MSC 2nd Surveillance Report
For The
Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery
and the linked
Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery
Facilitated By the The Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT) And Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM)
Assessors: Géraldine Criquet, Lead Assessor Fergal Guilfoyle, Assessor Dave Garforth, Assessor
Report Code: MSC 07-08/SUR02 Date of Submission: 9th November 2015
SAI Global Assurance Services 3rd Floor, Block 3 Quayside Business Park Mill Street Dundalk Co.Louth Ireland. T + 353 42 932 0912 F + 353 42 938 6864 www.saiglobal.com/assurance
Form 13g Page 1 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
When harvesting from cultivation sites within Northern Ireland (NI)
Client Name Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT) and Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) Fishery Units Species: Mytilus edulis
Geographical Area Seed location: Coastal waters (FAO 27) within ROI’s 12nm Fishing Limit and NI 12nm Fishing Limit in VIa, VIIa, VIIg, VIIj and VIIb Harvest location: Belfast Lough, Lough Foyle, Carlingford Louth North Shore, Dundrum,and Lough Larne
Method of Capture: Modified Dutch Bottom Dredge (with limited hand raking)
Date of Report 9th November 2015 Certification Date 30th July 2013 Assessment Team (Lead Assessor) Géraldine Criquet (Assessor) Fergal Guilfoyle (Assessor) Dave Garforth On-site audit 10th and 11th September 2015 Surveillance Audit completion X Surveillance Audit 1: X Surveillance Audit 2: 9th November 2015 Surveillance Audit 3: Surveillance Audit 4: Re-certification Audit: Certificate Holder Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) P.O. Box 12 Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Ireland
SAI Global Correspondence to: Jean Ragg [email protected]
Form 13g Page 2 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
When harvesting from cultivation sites within Republic of Ireland (ROI)
Client Name Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) and the Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT)
Fishery Units Species: Mytilus edulis
Geographical Area Seed location: Coastal waters (FAO 27) within ROI’s 12nm Fishing Limit and NI 12nm Fishing Limit in VIa, VIIa, VIIg, VIIj and VIIb Harvest location: Permitted harvest areas within identified bays of Lough Swilly, (Cromane) Castlemaine, Youghal harbour, Waterford harbour, Wexford harbour, Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough South Shore, Lough Foyle
Method of Capture: Modified Dutch Bottom Dredge (with limited hand raking)
Date of Report 9th November 2015 Certification Date 30th July 2013
Assessment Team (Lead Assessor) Géraldine Criquet (Assessor) Fergal Guilfoyle (Assessor) Dave Garforth On-site audit 10th and 11th September 2015
Surveillance Audit completion X Surveillance Audit 1: X Surveillance Audit 2: 9th November 2015 Surveillance Audit 3: Surveillance Audit 4: Re-certification Audit: Certificate Holder Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) P.O. Box 12 Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin Ireland
SAI Global Correspondence to: Jean Ragg [email protected]
Form 13g Page 3 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Glossary
AA Appropriate Assessment AFBI Agri Food and Biosciences Unit BGMCF Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum BIM Bord Iascaigh Mhara – Irish Sea Fisheries Board CAB Conformity Assessment Body - Certifier CBAIT Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative DAFM Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development HCRs Harvest Control Rules MSC Marine Stewardship Council NI Northern Ireland PI Performance Indicator ROI Republic Of Ireland SAC Special Area of Conservation SPA Special Protection Area VMS Vessel Monitoring System
Form 13g Page 4 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Contents
1. Summary ...... 6 2. Introduction ...... 8 3. The Surveillance Process ...... 9 4. Summary of stakeholder and client meetings ...... 10 5. Fishery observations ...... 12 6. Relevant changes to Legislation and Regulations ...... 12 7. Relevant changes to Management Regime ...... 12 8. The General Conditions of Certification ...... 13 9. The Specific Conditions of Certification ...... 15 10. Harmonization of Certificates ...... 55 11. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 56 12. Outcome of SAI Global Assurance Services Decision ...... 56 13. Information Sources ...... 57 Appendices ...... 60
Form 13g Page 5 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
1. Summary
This report contains the findings of the second surveillance audit in relation to the Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT) and Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) certificate of the Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery.
The second surveillance audit focused on the any changes to the fishery and its management since the 1st surveillance audit, and monitoring continued compliance with the MSC Principles and Criteria. Also, the assessment team evaluated progress against the 8 conditions (PIs 1.2.2. Harvest Control Rules and Tools, 2.2.3 Bycatch Species Information/Monitoring, 2.4.2 Habitats Management Strategy, 2.4.3 Habitats Information/Monitoring, 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management Strategy, 2.5.3 Ecosystem Information/Monitoring, 3.2.2 Decision Making Processes, and 3.2.4 Research Plan).
SAI Global determines that:
The Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery continues to operate a well-managed and sustainable fishery and therefore, continued certification to the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing is awarded.
On behalf of the MSC client, the Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT) and Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM), SAI Global would like to extend thanks to the management organisations and stakeholders of the Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery who took part in this surveillance audit.
• Lead Assessor: Dr. Géraldine Criquet manages technical functions of SAI Global’s MSC Fishery Program and is an approved MSC Fishery Team Leader. • Assessor: Fergal Guilfoyle is a contractor for SAI Global with an extensive experience in the shellfish aquaculture sector in Ireland. • Assessor: Dave Garforth is the Seafood Business Manager for SAI Global and is a lead IRCA approved auditor with an extensive knowledge of the Irish fishery industry.
Although Dave Garforth was a member of the full assessment team, the surveillance team is different from the original team due to SAI Global staff turn-over; this team is the same as for the 1st surveillance audit. Skills and experience are summarised below.
Form 13g Page 6 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Géraldine Criquet - Lead Assessor
Géraldine is an MSC approved Fisheries Team Leader for SAI Global - experienced fishery scientist in both Finfish and Shellfish fisheries, and ecosystems considerations. Géraldine holds a PhD in Marine Ecology (École Pratique des Hautes Études, France) which focused on coral reef fisheries management, Marine Protected Areas and fish ecology. She has also been involved during 2 years in stock assessments of pelagic resources in the Biscay Gulf, collaborating with IFREMER. She worked 2 years for the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) at Reunion Island for studying fish target species growth and connectivity between fish populations in the Indian Ocean using otolith analysis. She served as Consultant for FAO on a Mediterranean Fisheries Program (COPEMED) and developed and implemented during 2 years a monitoring program of catches and fishing effort in the Marine Natural Reserve of Cerbère-Banyuls (France). Géraldine is an experienced full time MSC Lead Assessor with SAI Global, successfully leading MSC certifications and assessment teams and acting as Principle 2 expert for multiple MSC Pre, Full and Surveillance audits.
Fergal Guilfoyle – Assessor
Fergal has a degree in Marine Biology from Trinity College Dublin, a Masters in Fisheries and Marine Science from Aberdeen University and a postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Management from the University of Ulster. Fergal is currently managing director of Treanbeg Shellfish Ltd, a small oyster farming business based in Mayo. Treanbeg Shellfish also trades as Treanbeg Marine Consulting which is a business focusing on Environmental Impact Assessment for finfish farms. Fergal is a member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and he is an invited member of the National Inland Fisheries Forum (NIFF) which advises IFI and the minister in matters relating to inland fisheries resources in Ireland. Fergal has worked as a research scientist in Ireland for BIM and the Marine Institute. As an Aquaculture Development / Quality Officer in Co Mayo Fergal has gained a thorough understanding of all aspects of the aquaculture industry in Ireland. Since 2009 Fergal has been working extensively with the Aquaculture Industry as a shellfish producer and as a consultant working on EIA projects in the finfish sector.
Dave Garforth – Assessor
Dave Garforth, BSC, HDip. (Applied Science), MSc has been involved in fisheries and aquatic resources for over 25 years. Dave is the Senior Seafood Consultant at SAI Global and works across the major fisheries, aquaculture and supply chain services. He has a professional background in many seafood related sectors which contribute to his knowledge and understanding of mussel fisheries under evaluation including: Fisheries/Aquaculture Development Officer in the Irish Sea Fisheries Board, Quality Manager for supply chain and trade at Pan European Fish Auctions, Fishery Officer II for UK fisheries, researcher and project manager at University College Cork. Dave is a lead IRCA approved auditor in third party 17065 certification. Through his 10 year career at SAI Global, Dave has experience in both fisheries and bivalve aquaculture auditing across the full range of existing international and regional standards.
Form 13g Page 7 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
2. Introduction
This report sets out the results of the second annual surveillance assessment of:
The Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery.
To be awarded an MSC certificate for the fishery, the applicants agreed in a written contract to develop an action plan for meeting the required 'Conditions' against the performance indicators that scored below 80% in the initial assessment. Action Plans for each Condition were submitted by each fishery client and these were approved by GTC as the certification body of record.
The applicant also agreed in a written contract to be financially and technically responsible for surveillance visits by an MSC accredited certification body, which would occur at a minimum of once a year, or more often at the discretion of the certification body (based on the applicant’s action plan or by previous findings by the certification body from annual surveillance audits or other sources of information).
Announcement of Surveillance Audit
An announcement of the surveillance site visit was published on the MSC website on the 30th July 2015 to provide an opportunity to stakeholders to meet with or submit information on the fishery to the assessment team. Additionally, written notification was sent to the list of stakeholders representing the consultation plan during the initial assessment of this fishery and in many cases follow up mails were also made to ensure that stakeholders had been provided with sufficient opportunity to participate in consultation.
Table 1 provides a list of the stakeholders and management organizations engaged in the process either through meetings, conference call or submission of information. These consultations focused on the questions and evidence that demonstrates the status of seed collection and mussel harvesting, the performance of the fishery throughout the year and measures that supported the fulfilment of the Conditions of Certification placed upon the Cross Border Aquaculture Initiative (CBAIT) and Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) at the initial certification decision.
Meetings were held with the following management and scientific organizations responsible for the Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery and the linked Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery:
● DARD, BIM, CBAIT, Marine Institute.
A number of scientific and meeting reports were also examined by the surveillance team in producing this report, as detailed in the information sources section.
Form 13g Page 8 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
3. The Surveillance Process
The Surveillance Audit followed the current version of MSC procedures and methodologies and implemented by SAI Global accredited MSC Procedures (QP).
MSC Scheme Document Issue Date MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 January 14, 2013 MSC FCR and Guidancev2.0 October 1, 2014 General Certification Requirements v.2.1 February 20, 2015 Surveillance Reporting Template v1.0 October 8, 2014
Table 5.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level
On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit & re- Level 6 audit audit audit certification site visit.
The surveillance audit was conducted as a normal onsite audit
The Surveillance Audit was comprised in general of:
1. To review any changes in the management of the fishery, including regulations, key management or scientific staff or stock evaluation.
2. To evaluate the progress of the fishery against any Conditions of Certification raised during the Main Assessment.
3. To review any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability and the ability to segregate MSC from non-MSC products.
4. To review any other significant changes in the fishery.
The surveillance audit consisted of the announcement to stakeholders and interested parties as required through the MSC website and more direct stakeholder contact with the original stakeholders that took part in the initial assessment and management organizations that comprise the management system and regime for the Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery and the linked Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery. Through this process, a stakeholder consultation plan was developed as part of the on-site assessment.
Emails and information on objectives of the surveillance audit were sent to stakeholders and management agencies. From this, a surveillance on-site meeting plan was organized and appointments for each individual meeting set. Due to the nature of the management of the Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery and the linked Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery, and the geographic location of the respective clients and stakeholders, the on-site audit meeting was proposed to be in Dublin. On site Surveillance Audit date was 10th September 2015. On-site audits were performed by Géraldine Criquet (Lead Auditor), Fergal Guilfoyle (auditor) and Dave Garforth (auditor).
Form 13g Page 9 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The surveillance audit meeting was informed by a pre-determined agenda. The agenda was set out so as to allow specific stakeholder interests and concerns to be covered through a structured approach.
In addition to the site visit, two separates calls were held with the Marine Institute on the 14th September and the Daithi O'Murchu Marine Research Station on the 15th September, as they could not attend the on-site meeting.
Information and notes from the consultation phase of the assessment were combined with a review of formal documentation from science and management agencies, regulatory amendments and the direct evidence collected during each of the client consultation meetings.
4. Summary of stakeholder and client meetings
Arising out of the stakeholder consultation plan preparation a considerable number of stakeholders were contacted directly by surface mail and e-mail. Arising out of this process a final direct consultation plan for the audit was undertaken. Table 1 details the dates, meeting locations and organisations that were consulted through direct meetings or conference calls during the on-site surveillance assessment.
All meetings were conducted by the Surveillance Team Assessors.
Form 13g Page 10 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Table 1. Consultation Meetings during the On Site Surveillance Assessment of the the Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery and the linked Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery
Name Organisation Present at Location Venue Date/Time Purpose Meetings Bottom Grown Dave Garforth Dun BIM Offices 10th September 2015, Fisheries observations, HCRs, Mussel Geraldine Criquet Laoghaire, 11.00 am Information and monitoring, Bycatch Consultative Forum Fergal Guilfoyle Ireland species, Habitats impacts, strategy and (BGMCF) Sam Dignan information, Ecosystem impacts, Joanne Gaffney AI – Northern strategy and information, Donald Maguire Ireland client Barry Fox Consultation, Decision-making representative Kenny Parker processes, Research Plan BIM- Ireland client Bryan McDonald representative Declan Quigley Raymond Dougal Brian Cloughmore Marine Institute Geraldine Criquet Telephone 14th September 2015, Bycatch monitoring, Appropriate Fergal Guilfoyle call 9.00 am Assessments, Harvest Strategy and Sam Dignan HCRs Oliver Tully Francis O’Byrne Daithi O'Murchu Geraldine Criquet Telephone 15th September 2015, Ephemeral beds, larval dispersion Marine Research Fergal Guilfoyle call 10.30 am modelling, harvest strategy and HCRs Station Sam Dignan Julie Maguire
Form 13g Page 11 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
5. Fishery observations
The total seed fished was 10,036 t (net) in 2014, with 544 t (net) being sourced in NI waters. Of the 10,036 t fished 6,748 t were fished by vessels that are members of the client groups meaning 3,288 t were fished by vessels that are not part of the UoC. Table 2 details the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland catches and re- laying locations.
Table 2. Net tonnage of mussel seed fished and re-laid by Northern Ireland (NI) and Republic of Ireland (ROI) boats in 2014 (Gross tonnage in brackets).
Re-laid NI Re-laid ROI Total
NI Boats 950 t (1,150 t) 1,165 t (1,480 t) 2,115 t (2,630 t)
ROI Boats 2,734 t (3,184 t) 5,187 t (6,368 t) 7,921 t (9,552 t)
A total of 10,935 t of finished mussels (end product) were produced under the certificate in 2014.
6. Relevant changes to Legislation and Regulations
There were no changes to the legislation that governs the NI mussel fisheries. Similarly, no changes have occurred to the legislation that governs Irish mussel fisheries.
7. Relevant changes to Management Regime
There were no changes to the management regimes of the Northern Ireland and Ireland since the full assessment that has bearing on the performance of the fisheries against the MSC Standard.
Form 13g Page 12 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
8. The General Conditions of Certification
The general 'Conditions' set out for the BIM as the certificate holder at initial full assessment were as follows:
The Client must recognize that MSC standards require regular monitoring inspections at least once a year, focusing on compliance with the 'Conditions' set forth in this report (as outlined below) and continued conformity with the standards of certification;
The Client must agree by contract to be responsible financially and technically for compliance with required surveillance audits by an accredited MSC certification body, and a contract must be signed and verified by SAI Global prior to certification being awarded;
The Client must recognize that MSC standards require a full re-evaluation for certification (as opposed to yearly monitoring for update purposes) every five years;
Prior to receiving final certification, the Clients fulfilled the requirement to document an 'Action Plan’ (in this case, one for each of the client groups) for Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification' and have these approved by SAI Global.
The Client must provide a list of all the mussel companies operating under either or both jurisdictions (ROI and NI) and a list of active vessels that are fishing for seed under one or both of the certificates. This list must be updated annually prior to each annual surveillance audit activity.
The Client must inform the Conformity Assessment Body, SAI Global of any seed mussel transfers from outside the scope of the Unit of Certification to the sites that are within the scope of the Unit of Certification by any client group member. The client group member must be able to demonstrate traceability of the full quantity of seed mussel from transfer to harvest.
Fulfilment of General Conditions- Surveillance Audit 2.
An Action Plan was submitted and accepted prior to the initial certification of the Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the actions that have been undertaken against the milestones of each Condition in the intervening period are reported upon in the next section.
An up-dated list of members of the client group has been provided and a list of active vessels during the 2014 fishery.
While there were no additional seed transfers from outside the unit of certification in 2014 seed has in the past been obtained from Morecombe Bay for re-laying into Belfast Lough and this seed may still not have reached marketable sized and been fished before entering the final chain of custody. Seed from Morecombe Bay is currently outside the scope of the Certificate for Northern Ireland and Ireland although it is covered under a separate MSC certificate from April 2012. (NORTH MENAI STRAIT MUSSEL (MYTILUS EDULIS) FISHERY (Certificate MEP-F-002) (Mussels from bottom culture (wild caught seed) from the northern Menai Strait, Wales, UK, grown by members of the Bangor Mussel Producers Ltd. (BMP Ltd.) with seed fished by mussel dredge from i) Morecambe Bay or ii) Caernarfon Bay) and extended in 2013 (to include As above, but also including seed fished from the estuary of the River Dee (Cheshire / N. Wales). The client group is the Bangor Mussel Producers Ltd. - Myti Mussels Ltd., Extramussel Ltd., Ogwen Mussel Ltd and Deep Dock Ltd. Members of the N. Ireland/Ireland MSC certificate are pursuing access to this certificate under the sharing mechanism or may investigate an alternative route to extend their own certificate.
Form 13g Page 13 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The vessels fishing for this seed are permitted to fish under UK fishing license regulations and are included in the client group of the Northern Ireland certificate.
Client list: Cloughmore Shellfish Ltd. Lough Garman Harbour Mussels Ltd. Down Mussels Ltd. Emerald Mussels Dougold Mussels Crescent Seafood’s Carlingford Lough Mussels O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd. Cromane Seafood’s Wexford Mussels Ltd
Vessels: Branding Celtic Harvester Cecelia Eben Haezer Emerald Gratia Ex Maria Gratia Maria Maria Gratia Maria Lena Rona Western Adventure II Wings of the Morning Edenvale
Left the fleet after 2014 season: Mytilus Still Ostrea
Form 13g Page 14 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
9. The Specific Conditions of Certification
During the initial assessment of the Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery, a conditional score was allocated for PIs 1.2.2. Harvest Control Rules and Tools, 2.2.3 Bycatch Species Information/Monitoring, 2.4.2 Habitats Management Strategy, 2.4.3 Habitats Information/Monitoring, 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management Strategy, 2.5.3 Ecosystem Information/Monitoring, 3.2.2 Decision Making Processes, and 3.2.4 Research Plan.
A conditional score was assigned for PI Reference Points:
Condition Performance Indicator Initial Assessment Score 1 1.2.2 65 2 2.2.3 75 3 2.4.2 70 4 2.4.3 75 5 2.5.2 75 6 2.5.3 75 7 3.2.2 75 8 3.2.4 70
Form 13g Page 15 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Table of Conditions, Action Plan and Observations from Evidence Collected during the Surveillance Audit
Item 5: Condition 1 (of 8)
Performance PI 1.2.2: There are well defined Guidepost 80 (SI a and b). Indicator & and effective harvest control rules Guidepost in place. Well defined harvest control rules are in place Issue that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.
The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. There is a need for explicit harvest control rules relating to the timing of harvesting, the Condition 1 viability of harvested seed, and the process by which the fishery may be open or closed. Ideally such explicit harvest control rules should form part of a wider fishery management plan which explicitly states the rationale and assumptions underlying the harvest strategy and the harvest control rules. Client Action BIM/Aquaculture Initiative will liaise with the statutory authorities of NI and ROI to Plan and ensure that the necessary fishery dependent and independent information is obtained Milestones to support the development of the HCR and the necessary institutional processes are put in place by the Departments to provide the mechanism to test and implement the condition.
The client through the BGMCF will also support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support the activities required to develop, test and implement the condition.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Upon completion of stakeholder consultations the final harvest control rules will be made available to all stakeholders and the CAB.
Documentary evidence will be supplied to demonstrate that these rules have been implemented.
Milestone By the first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that suitable harvest control rules consistent with the harvest strategy are defined by the management organizations.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the defined harvest control rules have been implemented on a trial basis and the main uncertainties are considered.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that harvest control rules are explicitly defined by the management system, implemented and align harvests to provide for optimum sustainability and productivity of the resource.
Form 13g Page 16 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of Outcome on Condition 1. Condition 1 from 1st Year 1 Milestone: By the first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall surveillance be provided with documentary evidence that suitable harvest control rules consistent audit with the harvest strategy are defined by the management organizations.
The audit team has been provided with a list of the management measures that are available, including more recent examples of the mechanisms in place to control the opening and closing of seed fisheries resulting from the AA process. The AA does not assess the seed fishery relative to the mussel seed resource abundance, rather it provides for a wider assessment of the effects of seed fisheries on the conservation status of the designated features of SAC’s where seed fisheries occur.
Implicit within the management objectives for the seed mussel fishery is that the seed mussel beds are essentially ephemeral and so harvesting of seed mussel is considered highly unlikely to have any consequence for mussel population size, and this is reflected in the harvest strategy. The strategy is therefore to manage the seed mussel fishery, and not to manage the Irish Sea mussel stock, and so conventional stock assessments with target and limit reference points are not appropriate in this fishery.
Historically, mussel seed harvests have been of variable sizes and in recent years of much smaller size than previous. The harvest strategy must ensure that susceptibility of the stock is maintained at or below acceptable levels given the productivity of the species. Given the limited spatial scale of the seed mussel harvesting activity in relation to the distribution of the mussel stock throughout the Irish sea and (Ireland/N.Ireland) coastal regions in general), in conjunction with the harvesting of seed from seed beds that have historically been described as ephemeral in nature, and the practice of re- laying of seed mussel for cultivation and on-growing to reproductively-active adults, with the potential for actually enhancing rather than impacting negatively on recruitment, the susceptibility of the mussel stock to the fishing activity is still considered minimal.
However, it has been noted during the audit through consultations held with various stakeholders that there are gaps in the knowledge of stock structure and dynamics of mussel populations and of seed mussel settlement in the Irish sea. These consultations, surmise that the availability of seed for harvesting is likely influenced by a number of parameters, which may include:
- Weather patterns and metrological conditions in the Irish sea in general - The effects of winter metrological conditions on bottom substrate and on developing seed beds - Effectiveness of seed surveys at locating seed - Ecological effects such as food availability for seed (and adult mussels) - Ecological effects and mussel predator abundance - Locations of spawning populations of mussels and - Genetic differences within spawning populations of mussels
Historically, the fishery has targeted ephemeral beds in the Irish sea and hence, the
Form 13g Page 17 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
fluctuations and recent decline in harvests is a consequence of the availability of seed beds, most particularly in the ‘traditional locations’ where they have been historically fished. Most stakeholders equate this to highly energetic sea states (winter storms) of overwintering conditions over recent years which disperse substrate and washes out seed. Similar observations of ephemeral nature mussel seed beds have been documented in MSC certification reports in Exmouth (http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-east- atlantic/exmouth_mussels/assessment-downloads-1/20120731_PCR.pdfMEP F106), Morecambe Bay (MEP F106), The Dee Estuary (http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/north-menai-strait- mussel/assessment-downloads-1/20120508_PCR.pdf) (MEP F-017) and Lower Saxony, http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/germany-lower-saxony-mussel-dredge-and-mussel-culture/assessment- downloads-1/20130430_FR_MUS328.pdf (FCI-0035). There are also instances where seed fisheries occur within more defined systems, such as at Cromane and here, more specific harvest control rules have been created, with wider ecosystem servicing (conservation status of birds, Common Scoter) part of the objective.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged. The fishery will be assessed at future surveillance audits with respect to further explicit definition of the harvest control tools/rules relative to the harvest strategy and uncertainties. (Also refer to conditions 3.2.2 Decision Making and 3.2.4 Research Plan)
Status of Condition 1: Open – On target.
Evidence for The audit team was provided with a number of documents as evidence to support the Year 2 fisheries compliance with the agreed upon milestone for the second surveillance audit.
Seed Fishery – Decision Schedule This document presented a Gantt chart outlining the schedule by which decisions and activities relating to the seed mussel fishery are undertaken. The main items of relevance to this condition were the timing of decisions and the overarching ability of force majeure to override previously agreed upon aspects of the fishery.
Minutes from BGMCF 28th January 2015 Key points of discussion and decision taking at the meeting as follows:
Seed Campaign 2014 While only preliminary results were presented 2014 was a much better year than 2012 and 2013 with 10,500 t gross being fished, 544 t from NI waters. The majority of seed was re-laid in Wexford, Castlemaine and Belfast, with small amounts being re- laid in Carlingford and Foyle. The small tonnages laid in Carlingford and Foyle were attributed to those are areas already having a sufficient volume of stock on the ground.
Industry members were reminded of their obligation to submit missing datasheets from the 2014 fishery.
Seed Fishery in NI Waters The reasons behind a decision not to open a fishery at Burial Island in 2014 were explained to industry. DARD has an obligation to protect vulnerable habitats. In 2014
Form 13g Page 18 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
AFBI surveys of seed mussels at Burial Island identified an area of Modiolus Reef adjacent to a settlement of seed mussels. In instances such as this a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) must be conducted and recommendations on opening areas arising from this assessment be made; including any required mitigation measures. Following the discovery of the Modiolus reef habitat further dive surveys were conducted by AFBI, QUB and DOE. These surveys resulted in greater knowledge of the spatial extent of the Modiolus reef and as such it was indicated the intention was that a fishery would be allowed in 2015. A survey in January 2015 showed that seed had overwintered and remained at the site and had grown to 10mm to 30mm. AFBI have proposed a buffer zone around the Modiolus and this is under discussion with DOE so that the fishing area can be agreed before a spring fishery.
Industry members welcomed the willingness of DARD and DOE to open the seed bed; they expressed the view that this was a huge step forward after the very frustrating 2014 closure. Industry members also requested that the bed be closely monitored for predators especially starfish which can destroy a bed in a very short period of time.
Plan for 2015 Fishery The forum decided to defer defining fishing tides until more information was available following surveys.
Mussel Husbandry review, Seed allocation review An industry consultation document was awaiting final sign off by DARD and DAFM and would be issued in the coming months.
Minutes from BGMCF 02nd April 2015 Key points of discussion and decision taking at the meeting as follows:
Plan for 2015 Seed Fishery No seed survey results available for ROI waters but necessary to select some preliminary dates so that the fishery could be planned
As in 2014, the fishery will only open if evidence of a reasonable quantity of seed resources has been identified by prior survey. It is extremely important that all industry members engage in as much surveying of the Irish Sea as possible in 2015 and that they report their findings to the Department quickly if seed is found. If seed resources are not found and reported, then the fishery may not open at all in 2015.
“The decision-making role in ROI will, as always, rest with the Minister. Decisions on fishing in NI waters rest with DARD.”
“As in previous years, in cases where a seed bed, which has been found, is subject to heavy predation during the closed period, and it is likely that the seed will be lost unless fished, then the opening of such an area outside the dates agreed above may be an option being viewed as a ‘force-majeure’ type situation. Recommendations on such an eventuality, if and when it arises, will be considered on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant considerations pertaining to the particular situation.”
Potential dates for a Spring fishery were agreed subject to seed being located and the Minister’s consent:
Form 13g Page 19 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
24th April to 1st May 2015 10th May to 14th May 2015 Possibility of an additional period
The fishery will then close until a suitable tide, potentially on 20th August, when fishing may resume. Depending on seed availability fishing will continue through appropriate tides until 08th of December 2015.
Seed Fishery in NI Waters (including Burial Island) Survey results presented. DARD indicated intention to open a spring fishery at Burial Island.
Industry informed they must stick rigidly to designated are or the fishery will be closed. Industry ask that area be extend but DARD advised the area was already at it maximum permissible.
“Industry members queried the waste limits that are imposed by DARD (60%) in closing the fishery, industry are of the opinion that DARD is too severe in its judgement on this matter. DARD stated that the 60% is a guide but common sense is used in any decision, if rocks or substrate start to come up then damage is obviously being done to the substrate and the fishery will be closed.”
Fishery at Burial Island to open 24th April and 27th April through 1st May 2015.
Minutes from BGMCF 22nd July 2015 Key points of discussion and decision taking at the meeting as follows:
Seed Fishery 2015 ROI Survey results indicate seed settlement and growth delayed in 2015 presumably due to low water temperatures. Larval monitoring indicates significant amounts of larvae in water but as no seed resources have yet been quantified no possible to indicate potential opening date.
Proposed to defer recommendation on Autumn opening until tide starting 5th September 2015 to allow settlements already record to mature.
Recommendation to reconsidered week of 20th August by correspondence and decision to be relayed to industry via SMS.
Force majeure again discussed wording same as in minutes of 02nd April. Possibility of fishery not opening if seed resources not identified discussed and industry advised to conduct surveys of their own with relevant authorisation. NI Forum notified that seed bed had been identified at the Feathers but that it was under threat from starfish. AFBI scientist expressed that in his opinion the should be open as a matter of urgency to prevent its loss.
Industry requested that this be considered a force majeure situation. DARD proposed opening on 7th August and Industry countered with a request of 27th and 28th July.
Form 13g Page 20 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Burial Island Seed Fishery No Modiolus recorded as bycatch during the fishery and post-fishery acoustic surveys of the area show no change to the Modiolus reef.
Mussel Husbandry Review/Seed Allocation Review Forum informed that; “submissions have been received by both Departments and that it will be a complex task to move the review forward. The Departments propose to convene a technical subgroup to look at the responses and bring forward some recommendations.”
Letter to Industry 08/04/2015 Relays discussion points, recommendations and decision from BGMCF of 02nd April 2015 to wider industry. Specifies dates and reminds members of their requirements.
Letter to Industry 07/08/2015 Relays discussion points, recommendations and decision from BGMCF of 22nd July 2015 to wider industry. Specifies dates and reminds members of their requirements.
Copy of SMS messages sent to industry (relevant messages):
22/07/15 A small seed bed has been identified at the Feathers in NI waters. The bed is under threat from starfish and under force-majeure it MAY open for fishing Mon 27th and Tue 28th July… 23/07/15 DARD intends to open the seed mussel bed at the Feathers on 27th & 28th July due to starfish presence… 31/07/15 The Rusk seedbed is under threat from starfish and under force-majeure it will open for fishing Friday 7th August... 14/08/15 All areas of the Irish Sea are closed for seed fishing and will remain closed until 5th Sept at the earliest. A further update will be issued next week 28/08/15 Subject to Ministerial Approval, 5 September is the proposed opening date for the seed fishery in IRL waters. NI waters will remain closed.
SEA-FISHERIES AND MARITIME JURISDICTION (MUSSEL SEED) (OPENING OF FISHERIES) (RUSK CHANNEL) REGULATIONS 2015 (SI No. 351 of 2015). Statutory Instrument that demonstrate the opening of a mussel fishery in the Rusk Channel under force majeure. The evidence demonstrates the ability of the Minister to rapidly designate temporally and spatially limited regimes under which mussel seed fisheries may take place allowing for the resource to be exploited if there is a danger of it being lost to the industry.
SEA-FISHERIES AND MARITIME JURISDICTION (MUSSEL SEED) (OPENING OF FISHERIES) REGULATIONS 2015 (SI No. 370 of 2015). Statutory Instrument that demonstrates the opening of mussel fisheries in the waters of Ireland (except for those areas managed by the Loughs Agency (Foyle and
Form 13g Page 21 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Carlingford) and those areas subject to closures resulting from the Natura 2000 designations (referring to sites in Ireland and N. Ireland). The evidence demonstrates the regime of mussel seed fisheries remaining closed subject to Ministerial Instruments.
Licence for Collecting Mussel Seed 2015 (The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967) Mussel Seed Authorisation - DAFM Dummy licences/authorisations showing the format of NI and ROI licences to fish for seed mussels respectively. Schedule provides evidence of the conditions a licensee must adhere to in order to operate in the fishery.
Mussel Seed Fishery at Feathers “The majority of the catch was made up of medium/small mussels with a number of very small seed also noted. The majority of waste was stones, broken and whole shell and some weed. A variety of bycatch was observed.”
18th August 2014 2 vessels given verbal warnings for fishing out with the designated box. Fishing ceased at 18:00hrs. Average waste 11.11% 19th August 2014 Fishing ceased at 18:00hrs. Average waste 15% 20th August 2014 “Fishery closed… at 14.30hrs. Waste ratio had begun to creep up over the course of morning, from 10-20% to 35-40%. Waste was also starting to contain fist sized stones with mussels (7-25mm) attached to them, which were an important part of substrate and may compromise future settlements. As a precaution the decision was made to close the area for fishing with a view to re- opening on the next tides.” 1st September 2014 Fishing ceased at 18:00hrs. Average waste 15.75% 2nd September 2014 Fishing ceased at 18:00hrs. Average waste 24% 3rd September 2014 1 vessel given verbal warning for fishing outside designated box. Fishing ceased at 18.00hrs. Average waste = 27.5% 4th September 2014 “Fishery closed… at 14.00hrs. Decision made based on waste ratio having reached 50% together with a lot stones/cobbles in the waste having seed attached to them, which again would make up part of important part of substrate.”
Seed Mussel Survey of the Rusk Channel – 29 and 30/07/2015 “Good indications of a spat fall were found earlier in May in the Rusk Channel, unfortunately, latest reports from the industry showed a very large amount on starfish in the settlement location.”
“The tow tows made in the seed area showed a lot of large starfish and starfish damage is already visible; a lot of the larger mussel shells are empty.
The grab was deployed 10 times in the settlement and again, it showed large quantities of large starfish (4 to 3 individual per grab for the first 4 grabs). The amount of starfish
Form 13g Page 22 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
in each grab indicates that there are over 40 individuals per m2, particularly at the south end of the bed.”
“Recommendations: This survey was conducted following a part of the industry’s request, highlighting the immediate threat from predation. In 2013, a large settlement in the same condition was totally depleted in 4 weeks (from June to July) between the Lucifer Bank and the Long Bank. Although the seed is small, an early transplant is needed if these stocks are to be saved from predation.”
Conclusion Implicit within the management objectives for the seed mussel fishery is that the seed and mussel beds are essentially ephemeral and so harvesting of seed mussel is considered Outcome on highly unlikely to have any consequence for mussel population size; this is reflected in Condition 1 the harvest strategy. The strategy is therefore to manage the seed mussel fishery, and from 2nd not to manage the Irish Sea mussel stock, and so conventional stock assessments with surveillance target and limit reference points are not appropriate in this fishery. audit Historically, mussel seed harvests have been of variable sizes and recent years had shown much lower catches than previous; 2014 represented a much better year than 2012 and 2013 with the total amount fished (10,036 t) approaching an average year.
The harvest strategy must ensure that susceptibility of the stock is maintained at or below acceptable levels given the productivity of the species. In this instance the susceptibility of the mussel stock to the fishing activity is considered minimal for the following reasons: When compared to the distribution of the mussel stock around the coasts of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as well as within the wider Irish Sea, the spatial scale of seed mussel harvesting activity is extremely limited Seed mussel extraction only takes place from beds that have historically been considered ephemeral. While some of these beds may overwinter in some years, given suitable environmental conditions, none have been seen to persist over a long time scale The practice of re-laying of seed and allowing it to mature into more reproductively-active and fecund adults has the potential to actually enhance recruitment to the wider stock; effectively in transferring seed mussels inshore to conditions more favorable to survival and growth the natural mortality of that component of the mussel stock is reduced.
At present there are numerous rules in place to control the harvest of seed mussels including but not limited to: Specific authorisation to fish for seed mussel must be held Authorisation comes into operation on specific date and states on which tides fishing is permitted Curfews (e.g. fishing prohibited between 18:00hrs and 06:00hrs in ROI) Owner and/or master must complete an accurate EU logsheet and spat sheets Fully operational black box Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Hold of the vessel to be marked in 0.5m segments Requirement to supply seed fishing information for seed fished in ROI waters via text message (SMS) to a stock tracking database.
Form 13g Page 23 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
but there is at present no clearly defined Harvest Control Rule to determine: 1. whether it is appropriate that a seed fishery take place and if so 2. when during the season a particular seed resource should be fished in order to achieve the greatest return
Since 2014 in the Irish Sea there is a limit of 1,500 t of seed mussel biomass that must be identified before a fishery is allowed to take place, however, this an economic rather than a biologically derived figure; in fact while the measure was not in place at the time the total amount of mussel seed fished in 2013, which represented an exceptionally poor year, still surpassed this figure.
In NI rules are in place to close the fishery when either the seed mussel to waste ratio in catches reaches 50:50 or quantities of benthic substrata begin to be observed. The benefits of these rules are twofold; 1) mussel seed is left on the bed to potentially spawn and overwinter and 2) benthic habitat complexity is protected which may subsequently promote spat settlement. While dredge efficiency and economic factors will determine at what point fishing ceases in ROI waters these alone may not protect habitat structure and functioning as efficiently as the NI system.
The minutes of the BGMCF and the resulting letters and SMS messages to industry clearly document a decision making process. Evidence of this process can be seen in the decisions to twice open fisheries early in 2015 due to the perceived imminent threat of predation and also to delay the opening of the 2015 ROI fishery by a week to allow seed to attain a greater size as a result of slow growth rates due to colder than usual water temperatures in Spring/Summer 2015. However, this decision making process needs to be formalised in order to ensure consistent outcomes regardless of differing biological, environmental and socioeconomic circumstances.
Force majeure may be enacted by the Minister in IRL or DARD in NI if a bed is seen to be in imminent danger of destruction due to predation; however, there is no set level of starfish abundance that definitively represents imminent danger. At present the use of force majeure is subjective and is based on past experience rather than a firm HCR.
Appropriate reference points are needed in order to ensure decisions relating to; 1) whether or not to open a fishery at all; 2) when the use of force majeure is appropriate and 3) when a fishery should be delayed to allow seed to on-grow, are made consistently and to prevent personal interests and emotions from affecting the decision making processes.
The audit team concludes that the requirement that “the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the defined harvest control rules have been implemented on a trial basis and the main uncertainties are considered” is yet to be met by the fishery. The audit team accepts that there are harvest control rules in place as evidenced by the workings of the BGMCF and that these rules are being applied in managing the fishery. However, the control rules are not currently clearly defined and are based on past experience rather than firm procedural reference points.
There is little confidence that these rules would necessarily be applied consistently in differing circumstances. Further, the control rules have not been formally endorsed and
Form 13g Page 24 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
as such remain subject to alteration and interpretation. As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does not at present meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is behind target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 1: Open – Behind target
Form 13g Page 25 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 2 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.2.3: Information on the nature and the Guidepost 80 (SI c). Indicator & amount of bycatch is adequate to Guidepost determine the risk posed by the fishery and Sufficient data continue to be collected to Issue the effectiveness of the strategy to manage detect any increase in risk to main bycatch bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Detailed information on bycatch should be collected over the appropriate spatial and Condition 2 temporal scales, with respect to the extent of fishing activities, to verify existing information on bycatch levels over seed mussel beds as well as over cultivation areas. Following this, a baseline monitoring programme needs to be considered and adopted to ascertain quantitative bycatch data to monitor and confirm the current bycatch impacts from the fishery and in the future. Client Action Action Plan: Plan and Milestones BIM/Aquaculture Initiative will undertake to facilitate information, data and research from the scientific advisors in NI and ROI to support the close out of this condition.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Bycatch monitoring will be undertaken by scientific authorities and industry. Results and procedures will be made available to the CAB.
Milestones: By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been planned for all bycatch species at seed and harvest sites.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been adopted/implemented successfully for all bycatch species.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been adopted that will produce sufficient data to monitor and confirm the impacts of the fishery for all bycatch species over time. Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of Condition Outcome on 2. Condition 2 from 1st The audit team was presented with a by-catch monitoring plan for all seed fisheries and surveillance cultivation sites. By-catch has previously been monitored during seed fisheries and seed audit surveys. A single protocol such as that proposed will enable quantitative assessment of the by-catch on all seed beds and all cultivation sites. Reports on 2014 seed fishery sampling will be made available on or before next audit date.
Form 13g Page 26 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 2: Open – On target.
Evidence Marine Institute report: Year 2 Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review 2014 v2. Seed Fishery Observer Data
The Marine Institute Observers collected by-catch data on board commercial vessels during the seed fishery in 2014. This data was analysed and presented in a review document and concluded that, “None of the by-catch represent main retained species as they are all less than 5% of the volume of the mussel catch and none of the by-catch species are subject to recovery plans”.
According to this table the number of by-catch species per 2kg sample didn’t represent greater than 5%. However if calculated by volume this may have resulted in a breach of this limit. This was further informed by discussions with MI staff and clarified with a review of the raw data. When recalculated for volume the data confirms that the 5% limit is not breached.
BIM Seed Survey Fishing Reports: Rosslare, Long and Lucifer Banks, April 15 Howth, Lambay, Killiney, Rush, Jun-Jul 15 Cahore and Rusk, May 15 Wicklow Area, April and July, August 15 Rusk Channel, July 15 Bycatch Data Overview, 2015
BIM carry out systematic and targeted seed surveys in the Irish sea each year. The dredge samples are sub-sampled for by-catch and do not indicate that any by-catch species are being caught at greater than the 5% limit.
NI reports – AFBI, Loughs Agency and DARD
Form 13g Page 27 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Feathers Seed Fishery Report July 2015 Burial Island Survey, Jan 2015 Decision Making Schedule – Seed Fishery
AFBI carry out targeted acoustic and dredge surveys for seed in various known seed beds in Northern Ireland. The sampling for by-catch is undertaken using standard procedures and was reported to the audit team.
Observers are also present on commercial vessels to record and sample catch and by-catch data. None of the by-catch species are fished at greater than the 5% limit.
Castlemaine Seed fishery: The Castlemaine seed fishery is subject to Natura Impact Assessment and Nature Fisheries Management. BIM carry out seed surveys and report on catches but no specific data was presented on by-catch.
Harvesting Areas By-catch: There was no data presented on by-catch monitoring in harvesting areas. In 2014 there was some by-catch analysis by a Dutch consultant but this has not been repeated and there was no systematic plan presented. Conclusion There has been a programme of by-catch monitoring established for the seed fishery in the and Irish Sea and in Northern Ireland. A more standardised protocol and systematic programme Outcome on is recommended. Such a programme would allow direct comparison between beds and Condition 2 jurisdictions. from 2nd surveillance There was no information presented that a by-catch monitoring programme has been audit implemented in seed fishery beds in Castlemaine, or in any of the harvesting areas. While there has been major improvement towards meeting this condition for the 2nd surveillance audit the audit team concludes that the requirement that “the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been adopted/implemented successfully for all bycatch species”, in both seed fisheries areas and harvesting locations, is yet to be met by the fishery.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does not at present meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is behind target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 2: Open – Behind target.
Form 13g Page 28 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 3 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.4.2: There is a strategy in place that Guidepost 80 (Issue b). Indicator & is designed to ensure the fishery does Guidepost not pose a risk of serious or irreversible There is some objective basis for Issue harm to habitat types confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. A decision process that incorporates a clear management strategy for seed Condition 3 exploitation must be adopted with includes a mechanism that prevents the accidental damage to sensitive habitats, particularly for any new or unsurveyed areas. Client Action Action Plan: Plan and Milestones BIM/Aquaculture Initiative will undertake to liaise between the authorities of NI and ROI to facilitate the information and institutional arrangement required to fulfill this condition.
The client through the BGMCF will support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Documentary evidence will be supplied to demonstrate that measures have been implemented
Milestones:
By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a strategy had been established.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a strategy had been adopted.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that that a strategy had been implemented successfully.
By the fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that that a strategy achieves the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and Outcome actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of on Condition Condition 3. 3 from 1st surveillance The evidence presented established that there is a system in place to ensure that audit protected species and habitats, which have the potential to be impacted by the fishery for seed mussels, are identified, assessed and protected where necessary. Examples of where the fishery was closed or prohibited from such areas were presented.
Form 13g Page 29 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 3: Open – On target.
Evidence Year Irish Sea Seed Fisheries: 2 BGMCF Fishery Natura Plan 2013 – 2017 Article 6 Assessment of Fisheries, including a Fishery Natura Plan for Seed Mussel (2013-2017), in the Irish Sea; Marine Institute Rinville Oranmore, Co. Galway. July, 2014. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review 2014 v2. Common Scoter and mussel fishing. BIM Seed Survey Reports
The mussel seed fishery in the Irish Sea is subject to an assessment of the Fishery Natura Plan submitted to the Dept. by the Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum. This covers the years 2013 – 2017.
The Appropriate Assessment of this plan was carried out and accepted prior to the seed fishing season in 2013. Ongoing management of aspects of this plan were presented such as the continued buffer zone surrounding potentially vulnerable habitats on the Wicklow Bank SAC, exclusion zones around protected areas and the continued monitoring of the interaction of the mussel seed fishery and resource with the Common Scoter.
Any new seed beds would have to be subject to the same appropriate assessment as an established bed and therefore the impact of the fishery on habitats is subject to an assessment prior to fishing.
There is ongoing survey work on protected habitats adjacent to seed beds. The data was not presented and the schedule was not available.
NI reports – AFBI, Loughs Agency and Dept. of Ag and Rural Development Feathers Seed Fishery Report July 2015 Burial Island Survey, Jan 2015 Decision Making Schedule – Seed Fishery
The audit team was provided previously with details of the Statutory Instruments which have been enacted to protect areas of Northern Irish waters from mussel seed fishing. These areas are actively patrolled and fishing vessels are prevented from fishing for the seed within these areas with a Geofence.
Additional surveys were reported on the Burial Island seed beds as horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) had been identified at this site and this is a protected species.
Castlemaine Seed Fishery:
Appropriate Assessment of the impact of mussel fishing and mussel, oyster and clam aquaculture on Castlemaine Harbour SAC and SPA. Marine Institute, April 2011
Form 13g Page 30 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
2012 – Castlemaine Seed Fishing Report; BGMCF Fisheries Natura Plan (Mytilus edulis) Castlemaine Harbour 2011 -2016; BGMCF Fisheries Natura Declaration No. 1 of 2011, DAFM Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review 2014 v2. Castlemaine Harbour, mussel stock assessment.
The Castlemaine Co-op submitted a FNP for the seed fishery in Castlemaine Harbour for the years 2011 – 2016. The proposed fishery has been assessed by the Marine Institute and the Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would be no significant impact on the protected habitats of the SAC and protected bird species in the associated SPA. The Appropriate Assessment concluded that the activity may be permitted on the basis that less than 15% of any individual community type is affected in any one year of activity and there is a medium to high level of confidence in this conclusion based on evidence at this site and at other sites.
The assessment of the impact of this seed fishery will undergo periodic review and this system should provide sufficient protection for vulnerable habitats, as required by this condition.
The assessment of the potential seed allocation reserved for bird species is under review and the Marine Institute will actively manage this resource allocation under the next Fishery Natura Plan, 2016-2021. Conclusion Documentary evidence was presented that indicated that a strategy was in place to and Outcome ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to habitat types. This strategy has been on Condition assessed and found to be sufficient to protect vulnerable habitats. 3 from 2nd surveillance On-going monitoring and active management has been documented and new issues, audit which potentially have posed a risk have been assessed. The audit team concludes that the requirement that “By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a strategy had been adopted”, has been met.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is on target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 3: Open – On target
Form 13g Page 31 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 4 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to Guidepost 80 (SI c). Indicator & determine the risk posed to habitat Guidepost types by the fishery and the Sufficient data continue to be collected to Issue effectiveness of the strategy to manage detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. impacts on habitat types due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). A monitoring programme of habitats with respect to seed collection and an Condition 4 assessment of the potential impact of the collection of seed needs to be established and used to inform the management decision process for seed exploitation that prevents the accidental damage to sensitive habitats, particularly for any new or unsurveyed areas. Client Action Action Plan: Plan and Milestones BIM/Aquaculture Initiative have undertaken to liaise with the statutory authorities in NI and ROI to facilitate the information and institutional processes as necessary in fulfilment of this condition.
The client through the BGMCF will support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Documentary evidence will be supplied to demonstrate that measures have been implemented
Milestones:
By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a program had been established.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a program had been adopted.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that that the program has been implemented successfully
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and Outcome actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of on Condition Condition 4. 4 from 1st surveillance Evidence was presented which detailed the surveys which must be conducted on all audit new seed fishery beds identified. Details were presented (see condition 3 above) on the assessment process which is required to be conducted on all new beds prior to a permitted fishery opening.
Form 13g Page 32 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 4: Open – On target. Evidence Year Irish Sea Seed Mussel Fishery: 2 BGMCF Fishery Natura plan for Seed Mussel Fishing in the southern Irish Sea for the years 2014-2019 Article 6 Assessment of Fisheries, including a Fishery Natura Plan for Seed Mussel (2013-2017), in the Irish Sea Marine Institute Rinville Oranmore, Co. Galway. July, 2014. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review 2014 v2. Common Scoter and mussel fishing. BIM Seed Survey Fishing Reports: o Rosslare, Long and Lucifer Banks, April 15 o Howth, Lambay, Killiney, Rush, Jun-Jul 15 o Cahore and Rusk, May 15 o Wicklow Area, April and July, August 15 o Rusk Channel, July 15
The Fishery Natura Plan was assessed by the Marine Institute and accepted. Where inadequate data was available in order to assess the potential impact of the seed fishery on protected species the fishery was prohibited from those areas of concern.
For example there was a potential risk to the population of Common Scoter in the South Irish Sea from exploitation of the seed resource on a seed bed near the Raven in Co. Wexford. The fishery was prohibited from this area and the Marine Institute carried out an assessment of the Common Scoter population. This found that there was no spatial overlap between the seed fishery and Common Scoter.
Any new seed beds discovered would be subject to data collection, survey and assessment before fishing would be allowed.
NI reports – AFBI, Loughs Agency and Dept of Ag and Rural Development Feathers Seed Fishery Report July 2015 Burial Island Survey, Jan 2015 Decision Making Schedule – Seed Fishery South Ards Modiolus locations map
All Northern Irish Seed Mussel Beds are subject to annual surveys to monitor the seed beds. All protected areas adjacent to seed beds or potential seed beds have been identified and surveyed. All fisheries are subject to monitoring of the harvested catch and the spatial extent of the fishery. Any newly identified seed bed would be subject to survey by DARD or AFBI and would be assessed with respect to the impact on sensitive habitats. Baseline data would be required prior to permits being issued for a fishery on any new bed.
In 2015 a new survey was carried out on Burial Island to ascertain the exact extent of the modiolus beds, as these were protected and under study by a research team from Queens University. The permitted fishery area was altered to take this into account
Form 13g Page 33 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
and the fishery was monitored daily.
Castlemaine Mussel Seed Fishery:
Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review 2014 v2. Castlemaine Seed Fishery Fisheries Natura Plan (Mytilus edulis) Castlemaine Harbour 2011 -2016 Appropriate Assessment of the impact of mussel fishing and mussel, oyster and clam aquaculture on Castlemaine Harbour SAC and SPA April 2011
The seed beds in Castlemaine are surveyed by drone and boat on an annual basis and an assessment is made of the available seed resource. This seed is proportioned between the fishery and an allocation which is left as a food resource for the wild bird population. The beds are surveyed post-fishery to ensure that sufficient resources have been retained in the wild beds for the wild bird populations.
The percentage that is available to the fishery was set in the Fisheries Natura Plan and the appropriate assessment of that plan. This plan runs from 2011 – 2016 and will be rewritten and the percentage will be reassessed using the data gathered over the previous 5 years.
Fisheries Natura Plan (Mytilus edulis) Castlemaine Harbour 2011 -2016 Harvest Volume Harvesting of seed mussel will be licenced through volumes dictated in the seed fishing authorisations and the Natura permits which effectively legislate a total allowable catch (TAC) for the fishery. The harvest rule of thumb is to reserve 33% of the biomass as prey for waterbirds with the remaining 66% being fished and re-laid in the inner harbour where ongrowing stock may act as an additional prey source and as a source of future recruitment. It should also be noted that the seed mussels occurring in the areas ‘unsuitable for fishing’ will also act as a substantial reserve of prey source for the diving birds over and above the other reserved sources already described. Conclusion Documentary evidence was presented that indicated that a data collection programme and Outcome was in place and that this Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to on Condition habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts 4 from 2nd on habitat types. Data collection is ongoing and adaptive to any new issues raised. surveillance audit The audit team concludes that the requirement that “By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a program had been adopted”, has been met.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is on target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 4: Open – On target
Form 13g Page 34 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 5 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.5.2: There are measures in place to Guidepost 80 (SI b) Indicator & ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of Guidepost serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem The partial strategy takes into account Issue structure and function. available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Condition 5 The partial strategy that is in place needs to take into account all available information on the carrying capacity and productivity of individual cultivation bays and have a direct influence on the overall management of the cultivation sites.
Client Action Action Plan: plan and Milestones BIM/Aquaculture Initiative have undertaken to liaise directly with the scientific advisors in NI and ROI as to the information and institutional arrangements and support required to fulfil this condition.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Data arising from site audits and requirements under the habitats directive will also serve to inform this.
Results and procedures will be made available to the CAB
Milestones:
By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that available information (e.g. relevant site specific evidence, models) is identified for consideration of developing a partial strategy aimed at restraining the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that information available has been considered with respect to the overall management of the cultivation site stocking densities.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that information available is influencing the strategy for overall management of the cultivation site stocking densities.
By the fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the partial strategy continues to be implemented and effective within the licensing scheme for the cultivation sites.
Form 13g Page 35 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and Outcome actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of on Condition Condition 5. 5 from 1st surveillance Evidence was presented which indicated that the BGMCF was developing a plan to audit investigate husbandry practices in cultivation bays. This information will be utilised to ensure that the cultivation of mussels on licensed sites does not cause damage to the integrity of the ecosystem of the bay within which the production occurs. There is a system in place which will ensure that the overall integrity of the cultivating bays is not adversely impacted by the cultivation of mussels.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 5: Open – On target.
Evidence Year Reports presented: 2 Lough Swilly Appropriate Assessment Consultation Paper: Mussel Husbandry Review Data Collection and use in the Revised Resource Allocation Process, DAFM and DARD National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Appropriate Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture
Consultation Paper: Mussel Husbandry Review Data Collection and use in the Revised Resource Allocation Process, DAFM and DARD
The review of mussel husbandry practices was planned for 2014 and the outputs should have fed into the management of individual licensed beds or cultivation plots in 2015. This timeline has not been met due to administrative issues. Closing date from submissions was 20th May 2015 but no results or outputs were presented to the audit team. The review has not been carried out and therefore no information has been gathered that could feed into the management of individual cultivation sites or an overall management of those sites.
The information which comes from this review will be useful when looking at the overall individual and cumulative impacts of the operation of the cultivating sites on the ecosystem of the bays in which they are located and on the carrying capacity of those bays.
This review was planned mainly to inform the reallocation of the seed resource. The information will be useful when investigating the Carrying Capacity of the harvesting sites and bays overall but no carry capacity assessment was presented for any of the cultivation bays in the south of Ireland. A carrying capacity assessment of each production bay is planned, “Allocations will not be allowed to breach a ‘carrying capacity’ limit in each bay. Limits will be calculated using available technical and industry input”.
Form 13g Page 36 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appropriate Assessments of cultivation licenses in SACs: Appropriate Assessment of the impact of mussel fishing and mussel, oyster and clam aquaculture on Castlemaine Harbour SAC and SPA April 2011 Article 6 Assessment of Fisheries, including a Fishery Natura Plan for Seed Mussel (2013-2017), in the Irish Sea Marine Institute Rinville Oranmore, Co. Galway. July, 2014.
Evidence was presented on the Appropriate Assessments of the cultivation sites in the South of Ireland which is part of a large body of work being carried out largely by the Marine Institute.
The Appropriate Assessment of the Castlemaine SAC and SPA has been completed and found that there was no significant impact from the mussel fishery on the SAC and SPA. No specific assessment of the carrying capacity of the site was made but by limiting the impact on any one habitat type to 15% this should in effect limit the impact of the mussel cultivation on the overall site integrity.
The Appropriate Assessment of the Fisheries and Aquaculture in Lough Swilly SAC and SPA has been finalised and was presented. The overlap of aquaculture and fishery activities is greater than the 15% threshold which has been set. Therefore the activity must be reduced. The following recommendations were made:
1. Revoke inactive licences as per the Fisheries (Aquaculture) Act 1997 (Section 69- Subsections 1 and/or 2; wherein licenced areas unused for a period greater than 2 years can be revoked by the Minister).
2. Do not issue new licences in Lough Swilly unless the type of activity proposed is considered non disturbing to habitats of conservation interest.
3. No aquaculture activities should be carried out in ‘Ostrea edulis dominated community’, as they are all considered disturbing to this sensitive habitat type.
4. A pro-rata reduction of licenced areas be applied to reduce overlap to <15% with individual habitats.
This assessment has been finalised but the recommendations have not been implemented and discussions are ongoing.
The Appropriate Assessment of Wexford Harbour has commenced but no report was presented and no timeline was offered.
The Appropriate Assessment process is designed to protect designated habitats. Carrying Capacity assessment and food resource partitioning has not, to date, formed any part of the process. There has been no assessment made as to the effect of harvesting site on-growing on the carrying capacity of the overall production bays and the ecosystem effects of this practice.
The Irish Governments Seafood Development policy document Foodwise 2025 states in its action plan for Seafood: “Develop a strategy to expand shellfish and aquaculture production taking account of the carrying capacity of bays”. This is a plan published in
Form 13g Page 37 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
2015 and the consultation was open until the end of August 2015. No plan was presented to the audit team which would indicate that any assessment of the Carrying Capacity of the harvesting areas was underway or planned.
Northern Ireland SMILE Carrying Capacity Project – Lough Foyle and Carlingford Stocking Density Assessment – Belfast Lough Cumulative Impact Assessment – Carlingford Lough
In Northern Ireland Appropriate Assessments have been completed on the cultivating sites in Belfast Lough, Cumulative Impact Assessment: Belfast Lough aquaculture 2014. AFBI.
The carrying capacity of Belfast Lough was assessed by AFBI in 2014 using the SMILE (Sustainable Mariculture in northern Irish Lough Ecosystems) model of carrying capacity. The Appropriate Assessment concluded the carrying capacity of Belfast Lough was not likely to be breached. An enhanced project was started in 2014 and will report in 2016.
Previously in cases where large allocations were sought for an individual bay, decisions taken on the maximum capacity of the bay were based on historical “best harvest” figures and any other technical data available at that time. The rationale for this was that if it could be demonstrated that a bay could produce a certain quantity of mussels at an acceptable meat yield then that loading was below the “carrying capacity” of the bay and therefore permitting at such a level would not “overload” an individual water body and therefore not impact on the eco-system in the bay.
This approach is far from ideal but in the absence of any more accurate assessment it may be the best available technique. This technique has also been offered as a simple system in Wexford and Castlemaine to ensure that the Carrying Capacity is not breached but it is not an adequate and robust system of calculating the capacity of a harvesting bay.
Carlingford Cumulative Assessment:
Aquaculture species reduce the overall ecosystem phytoplankton biomass and hence food availability for other organisms within Carlingford Lough by up to 40%. This data indicates that mussel production within all model boxes is currently at the ecological threshold whilst there is limited potential for the controlled expansion of intertidal oyster culture in certain areas.
This report recommends: AFBI shall source the best available shellfish production figures so that the SMILE model can be run annually to establish if shellfish production remains within the ecological carrying capacity for the Lough.
The Appropriate Assessment of aquaculture activity within Carlingford Lough was presented and reported that “Investigations have demonstrated that licensed aquaculture sites within Carlingford Lough are not negatively impacting the conservation objectives of the designated features of the three designated Natura
Form 13g Page 38 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
2000 sites within the Lough”.
Lough Foyle:
No appropriate assessment of aquaculture or fishing was presented for Lough Foyle. It was reported that this work was ongoing but no timeline was presented for completion. Conclusion Evidence was presented that indicated that there had been some progress on and Outcome appropriate assessments for some of the production bays. on Condition 5 from 2nd Some progress has been made in determining the husbandry practice in harvesting surveillance areas but this process has not been completed. audit No evidence of a Carrying Capacity assessment having been conducted for most of the harvesting bays has been presented and no evidence that this has informed the management of individual cultivation plots was presented.
The audit team concludes that the requirement that “the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that information available has been considered with respect to the overall management of the cultivation site stocking densities” is yet to be met by the fishery.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does not at present meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is behind target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 5: Open – Behind target.
Form 13g Page 39 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 6 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.5.3: There is adequate knowledge of Guidepost 80 (SI e) Indicator & the impacts of the fishery on the Guidepost ecosystem. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Issue detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Condition 6 A procedure or mechanism with a scientific basis for the continued collection of sufficient data that would detect any increase in risk levels to the ecosystem due to changes in current cultivation practices is required. This data should relate to the performance indicator for achieving an 80 score for PI2.5.2 b. Client Action Action Plan: Plan and Milestones The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Data arising from site audits and requirements under the habitats directive will also serve to inform this.
Results and procedures will be made available to the CAB.
Milestones:
By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of the type and extent of information to be considered for the objective/science based detection of any increase in risk level due to the overall management of the cultivation sites.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of the procedure or mechanism for information collection and review for informing of risk level associated with the management of the cultivation sites.
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of how information available from scientific evidence and is influencing the overall management of the cultivation sites to ensure that increase in risk levels of the impacts of the cultivation sites on the ecosystem can be managed so as to achieve outcome indicator score 80 for PI 2.5.3.
By the fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the procedure/mechanism for information collection and review is adopted for detecting increase in risk levels due to changes in the outcome scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures.
Form 13g Page 40 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and Outcome actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of on Condition Condition 6. 6 from 1st surveillance Condition 6 is closely linked to the condition attached to achieving P.I 2.5.2, (condition audit 5 above). Evidence was presented on the data which has been gathered and the ongoing data gathering exercises which satisfy condition 5. The BGMCF have developed a plan to investigate husbandry practices in cultivation bays. This information will be utilised to ensure that the cultivation of mussels on licensed sites does not cause damage to the integrity of the ecosystem of the bay within which the production occurs.
This review together with the ongoing work on assessing SACs should collect sufficient data to ensure that any increased risk to the ecosystem, brought about by a change in cultivation practices, would be detected.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 6: Open – On target.
Evidence Year This condition is closely related to condition 5 above, P.I. 2.5.2. The information which 2 has been collected and continues to be collected to satisfy that condition will also satisfy this condition.
Consultation Paper: Mussel Husbandry Review Data Collection and use in the Revised Resource Allocation Process, DAFM and DARD National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Appropriate Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Appropriate Assessments of cultivation licenses in SACs: Appropriate Assessment of the impact of mussel fishing and mussel, oyster and clam aquaculture on Castlemaine Harbour SAC and SPA April 2011 Article 6 Assessment of Fisheries, including a Fishery Natura Plan for Seed Mussel (2013-2017), in the Irish Sea. Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway. July, 2014. SMILE Carrying Capacity Project – Lough Foyle and Carlingford Stocking Density Assessment – Belfast Lough Cumulative Impact Assessment – Carlingford Lough
The data which is collected as part of a systematic programme of baseline data collection to support decision making in SACs and SPAs was presented in Appropriate Assessment documents from the Marine Institute. There is currently no overall assessment of carrying capacity within the Appropriate Assessment process and therefore it is unlikely that sufficient data has been collected to allow such an assessment.
The collection of husbandry data from producers is ongoing but has not been presented. There is potentially data within this collection programme which could
Form 13g Page 41 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
inform an estimation of Carrying Capacity but this was not made clear.
There has been no plan or programme presented which would systematically collect the necessary data to assess Carrying Capacity in the harvesting bays.
Castlemaine: The annual cycle of assessment and reassessment of the available mussel seed resource and the tracking of that seed through the production cycle was presented. The data available from this multi-annual data collection programme could provide valuable data to support the development of a carrying capacity limit. This would be a simple mechanism for ensuring that a limit is not breached but falls short of the requirements for an adaptive carrying capacity assessment methodology.
Northern Ireland: Evidence of data collection programmes were presented for Carlingford Lough and Belfast Lough. No evidence of a similar programme was provided for Lough Foyle although an extended SMILE model is on-going and the data collected to inform this model may be sufficient. This model output is not expected until 2016. Conclusion Evidence was presented that appropriate assessment is ongoing in many of the and Outcome harvesting bays. The data collection programme which supports this process was on Condition presented where an assessment had been carried out. 6 from 2nd surveillance Some progress has been made on data collection concerning the husbandry practice in audit harvesting areas but this process has not been completed.
The audit team concludes that the requirement that “the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of the procedure or mechanism for information collection and review for informing of risk level associated with the management of the cultivation sites.” Is yet to be met by the fishery.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does not at present meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is behind target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 6: Open – Behind target.
Form 13g Page 42 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 7 (of 8)
Performance PI 3.2.2: The fishery-specific Guidepost 80 (SI c) Indicator & management system includes Guidepost effective decision-making Decision-making processes use the precautionary Issue processes that result in approach and are based on best available measures and strategies to information. achieve the objectives
The decision making process that set the harvest cap was set on historical information. Condition 7 A formal review of the harvest cap within the definition of a precautionary approach suitable for mussel stock sustainability is required and the precautionary approach to decision making is formally adopted by the management agencies. Client Action BIM/Aquaculture Initiative have undertaken to liaise directly with the scientific advisors Plan and and authorities in NI and ROI as to the information and institutional arrangements and milestones support required to fulfil this condition.
The client through the BGMCF will support the acquiring of any additional information that may be required to support these activities.
The client will provide documentary evidence of the requests and support provided on this condition.
Documentary evidence will be supplied to demonstrate that measures have been implemented
Milestones By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of the available information which will be considered to support and inform a precautionary management approach to decision making on stock densities for cultivation beds.
By the second audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of how this information is being used to inform the decisions for stocking densities and that a precautionary approach is being adopted with respect to meeting the objectives of the fishery (and of Principle 2 with respect to managing risks to ecosystem effects).
By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the client has formally committed to a precautionary approach in decision making, using best available information and aligned to the specific objectives of the fishery and those of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This may be formulated within a fishery management plan. Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of Outcome on Condition 7. Condition 7 from 1st By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with surveillance documentary evidence of the available information which will be considered to support audit and inform a precautionary management approach to decision making on stock
Form 13g Page 43 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
densities for cultivation beds. The husbandry review proposal was issued by the Bottom Grown Mussel Consultative Forum Secretariat on behalf of the IRL Department of Agriculture Food and Marine (DAFM) and the NI Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). As such it serves to address the condition for both Ireland and Northern Ireland certificates. The review is expected to provide new information on the husbandry and productivity conditions of each bay which will inform the management entities on ensuring that decisions on a revision to the harvest cap (which is a cap on the total capacity of growing areas) is undertaken using a precautionary approach with respect to the sustainable production parameters of each bay. The Condition remains on track although is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 7: Open – On target.
Evidence CONSULTATION PAPER: MUSSEL HUSBANDRY REVIEW DATA COLLECTION & USE IN Year 2 THE REVISED RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS
A copy of consultation on the husbandry review which ran for 8 weeks to the 20th May 2015 was made available to the audit team.
The consultation was intended to be an information collection mechanism of seed transfers and growing conditions of each of the bays in Ireland and Northern Ireland to better align the available resource to the amount allocated.
Ministers’ foreword states that: “The Husbandry Review is a necessary step along the road to bringing forward policies which continue to support the sustainability of the sector. In that regard, this consultation gives you an important opportunity to ensure that the Review will support a future decision-making process which is knowledge based and market-led; commercially aware and environmentally sustainable.”
The Introduction and invitation to comment section acknowledges that: “The MSC certification requires that allocation s be based on a performance related system by 2015 with system design to be completed by 2014; however, there has been some slippage in this timeline due to a number of unforeseen administrative issues.”
A synopsis of the main findings from The Rising Tide: A Review of the Bottom Grown Mussel Sector on the Island of Ireland is presented.
“For the BG mussel sector on the island of Ireland to be competitive and sustainable there is general agreement that the end product of any restructuring should result in a set of arrangements and practices with the following characteristics:
For the BG mussel sector on the island of Ireland to be competitive and sustainable there is general agreement that the end product of any restructuring should result in a set of arrangements and practices with the following characteristics: An all-island management regime (for both seed mussel fishing and the subsequent on-growing) that tracks the fate and performance of all stocks from the point of seed collection to sale of the end product.
Form 13g Page 44 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Over time, the system should give preferential access to the wild seed mussel resource to those operators who are shown to make best use of it, as defined by the guiding policy set out in the terms of reference of this Review. Thus, the annual allocation of seed mussel fishing permissions will need to be influenced by an incentive based system that rewards good practice and high productivity in the on-growing of seed mussel on licensed aquaculture plots. The terms and conditions of the management regime together with its operation should be transparent and enforced consistently and predictably across the whole island, notwithstanding the fact that there is more than one legal jurisdiction in operation. The management regime’s decision-making processes should involve all the key industry stakeholders in an appropriate way; be knowledge based and market- led; commercially aware and environmentally sustainable. The revised arrangements should be in line with modern regulatory best practice and involve self-declaration by the operators underpinned by appropriate surveillance and audit with commensurate incentives and penalties that are clear, proportionate and consistently applied.”
The consultation acknowledges that some of the recommendations of the report have been implemented including the key recommendation to establish ‘a stock-tracking system’. It is proposed that the following recommendation from the Rising Tide report be implemented albeit behind schedule:
“This data collected by this system will underpin the new arrangements, which will incorporate the crucial factor of feedback based on stock performance. Logically, and because the current data sources are of poor quality, the system will need to run for a complete growth cycle (18 to 24 months), before its results can be used to inform adjustments in seed mussel fishing allocation. To this end the Review Group recommends that seed allocations remain at current levels for the 2008 and 2009 seed seasons or until such time as the data from the stock tracking system is available. The Review Group recognizes that responsibility for the delivery of a complete dataset from the stock tracking system ultimately lies with the producers. The data collected over that period can then be reviewed and verified in time to inform the allocations, ideally for the 2010 fishing season. The Review Group recommends, subject to cooperation from the producers, that the 2010 fishing season marks the point at which the first round of performance related adjustments are made to the annual allocations. This approach will then become an annual feature in the calculation system for seed mussel allocation.”
The overarching principles of the review are stated as: “Total allocations following the review must better reflect the available resources”.
The consultation seeks responses from the Industry on 16 questions, 8 based on the overarching principles of the review, 4 on the collection of data to inform future allocations incorporating performance related adjustments, 2 on the use of that data and 2 on procedures for the review of allocations.
There are established government departmental decision making processes and a fishery specific forum (BGMCF) that has demonstrably resulted in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives that were outlined in the 2008 Bottom Mussel Review document. A 2011 annual review provides an up-date of the
Form 13g Page 45 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
decisions taken. However, it is not explicitly stated within the management system that decision making processes always respond within a precautionary approach and that the original cap on mussel seed, although based on best available information at that time is now due for review given that new information is likely available.
On-growing locations are now subject to AA, and with many of these either complete or close to completion there is likely new information available that would help achieve fishery specific objectives. Additionally, more recent data from production performance of each area under cultivation may provide important information that can be used to inform a precautionary approach to decisions on mussel cultivation.
To this end, the Mussel husbandry/seed allocation review, the inputs to which have been consulted upon, is seen as an important tool for the collection and compilation of data on the stocking, husbandry and performance parameters of each grow out location in Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, consultation results are not yet available and the review has not yet been undertaken so for the moment the old allocation system remains in place. Conclusion While the consultation has taken place it did so behind schedule due to ‘some slippage and in (the) timeline due to a number of unforeseen administrative issues’. No results of the Outcome on consultation have yet been provided and the review itself has yet to take place. Condition 7
from 2nd surveillance As the review has yet to take place there have been no alterations to the way audit allocations are currently calculated and there is no evidence that all available information is being used to inform the decisions for stocking densities.
The audit team concludes that the requirement that “the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of how this information is being used to inform the decisions for stocking densities and that a precautionary approach is being adopted with respect to meeting the objectives of the fishery (and of Principle 2 with respect to managing risks to ecosystem effects)” is yet to be met by the fishery.
As a result the audit team concluded that the condition does not at present meet the milestone for surveillance audit 2 and is behind target.
The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged.
Status of Condition 7: Open – Behind target
Form 13g Page 46 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 8 (of 8)
Performance PI 3.2.4: The fishery has a research Guidepost 80 (SI a) Indicator & plan that addresses the Guidepost information needs of A research plan provides the Issue management. management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. A research plan that provides the management system with a strategic approach to Condition 8 research and provided reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 is required.
BIM/Aquaculture Initiative have undertaken to liaise directly with the scientific advisors Client Action and authorities in NI and ROI as to the research priorities and institutional Plan and arrangements and support required to fulfil this condition. Funding options will be Milestones explored.
The client through the BGMCF in consultation with the national scientific advisors, technical experts and industry members will highlight areas requiring research
The client will provide documentary evidence of the consultation and research priorities
Documentary evidence will be supplied to demonstrate that a Research Plan has been implemented
Milestones By first surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of a management review of the fisheries research requirements that is aligned with the strategies and objectives of the fishery, and conforms with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Where research planning coincides with information requirements identified in conjunction with conditions raised under Principle 1 and 2 of this assessment, these should be identified and indication as to how they will be implemented.
By the second surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of the adoption of the Research Plan and priority /on-going research/information requirements.
By the third and fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that adoption/progress of the Research Plan is providing reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 1st surveillance audit demonstrates that the client’s and actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 1 milestone of Outcome on Condition 8. Condition 8 The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged. from 1st
Form 13g Page 47 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
surveillance Status of Condition 8: Open – On target. audit
Evidence AFBI Belfast Lough Trial Spat Collector Project Year 2 “AFBI in collaboration with the shellfish industry are trialling spat collectors at two locations in Belfast Lough. This research project is investigating alternative sources of mussel seed. This project is timely due to shortages of wild seed and the importance of sustainability for the mussel industry. Spat collectors were deployed in May 2015 and are due to be recovered at the end of September 2015. Initial results show good spat settlement on the ropes. At the end of the spat collector experiment the seed will be stripped from the ropes and laid on the AFBI scientific growth site in Belfast Lough. The seed survival and growth will be monitored on a monthly basis.”
Other research items noted:
Scientific Paper 1: Calderwood, J., O’Connor, N. E., and Roberts, D. (2015). Effects of baited crab pots on cultivated mussel (Mytilus edulis) survival rates. ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv043.
Study on the effectiveness of the use of baited pots to control numbers of a key predator species of blue mussels. Greater understanding of the effectiveness of methods of predator control will lead to a decrease in predation mortality more efficient conversion of seed to marketable sized adults.
Scientific Paper 2: Lynch, S.A., Morgan, E., Carlsson, J., Mackenzie, C., Wooton, E.C., Rowley, A.F., S. Malham and Culloty, S. C. (2014) The health status of mussels, Mytilus spp., in Ireland and Wales with the molecular identification of a previously undescribed haplosporidian. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 118 (2014) 59–65
Study maps the presence of Mytilus edulis, Mytilus galloprovincialis and hybrids around the coasts of Ireland and Wales. Also looked at incidences of various diseases and whether differences were exhibited between purebred individuals of both species as well as hybrids. Study describes a previously undescribed haplosporidian from a sample taken from the Menai Strait in Wales.
Scientific Paper 3: Calderwood, Julia, Nessa E. O'Connor, Julia D. Sigwart, and Dai Roberts. "Determining optimal duration of seed translocation periods for benthic mussel (Mytilus edulis) cultivation using physiological and behavioural measures of stress." Aquaculture 434 (2014): 288-295.
Paper describing an experiment designed to investigate the effects of transportation stress on the survivability and vitality of mussel seed. Results suggest that the depth at which mussels were held within the experimental setup did not affect any of the physiological indicators of mussel stress but short-term byssus production was affected. Mussels buried at 3m depth produced fewer byssus threads during the first 72 h following re-immersion compared to unburied mussels suggesting that depth held can impede recovery following transportation. In addition the time period for which the
Form 13g Page 48 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
mussels were out of the water had a significant impact upon condition with all indices showing a decrease in condition after 48 hours of emersion compared with the results for mussels emersed for 12 hours.
“This work has practical implications for the benthic cultivation industry and based on these results we recommend that mussels are held out of water for less than 24 h prior to re-laying to ensure physiological health and resultant condition is preserved.
Scientific Paper 3: Calderwood, Julia, Nessa E. O'Connor, Julia D. Sigwart, and Dai Roberts. "Determining optimal duration of seed translocation periods for benthic mussel (Mytilus edulis) cultivation using physiological and behavioural measures of stress." Aquaculture 434 (2014): 288-295.
Paper describing an experiment designed to investigate the effects of transportation stress on the survivability and vitality of mussel seed. Results suggest that the depth at which mussels were held within the experimental setup did not affect any of the physiological indicators of mussel stress but short-term byssus production was affected. Mussels buried at 3m depth produced fewer byssus threads during the first 72 h following re-immersion compared to unburied mussels suggesting that depth held can impede recovery following transportation. In addition the time period for which the mussels were out of the water had a significant impact upon condition with all indices showing a decrease in condition after 48 hours of emersion compared with the results for mussels emersed for 12 hours.
“This work has practical implications for the benthic cultivation industry and based on these results we recommend that mussels are held out of water for less than 24 h prior to re-laying to ensure physiological health and resultant condition is preserved.
Scientific Paper 4: Calderwood, Julia, Nessa E. O’Connor, and Dai Roberts. "The effects of transportation stress and barnacle fouling on predation rates of starfish (Asterias rubens) on mussels (Mytilus edulis)." Aquaculture 444 (2015): 108-113.
Study investigating the effects of the physiological condition of the prey (mussels) on predation rates of starfish and of the potential for biofouling to reduce predation rates.
“Feeding rates on stressed and unstressed mussels were similar for each starfish–mussel size combination. Our findings show that the predator– prey relationship between starfish and mussels does not differ between unstressed mussels and those experimentally stressed by aerial exposure for 48 h so that this level of stress is unlikely to affect predation rates by A. rubens following re-laying in commercial operations. Instead we found the size relationship between starfish and mussels was more important in determining predation rates.”
Calderwood et al., (in press) Starfish Mopping
Presentation of preliminary results of study on the efficiency of starfish ‘mops’ in controlling levels of starfish. Study found mops removed on average 27% of starfish in the path of the mop; a density effect was observed with mops being less efficient as
Form 13g Page 49 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
starfish density increased.
2015 Southeast Coast Spring Mussel Larvae Monitoring Report – BIM
“For the first year of monitoring mussel larvae population and distribution, three locations were chosen (Wexford Bar, Rusk Channel and South Wicklow). The reason behind the choice of those three sampling stations is mainly due to the location of known brood stock (i.e. Wexford harbour), as well as empirical knowledge on current direction and historical seed mussel settlement location. Samples were taken on a weekly basis from March 23rd 2015 to July 11th 2015 at each location.”
Selected results:
“There were two peaks in mussel larvae population South of Wicklow Head, the first one occurred in the sample taken on April 7th and the second in the sample taken on April 28th). A large young seed mussel area was found in mid-July following industry report, South of Wicklow Head, which could correspond to those larvae settling. Aside from those two peaks, a steady amount of various age group larvae were in the water until the first week of July.
The increase of larvae at the entry of the Rusk Channel started around the Week 18, which correspond to the increase period for the other stations too. No larvae were found in the sample taken on week 16, nevertheless we can see a rise in the population through Week 20 , Week 22 and finally in Weeks 23 and 25. It is possible that the larvae in Week 18, 20 and 22 represent the same cohort or spawning even at the individuals increased in size across the weeks. Good signs of seed were found close to where the samples were taken around May 21st, which could correspond to the high amount of larvae at the location the previous month (Week 18).
The samples taken at the Wexford Bar are the only ones showing very young larvae due to the proximity of the main brood stock, and both samples have a very high content: over 3000/m3 for Week 18 and over 1000/m3 for Week 22.
We can observe a pattern on Week 20 and 21 as well as on Week 22 and 23. Both Week 20 and 22 show high numbers of larvae of 3 to 4 weeks old and both Week 21 and 23 show over 50% decrease in that category and no increase in the over 4 weeks old, which can indicate possible settling of the larvae on the seabed.”
Conclusion: Despite having only three sampling stations far apart, the results are giving at least one answer to the lack of seed mussel recruitment which is that there are good amounts of larvae in the water. For 2015, larvae going out of Wexford Harbour went mainly North toward Cahore Point, but a decent amount was observed around Rosslare. Although there were low signs of young larvae coming out of Wexford on Week 13 and 14, there was a good amount of 2 to 3 weeks old larvae in South Wicklow on Week 15. It is possible to observe a pattern in terms of larvae age through the weeks as well as possible signs of settling spat (see Wexford Week 20, 21, 22 and 23).
Form 13g Page 50 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
The represents a first step in trying to understand the series of poor recruitments to the seed fishery. The survey concludes that, in 2015 at least, there were good numbers of larvae in the water column. If the issue is not one of larval supply then other potential issue need to be further investigated. The report outlines improvements to be made to the sampling process for 2016.
Searching for Seed Mussel – BIM/IFA Aquaculture Rope and Bottom Grown Mussel Workshop 18th and 19th May 2015
Presentation outlining ongoing work on seed mussel fishery: Seed mussel surveys Seed mussel fishery 2009 to 2014 Seabed Monitoring: Seabed monitored with side scan sonar. Seabed in some areas is much changed in last 5 years potentially due to cumulative impacts of extreme weather events. Little recovery despite very limited fishing activity Possible current shift in Irish Sea Seed Mussel Enhancement: Improving returns from re-laid seed: predator removal and density management Re-laying mussels from rope mussels Deploying seed collectors in the Irish Sea
Conclusion The evidence presented during the 2nd surveillance audit demonstrates that the and client’s actions have met the requirements of the Action Plan for the Year 2 Outcome on milestone of Condition 8. Condition 8
from 2nd surveillance The Condition is not closed out since the original score for this PI remains unchanged. audit Status of Condition 8: Open – On target.
Form 13g Page 51 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Summary of Status of Conditions
Condition Performance Indicator Status 1 1.2.2 Open-Behind target 2 2.2.3 Open-Behind target 3 2.4.2 Open-On target 4 2.4.3 Open-On target 5 2.5.2 Open-Behind target 6 2.5.3 Open-Behind target 7 3.2.2 Open-Behind target 8 3.2.4 Open-On target
Revised milestones to bring process back on track within 12 months
MSC FCR 7.23.13.1.b.i If progress against the measurable outcomes, expected results or (interim) milestones specified when setting the condition is judged to be behind target, the CAB shall specify the remedial action, and any revised milestones, that are required to bring process back on track within 12 months to achieve the original condition by the original deadline.
Item 5: Condition 1 (of 8)
Performance PI 1.2.2: There are well defined Guidepost 80 (SI a and b). Indicator & and effective harvest control rules Guidepost in place. Well defined harvest control rules are in place Issue that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.
The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. There is a need for explicit harvest control rules relating to the timing of harvesting, the Condition 1 viability of harvested seed, and the process by which the fishery may be open or closed. Ideally such explicit harvest control rules should form part of a wider fishery management plan which explicitly states the rationale and assumptions underlying the harvest strategy and the harvest control rules.
Revised By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with Milestones documentary evidence that the defined harvest control rules have been implemented on a trial basis and the main uncertainties are considered. Also, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that harvest control rules are explicitly defined by the management system, implemented and align harvests to provide for optimum sustainability and productivity of the resource.
Form 13g Page 52 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 2 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.2.3: Information on the nature and Guidepost 80 (SI c). Indicator & the amount of bycatch is adequate to Guidepost determine the risk posed by the fishery Sufficient data continue to be collected to Issue and the effectiveness of the strategy to detect any increase in risk to main manage bycatch bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Detailed information on bycatch should be collected over the appropriate spatial and Condition 2 temporal scales, with respect to the extent of fishing activities, to verify existing information on bycatch levels over seed mussel beds as well as over cultivation areas. Following this, a baseline monitoring programme needs to be considered and adopted to ascertain quantitative bycatch data to monitor and confirm the current bycatch impacts from the fishery and in the future. Revised By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with Milestones documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been adopted/implemented successfully for all bycatch species. Also, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that a bycatch monitoring program has been adopted that will produce sufficient data to monitor and confirm the impacts of the fishery for all bycatch species over time.
Item 5: Condition 5 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.5.2: There are measures in place to Guidepost 80 (SI b) Indicator & ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of Guidepost serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem The partial strategy takes into account Issue structure and function. available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Condition 5 The partial strategy that is in place needs to take into account all available information on the carrying capacity and productivity of individual cultivation bays and have a direct influence on the overall management of the cultivation sites.
Revised By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with Milestones documentary evidence that information available has been considered with respect to the overall management of the cultivation site stocking densities. Also, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that information available is influencing the strategy for overall management of the cultivation site stocking densities.
By the fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the partial strategy continues to be implemented and effective within the licensing scheme for the cultivation sites.
Form 13g Page 53 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Item 5: Condition 6 (of 8)
Performance PI 2.5.3: There is adequate knowledge of Guidepost 80 (SI e) Indicator & the impacts of the fishery on the Guidepost ecosystem. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Issue detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Condition 6 A procedure or mechanism with a scientific basis for the continued collection of sufficient data that would detect any increase in risk levels to the ecosystem due to changes in current cultivation practices is required. This data should relate to the performance indicator for achieving an 80 score for PI2.5.2 b. Revised By the third surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with Milestones documentary evidence of the procedure or mechanism for information collection and review for informing of risk level associated with the management of the cultivation sites. Also, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence of how information available from scientific evidence and is influencing the overall management of the cultivation sites to ensure that increase in risk levels of the impacts of the cultivation sites on the ecosystem can be managed so as to achieve outcome indicator score 80 for PI 2.5.3.
By the fourth surveillance audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the procedure/mechanism for information collection and review is adopted for detecting increase in risk levels due to changes in the outcome scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures.
Item 5: Condition 7 (of 8)
Performance PI 3.2.2: The fishery-specific Guidepost 80 (SI c) Indicator & management system includes effective Guidepost decision-making processes that result in Decision-making processes use the Issue measures and strategies to achieve the precautionary approach and are based objectives on best available information.
The decision making process that set the harvest cap was set on historical information. Condition 7 A formal review of the harvest cap within the definition of a precautionary approach suitable for mussel stock sustainability is required and the precautionary approach to decision making is formally adopted by the management agencies. By the third audit or earlier, the assessment team shall be provided with Revised documentary evidence of how this information is being used to inform the decisions milestones for stocking densities and that a precautionary approach is being adopted with respect to meeting the objectives of the fishery (and of Principle 2 with respect to managing risks to ecosystem effects). Also, the assessment team shall be provided with documentary evidence that the client has formally committed to a precautionary approach in decision making, using best available information and aligned to the specific objectives of the fishery and those of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This may be formulated within a fishery management plan.
Form 13g Page 54 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
10. Harmonisation of Certificates
The MSC wishes to discourage overlapping assessments to avoid potential financial, consistency and credibility costs, including:
fisheries managers, scientists and stakeholders receiving duplicate requests for information duplication of costs for a fishery’s certification, including that expense incurred by fishery management agencies pre- and post-certification; and the possibility of different assessments placing different conditions upon the same fisheries managers and upon different fishery clients.
The MSC has provided direction in cases where a certificate sharing arrangement has not been possible. TAB Directive D-015 V2 provides guidance for harmonisation where a fishery in assessment overlaps with an already certified fishery. Certification Bodies are obliged to follow this guidance with the objective of ensuring the consistency of outcomes of duplicate assessments are harmonized.
For the respective clients included in this audit,
The Directive (TAB D-015) states that:
1.5 The assessment team responsible for the new assessment shall explicitly consider the findings of the most recent surveillance report(s) produced for the overlapping certified fishery. Similarly, the CB responsible for the surveillance of the overlapping certified fishery shall explicitly consider the findings of the assessment team responsible for the overlapping fishery in assessment when conducting annual surveillance audits. In addition;
MSC expects that the outcome of the assessment report, particularly the overall result that is achieved (whether a pass or a fail) and the setting of conditions, will be consistent between overlapping fisheries in assessment and certified fisheries.
No action was taken as this fishery does not have harmonization issues in relation to overlapping fisheries.
Form 13g Page 55 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
11. Conclusions and Recommendations
The assessment team conducting this 2nd surveillance audit confirms that BIM has met the general requirements for continued certification to the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.
The assessment team concludes that there is sufficient evidence and information provided by the client and substantiated through the course of the consultation meeting during the surveillance audit to confirm that commitment to meeting the Year 2 Milestone of conditions 3, 4 and 8 of certification has been met. However, the assessment team also found the performance of the Northern Ireland and the linked Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel Fishery on 5 conditions 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 (PI 1.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.5.2, 2.5.3 PI 3.2.2) to have fallen behind the agreed upon milestones for the second surveillance audit.
The assessment team recommends that continued certification be awarded to the respective client fisheries:
The Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery).
12. Outcome of SAI Global Assurance Services Decision
SAI Global determines that:
The Northern Ireland Bottom Grown Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery and the linked Ireland Grown Bottom Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Fishery continues to operate a well-managed and sustainable fishery and therefore, continued certification to the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing is awarded.
Form 13g Page 56 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
13. Information Sources
Condition 1
DAFM 2015. Mussel Seed Authorisation No. MS/15X. Renewal – Autumn Fishery DAFM 2015. National Strategy Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development. Draft for Public Consultation, June 2015. DAFM 2015. Notification under section 13(7) of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 of alterations to conditions of mussel seed authorisations granted under section 13 of that Act. DAFM 2015. Statutory Instruments. SI No. 370 of 2015 and SI No. 351 of 2015
Seed Fishery – Decision Schedule
BGMCF January Meeting 16 Minutes BGMCF April Meeting 167Minutes BGMCF July 2015 Meeting 18 Minutes
Letters from the Aquaculture Initiative, 4th April 2015 and 7th August 2015
NI Licence for Collecting Mussel Seed 2015
SMS System 2015
Condition 2
The Marine Institute and BIM 2014. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries. Review 2014. An assessment of selected stocks.
Feathers Seed Fishery Reports 2014 updated and July 2015 Seed Fishery Observer Data, pers comm. Dr. Oliver Tully, Marine Institute
Condition 3 and 4
BIM Seed Mussel 2014 and 2015 surveys Rosslare, Long and Lucifer Banks, April 15 Howth, Lambay, Killiney, Rush, Jun-Jul 15 Cahore and Rusk, May 15 Wicklow Area, April and July, August 15 Rusk Channel, July 15 Bycatch Data Overview, 2015
AFBI 2015. Burial Island Seed Mussel Survey AFBI 2015. Burial Island Post Fishery Assessment and Outer Ards Seed Mussel Stock Assessment. AFBI 2015. South Ards Modiolus locations map
BGMCF Fishery Natura plan for Seed Mussel Fishing in the southern Irish Sea for the years 2014-2019. BGMCF 2012. Castlemaine Seed Fishing Report;
Form 13g Page 57 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Condition 5 and 6
DAFM 2011. Fisheries Natura Declaration No. 1 of 2011. DAFM 2015. Appropriate Assessment of the Draft National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development. DAFM 2015. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Draft National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development. DAFM 2015. National Strategy Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development. Draft for Public Consultation, June 2015. DAFM 2015. National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture. DAFM 2015. Appropriate Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture. DAFM 2015. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture. DAFM 2015. Agri-Food Strategy 2025, Draft Strategic Environmental Assessment. DAFM 2015. Agri-Food Strategy 2025, Draft Natura Impact Statement.
DAFM and DARD 2015. Consultation Paper: Mussel Husbandry Review Data Collection and use in the Revised Resource Allocation Process.
Marine Institute 2014. Article 6 Assessment of Fisheries, including a Fishery Natura Plan for Seed Mussel (2013- 2017), in the Irish Sea. Marine Institute 2013. Annex 2: Lough Swilly Special Protection Area: Appropriate Assessment of Fisheries and Aquaculture. March 2013. Marine Institute 2013. Appropriate Assessment of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Lough Swilly SAC and SPA. Annex 1: Appropriate Assessment of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Lough Swilly (SAC 002287). Version May 2013. Marine Institute 2011. Appropriate Assessment of the impact of mussel fishing and mussel, oyster and clam aquaculture on Castlemaine Harbour SAC and SPA.
AFBI 2013. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Aquaculture activities within and adjacent Natura 2000 designated sites in Carlingford Lough.
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARDNI) 2015. Stocking Density Assessment – Belfast Lough
Loughs Agency 2015. SMILE Carrying Capacity Project – Lough Foyle and Carlingford.
BGMCF 2011. Fisheries Natura Plan (Mytilus edulis) Castlemaine Harbour 2011 -2016.
Condition 7
DAFM and DARD 2015. Mussel Husbandry Review Data Collection & Use in the Revised Resource Allocation Process. Consultation Paper. March 2015. Consultation Response Form
Condition 8
AFBI Research Update
Calderwood J., N. O’Connor, J. D. Sigwart, D. Roberts 2014. Determination optimal duration of seed translocation periods for benthic mussel (Mytilus edulis) cultivation using physiological and behavioural measures of stress. Aquaculture 434: 288-295.
Form 13g Page 58 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Calderwood J., N. O’Connor and D. Roberts 2015. Effects of baited crab pots on cultivated mussel (Mytilus edulis) survival rates. ICES Journal of Marine Science; doi:10.1093 /icesjms /fsv043.
Calderwood J. Developing science-based management strategies for improving yield of blue mussels, Mytilus edulis, in benthic cultivation. Workshop poster.
BIM 2015. 2015 Southeast Coast Spring Mussel Larvae Monitoring Report.
Lynch S.A., E. Morgan, J. Carlsson, C. Mackenzie, E.C. Wooton, A.F. Rowley, S. Malham, S.C. Culloty 2014. The health status of mussels, Mytilus spp., in Ireland and Wales with the molecular identification of a previously undescribed haplosporidian. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 118: 59-65.
Form 13g Page 59 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appendices
Appendix 1. Re-scoring evaluation tables (if necessary)
Not Applicable.
Form 13g Page 60 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appendix 2. Stakeholder submissions (if any)
No stakeholder submissions have been received.
Form 13g Page 61 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appendix 3. Surveillance audit information (if necessary)
Form 13g Page 62 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appendix 4. Additional detail on conditions/ actions/ results (if necessary)
Form 13g Page 63 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015
Appendix 5. Revised Surveillance Program (if necessary)
The surveillance Program has not been revised and the Surveillance Level remains Level 6.
Table 5.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level
On-site surveillance audit On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance Level 6 & re-certification site audit audit audit visit.
Form 13g Page 64 of 64 Issue No: 7, Issue Date: March 2015