por el Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S. C. En: López-Martínez J. y E. Morales- Bojórquez (Eds.). Efectos de la pesca de arrastre en el Golfo de California. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C. y Fundación Produce Sonora, México, pp. 15-25.

Marshall, A., Barreto, R., Bigman, J.S., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Pardo, S.A., Rigby, C.L., Romanov, E., Smith, W.D. & Walls, R.H.L. 2019b. Mobula thurstoni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T60200A124451622. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T60200A124451622.en. Downloaded on 14 May 2021. Marshall, A., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Rigby, C.L. & Romanov, E. 2019a. Mobula munkiana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T60198A124450956. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 3.RLTS.T60198A124450956.en. Downloaded on 30 May 2021.

Marshall, A., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Rigby, C.L. & Romanov, E. 2020. Mobula mobular (amended version of 2019 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T110847130A176550858. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T110847130A176550858.en. Downloaded on 11 May 2021. Masper, A., Gallo-Reynoso-Reynoso, J. P., Cisneros-Mata, M. A. & García-Hernández, J. (2019). Review of California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) abundance, and population dynamics in the Gulf of California. Revista de Biología Tropical, 67(4), 833-849.

Mellink, E. 2000. Breeding of Brown Boobies in the Gulf of California: Seasonality and apparent effects of El Nino. Waterbirds: The international Journey of Waterbird Biology, 23(3): 494-499.

Moore, A.B.M. and Gates, A.R. 2015. Deep-water observation of scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini in the western Indian Ocean off Tanzania. Marine Biodiversity Records 8: 10.1017/S1755267215000627. Morales-Zarate M.V, Francisco Arreguín-Sánchez, Juana LOPEZ Martinez, Salvador E. Lluch-Cota 2004. Ecosystem trophic structure and energy flux in the Northern Gulf of California, México. Ecological Modelling 174(4):331-345

Morandin, L.A. y P.D. O´Hara. 2014. Fish oil disrupts seabird feather microstructure and waterproofing. Science of the Total Environment 496: 257-263.

Morgenthaler, A., Fernández, J., Moraga, R. and Olavarría, C. 2014. Chilean dolphins on the Argentine Atlantic coast. Marine Mammal Science 30(2): 782-787.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 248 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Mortimer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T8005A12881238. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T8005A12881238.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara G. 1988. Natural History of the rays of the genus Mobula in the Gulf of California. Fishery Bulletin 86, 45-66.

Odell, D.K. 1971. Censuses of pinnipeds breeding on the California Channel Islands. Journal of Mammalogy 52: 187-190.

OECD. 2019. Linking Indigenous Communities with Regional Development. OECD Rural policy Reviews.

OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/regional/Indigenous-Communities-Policy-Highlights.pdf

OECD. 2013. Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2013 (DOI:10.1787/rev_fish-2013-en) Oñate González, Erick & Amezcua, Felipe & Buszkiewicz, John & Castellanos-Cendales, Alba & Amezcua, Felipe. (2017). Trophic ecology of the blotched stingray, Urotrygon chilensis (Elasmobranchii: : Urotrygonidae), in three areas of the Mexican Pacific. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria. 47. 185-196. 10.3750/AIEP/02099.

Orta, J., Christie, D.A., Garcia, E.F.J. & Boesman, P. (2018). 2018. Magnificent Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona Available at: https://www.hbw.com/node/52669. (Accessed: 10 August 2018).

Partners in Flight. 2019. Avian Conservation Assessment Database, version 2019. Available at: http://pif.birdconservancy.org/ACAD.

Payán-Alejo J., M.L. Jacob-Cervantes y G. Rodíguez-Domínguez. 2020a. Age and growth of thread herring Opisthonema libertate, in the southern Gulf of California. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research, 48(1): 15-22.

Payán-Alejo J., M.L. Jacob-Cervantes y G. Rodíguez-Domínguez. 2020b. Age and growth of middling thread herring Opisthonema medirastre (Berry & Barrett, 1963) in the southern Gulf of California. Revista Bio Ciencias, 7: 1-13.

Peñaherrera-Palma C, Espinosa E, Hearn AR, Ketchum J,Semmens JM, Klimley P (2017) Reporte del estado poblacional de los tiburones martillo en la Reserva Marina de Galapagos. In: Informe Galapagos 2015–2016. DPNG, CGREG, FCD and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, Ecuador, pp 127–131.

Pérez-Quiñonez C.I., C. Quiñonez-Velázquez and F.J. García-Rodríguez. 2018. Detecting Opisthonema libertate (Günther, 1867) phenotypic stocks in northwestern coast of Mexico using geometric morphometrics based on body and otolith shape. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. vol.46 no.4

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 249 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Rigby, C.L., Dulvy, N.K., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B. & Winker, H. 2019. Sphyrna lewini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39385A2918526. Downloaded on 19 May 2021.

Rohner, C.A., Flam, A.L., Pierce, S.J. and Marshall, A.D. 2017. Steep declines in sightings of manta rays and devilrays (Mobulidae) in southern Mozambique. PeerJ Preprints 5: e3051v1.

Ruiz Dominguez Marcelino 2019. Estructura poblacional, estimación de biomasay análisis del estado del recurso sardina crinuda (Opisthonema libertate, O. medirastre y O. bulleri), en las costas mexicanas del océano pacífico oriental Ph.D. Thesis, INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL, CENTRO INTERDISCIPLINARIO DE CIENCIAS MARINAS (Cicimar), La Paz, BCS, Mexico. Xiii+129p.

Ruiz-Luna A. 1995. Comparación de modelos globales con un modelo empírico para la evaluación de la producción pesquera de sardina crinuda Opisthonema spp. pp. 26-31. Mazatlán, Sin.: Ciencias del Mar, UAS.

SAGARPA, 2013. Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Pesquero y Alimentario 2013-2018. https://www.gob.mx/agricultura/documentos/programa-sectorial-de-desarrollo-agropecuario- pesquero-y-alimentario-2013-2018

Sánchez, A., Aguíñiga, S., Lluch-Belda, D., Camalich-Carpizo J., Del Monte-Luna P., Ponce-Díaz, G. and F. Arreguín-Sánchez Geoquímica sedimentaria en áreas de pesca de arrastre y no arrastre de fondo en la costa de Sinaloa-Sonora, Golfo de California. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex [online]. 2009, vol.61, n.1, pp. 25-30 . Available at: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405- 33222009000100004&lng=es&nrm=iso.

Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.). 2004. Chelonia mydas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T4615A11037468. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T4615A11037468.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021. SPREP 2001. A review of marine turtle by-catch in the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Daft report, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia 29p.

Stevens, J.D. and Lyle, J.M. 1989. The biology of three hammerhead sharks (Eusphyrna blochii, Sphyrna mokarran and S. lewini) from Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 129–146.

Stinson, D. W. 2014. Periodic status review for the Brown Pelican. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 32 + iv pp.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 250 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Szteren, D., Aurioles, D. and Gerber, L. 2006. Population status and trends of the California Sea lion in the Gulf of California, Mexico. In: A. Trites, S. Atkinson, D. DeMaster, L. Fritz, T. Gelatt, L. Re and K. Wynne (eds), Sea Lions of the World, pp. 369-384. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Ulloa, R., J. Torre, L. Bourillón, A. Gondor y N. Alcantar. 2006. Planeación ecorregional para la conservación marina: Golfo de California y costa occidental de Baja California Sur. Informe final a The Nature Conservancy. Guaymas (México): Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C., 153 pp.

Urbán RJ, and Flores RS (1996) A note on Bryde's Whales (Balaenoptera edeni) in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Rep. Int Whal Commn. 46:453–457

Vallarta-Zárate J.R., L. Huidobro-Campos, V.H. Martínez-Magaña, M.L. Jacob-Cervantes, M. Vázquez- Ortiz, L. Altamirano-López, D. Hernández-Cruz, E.V. Pérez-Flores y R.I. Rojas-González. 2020. Evaluación acústica de peces pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California durante el otoño del 2020. Informe Técnico No. 10. Serie de informes técnicos B/I Dr. Jorge Carranza Fraser. INAPESCA. 101 pp.

Velarde, E. 1992. Predation of Heermann's Gull (Larus heermanni) chicks by Yellow-footed Gulls (Larus livens) in dense and scattered nesting sites. Colonial Waterbirds 15: 8-13.

Velarde, E. 1999. Breeding biology of Heermann's Gulls on Isla Rasa, gulf of California, Mexico. The Auk 116: 513-519.

Velarde, E., Ezcurra, E., Cisneros-Mata, M. A., & LavÍn, M. F. (2004). Seabird ecology, El Niño anomalies, and prediction of sardine fisheries in the Gulf of California. Ecological Applications, 14(2), 607-615.

Velarde, E.; Ezcurra, E. 2018. Are seabirds' life history traits maladaptive under present oceanographic variability? The case of Heermann's Gull (Larus heermanni). The Condor: Ornithological Applications 120(2): 388-401.

Watson, W. and E.M. Sandknop. 1996. Clupeidae: herrings. Pp 159-171. In: H.G. Moser. The early stages of fished in the California current region. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Atlas No. 33. La Jolla, CA. 1517 pp.

Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea (East Pacific Ocean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T46967807A46967809. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T46967807A46967809.en. Downloaded on 19 May 2021.

Ward-Paige, C.A., David, B. and Worm, B. 2013. Global population trends and human use patterns of Manta and Mobula rays. PLoS ONE 8(9): e74835. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074835.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 251 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

Wells, R.S., Natoli, A. & Braulik, G. 2019. Tursiops truncatus (errata version published in 2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T22563A156932432. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 1.RLTS.T22563A156932432.en. Downloaded on 28 May 2021.

Wetlands International. 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates – Fourth Edition. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.environmentalediting.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/WPE4.pdf

White ER, Myers MC, Flemming JM, Baum JK (2015). Shifting elasmobranch community assemblage at Cocos Island—an isolated marine protected area. Conserv Biol 29:1186–1197 White, W.T.; Clark, T.B.; Smith, W.D.; Bizzarro, J.J. (2006). "Mobula japanica". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2006.

Wright B.E., Tennis M.JJ. and Brown R.F. 2010. Movements of Male California Sea Lions captured in the Columbia River. Northwest Science 84: 60-72.

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 252 of 175 SCS Global Services Report

11 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’.

The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’ and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2020. All rights reserved.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

1.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).

Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

Version 6-0 (September 2020) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.2 Page 253 of 175