Final Draft Report Southern Indian Ocean Saint Paul Rock Lobster

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Final Draft Report

Southern Indian Ocean Saint Paul Rock Lobster Fishery

On behalf of

SAPMER

Prepared by

Control Union Pesca Ltd

April 2020

Authors: Chrissie Sieben Dr. Johan Groeneveld Dr. Sophie des Clers

Control Union Pesca Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cupesca.com

Contents

CONTENTS ...... I

QA AND QC CPRDR STAGE ...... 1

QA AND QC PCDR STAGE ...... 1

QA AND QC FR STAGE ...... 1

GLOSSARY ...... 2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

2 REPORT DETAILS...... 8 2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 2.2 Version details ...... 9

4 UNIT(S) OF ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION ...... 10 4.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 10 4.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) ...... 10

5 ASSESSMENT RESULTS OVERVIEW ...... 12 5.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 12 5.2 Principle level scores ...... 12 5.3 Summary of conditions ...... 12 5.4 Recommendations ...... 13

6 TRACEABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY ...... 14 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 14 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 14 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 17 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody ...... 18

7 SCORING ...... 19 7.1 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 19 7.2 Fishery overview ...... 21 7.2.1 The Client fishery ...... 21 7.2.2 Gear and operation of the fishery ...... 23 7.2.3 Data availability and catch profile ...... 26 7.3 Principle 1...... 29 7.3.1 Biology and Ecology ...... 29 7.3.2 Fisheries and Biological Data ...... 32 7.3.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and landings data ...... 33 7.3.4 Fishing effort ...... 34 7.3.5 CPUE standardization ...... 35 7.3.6 Stock assessment ...... 37

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd i MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3.7 Harvest Control Rules and Tools ...... 40 7.3.8 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 41 7.4 Principle 2...... 60 7.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...... 60 7.4.2 Primary and Secondary species ...... 61 7.4.3 ETP species ...... 62 7.4.4 Habitats ...... 66 7.4.5 Ecosystem ...... 70 7.4.6 Ghost fishing ...... 72 7.4.7 Scoring elements ...... 73 7.4.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 74 7.5 Principle 3...... 122 7.5.1 Vessel, Fishing areas and access rights ...... 122 7.5.2 Jurisdictions and management framework ...... 122 7.5.3 Organisations, roles and responsibilities ...... 122 7.5.4 Management and Fishery-specific Objectives ...... 124 7.5.5 TAAF RNN Management Plan (2018-2027) ...... 126 7.5.6 Stakeholders and disputes ...... 126 7.5.7 Compliance and enforcement ...... 127 7.5.8 Management performance evaluation ...... 127 7.5.9 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 129

8 REFERENCES ...... 148

APPENDICES ...... 152

APPENDIX 1 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION ...... 153 Appendix 1.1 Small-scale fisheries ...... 153

APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES ...... 154 Appendix 2.1 Site visit and Stakeholder participation ...... 154 Appendix 2.2 Evaluation techniques ...... 155

APPENDIX 3 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 157 Appendix 3.1 Peer reviewer 1 ...... 157 Appendix 3.2 Peer reviewer 2 ...... 163

APPENDIX 4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT ...... 170

APPENDIX 5 CONDITIONS ...... 171

APPENDIX 6 CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 177

APPENDIX 7 SURVEILLANCE ...... 216

APPENDIX 8 RISK-BASED FRAMEWORK OUTPUTS ...... 217 Appendix 8.1 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) ...... 217 Appendix 8.2 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) ...... 228

APPENDIX 9 HARMONISED FISHERY ASSESSMENTS ...... 233

APPENDIX 10 OBJECTION PROCEDURE ...... 234

APPENDIX 11 TEMPLATE INFORMATION AND COPYRIGHT ...... 235

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd ii MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

APPENDIX 12 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 236 Appendix 12.1 MNHN ...... 236 Appendix 12.2 TAAF ...... 237

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd iii MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

QA and QC CPRDR stage

Role Initials and date Originator: CS – 15/01/2020 Reviewer: BOK - 21/01/2020 Approver: TT – 28/01/2020

QA and QC PCDR stage

Role Initials and date Originator: CS - 02/03/2020 Reviewer: BOK 04/03/2020 Approver: TT 05/03/2020

QA and QC FDR stage

Role Initials and date Originator: CS – 16/04/2020 Reviewer: MD – 16/04/2020 Approver: CT – 17/04/2020

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 1 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Glossary

Acronym Definition

ACDR Announcement Comment Draft Report

CAB Conformity Assessment Body

CAG Catch and Grow

CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches (French national Fisheries Monitoring Centre, CNSP based at CROSS Ethel)

COPEC Contrôleur des Pêches

CPRDR Client and Peer Review Draft Report CPUE Catch Per Unit of Effort

CU Pesca Control Union Pesca Ltd.

C2P Comité des bonnes pratiques de pêche (TAAF - Lobster fishery best practice committee)

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected (species) F Fishing Mortality

FCR 2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (MSC Scheme Document)

FMC Fisheries Monitoring Centre

GRT Gross Register Tonnage

CTPL Groupe Travail Pêche Langouste (TAAF)

HCR Harvest Control Rule(s) IPI Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable stocks

ISBF Introduced Species Based Fishery IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing

LRP Limit Reference Point

MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance

MCZ Marine Conservation Zones

MNHM Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

PA Precautionary approach

PCDR Public Comment Draft Report

PCR Public Certification Report

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 2 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Acronym Definition

PI Performance Indicator

PO Producer Organisations PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment

QMS Quota Management System

RBF Risk Based Framework

RMS Rendement Maximum Soutenable

RNN Réserve Naturelle Nationale (des Terres australes françaises)

SARPC Syndicat des Armements Réunionnais de Palangriers Congélateurs SG Scoring Guidepost

SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawner Stock Biomass

SIOFA Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA)

TAAF Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises

TAC Total Allowable Catch

TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch

TRP Target Reference Point

UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 3 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

1 Executive Summary

This report covers the MSC full assessment of the Southern Indian Ocean Saint Paul Rock Lobster Fishery. The assessment team consists of Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader, Principle 2), Dr. Johan Groeneveld (Principle 1) and Dr. Sophie des Clers (Principle 3). A site visit took place during the week of the 14th October 2019 in Le Port, La Reunion, France.

The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Procedure (FCP) v2.1 and the MSC Standard 2.01. The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was required for several performance indicators, as discussed below.

The fishery under assessment is the fishery for rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) around the islands of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises – TAAF) and inside the Réserve Naturelle Nationale des Terres australes (RNN). There are two fishing companies in the fishery: SAPMER (the client) and Armas Pêche (owned by SAPMER), and one vessel (the Austral; jointly owned by SAPMER and Armas Pêche). The Austral operates both as a mothership for the launch and recovery of smaller fishing boats (canots and caseyeurs) of which up to 6 may be operational during any given trip, and as a fishing vessel itself. The fishery is divided into a coastal fishery and a deep fishery. The coastal fishery uses wooden pots deployed from canots in the kelp zone close to the islands (< 70m depth). The deep fishery uses a maximum of two caseyeurs or the Austral itself, with steel pots deployed outside the kelp zone (70- 350m depth); also sometimes on the “16 nm Bank” southeast of Saint-Paul (also known as “Banc Farce”). The bait used by the Unit of Assessment (UoA) mainly consists of toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and jack mackerel (Trachurus spp.) brought onboard as frozen, as well as low-grade fish caught by the other gears that are used on the same trip (longline, handline and lift net). The Austral has an on-board factory. The majority of the product is frozen after processing, although some product is kept refrigerated, or alive in tanks (viviers) aboard the vessel. All product is landed in Le Port on Reunion Island.

The Saint-Paul rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) is the target of the fishery under assessment. In the Southern Indian Ocean, it is known only from Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands in commercial quantities. The fishery is managed via a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), set by the TAAF based on scientific advice provided by the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in Paris. Landings have remained constant between 340 and 450 t since the early 1990s, reflecting adherence to an annual TAC. The key input into the scientific advice is the long-term Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) trend. Recent statistical standardization of the CPUE trend at Amsterdam and Saint Paul, respectively, showed gradually increasing relative abundance between approximately 1995 and 2018, presently approaching the highest recorded level since 1980. Stock biomass was estimated to be above the level that produces MSY, with high probability of >95% at Amsterdam Island, and >85% at St Paul. Median

exploitation rates were consistent with maintaining MSY at Amsterdam Island (F/FMSY = 0.38) and at St Paul (F/FMSY = 0.77). The implicit target reference point is to maintain the CPUE at the level of the long-term averages, calculated separately for the coastal and deep fishery. Whereas there is an appropriate harvest strategy administered by TAAF, the harvest control rules and tools are generally understood, rather than explicitly defined. The stock assessment does not incorporate all available data and has yet to be peer-reviewed.

There are multiple sources of information on retained catch for target and non-target species: the Avistock/Avipêche data and COPEC (contrôleur de pêche) observer reports. As the Avistock data do not differentiate between the fishing gears used, the COPEC reports were key for the Principle 2 assessment. The COPEC observer monitors 100% of the catch that comes onboard the Austral,

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 4 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

although not all fishing activities are systematically monitored. The COPEC observer and RNN agent are, however, asked to board the auxiliary vessels as often as possible and do so using a risk-based approach. Based on the data provided, the only main Primary species or stocks identified were the MSC certified Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), and New Zealand jack mackerel (Trachurus spp.) all of which are used as bait. The assessment identified no significant UoA- level impacts on the stocks concerned. No main Secondary species were identified. For ETP species, although numerous observations of birds and marine mammals were made by the COPEC, no animals were found to interact with the fishery directly. For birds, the main interaction appears to be when birds crash-land onto the mother vessel (often exacerbated by poor weather conditions). To assess the UoA’s impacts on habitats, the area under consideration is the combined EEZ of Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands. Although efforts at habitat mapping and sampling are underway, none of these have resulted in data outputs that can be used to determine the type of habitats encountered (commonly encountered or Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems - VMEs) or the impact of the fishery on those habitats. The RBF was thus triggered for the Habitats outcome PI. Similarly, the RBF was triggered for the Ecosystem Component for which a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis - SICA was carried out. The RBF workshop was carried out during the site visit and the outputs are presented in this report.

The fishery takes place within a well-defined fisheries management framework. For fisheries management, the TAAF senior administrator or Préfet is the highest level of governance, assisted by an Advisory Committee. The TAAF has a Legal Department which drafts secondary legislation (or arrêtés), including measures relevant to the fishery for biodiversity conservation purposes, proposed by the Direction de l’Environnement and the Direction de la Réserve Naturelle Nationale, and fishery- specific management measures, proposed by the Direction des Pêches et des Questions Maritimes (DPQM) taking account of scientific advice provided by the MNHN and other scientific research groups. The fishery operates entirely inside the TAAF-managed extended National Nature Reserve (RNN), which has explicitly defined and well understood areas of responsibility and interactions for all areas pertinent to Principles 1 and 2, as defined in the latest 2018-2027 TAAF-RNN Management Plan. The French Fisheries legislation (France, 2017) provides the overall framework for the management of vessel activities, compliance with key international obligations, crew welfare and voluntary measures such as the FAO Code of Conduct, Port State measures, and the efforts against IUU fishing. There is a comprehensive Monitoring Control and Surveillance system, through joint efforts of TAAF requirements, CROSS-RU surveillance, on-board TAAF COPEC and RNN officers and detailed reporting obligations for the large vessel in the fishery.

The team’s provisional determination is that the fishery meets the criteria for MSC certification. Aggregate scores for each Principle are as shown in the following table:

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 87.5

Five conditions were raised, in relation to Principles 1 and 2:

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator Within 4 years, well defined HCRs should be in place that ensure that the 1 1.2.2 exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and that are expected

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 5 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. The HCR should exist in a written form that has been agreed by the management agency and stakeholders, and clearly state what management actions will be taken at which specific trigger reference point levels. 2 Within 3 years, the stock assessment should have been peer reviewed. 1.2.4 Within 4 years, it should be demonstrated that the UoA and any associated gear loss is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the main habitat types identified in the circalittoral and bathyal zone to a point where 3 2.4.1 there would be serious or irreversible harm. This condition relates to habitat scoring elements 2, 3 and 4 as well as any other main habitat types that are identified through additional data collection (Condition 5). Within 3 years, there should be a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above, with an objective 4 basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the 2.4.2 UoA and/or habitats involved. The partial strategy should also address any impacts associated with UoA gear loss. Within 3 years, a data collection programme should be implemented that enables any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the 5 2.4.3 RBF workshop and through additional data collection, including through gear loss, to be identified

The following recommendations were also issued by the team:

1. Biodegradable materials

The pots used in the coastal, shallow fishery are constructed of predominantly wooden, biodegradable, material, as well as nylon mesh and a plastic funnel. According to site visit interviews, any pots that are lost are unlikely to remain whole for long because of the rocky seabed and strong currents. The pots deployed in deeper waters are constructed of stronger materials, consisting of an iron frame, rigid and flexible plastic mesh, and a plastic funnel. Although the iron frame will corrode over time, this is likely to be a slow process as the metal has been given anti-rust treatment. None of the other materials are biodegradable. To avoid localised pollution of the waters around Amsterdam and Saint-Paul, the team recommends that options for use of biodegradable materials are explored in the deep fishery.

2. Training on self-reporting by auxiliary vessel crew

The COPEC reports are drafted for each trip by a contrôleur de pêche (COPEC) (with input from the RNN agent) who monitors 100% of the catch that comes onboard the Austral, although not all fishing activities are systematically monitored. The COPEC observer and RNN agent are, however, asked to board the auxiliary vessels as often as possible and do so using a risk-based approach. Because the canots are smaller, the observers usually do not board these; however, the fishing activities can be observed from the Austral. At a minimum, the fishing data from the auxiliary vessels (positions, discarded bycatch, mammals and bird interactions) are collected by the crew and reported in the fishery logbook. The crew do not receive particular training for this; however, the accuracy and the consistency of the data are then controlled by the COPEC observer and RNN agent. Nevertheless, the team recommends that the crew on auxiliary vessels also receive training in species identification and adequate reporting of interactions and bycatch.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 6 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3. Recording bycatch

According to the Arrêté n° 2019-111, any bycatch caught in the pot fishery, must be retained and counted in weight and number in the logbook. Previous COPEC observer reports have made mention of some, albeit minimal, discarding taking place and that this was not recorded at the time. This suggests that the Arrêté may not be consistently implemented when it comes to minor secondary species. Although site visit interviews confirmed that discarding ceased as of the 2017/18 season, the team recommends that the COPEC observers ascertain that all bycatches are systematically retained and recorded as required by the Arrêté n° 2019-111.

To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 7 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

2 Report Details

2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader, Principle 2)

Chrissie Sieben has a Master’s Degree in Marine Environmental Protection which she obtained at the University of Wales, Bangor, and specialises in marine and fisheries ecology, marine environmental impact assessments and sustainable fisheries. She was the MSC fisheries scheme manager at ME Certification Ltd (which later became CU Pesca) up until December 2018. Previous to joining MEC, she worked as a fisheries consultant and marine ecologist on UK-based and international projects. Chrissie is now an independent assessor with over nine years’ experience with the MSC certification requirements and has acted as team leader and P2 assessor on a range of preassessments, surveillance audits and full assessments of demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and Pacific. She also regularly participates in MSC training sessions and workshops. Chrissie speaks fluent French and Dutch in addition to English. She acted as the Team Leader for this assessment and was responsible for Principle 2. Chrissie has successfully completed the MSC online training on the application of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF), FCRv2.0 and FCPv2.1.

Dr. Johan Groeneveld

Johan Groeneveld is a marine biologist with 25 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and their impacts on target and bycatch species, and on marine environments. He obtained a PhD in marine ecology in 2001 at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, and currently works as a Senior Scientist at the Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) in Durban, where he is also an Honorary Professor at the University of KwaZulu Natal. His previous experience includes 12 years as a government scientist tasked with applied fisheries research and management of commercial spiny lobster fisheries in South Africa (1995-2006). He spent 2 years as a specialist fisheries advisor to the fisheries ministry in the Sultanate of Oman (2006-2008) before joining ORI in 2008. As an applied fisheries scientist, he regularly undertakes consulting projects for the private sector, including for the fishing industry and clients such as Control Union Pesca, World Bank, UNEP, and the FAO. Johan first worked on MSC certification projects in 2009, and has since then participated in MSC pre-assessments, full assessments, peer reviews and surveillance audits of bottom trawl fisheries, lobster trap fisheries and pelagic longline fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean, SE Atlantic, Caribbean and elsewhere. He has been a member of the MSC peer review college since 2018. As an academic, Johan has an extensive publication record in the peer-reviewed literature, and is also on the editorial board of the journals ‘Fisheries Research’, and ‘Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science’. Apart from outputs in the primary literature, he has written, or contributed to numerous technical reports dealing with fisheries assessments, marine environmental management and research capacity development.

Dr. Sophie Des Clers

Sophie is an independent scientific expert in fisheries management systems. She is a qualified MSC auditor and a member of the MSC peer review college. She has over 30 years’ experience in the formulation, monitoring, and evaluation of fisheries and aquaculture projects to build management capacity in the public and the private sector. Sophie is trained in databases, applied statistics, population dynamics, economics, law and public policy and has a PhD in Biometrics and a Master’s degree in Public Policy. Her past research and consultancy projects have taken her to fishing ports around the UK, EU, Norway, Africa, the North Sea, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans and the Caribbean. She has been involved in a number of previous MSC assessments and pre-assessments including lobster, cod, haddock, saithe, sole, herring, blue whiting, sardine, whelks (within the EU) and

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 8 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

tuna and billfish fisheries. Sophie meets the following competency criteria in Table PC3: Fishery management and operations. She has also completed the required Fishery Team member MSC training modules for the V2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements. Sophie was responsible for the assessment of Principle 3. Peer Reviewers:

The MSC Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for this fishery. Two peer reviewers were selected from the following list:

• David Japp • Jo Akroyd • Juan Vilata • Kim Walshe

A summary of their experience and qualifications is available via this link: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/southern-indian-ocean-saint-paul-rock-lobster- fishery/@@assessments

2.2 Version details

The fisheries programme documents used during the MSC assessment of this fishery are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Fisheries programme documents versions

Document Version number MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01 MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1 MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 9 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

4 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification

4.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

CU Pesca confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.1):

• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal; • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives; • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years; • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery; • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCP 7.4.6; and • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCP 7.4.7.

CU Pesca confirms that the client group has submitted the completed ‘Certificate Holder Forced and Child Labour Policies, Practices and Measures Template’ prior to the start of this assessment.

The proposed Unit of Assessment (UoA) is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

Species Saint Paul rock lobster (Jasus paulensis)

Stock Saint Paul rock lobster

Geographical range of fishery Saint Paul and Amsterdam (FAO 51)

Harvest method / gear Pots

Client group SAPMER and Armas Pêche, including the single vessel, the ‘Austral’ with associated dories (canots and caseyeurs). Note: the Austral is also informally referred to as the Austral II.

Other eligible fishers None

4.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

No changes to the UoA defined above were proposed at the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR) stage. As there are no other eligible fishers, the UoC is the same as the UoA (Table 3).

Table 3. Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

Species Saint Paul rock lobster (Jasus paulensis)

Stock Saint Paul rock lobster

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 10 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Geographical range of Saint Paul and Amsterdam (FAO 51) fishery

Harvest method / gear Pots

Client group SAPMER and Armas Pêche, including the single vessel, the ‘Austral’ with associated dories (canots and caseyeurs). Note: the Austral is also informally referred to as the Austral II.

To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 11 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

5 Assessment results overview

5.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

Following consideration of all stakeholders’ inputs and comments to the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), the fishery assessment team concluded that the fishery should be certified against the MSC standard. This determination remains a recommendation pending the completion of the formal objections process and the final certification decision by the CU Pesca official decision making entity.

To be completed at Public Certification Report

The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.21

5.2 Principle level scores

The Principle level scores are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Principle level scores

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem Impacts 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 87.5

5.3 Summary of conditions

A summary of conditions raised in this assessment is provided in Table 5. Further detail on the conditions as well as the corresponding Client Action Plan is given in Appendix 5.

Table 5. Summary of conditions

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator Within 4 years, well defined HCRs should be in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and that are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) 1 1.2.2 MSY. The HCR should exist in a written form that has been agreed by the management agency and stakeholders, and clearly state what management actions will be taken at which specific trigger reference point levels. 2 Within 3 years, the stock assessment should have been peer reviewed. 1.2.4 Within 4 years, it should be demonstrated that the UoA and any associated gear loss is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the main 3 2.4.1 habitat types identified in the circalittoral and bathyal zone to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This condition relates to habitat

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 12 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator scoring elements 2, 3 and 4 as well as any other main commonly encountered or VME habitat types that are identified through additional data collection (Condition 5). Within 3 years, there should be a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above, with an objective 4 basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the 2.4.2 UoA and/or habitats involved. The partial strategy should also address any impacts associated with UoA gear loss. Within 3 years, a data collection programme should be implemented that enables any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the 5 2.4.3 RBF workshop and through additional data collection, including through gear loss, to be identified.

5.4 Recommendations

The following recommendations were also issued by the team:

1. Biodegradable materials

2. Training on self-reporting by auxiliary vessel crew

3. Recording bycatch

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 13 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

species. Although site visit interviews confirmed that discarding ceased as of the 2017/18 season, the team recommends that the COPEC observers ascertain that all bycatches are systematically retained and recorded as required by the Arrêté n° 2019-111.

6 Traceability and eligibility

6.1 Eligibility date

The eligibility date is the date of publication of the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), i.e. the 10th March 2020. Pending the successful outcome of this assessment, product caught after this date, by the Austral and its auxiliary vessels and conforming to the UoA detailed in Section 4 shall thus be eligible to bear the MSC ecolabel, subject to the traceability conditions given in Section 6.3 and Clause 5.6 of the MSC Chain of Custody Standard v5.0 for under-assessment product.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

This fishery is prosecuted by a single mother vessel, the Austral, with its dependent auxiliary boats (canots for the coastal fishery and caseyeurs for the deep fishery, as explained in Section 7.2.2). The waters around the islands of Amsterdam and Saint-Paul are part of a nature reserve, the Reserve Naturelle Nationale (RNN) des Terres australes françaises, designated through the Arrêté N° 2017-28 of 31 March 2017 and any commercial fishing activities are strictly regulated. Other than the Austral and its auxiliary boats, no other vessel is currently permitted to fish within these waters. The regulations for the rock lobster fishery are updated annually, the most recent of which are laid out in the Arrêté No2019-111 of 24 October 2019 which defines inter alia the following:

• Fishing area, which is restricted to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands (Figure 2); • Fishing season, which runs from the 1st of December until the 30th April the following year; • Fishing gear, which is exclusively pots in the rock lobster fishery (Section 7.2.2); • Vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements; • Requirements to accept on-board a fishing controller (contrôleur de pêche) who monitors compliance with regulations and collects scientific data during the entire trip; • Requirements to accept on-board an agent of the nature reserve (agent de la réserve naturelle) who monitors implementation of environmental protocols and monitoring.

The same bylaw (arrêté) stipulates technical measures in a mixed-gear (vertical longline, handline, rod and line and lift net) fishery targeting fish in the same fishing areas (Annex 1-II). The fishing season for fish is longer than for lobsters, between 15 November and 31 July. Fishing activities targeting fish exclusively therefore frame the more limited lobster fishing seasons.

The mother vessel continually reports VMS positions automatically to the Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches (CNSP). VMS and electronic logbook daily summary data are logged and reported to the TAAF. All small vessels (canots and caseyeurs) carry a GPS coordinates registering device on board.

There are two sources of information which enable the catch of a given trip to be traced back to the UoA:

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 14 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• Avistock landings data, which detail the catch landed onboard the mother vessel showing vessel details, trip number and date, fishing area (in the case of this fishery, this is either Amsterdam or Saint-Paul), the fishery type (shallow or deep), species, number, net weight after processing and live weight (converted from net weight), product type (frozen/fresh) and destination (placed in the hold or consumed on-board). The Avistock data are verified by both the captain and the observer; • COPEC reports, which are drafted for each trip by the contrôleur de pêche and also include an account of total rock lobster landings, fishing areas, gears used and locations of pot deployment for each dory.

After hauling, the catch is brought onboard each auxiliary vessel (canot or caseyeur) when preliminary sorting takes place (undersized lobsters are released but discarding of non-target species is not permitted – see Arrêté No2019-111). The catch is then transferred onto the mother vessel, the Austral. At this point, the overall weight is recorded before the catch is sorted and graded on deck under observation by the contrôleur de pêche. Any undersized individuals that may have made through it the preliminary sorting will be released here. As there is only one species of rock lobster present around the islands, substitution with a similar species is not possible. There are multiple processing streams depending on the desired end product: this can be either live, whole raw or cooked (<450g or >450g), raw tails or raw heads. All processing takes place aboard the Austral.

• Raw tails (about 15% of the catch): the lobsters are chilled and the tail is removed. The tails are then sorted and graded and placed in the final packaging which is sealed, weighed and frozen. Heads are also frozen and sold for soup. For these products, the key information that enables traceability to be maintained is the freezing date which links back to the date and therefore location of the catch (via the Avistock data). • Whole raw or cooked lobster (about 85%): the small grades (<450g) lobsters are placed into 5 or 10kg cartons that are weighed and placed into a freezing tunnel, with the freezing date enabling traceability. For the larger grades (>450g), a unique batch number and barcode is produced for each carton. This number is automatically generated onboard the vessel and transferred onto an excel spreadsheet for land-based operations. • Live lobster (about 1%): the lobsters are placed in viviers (holding tanks) which has multiple levels organized by date of catch. Each level has a unique colour and name and information relating to the date and origin of the catch, grade (weight per piece), and to the extent possible fishery type (coastal vs deep) is linked to the level. Each tank finally also has a batch number (trip year, trip number, code VM (vivier mer as opposed to vivier terre VT), earliest date of catch, deep/coastal fishery).

All cartons are labelled with the following information: product type, species, freezing date (or batch number for the larger grades), best before date, vessel IMO number, origin of catch, and grading. Aboard the Austral, all product will be sealed by the COPEC. This seal is then removed upon arrival in La Reunion in the presence of the vessel captain, the gendarmerie maritime and SGS (see below) after which offloading begins.

As all product is landed in Le Port, Reunion Island and is therefore technically exported from the TAAF to the EU, all offloading must be supervised by SGS (previously CEMR) who are tasked with verifying the catch that is unloaded from the Austral and stored at the SAPMER warehouses. The SGS report for each offloading provides detail on the catching vessel, the fishing area and the fishing trip. The SGS auditor carries out the following:

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 15 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• Checking of seals on all packing; • Checking of temperature in the vessel’s hold before unloading and in the storage warehouses; • Monitoring of activities in the sorting hall (checking of pallets and temperature); • Verification of packaging tare weights; • Verification and weighing of fishery products unloaded from the vessel; • Verification that the holds and other storage spaces onboard the vessel are empty at the end of the unloading process; and • A separate declaration is made for live lobsters in the viviers which are counted and weighed after offloading and are placed into new viviers, all the while maintaining identification (through the original vivier batch number which now gets the designation ‘VT’ rather than ‘VM’).

The SAPMER storage facility, located near the landing site in Le Port, consists of a cold room which is only accessible to SAPMER and receives no other lobster than J. paulensis. After offloading, the cartons will be organized by origin, product type and grade, as supervised by SGS.

The responsibility for the transport of the product from Reunion Island lies with the customer, so ownership changes when product is loaded from the SAPMER storage facility into a container and onto a freight vessel. 90% of clients are based in China, Japan and Taiwan. In the case of live lobster, SAPMER continues to bear responsibility for the product until the freight plane lands (most live lobsters are destined for the Chinese market). The lobsters are placed into an insulated box with ice packs and remain identifiable through the batch number. Note that multiple boxes will stem from a single vivier so multiple boxes can have the same batch number (but linked as e.g. 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4/). Note that the removal of product from the SAPMER storage and loading onto a mode of transport will also be supervised by SGS.

Invoices to customers detail the invoice number, container number (in the case of transport by vessel) or flight number, container seal number, customer, invoice date, product type, catching vessel, trip number, carton numbers. Each invoice therefore enables a traceback of the product to the date and location of catch. Other key documents include the bill of lading, packing list, storage exit record (documenting which cartons went into which container), unloading report, catch certificate (tied to VMS record + COPEC validated logbook), and finally Avistock.

Overall, this fishery takes place within a very well-defined management framework, with clear and strict regulations on catch provenance, enabling all landed rock lobster to be traced back to the UoC. An assessment of the traceability risks in this fishery is given in Table 6.

To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

Table 6. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Minimal risk Certification (UoC)? Longlines and handlines are often used on If Yes, please describe: the same trip; however, no rock lobster is If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or caught with those gear types. This was during the same season; confirmed by the assessment team via the

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 16 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Factor Description How any risks are mitigated. COPEC observer reports and during the site visit (see Section 7.2.3 for further detail). Minimal risk Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? All of the fishing activities take place in the UoC area, around the Amsterdam and Saint- If Yes, please describe: Paul Islands. Currently, no rock lobster is If this may occur on the same trip; fished in the high seas (SIOFA) area, as How any risks are mitigated. verified in observer reports. Should this change, the CAB should be notified. Minimal risk Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and

non-certified products during any of the activities covered As explained above, the only non-certified by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea rock lobster caught by the Austral would activities and on-land activities. stem from the SIOFA area which is currently

not fished. Any risk of substitution would be Transport mitigated by different labelling on board, Storage segregation in the hold, capture dates Processing corresponding to specific registered Landing geographical positions, segregation during Auction unloading operations, segregation of

warehouse storage, separate official catch If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. declarations: COPEC TAAF and SGS. Minimal risk

Transhipment takes place at sea on a daily Does transhipment occur within the fishery? basis during fishing operations, between the canots and caseyeurs and the mother vessel, If Yes, please describe: all of which belong to the UoC (see Section If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or both; 7.2.1 for further details). No transhipment If the transhipment vessel may handle product from takes place once the catch has reached the outside the UoC; mother vessel, where it is processed and How any risks are mitigated. packed. There is no potential traceability risk, because of the isolation of the area and dependence of the small vessels on the mothership. Historically there has been a risk of IUU Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between fishing potentially within the EEZs, although certified and non-certified fish? not in the past decade. Significant surveillance effort is still deployed to If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. minimise that risk (see Principle 3, Section 7.5 for detailed discussion).

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

Based on the risk analysis presented above, the team concludes that this is a highly regulated fishery with robust traceability systems in place. The team’s final determination is therefore that rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) caught after the eligibility date in accordance with the UoC description given in Table 3 and landed in Le Port is eligible to enter further chains of custody with the MSC ecolabel, pending the successful outcome of this evaluation.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 17 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Separate Chain of Custody is required from the first change of ownership. For product transported by freight vessel, this is from the point when the containers are sealed in La Reunion. For live product transported by freight plane, this is from the point when the plane lands at its destination. In all cases, the SAPMER storage facility is covered by the fishery certificate. The facility’s details are as follows:

SAPMER- Darse de pêche-Magasin 10 BP 2012 97823 Le Port Cedex La Réunion France To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody

There are no IPI stocks in this fishery.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 18 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7 Scoring

7.1 Summary of PI Level Scores

A summary of Performance Indicator scores is given in the table below. For the overall aggregate Principle level scores, see Section 5.2.

Table 7. Performance Indicator scores.

Princi- Compo-nent Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score ple

1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 80 Outcome 0.33 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.5 N/a 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 85 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 75 Management 0.67 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 75 2.1.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.33 95 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 95 2.2.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.33 80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.33 85 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.33 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.33 70 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.33 70 2.4.3 Information 0.33 75 2.5.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.33 80 2.5.3 Information 0.33 80 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 85 Governance Consultation, roles & 0.5 3.1.2 0.33 85 and policy responsibilities

Three 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.33 100 Fishery 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 80 specific 0.5 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 85 management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 95

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 19 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Princi- Compo-nent Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score ple

Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 80 performance evaluation

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 20 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.2 Fishery overview

7.2.1 The Client fishery

The fishery under assessment is the fishery for rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) around the islands of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories (Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises – TAAF). Saint-Paul and Amsterdam are two small volcanic islands, 85 km apart, uninhabited except for a scientific base (Martin de Viviès) on Amsterdam. The TAAF includes the districts of Crozet, Kerguelen, and Saint-Paul and Amsterdam (Figure 1). The islands and their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) constitute the southern component of the TAAF and the one in which the National Nature Reserve of the French Southern Territories (Réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises, RNN) is located (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Map of the five districts making up the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises, including Saint- Paul and Amsterdam (www.taaf.fr).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 21 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 2. Map showing protected area around Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands. Green stripes: marine protected area1; Blue stripes: RNN protection zone; Red contour: EEZ limit. (Source: TAAF (2018a))

There are two fishing companies in the fishery: SAPMER (the client) and Armas Pêche (owned by SAPMER), and one vessel (the Austral; jointly owned by SAPMER and Armas Pêche). The fishery is open from 1 December – 30 April each year, during which time the Austral makes two trips from Reunion Island to Saint Paul and Amsterdam of around two months each (including travel time).

The fishing vessel Austral (FK 692717) has a length of 76.6m, and a GRT of 1698t. It operates both as a mothership for the launch and recovery of smaller fishing boats (canots and caseyeurs – see Figure 4) to set pots for lobster. The Austral also uses other gear types (longlines, handlines and liftnets) to catch fish during the trips to the St Paul and Amsterdam Islands; however, none of these gear types catch rock lobster.

The Austral has an on-board factory. The majority of the product is frozen after processing, as whole cooked or lobster tails, although some product is kept as fresh, or alive in tanks (viviers) aboard the vessel. All product is landed in Le Port on Reunion Island (see Section 6 for detail).

1 Marine protected area or Zone de Protection Marine: The use that is made of this type of area is regulated by the Reserve Decree or by order of the Prefect of the TAAF. In the case of this fishery: Arrêté N°2019-111 of 24 October 2019.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 22 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 3. The fishing vessel Austral II near Amsterdam Island, with a small fishing boat (caseyeur) alongside. (Source: COPEC observer reports)

7.2.2 Gear and operation of the fishery

The fishery started in 1950 and the way in which it operates the fishing gear has remained relatively constant over a prolonged period. The fishery is divided at two levels: between islands (i.e. Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands) and by area around each island. The subdivision around the islands is as follows:

• A coastal fishery with canots and wooden pots soaked for a few hours in the kelp zone close to the islands (< 70m depth). Up to four canots may fish at the same time. A fifth canot is permitted for scientific purposes; • A deep fishery using a maximum of two caseyeurs (pilothouse fishing boats), with steel pots soaked ~24h outside the kelp zone (70-~350m); also sometimes on the “16nm Bank” southeast of Saint-Paul (also known as “Banc Farce”) – in which case the Austral may also act as fishing vessel. Fishing on the Banc Farce is for scientific purposes (although the lobster can be sold) with strict effort limits: only up to 4 lifts allowed with up to 500 pots deployed over a whole year (consisting of 2 trips). Each line may not bear more than 10 pots.

Figure 4. Left: Canot setting wooden pots in kelp bed (coastal fishery); Right: pilothouse fishing boat (caseyeur) with a strong winch with which to haul steel pots from greater depths (deep fishery). (Source: COPEC observer reports)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 23 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Weather and sea conditions play a large role in how fishing effort is allocated around the islands, because the auxiliary vessels are small and much of the fishing is in shallow water kelp beds close to the islands. For example, in bad weather conditions, the west and southwest coasts are exposed to the swell, and boats have to fish the leeward side. During bad weather, fishing effort at Saint-Paul is also reduced, because of the lack of shelter there. Adverse sea conditions can also affect the catch – because large swells can move or destroy pots. Pot loss can occur, and this is quantified by counting traps at the start and end of a fishing trip (by the COPEC observer).

Two types of baited pots are used in the fishery as described in the following sections. The gear must conform to the requirements laid out in the relevant Arrêté fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques. The Arrêté is issued for each fishing season, the most recent of which is Arrêté N°2019-111 of 24 October 2019. The type of bait used is discussed further in Section 7.2.3.3.

7.2.2.1 Coastal fishery

The coastal fishery uses Type A pots for deployment by the canots near the islands at depths of less than 70m. Soak time is between 1 and 3 hours, with up to 3 lifts2 and 28 pots deployed in a 24hr period. Each pot is deployed on its own (with a buoy attached to aid with retrieval). The gear is shown in Figure 5 can be described as follows (Arrêté n°2019/111):

• Artisanally crafted, wooden (chestnut) slats on the side, plastic funnel for entry which is 250mm in diameter; • Dimensions of pot: length: 76cm, width: 63cm and height: 51cm; • Gap between wooden slats ≥ 35mm; this is set in the technical measures for the fishery (Arrêté n°2018/87 Annexe I I/5a). According to the COPEC observers (Section 7.2.3) most of the pots have gaps that exceed the required minimum; • Nylon mesh on the sides of the pot: ≥ 43mm • If iron bars are used in the lower part of the pot (to weigh them down), the spacing between the bars should be ≥ 35mm

Note that no pots are deployed between 50 and 70m depth. This is not a regulatory measure but a voluntary one and appears to be systematically applied in the fishery according to all stakeholders interviewed (including former COPECs and RNN agents).

2 There are exceptions. See Arrêté N°2019-111 of 24 October 2019, Annex 1 for detail.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 24 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 5. Images of wooden pots (Type A) used in the coastal fishery with close-up of plastic funnel through which the lobsters enter the pot (right). Source: COPEC observer reports

7.2.2.2 Deep fishery

The deep fishery uses Type B pots for deployment by caseyeurs further offshore at depths exceeding 70m. One line typically bears between 10 and 20 pots and has a ca. 24 hr soak time; one caseyeur will typically set 7 lines in a day. The gear is shown in Figure 6 and can be described as follows (Arrêté n°2019/111):

• Pots have an iron frame and rigid plastic mesh; • Plastic funnel for entry is 250mm in diameter; • Dimensions of pot: length: 83cm, width: 55cm and height: 64cm; • Flexible mesh on the sides of the pot: ≥ 43mm; • Rigid plastic mesh: minimum opening of 45 by 55mm.

Each line is weighted, either with a 20kg concrete block on either side of the line, or by adding 8kg blocks into the pots themselves.

Figure 6. Images of pots used in the deep fishery (Type B) with close-up of rigid plastic mesh (right). Source: COPEC observer reports

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 25 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.2.3 Data availability and catch profile

There are multiple sources of information on retained catch for target and non-target species:

7.2.3.1 Logbook data (Avipêche, Avistock)

The logbook data contain detail the species, number, net weight after processing and live weight (converted from net weight), GPS data, other interactions of interest. These are submitted weekly to the TAAF (as Avipêche) and are transmitted at the end of the trip as the Avistock report, validated by the COPEC and the captain. The data, however, do not distinguish between the gear types used by the Austral and its dependent vessels, which may also engage in handlining, longlining and lift netting. These data were not considered sufficiently specific to the UoA and not presented here. At the site visit it was noted that efforts will be made to also record gear type in the Avistock data.

7.2.3.2 COPEC observer data

Each trip, the Austral has on board a contrôleur de pêche (COPEC), who monitors compliance with regulations and collects scientific data during the entire trip, and an agent de la réserve naturelle (agent RNN) who monitors implementation of environmental protocols and monitoring.

The COPEC reports are drafted for each trip by a contrôleur de pêche (COPEC) (with input from the RNN agent) who monitors 100% of the catch that comes onboard the Austral, although not all fishing activities are systematically monitored. The COPEC observer and RNN agent are, however, asked to board the auxiliary vessels as often as possible and do so using a risk-based approach. Because the canots are smaller, the observers usually do not board these; however, the fishing activities can be observed from the Austral. At a minimum, the fishing data from the auxiliary vessels (positions, discarded bycatch, mammals and bird interactions) are collected by the crew and reported in the fishery logbook. The crew do not receive particular training for this; however, the accuracy and the consistency of the data are then controlled by the COPEC observer and RNN agent. Furthermore, a minimum of 3 pots per day from the coastal fishery and 1 – 2 pots from the deep fishery are not sorted aboard the auxiliary vessels but are instead sorted by the COPEC to sample undersized lobster and bycatch.

The COPEC reports are transmitted to the TAAF and MNHN for both compliance verification and scientific data collection and are very detailed, providing among other things:

• the amount of retained catch by gear (converted from the net weights after processing), as well as releasing of undersized lobster; • Details on vessel operations, including on gear characteristics, locations of pot deployment and bathymetric data on fishing locations; • Meteorological conditions; • Details on fishing effort (number of fishing days and pots deployed per island and zone (coastal / deep)); • Details on gear loss; • Conversion factor calculations for rock lobster and other commercial species; • Quota uptake; • Details on longline, handline and lift net (carrelet) fishing operations and catches;

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 26 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• Rock lobster sex ratio and size frequency data; • Size frequency data other species; • Details of any tagging carried out and tag returns (Latris lineata and Jasus paulensis); • Details of any bird interactions and outcome (dead, injured, unharmed) and how they came about; • Interactions with marine mammals (depredation, entanglement); • Any other noteworthy interactions with non-target species; • Details on benthic sampling from pot fishery; benthic camera footage; • Respect for the rules (waste management, bait procedures, released of under-sized lobsters, completion of logbook, on-board consumption of catch and communication); • Various comments on, for example, the attitude of the captain, COPEC and crew, the practicality of implementing regulations.

All COPEC reports were provided to the assessment team from the 2014/15 fishing season onwards and these provided the basis for the catch profile shown in Table 8. Rock lobster constitutes the dominant part of the catch although common octopus (poulpe, Octopus vulgaris) and striped trumpeter (Saint-Paul, Latris lineata) are also caught, in much lesser quantities. For the last five fishing trips the exact quantities of L. lineata landed by the pot fishery were not recorded owing to the fact that the quantities were reportedly very small.

According to the COPEC reports, there is some minimal discarding of L. lineata directly after hauling the pots; however, this does not appear to be quantified. Any retained low-grade catch is further used as bait in the pot or longline fishery and this is taken into account in the data shown in Table 8. Further to site visit interviews, it became clear that the practice of discarding bycatch species has now ceased, and all catch is required to be brought onboard the Austral (see arrêté 2019/111 du 24 octobre 2019). Any damaged fish are consumed onboard and are accounted for in the Avistock data (although currently not by gear type).

Table 8. Retained catch in tonnes and average % composition by species for the Austral rock lobster pot fishery (compiled from 2014 – 2019 COPEC reports).

Common octopus Saint-Paul / Striped Rock lobster (Octopus trumpeter Octopus + Saint- Trip (Jasus paulensis) vulgaris) (Latris lineata) Paul combined

12/11/2014 - 11/01/2015 204.90 0.29 0.11 -

05/02/2015 - 22/04/2015 138.03 3.96 - 0.05

27/11/2015 - 22/01/2016 225.14 0.58 0.06 -

25/02/2016 – 13/05/2016 100.60 4.20 - -

19/11/2016 - 11/01/2017 192.29 0.18 0.48 -

02/02/2017 – 06/04/2017 153.95 0.79 Low, unknown quantity

20/11/2017 - 20/01/2018 215.17 0.44 Combined with catch from longline fishery

22/02/2018 – 11/05/2018 140.32 4.20 Low, unknown quantity

10/11/2018 - 19/01/2019 212.79 0.11 Low, unknown quantity

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 27 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Common octopus Saint-Paul / Striped Rock lobster (Octopus trumpeter Octopus + Saint- Trip (Jasus paulensis) vulgaris) (Latris lineata) Paul combined

16/02/2019 - 17/04/2019 145.87 0.11 Low, unknown quantity Average % composition 99.11 0.85 0.04 0.00 [min. – max.] [95.99 – 99.95] [0.05 – 4.01] [0.00 – 0.25] [0.00 – 0.03]

7.2.3.3 Client bait data

The bait used by the UoA mainly consists of toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and jack mackerel (Trachurus spp.) brought onboard as frozen, as well as low-grade fish caught by the other gears that are used on the same trip (longline, handline and lift net). On the most recent fishing trip (ending January 2019), the bait used for the pot fishery consisted of 21,220kg of jack mackerel, 21,620kg of toothfish heads and 4,600kg of Polyprion spp. heads (cabot, caught on the same trip but with other gears), or respectively 10%, 10.2% and 0.2% of the total retained catch for that trip.

7.2.3.4 PECHEKER

Both the Avistock and COPEC reports feed the MNHN’s PECHEKER database which acts as a data repository for the fishery. The PECHEKER data request was submitted by the team to the TAAF and MNHN after the site visit and therefore the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) was based on data included in the COPEC reports mainly (extracted manually by the team - Table 8). These data were supplemented with PECHEKER data at the CPRDR stage.

As already explained, the Avistock data do not distinguish between gear types. Any bycatch stemming from the pot fishery is therefore quantified for all gear types combined and once processing has taken place. The data are therefore recorded in numbers, not weights. On the basis of PECHEKER data, the MNHN extracted catch numbers for L. lineata and converted these into weights for the assessment team. Although these data are for all fisheries combined, comparison with the overall catch of J. paulensis confirms the previous finding that this is not a ‘main’ species.

Table 9. Number of Latris lineata processed by the Austral for all gear types combined and converted into weight (mean weight = 2.8kg). Comparison with total Jasus paulensis retained catch also provided. Source: MNHN, PECHEKER

Year Catch (Nb. individuals) Catch (Kg) % of Jasus paulensis retained catch

2018 987 2763.6 0.77 2017 484 1355.2 0.38

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 28 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3 Principle 1

7.3.1 Biology and Ecology

A single species, the Saint-Paul rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) forms the target of the fishery under assessment. In the Southern Indian Ocean, it is known only from the Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands in commercial quantities, with smaller numbers reported from seamounts on the Southwest Indian Ridge by past Soviet and Ukrainian scientific and commercial expeditions (summarized by Romanov, (2003). More recently, it was found on Southwest Indian Ridge Seamounts by South African trapping vessels.

Figure 7. Image of the Saint-Paul rock lobster (Jasus paulensis). Source: https://alchetron.com/Jasus- paulensis

A recent genetic study showed a lack of mitochondrial DNA differentiation between J. paulensis and Jasus tristani from the Tristan da Cunha archipelago, 6000 km to the west, in the southern Atlantic (Groeneveld et al., 2012). This suggests a lack of barriers to larval dispersal and gene flow over thousands of kilometres in the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Based on identical mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and similar morphology, the two species have been synonymised as J. paulensis (Heller 1862) which is the older name. Nevertheless, the older name (J. tristani for lobsters at Tristan da Cunha) was still used by the IUCN in their 2013 assessment of lobsters (Cockcroft et al., 2013). The fishery for J. paulensis (formerly known as J. tristani) at Tristan da Cunha has been MSC certified since 2011.

Jasus paulensis occurring at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands are assumed to comprise of a single genetic stock, connected through larval dispersal between the two islands. A similar pattern was observed in J. paulensis at the Tristan da Cunha archipelago, where no genetic differentiation could be found between lobsters caught at 4 islands separated by distances of up to 400 km, and depths that preclude inter-island benthic migrations (von der Heyden et al., 2007).

Jasus paulensis is a temperate water species, preferring temperatures of 13–18°C, and it occurs in rocky and gravel areas, and often in kelp beds (Silas, 1967). Around the Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands, it is caught from close to the shore to >300 m deep (COPEC, 2016). Jasus paulensis at Tristan da Cunha is an opportunistic omnivore, with a diet that reflects impoverished reef habitats (Blamey et al., 2019). Kelp (Macrocystis spp.), sponges, bivalves and hydroids were the most common food items, but the range of species found in the gut showed opportunistic feeding on any available food.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 29 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

These included nematodes, whelks, barnacles, polychaetes as well as other lobsters. J. paulensis is therefore not a key low-trophic level (LTL) species. Diet was influenced by lobster size, location and depth of capture. The diet of J. paulensis at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands may differ from those at Tristan da Cunha (Blamey et al., 2019), but they are also expected to be opportunistic omnivores, feeding on kelp and a suite of available invertebrate species, including other lobsters.

As all other Jasus species, J. paulensis is slow-growing and long-lived (Booth, 2006), with a generation time estimated as 12.5 years (Cockcroft et al., 2013). Lobster age is difficult to determine, because all hard-shell parts with growth marks are shed during each moult. Nevertheless, females reach sexual maturity at carapace length (CL) of 65-75 mm CL (Grua, 1960), which is thought to be ~5-7 years after settling on the seafloor as pueruli (Booth, 2006). Males reach a maximum CL of about 130 mm and females ~95 mm (Holthuis, 1991). After reaching sexual maturity, female growth rates (increment per moult) decline relative to males. The difference in male and female size composition is clearly visible from size composition data collected by COPEC observers (Figure 8).

Growth rates are flexible, depending on densities and/or environmental conditions (see Pollock, 1991), with mean lobster size larger at Saint-Paul than at Amsterdam Island (Figure 8), and also differing by depth. Lobsters caught on the outer bank (Banc Farce) were much larger than those caught near the islands, either because they are not fished as intensively as around the islands, or because of ecological reasons.

Sex ratios in catches fluctuate, with generally more females in catches during May-October and more males during November-April (Holthuis, 1991). This is likely a reflection of changes in catchability, with lobsters not feeding and/or segregating during moulting or reproductive periods. Moulting cycles differ between males and females, thus leading to differential catchability over time, visible as changes in sex ratios in catches.

Fertilization is external (occurring when eggs are extruded), and females carry a single batch of eggs per year, between May/June (egg-laying) and August/September (hatching). The incubation period during which eggs are carried externally on the ventral abdomen of the female is 4-6 months (Grua, 1960) during which larvae gradually use up the yolk in the egg to develop through 4 macroscopically distinguishable stages. Very few egg-bearing females are caught between December and April, when fishing takes place.

Jasus females have high fecundity with egg clutch sizes ranging from 30,000 eggs in small females to >600,000 eggs in large individuals (Jeffs et al., 2013). Females produce only 1 brood of eggs per year. Eggs hatch into drifting phyllosoma larvae during spring or early summer (Figure 9). The drifting larval period of Jasus is very long, with phyllosomas spending between 7 and 24 months in the plankton. During this period, they moult through several developmental stages and may be dispersed by ocean currents over vast areas, before settling on the seafloor in suitable habitats (such as on seamounts or around islands) to begin juvenile and adult benthic phases.

It remains unclear whether Jasus populations occurring at seamounts or isolated islands rely on self- recruitment (i.e. larvae originating from a specific seamount will be caught up in eddies near the seamount, and return to it to settle after completing the larval phase), or whether recruitment relies on a mixed pool of drifting larvae, originating from various sources, sometimes far away (Heyden et al., 2007; Groeneveld et al., 2012). Recruitment strength is typically highly variable between years (or cohorts), because it depends on favourable oceanographic conditions during the long larval dispersal phase. Factors that may affect survival rates of phyllosomas during dispersal, and hence the numbers that arrive at benthic settlement habitats, include the strength and direction of ocean currents, sea surface temperature, nutrition and predation rates. These may differ year-on-year.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 30 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 8. Size composition of Jasus paulensis caught by the fishery, showing the difference in males and females, and between Amsterdam, Saint-Paul and Banc Farce (an outer bank near Saint-Paul Island). Lobsters caught on the outer bank were much larger than those closer to the islands. Source: COPEC (2016)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 31 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 9. Lobster phyllosoma larvae. Larvae drift in ocean currents for periods of 7 – 24 months before settling on the seafloor to begin their benthic life history phases. Source: Johan Groeneveld, ORI

After successful settlement to the seafloor, the availability of shelter (crevices) for juveniles is crucial to limit predation by fish. A compensatory density-dependence has been shown for lobsters at Tristan da Cunha, whereby lobsters grow faster at lower population densities, because of increased per capita food availability (Pollock, 1991). Benthic phases (juveniles and adults) at Saint-Paul Island are separated from those at Amsterdam Island by an ocean trench of > 1,800 m deep – and it is therefore unlikely that benthic migrations can take place between the two islands.

J. paulensis adheres to the typical pattern of the Jasus genus, based on its distribution pattern, which is restricted to southern temperate waters between approximately 30˚S and 40˚S, slow somatic growth rate, long egg incubation period, long larval drifting phase, and on average 5-7 years between settlement and reaching sexual maturity. It is thus a slow-growing crustacean species with an extended larval life, vulnerable to over-exploitation, in which long recovery times may be expected. Nevertheless, the genus is characterised by high fecundity and populations comprise of several year- classes at any one time. This makes them resilient to fluctuations in annual recruitment numbers.

7.3.2 Fisheries and Biological Data

A description of all the available fisheries and biological data held by the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) is provided by Selles (2019a). The description includes metadata of when, where and how data were collected, as well as graphical representations showing temporal and spatial data distribution. Data collected by COPEC fisheries observers during commercial trips, landings statistics, and additional data collected during scientific expeditions are presented. The data include fishing effort (numbers of pots set and their georeferenced locations), catches of lobsters (numbers and weight), nominal CPUE (numbers and weight per pot), biometric information (length-weight data), sex ratio of catches, length composition data (carapace length [CL], mm), and mark-recapture data showing lobster movements. Although focused on lobsters, data on the principal fish bycatch species are also provided.

Not all the available data have been used in the assessments of stock status. Size-composition information (i.e. for length-based or age-based models) is available on the PECHEKER database, as detailed spatio-temporal records per trip (COPEC, 2016), but has not yet been analysed to investigate long-term trends in size composition, or in the stock-recruitment relationship (SRR). The SRR is the relationship between the parental fish stock (spawning biomass) and the resulting recruitment (usually the number of recruits to the exploitable phase) and can be used to predict the average number of recruits that would be produced at different population sizes – thus increasing the confidence in estimates of stock status relative to the ‘Point of Recruitment Impairment’ (PRI), which is important in scoring PI 1.1.1 and 1.2.4.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 32 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and landings data

The fishery is managed via a Total Allowable Catch (TAC). Scientific advice for setting the annual TAC of the fishery, per island and zone individually, is provided by the MNHN in Paris. Relative trends in CPUE per zone/island and the size of the fishable area are considered when recommending annual TAC levels.

To provide advice, MNHN sends a letter with recommendations to the TAAF (see Section 7.5 for detail on the management framework for this fishery). The TAC is then set by TAAF either according to MNHN’s recommendations, or occasionally at a lower level than the recommendation if there are other considerations. According to MNHN, the TAC has never been set exceeding their recommendation. The TAC and catch data for 2018/19 are shown in Table 10.

For 2018/2019, the TAC was set at 370 t (TAAF 2018-126). Most of the TAC was assigned to the coastal zone (220 t), divided between Saint-Paul (120 t) and Amsterdam (100 t); with the remaining offshore quota (150 t) divided between Saint-Paul (118 t) and Amsterdam (32).

Table 10. TAC and Catch Data (Source: Avistock data submitted by Client; TAAF 2018-126)

TAC Year 2018/19 Amount 370 t UoA share of TAC Year 2018/19 Amount 100% UoC share of total TAC Year 2018/19 Amount 100% Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2018/19 Amount 358.34 t recent) Year (second 2017/18 Amount 360.3 t most recent)

Historical landings per year since 1950 are shown in Figure 11. All commercially caught lobster are landed at the factory in Reunion, where they are weighed. The maximum landed catch in a single year was 1,143 t, reported in 1973. Landings declined from 1099 t in 1974 to 300 t in 1975, linked to a brief period of overexploitation (up to five vessels were operating in the fishery during the 1969/70 fishing season, leading to a collapse in catches – see Pruvost et al., 2015).

CAPTURES LANGOUSTES 1500 St-PAUL et AMSTERDAM

1000

500 Tonnes

0 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 nombre d' années de pêche continue depuis 1950

Figure 10. Landings of lobster from Saint-Paul and Amsterdam since 1950 (Source: SAPMER)

Landings have remained constant between 340 and 450 t since the early 1990s, reflecting adherence to the annual TAC (Figure 11). A small quantity of lobsters are caught recreationally by seasonal staff and researchers at the Martin-de-Viviès research station on Amsterdam Island (3 t TAC is set aside for 2019-20; see TAAF Arrêté 2019-163).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 33 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 11. TAC (1995 – 2016) and landings (1980 – 2016) of Jasus paulensis at both islands combined. Source: Selles (2019a)

7.3.4 Fishing effort

Despite high inter-annual variability, overall fishing effort measured as the number of traps set at Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands respectively, and by fishing zone (coastal and offshore), has gradually decreased, at least since the mid-1990s (Figure 12). At present, fishing effort is near the lowest level since 1980.

Figure 12. Fishing effort as the number of traps set per island and fishing zone (coastal and deep) between 1980 and 2018 (Selles, 2019a).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 34 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3.5 CPUE standardization

Scientific advice for setting the annual TAC of the fishery is provided by the Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in Paris. The key input is the Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) trend, based on data of lobster catches per pot set (by weight) and the numbers of pots set recorded in electronic logbooks, and stored on PECHEKER. Until recently (2019) the CPUE was not standardized statistically to account for the effects of season, island, area and year; based on the rationale that the same vessel, pots and fishing method have been used throughout the time series, and because fishing always takes place at the same time of the year.

The CPUE time series was first standardized in 2019, providing more confidence in the long-term lobster abundance trend (Selles, 2019b). In the standardization, a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was fitted to catch and effort data for the period 1980-2018. A lognormal model was used to standardize the CPUE using fishing year, fishing period, fishing area and fishing year-area interactions as exploratory variables. CPUE standardizations were undertaken separately for Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. A stepwise AIC selection procedure was used to construct the best-fitting model, and all the selected variables were highly significant (p < 0.001). The standardized CPUE series followed the same trend as the nominal CPUE, on average, with some dissimilarity between the two series in the last 4-6 years, when the standardized values were greater than nominal values. The final model explained approximately 50% of the variance with pseudo R2 values of 0.51 and 0.46 for Saint- Paul and Amsterdam Islands, respectively.

Declines in the standardized CPUE at Amsterdam (Figure 13) and Saint-Paul (Figure 14) at the beginning of the time series were followed by a period of relative stability during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and then by gradual increases (with peaks and troughs) between approximately 1995 and 2018. For both islands, the standardized CPUE was well above the nominal CPUE during the last 4-6 years of the series, approaching the highest recorded level of abundance since 1980. Overall, the first fishing trip in each year (November to January) had a higher CPUE than the second trip (February to April) and this trend could be observed at both islands.

Figure 13. Comparative plot of nominal CPUE (red) and GLM standardized CPUE (black) of Jasus paulensis at Amsterdam Island. The 95% CI is shown in dashed line. Source: Selles (2019b)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 35 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 14. Comparative plot of nominal CPUE (red) and GLM standardized CPUE (black) of Jasus paulensis at Saint Paul Island. The 95% CI is shown in dashed line. Source: Selles (2019b)

Up to 2019, the implicit target reference point has been to maintain the CPUE at the level of the long- term average. Decreases or increases in the CPUE from one year to the next have been addressed by small adjustments to the TAC (generally 10 to 20 t adjustments), which has historically fluctuated between 350 and 400 t per year, for all areas combined. CPUE trends have been evaluated separately per island and for the coastal and deep-water zones at each island, thus eliminating the need to assume similar lobster abundance trends at the two islands, or in nearshore and deeper fishing areas.

By zone (coastal and offshore), similar trends in nominal CPUE were apparent from each island individually and combined – i.e. that the CPUE has increased in the offshore zone in recent years to well above the long-term average, but that the coastal zone CPUE has declined to a level of slightly below the long-term average (Figure 15). In combination, the standardization of the CPUE time series indicated that the stock level has been stable since the early 1990s and that it has been increasing in recent years (Selles, 2019c).

As an improvement on the unstandardized nominal CPUE trend, the GLM-standardized index (i.e. standardized CPUE) corrects for the influences of season, island, area and year on the CPUE trend, and provides a measure of confidence in annual CPUE estimates (i.e. 95% confidence intervals).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 36 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 15. Nominal CPUE trends comparing coastal and offshore zones at Amsterdam (top) and Saint-Paul Islands (bottom), showing a general decrease in coastal zones and increase in deep zones over the past 5-10 years (Source: MNHN).

7.3.6 Stock assessment

Jasus paulensis at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands were considered to be a single genetic stock (see Section 7.3.1) but were treated separately in the stock assessment to accommodate potential differences in biological productivity (i.e. recruitment, growth rates, survival) between the two islands.

Stock assessment modelling was undertaken for the first time in 2019 to assess lobster stock status at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands (Selles, 2019d). Catch and CPUE time series data (1981 – 2018) were obtained from the PECHEKER database hosted at MNHN in Paris (Martin and Pruvost, 2007). The CPUE time series (see Section 7.3.5 above) was used as a relative abundance index for each island, assumed to be proportional to biomass. The stock assessment was implemented using a Bayesian state-space surplus production modelling (SPM) framework JABBA (Just Another Bayesian Biomass Assessment; Winker et al. 2018) and based on the generalized Pella-Tomlinson surplus production function (see Selles (2019d)). Priors for r (intrinsic rate of population increase) and K (carrying capacity or unfished [virgin] biomass level at equilibrium) were kept uninformative to convey minimal prior information on the parameter estimates. It was assumed that the main source of biological uncertainty would be linked to r.

To capture uncertainty, the reference case model was fitted over a range of informative priors for r which assumed low and high resilience hypotheses, and fixed values for BMSY/K which covered a range of structural hypotheses. Model-predicted CPUE indices were compared to the observed CPUE to evaluate the fits. The different models run for the sensitivity analyses were compared using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC). To explore the impact of potential TAC levels on future biomass trends, the model was used to predict the stock status over a 10-year period, in terms of biomass depletion (B/K) associated with different levels of input TAC.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 37 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Model convergence and fit were adequate, based on standard diagnostic tests (Selles, 2019d). The posteriors had similar r-value estimates (median; 95% CI) for Amsterdam (0.427; 0.148 – 0.826) and Saint-Paul (0.4; 0.16 – 0.724). The posteriors for K were also similar between the two islands: 1,517 t (843 – 4,841 t) for Amsterdam and 1,895 t (1,017 – 5,379 t) for Saint-Paul rock lobster. Biological reference points were expressed relative to MSY for the reference case model for the two islands separately (Table 11)

Table 11. Summary of posterior quantiles of reference points indicating the median and 95% confidence intervals for the reference case model for lobsters at Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands, respectively. F = Fishing mortality; B = Biomass; MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield. B/BMSY and F/FMSY are presented for 2018, the final assessment year (Selles, 2019d)

Amsterdam Median LCI UCI

FMSY 0.36 0.16 0.67

BMSY 557.24 335.64 1272.77 MSY 201.00 181.61 257.63

B/BMSY 1.65 1.16 2.04

F/FMSY 0.38 0.25 0.56 Saint-Paul Median LCI UCI

FMSY 0.29 0.08 0.55

BMSY 796.36 425.92 4263.23 MSY 231.99 207.98 351.99

B/BMSY 1.32 0.92 1.88

F/FMSY 0.77 0.38 1.17

Models indicated that Amsterdam rock lobster was not overfished, because the present biomass (B)

was above the biomass estimate at MSY level (B/BMSY > 1) and was not subject to overfishing, because present fishing mortality was below the fishing mortality estimate at MSY level (F/FMSY < 1). The current

biomass (B2018) was estimated to be 65% above BMSY and the fishing mortality in the last year (F2018) was only 38% of FMSY. Similar levels of fishing pressure and stock status were evident for Saint-Paul

rock lobster, albeit not quite as clear. At Saint-Paul, the current biomass (B2018) estimate was 32% above BMSY, and the fishing mortality (F2018) was 77% of FMSY. Nevertheless, the lower 95% CI of B/BMSY

was < 1 (0.92) and the upper 95% CI of F/FMSY was > 1 (1.17).

Trends in exploitation (or harvest) rate relative to FMSY and biomass relative to BMSY for the reference case model for Amsterdam and Saint-Paul rock lobster indicated that harvest rates have been

consistent with achieving a long-term MSY. At both islands the median F/FMSY remained below 1.0 (where F = FMSY) since 1995 (with a single exception at Amsterdam). A small proportion of the 95% Upper CI (shaded grey area) fell above 1.0, but this occurred mainly in the earlier years of the time series, and less frequently after the year 2000 (Figure 16).

Similarly, biomass at both islands has increased above the B/BMSY reference level since 1995, with only a small proportion of the Lower CI falling below B/BMSY = 1.0, mainly at the beginning of the time series (Figure 16).

Sensitivity analyses produced similar long-term trends in relative stock status (B/BMSY) and fishing mortality (F/FMSY) in all scenarios tested for lobster stocks at both islands (Selles, 2019d). Kobe phase plots were similar among all scenarios indicating that the lobster stocks were not currently overfished

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 38 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

and not subject to overfishing with 88% probability (Figure 17). Some uncertainty in estimated stock biomass and harvest rates remained, because the 95% confidence intervals were quite broad (Selles, 2019d). Greater variability and poor fit of the abundance index to the observed CPUE trend at the beginning and end of the time series suggests that the assumption of a linear relationship between lobster abundance and CPUE may not always be valid – possibly as a result of changes in the size, age or sex structure of the population. The surplus production model used in the assessment could not resolve the weak fit at the edges of the time-series, for which more sophisticated size- or age- structured models will be required.

Figure 16. Trends in exploitation (or harvest) rate relative to FMSY and biomass relative to BMSY for the reference case model for Amsterdam (top panels) and Saint-Paul rock lobster (bottom panels). Grey shaded areas indicate 95% CI (Selles, 2019d).

Figure 17. Kobe phase plots showing estimated trajectories (1981-2018) of B/BMSY and F/FMSY for the reference case model for Amsterdam (left) and Saint-Paul rock lobster (right), respectively. Different grey shaded areas denote the 50, 80 and 95% confidence intervals for the last assessment year. The probability of terminal year points falling within each quadrant is indicated in the figure legend (Selles, 2019d).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 39 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3.7 Harvest Control Rules and Tools

Harvest control rules and tools are generally understood and implicit within the Harvest Strategy, even though they are not clearly specified in a written form. The overarching harvest control rule (HCR) is to “maintain a stable long-term average CPUE” and the tools with which it is achieved comprise of “minor TAC adjustments” which are implemented annually, after updating an unstandardized CPUE trend with the latest data. The recent stock assessment has shown that the system has been effective in achieving exploitation rates consistent with an MSY strategy, and that it has maintained biomass at

a level well above BMSY and PRI.

No trigger- or limit reference points have been specified to reduce harvest rates when the PRI is approached. Nevertheless, it is generally understood that declines in the CPUE (per island or depth zone) will initiate decreases in TAC levels, to reverse the decline towards the long-term average CPUE, as reference point.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 40 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.3.8 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 1. PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

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

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The MSC Fisheries Standard (GSA2.2.3.1) specifies proxy indicators for PRI, in cases where BMSY has been analytically determined, as follows: “In the case where BMSY is analytically determined to be greater than 40%B0 , and there is no analytical determination of the PRI, the default PRI should be ½ BMSY”.

In the present assessment (Selles, 2019d), the median estimate of BMSY/K was 0.42 (hence >40%B0), and the default PRI was therefore determined as ½ BMSY (i.e. 278 t at Amsterdam and 398 t at Saint-Paul Island).

The two lines of evidence that the stock is highly likely above the PRI are stock status, and the life history of spiny lobsters:

Stock status: Jasus paulensis at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands comprises of a single genetic stock (see Section 7.3.1), but the two islands were assessed separately to account for potential differences in biological productivity between islands. Recent stock assessment has shown that the present biomass (2018/2019) is well above the level associated with MSY (B/BMSY > 1) at both islands, with high probability of >95% for Amsterdam >85% for Saint-Paul Island. B/BMSY has been >1 since the mid-1990s (see Section 7.3.6). Numerical analysis therefore supports the view that the stock is highly likely to be > BMSY, and therefore also above PRI (i.e. ½ BMSY). Other key indicators are that the long-term CPUE trends have gradually increased since the mid-1990s (Section 7.3.5), implying stable or increasing abundance of lobsters. Lower fishing effort is now needed to catch similar quantities of lobsters than during the 1990s. Landings have remained stable between 350 and 400 t per year, with small adjustments (generally 10 – 20 t per year) to the TAC.

Life history: Jasus lobsters are highly fecund, with large female lobsters carrying up to 600,000 eggs per year. They are broadcast spawners and therefore recruitment depends strongly on environmental conditions, such as the influence of ocean current strength, current direction or sea surface temperature on the dispersal and survival rates of drifting larvae. Larvae drift in the water column for long periods – generally 7-24 months. Jasus lobsters have high longevity (>15 years), with several cohorts (year-classes) present in the fished population at any given time, thus they are resilient to periods of low recruitment strength. Self-recruitment (with post-larvae returning to their origin) and recruitment

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 41 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

from larvae dispersing from other sources (other seamounts in the southern Indian Ocean or even in the south Atlantic – Section 7.3.1) may both occur, implying that recruitment can be augmented from elsewhere (Groeneveld et al., 2012). Density dependence has been shown, with higher productivity at low lobster densities (Pollock, 1991).

Given the history of the fishery, its long-term stability and relative productivity, and the high fecundity and resilient nature of Jasus lobsters, it is ‘highly likely’ (80% probability in MSC’s definition for this PI) that the stock is above the PRI. SG60 and SG80 are met.

SG100: The absence of a stock-recruitment relationship that accounts for changes in lobster size / age structure, and reliance on a PRI proxy precludes scoring at SG100 (‘high degree of certainty’; 95% probability in MSC’s definition). Even so, it should be noted that a well-defined relationship between spawning stock biomass and recruitment is rarely shown in lobsters, because of high reproductive potential of individual females (high individual fecundity combined with many reproductive years) and the effects of a variable ocean environment on larval dispersal patterns and recruitment to benthic habitats (Jeffs et al., 2013). SG100 is not met.

Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

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

Met? Y N

Rationale

A surplus production model (Selles, 2019d) indicated that biomass is presently well above the level associated with MSY (B/BMSY > 1) at both islands, with high probability of >95% for Amsterdam and >85% for Saint-Paul Island (see Section 7.3.6). The median B/BMSY has been >1 (above MSY) for the past 20 years (since mid-1990s) at both islands, and can therefore be assessed as fluctuating at a level consistent with MSY, or above this level. In the stock assessment, sensitivity analyses of alternative scenarios combined resulted in 95% and 89% probability of stocks being above MSY at Amsterdam and St Paul Islands, respectively. Recent trends in fishing mortality rate (F) have been low enough (F/FMSY < 1) for at least 20 years (see SA 2.2.4). SG80 is met.

SG100 is not reached because there remains some uncertainty in the assessment model and supporting data – for example, the 95% CI remains broad, with the lower (LCI) of B/BMSY < 1 and the upper (UCI) of F/FMSY >1 at Saint-Paul Island. A high degree of certainty (>95% probability) that the stock has been fluctuating around MSY can therefore not be inferred from the present assessment.

References

Groeneveld et al. (2012), Jeffs et al. (2013), Pollock (1991) and Selles (2019d)

Stock status relative to reference points

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 42 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status (2018) relative to reference point (Table 11)

Reference point Default PRI = ½ BMSY Amsterdam Is. = 278 t Amsterdam Is.: BMSY = 557 t ; 95% CI = 335 t to 1272 t used in scoring Saint-Paul Is. = 398 t Saint-Paul Is. BMSY = 796 t ; 95% CI = 425 t to 4263 t stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference point GLM-standardized abundance Long-term trend Gradual increase in standardized abundance index since 1996; Above used in scoring index long-term average for > 10 years for both islands >1.0 stock relative to B/BMSY Amsterdam: Median B/BMSY = 1.65; LCI = 1.16; UCI = 2.04 MSY (SIb) St Paul: Median B/BMSY = 1.32; LCI = 0.92; UCI = 1.88

Amsterdam: Median F/FMSY = 0.38; LCI = 0.25; UCI = 0.56 <1.0 F/FMSY St Paul: Median F/FMSY = 0.77; LCI = 0.38; UCI = 1.17

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

More information sought Appropriate stock assessment based on standardized data to be provided at site visit Information gap indicator Availability of a stock assessment model at the site visit will allow for use of the MSC default assessment tree for scoring, instead of an RBF

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 43 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 2. PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Rebuilding timeframes

A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is a Guide stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not exceed one generation time times its generation time. For cases where for the stock. post 2 generations is less than 5 years, the

rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? NA NA

Rationale

Not relevant

Rebuilding evaluation

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

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not relevant

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 44 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

References

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

Draft scoring range N/a

More information sought Information gap indicator In order to apply the default assessment tree, documented information on target and limit reference points are required, including how they were derived.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score N/a

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 45 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 3. PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Harvest strategy design

The harvest strategy is expected to achieve The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of The harvest strategy is responsive to the state Guide stock management objectives reflected in the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy of the stock and is designed to achieve stock a PI 1.1.1 SG80. work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 post management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG80.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

There is a robust harvest strategy in place which is responsive to the state of the stock, and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives, meeting both SG60 and SG80. The harvest strategy is defined by MSC as a combination of monitoring, stock assessment, HCR and management decision-making, sometimes supported by management strategy evaluation (MSE). The following key points pertain to the harvest strategy for this fishery: - The fishery operates wholly inside the French TAAF EEZ of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands, and inside the Reserve Naturelle Nationale des Terres Australes (RNN) and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of TAAF. - The TAAF Décret 2009-1039 states the long-term aim of fisheries management is “to ensure conservation and optimal exploitation of fisheries resources in the TAAF zones”. The TAAF annual Arrêté 2018-87 states MSY as a formal objective for the lobster fishery’s management, along with preservation of the ecosystem. - The TAAF legal department drafts the secondary legislation (‘Arrêté’) prescribing technical measures to be adhered to by the fishery (incl. all conditions regarding reporting, closed areas & seasons, gear details, TAC for lobsters and finfish). - The fishery is restricted to a single vessel, which is continually monitored with VMS tracking, and with a COPEC observer and an RNN officer on board, with a dual role to collect scientific data and to enforce TAAF regulations. - Scientific data collected in a prescribed format and stored on databases PECHEKER and Avistock are analyzed by MNHN, and a recommendation for the TAC for the following year made, based on long-term CPUE trends. The average CPUE over a long-term is used as an explicit reference point when determining TAC. A formal stock assessment to estimate stock status relative to MSY has recently been developed, providing more confidence in estimates of stock condition.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 46 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

- Internal management strategy evaluation takes place at the TAAF Advisory board meetings. Overall, there are adequate control measures and validation, including 100% on-board observer coverage, and reconciliation of the catch with the TAC. Factors that may have contributed to the long-term success of the present harvest strategy are that the fishery is pursued by a single vessel (Austral), and that the fishing grounds are distant and geographically isolated – hence few other vessels go there, reducing the opportunities for IUU fishing. The long-term success of the harvest strategy (indicated by the stable CPUE trends and consistent annual landings) provides empirical evidence that the harvest strategy has been achieving its objectives: it is responsive to the state of the stock, and its elements work together towards achieving stock management objectives. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because some elements (for example harvest control rules and tools) are not explicitly incorporated, and stock management objectives are broadly stated, instead of clearly specified.

Harvest strategy evaluation

The harvest strategy is likely to work based The harvest strategy may not have been fully The performance of the harvest strategy has Guide on prior experience or plausible argument. tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its been fully evaluated and evidence exists to b objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives post including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The harvest strategy works well based on prior experience and plausible argument (SG60 met), and there is solid empirical evidence that it is achieving its objectives (SG80 met). The empirical evidence includes a long-term stable or increasing CPUE trend (Section 7.3.5) and consistent annual landings over the past 20+ years, and annual TAC allocations that are responsive to changes in the TAC (Section 7.3.3). Structured logical argument and analysis support the choice of strategy (SA2.4.1). SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated, or ‘tested for robustness to uncertainty, appropriate to the scale and intensity of the UoA’ (SA 2.4.1)

Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Met? Y

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 47 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Monitoring is in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working, meeting SG60. The fishery is under the administrative control of TAAF; catches landed by the Austral (TAAF-registered) in Reunion must be cleared by customs; landings are inspected by SGS (independent from TAAF); COPEC observers and RNN officers stationed onboard the vessel report on catches and the behavior of the fishery – with a dual mandate (set out in décret 2001/21) for scientific data collection and enforcement (including looking for signs of IUU fishing). Catches are also monitored by MNHN for stock assessment and provision of advice. The Austral has VMS on board, overseen by the French Fisheries Monitoring Centre, the CNSP. In combination, these checks monitor the efficiency of the harvest strategy.

Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is periodically d reviewed and improved as necessary. post

Met? Y

Rationale

The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved, and SG100 is met. The fishery is fully integrated in the national TAAF protected area (RNN), and the TAAF RNN management plan (MP) is monitored regularly. The management plan – which includes the harvest strategy for the lobster fishery – was evaluated in 2016 and the results are published in the RNN annual activity report. The latest MP (2018-2027 - TAAF (2017a)) follows an extension of the RNN in December 2016 (Ministerial Decree 2016-290). The programme of measures and indicators, including those specific to the fishery is reviewed annually and results published (TAAF, 2017a). Performance of the CROSS and CNSP is reviewed regularly internally and occasionally externally by the court of Auditors and the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). The performance of TAAF fisheries management is reviewed annually by Ministries represented on TAAF Advisory Councils. The MNHN and scientific partners make regular (at least annual) presentations to the TAAF Advisory Committee and the RNN Scientific Council. Overall, there is sufficient evidence that the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved. SG100 is met.

Shark finning

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

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not applicable, the target species is not a shark.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 48 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Review of alternative measures

There has been a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of f Guide measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- of unwanted catch of the target stock. unwanted catch of the target stock and they are related mortality of unwanted catch of post implemented as appropriate. the target stock, and they are

implemented, as appropriate.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not applicable. Lobsters < 56mm CL and berried females are released alive (Brouwer et al., 2006; TAAF, 2019a). Apart from these, there is no unwanted catch of the target species.

References

COPEC (2016), TAAF (2017a), Brouwer et al. (2006), TAAF (2019a)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought Information gap indicator Information is required on whether the harvest strategy has been formalized and whether it is subject to testing and review.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 49 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 4. PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

HCRs design and application

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

Met? Y N N

Rationale

HCRs are generally understood and implicit within the Harvest Strategy, even though they are not clearly specified in a written form. The overarching HCR is to “maintain a stable long-term average CPUE” (TAAF, 2019a) and the tools with which it is achieved comprise of “minor TAC adjustments” which are implemented annually, after updating an unstandardized CPUE trend with the latest data. The recent stock assessment has shown that the system has been effective in achieving exploitation rates consistent with an MSY strategy, and that it has maintained biomass at a level well above BMSY and PRI. Whereas no trigger- or limit reference points have been explicitly specified to reduce harvest rates when the PRI is approached, it is generally understood that declines in the CPUE (per island or depth zone) will initiate decreases in TAC levels, to reverse the decline towards the long-term average CPUE, as reference point. SG60 is met because the HCRs are available, and stock biomass has not previously been reduced below MSY, and has been maintained at that level for > 2 generation times (see SA2.5.2).

At the SG80 level, HCRs should ensure that the stock is likely to fluctuate around a level consistent with BMSY (or a level that has the same outcome – i.e. maintaining the productivity of the stock). HCRs should be ‘well-defined’ and should therefore explicitly include the conditions under which specific technical measures would be triggered. The HCR should exist in a written form that has been agreed by the management agency and stakeholders, and clearly state what management actions will be taken at which specific trigger reference point levels. One or more proxies should indicate, with confidence that it is likely that overfishing is not occurring. SG80 is not met, because explicit conditions under which clearly specified technical measures and management actions are triggered, agreed by stakeholders, could not be provided in a written agreement.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 50 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

HCRs robustness to uncertainty

The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main The HCRs take account of a wide range of b Guide uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of post the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Y N

Rationale

The long-term stability (indicated by stable CPUE trends and consistent annual landings) of the fishery under the present HCRs provides empirical evidence that the HCRs have been successful in the past, and that they are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties (i.e. that lobster abundance remains above levels consistent with an MSY- based harvest strategy; that recruitment is maintained so that the stock remains at a level >PRI). The HCRs take account of uncertainty by reducing the TAC when the CPUE (an indication of stock abundance) declines. The HCRs are applied to individual islands and depth zones, thus reducing the risk of local depletions. The recent stock assessment has shown that the system has been effective in achieving exploitation rates consistent with an MSY strategy, and that it has maintained biomass at a level well above BMSY and PRI. Based on the long-term information of stock status, combined with the outcome of the recent stock assessment, the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Factors that may have contributed to the long-term observed robustness of the HCRs are that the fishery is pursued by a single vessel (Austral), and that the fishing grounds are distant and geographically isolated – hence few other vessels would target the species there. Risks of IUU fishing are also closely monitored (see section 7.5.7). The HCRs are therefore likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, meeting SG80. SG100 is not met, despite a recent stock assessment (Selles, 2019d) in which quantitative simulation testing was used to test the robustness of the HCRs to uncertainty. In the assessment, HCR proxies B/BMSY = 1.0 and F/FMSY = 1.0 were used, and uncertainty incorporated by use of a Bayesian approach in a reference case scenario, and sensitivity tests to consider other scenarios. The approach towards assessing robustness to uncertainty is accepted, but SG100 cannot be met because at present HCRs are implicit within the Harvest Strategy (i.e. generally understood) rather than available in a written format.

HCRs evaluation

There is some evidence that tools used or Available evidence indicates that the tools in Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are c Guide available to implement HCRs are appropriate use are appropriate and effective in achieving effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation. the exploitation levels required under the required under the HCRs. post HCRs.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 51 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

As required evidence (see SA2.5.6) stock assessment modelling showed that long-term fishing mortality rate (F) remained below the level of F associated with MSY (FMSY) (Selles, 2019d). The median value of F/FMSY remained < 1.0 at both islands since 1995, indicating that the current level of exploitation is consistent with achieving a long- term MSY. There is therefore enough evidence to indicate that the tools in use (TAC adjustments) are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs (maintaining a stable long-term average CPUE consistent with an MSY-based fishing strategy; maintaining stock biomass above PRI), meeting SG60 and SG80. SG100 is not met because TAC adjustment is the only tool used, and the amount with which the TAC is adjusted relative to changes in stock biomass or harvest rates is not clearly specified. Hence, both HCRs and tools need to be better specified, and linked to exploitation rates.

References

Selles (2019d); TAAF (2019a)

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

More information sought

Information gap indicator Information is sought on the presence of a well-defined written agreement specifying HCRs and management actions, and how it links with the stock assessment process and how uncertainties such as the ecological role of the stock are taken into account.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) 1

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 52 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 5. PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information

Some relevant information related to stock Sufficient relevant information related to stock A comprehensive range of information (on structure, stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, fleet composition stock structure, stock productivity, fleet a Guide composition is available to support the harvest and other data are available to support the composition, stock abundance, UoA strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other information such as post environmental information), including

some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Sufficient relevant information is available to support the harvest strategy of the fishery - SG80 is met. The range of information available clearly meets SG60 (limited amount of information available and regularly monitored, sufficient to support HCR under likely stock hypotheses) and also SG80 (amount and quality of information on fishery removals is greater, incorporating data describing the level, size, age, sex and genetic structure of landings, discards, mortality rates of the target stock by location and method of capture). The information is available for the fishery as a whole, as follows: Stock structure (genetic): Apart from Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands, Jasus paulensis occurs on multiple seamounts in the Southern Indian Ocean (Romanov, 2003), and in the South Atlantic, notably at the Tristan da Cunha archipelago (Groeneveld et al., 2012). Populations that appeared to be isolated on remote seamounts (or islands), showed high connectivity through the wide dispersal of drifting larvae – measured as a lack of mitochondrial DNA differentiation. The results of a genetic analysis (see Groeneveld et al. (2012)) showed an apparent lack of barriers to dispersal and gene flow over thousands of kilometres of the southern Indian and Atlantic oceans, and concluded that Jasus tristani (Tristan da Cunha archipelago) and J. paulensis should be synonymized as J. paulensis (Heller, 1862) – which is the older name. Apart from receiving larvae from other locations, larval retention in eddies near seamounts and self-recruitment back to natal seamounts or nearby habitats have also been shown for J paulensis at Tristan da Cunha (Heyden et al., 2007). Jasus paulensis stocks therefore occur over a vast geographical range in southern temperate waters, where it is restricted to habitats on seamounts (or around islands) within a narrow depth range (< 400 m deep), with the resulting metapopulations connected through larval dispersal. Stock structure (size, age, sex structure of catches): Data collected by COPEC observers per trip and during scientific expeditions; voluminous long-term data shown in COPEC reports and on PECHEKER database, as summarized by Selles (2019a). Data hosted by MNHN.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 53 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Stock productivity: Fecundity and reproductive potential is known for J. paulensis from studies conducted at Tristan da Cunha archipelago (Pollock and Goosen, 1991; Glass, 2014). Tag-recapture data to estimate growth rates and migration are available from an ongoing research programme at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands (Selles, 2019a). Growth rates are also known from tagging studies at Tristan da Cunha (Pollock, 1991). The reliance (to date) on inferred fecundity and maturity information originating from Tristan da Cunha was considered to be ‘sufficient’ (i.e. SG80 met) rather than ‘comprehensive’ (SG100). UoA removals: All removals are recorded with high accuracy and captured on Avistock landings database. The data are verified by the captain and the observer. Fishing effort (number of fishing days and pots deployed per island and zone) is reported and georeferenced. Fleet composition: A single mothership with a restricted complement of canots and caseyeurs operate on coastal and offshore fishing grounds. The history of the fishing method and fishing capacity of the mothership and auxiliary vessels are well recorded. Other information that is not yet used include: benthic sampling; benthic camera footage; interactions with birds and marine mammals; details on gear loss; tagging information to assess migrations and growth rates. SG100 is not met because some of the stock productivity parameters (fecundity, size at maturity) are inferred from J. paulensis data collected at Tristan da Cunha, rather than using data collected locally at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. The inferred parameters qualify as ‘sufficient relevant information’ to support the Harvest Strategy, because the present stock assessment model (a Bayesian surplus production model) does not explicitly require estimates of fecundity or size at maturity. As a part of the present Harvest Strategy, the MLS of 56 mm CL conforms with the size-at-maturity estimates of J. paulensis at Tristan da Cunha (56 – 60 mm CL; Pollock and Goosen (1991), although lobster growth rates (and hence size at maturity) can vary both temporally and spatially. At present, a tag-recapture programme at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands is well advanced, providing data on local growth increments (Selles, 2019a). Nevertheless, more comprehensive data on fecundity and maturity is required to meet SG100.

Monitoring

Stock abundance and UoA removals are Stock abundance and UoA removals are All information required by the harvest monitored and at least one indicator is available regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and control rule is monitored with high b Guide and monitored with sufficient frequency to coverage consistent with the harvest control frequency and a high degree of certainty, support the harvest control rule. rule, and one or more indicators are available and there is a good understanding of post and monitored with sufficient frequency to inherent uncertainties in the information support the harvest control rule. [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty, thus meeting SG60, SG80 and SG100.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 54 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

All UoA removals are monitored, when catches are transferred from the canots and caseyeurs onto the mothership (i.e. daily, for each fishing trip) with high accuracy, and reported on Avistock. The products are sealed onboard, and must clear customs when offloaded in Reunion, where it is weighed again by independent quantity surveyors. Catch and effort data are recorded in an electronic logbook and uploaded to the PECHEKER database stored at MNHN. A COPEC observer and an RNN officer is on-board the vessel while fishing (100% coverage), with both scientific data collection and surveillance roles. Information is therefore monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty. Uncertainty in the data may arise from variations in lobster catchability, by sex, size class, fishing area, or fishing season. To account for the effects of season, island, area and year on lobster catchability – and hence on the CPUE and relative abundance estimates, a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was fitted to catch and effort data for the period 1980-2018 (Selles, 2019c). The model allowed for statistical quantification of the relative influences of individual factors, and their interactions. A standardized abundance trend, to correct for bias, was constructed, including estimation of uncertainty (95% CI limits). There is now a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] – allowing for robust assessment in relation to this uncertainty. In the present case, SG100 is met, based on good quality catch and effort information collected by onboard observers (i.e. stock abundance information), knowledge of the fishing fleet / gears and its operations across the stock as a whole, and an understanding of the uncertainties in the data used to construct abundance trends.

Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on all other fishery c removals from the stock. post

Met? Y

Rationale

No other removals reported (apart from a small recreational fishery by the scientific staff at Amsterdam Island; <3 t/yr), and given the geographic isolation of the fishing grounds, the presence of other fishing vessels on the grounds is unlikely. This scoring issue is met.

References

COPEC (2016), Glass (2014), Groeneveld et al. (2012), Pollock (1991), Pollock and Goosen (1991), Selles (2019a, 2019c), Heyden et al. (2007)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought Information gap indicator Information on size, sex and maturity to be provided at site visit

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 55 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 56 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 6. PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

a Guide The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for The assessment takes into account the the harvest control rule. major features relevant to the biology of post the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Y N

Rationale

The assessment covers two spatially separated sub-stocks of a single species (at Saint-Paul and at Amsterdam Island, respectively), and these two sub-stocks are assessed individually using a Bayesian state space surplus production model (Selles, 2019a, 2019c, 2019d). The assessment relies on a relative abundance index (CPUE assumed to be proportional to biomass) covering a 28-year period (1980-2018) for which accurate data are available, and the reference case of the model relied on uninformative priors of K (carrying capacity), r (intrinsic rate of population increase) and q (catchability) to capture uncertainty, and as output provided standard MSY-related biological reference points. Estimated reference points of the present fishing mortality (F) relative to F at MSY (F/FMSY) were used to assess trends in exploitation rate, and present biomass (B) relative to B at MSY (B/BMSY) was used to assess stock status trends. The assessment took uncertainty into account using a series of sensitivity tests, to investigate alternative scenarios of stock status. To explore the effects of alternative TAC levels, the model was used to predict the stock status as biomass depletion (B/K) for different TACs over a period of 10 years. The assessment is considered appropriate for the stock and the HCR, meeting SG80. SG 100 is not met because major features relevant to the biology of the species are not accounted for in models using data on size/age structure of the populations.

Assessment approach

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

Met? Y Y

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 57 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated, meeting SG60 and SG80. Stock status is estimated relative to long-term trends in a GLM standardized abundance index (standardized CPUE trend). The reference points used in the surplus production model are standard biological reference points related to MSY, and therefore appropriate. The assessment estimates stock status (B/BMSY) and exploitation rate (F/FMSY) relative to MSY.

Uncertainty in the assessment

The assessment identifies major sources of The assessment takes uncertainty into The assessment takes into account c Guide uncertainty. account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Uncertainty is taken into account at 2 levels – firstly as a standardization of the long-term CPUE trend to statistically correct for the effects of season, island, area and year on lobster catchability, and secondly through a sensitivity analysis, in which uncertainty was captured by refitting the reference case model over a range of informative priors for r (intrinsic rate of increase) which assume low and high resilience hypotheses, and fixed values for BMSY/K which cover structural hypotheses described by a range of different models. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because uncertainty in key indicators (such as stock recruitment relationship) are not evaluated.

Evaluation of assessment

The assessment has been tested and d Guide shown to be robust. Alternative

post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? N

Rationale

SG100 is not met because the assessment is recent (2019), needs to be fully tested, and alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have not yet been rigorously explored.

e Peer review of assessment

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 58 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guide The assessment of stock status is subject to peer The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. post review.

Met? N N

Rationale

SG80 cannot be met in full because there has been no formal peer-review yet.

References

Selles (2019a, 2019c, 2019d)

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

Draft scoring range 60 – 79

More information sought Information gap indicator Information is sought on whether a stock assessment has been developed for the fishery, and whether a peer-review process now exists.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) 2

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 59 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4 Principle 2

7.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2

Primary species (MSC Component 2.1) are defined as follows:

• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals; • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’.

Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2) are defined as follows:

• Species in the catch that are not covered under P1; • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria; • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below)

ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows:

• Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

Both primary and secondary species are defined as ‘main’ if they meet the following criteria:

• The catch comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; • The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history • The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only) • Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of bycatch species

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 60 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.2 Primary and Secondary species

Based on the retained catch data presented in Table 8 there are no non-target species that meet the definition of ‘Primary’. Two species are retained in the pot fishery alongside rock lobster: common octopus (Octopus vulgaris, also referred to as poulpe), and striped trumpeter (Latris lineata, or Saint- Paul). Neither species make up more than 5% of the total catch for the UoA.

Catches of octopus fluctuate widely from year to year and appear to depend on the timing of the fishing season, with up to 4.2 tonnes recorded on some trips, amounting to ca. 4% of the total catch (Table 8). On average, however, this species only makes up 0.85% of the total catch. Given that O. vulgaris is not considered as ‘less resilient’ (productivity score of 1.67), the team did not consider this species as main.

L. lineata are only caught in small quantities according to the COPEC reports, although the amount of retained catch (some of which will end up as bait) is not consistently recorded (discarding is not permitted as per the Arrêté N°2019-111). Note, however, that the total catch of this species across all fisheries prosecuted by the Austral is still minimal compared to the total catch of rock lobster (see Table 9, Section 7.2.3.4). In the absence of any stock assessments for this species, L. lineata was assessed as Secondary minor species.

As discussed in Section 7.2.3.3, the bait used in this fishery consists of toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), jack mackerel (Trachurus spp.) and wreckfish or cabot (Polyprion spp.), respectively corresponding to 10%, 10.2% and 0.2% of the total retained catch (for the trip ending January 2019).

The bulk of the toothfish stems from the MSC certified SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet fishery (des Clers et al., 2018), although some may come from the High Seas (SIOFA) area where the same client group (SARPC) may carry out fishing, albeit to a much smaller extent (and never by the Austral). On this basis, the Crozet and Kerguelen stocks were considered as ‘main’ as they are the key contributors to the toothfish used as bait in this fishery. Both stocks have stock assessments with reference points and management via TACs and were therefore considered as ‘Primary’. Any SIOFA-caught toothfish is likely to be used in smaller amounts, not exceeding the 5% threshold for ‘main’ species. As no stock assessments are carried out for the SIOFA area, the team considered these as Secondary minor species.

The jack mackerel used as bait is sourced from the New Zealand EEZ where three species of horse mackerel (also referred to as jack mackerel) are found with partially overlapping geographical distributions: Trachurus declivis, T. murphyi and T. novaezelandiae. The species are targeted by mainly midwater trawl or purse seine fisheries. The three species of New Zealand jack mackerel are managed under a Quota Management System (QMS) with the collective reporting code of JMA. Although separate species catch information is not available, estimates of proportions of the three Trachurus species in the catch are based on observer data and are used to apportion catches retrospectively. The JMA stocks are managed to default reference points (Figure 18) as set by the Harvest Strategy Standard (HSS) of New Zealand (MPINZ, 2013). Assessment of the status of jack mackerel is complicated by the reporting and management of the three species under a single code and assessments have not been carried out for all management areas. The bulk of the catch (ca. 75%), however, comes from JMA 7 which is routinely monitored for stock assessment purposes and where estimated species proportions have shown a dominance by T. declivis at 61–71% over twelve years of sampling, followed by T. novaezelandiae at 24–33% and T. murphyi at 3–8% (Horn et al., 2019). The most recent assessment was carried out by Horn et al. (2019) who suggested that T. novaezelandiae and T. declivis in JMA 7 are not overexploited, based on examinations of age distributions and instantaneous and natural mortality (Z, M). Previously, a stock assessment was carried out for T. declivis for JMA7 in 2007 using an age-based Bayesian stock assessment approach. The stock

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 61 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

assessment estimated that current biomass at the time was probably above BMSY, at 53% of B0. Based on the information available, the team considered the JMA fishery to meet the criteria for a main Primary species.

Figure 18. Jack mackerel default reference points, and the associated management response according to Jack Mackerel Fishery Plan 2013 – 2018 (MPINZ, 2013)

The third bait species, cabot (Polyprion spp.) is locally caught and at only 0.2% of the total retained catch, this species was not considered as main. In the absence of stock assessments or reference points, this species was assessed as Secondary minor.

A summary of the Primary and Secondary species scoring elements is provided in Section 7.4.6.

7.4.3 ETP species

The following instruments set out protection requirements for ETP species in the UoA area:

For the rock lobster fishery specifically, there is the Arrêté n° 2018-87 du 5 novembre 2018 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques : this regulation prohibits the targeting and landing of the following species and species groups (all individuals should be released alive if possible):

• Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii); • Sharks (except roughskin spurdog, Cirrhigaleus asper); • Rays

The regulation further requires any fishing activity to be conducted in such a way as not to affect in any way birds or marine mammals. In the event where there is an interaction with any of the above ETP species, the COPEC must complete a detailed report.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 62 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

For this assessment, the COPEC reports for trips carried out between 2014 and 2019 were provided to the assessment team. The information on ETP interactions was extracted and is summarised in Table 12. Although numerous observations of birds and marine mammals were made, no animals were found to interact with the fishery directly. For birds, the main interaction appears to be when birds crash land onto the mother vessel (often exacerbated by poor weather conditions); in the majority of cases, the individuals concerned either flew off immediately or were placed in a calming environment before release.

One COPEC report made reference to the accidental catch of a blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the pot fishery. There are no other records of shark catches in this fishery.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 63 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 12. Summary of interactions with pot fishery or observations of ETP species aboard the Austral (compiled from COPEC observer reports)

Trip Birds Marine mammals 12/11/2014 - 1 brown skua (Stercorarius antarcticus) observed on the bridge, unharmed 2 southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) observed at Saint-Paul; 11/01/2015 (eating bait) no interaction 1 storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) and 1 blue petrel (Halobaena - caerulea) on the bridge; released without problem 1 MacGillivray's Prion (Pachyptila macgillivrayi) on the bridge, flew off - immediately 05/02/2015 - 1 MacGillivray's Prion (Pachyptila macgillivrayi) on the bridge, flew off - 22/04/2015 immediately 27/11/2015 - 1 brown skua (Stercorarius antarcticus) observed on the bridge, unharmed - 22/01/2016 (eating bait) 1 Wilson's petrel (Oceanites oceanicus) found disoriented on the bridge; - released without problem 25/02/2016 – - Observed killer whales (Orcinus orca) but no interaction 13/05/2016 19/11/2016 - 1 Atlantic yellow-billed albatross (Diomedea chlororynchos); released - 11/01/2017 without problem 02/02/2017 – - - 06/04/2017 20/11/2017 - 1 shearwater (probably Puffinus assimilis) and 1 prion (probably Pachyptila Subtropical fur seals (Arctocephalus tropicalis) regularly observed 20/01/2018 macgillivrayi) found on deck ; released without a problem around the boat. No depredation observed. 1 white-bellied storm petrel (Fregetta grallaria) on deck ; released without Subtropical fur seals (Arctocephalus tropicalis) and killer whales (O. harm. orca) regularly observed around the boat. No depredation observed. 22/02/2018 – 4 MacGillivray's Prion; 1 flesh-footed shearwater (Puffinus carneipes); 1 Observed killer whales (Orcinus orca) but no interaction 11/05/2018 great-winged petrel (Pterodroma macroptera) found on the bridge; 4 were released without incident. 1 prion was released after treatment for oil contamination; status unclear. 1 prion was attacked by skua during release

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 64 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Trip Birds Marine mammals COPEC comment: numerous birds observed around boat that suffer effects from oil contamination (loss of feathers) probably due to oil discharge from boat. Exact number unknown (could be that the same birds were observed several times) 10/11/2018 - - - 19/01/2019 16/02/2019 - Found on deck (probably due to fog) : Observed killer whales (Orcinus orca) but no interaction 17/04/2019 - 1 flesh-footed shearwater (Puffinus carneipes); - 1 MacGillivray's Prion (Pachyptila macgillivrayi); - 2 little shearwater (Puffinus assimilis elegans); - 3 white-bellied storm petrel (Fregetta grallaria); - 3 Great-winged petrel (Pterodroma macroptera);

All released in good state.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 65 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.4 Habitats

To assess the UoA’s impacts on habitats, the area under consideration (or ‘managed area’ as per SA3.13.5 and associated guidance) is the combined EEZ of Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands.

7.4.4.1 Fishery footprint

The coastal fishery operates in the kelp zone close to the islands (< 70m depth). The fishery has implemented a voluntary closure between 50 and 70m depth where no pots are deployed. The deep fishery operates between 70 and 350m depth. For each trip, the COPEC observer records the amount of pots deployed in each fishery at each island. Trends in the number of pots deployed are available from 1980 onwards, as shown in Figure 19 for Amsterdam Island and Figure 20 for Saint-Paul Island.

All fishing vessels have geopositioning equipment which record the positions where pots were deployed. On the basis of these data, which are also reported in the COPEC report for each trip, the MNHN mapped the entire fishing footprint for the UoA (Figure 21). Note that to maintain data confidentiality, exact locations of pot deployments are not given. The actual area fished consists of discrete positions within the contours shown.

60000

50000

40000

30000 profonde cotiere 20000

10000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014 2016 2018 Figure 19. Number of pots deployed annually in the coastal (côtière) and deep (profonde) fishery off Amsterdam Island between 1980 and 2018. Data extracted from PECHEKER database by MNHN. Graph produced by CU Pesca.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 66 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

60000

50000

40000

30000 profonde cotiere 20000

10000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014 2016 2018 Figure 20. Number of pots deployed annually in the coastal (côtière) and deep (profonde) fishery off Saint- Paul Island between 1980 and 2018. Data extracted from PECHEKER database by MNHN. Graph produced by CU Pesca.

Figure 21. UoA fishing footprint for coastal and deep fisheries around Saint-Paul (including Banc Farce, in green) and Amsterdam Islands. Note that to maintain data confidentiality, exact locations of pot deployments are not given. The actual area fished consists of discrete positions within the contours shown. Source: MNHN

7.4.4.2 The benthic domain

The benthic domain around Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands extends over a wide bathymetric gradient, from the coast outwards, and is divided into zones with each zone corresponding to a vertical space where the ecological conditions are substantially constant (TAAF, 2017a). The zones which overlap with the fishery under assessment are described in TAAF (2017a) as well as in the synthesis compiled by the MNHN for this assessment (see Appendix 11) and are summarised below. Schematic representations are provided in Figure 22 and Figure 23. Note, all of this information is based on studies carried out some time ago and that have yet to be updated: Arnaud (1990), Beurois (1975) and Duhamel (1980).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 67 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Infralittoral zone (0 – 40m)

This is the zone below the low water tide mark, i.e. the upper level of the subtidal, and is characterised by:

• High algal cover in the upper level consisting mainly of Corallinaceae and Gigartinales as well as tufts of Splachnidium rugosum. Fauna includes isopods, amphipods and limpets; • A kelp zone consisting of Laminaria pallida with fauna consisting of mainly gastropods and polychaetes, as well as some bryozoans and sponges; • A giant kelp zone consisting of Macrocystis pyrifera and red algae with fauna including bryozoans, ascidians, hydrozoans, polychaetes, sponges, amphipods, isopods, echinoderms, sponges, molluscs as well as juvenile rock lobster; • There are occasional patches of sandy substrate between the kelp which are generally poor in fauna (mainly decapods, sea cucumbers and molluscs).

Circa-littoral zone (40 – 300m) The circa-littoral zone is marked by coralligenous habitat, with branching bryozoans (Turbicellepora as well as other genera) present between 40 and 80m depth (these are particularly abundant to the north of Amsterdam Island). Other fauna include epifaunal foraminifera, sponges, ascidians, polychaetes and hydrozoans. From 70 – 80m depth, the habitat is characterized by colonial soft coral (e.g. Acanthogorgia) and antipatharians or black coral (e.g. Antipathes subpinnata that forms ‘forests’ around both islands). There are also hard corals or scleractinians such as Caryophyllia profunda and Desmophyllum cristagalli. Around both islands, there are patches of mobile sediment in between the hard substrate, which are here also, generally poor in fauna. Bathyal zone (shelf and slope between 300 and 2000m) This zone is the least well known for Amsterdam and Saint-Paul Islands as no mapping has been carried out. As is the case for Kerguelen and Crozet, it is highly likely that communities consist of VME indicator species such as scleractinians D. cristagali, C. profunda, Madrepora oculate and Lophelia pertusa.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 68 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 22. Zonation around Amsterdam Island and overlap with rock lobster habitat according to Beurois (1975).

Figure 23. Benthic habitat mapping stemming from Cap-Horn research campaign (Duhamel, 1980).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 69 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.4.3 Data collection

In 2016, the MNHN has started a habitat mapping programme via the observers. Along the same lines as the system put in place at Kerguelen and Crozet to respond to MSC conditions for the toothfish fishery (desClers et al., 2018). All the benthic species brought up in the trap are brought back to the vessel for identification and photographing, and if necessary, saved in alcohol for further taxonomic and genetic work by the MNHN. The purpose is to evaluate the likely impact of the traps on benthic ecosystems, and on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) (as identified by indicator species such as sponges and cold-water corals), as well as to undertake taxonomic and genetic work (‘barcoding’) on benthic species, which are not well studied in this area.

This benthic protocol was implemented for the first time in the first trip of the 2016-17 season. While the protocol initially called for benthic samples to be taken from one string per day (not to take up too much time), in practice benthic bycatch was sufficiently low that all individuals could be dealt with. In the majority of cases, the benthic organisms collected are gastropods although on one occasion some black coral (Antipatharia) was also brought up. The observation was made, however, that pots are an inadequate means of collecting data on benthos and that bias is added at the point of hauling, when there is a tendency to only retain ‘remarkable’ benthic specimens such as corals. According to the most recent COPEC report (trip end January 2019), insufficient data are available from this programme to provide meaningful input into the MNHN database.

A second habitat mapping programme is underway at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam with the use of submerged cameras deployed from the Austral and its dependent vessels. Camera deployment appears to be restricted to depths of less than 120m due to light requirements. The presence of strong currents or Macrocystis beds are further limiting factors.

None of the data stemming from the above studies have yet been analysed or mapped.

7.4.4.4 Impact assessment

Although there is some information about the distribution of habitats in the UoA area, the team decided at the ACDR stage that insufficient information was available to enable the quantitative analysis of UoA impact on the habitats encountered needed to apply the default assessment tree. A precautionary view was therefore taken to apply the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) as per Table 3 of the MSC FCPv2.1.

The RBF workshop took place during the site visit over one day (see Appendix 2 for detail on participants). Prior to the workshop, the assessment team distributed a translated information pack containing details on the scope of the assessment, management system, monitoring and the RBF process for scoring Habitats Outcome, the CSA (Consequence Scale Analysis) – this document is available upon request.

The outputs of the RBF workshop are given in Appendix 8, with the scoring feeding directly into the Habitats Outcome PI (Scoring table 16).

7.4.5 Ecosystem

The fauna and flora of the TAAF are characterised by pronounced endemism, strong trophic relationships between the marine and terrestrial domains, high productivity of the marine environment and extreme isolation. 47 species of seabirds, 3 pinnipeds and 6 cetaceans regularly breed on the islands within this region.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 70 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Saint-Paul and Amsterdam are both volcanic islands with a very narrow shelf area, extending out up to 2nm for Amsterdam and up to 8nm for Saint-Paul. The shelf area is therefore entirely within territorial waters; the rest of the EEZ rapidly drops down to depths of more than 1000m (Figure 24). This is except for the Banc Farce which is an underwater volcano with a summit at 72m depth, 16nm to the south-east of Saint-Paul (and which is included in the UoA). Both islands are located north of the subtropical convergence where subantarctic surface waters sink under the warmer subtropical water layer, resulting in an abrupt warming of the surface waters of approximately 4 to 5°C. These waters move rapidly from a temperature of 10-12°C south of the convergence, to a temperature of 14-16°C to the north. On average, this convergence is located during the austral summer around 40- 41°S latitude. In winter, it rises a few degrees to the north and reaches the two islands, thus causing the cooling of their waters during this season (Delépine et al., 1963). The strong ocean dynamics around these fronts are essential elements that condition the production and biodiversity patterns in this area (TAAF, 2017a).

Figure 24. Bathymetric map of Amsterdam (North) and Saint-Paul (South) islands. Red line: EEZ limit. (Source: TAAF (2016))

The Amsterdam and Saint-Paul islands are the least studied amongst the TAAF islands. Any data stem from fisheries that operate in these areas and are therefore generally limited to the mesopelagic domain, with 72 species observed around the islands and most of the biomass made up of mesopelagic myctophids or lanternfishes, although large pelagics such as tunas and billfishes are also present. The pelagic domain has close links with benthic communities, with for example many benthic species having a pelagic larval stage, or acting as a food source for pelagic fish or marine mammals (TAAF, 2017a); however, all these interactions remain to be studied in greater detail. In contrast, the ecosystems of the Subantarctic archipelagos of Crozet and Kerguelen are much better known as these islands have been the focus of research programmes such as POKER and PIGE led by the MNHN over several years. For Amsterdam and Saint-Paul, improved ecosystem data collection is one of the focal points of the 2018-2027 RNN management plan (TAAF, 2017a); however, to date, relatively little information is available for analytical purposes.

Owing to the paucity of information, the team determined that insufficient information was available to support an analysis of the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. As per Table 3 of the MSC FCPv2.1, the Risk-Based Framework was thus triggered. The RBF workshop took place during the site visit over half a day (see Appendix 2 for detail on participants). Prior to the workshop, the assessment team distributed a translated information pack containing details on the scope of the assessment, management system, monitoring and the RBF process for scoring Ecosystem Outcome, the SICA (Consequence Intensity Scale Analysis) – this document is available upon request.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 71 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The outputs of the RBF workshop are given in Appendix 8, with the scoring feeding directly into the Ecosystem Outcome PI (Scoring table 19).

7.4.6 Ghost fishing

Ghost fishing is addressed separately in this report as it may affect each Principle 2 component in a different manner, either through continued fishing, entanglement (impacting on Primary, Secondary or ETP species), direct habitat damage (impacting on Habitats) or through the introduction of non- biodegradable waste in the ecosystem (impacting on Ecosystem).

Gear loss is monitored for each trip. In both the coastal and deep fishery, any pot losses would concern single pots as it is considered rare to lose an entire line. According to the COPEC reports, on average 17 and 14 pots are lost per trip in the coastal and deep fishery respectively, although from Figure 25 it is clear that this number can be higher for any given area/island/year combination.

120

100

60 Banc Farce 40 Deep 20 Coastal

Saint Paul Saint Paul Saint Paul Saint Paul Saint Paul Saint

Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 25. Annual pot losses (number) in the Saint-Paul and Amsterdam rock lobster fishery. Data shown by island and fishery type (coastal/deep). No pots were lost on the Banc Farce. Data from PECHEKER, provided by MNHN.

A description of both pot types used in this fishery is provided in Section 7.2.2. The pots used in the coastal, shallow fishery are constructed of predominantly wooden, biodegradable, material, as well as nylon mesh and a plastic funnel (Figure 5). According to site visit interviews, any pots that are lost are unlikely to remain whole for long because of the rocky seabed and strong currents.

The pots deployed in deeper waters are constructed of stronger materials, consisting of an iron frame, rigid and flexible plastic mesh, and a plastic funnel. Although the iron frame will corrode over time, this is likely to be a slow process as the metal has been given anti-rust treatment. None of the other materials are biodegradable.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 72 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.7 Scoring elements

Based on the analysis presented in the preceding sections, the following Principle 2 scoring elements were identified:

Table 13. Principle 2 scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient P1 Rock lobster (langouste) Jasus paulensis N/a No Crozet toothfish (légine) Dissostichus eleginoides Main No Primary Kerguelen toothfish (légine) Dissostichus eleginoides Main No species Trachurus declivis, T. murphyi, Horse mackerel Main No T. novaezelandiae Striped trumpeter (Saint-Paul) Latris lineata Minor Yes Saint-Paul’s fingerfin (bleu) Nemadactylus monodactylus Minor Yes Secondary Common octopus (poulpe) Octopus vulgaris Minor Yes species Wreckfish (cabot) Polyprion spp. Minor Yes SIOFA toothfish (légine) Dissostichus eleginoides Minor Yes Stercorarius antarcticus Hydrobates pelagicus Halobaena caerulea Pachyptila macgillivrayi Oceanites oceanicus Seabirds N/a No Diomedea chlororynchos Puffinus assimilis ETP species Fregetta grallaria Puffinus carneipes Pterodroma macroptera Eubalaena australis Marine mammals Orcinus orca N/a No Arctocephalus tropicalis Sharks and rays Prionace glauca N/a No Commonly encountered N/a (RBF) N/a (RBF) Yes Habitats VME N/a (RBF) N/a (RBF) Yes

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 73 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 7. PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main primary species stock status

Main primary species are likely to be above Main primary species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that main the PRI. above the PRI. primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with OR OR MSY. Guide If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the PRI, there is either a post measures in place that are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective that the UoA does not hinder recovery and strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which rebuilding. categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – N Met? Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – N Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel – N

Rationale

Based on the retained catch data presented in Table 8, there are no non-target species that meet the definition of ‘Primary’; however, some of the bait consists of toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) and jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis, T. murphyi and T. novaezelandiae) both at ca. 10% of total retained catch (see Section 7.4.2) and both were considered as main Primary species by the team. Toothfish: the bulk of the toothfish stems from the MSC certified SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet fishery (des Clers et al., 2018), which both have stock assessments with reference points and management via TACs. The following is an extract from des Clers et al. (2018) and remains relevant: For both the Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish stocks CCAMLR’s framework for reference points is used to evaluate stock status. The point at which recruitment is impaired is defined as 20% of the virgin (pre-exploitation) biomass (B0).

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 74 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Kerguelen: The most recent assessment estimates the 2017 biomass to be at 60.7% of B0 with a 95% credible interval of (58.5 – 62.8) (Sinegre et al., 2017a)

Crozet: The most recent assessment estimates the 2017 biomass to be 66% of B0 with a credible interval of (63.1-70.4) (Sinegre et al., 2017b).

Since the estimate of the 2017 biomass is well above the 20% B0 value it is highly likely that the stocks are above their respective PRIs and SG60 and SG80 are met. The assessment on which the estimates are based have several uncertainties: - There are no fisheries-independent data that would help to calibrate the UoA2-Crozet model; - Depredation rate estimates are currently still uncertain and may affect the biomass estimates; - The model is not able to estimate recruitment deviations without a strong assumption of stationarity. Therefore, it is not possible to say that there is a high degree of certainty that the stocks are above the point where recruitment would be impaired and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG100 is not met Jack mackerel: as explained in Section 7.4.2, the bait is sourced from the New Zealand EEZ where three species of jack mackerel are found with partially overlapping geographical distributions: Trachurus declivis, T. murphyi and T. novaezelandiae. The species are targeted by mainly midwater trawl or purse seine fisheries and are managed under a Quota Management System (QMS) with the collective reporting code of JMA. The bulk of the catch (ca. 75%), comes from JMA 7 which is routinely monitored for stock assessment purposes and where estimated species proportions have shown a dominance by T. declivis at 61–71% over twelve years of sampling, followed by T. novaezelandiae at 24–33% and T. murphyi at 3–8% (Horn et al., 2019). The most recent assessment was carried out by Horn et al. (2019) who suggested that T. novaezelandiae and T. declivis in JMA 7 are not overexploited, based on examinations of age distributions and instantaneous and natural mortality (Z, M). Previously, a stock assessment was carried out for T. declivis for JMA7 in 2007 using an age-based Bayesian stock assessment approach. The stock assessment estimated that current biomass at the time was probably above BMSY, at 53% of B0. On that basis, the species is considered highly likely to be above the PRI. In any case, the UoA uses up to 0.1% annually of the overall catch of this fishery and is therefore highly unlikely to hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met owing to the uncertainty associated with the three species that are considered as a single management unit. As both stocks are solely purchased for bait, there is no unobserved mortality by the UoA.

Minor primary species stock status

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

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

Met? N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 75 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Rationale

There are no minor primary species. Not relevant.

References

COPEC observer report (trip ending January 2019); des Clers et al. (2018), Sinegre et al. (2017a, 2017b), Horn et al. (2019), Langley et al. (2016) and MPINZ (2013)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought Information gap indicator - Stock status information on Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish stems from des Clers et al. (2018) and should be updated at the site visit.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 76 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 8. PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in place for the UoA, if There is a partial strategy in place for the UoA, if There is a strategy in place for the UoA for Guide necessary, that are expected to maintain or to necessary, that is expected to maintain or to not managing main and minor primary not hinder rebuilding of the main primary hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to species. a post species at/to levels which are likely to be levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI.

above the PRI. Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Met? Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - N

Rationale

Toothfish: A global strategy, updated annually (TAAF, 2017b), sets the rules of fishing activities in the French EEZs of Kerguelen and Crozet and defines the objective of ensuring long-term conservation and optimal use of fishing resources in the EEZs, in order to achieve the maximum sustainable yield. The strategy consists of limited entry into the fishery (SAPMER is part of the Client Group that has access to this fishery) and for toothfish a harvest control rule consisting of a fixed TAC to satisfy two conditions:

a) that the risk of the SSB falling below B20% is less than 10% in 20 years

b) that the probability of the SSB falling below B50% in 35 years is 50% Due to the prohibition of fishing in the area <500m, juvenile toothfish are protected, and the reproductive capacity of the stock is not impaired. Simulations are run to identify a TAC conditioned on the current biomass that satisfies these conditions for both Crozet and Kerguelen stocks (des Clers et al., 2018). The team therefore concluded that a strategy is in place for both stocks and SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Jack mackerel: The three species of New Zealand horse mackerel are managed under a Quota Management System (QMS) with the collective reporting code of JMA. Landings are monitored by Fisheries New Zealand and a TACC is in place, with some stock assessments conducted periodically (Section 7.4.2). Furthermore, the bait use for these species by the UoA amounted to ~21 tonnes during the trip ending in January 2019. Even at double this amount (to account for two trips per year), this is a fraction of the total TACC for Trachurus spp. in NZ waters of 60 547 tonnes. This can therefore be considered a partial strategy but not a full strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 77 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence that Testing supports high confidence that the Guide based on plausible argument (e.g., general the measures/partial strategy will work, based on partial strategy/strategy will work, based b post experience, theory or comparison with similar some information directly about the fishery and/or on information directly about the fishery fisheries/species). species involved. and/or species involved.

Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Met? Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - N

Rationale

Toothfish: For Crozet and Kergelen toothfish, the various measures included in the strategy have been able to keep the SSB above the reference point of 50% B0, as the SSB(2017) is above 60% of B0, according to the assessment of both stocks. The assessments show that the biomass has stabilized above the target level following a period of decline before effective management was introduced (Sinegre et al., 2017a, 2017b). The TACs for each stock are tested in a stochastic forward projection for 35 years to show that management is expected to result in sustainable exploitation. This constitutes testing, providing high confidence that the strategy will work. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met for both stocks. Jack mackerel: The bait use for the jack mackerel species by the UoA amounted to ~21 tonnes during the trip ending in January 2019. Even at double this amount (to account for two trips per year), this is a fraction of the total TACC for Trachurus spp. in NZ waters of 60,547 tonnes, providing an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 are met. In the absence of testing, SG100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation

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

Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Met? Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Jack mackerel - Y Jack mackerel - N

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 78 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Toothfish: The TAC for either stock has not been exceeded (des Clers et al., 2018) and biomass is highly likely to be above the PRI (PI 2.1.1). SG80 and SG100 are met. Jack mackerel: Based on the low level of bait use versus the TACC for Trachurus spp. in NZ waters, it can be assumed that the UoA is highly unlikely to contribute to any TACC overshoots. This provides some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. This is not clear evidence however, so SG100 is not met.

Shark finning

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

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

None of the Primary species are sharks; this scoring issue is not relevant.

Review of alternative measures

There is a review of the potential effectiveness There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential and practicality of alternative measures to effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of e Guide minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- post catch of main primary species. unwanted catch of main primary species and related mortality of unwanted catch of all they are implemented as appropriate. primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

All of the Primary species under consideration are bait species and are used in full by the UoA and are targeted by the source fisheries (MPINZ, 2013; Horn et al., 2019). There is no unwanted catch of these species by the UoA. This scoring issue is not relevant.

References

COPEC observer report (trip ending January 2019); des Clers et al. (2018), Sinegre et al. (2017a, 2017b), Horn et al. (2019) and MPINZ (2013)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 79 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Draft scoring range 100

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score this PI

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

Scoring elements Score

Kerguelen toothfish 100

Crozet toothfish 100

Jack mackerel 80

Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 80 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 9. PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy PI 2.1.3 to manage primary species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and is estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and is adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty primary species with respect to status. UoA on the main primary species with the impact of the UoA on main primary species respect to status. with respect to status. OR a Guide OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: post If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility Some quantitative information is adequate attributes for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

All of the Primary species identified are bait species. The COPEC observers (Contrôleurs de pêche) record the amount of bait used for each species during each trip. Quantitative information is therefore available to assess the impact of the UoA on the stocks concerned with a high degree of certainty (see 2.1.1). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are therefore met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

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

Met? N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 81 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Rationale

In the absence of any minor primary species, this scoring issue is not relevant.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to support measures Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a strategy to c Guide to manage main primary species. partial strategy to manage main primary manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high post species. degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Kerguelen toothfish – Y Met? Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Crozet toothfish – Y Jack mackerel – Y Jack mackerel – Y Jack mackerel - N

Rationale

Toothfish: For both the Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish stocks, a strategy is in place and testing is carried out to determine whether the strategy is achieving its objective (see 2.1.2). The fishery client that uses these stocks as bait (SAPMER) also takes part in the fishery targeting both stocks and is therefore subject to the management and monitoring requirements that apply, including compulsory logbooks, cross-checked with COPEC data (stemming from observer coverage of all vessels and 25% of all lines hauled) and 100% dock-side monitoring (see des Clers et al. (2018) for further detail). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met for both stocks. Jack mackerel: The amount of Trachurus used as bait in this fishery is known. The low level of bait use versus the TACC for these species in New Zealand waters is the key element of the UoA’s partial strategy to manage impacts on these species. Given that bait use is monitored, the information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage the UoA’s impact on this species. SG60 and SG80 are met. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the management of Trachurus in NZ waters (all species being managed as a single unit), the information is not adequate to support a full strategy. SG100 is not met.

References

COPEC observer report (trip ending January 2019); des Clers et al. (2018), Horn et al. (2019)

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

Draft scoring range 100

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score this PI

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 82 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Scoring elements Score

Kerguelen toothfish 100

Crozet toothfish 100

Jack mackerel 90

Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 83 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 10. PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main secondary species stock status

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

If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based limits, there is measures in place expected to ensure that either evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective partial strategy in rebuilding. place such that the UoA does not hinder a Guide recovery and rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no main secondary species for this fishery (see Section 7.4.2). This scoring issue is not relevant.

b Minor secondary species stock status

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 84 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. Guide OR post If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? N

Rationale

Minor secondary species are (see Section 7.4.2 for detail): - Striped trumpeter (Saint-Paul) - Latris lineata - Common octopus (poulpe) - Octopus vulgaris - Wreckfish (cabot) - Polyprion spp. - SIOFA toothfish (légine) - Dissostichus eleginoides In the absence of stock assessments for any of these species, the RBF would be required for their assessment; however, the RBF was not applied to any minor species. The score for this PI is therefore capped at 80.

References

COPEC observer reports

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

Draft scoring range 80

More information sought Information gap indicator - Discard data on Secondary species to be provided - Information on gear loss and likelihood of ghost fishing to be discussed at the site visit.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 85 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 86 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 11. PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and PI 2.2.2 the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for the UoA for which are expected to maintain or not hinder for the UoA that is expected to maintain or not managing main and minor secondary species. a Guide rebuilding of main secondary species at/to hinder rebuilding of main secondary species

post levels which are highly likely to be above at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. UoA does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Y (default) Y (default) N

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species, SG60 and 80 are met by default. As far as the team is aware, although some TACs are in place, there is no full strategy in place to manage any of the minor secondary species. SG100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the b Guide based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with similar based on some information directly about the information directly about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. species involved.

Met? Y (default) Y (default) N

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species, SG60 and 80 are met by default. In the absence of testing for any of the minor species, SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 87 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Met? Y (default) N

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species, SG80 is met by default. For the minor species, according to the Arrêté n° 2019-111, any bycatch caught in the pot fishery, must be retained and counted in weight and number in the logbook. Previous COPEC observer reports have made mention of some, albeit minimal, discarding taking place and that this was not recorded at the time. This suggests that the Arrêté may not be consistently implemented when it comes to minor secondary species. Although site visit interviews confirmed that discarding ceased as of the 2017/18 season, the team considered that this is insufficient evidence for SG100 to be met. A recommendation is made here for the COPEC observer to ascertain that all bycatches are systematically retained and recorded as required by the Arrêté n° 2019-111 (see Section 5.4).

Shark finning

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

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

None of the Secondary species identified are sharks. Other than the roughskin spurdog, Cirrhigaleus asper, all sharks are considered as ETP (see Section 7.4.3). None of the COPEC observer reports cite interactions with C. asper. This scoring issue is therefore not relevant.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

There is a review of the potential effectiveness There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential e and practicality of alternative measures to effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative Guide minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted measures to minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of post catch of main secondary species. mortality of unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species, and secondary species and they are they are implemented, as appropriate.

implemented as appropriate.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 88 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

According to the Arrêté n° 2019-111, any fish bycatch caught in the pot fishery, must be retained and counted in weight and number in the logbook and must be commercialized (with the exception of fish heads (“inedible parts”) that can be used as bait). On this basis, there is no unwanted catch and this scoring issue is not relevant.

References

COPEC observer reports Arrêté n° 2019-111 du 24 Octobre 2019 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought Information gap indicator Further information sought on discarding of secondary species

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 89 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 12. PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and the impact of the UoA on the main secondary and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA adequate to assess with a high degree of species with respect to status. on main secondary species with respect to certainty the impact of the UoA on main status. secondary species with respect to status. OR a Guide OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: post If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information is adequate to main secondary species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

According to the Arrêté n° 2019-111, any bycatch caught in the pot fishery, must be retained and counted in weight and number in the logbook. Previous COPEC observer reports have made mention of some, albeit minimal, discarding taking place and that this was not recorded at the time. This suggests that the Arrêté may not be consistently implemented when it comes to secondary species. Although site visit interviews confirmed that discarding ceased as of the 2017/18 season, the team considered that this is insufficient evidence for SG60, SG80 and SG100 to be met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

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

Met? N

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 90 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Rationale

None of the minor secondary species have stock assessments. SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a strategy c Guide manage main secondary species. strategy to manage main secondary species. to manage all secondary species, and evaluate post with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y (default) Y (default) N

Rationale

In the absence of main secondary species, SG60 and SG80 are met by default. As above, sufficient information is not available on all secondary species. SG100 is not met.

References

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

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Information gap indicator Further information sought on discarding and management of all secondary species. RBF to be completed during site visit

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 91 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 13. PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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

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

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No limits have been set for any of the ETP species identified. This scoring issue is therefore not scored.

Direct effects

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

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 92 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

consistency of the data are then controlled by the COPEC observer and RNN agent. Furthermore, a minimum of 3 pots per day from the coastal fishery and 1 – 2 pots from the deep fishery are not sorted aboard the auxiliary vessels but are instead sorted by the COPEC to sample undersized lobster and bycatch. Any interaction with an ETP species is required to be reported by the COPEC through a ‘compte rendu’, followed by a telephone call to the TAAF, after which management decisions are taken as required (e.g. to stop the fishery; however this has never happened for the rock lobster fishery where ETP interactions are not considered problematic – it is more relevant to the Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish fisheries which have the potential for significant seabird bycatch and marine mammal depredation events). According to the COPEC observer reports, although numerous observations were made of ETP species, none of these were actual interactions with the pot fishery. On that basis, known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species and SG60 is met. Although observer coverage is not 100%, this is still a closely observed fishery and has been so over at least the last 20 years. The observer records, as well as site visit interviews with former COPEC observers and RNN personnel, confirm that this fishery does not interact in any significant way with any of the ETP species identified. Direct effects are therefore highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met. Because of the slight gap in observer coverage aboard the auxiliary vessels, SG100 is not met. Note on ghost fishing: unobserved mortality of ETP species related to ghost fishing or entanglement caused by lost pots was taken into consideration by the team. Gear loss is monitored for each trip. In both the coastal and deep fishery, any pot losses would concern single pots as it is considered rare to lose an entire line (this was confirmed by the captain and crew interviewed at the site visit). According to the COPEC reports, on average 17 and 14 pots are lost per trip in the coastal and deep fishery respectively, although as explained in Section 7.4.6 it is clear that this number can be higher for any given area/island/year combination. In the coastal fishery, pots are made of wooden and predominantly biodegradable material and the strong coastal currents would mean that any lost pots would break up quickly. The risk of entanglement or ghost fishing is therefore considered low. For the deep fishery, the pots are made of sturdier non-biodegradable materials are therefore likely to persist in the environment. Nonetheless, continued ghost fishing by these pots is unlikely because any remaining bait would rapidly disappear. Entanglement of ETP species is also of low risk as it is generally a single pot that is lost, not an entire line. Overall, the team considered that any unobserved mortality of ETP species related to gear loss would be highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species, meeting SG80. SG100 is not met because this has not been specifically studied in this fishery and there is therefore no high degree of confidence.

Indirect effects

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

Birds – Y Birds – N Met? Marine mammals – Y Marine mammals – N Sharks and rays - Y Sharks and rays - N

Rationale

Seabirds : The fishery has a number of provisions to keep potential indirect impacts as low as possible, such as through the controlled discharge of waste including offal, monitoring of bait for hooks that may still be present (this is regularly reported on in the COPEC observer reports) and dimming of the vessel lights at night to avoid interactions. There are some reported cases of birds being affected by oil discharged from the Austral, resulting in loss of feathers. The occurrence of this, however, appears

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 93 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

to be sporadic with only a small number of reports of this kind found in the observer reports. It is highly unlikely that oil contamination from the Austral is having unacceptable population-level impacts on bird species. SG80 is therefore met. Without systematic monitoring of this issue, however, there can be no high degree of confidence. SG100 is not met. Marine mammals: According to the COPEC observer reports, there are no interactions, direct or indirect, between the pot fishery and marine mammals. Indirect effects are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts. SG80 is met. Because potential indirect effects have not been explicitly considered in research activities, there is no high degree of confidence and SG100 is not met. Sharks and rays: as for marine mammals.

References

COPEC observer reports.

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

Draft scoring range 60 - 79

More information sought - Further information on the COPEC observer protocol is required so that SG80 and 100 may be scored Information gap indicator definitively (for example, what is the observer coverage for the actual fishing vessels – the canots and the caseyeurs? Are interactions at that point recorded in any way?). Information on gear loss and likelihood of interactions with ETP species to be discussed at the site visit.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 94 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 14. PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

There are measures in place that minimise the There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are UoA’s impact on ETP species, including for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP a Guide expected to be highly likely to achieve national measures to minimise mortality, which is species, including measures to minimise and international requirements for the protection designed to be highly likely to achieve national mortality, which is designed to achieve post of ETP species. and international requirements for the above national and international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The Décret no 2016-1700 du 12 décembre 2016 portant extension et modification de la réglementation de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises sets out the general protection requirements for the RNN (extended into the marine zone as of 2016) and prohibits any marine fauna and flora to be affected, removed or disturbed, except where permitted fishing activities are concerned. More generally, this regulation provides complete protection for any birds or marine mammals (except under derogation for scientific purposes) and prohibits any targeted fisheries for sharks or rays. For the rock lobster specifically, there is the Arrêté n° 2019-111 which prohibits the targeting and landing of ETP species (all individuals should be released alive if possible). The regulation further requires any fishing activity to be conducted in such a way as not to affect in any way birds or marine mammals. In the event where there is an interaction with any of the above ETP species, the COPEC must complete a detailed report as explained in 2.3.1. The above requirements on ETP species, combined with the requirement set out in Arrêté n° 2018-87 to accept on-board a fishing controller (contrôleur de pêche) who monitors compliance with regulations and collects scientific data during the entire trip, as well as an agent of the nature reserve (agent de la réserve naturelle) who monitors implementation of environmental protocols and monitoring, constitute a strategy which meet the below MSC definition:

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 95 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. SG60 and SG80 are met. As previously mentioned, however, there are some gaps in observer coverage aboard the auxiliary vessels. For this reason, the team considered the strategy not to be sufficiently comprehensive. SG100 is not met.

Management strategy in place (alternative)

There are measures in place that are expected to There is a strategy in place that is expected to There is a comprehensive strategy in place b Guide ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery for managing ETP species, to ensure the post ETP species. of ETP species. UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species.

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

This scoring issue should only be scored if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. This is not the case here so this scoring issue is not applicable.

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, There is an objective basis for confidence that The strategy/comprehensive strategy is c Guide based on plausible argument (e.g., general the measures/strategy will work, based on mainly based on information directly about experience, theory or comparison with similar information directly about the fishery and/or the fishery and/or species involved, and a post fisheries/species). the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Given the absence of direct interactions with ETP species reported in the COPEC observer reports, there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working. SG60 and SG80 are met. As previously mentioned, however, there are some gaps in observer coverage aboard the auxiliary vessels which means there is no high confidence that the strategy will work. SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 96 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management strategy implementation

There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the d Guide measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving post its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Y N

Rationale

Given the absence of direct interactions with ETP species reported in the COPEC observer reports, there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is likely met. For the same reason given in scoring issue c, SG100 is not met.

Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

There is a review of the potential effectiveness There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential e Guide and practicality of alternative measures to effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species. measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- post ETP species and they are implemented as related mortality ETP species, and they appropriate. are implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

There are several occasions when the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species is considered by the UoA: - Any interaction with an ETP species is required to be reported by the COPEC through a ‘compte rendu’, followed by a telephone call to the TAAF, after which management decisions are taken as required (e.g. to stop the fishery; however as discussed above, this has not yet occurred in this fishery where ETP interactions are not considered problematic). - A briefing takes place after each trip between SAPMER, the captain and key crew members where operational matters are discussed, including any bycatch/ETP interaction events. - At TAAF, there are the C2P meetings and the GTPL (Groupe Travail Pêche Langouste). The GTPL includes representatives from the 4 ministries involved in this fishery (Ministère des Outre-Mer, Min. de l’Environnement, Min Agriculture, Min. des Affaires Etrangères), the TAAF, SAPMER and scientists (e.g. from MNHN). The GTPL discusses

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 97 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

issues that were encountered during the year’s campaign and elaborates new proposed management measures (such as the adoption of the zones de protection renforcée as has been done for Kerguelen). This group has some overlap with the C2P although the latter focuses on the technical and operational aspects of the fishery and does not participate in any decision-making. However, matters that are discussed at the C2P can be escalated to the GTPL. - The technical measures for the fishery are re-issued every year, which provides the opportunity for new management measures to be introduced as required. Examples of new measures introduced as a result of COPEC reports (which were discussed at subsequent briefings and meetings) include the requirement for all organic waste from the Austral to be ground up prior to discharging at least 5nm from land, and the strict restrictions on night-time lighting aboard the Austral to minimize seabird interactions. - Finally, the MNHN also does a yearly review (bilan de l’année) after which it provides its scientific advice to the decision-making entity (the Prefet). Overall, the team considered that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality ETP species is reviewed at least annually and that management measures are implemented as required. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

References

COPEC observer reports Décret no 2016-1700 du 12 décembre 2016 portant extension et modification de la réglementation de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises Arrêté n° 2019-111 du 24 Octobre 2019 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques

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

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Further information is required on the COPEC observer protocol (especially regarding the monitoring of Information gap indicator ETP interactions aboard the actual fishing vessels - the canots and the caseyeurs) More information is sought on whether there is a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 98 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 15. PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is adequate to Quantitative information is available to assess the UoA related mortality on ETP species. assess the UoA related mortality and impact with a high degree of certainty the magnitude and to determine whether the UoA may be a of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries OR threat to protection and recovery of the ETP and the consequences for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species. a Guide Qualitative information is adequate to estimate OR post productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The COPEC reports are drafted for each trip by a contrôleur de pêche (COPEC) (with input from the RNN agent) who monitors 100% of the catch that comes onboard the Austral, although not all fishing activities are systematically monitored. The COPEC observer and RNN agent are, however, asked to board the auxiliary vessels as often as possible and do so using a risk-based approach. Because the canots are smaller, the observers usually do not board these; however, the fishing activities can be observed from the Austral – the caseyeurs are therefore most often prioritised. At a minimum, the fishing data from the auxiliary vessels (positions, discarded bycatch, mammals and bird interactions) are collected by the crew and reported in the fishery logbook. The crew do not receive particular training for this; however, the accuracy and the consistency of the data are then controlled by the COPEC observer and RNN agent. (Nevertheless, the team have made a recommendation in relation to crew training – see Section 5.4.) Furthermore, a minimum of 3 pots per day from the coastal fishery and 1 – 2 pots from the deep fishery are not sorted aboard the auxiliary vessels but are instead sorted by the COPEC to sample undersized lobster and bycatch. Any interaction with an ETP species is required to be reported by the COPEC through a ‘compte

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 99 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

rendu’, followed by a telephone call to the TAAF, after which management decisions are taken as required (e.g. to stop the fishery; however this has never happened for the rock lobster fishery where ETP interactions are not considered problematic – it is more relevant to the Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish fisheries which have the potential for significant seabird bycatch and marine mammal depredation events). UoA-ETP species interactions as recorded by the COPEC since 2014 are listed in Section 7.4.3. Overall, there is both qualitative and quantitative information on UoA related mortality of ETP species, sufficient for SG60 and SG80 to be met. As already mentioned, however, there are some gaps in observer coverage aboard the auxiliary vessels which remains to be quantified and which means there is no high degree of certainty about UoA-related impacts on ETP species. This precludes SG100 from being met.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to measure trends Information is adequate to support a b Guide manage the impacts on ETP species. and support a strategy to manage impacts comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, post and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

As part of the IPEV 109 ORNITHOECO programme (run by the CEBC-CNRS), RNN agents have been collecting data on the distribution and abundance of pinnipeds and nesting birds on the TAAF islands since 2010 – this is part of the RNN management plan (TAAF, 2017a). These data have contributed to the development of an Atlas of top predators for the area (penguins, albatrosses, petrels, elephant seals and fur seals) - (Delord et al., 2014). An overview of the conservation status and population trends of birds, pinnipeds and cetaceans is given in Table 35 of the RNN Management Plan (Volet A - TAAF (2017a)). Furthermore, the information presented in the COPEC reports on ETP species interactions (summarized in Section 7.4.3) enables trends to be measured, sufficient to support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met. Because of the slight gap in observer coverage aboard the auxiliary vessels the information is not adequate to support a comprehensive strategy. SG100 is not met.

References

COPEC observer reports Delord et al. (2014) and TAAF (2017a)

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

Draft scoring range 60 - 79

Information gap indicator More information sought

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 100 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Further information on the COPEC observer protocol is required

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 101 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 16. PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Commonly encountered habitat status

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

Met? NA (RBF) NA (RBF) NA (RBF)

Rationale

Although there is some information about the distribution of habitats and the fishery footprint in the UoA area (see Section 7.4.4), the team decided at the ACDR stage that insufficient information was available to enable the quantitative analysis of UoA impact on the habitats encountered needed to apply the default assessment tree. A precautionary view was therefore taken to apply the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) as per Table 3 of the MSC FCPv2.1. The outputs for the RBF workshop are shown in Appendix 8.1. The following four habitats were identified, all of which were considered as separate scoring elements. Note that minor habitats were not considered; the PI score was therefore capped at 80. Note: habitat impacts associated with lost pots (Section 7.4.6) were also considered in the RBF analysis (appendix 8.1). Table 14. Overview of Habitat scoring elements and RBF scores

Scoring CSA MSC equivalent Biome Sub-biome Feature Habitat type Depth (m) element score score

Coastal margin / Inner 1 Coast / Shelf Rocky infralittoral Large - Outcrop - Flora 0 - 40m 2.05 94 shelf

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 102 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring CSA MSC equivalent Biome Sub-biome Feature Habitat type Depth (m) element score score

Inner shelf / upper Medium - Flat/low relief - Small 2 Shelf / Slope Circalittoral, coralligenous 40 - 300m 2.97 73 slope erect/encrusting/burrowing Inner shelf / upper Circalittoral, large erect 3 Shelf / Slope Large - High relief - Large erect 40 - 300m 3.11 68 slope biota Upper slope / Mid- Bathyal zone with biogenic 4 Slope Solid reef of biogenic origin - High relief - Large erect 300 - 2000m 3.05 71 slope reef Final MSC CSA-derived score (Table PF18 MSC FCPv2.1) 70

VME habitat status

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

harm.

Met? NA (RBF) NA (RBF) NA (RBF)

Rationale

See above – the RBF was applied.

Minor habitat status

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

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 103 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? NA (RBF)

Rationale

See above – the RBF was applied.

References

Appendix 8.1

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

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Although information on the fishing footprint is available in the COPEC reports, no habitat maps are available for either Saint-Paul or Amsterdam Islands. The RBF is therefore triggered. Prior to the site visit, the following information will need to be provided as per PF2.2.1 so that a Consequence Spatial Analysis can be carried out: - Management arrangements in place together with any specific strategies, such as benthic bycatch mitigation or recovery strategies; - Descriptions of any monitoring strategies in place (detailed description of COPEC observer protocol, results of benthic mapping and bycatch sampling schemes) Information gap indicator - Maps of: i. The distribution of fishing effort within the jurisdictional boundaries of the fishery (already available via COPEC reports) ii. Habitat and community distributions (including depth ranges). Sufficient information should be made available so that - Commonly encountered habitats and VMEs can be defined; - Consequence attributes of the Unit of Assessment’s (UoA) habitat(s) can be scored; - Spatial attributes of the UoA’s habitat(s) can be scored.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 104 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 70

Condition number (if relevant) 3

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 105 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 17. PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

a Guide There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for managing the that are expected to achieve the Habitat that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on post Outcome 80 level of performance. 80 level of performance or above. habitats.

Met? Y N N

Rationale

SA3.14.2.3 states the following: In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, “measures” for a UoA that encounters VMEs shall include, at least, the following points: a. Requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs (e.g. designation of closed areas); b. Implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid encounters with VMEs, based on commonly accepted move-on rules. The fishery takes place within the RNN nature reserve (Figure 2), which means that any fishing activity is strictly regulated and monitored. Annually, the technical prescriptions for the rock lobster fishery are re-issued; however, as a minimum the regulations impose the following limits on the fishery (Arrêté 2019/111): - Only one vessel is permitted to fish around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. This is the Austral with its auxiliary vessels (up to 4 canots and 2 caseyeurs are permitted); - The fishery is closed each year from the 1st May to the 30th November the following year; - Catches of the target species (J. paulensis) are limited by a precautionary TAC which also acts to limit fishing effort around both islands; - The lobster pots for both the coastal and deep fishery must conform to the technical prescriptions in the Arrêté; - The fishery is 100% observed by a COPEC observer (who monitors compliance with regulations) and an RNN agent (who monitors fishing impacts on the environment and implements scientific protocols such as the benthic data collection protocols mentioned in Section 7.4.4.3) - The fishery on the Banc Farce (bathyal zone with biogenic reef) is limited to two lifts per trip and a maximum of four lifts and 500 pots over the whole campaign year. Each line cannot bear more than 10 pots;

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 106 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

- No pot lines are permitted in the coastal area. Pots must be deployed individually; - All auxiliary vessels must have onboard geopositioning equipment; - Any lost pots must be reported on by the captain to the TAAF, indicating the reason for the loss, the number of lost pots and the location where the incident occurred. Any lost pots encountered by the fishing vessels must be retrieved. - Although not part of the Arrêté, the fishery has implemented a closed zone between 50 and 70 metres around both islands, which is complied with according to the stakeholders interviewed (including TAAF personnel) and can be verified with geopositioning data. All these measures have been implemented with the aim of restraining fishing effort and protecting the marine environment in the RNN including its benthic habitats – all habitats encountered by the fishery should therefore be considered as VMEs. The voluntary closed area in particular concerns the most significantly impacted habitats in the circalittoral zone (between 40 and 300m). The team notes the inclusion of ‘commonly accepted move-on rules’ in MSC’s guidance on what may constitute acceptable management measures. It is clear, however, from the difficulties with implementing the benthic sampling protocol in this pot fishery (see Section 7.4.4.3), that this type of fishery is ill-suited to move-on rules as benthic organisms are rarely brought up in the pots. The team therefore concluded that the above requirements, combined with the voluntary closed zone between 50 and 70m depth, constitute measures that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. SG60 is met. It cannot be said, however, that there is a partial strategy which conforms to the below MSC definition. SG80 is not met. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically (MSC Standard v2.01).

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence that Testing supports high confidence that the b Guide based on plausible argument (e.g. general the measures/partial strategy will work, based partial strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with on information directly about the UoA and/or information directly about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved.

Met? Y N N

Rationale

The management measures mentioned in scoring issue a serve to 1) restrain fishing effort, 2) restrain fishing footprint and 3) monitor UoA impacts on the marine environment. These measures are considered likely to work, especially in the coastal zone where pot deployments are limited to single pots rather than pot lines. In the circalittoral, where the most significantly impacted habitats are situated according to the RBF analysis (Appendix 8.1), the general limitation on fishing effort (only 2 caseyeurs permitted) + the strict effort limitations on the Banc Farce + the voluntary closed area provide plausible argument that the measures are likely to work. SG60 is met. However, at present the benthic data collection programme (Section 7.4.4.3) is opportunistic at best, an update of the habitat mapping is overdue and none of these measures were implemented with any specific habitat protection in mind. There is therefore no objective basis for confidence that these measures will work based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. SG80 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 107 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management strategy implementation

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

Met? Y N

Rationale

Compliance monitoring in this fishery is excellent with 100% COPEC observer coverage aboard the Austral, providing quantitative evidence that all regulations are being implemented. The voluntary closed zone mentioned in scoring issue a is not part of the regulations and is therefore not required to be reported on; however, this zone is being complied with according to the stakeholders interviewed (including TAAF personnel) and can be verified with geopositioning data. SG80 is met. For the reasons explained in scoring issue b, clear quantitative evidence that the measures are meeting the objective of a Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above, are lacking. SG100 is not met.

Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

d There is qualitative evidence that the UoA There is some quantitative evidence that the There is clear quantitative evidence that complies with its management requirements UoA complies with both its management the UoA complies with both its

Guide to protect VMEs. requirements and with protection measures management requirements and with post afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC protection measures afforded to VMEs by fisheries, where relevant. other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

As explained above, the COPEC observer reports provide quantitative evidence that all regulations are being implemented; compliance with the voluntary closed zone can be verified qualitatively (site visit interviews held with crew members as well as TAAF staff and former COPEC observers) and quantitatively (geopositioning data). SG60 is met. Outside of the management requirements put in place by the UoA and the TAAF, there are no other protection measures for VMEs. SG80 is met. There is no dedicated monitoring is place to verify compliance with the voluntary closed zone, which would be a requirement for ‘clear quantitative evidence’. SG100 is not met.

References

COPEC observer reports

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 108 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Décret no 2016-1700 du 12 décembre 2016 portant extension et modification de la réglementation de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises Arrêté n° 2019-111 du 24 Octobre 2019 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques

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

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Information gap indicator More information should be provided on the management measures in place to limit the fishery’s impacts on habitats (e.g. closed areas, move-on rules, monitoring)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 70

Condition number (if relevant) 4

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 109 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 18. PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information quality

The types and distribution of the main habitats The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the The distribution of all habitats is known over are broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA area are known at a their range, with particular attention to the level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity occurrence of vulnerable habitats. OR of the UoA. a Guide If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The Risk-Based Framework was triggered for 2.4.1 (see Section 7.4.4.4 and Appendix 8.1 for detail). A description of the available information on habitats is given in Section 7.4.4.2, providing evidence that qualitative information on the types and distribution of main habitats is available for each of the benthic zones identified (infralittoral, circalittoral and bathyal). SG60 is met. The information stems from relatively outdated sources (Beurois, 1975; Duhamel, 1980; Arnaud, 1990) based on in situ sampling during research campaigns. However, because fishing effort in this area has been limited to the one vessel and its dories, habitat modification is likely to have been minimal (other than through direct impacts by the fishery). The available information was therefore considered sufficiently quantitative to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats (see Appendix 8). SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met as the distribution of all habitats over their range is not known.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts b Guide Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to allow for The physical impacts of the gear on all understand the nature of the main impacts of identification of the main impacts of the UoA on habitats have been quantified fully. post the main habitats, and there is reliable

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 110 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

gear use on the main habitats, including spatial information on the spatial extent of interaction overlap of habitat with fishing gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative information is available and is attributes of the main habitats. adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The Risk-Based Framework was triggered for 2.4.1 (see Section 7.4.4.4 for detail). Sufficient quantitative information was available on habitat productivity and distribution (see Section 7.4.4 and Appendix 8.1), and on the fishing footprint to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully.

Monitoring

Adequate information continues to be collected Changes in all habitat distributions over time c Guide to detect any increase in risk to the main are measured. post habitats.

Met? N N

Rationale

As explained in Section 7.4.4.3, any data currently being collected is either done on an opportunistic or experimental basis. There is no systematic, statistically representative data collection in place that enables trends in habitat distribution to be monitored over time and by extension to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. SG80 is not met.

References

Arnaud (1990), Beurois (1975) and Duhamel (1980) Appendix 8 (RBF outputs)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 111 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Information gap indicator See PI 2.4.1 for further detail Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) 5

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 112 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 19. PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Ecosystem status

The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key elements The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the UoA is highly a Guide underlying ecosystem structure and function elements underlying ecosystem structure and unlikely to disrupt the key elements to a point where there would be a serious or function to a point where there would be a underlying ecosystem structure and function post irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? RBF RBF RBF

Rationale

See Section 7.4.5. The team determined that insufficient information is currently available to support an analysis of the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. As per Table 3 of the MSC FCPv2.1, the Risk-Based Framework was triggered. See Appendix 8.2 for the SICA outputs. An overall score of 80 was determined.

References

(TAAF, 2016, 2018a) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought In addition to the information required laid out in 2.4.1, the following information will be needed to Information gap indicator carry out a SICA on the ecosystem outcome PI: i. The spatial scale of the fishery on the ecosystem ii. The temporal scale of the fishery on the ecosystem.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 113 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

iii. The intensity of the fishery on the ecosystem iv. The consequence of the activity on the ecosystem. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 114 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 20. PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place

There are measures in place, if necessary which There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in a Guide take into account the potential impacts of the UoA which takes into account available information place which contains measures to address on key elements of the ecosystem. and is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA all main impacts of the UoA on the post on the ecosystem so as to achieve the ecosystem, and at least some of these

Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. measures are in place.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The Décret no 2016-1700 du 12 décembre 2016 portant extension et modification de la réglementation de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises (The RNN management plan) and the Arrêté n° 2019-111 du 24 Octobre 2019 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques (the fishery management plan), both have provisions for the protection of the ecosystem including its fauna and flora, through access restrictions, spatial and temporal closures, control of waste disposal and strict monitoring requirements for interactions with ecosystem components. By way of example, in addition to the requirements already mentioned under the other P2 Components, the regulations include provisions on the requirement for all organic waste from the Austral to be ground up prior to discharging at least 5nm from land; any other types of waste disposal are strictly forbidden. Any fresh bait is only to be used if it comes from within the EEZ. Everything else has to have been frozen and all hooks need to have been removed. An RNN observer should be present during all trips to ensure ecosystem impacts are adequately monitored and to aid in the implementation of the data collection protocols under the RNN management plan. The activities due to be undertaken over the next 9 years are outlined in the RNN’s 2018-2027 Management Plan (TAAF, 2018b), with some already implemented. On this basis, the team concludes that a partial strategy is in place, expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. SG60 and SG80 are met. However, because information is currently still lacking for some of the components, particularly habitats, SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 115 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management strategy evaluation

The measures are considered likely to work, based There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, that the measures/ partial strategy will work, partial strategy/ strategy will work, based b Guide theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ based on some information directly about the on information directly about the UoA post ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem involved. and/or ecosystem involved.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

There are many objectives and activities listed under the RNN’s 2018-2027 Management Plan (TAAF, 2018b). For the marine environment, these can be summarized under the following categories: - Guarantee favorable conditions for maintaining high concentrations of top predators; - Improve knowledge on the diversity and richness of species and marine ecosystems to better preserve them; - Maintain populations of birds and marine mammals; and - Ensure maintenance and / or restoration of populations of exploited marine species. The measures contained within the management plan are very detailed and focus on the collection of information so that suitable management action can be taken. On that basis, they can be considered as likely to work. SG60 is met. The need to maximise their likelihood of success is acknowledged in the management plan which has identified the following three facteurs de reussite (success factors): - Obtain a good ecological knowledge of the RNN including through increased monitoring of ETP species populations, the benthic environment, population dynamics and ecosystem interactions; - Administer and coordinate the RNN in a sustainable manner through resource allocation, adaptive management and reinforcing scientific partnerships; and - Raise awareness of the conservation value of the RNN amongst local stakeholders, the international community and the general public. The team concludes that, together with the management plan for the rock lobster fishery, the RNN management plan has been devised in such as way that there is an objective basis for confidence that it will work and SG60 and SG80 are met. It is, however, too soon to test whether there is high confidence that this will be the case (the management plan has only just been implemented). SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 116 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management strategy implementation

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

Met? Y N

Rationale

100% observer coverage by the COPEC observer and RNN agent provides evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully by the UoA. SG80 is met. However, because the team have identified some shortcomings in terms of management of the potential UoA impacts on habitats, clear evidence is currently lacking that it is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met.

References

TAAF (2017a) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range 60 - 79

More information sought Information gap indicator Further information is needed on how implementation of the RNN’s 2018-2027 Management Plan will be monitored Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 117 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 21. PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information quality

a Guide Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the post ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Rationale

The Amsterdam and Saint-Paul islands are the least well-studied amongst the TAAF islands; in contrast, the ecosystems of the subantarctic archipels of Crozet and Kerguelen are much better known as these islands have been the focus of research programmes such as POKER and PIGE led by the MNHN. Nevertheless, for Amsterdam and Saint- Paul, improved ecosystem data collection is one of the focal points of the 2018-2027 RNN management plan (TAAF, 2017a). In 2013, the MNHN developed the programme ASPHALTE (Amsterdam Saint-Paul Halieutique – Fisheries) which provides the framework for data collection during commercial fishing trips. It has the following objectives: - To strengthen the assessment of lobster and fisheries resources for sustainable exploitation (in particular through recapture tagging programmes); - To improve knowledge on the biology of exploited species; - To improve fishing practices and regulations, in order to use resources in a reasoned manner, while ensuring respect for the marine environment. Other research activities include (for a complete list, see Table 39 in the RNN Management Plan – Volet A - TAAF (2017a)) : - PR IPEV 109 ORNITHOECO: Use of birds and marine mammals as indicators of change that affect the ecosystems of the Southern Ocean - PR IPEV 1142 ICO²TAKS: Collection of information useful to the study of spatial and temporal variations of marine species in different sectors of the Southern Ocean. The main objectives will be to complete the eco-regionalization of these areas for plankton and fish, to study the functioning of the pelagic foodweb, and to determine the indicators required to understand the consequences of environmental change. - Quantification and acoustic study on marine mammals: a network of 5 to 10 hydrophones to perform a joint monitoring of seismic activity and large marine mammal presence (Antarctic blue whale, pygmy blue whale, fin whale) - Programme COPEC: see Section 7.2.3.2 for further detail. The programme consists of collecting data on fishing effort in time and space, catches by species, weight and number, biometric data, sexing data, observation data, photo-identification and interaction levels of marine mammals and birds, as well as data on collected samples and experimental protocols implemented by the COPECs themselves, namely the tagging data, otolith collection, tissue sampling, etc. These data and the collected biological

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 118 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

materials feed into the research activities of the MNHN and other scientific partners, in particular the evaluation and modeling of marine resources, work on depredation, knowledge of benthic habitats, etc. In parallel with these activities, there are regular research campaigns conducted through French institutes or through collaboration with international partners, for example OHA-SIS-BIO (Observatoire HydroAcoustique de la SISmicité et de la BIOdiverstié dans l’Océan Indien), REPCCOAI (Réponses de l’Ecosystème Pélagique aux Changements Climatiques de l’Océan Austral Indien), and ACE (Antarctic Circumnavigation Expedition). All of these activities are contributing on a continued basis to the understanding of the key ecosystem elements surrounding Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. Finally, past research activities such as those carried out by Arnaud (1990), Beurois (1975) and Duhamel (1980) have already made significant contributions to forming a baseline understanding of these key elements, particularly in relation to the subtropical peri-insular plateau ecosystem, which is the ecosystem impacted by UoA. Information is therefore adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. SG60 and SG80 are met.

Investigation of UoA impacts

Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and these b Guide ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have been existing information, and have been investigated investigated in detail. investigated in detail. in detail.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Stakeholders present at the RBF workshop agreed that the key ecosystem element affected by the rock lobster fishery was the size distribution of the target species (with potential associated changes in trophic interactions), although as this is a relatively mono-specific fishery, impacts on the size distribution of other species would likely be minimal. Size distribution data are routinely collected by the COPEC during fishing trips and are investigated by the MNHN as part of their rock lobster stock assessment work (e.g. Selles (2019d)). SG60 and SG80 are met. Other ecosystem elements include habitat structure, which may be impacted to some degree by the UoA although this has yet to be investigated in detail (see PI 2.4.1). SG100 is not met.

Understanding of component functions

The main functions of the components (i.e., The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, c Guide P1 target species, primary, secondary and primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats post ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are identified and the main functions of these are known. components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y N

Rationale

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 119 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

As explained in scoring issue a, there is a growing body of research that focuses on the subtropical peri-insular plateau ecosystem of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. Existing information is already available on the main functions of the components (rock lobster, birds, marine mammals and habitats – see Arnaud (1990), Beurois (1975), Delord et al. (2014), Duhamel (1980), Pruvost et al. (2015) and TAAF (2017a)). SG80 is met. SG100 is not met because – as explained under scoring issue b – the impacts of the UoA on habitats in particular should be further investigated.

Information relevance

Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts d Guide impacts of the UoA on these components to of the UoA on the components and elements to post allow some of the main consequences for allow the main consequences for the ecosystem the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred.

Met? Y N

Rationale

The information made available during this full assessment makes it clear that this fishery is having little impact on the sustainability of the rock lobster stock (Principle 1), that bycatch is minimal (Primary and Secondary species) and that ETP species interactions are highly unlikely. The COPEC observer reports play a crucial role in this determination. The available information also enabled the team and stakeholders to determine that some VME habitats are likely to be impacted by the UoA, based on work carried out previously by Arnaud (1990), Beurois (1975) and Duhamel (1980); however none of these impacts are considered likely to lead to irreversible impacts for either the habitats or the wider ecosystem. On that basis, the team concludes that adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 is met. As explained in scoring issue b, the key ecosystem element impacted by the UoA is the rock lobster size distribution which has been investigated in detail. However, the potential wider implications of this change in size distribution (e.g. through altered trophic interactions) has not been investigated. SG100 is not met.

Monitoring

e Guide Adequate data continue to be collected to Information is adequate to support the detect any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem post impacts.

Met? Y N

Rationale

A list of ongoing research activities is given in scoring issue a. All of these will ensure that adequate data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level. SG80 is met. As previously mentioned, there are still significant knowledge gaps with respect to the UoA’s impact on habitats. Although protocols are in place to fill these gaps, the current level of information is not considered adequate to support the ecosystem management strategy in this respect. SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 120 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

References

TAAF (2018a, 2018b) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range <60

More information sought Information gap indicator Insufficient information is currently available to support an analysis of the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 121 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.5 Principle 3

7.5.1 Vessel, Fishing areas and access rights

The fishery operates inside the French TAAF EEZ of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam, and inside the Réserve Naturelle Nationale des Terres Australes (RNN). The RNN provides specific terrestrial and marine biodiversity protection and allows commercial fishing in some areas. Only one vessel is authorised to fish commercially in the zone and the fishery – the AUSTRAL – managed by the client company SAPMER and owned jointly by the companies SAPMER and ARMAS Pêche, both part of the SAPMER Group. The same company has been fishing for lobsters in St Paul and Amsterdam since 1948-49 (TAAF, 2016).

7.5.2 Jurisdictions and management framework

The Islands of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam are uninhabited French overseas territories. Under the administrative jurisdiction of the TAAF (Terres australes et antarctiques Françaises – French Southern and Antarctic lands), they are one of its 5 Districts. The other 4 are the Iles Eparses (Europa, Bassas da India, Juan de Nova, Glorieuses et Tromelin), Crozet Archipelago, Kerguelen Islands, and Terre Adélie on the Antarctic continent. The boundaries of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam territorial seas (12nm) and joint EEZs were updated by Décret n° 2017-367 du 20 mars 20173.

The TAAF are not part of the EU. Therefore, fisheries management in Saint-Paul and Amsterdam comes under French jurisdiction, as described for the toothfish fishery around the Islands of Kerguelen and Crozet, which has been MSC-certified since 2013 (des Clers et al., 2018). The relevant French national legislation is, for fisheries – the Code Rural et de la Pêche, and for environment protection – the Code de l’Environnement, and any additional TAAF-specific provisions.

7.5.3 Organisations, roles and responsibilities

The TAAF administrative autonomous territory is a group of islands and Antarctic territories with no permanent civilian population. Its administrative services are based in La Réunion. For fisheries management, the TAAF senior administrator or Préfet is the highest level of governance, assisted by an Advisory Committee. The TAAF has a Legal Department who drafts secondary legislation (“arrêté”), including measures relevant to the fishery for Biodiversity Conservation purposes, proposed by the Direction de l’Environnement – DE and Direction de la Réserve Naturelle Nationale and fishery-specific management measures, proposed by the Direction des Pêches et des Questions Maritimes (DPQM) taking account of scientific advice provided by the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) and other scientific research groups.

Four French ministries oversee the TAAF governance system. They are represented on the TAAF Advisory Committee (Agriculture/Fisheries, Environment, Overseas territories, and Foreign Affairs), as well as the Direction de la mer sud Océan Indien (DMSOI), in charge of the Centre Régional Opérationnel de Surveillance et de Sauvetage en mer – La Réunion (CROSS-RU), for maritime and fisheries surveillance – in coordination with the French National Fisheries Surveillance Centre (CNSP based at CROSS Ethel). Representatives of the various administration and of the fishing company, including the captain of the UoA vessel, sit on the fishery’s advisory working group, the GTPLP (Groupe de Travail sur la Pêche à la Langouste et aux Poissons dans la zone exclusive de Saint-Paul et

3 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000034251810&dateTexte=

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 122 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Amsterdam), which meets at least once a year to discuss scientific advice, planned research projects et the proposed TAC and other management measures for the forthcoming season (TAAF, 2019b).

The TAAF RNN was created in 2006. The process to extend the Réserve Nationale Naturelle des TAAF (RNN) initiated in 2015 culminated in December 20164, with the extension of the RNN, and in March 2017, with the declaration of the RNN protection perimeter to now include the entire EEZ around the Islands of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam (TAAF, 2017c). The environmental regulation provisions of the RNN management plan (MP) apply to the entire TAAF EEZs including this fishery.

The TAAF has its own vessel registry, and therefore holds the responsibilities of coastal state and flag state. The different jurisdiction from French overseas territories dictates that catches landed in La Réunion by TAAF-registered fishing vessels must be cleared through customs.

The UoA vessel catch is landed in La Réunion (Le Port), where the vessel is based. All landings are inspected by SGS, a quantity surveyor accredited marine experts Company, independent from the TAAF. The fishing grounds are several steaming days away from La Réunion, and products are frozen on board and stored in containers sealed by the COPEC prior to coming into port. All sealed containers are systematically inspected by customs/ clearing agents upon landing. A trial has taken place in 2017/18 for live lobsters to be brought back in viviers. The same landing controls as for frozen products would apply.

Table 15. Organisations, roles and responsibilities

Name Department Role / Responsibilities TAAF-DPQM - Direction des Manages fishery via TAAF regulations (arrêtés et Pêches et des Questions décisions): set level of TAC, fishing season dates Maritimes and areas and all technical measures, annual fishing authorisation and quotas; in charge of TAAF regulation monitoring and surveillance, and COPEC observers. TAAF - Territorial Administration for Saint- TAAF-DCPN - Direction de la In charge of nature conservation and Paul et Amsterdam Conservation du Patrimoine management of the extended nature reserve Naturel (RNN). Partnership with Biodiversity Agency, also undertakes collaborative research projects with MNHN, CNRS and Universities. TAAF Advisory Council Ultimate advisory body to TAAF Secretary general (also Préfèt), meets at least twice a year.

RNN managed by the RNN Scientific Council Polar Environment Committee (Comité de TAAF Préfet l’Environnement Polaire – CEP) RNN Advisory Committee TAAF-RNN Advisory Committee + 6 stakeholder (extended TAAF Advisory representatives (fishing companies, civil society, committee) government action at sea). Advises on RNN activities, management system and programme of measures. Ministère de DPMA - Direction des On the TAAF Advisory Council. l’Agriculture et de Pêches Maritimes et de l’Alimentation - MAA l’Aquaculture

4 Décret no 2016-1700 du 12 décembre 2016 portant extension et modification de la réglementation de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 123 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Name Department Role / Responsibilities Ministère de la DMSOI - Direction de la Mer On the TAAF Advisory Council Transition écologique et - Sud de l’Océan Indien Also oversees CROSS-RU and coordinates with solidaire - MTES Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). CROSS-RU Regional Operational Control of On the TAAF Advisory Council. Maritime Surveillance French Navy, Fisheries and Rescue Centre patrols Ministère des Outre-Mer DGOM – Direction Générale On the TAAF Advisory Council. – MOM des Outre-mer MNHN Biodiversity research, stock On the RNN Scientific Council; Provides scientific assessment, scientific advice advice to TAAF contracted by the MAA-DPMA ; to TAAF, maintains trains COPEC to collect fisheries and fisheries PECHEKER database impacts data, undertakes stock assessment and other research on target and other species, habitats and VMEs. CEBC-CNRS, Chizé French Research Centre Dedicated research programmes on marine specialised in Ecology and mammals and seabirds in the TAAF RNN, Population Biology including Saint-Paul and Amsterdam. SAPMER-Armas Pêche Sole commercial licence- Represented on RNN Advisory Committee holder and operator in the fishery Scientists at Amsterdam Some recreational lobster potting allowed; Research Station, on dedicated TAC; standardised coastal pots (same Marion Dufresne RV and as used in the commercial fishery); detailed data military personnel collected from 2017

The MNHN, based in Paris, provides scientific advice to the TAAF for the fishery in Saint-Paul and Amsterdam. The on-board “contrôleur de pêche” (COPEC) is trained by the MNHN and has a dual role to collect scientific data and to enforce the TAAF regulations.

Following the extension of the RNN, membership of its management Advisory committee, has been extended to fishing company representatives and environmental NGOs (TAAF, 2018b). The process also prompted a number of new projects that bring together a wide range of existing and new scientific partnerships (TAAF, 2016), including through the UMR BOREA5 and the Chizé Centre for Biological Studies6 regarding the top predators.

7.5.4 Management and Fishery-specific Objectives

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive has been transposed into the French Environment Code (articles L. 219-9 à L. 219-18 et R. 219-2 à R. 219-17) and sets out two priorities, an integrated management of the sea and coastal areas, and the protection and conservation of marine environment. France published its national integrated maritime policy at the end of 2009, the Blue Book - A national strategy for the sea and oceans (France, 2009) and national strategy for the sea and oceans in 2017 (France, 2017), which is presently detailed for the South Indian Ocean Basin7. The

5 Research Unit Biology of Aquatic Organisms and Ecosystems, http://borea.mnhn.fr/en 6 http://www.cebc.cnrs.fr/GB_index.htm 7 See http://www.dm.sud-ocean-indien.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/le-conseil-maritime-ultramarin-du-bassin-sud- ocean-r237.html

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 124 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

French strategy is built around four priorities, i) Invest in the future – research, education, awareness; ii) Develop a sustainable economy of the sea (sustainable resource use, fisheries, shipbuilding, shipping, ports, marine recreation); iii) Promote the maritime dimension of the overseas territories – local authorities and stakeholders, assets and responsibilities, marine resources and economic development; and iv) Assert France’s place on the international scene (international governance, contribution to EU integrated maritime policy, responsibilities, defence and security. The Strategy applies to all French overseas territories including (explicitly) the TAAF (also art. L219-2 of the Code de l’Environnement). Therefore, overarching objectives of the European directive apply, even though the TAAF are not part of the EU but only associated as a French territorial entity.

A key objective with regards to the TAAF territories is to maintain French sovereignty. In this context, France recognises the need to be a responsible custodian of the area. France regards itself as the guarantor to the international community of the preservation of the unique ecosystems in the TAAF area. In this context, France has worked to establish its largest national protected area, and the objectives for its management are well-defined (see below TAAF, 2016), well-managed fisheries in the EEZs where fisheries are allowed, and to eliminate IUU fishing activities.

The objective for the management of fisheries in the TAAF EEZs is set out in the Fisheries Policy set out in the Code rural et de la pêche maritime, which directly applies to the TAAF since 1st January 2015 (Article L911-2: France, 2018). In agreement with the principles and rules of the European Common Fisheries Policy and international agreements, its first objective is (own translation): to allow a sustainable exploitation and value addition to the collective patrimony that are fisheries resources available to France (…) in respect of international agreements or on the High Seas, framed by an ecosystem approach to keep to a minimum any negative impacts on the environment.

The TAAF Décret 2009-1039 states the long-term aim of fisheries management “to ensure conservation and optimal exploitation of fisheries resources in the TAAF zones under French sovereignty or jurisdiction … A fishery by any vessels, whether French or foreign flagged, will be undertaken with care to protect marine ecosystems within which the resources are found”. The TAAF annual Arrêté 2018-87 (art.1) states MSY as a formal objective for the fishery’s management, along with preservation of the ecosystem.

Every year, three legal documents frame management measures for the fishery, usually published on the same day in November, ahead of the lobster fishery season starting 1st December (and the finfish fishery starting 15th November). The latest texts are as follows:

1. Arrêté n°2019-111 du 24 octobre 2019 (own translation) stating the conditions of the lobster (Janus paulensis) and finfish fisheries in the waters of Saint Paul and Amsterdam and prescribing their technical measures. Set the details of reporting obligations and specifies closed areas, seasons and gear details; 2. Arrêté n°2019-163 du 7 novembre 2019 (own translation) setting the TAC for lobsters (Janus paulensis) and finfish (cabot – Poluprion oxygeneois; saint-paul – Latris lineata and rouffe antarctique – Hyperoglyphe Antarctica) for the 2019-2020 season in the EEZ, territorial seas and interior waters of Saint Paul and Amsterdam islands. Sets overall lobster TAC – 363 tonnes live weight for 2019-2020, including 3 tonnes for the recreational fishery, and four separate lobster quota shares for the two islands coastal and offshore waters; 3. Décision n°2019-116 du 7 novembre 2019 authorising the vessel Austral to fish for lobster (Janus paulensis) and finfish during the 2019-2020 season in the EEZ, territorial sea and interior waters of Saint Paul and Amsterdam islands. This is equivalent to a fishing licence.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 125 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.5.5 TAAF RNN Management Plan (2018-2027)

As noted under Principle 1, “MSY reference points are not estimated or used as targets in any quantitative way”. However, the RNN extension to cover the joint EEZs of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam was officially taken as a means “to strengthen the existing marine ecosystem management approach, through the elaboration of a management plan for the lobster fishery specifically, with set management objectives and long-term means to achieve them.” The process was also seen as “a way to ensure economic sustainability and facilitate a process towards MSC certification” (TAAF, 2016). There is presently no fisheries management plan for the Saint-Paul and Amsterdam lobster fishery, but a number of RNN management objectives. TAAF new RNN Management Plan (MP, TAAF 2018- 2027) took effect in 2018. It defines research and monitoring objectives and is entirely relevant to the fishery. It provides emphasis on biodiversity and habitats conservation and considers, among others, the influence and mitigation of the effects of climate change.

The objectives for the RNN extension were as follows (TAAF, 2016):

• To maintain ecosystem functionalities of the TAAF trophic webs, in addition to activities in support of the existing RNN; • To preserve the richness of marine natural heritage, in terms of habitat diversity, marine species abundance with a special focus for emblematic endemic or regional species; • To set up a framework and means to increase knowledge of sub-Antarctic ecosystems and ensure that these challenges are taken into account in management planning; • To recognize the contribution that a large marine protected area brings to the global health of the oceans and to the regulation of the global carbon cycle.

For the fishery specifically, the RNN now has a scientific officer on board the fishery’s vessel on a permanent basis, to work with the COPEC implementing the scientific protocol of resource assessment for the fishery. The scientific programme ASPHALTE dedicated to Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands brings together scientists from the RNN, MNHN and Bourgogne France-Comté University. It aims to estimate coastal fish biomass, characterise marine habitats and develop dynamics models of the resources exploited to define sustainable ecosystem-based exploitation levels (TAAF, 2018b).

7.5.6 Stakeholders and disputes

With only one commercial operator and one locally registered vessel involved, there is no specific stakeholder committee for the fishery. Sustainable management matters for the fishery are discussed with the TAAF administrative services and as part of the RNN programme of measures, including the fishery-specific technical measures updated annually. This also applies to the small recreational potting fishery allowed in the shallower coastal waters of Amsterdam Island, where a permanent research station is located. There is a dedicated TAC for such catches (3 tonnes in 2018-2019), which may be taken by the scientists based on Amsterdam Island, by the scientific and other crew from supply/ scientific Research vessel Marion Dufresne or from the navy frigate.

The French system of administrative law incorporates a comprehensive range of appeal and recourse processes that are routinely used in fisheries management and have proven to be effective. The management of fisheries by TAAF which is a separate (and small) administrative constituency of uninhabited territories is different from that of fisheries of similar sizes in France, although the mandatory regular involvement of stakeholders in the management of the TAAF-RNN is common to all French RNNs. Disputes regarding TAAF administrative decisions could be taken to an Administrative court, but there has been none in this fishery.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 126 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

At local level, TAAF-DPQM organizes an annual meeting with the captain and crew to discuss operational matters and best practice called the C2P (Comité Pratique de Pêche). From 2019, the meeting is taking place at the Port instead of the TAAF’s offices, to encourage greater participation. The matters discussed vary every year, and led, for example, to a small adaptation in the design of the wooden pots (demonstrated during the site visit) to increase escape gaps between some slats. The TAAF has also a GTPL (Groupe Travail Pêche Langouste), which brings together representatives from the 4 ministries involved in the fishery (Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation, Min. de l’Environnement, Min. de l’Europe et des Affaires Etrangères, Min. des Outre-Mer), the TAAF DPQM, DCPN and RNN, SAPMER (vessel owners and captain in 2019) and scientists (e.g. from MNHN). The GTPL discusses issues that were encountered during the year’s campaign (often brought up by the C2P) and elaborates management measures for the following campaign. The minutes of both consultative bodies are not publicly available at present.

7.5.7 Compliance and enforcement

There are two levels of fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) for TAAF fisheries. First, French and international obligations, such as VMS, e-logbook, in/out of zone and landing declarations. Conformity with French national (Code Rural) and TAAF-specific legislation (fishing authorisation, fishing areas and dates) are overseen by the CROSS Fisheries Monitoring Centre (the CNSP) specialised officers remotely based at CROSS-Ethel in France. The regional CROSS-RU (based at La Réunion) is run by the French navy (although under the responsibility of the Transport Ministry), it is in charge of maritime safety and search and rescue in the Southern Indian Ocean. Second, the TAAF deploys a scientifically trained fisheries controller on-board the vessel at all times. The contrôleur des pêches (COPEC) has a policing mandate with respect to TAAF regulatory obligations and also reports on any threats of IUU fishing in TAAF waters.

The CNSP is in charge of the fishery MCS. Through the DMSOI it has the use of a dedicated satellite surveillance system including radar (the vessel is equipped with a tamper-proof VMS system), and the use of some French navy frigate patrol days, as well as a dedicated surveillance vessel, the Île de La Réunion, a retired commercial toothfish vessel. The CNSP organises fisheries surveillance patrols in the Southern Indian Ocean region, shares intelligence and coordinates actions on Port State Measures in La Réunion where the vessel is registered, and at regional level. All catches from TAAF (an overseas French territory, not part of the EU) EEZs have to be administratively imported into La Réunion when sold locally, or kept in a bonded warehouse before export, therefore landings are also controlled by Customs. All landings originating from TAAF-managed fisheries are also controlled by a quantity surveyor (SGS, see section 6) and tallied against the vessel’s TAC shares.

Any infringement noted by the COPEC would be liable to administrative and possibly penal sanctions. Administrative sanctions would culminate in the vessel’s fisheries authorisation being removed.

7.5.8 Management performance evaluation

The fishery is fully integrated in the national TAAF protected area (RNN) created in 2006. The TAAF RNN management plan (MP) is monitored regularly. The previous plan was evaluated in 2016, and the results are published in the RNN annual activity report. The latest MP (2018-207) follows an extension of the RNN in December 2016 (Ministerial Decree 2016-290) to cover the entire extent of all TAAF’s EEZs. The programme of measures and indicators, including those specific to the fishery, is reviewed annually and the results published (TAAF, 2018b).

Performance of the CROSS is reviewed regularly internally and occasionally externally through inter- CNSP calibrations by the European Fisheries Control Agency. The performance of TAAF fisheries

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 127 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

management and TAAF-RNN management are reviewed annually by Ministries represented on the Advisory Council.

The MNHN and other scientific partners describe their activities and results in scientific journals and make regular (at least annual) presentations to the TAAF Advisory Committee and the RNN Scientific Council. However, until a formal management plan is in place for the lobster fishery, the is no external review.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 128 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.5.9 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

Scoring table 22. PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

There is an effective national legal system and a There is an effective national legal system and There is an effective national legal system framework for cooperation with other parties, organised and effective cooperation with other and binding procedures governing a Guide where necessary, to deliver management parties, where necessary, to deliver cooperation with other parties which outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 management outcomes consistent with MSC delivers management outcomes post Principles 1 and 2. consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

The French legal framework (for fisheries – the Code Rural et de la Pêche, and for environment protection – the Code de l’Environnement) and additional TAAF-specific provisions (Arrêtés n°2019-111, n°2019-163 and Décision n°2019-116) are comprehensive with respect to the fishery’s management. All TAAF arrêtés and decisions are binding. The fishery takes place inside the perimeter of the extended TAAF National Natural Reserve (TAAF-RNN, see section 7.2). The RNN is managed with the support of a Scientific Council and an Advisory Committee (TAAF, 2016). The RNN explicitly aims to deliver management outcomes consistent with Principle 1 and with Principle 2. It informs the TAAF fishery-specific management measures mentioned above, and adds specific biosecurity and protected species and habitats provisions, which are also binding. SG60 and SG80 are met. Cooperation requirements are binding through the TAAF and TAAF RNN cross-ministerial supervisory bodies (Décrêt d’extension de la RNN (TAAF, 2016). In addition, the fishery client provides voluntary support to scientific observations or experimentations undertaken by the COPEC and/ or the RNN agent on board the vessel (see TAAF (2019c)), SG100 is met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 129 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Resolution of disputes

The management system incorporates or is subject The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal subject by law to a transparent mechanism is subject by law to a transparent b Guide disputes arising within the system. for the resolution of legal disputes which is mechanism for the resolution of legal post considered to be effective in dealing with disputes that is appropriate to the context most issues and that is appropriate to the of the fishery and has been tested and context of the UoA. proven to be effective.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Legal provisions and mechanisms for dispute resolution exist in the French fisheries management system through the administrative legal system, which has specific tribunals with transparent mechanisms that are effective in most cases. SG60 and SG80 are met. They have been tested in other fisheries managed by TAAF (des Clers et al., 2018). However, no dispute has arisen in this fishery, therefore the dispute resolution mechanisms have never been tested. SG100 is not met.

Respect for rights

The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a generally respect the legal rights created explicitly observe the legal rights created explicitly or mechanism to formally commit to the c Guide or established by custom of people dependent on established by custom of people dependent legal rights created explicitly or fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner established by custom of people post with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with the objectives of MSC dependent on fishing for food and Principles 1 and 2. livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The TAAF Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands are uninhabited, remote territories several thousand miles away from any coastal communities. The fishery is conducted by one vessel from La Réunion, with the same operator company for decades. A limited total allowable catch (TAC) prevents the involvement of another vessel. The vessel company and crew depend in great part on access to this fishery to stay in business and conversely the management system depends greatly on the vessel’s activities to collect information to manage the fishery sustainably in a manner consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. SG60 is met. The French fisheries management system, which prevails for the fishery, has a licensing mechanism that provides the UoA with an annual authorization to target the lobster and finfish resources around Saint-Paul and

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 130 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Amsterdam, SG80 is met. Given the limited resource potential available, the participation of other vessels or another company to share the annual TACs has never been envisaged, but there is no formal commitment that this will always be the case. SG100 is not met.

References

French primary legislation: Code de l’Environnement; Code Rural et de la Pêche maritime ; TAAF (2016) ; TAAF (2019c) ; des Clers et al. (2018)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 131 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 23. PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Roles and responsibilities

Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in management process have been identified. management process have been identified. the management process have been a Guide Functions, roles and responsibilities are Functions, roles and responsibilities are identified. Functions, roles and post generally understood. explicitly defined and well understood for key responsibilities are explicitly defined and areas of responsibility and interaction. well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

The fishery takes place in TAAF waters and is managed by the TAAF administration, which has been documented in detail for the toothfish fisheries (des Clers et al., 2018). Organisations and individual stakeholders are represented on the TAAF Advisory Council and/or the TAAF-RNN Scientific Committee. They are listed in Table 15 and include the representatives of several ministries, elected representatives, scientific institutions and fishing companies active in the fishery. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood. SG60 and SG80 are met. The fishery operates entirely inside the TAAF-managed extended National Nature Reserve (RNN), which has explicitly defined and well understood areas of responsibility and interactions for all areas pertinent to Principles 1 and 2, as defined in the latest 2018-2027 TAAF-RNN Management Plan (TAAF, 2018b). SG100 is met.

Consultation processes

The management system includes consultation The management system includes consultation The management system includes b processes that obtain relevant information from processes that regularly seek and accept consultation processes that regularly seek Guide the main affected parties, including local relevant information, including local and accept relevant information, including post knowledge, to inform the management system. knowledge. The management system local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information demonstrates consideration of the obtained.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 132 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

information and explains how it is used or not used.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Management decisions on the level of the TAC and technical measures are the responsibility of the senior TAAF administrator (Préfet), taking into account the scientific advice of MNHN, and views of the ministries of fisheries, overseas territories, environment and foreign affairs. The préfet decision is also informed by an Advisory Council where fishing operators are represented and by the TAAF-RNN Scientific Council (see section 7.5.3). SG60 is met. Annual activity reports from the TAAF-RNN provide public evidence that contributions and requests from stakeholders sitting on the Advisory Council are systematically considered by the Scientific Council (TAAF, 2019c), SG80 is met. In addition, the fishery has two specific consultative groups, the C2P that deals with operational and technical management of the fishery and involves TAAF and the vessel owner, captain and crew; and the GTPL that brings together all key stakeholders in a management group (see section 7.5.6). However, until now, their meeting minutes are not publicly available. In addition, the extent to which the RNN management plan explains how the available information is used or not in practice is not made clear. SG100 is not met.

Participation

The consultation process provides opportunity The consultation process provides Guide for all interested and affected parties to be opportunity and encouragement for all c involved. interested and affected parties to be post involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? Y N

Rationale

Wide and public consultation is an important part of French RNN management defined by the Code de l’Environnement. This was recently demonstrated for the latest TAAF- RNN management plan, which was examined by the TAAF-RNN Scientific Committee and the TAAF Advisory Council, and put to a public consultation in October/November 2018. SG80 is met. Regarding this fishery specifically, the frequency of meetings and wide-ranging issues discussed through the TAAF and TAAF-RNN Advisory bodies appears to facilitate an effective engagement of all involved. However, in the absence of publicly available records or minutes, this could not be independently verified, SG100 is not met.

References

TAAF (2018b); TAAF (2019c) ; des Clers et al. (2018) ; Code de l’Environnement

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 133 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought

Information gap indicator Some elements common to the management of TAAF fisheries will be harmonised with the fishery already MSC-certified (see Appendix 9) . Detailed information sought to score some SG100 elements in this PI.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 134 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 24. PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and PI 3.1.3 incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Objectives

Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, Clear long-term objectives that guide Clear long-term objectives that guide a Guide consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard and the decision-making, consistent with MSC decision-making, consistent with MSC precautionary approach, are implicit within Fisheries Standard and the precautionary Fisheries Standard and the precautionary post management policy. approach are explicit within management approach, are explicit within and required policy. by management policy.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

Long-term objectives exist at national (France) and local (TAAF-DPQM and TAAF-RNN) decision-making levels. They are set in French primary legislation for fisheries (Code Rural et de la Pêche maritime) and any ecosystem impacts (Code de l’Environnement) together with the necessity for a precautionary approach (see section 7.5.4). SG80 is met. Clear long-term objectives for the extended TAAF-RNN are set for a set number of challenges for the management of TAAF marine and terrestrial ecosystems, including for the following that are relevant to this fishery (own translation): #1 To preserve TAAF wilderness (by reducing the ecological footprint of vessels); #3: To know marine ecosystem biodiversity and species richness in order to better conserve them (by analysing existing information, improving knowledge of bathymetry, marine habitats and marine ecosystems of St Paul and Amsterdam in order to develop suitable management measures); #4: To maintain bird and marine mammal populations; #5: To ensure the maintenance and/or restoration of exploited marine species (through data collection, research, management planning and concertation). The definitions of long-term objectives and development of effective management measures are required by law (TAAF, 2018b). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

References

French primary legislation: Code de l’Environnement; Code Rural et de la Pêche maritime; TAAF (2018b)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 135 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 100

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 136 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 25. PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Objectives

Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes long-term objectives, which are a Guide Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are demonstrably consistent with achieving the post specific management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Long-term objectives to ensure the resource conservation and its optimal exploitation (MSY Principle 1 and TAC) and specifically for fishing activities to preserve marine ecosystems in Saint Paul and Amsterdam EEZ where the resources are found (Principle 2) are explicit in TAAF management (Arrêtés and Décisions – see section 7.5.4 and references below) and TAAF-RNN legislation specifically for this fishery (TAAF, 2018b). The short-term objective for Principle 1 has been the status quo (see Principle 1) quantified into TAC and sub-TACs for coastal and deeper waters. In the presence of limited interactions with non-target and ETP species, short-term objectives for Principle 2 are explicit, to the extent that catch quotas are set for secondary species and activities are strictly limited to reduce potential impacts on ETP species, habitats and the wider ecosystem (see Principle 2). SG60 and SG80 are met. Not all objectives are well-defined and measurable, SG100 is not met.

References

TAAF (2018b); TAAF Arrêtés 2019-111 on Technical measures, 2019-163 on TAC and Décision 2019-116 for vessel authorization.

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

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought regarding short-term management objectives for Principle 2

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 137 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 138 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 26. PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Decision-making processes

There are some decision-making processes in There are established decision-making a Guide place that result in measures and strategies to processes that result in measures and post achieve the fishery-specific objectives. strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

Met? Y Y

Rationale

Clearly established decision-making processes in this fishery involving TAAF fisheries (DPQM), Environment (DE) and TAAF-RNN administrations, Advisory Council (where fishing companies are represented) and the Scientific Council, and for fishery-specific objectives the C2P and GTPL (where MNHN scientists participate) complement operational and scientific advice. The TAAF territorial administration and RNN management team are small entities with long-established decision-making and regulatory processes that result in the annual publication of management measures and strategies to achieve the RNN strategic objectives (TAAF Arrêtés and Décisions). SG60 and SG80 are met.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, b Guide evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in post timely and adaptive manner and take some consultation, in a transparent, timely and a transparent, timely and adaptive manner account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take account of the wider and take account of the wider implications implications of decisions. of decisions.

Met? Y Y Y

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 139 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Rationale

Decision-making processes are in place to respond to serious issues identified in RNN management plan, monitoring and research. The fishery managers (TAAF DCPN and DPQM, and French ministries) and the extension of the TAAF-RNN to protect the entire areas fished around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam ensure that wider issues, such as environmental change, are taken into account, including fishing vessels footprints, ecosystem impacts, climate change or the possibility of invading species (TAAF, 2018b). For example, the RNN perimeter extension to the entire joint EEZ of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam (TAAF, 2019c) was in part a response to increase protection of threatened seabird species (Heerah et al., 2019). Matters discussed by the RNN Scientific Committee are reported in the TAAF-RNN annual activity reports (see TAAF (2019c)), which provide other examples, such as a request for a marine sampling programme (accepted) or for an experimental octopus fishery (turned down). On that basis, the team considers that decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Use of precautionary approach

c Guide Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on post best available information.

Met? Y

Rationale

Details of the extended TAAF-RNN management and decision-making processes and roles of the Advisory Committee and Scientific Council are described in creation and extension decrees (see TAAF, 2016). The precautionary principle is enshrined in French law since the Loi Barnier (2 Feb. 1995) on improved environmental protection. It was integrated in the Constitution in 2005 and through the Charte de l’Environnement became a legal obligation for all government services in 2008. In its fisheries management the TAAF has adopted a precautionary approach to guide its choice of TAC for each UoA ahead of each season (TAAF Arrêtés and Décisions). Potential fisheries ecosystem impacts are monitored comprehensively by 2 scientific observers present on the vessel for the TAAF-DPQM (COPEC) and the RNN. Decisions such as fishing areas, new gear (e.g. traps), or depredation avoidance are evaluated scientifically as pilots before changes to the technical specifications are introduced. The extension of the RNN protection perimeter to the entire EEZ around the Islands is also precautionary (TAAF, 2016). SG80 is met.

Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Some information on the fishery’s performance Information on the fishery’s performance Formal reporting to all interested d and management action is generally available on and management action is available on stakeholders provides comprehensive Guide request to stakeholders. request, and explanations are provided for information on the fishery’s performance and post any actions or lack of action associated with management actions and describes how the findings and relevant recommendations management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 140 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

emerging from research, monitoring, from research, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and review activity. review activity.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The TAAF has improved the transparency of its fisheries management actions since the 1st certification of the toothfish fishery (Gascoigne et al., 2013). Performance indicators, including conformity with scientific advice and technical conservation measures are now monitored by the TAAF-RNN and reported on annually, SG60 and SG80 are met. However, minutes of the fishery’s co-management advisory group (GTPL) are not publicly available, and specific reporting provisions planned for this fishery under the new RNN management plan will only be in force for the coming 2019/20 season. SG100 is not met.

Approach to disputes

Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts may be subject to continuing court challenges, it attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly e Guide is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the judicial decisions arising from any legal implements judicial decisions arising from post law by repeatedly violating the same law or challenges. legal challenges. regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

Disputes relating to management of the fishery would be first taken up through the French administrative legal system, which prevails. There has been no dispute in this fishery, and these would be proactively avoided through the RNN management system (see section 7.5.5). SG60 and SG80 are met. However, none of the advisory groups meeting minutes are publicly available. It is not possible to ascertain that the management system acts proactively to avoid disputes. SG100 is not met.

References

Gascoigne et al. (2013), TAAF (2016, 2018b) TAAF Arrêtés 2017-145 on Technical measures, 2018-87 on Fishing conditions, 2018-88 on TAC and Décision 2018-16 for areal sub-TACs France Charte de l’Environnement annexed to Constitution and binding since 2008, see https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/20275-administration-et-principe-de-precaution

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

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 141 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought Information gap indicator More information sought on the provisions of the new RNN management plan that will be in force for the 2019/20 season

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 142 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 27. PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

MCS implementation

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms A monitoring, control and surveillance system A comprehensive monitoring, control exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there has been implemented in the fishery and has and surveillance system has been a Guide is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant implemented in the fishery and has post management measures, strategies and/or rules. demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale The fishery operates over an area of remote waters. As part of its fishing license obligations, the fishing vessel has on board at all times a contrôleur de pêche (TAAF fisheries controller - COPEC) in charge of enforcement of the TAAF regulations and of reporting any suspected IUU activities from other vessels seen in the zone as do the vessel’s captain and crew on watch. COPECs submit a weekly report and a final report and data files at the end of each trip to TAAF and for onward communication to the MNHN. More recently, the RNN also has an officer on board, with specific interest in potential wider ecosystem impacts, such as interactions with ETP species. The catch is frozen, weighed and labelled on board, and weighed by an independent third-party surveyor upon landing. The data are provided to TAAF, to the RNN and MNHN and cross-checked against the fishing logbooks. Over the years, the system has been adjusted to enforce TAAF management measures effectively, SG60 is met. There is a comprehensive MCS system, through joint efforts of TAAF requirements, national French CNSP, CROSS-RU (maritime safety), on-board TAAF COPEC and RNN officers and detailed reporting obligations for the large vessel in the fishery (see section 7.5.7). The CNSP is in charge of the fishery MCS. It has the use of a dedicated satellite surveillance system including radar (the vessel is equipped with a tamper-proof VMS system), and the use of some French navy frigate patrol days, as well as a dedicated surveillance vessel, the Île de La Réunion, a retired commercial toothfish vessel. No IUU incursions have been reported in recent years, the system is demonstrably effective, SG80 is met. There is a comprehensive MCS system, through joint efforts of TAAF requirements, national French CNSP, CROSS-RU surveillance, on-board TAAF COPEC and RNN officers and detailed reporting obligations for the large vessel in the fishery (see section 7.5.7). The system appears to be comprehensive including the recording of position/ catches/ discards/ potential interactions with ETPs at canot / caseyeur level, but no information analyses was presented at that level. SG100 is not met.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 143 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Sanctions

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance b Guide there is some evidence that they are applied. consistently applied and thought to provide exist, are consistently applied and post effective deterrence. demonstrably provide effective deterrence.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

Administrative and criminal sanctions exist in the French national and TAAF legislative systems, that have been applied consistently in other TAAF-managed fisheries. The best demonstration of effectiveness is that there has been no instance of non-compliance; SG60 and SG80 are met. The local MCS competent authority (DMSOI) confirmed that sanctions exist and would, if needed, be consistently applied; SG100 is met.

Compliance

Fishers are generally thought to comply with the Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers There is a high degree of confidence management system for the fishery under comply with the management system under that fishers comply with the c Guide assessment, including, when required, providing assessment, including, when required, providing management system under post information of importance to the effective information of importance to the effective assessment, including, providing management of the fishery. management of the fishery. information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Met? Y Y Y

Rationale

Evidence of compliance and collaboration of the unique vessel in the fishery with the management authorities is provided by the conformity between TAC and catches (Section 7.3.3), CNSP and the CROSS-RU. French authorities do not presently publish detailed risk assessments by fishery. However, the vessel and fishing companies operate in the fishery through a fishing authorisation that is renewed annually (e.g. TAAF Decision 2019-116) on the basis of satisfactory compliance records and active collaboration with authorities to report any potential IUU activities on the way and inside the TAAF distant EEZs. SG80 is met. Information provided by the DMSOI during the site visit (pers. comm.), as well as presentations from the TAAF-RNN and TAAF-DPQM attested to a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

d Systematic non-compliance

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 144 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guide There is no evidence of systematic non- post compliance.

Met? Y

Rationale

No reports or records of systematic non-compliance has been recorded in this fishery. SG80 is met

References

TAAF Arrêtés 2018-87 on Technical measures, 2018-88 on TAC and Décision 2018-126 for Austral authorisation; To be obtained: CROSS-RU, pers. comm. and TAAF and RNN pers. comm.

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

Detailed information sought regarding compliance history, specific MCS measures for the fishing Information gap indicator vessel’s auxiliary boats, and present IUU challenges from non-TAAF registered vessels.

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 145 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Scoring table 28. PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Evaluation coverage

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all a Guide some parts of the fishery-specific parts of the fishery-specific management parts of the fishery-specific management post management system. system. system.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The new extended TAAF-RNN Management Plan includes specific (pressure) indicators for this fishery to monitor the fishery’s impacts on Principle 1 and Principle 2 state indicators (TAAF, 2017a). TAAF, the French ministries represented on the Advisory Council and members of the Scientific Committee review the performance of the fishery’s management system and regulation details every year. SG60 and SG80 are met. Monitoring and Evaluation provisions introduced in the new RNN management plan are not yet all in place, SG100 is not met.

Internal and/or external review

The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is b Guide subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external post external review. review.

Met? Y Y N

Rationale

The TAAF Advisory Council and Scientific Committee meet at least once a year to review the fishery’s management and prior to the following year’s technical management measures regulation (arrêté) being published. SG60 and SG80 are met. Although the administration teams are small, there are two distinct review angles and teams, from the fishery’s management perspective (TAAF DPQM) and from the marine environment perspective (TAAF RNN), each with their specific advisory board. Therefore, one

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 146 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

could argue that they provide some “external” review mechanisms on each other. However, some important aspects such as the stock assessment, are not externally reviewed, SG100 is not met.

References

TAAF (2017a)

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

Draft scoring range ≥80

More information sought regarding the specific provisions of the extended TAAF-RNN management plan Information gap indicator monitoring and evaluation provisions specific to the fishery

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

Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant) N/a

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 147 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

8 References

Arnaud, 1990. Les rapports des campagnes à la mer, La campagne MD 50 Jasus aux îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam à bord du “Marion Dufresne”.

Beurois, J., 1975. Etude écologique et halieutique des fonds de pêche et des espèces d’intérêt commercial (langoustes et poissons) des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam (Océan Indien). CNFRA, 37, 1-91. CNFRA.

Blamey, L.K., Lecea, A.M. de, Jones, L.D., Branch, G.M., 2019. Diet of the spiny lobster Jasus paulensis from the Tristan da Cunha archipelago: Comparisons between islands, depths and lobster sizes. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 219, 262–272.

Booth, J., 2006. Jasus species. In “Lobsters: Biology, Management, Aquaculture and Fisheries”.(Ed. BF Phillips.) pp. 340–358.

Brouwer, S.L., Groeneveld, J.C., Blows, B., 2006. The effects of appendage loss on growth of South African west coast rock lobster Jasus lalandii. Fisheries research 78, 236–242.

Cockcroft, A., Butler, M., MacDiarmid, A., Wahle, R., 2013. Jasus paulensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T169980A6698477. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2011- 1.RLTS.T169980A6698477.en. IUCN.

COPEC, 2016. Rapport de fin de marée, Austral. Marée n° 2, 25/02/2016 – 13/05/2016, Saint Paul et Amsterdam. Capitaine: Yannis Gavaudan; Contrôleuse des pêches: Marion Kauffmann; Agent de la réserve naturelle: Marc Lemenager. COPEC, 50 pp. TAAF.

Delépine, R., Lourteig, A., Cour, P., 1963. Un aspect des études de biologie marine dans les îles australes françaises; Les discontinuités océanographiques dans l’ouest de l’Océan Indien: d’après la température de l’eau de mer superficielle. l’Institut géographique national.

Delord, K., Barbraud, C., Bost, C., Cherel, Y., Guinet, C., Weimerskirch, H., 2014. Atlas of top predators from French Southern Territories in the Southern Indian Ocean.

des Clers, S., Cook, R., Ernst, H., 2018. Public Certification Report SARPC Kerguelen and Crozet toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery. Control Union Pesca for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

Duhamel, G., 1980. La langouste des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam (Jasus paulensis Heller, 1862).Biologie et pêche. 149 pp.

France, 2009. Livre Bleu. Premier Ministre, 83p. French and English text from http://www.sgmer.gouv.fr/Livre-bleu.html. France.

France, 2017. Stratégie nationale pour la mer et le littoral, 53p. http://www.dm.sud-ocean- indien.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/le-conseil-maritime-ultramarin-du-bassin-sud-ocean- r237.html. France.

Gascoigne, J., Holt, T., S., des C., 2013. MSC Public Certification Report Fishery for toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) by SARPC in Kerguelen. MacAlister Elliot and Partners report. August 2013 328p. MacAlister Elliot and Partners.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 148 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Glass, J.P., 2014. The fishery and biology of the rock lobster Jasus tristani at the Tristan da Cunha Islands group.

Groeneveld, J.C., Heyden, S. Von der, Matthee, C.A., 2012. High connectivity and lack of mtDNA differentiation among two previously recognized spiny lobster species in the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Marine Biology Research 8, 764–770.

Grua, P., 1960. Les langoustes australes (Jasus lalandii). Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises 10, 15–40.

Heerah, K., Dias, M., Delord, K., Oppel, S., Barbraud, C., Weimerskirch, H., Bost, C., 2019. Important areas and conservation sites for a community of globally threatened marine predators of the Southern Indian Ocean. Biological conservation 234, 192–201.

Heyden, S. Von der, Groeneveld, J., Matthee, C., 2007. Long current to nowhere?—Genetic connectivity of Jasus tristani populations in the southern Atlantic Ocean. African Journal of Marine Science 29, 491–497.

Holthuis, L., 1991. FAO species catalogue. v. 13: Marine lobsters of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis (FAO). no. 125 (13).

Horn, P.L., Hulston, D., Maolagáin, C.Ó., 2019. Commercial catch sampling for species proportion, sex, length, and age of jack mackerels in JMA 7 in the 2017–18 fishing year, with a summary of all available data sets. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2019/43. 28pp. Fisheries New Zealand.

Jeffs, A.G., Gardner, C., Cockcroft, A., 2013. Jasus and Sagmariasus species. Lobsters: Biology, Management, Aquaculture and Fisheries 2.

Langley, A.D., Middleton, D.A.J., O.L., W., 2016. Species composition of the jack mackerel (genus Trachurus) catch from the JMA 1 purse seine fishery, 2005/06 to 2013/14. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2016/11. Ministry for Primary Industries New Zealand.

Martin, A., Pruvost, P., 2007. Pecheker, relational database for analysis and management of fisheries and related biological data from the French Southern Ocean fisheries monitoring scientific programs, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. (Rapport non publié).

Mayfield, S., Atkinson, L., Branch, G., Cockcroft, C., 2000. Diet of the West Coast rock lobster Jasus lalandii: influence of lobster size, sex, capture depth, latitude and moult stage. African Journal of Marine Science 22.

Mayfield, S., De Beer, E., Branch, G., 2001. Prey preference and the consumption of sea urchins and juvenile abalone by captive rock lobsters (Jasus lalandii). Marine and Freshwater Research 52, 773–780.

MPINZ, 2013. Jack Mackerel Fisheries Plan Chapter. Ministry for Primary Industries New Zealand.

Pollock, D., 1991. Spiny lobsters at Tristan da Cunha, South Atlantic: inter-island variations in growth and population structure. South African Journal of Marine Science 10, 1–12.

Pollock, D., Goosen, P., 1991. Reproductive dynamics of two Jasus species in the South Atlantic region. South African Journal of Marine Science 10, 141–147.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 149 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Pruvost, P., Duhamel, G., Le Manach, F., Palomares, M., 2015. La pêche aux îles Saint Paul et Amsterdam. In: Palomares MLD and Pauly D (eds) Marine Fisheries Catches of Sub Antarctic Islands, 1950-2010, p. 37-45. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. [with an extended English-language abstract and figure captions]. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Romanov, E.., 2003. Summary and review of Soviet and Ukrainian scientific and commercial fishing operations on the deepwater ridges of the southern Indian Ocean.

Selles, J., 2019a. Etat de lieux de données disponibles sur la pêcherie de St Paul & Amsterdam. 45pp. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN).

Selles, J., 2019b. Preliminary version: CPUE standardisation of the rock lobster fishery in St Paul & Amsterdam Island. 19pp. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris.

Selles, J., 2019c. CPUE standardisation of the Southern Indian Ocean St Paul and Amsterdam rock lobster fishery. 19pp. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN).

Selles, J., 2019d. Stock assessment of the Southern Indian Ocean St Paul and Amsterdam rock lobster (Jasus paulensis) stocks using Bayesian state space surplus production model. 34pp. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), Paris. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN).

Silas, E., 1967. On the taxonomy, biology and fishery of the spiny lobster Jasus lalandei frontalis (H. Milne-Edwards) from St. Paul and New Amsterdam Islands in the southern Indian Ocean, with an annotated bibliography on species of the genus Jasus Parker.

Sinegre, R., Duhamel, G., Lecomte, J., 2017a. Updated stock assessment of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the vicinity of UoA1 - Kerguelen Islands (division 58.5.1). CCAMLR WG-FSA-17/60, 18 September 2017, 22p. CCAMLR.

Sinegre, R., Duhamel, G., Lecomte, J., 2017b. Updated assessment of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the vicinity of Crozet Islands (Subarea 58.6) CCAMLR WG-FSA- 17/59, 18 September 2017, 19p (obtained from the authors). CCAMLR.

TAAF, 2016. Extension de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises: Dossier d’opportunité soumis à la Commission des aires protégées du Conseil National de Protection de la Nature - Septembre 2016. TAAF.

TAAF, 2017a. Plan de gestion 2018-2027. Plan de gestion II - Réserve naturelle des Terres australes françaises. TAAF.

TAAF, 2017b. Arrêté n°2017-65 du 30 août 2017 prescrivant les règles encadrant l’exercice de la pêche à la légine australe (Dissotichus eleginoides) dans les zones économiques exclusives de Crozet et de Kerguelen, 28p. from http://www.taaf.fr/IMG/pdf/-336.pdf. TAAF.

TAAF, 2017c. Arrêté n° 2017-28 du 31 mars 2017 instituant un périmètre de protection autour de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises, see https://inpn.mnhn.fr/espace/protege/FR9500161. TAAF.

TAAF, 2018a. PROJET: Second plan de gestion (2018-2027) de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises. TAAF.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 150 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

TAAF, 2018b. Plan de gestion 2018-2027. Plan de gestion II - Réserve naturelle des Terres australes françaises. TAAF.

TAAF, 2019a. Arrêté n° 2019-111, 24 Oct. 2019 fixant les conditions encadrant la pêche à la langouste (Jasus paulensis) et aux poissons dans les eaux des îles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam et prescrivant leurs dispositions techniques. TAAF.

TAAF, 2019b. Compte-rendu du groupe de travail sur la pêche à la langouste et aux poissons dans la zone exclusive de Saint-Paul et Amsterdam (9 octobre 2019), 8p. TAAF.

TAAF, 2019c. Bilan d’activités 2018 de la réserve naturelle nationale des Terres australes françaises. TAAF.

von der Heyden, S., Groeneveld, J., Matthee, C., 2007. Long current to nowhere?—Genetic connectivity of Jasus tristani populations in the southern Atlantic Ocean. African Journal of Marine Science 29, 491–497.

Winker, H., Carvalho, F., Kapur, M., 2018. JABBA: just another Bayesian biomass assessment. Fisheries Research 204, 275–288.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 151 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendices

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 152 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 1 Assessment information

Appendix 1.1 Small-scale fisheries

Percentage of fishing activity completed Percentage of vessels with length <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore Although the mother vessel is > 15m length, the auxiliary boats are all < 15m. There are up to 4 canots and 2 caseyeurs 100% ~ 85%

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 153 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 2 Evaluation processes and techniques

Appendix 2.1 Site visit and Stakeholder participation

The site visit was held at the SAPMER offices in Le Port, La Reunion, from the 14th to the 17th October 2019. The individuals met during the site visit and their roles in the fishery are listed in Table 16. A summary of the site visit itinerary is shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Audit participants

Type of Consultation RBF workshop RBF workshop Name Organisation Habitats Ecosystem Laurent PINAULT SAPMER Provision of information Yes Yes Armelle DENOIZE SAPMER Provision of information Yes Yes Eric COUSIN SAPMER Provision of information Yes Yes Yanis GAVAUDAN SAPMER (Austral Provision of information - - Captain) David COLLET Austral crew Provision of information Yes - member Jean-Francois Austral crew Provision of information - - CHAN HOYE member Yannick MACARTY SAPMER Provision of information - - Sophie PITON DMSOI Reunion Provision of information - - Thierry CLOT TAAF Provision of information Yes Yes Marion TAAF Provision of information Yes Yes KAUFMANN Jules SELLES MNHN Provision of information Yes Yes Thibaut THELLIER TAAF Provision of information Yes Yes Jean-Luc BLEAS Austral crew Provision of information Yes - member Jean-Pierre FERAL CNRS Provision of information Yes - (remote) Guy DUHAMEL MNHN Provision of information - Yes (remote) Anne-Gaelle TAAF Provision of information - Yes Verdier Kate DEWAR MSC Observer Yes Yes Sophie DES CLERS CU Pesca Assessor Yes Yes Johan CU Pesca Assessor Yes Yes GROENEVELD Chrissie SIEBEN CU Pesca Assessor Yes Yes

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 154 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 17. Site visit itinerary

Date Event 14 October Opening meeting with key SAPMER personnel including Austral captain Meeting with Austral crew and observation of lobster pots and vessel visit Meeting with DMSOI Reunion representative 15 October Principle 2 Meeting with TAAF and MNHN representatives RBF Habitats workshop (CSA) 16 October RBF Habitats workshop continued (CSA) RBF Ecosystem workshop (SICA) Principle 1 meeting MNHN / TAAF Principle 3 meeting MNHN / TAAF 17 October Traceability meeting SAPMER Closing meeting

The types of information obtained from site visit participants included but was not limited to:

• SAPMER: Information about the functioning and management of the fishery including operations, gear configurations, bait use, data gathering and analysis, management structures and responsibilities, management plans, regulations, enforcement, traceability systems; • DMSOI: Information on enforcement plans, sanctions and non-compliance, fisheries management framework;

• TAAF: fisheries management framework, RNN management plan, data collection strategy, PECHEKER, COPEC observer programme; and

• MNHN: data collection strategy, PECHEKER, scientific data collection, habitats monitoring, stock assessments.

The audit was announced on the MSC website on the 8th August 2019. No stakeholder submissions were received; however individual stakeholders were contacted with the assistance from the Client to ensure their participation in the site visit. Remote conferencing tools were made available to ensure stakeholders based in France could participate.

Appendix 2.2 Evaluation techniques

No public announcements were made, other than through the MSC website and MSC update emails, as well as through CU Pesca’s announcement notification (published on the MSC website) and sent out individual stakeholders. Prior to the site visit, a second round of stakeholder consultation took place to ensure adequate representation at the site visit.

The assessment was based on a review of publicly available data and documentation, and data, information and documentation provided by stakeholders during and after the site visit. Where data analyses were carried out by the assessment team, this is indicated in the report. The main source for catch data were the COPEC observer reports which were analysed for the period 2014 – 2019. Two RBF workshops were also carried out, one for the Habitats Component (CSA) and one for the

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 155 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Ecosystem Component (SICA); for further details on this see Appendix 8. Justification for use of the RBF is provided in the background sections 7.4.4.4 and 7.4.5.

Scoring was agreed by the team via email correspondence. Consensus was reached for all scores.

The scores were decided as follows:

How many scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 issues met? All 60 80 100 Half FAIL 70 90 Less than half FAIL 65 85 More than half FAIL 75 95

Note that where there is only one scoring issue in the SG, the issue can be partially scored – in this case the team used their judgement to determine what proportion of it was met, e.g. at the 100 level, a small part met = 85, about half met = 90, nearly all met = 95.

d) Decision rule for reaching the final recommendation: The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows:

• No PIs scores below 60; • The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above.

The aggregate score for each Principle is the sum of the weighted score of each Performance Indicator within that Principle.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 156 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 3 Peer review reports

Appendix 3.1 Peer reviewer 1

General comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, comments summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the Yes Yes. The scoring of the fishery is consistent with the MSC standard, and is based on the Thank you, no comment required. fishery consistent evidence presented in the assessment report. with the MSC standard, and clearly based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Are the condition(s) Yes Yes. The conditions raised are appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within Thank you, no comment required. raised appropriately the specified timeframe in the affected PIs (1.2.2, 1.2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3). written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub- clauses] Enhanced fisheries N/a N/a N/a only: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 157 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, comments summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. enhancement activities? Optional: General The report is well written. It provides a thorough overview of the fishery and it also Thank you, no comment required. Comments on the provides an adequate explanation to the scores assigned to each PI. The fishery for the Peer Review Draft greater part does not seem to present any serious barriers to certification, but there are Report however some drawbacks which prevent reaching the SG80 under several PIS. These shortcomings have been identified and conditions have been raised to address them. The conditions are well defined and it is reasonable to expect that they will enable the fishery to reach the SG80 in the pertinent PIs.

However, a number of uncertainties remain even after raising the conditions. One of them We note that in the specific PI is the lack of well-defined HCRs available in a written manner. The report raises a condition comments, the peer reviewer does under PI 1.2.2 on the need to develop such HCRs and assigns an overall score of 75 to the not disagree with the team's scoring. PI. This is a plausible choice. But an alternative analysis might have determined that under This comment is therefore somewhat current conditions the PI did not reach SG60, since PI 1.2.2 requires that “There are well confusing. Note that the PR's defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place”, and this is not completely comment regarding 'well defined and fulfilled at the moment. The issue should probably have been addressed during the Pre- effective HCRs in place' applies to the assessment stage, so that the fishery would not apply for Full certification until well SG80 level which is not met for this defined HCRs were available. Pre-assessments can often be a very useful option to detect fishery. A pre-assessment has in fact this kind of shortcomings in a fishery, and should be seriously considered by any fishery been carried out. before embarking into full assessment.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 158 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Performance Indicator Comments

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed (NA) No comment required. 1.2.1 Yes No NA Insofar harvest control rules and well We respectfully disagree with the reviewer and note Not accepted (material defined management objectives are that HCRs are scored in 1.2.2, where they do not meet (no score score not specified within the management SG80. change) reduction plan, it is difficult to evaluate the expected to adequacy of the harvest strategy We have scored 1.2.1 according to the MSC definition <80) design. As said in the rationale, at the in which a Harvest strategy is "the combination of time being “harvest control rules and monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules tools are not explicitly incorporated, and management actions"... The fishery is fully and stock management objectives integrated in the national TAAF protected area (RNN), are broadly stated”. An overall PI and the TAAF RNN management plan (MP) which score under SG80 would seem more includes the harvest strategy for the lobster fishery. adequate to reflect these The strategy itself is clearly specified by TAAF shortcomings of the fishery. This is directives (see rationale SI 1.2.1a) and the elements so, because the lack of clearly work well together in achieving the stock defined HCRs prevents an adequate management objectives (incl. the formal MSY assessment of the Harvest strategy objective). The strategy is responsive to the state of design (SI 1.2.1a, which probably the stock, as indicated by consistent use of the TAC to should not reach SG80). Likewise, it reduce exploitation pressure when the CPUE also precludes the harvest strategy (indicator for relative abundance) declines. This evaluation (SI 1.2.1b). The adequate meets SG80 in 1.2.1a. Note that a specific 'HS design', monitoring (SI 1.2.1c) and review mentioned by the reviewer, is only required at SG100. (1.2.1d) of the Harvest strategy are Based on the above, the Harvest strategy is robust also equally hampered by the and precautionary, despite the absence of clearly absence of clearly defined HCRs. defined HCRs. The scoring has not been changed.

Empirical support that the present strategy works well is provided by the long-term stability of the

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 159 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

An elaborate and tested monitoring system is in place, including 100% observer coverage, full-time positional information, and several checks by customs and TAAF at discharging (see rationale SI 1.2.1c). The Harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and the results published in the RNN annual report, and annually presented to the TAAF board (see rationale SI 1.2.1d). 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes "It is agreed that SG80 is not met. The Agreed. We have added the reference in the PCDR in Accepted (no lack of “well-defined HCRs available the rationale of SI 1.2.2a. score change) in a written manner” prevents reaching SG80, as this SG requires “Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached.” Also a clarification would be needed regarding the following point: The 1st sentence of the rationale under SI 1.2.2a says “(…) they [the HCRs] are not clearly specified in a written form”, whilst the 2nd sentence says “The overarching HCR is to “maintain a stable long-term average CPUE” and the tools with which it is achieved comprise of “minor TAC adjustments” which are implemented annually”. It is agreed that the text within brackets may be assumed to be equivalent to a basic (unwritten) HCR. But it would be

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 160 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) helpful if the original source from which this is quoted was mentioned in the PCDR. Where does it say that the fishery seeks to “maintain a stable long-term average CPUE”? Is it a direct quote from the MP, or maybe of some of the TAAF Advisory Council’s meeting reports, or some other source? 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 1.2.4 Yes Yes Yes Scoring and condition #2 agreed No comment required. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed No comment required. 2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring (from RBF/CSA) and No comment required. condition #3 agreed 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring and condition #4 agreed No comment required. 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring and condition #5 agreed No comment required.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 161 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

RBF comments

PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Res- Scoring Information given at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - ponse PCDR) Code 2.4.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed Thank you, no comment required. (RBF)

2.5.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed Thank you, no comment required. (RBF)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 162 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 3.2 Peer reviewer 2

General comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, comments summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the No In general the scoring of the fishery is consistent with MSC and based on the evidence Please see our responses to the fishery consistent presented however some suggested changes have been made re justification and evidence specific comments. with the MSC which may change scoring- refer PI comments. standard, and clearly based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Are the condition(s) Yes The conditions are appropriately written in accordance with FCP 2.1 7.18.1. Thank you - no comment required. raised appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub- clauses] Enhanced fisheries N/a N/a N/a only: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Optional: General This is a very professional and well written report with good descriptions of the fishing Thank you - no comment required. Comments on the operation and its impacts. Good explanations and references are given.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 163 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 164 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Performance Indicator Comments

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) 1.1.1 No (no score Yes NA Proxy indicators have been used. "Noted. The comment is a leftover from an earlier No (no score change However there is a comment that a pre-assessment phase, in the ACDR panel, and is not change expected) expected) that large amount of data existed in relevant anymore. The data have indeed been used 2017 but it hadnt been fully used in in a stock assessment as described in PI 1.2.4, which assesssment framework or to set allowed the CAB to use the default assessment tree target and limit reference points for instead of RBF for scoring. Text in ACDR panel the fishery. It says that this was the changed to: -Appropriate stock assessment based intention prior to this report and then on standardized data to be provided at site visit; the fishery would be assessed using the "default" assessment framework. It doesnt appear that this has happened? 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA N/A 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes a. Agree that SG80 is not met. HCRs No comment required. are not clearly specified nor formalised. No trigger- or limit reference points have been explicitly specified to reduce harvest rates when the PRI is approached. 1.2.3 No (no score Yes NA a. Stock structure (size, age, sex Noted. The phrase "Information on size, sex and Accepted (no change structure of catches): Data collected maturity should be made available to the score change) expected) by COPEC observers per trip and assessment team" is in the ACDR panel, which was during scientific expeditions; drafted before the site visit. The information could "voluminous long-term data shown be verified during the site visit. Text in ACDR panel in COPEC reports and on PECHEKER changed to "Information on size, sex and maturity database, as summarized by Selles to be provided at site visit" (2019a). Data hosted by MNHN."

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 165 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) Information on size, sex and maturity should be made available to the assessment team. Does this suggest the information couldn’t be evidenced/verified by the team during the full assessment? 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA b. In the absence of stock No comment required. assessments for any of the minor species the RBF would be required for their assessment however the RBF was not applied and the score for this PI capped at 80 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 is given. In the absence No comment required. of main secondary species, SG80 is met by default. 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Appropriate as no main secondary No comment required. species 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 2.3.2 Yes No NA a and c. No strategy in place for As we made clear in the rationale, the team Not accepted (no (material managing the UoAs impact on ETP concluded that the threat to ETP species due to pot score change) score species due to effects from ghost losses was low. Note that this fishery has been reduction fishing. Although records of lost pots ongoing for several decades with relatively few expected to are kept and threat (due to single pot changes in gear design and no mortality of ETP <80) loss) to ETP species is considered low species has ever been observed in the context of

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 166 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) there does not appear to be any this fishery. As we explained, it is extremely rare for effort to reduce the number of pot an entire line to be lost and single pots are highly losses nor to establish or verify that unlikely to lead to entanglement. The risk there is no "entanglement" associated with lost pots is thus more a concern for habitats than ETP species and a condition was raised in relation to habitats management (which includes lost pots). The team does not see the merit of raising a similar condition here for a component which has low likelihood of being negatively impacted by pot losses. Finally, the MSC definition for a strategy is as follows: A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. The UoA management in relation to ETP species includes extensive monitoring and any interactions must be directly reported be reported by the COPEC through a ‘compte rendu’, followed by a telephone call to the TAAF, after which management decisions are taken as required. Overall, the team maintains that this meets the requirements of a strategy for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species and that SG80 is met. However, we have altered the habitats conditions so that these now refer to gear loss more explicitly. 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 167 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) 2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes RBF use is appropriate and important No comment required. that lost pots were considered in the analysis 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Agree No comment required. 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes Agree No comment required. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA RBF appropriate as insufficient No comment required. information available 2.5.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA a.In order to meet 100 "measures to Agreed, we have amended the rationale and Accepted (non- implications implications address all main impacts" firstly the reduced the score to 80. material score unknown) unknown) main impacts need to be identified. reduction) 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 3.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA a. This has been scored 100.However The rationale has been complemented. Accepted (no implications implications nowhere is information provided score change) unknown) unknown) that the Codes for fisheries and for environmental protection are binding 3.1.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA b. SG80 Says "the management The rationale has been complemented. Accepted (no implications implications system demonstrates consideration score change) unknown) unknown) for the information" there needs to be more evidence to support this 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required. 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Agree with score. Section 7.5.7 Section 7.5.7 relates to Compliance and Not accepted (no better describes how the MCE is enforcement, and the MCS (not MCE) system. score change) enforced to meet SG80. This should Therefore, we believe that this comment relates to be added to the justification 3.2.3a and have responded below.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 168 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - Code PCDR) 3.2.2 No (no score Yes NA b.Some examples of how the the The rationale has been complemented with Accepted (no change decision making process has referenced examples. score change) expected) responded to issues other than important or serious would be helpful to justify the 100 score 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Agree As a result of the comment above, some elements have been added to the rationale for 3.2.3a. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Agree No comment required.

RBF comments

PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Res-ponse Code Scoring Information Review stage) (as included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR)

2.4.1 Yes Yes This would have been a difficult stakeholder It was, but the stakeholders were extremely N/a (RBF) session however a good result. Good to see that collaborative and patient with the process lost pots were taken into account 2.5.1 Yes Yes Good outcome Thank you N/a (RBF)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 169 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 4 Stakeholder input

No stakeholder comments were received prior to PCDR publication. Stakeholder meetings held during the site visit focused on the provision of information on the fishery in general and more specifically for the application of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) on habitats and ecosystem. The information provided has been incorporated in the assessment report and RBF analysis, as detailed in Appendix 8.

After the publication of the PCDR, the only stakeholder comments received were those submitted by MSC as Technical Oversight. These are detailed below:

The reference to the SIOFA area on page 14 was wrong and this has been rectified – the UoA does not currently fish for rock lobster in the SIOFA area.

We have made this more explicit and also added the address details for the facility.

To be completed at Public Certification Report

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 170 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 5 Conditions

Five conditions were raised during this assessment. The conditions, condition milestones and corresponding Client Action Plans are detailed in the following tables:

Table 18. Condition 1 (Harvest control rules)

Performance PI1.2.2 – There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 75 Scoring issue a (SG80): Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

HCRs are generally understood and implicit within the Harvest Strategy, even though

they are not clearly specified in a written form. The overarching HCR is to “maintain a

stable long-term average CPUE” and the tools with which it is achieved comprise of

“minor TAC adjustments” which are implemented annually, after updating an

unstandardized CPUE trend with the latest data. The recent stock assessment has

shown that the system has been effective in achieving exploitation rates consistent

with an MSY strategy, and that it has maintained biomass at a level well above BMSY and

PRI. Whereas no trigger- or limit reference points have been explicitly specified to

reduce harvest rates when the PRI is approached, it is generally understood that

declines in the CPUE (per island or depth zone) will initiate decreases in TAC levels, to

reverse the decline towards the long-term average CPUE, as reference point.

SG60 is met because the HCRs are available, and stock biomass has not previously been reduced below MSY, and has been maintained at that level for > 2 generation times (see SA2.5.2).

At the SG80 level, HCRs should ensure that the stock is likely to fluctuate around a level

consistent with BMSY (or a level that has the same outcome – i.e. maintaining the

productivity of the stock). HCRs should be ‘well-defined’ and should therefore explicitly Rationale include the conditions under which specific technical measures would be triggered. The HCR should exist in a written form that has been agreed by the management agency and stakeholders, and clearly state what management actions will be taken at which specific trigger reference point levels. One or more proxies should indicate, with confidence that it is likely that overfishing is not occurring. SG80 is not met, because explicit conditions under which clearly specified technical measures and management actions are triggered, agreed by stakeholders, could not be provided in a written agreement.

Condition Within 4 years, well defined HCRs should be in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and that are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. The HCR should exist in a written form that has been agreed by the management agency and stakeholders, and clearly state what management actions will be taken at which specific trigger reference point levels. Year 1: Candidate HCRs are developed that clearly explain how the TAC is adjusted relative to changes in stock biomass or harvest rates, with associated trigger reference Milestones point levels. Score: 75.

Year 2: Candidate HCRs are presented to stakeholders with the most suitable candidate

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 171 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

adopted, i.e. which ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Score: 75.

Year 3: HCR which ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY is being implemented. Score: 75.

Year 4: HCR which ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY is in place. Score: 80

Client action plan See Appendix 6

Consultation on See Appendix 12 for letters of support from the MNHN and TAAF. condition

Table 19. Condition 2 (Assessment of stock status)

Performance PI1.2.4 – There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Indicator Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. SG80 cannot be met in full because there has been no formal peer-review yet.

Condition Within 3 years, the stock assessment should have been peer reviewed Year 1: Begin process for selection of peer reviewers. Score: 75.

Year 2: Peer reviewer(s) is/are selected with peer review commissioned. Score: 75 Milestones

Year 3: Peer review of the stock assessment has been carried out. Score: 80

Client action plan See Appendix 6

Consultation on See Appendix 12 for letters of support from the MNHN and TAAF. condition

Table 20. Condition 3 (Habitats outcome)

Performance PI2.4.1 – The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure Indicator and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Score 70 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Scoring issue b (SG80): The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 172 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm Although there is some information about the distribution of habitats and the fishery footprint in the UoA area (see Section 7.4.4), the team decided at the ACDR stage that insufficient information was available to enable the quantitative analysis of UoA impact on the habitats encountered needed to apply the default assessment tree. A precautionary view was therefore taken to apply the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) as per Table 3 of the MSC FCPv2.1. The outputs for the RBF workshop are shown in Appendix 8.1. The following four habitats were identified, all of which were considered as separate scoring elements. Note that minor habitats were not considered; the PI score was therefore capped at 80. Note: habitat impacts associated with lost pots (Section 7.4.6) were also considered in the RBF analysis (appendix 8.1).

Condition Within 4 years, it should be demonstrated that the UoA and any associated gear loss is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the main habitat types identified in the circalittoral and bathyal zone to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This condition relates to habitat scoring elements 2, 3 and 4 as well as any other main commonly encountered or VME habitat types that are identified through additional data collection (Condition 5). Year 1:

- Carry out review of management options for partial habitats management strategy.

- Develop data collection programme that enables any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF workshop and through additional data collection, to be identified.

Score: 70.

Year 2:

- Present management options for partial habitats management strategy to stakeholders. Select most suitable partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above and which has some objective basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. Milestones - Implement data collection programme.

Score: 70

Year 3:

- Implement partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above and which has some objective basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.

- Data collection programme is up and running with some analysis undertaken. The data collected enable any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF workshop and through additional data collection, to be identified.

Score: 70.

Year 4: it can be demonstrated that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 173 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

function of the main habitat types identified in the circalittoral and bathyal zone to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This condition relates to habitat scoring elements 2, 3 and 4 as well as any other main commonly encountered or VME habitat types that are identified through additional data collection (Condition 5). Score: 80

Client action plan See Appendix 6

Consultation on See Appendix 12 for letters of support from the MNHN and TAAF. condition

Table 21. Condition 4 (Habitats management strategy)

Performance PI2.4.2 – There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose Indicator a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats Score 70 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. SA3.14.2.3 states the following: In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, “measures” for a UoA that encounters VMEs shall include, at least, the following points: a. Requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs (e.g. designation of closed areas); b. Implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid encounters with VMEs, based on commonly accepted move-on rules. The fishery takes place within the RNN nature reserve (Figure 2), which means that any fishing activity is strictly regulated and monitored. Annually, the technical prescriptions for the rock lobster fishery are re-issued; however, as a minimum the regulations impose the following limits on the fishery (Arrêté 2019/111): - Only one vessel is permitted to fish around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands. This is the Austral with its auxiliary vessels (up to 4 canots and 2 caseyeurs are permitted); - The fishery is closed each year from the 1st May to the 30th November the following year; - Catches of the target species (J. paulensis) are limited by a precautionary TAC which also acts to limit fishing effort around both islands; - The lobster pots for both the coastal and deep fishery must conform to the technical prescriptions in the Arrêté; - The fishery is 100% observed by a COPEC observer (who monitors compliance with regulations) and an RNN agent (who monitors fishing impacts on the environment and implements scientific protocols such as the benthic data collection protocols mentioned in Section 7.4.4.3) - The fishery on the Banc Farce (bathyal zone with biogenic reef) is limited to two lifts per trip and a maximum of four lifts and 500 pots over the whole campaign year. Each line cannot bear more than 10 pots; - No pot lines are permitted in the coastal area. Pots must be deployed individually;

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 174 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

- All auxiliary vessels must have onboard geopositioning equipment; - Any lost pots must be reported on by the captain to the TAAF, indicating the reason for the loss, the number of lost pots and the location where the incident occurred. Any lost pots encountered by the fishing vessels must be retrieved. - Although not part of the Arrêté, the fishery has implemented a closed zone between 50 and 70 metres around both islands, which is complied with according to the stakeholders interviewed (including TAAF personnel) and can be verified with geopositioning data. All these measures have been implemented with the aim of restraining fishing effort and protecting the marine environment in the RNN including its benthic habitats – all habitats encountered by the fishery should therefore be considered as VMEs. The voluntary closed area in particular concerns the most significantly impacted habitats in the circalittoral zone (between 40 and 300m). The team notes the inclusion of ‘commonly accepted move-on rules’ in MSC’s guidance on what may constitute acceptable management measures. It is clear, however, from the difficulties with implementing the benthic sampling protocol in this pot fishery (see Section 7.4.4.3), that this type of fishery is ill-suited to move-on rules as benthic organisms are rarely brought up in the pots. The team therefore concluded that the above requirements, combined with the voluntary closed zone between 50 and 70m depth, constitute measures that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. SG60 is met. It cannot be said, however, that there is a partial strategy which conforms to the below MSC definition. SG80 is not met. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically (MSC Standard v2.01). Scoring issue b (SG80): There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. The management measures mentioned in scoring issue a serve to 1) restrain fishing effort, 2) restrain fishing footprint and 3) monitor UoA impacts on the marine environment. These measures are considered likely to work, especially in the coastal zone where pot deployments are limited to single pots rather than pot lines. In the circalittoral, where the most significantly impacted habitats are situated according to the RBF analysis (Appendix 8.1), the general limitation on fishing effort (only 2 caseyeurs permitted) + the strict effort limitations on the Banc Farce + the voluntary closed area provide plausible argument that the measures are likely to work. However, at present the benthic data collection programme (Section 7.4.4.3) is opportunistic at best, an update of the habitat mapping is overdue and none of these measures were implemented with any specific habitat protection in mind. There is therefore no objective basis for confidence that these measures will work based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. SG80 is not met.

Condition Within 3 years, there should be a partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above, with an objective basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. The partial strategy should also address any impacts associated with UoA gear loss. Year 1: Carry out review of management options for partial habitats management strategy. Score: 70. Milestones

Year 2: Present management options for partial habitats management strategy to

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 175 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

stakeholders. Select most suitable partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above and which has some objective basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. Score: 70

Year 3: Implement partial strategy that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above and which has some objective basis for confidence that it will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. Score: 80.

Client action plan See Appendix 6

Consultation on See Appendix 12 for letters of support from the MNHN and TAAF. condition

Table 22. Condition 5 (Habitats information)

Performance PI2.4.3 – Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the Indicator UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue c (SG80): Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. As explained in Section 7.4.4.3, any data currently being collected is either done on an opportunistic or experimental basis. There is no systematic, statistically representative data collection in place that enables trends in habitat distribution to be monitored over time and by extension to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. SG80 is not met.

Condition Within 3 years, a data collection programme should be implemented that enables any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF workshop and through additional data collection, including through gear loss, to be identified. Year 1: Develop data collection programme that enables any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF workshop and through additional data collection, to be identified. Score: 75.

Milestones Year 2: Implement data collection programme. Score: 75.

Year 3: Data collection programme is up and running with some analysis undertaken. The data collected enable any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF workshop and through additional data collection, to be identified. Score: 80.

Client action plan See Appendix 6

Consultation on See Appendix 12 for letters of support from the MNHN and TAAF. condition

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 176 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 6 Client Action Plan

Introduction

The MSC certification process, and the achievement of the action plan based on the conditions raised during the assessment, take advantage of several actions already planned in other contexts :

• The Réserve Naturelle Nationale management plan of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands is a framework document covering the period between 2018 and 2027, and gathering the actions needed to achieve the objectives for land conservation.

The first stages identified in the MSC action plan (Data collection for the setting up of the strategy), refers directly to the Stake 3 of the Action FS16 of the RNN management plan (the action details and the schedule are attached), aiming for « Developing and implementing a data collection plan about the marine environment around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam ».

Concerning the fishery management and the limitation of its impacts, all the actions of the Stake 5 of the RNN management plan (the latter apply to the other fisheries practised on the territory as well) affect the MSC action plan, especially the « SPA management plan » operation (Action FG29 « Implementing the fisheries management plans »).

Finally, other actions defined in the RNN management plan are in relation to the date collection or the fishery management and could benefit our MSC action plan, such as :

- Summarizing all the available knowledge about the marine environment (FS6) - Acquiring a high-quality environmental data grid (FS8) - Inventory and map the marine habitats (FS9) - Identifying the benthic taxa and assemblages (FS10) - Tracking conservation status of benthic marine eco-systems (FS 11) - Identifying the marine areas with high preservation concern (FS 15) - Implementing a multidisciplinary scientific campaign around SPA (same type as the « planète revisitée » exploration programme) (FS17) - Defining and implementing a program to characterize the ecosystem services in the Reserve (FS 19).

All of these actions have been included at the end of this Action Plan.

• Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Fishery research program has been launched by the TAAF and the MNHN, supported by the fishing companies, in 2018. This program aims for improving the marine ecosystems knowledge of Saint-Paul and Amsterdam, and modelling the lobster and fish

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 177 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

populations in the area. The first step of the program will end in September 2020, so a careful analysis will have to be carried out in the next few months about the most suitable strategy to adopt for the second step.

NB : All of these actions will be updated every year according to the last data and results

RESPONSIBLE CONDITIONS PLANNING MILESTONES ACTIONS PARTIES Candidate HCRs are developed that clearly explain how the TAC is adjusted ➢ Proposal of trigger reference point levels and of a HCR that ensure Surveillance relative to changes in stock biomass or the exploitation rate is kept around a target level and reduced as MNHN 2021 harvest rates, with associated trigger the PRI is approached. (MNHN) reference point levels ➢ Proposal of a new HCR – based on the actual implicit HCR – consisting in maintaining a stable CPUE in the long term by slightly adjusting the TACs. (MNHN/TAAF)

➢ The HCRs will be the subject of a specific report in which will be proposed an assessment and a formalisation of the trigger reference point levels and of the target level from which the exploitation rate must be reduced. (MNHN/TAAF) 1- Harvest control rules - HCR ➢ This work will be submitted to several consultative bodies : • Surveillance Formalisation of the implicit HCR Presentation during the SPA EEZ fish and lobster fishery working MNHN/TAAF 2021 already in place group (GPLT) which gathers all the administrative supervision bodies involved in the marine resource management (Overseas Territories Ministry, Agriculture and Food Ministry, Ecological and Fair-Trade Transition Ministry, Europe, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), the scientists (MNHN), the fishing companies, and the TAAF. (TAAF) • Presentation of the lobster stock assessment model to the peer reviewers. (MNHN) • Presentation to the Scientific Committee of the Reserve (TAAF/MNHN)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 178 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

➢ In addition, once approved, these proposals will be integrated to the future SPA EEZ fish and lobster fishery management plan. (TAAF)

Surveillance HCRs are presented to stakeholders 2022 MNHN/TAAF Surveillance HCRs are implemented 2023

Surveillance HCRs are in place 2024 ➢ Identify, list and contact the potential peer reviewers (intern or extern). (SAPMER/MNHN/TAAF)

➢ A list of rock lobster stock assessment experts is submitted during 2- Assessment of the Surveillance Begin process for selection of peer the next GTPL in October 2020. (TAAF/MNHN) MNHN/SAPMER stock status 2021 reviewers

➢ Once the list is approved, the extern experts will be contacted to join peer review committee of the lobster stock assessment model. (TAAF)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 179 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

➢ Select and launch the partnership. (TAAF/SAPMER/MNHN) Surveillance Peer reviewer(s) is/are selected with 2022 peer review commissioned ➢ Peer reviewers examine the stock assessment and exchange views with the MNHN and the TAAF (MNHN/TAAF) Surveillance Peer review of the stock assessment ➢ Validation of the rock lobster stock assessment model by the peer 2023 has been carried out reviewers Presentation of the state of progress Surveillance ➢ Examination and discussion with the peer reviewers. of the models’ implementation to the 2024 (TAAF/SAPMER/MNHN) expert panel ➢ Inventory of fishing effort restraining measures to protect the 3- The UoA does not habitats. (TAAF) cause serious or

irreversible harm to As part of the SPA fishery programme : habitat structure and • About the benthic habitats : function Carry out review of management o Tests of new rock lobster pots for deep fishery, modified in

options for partial habitats order to improve their selectivity and to reduce the risks to 4- There is a strategy in the main habitats (SAPMER/MNHN/TAAF) place that is designed management strategy o Strengthening of the benthic and habitat monitoring to ensure the UoA protocols and tools (SAPMER/MNHN/TAAF) does not pose a risk of

serious or irreversible ➔ Tripartite focal point (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) : presentation and harm to the habitats Surveillance MNHN/TAAF/SAPMER 2021 assessment of the past and future actions and results 5- Information is ➢ Proposal of a data collection programme to identify the UoA- adequate to determine vulnerable habitats, and a combination of management strategies the risk posed to the aiming for restraining impacts of the UoA on these habitats. habitat by the UoA and (MNHN) the effectiveness of ➢ Overview of the available knowledge and the history of the fishery Develop and present data collection the strategy to manage around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam through the collective work programme impacts on the habitat coordinated by Guy Duhamel (MNHN/TAAF/SAPMER)

The actions related to As part of the RNN management plan : the 4 and 5 conditions • Collect and analysis of the underwater videos from the habitats are highlighted in characterisation protocol (TAAF/ IMBE)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 180 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

yellow and green, • Cartography of the Macrocystis pyrifera habitats, using remote respectively. sensing and satellite imagery. (TAAF/SEAS-OI) • Pursuit of the SPA marine environnement eco-regionalisation programme. (TAAF) • Launch of the SPA marine environment eco-regionalisation programme (on the EEZ scale) in preparation for the reviewing of the waters protection status for 2022 : state of knowledge, identification of the conservation issues, and necessary data definition (Identification of the available data, processing and analysis of the collected data, collection of additional data if needed, and identification of the ways to acquire these data). (TAAF) • Definition of a benthic data collection strategy via the fishery, and linked with the eco-regionalisation programme (MNHN/TAAF)

As part of the SPA fishery programme : • Implementation of a data collection protocol by the COPECs/RNN for the programmes that can be carried out concurrently with the business activities (SAPMER-TAAF-MNHN) AND/OR • specific scientific campaigns for the programmes incompatible with the business activities (MNHN-TAAF) • quantify pots loss & analyse impact of this loss on identify habitat (SAPMER-TAAF-MNHN) ➢ Implementation of the data collection programmes to identify the UoA-vulnerable habitats (if the technical, human and financial resources are available). (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER)

Surveillance Implement data collection As part of the RNN management plan : 2022 programme • Pursuit of the SPA marine environnement eco-regionalisation programme. (TAAF) • Collection of additional data, if needed. (TAAF)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 181 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

➔ Tripartite focal point (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) : presentation and assessment of the past and future actions and results

Data collection programme is up and running with some analysis ➢ Pursuit of the data collection programme and the data analysis. undertaken. The data collected enable (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) any increase in risk to the main habitats, determined through the RBF ➔ Tripartite focal point (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) : presentation and workshop and through additional data assessment of the past and future actions and results collection, to be identified. ➢ The data collection programme is defined (MNHN/TAAF ) and implemented (MNHN/TAAF/SAPMER)

Surveillance ➢ Based on the first results, the habitat management strategies are 2023 identified in accordance with the major habitat types and the impact of the fisheries on them (TAAF) Present management options for

partial habitats management strategy ➢ Analysis of the different management options, based on the newly to stakeholders. Select the most collected data. (TAAF/SAPMER) suitable, partial, reliable and

operational strategy ➢ Reflexion on good practices guidance to decrease pression of rock lobster traps loss on the habitat with results of the analyses (technical issues, materials…) (SAPMER)

➔ Tripartite focal point (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) : presentation and assessment of the past and future actions and results Surveillance ➢ Implementation of the most suitable management options. Implement this strategy 2024 (TAAF/SAPMER)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 182 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

It can be demonstrated that the UoA ➢ The strategy is implemented. The fishing company contributes to is highly unlikely to reduce structure the data collection and apply the good fishing practices. (SAPMER) and function of the main habitat types identified in the circalittoral and ➔ Tripartite focal point (TAAF/MNHN/SAPMER) : presentation and bathyal zone to a point where there assessment of the past and future actions and results, and would be serious or irreversible harm. discussion about the first feedback of the strategy.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 183 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 184 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 185 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 186 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 187 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 188 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 189 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 190 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 191 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 192 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 193 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 194 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 195 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 196 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 197 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 198 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 199 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 200 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 201 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 202 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 203 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 204 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 205 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 206 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 207 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 208 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 209 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 210 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 211 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 212 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 213 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 214 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd 215 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 7 Surveillance

Table 23. Fishery Surveillance Programme

Surveillance Level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level 4 On-site Off site On-site Off-site

Table 24. Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale 1 On-site 2 All information pertaining to the Principle 1 and Principle 2 conditions can be provided remotely by 2 Off site 2 the stakeholders; however, the team recommends 3 On-site 2 two on-site visits due to the complexity of some of the conditions. For the remote audits, remote 4 Off site 2 conferencing should take place so that matters can be discussed in sufficient detail.

Note: it is not proposed that the Year 4 surveillance happens at the same time as the reassessment site visit. This is because under the FCPv2.1 the drafting of the ACDR is likely to delay the site visit beyond the certificate anniversary.

Table 25 Timing of surveillance audit

Year Anniversary date Proposed date of surveillance audit Rationale of certificate 1 TBC 30 days prior anniversary date of N/a certificate 2 TBC 30 days prior anniversary date of N/a certificate 3 TBC 30 days prior anniversary date of N/a certificate 4 TBC 30 days prior anniversary date of N/a certificate

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 216

Appendix 8 Risk-Based Framework outputs

Appendix 8.1 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)

The RBF workshop for the CSA took place during an entire day on the 15th October 2019. The list of participants is provided in Appendix 2.2. Prior to the workshop, each participant had received an RBF information pack which is available upon request. The workshop commenced with a team leader presentation on the state of habitats information, monitoring and management for the Amsterdam and Saint-Paul islands, as well as an introduction to the RBF process for habitats: the Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA). Stakeholders were then requested to assist with the identification of habitats affected by the UoA according to their SGB (Substratum/Geomorphology/Biota) characteristics.

Although Saint-Paul and Amsterdam are separate islands, they are characterized by similar habitat types and stakeholders agreed that there was no need to separate between them. For the Banc Farce, the only habitat type that overlaps with the fishery (which targets those areas where rock lobster are found) is the biogenic reef of the bathyal zone, common to both Saint-Paul and Amsterdam as well. The other habitat type consists of unconsolidated sediment where the target species is not found. Four habitats were identified in total, each of which was treated as a separate scoring element (Table 26).

Note: a summary of known information on habitat types and distribution is provided in Section 7.4.4.2. Although this information was incorporated into the report after the site visit, the team verified the compatibility of this information with that obtained from stakeholders during the RBF workshop. Information on UoA effort and fishing footprint is provided in Section 7.4.4.1.

Once the habitats had been identified, a Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) was undertaken for each scoring element. The outputs of this exercise are shown in the following tables. Note the RBF workshop was undertaken in French, making use of the MSC scheme documents translated into French by MSC. The assessment team and stakeholders noted that some of the terminologies used in the French translation were difficult to interpret, requiring frequent consultation of the English version. This hampered the progress of the workshop somewhat and led to some differences in stakeholder opinion particularly in relation to scoring the spatial attributes. Where consensus was not reached during the workshop, the final scoring was decided on by the assessment team.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 217

Table 26. Habitats affected by the UoA as identified by stakeholders during the RBF workshop. For detail on categories, see Table PF9 MSC FCPv2.1.

Scoring element Substratum Geomorphology Biota Biome Sub-biome Feature 1: Rocks and boulders covered by kelp and giant kelp, in Large Outcrop Flora Coast / Coastal Rocky coastal zone up to 40m depth around Saint-Paul and Shelf margin / infralittoral Amsterdam Inner shelf 2: Small rocky outcroppings with coralligenous habitat Medium Flat / low relief Small erect/ Shelf / Inner shelf / Circalittoral, and small erect and encrusting biota and infauna (e.g. encrusting/bur Slope upper slope coralligenous sponges, bryozoans, polychaetes) in circalittoral zone rowing between 40 and 300m depth around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam 3: Large rocky outcroppings with large erect biota such Large High relief Large erect Shelf / Inner shelf / Circalittoral, as tall antipatharians and colonial soft coral (gorgonians) Slope upper slope large erect in circalittoral zone between 40 and 300m depth around biota Saint-Paul and Amsterdam 4: Rocky slope with biogenic reef with fauna including Solid reef of High relief Large erect Slope Upper slope Bathyal zone but not limited to scleractinians and antipatharians from biogenic origin / Mid-slope with biogenic 300m to 2000 depth around Saint-Paul (including Banc reef Farce) and Amsterdam

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 218

Table 27. CSA Rationale Table Habitat 1 - Rocky infralittoral

Attributes Justification Risk score Consequence Regeneration of Macrocystis pyrifera and Laminaria pallida, the two kelp species characteristic for this zone, have rapid 1 biota growth rates with less than annual regeneration (add ref) Natural Coastal zone has frequent natural disturbance caused by strong wave action, regular stormy weather as 1 disturbance well as cyclones: regular or severe natural disturbance Gear-habitat Removability of Stakeholders confirm that L. pallida is leather-like and difficult to remove from its substrate. Macrocystis 1 interaction biota may be cut off if caught by the pot’s rope, but the plant’s strong crampon will prevent the entire plant from being removed: low risk Removability of The rocks and boulders are medium sized and are held in place by the high algae cover. The pots are highly 1 substratum unlikely to move them: low risk Substratum Hard rocks and boulders: low risk 1 hardness Substratum Rocks and boulders create high relief, however some areas may have low relief; therefore precautionary 3 ruggedness score of medium risk awarded Seabed slope Low degree in coastal margin: low risk 1 Spatial Gear footprint Trap : Low risk 1

Lost traps: The pots used in the coastal fishery are constructed of predominantly wooden, biodegradable, material, as well as nylon mesh and a plastic funnel (Figure 5). According to the COPEC reports, on average 17 pots are lost per trip in the coastal fishery. Any pots that are lost are unlikely to remain whole for long because of the rocky seabed and strong currents. On that basis, the team did not consider that lost pots would significantly increase the risk of damage to this habitat. The gear footprint score was not increased. Spatial overlap Although the entire coastal zone is accessible to the pot fishery, the pots are not deployed across this 1.5 entire zone. Deployments are limited by environmental conditions (often the weather is too rough which means the boats need to move to the other side of the island) and regulatory restrictions (up to 3 lifts8 and 28 pots can be deployed in a 24hr period and the fishery is open four months per year (1st Dec 30th April)).

8 There are exceptions. See Arrêté N°2019-111 of 24 October 2019, Annex 1 for detail.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 219

Although this temporal element appears to be lacking from the standard CSA analysis, the team and stakeholders agreed that this is an important factor to take into account. Although the habitat overlaps with the gear during only 1/3rd of the year, a precautionary level of overlap of ≤ 45% was agreed upon. Encounterability This habitat is targeted by the fishery as this is where the rock lobster are found in the coastal zone. 3 CSA Score 2.05 MSC equivalent score 94

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 220

Table 28. CSA Rationale Table Habitat 2 - Circalittoral, coralligenous

Attributes Justification Risk score Consequence Regeneration of Some of the biota in this habitat have a slower life cycle, especially the sponges. Regeneration of the small 2 biota erect and encrusting biota is for some species up to decadal. Although table PF12 points to a standard score of 1 (low risk) for this habitat type, stakeholders felt a more precautionary score of 2 (medium risk) would be more accurate. Natural Standard score for deep inner shelf and outer shelf applied as per Table PF13 2 disturbance Gear-habitat Removability of This habitat meets the description of erect, medium (<30 cm), moderately rugose, or inflexible biota 2 interaction biota combined with moderately robust, shallow-burrowing biota as per Table PF14 Removability of The traps are unlikely to remove the substratum whatever the habitat type. Standard score of 1. 1 substratum Substratum The coralligenous habitat is lightly consolidated but not altogether unconsolidated. Standard score of 2 for 2 hardness traps. Substratum Habitat is low relief to flat. Standard score of 3 for traps 3 ruggedness Seabed slope Medium degree (precautionary score of shelf and terraces in inner slope) 2 Spatial Gear footprint Trap : low risk 2

Lost traps: The pots deployed in deeper waters are constructed of stronger materials, consisting of an iron frame, rigid and flexible plastic mesh, and a plastic funnel. Although the iron frame will corrode over time, this is likely to be a slow process as the metal has been given anti-rust treatment. None of the other materials are biodegradable. According to the COPEC reports, on average 14 pots are lost per trip in the deep fishery. Any pots that are lost are likely to persist in the environment. However, as they are weighted and natural disturbance in the circalittoral zone is considered infrequent or irregular, movement may be limited. Nevertheless, the team felt that a score of 1 for the gear footprint was not sufficiently precautionary to account for lost pots. The score was increased to 2. Spatial overlap The fishery has implemented a voluntary closure between 50 and 70m depth where no pots are deployed. 2 Although the remainder of this habitat is accessible to the pot fishery, the pots are not deployed throughout the year as the fishery is open only four months per year (1st Dec 30th April)). Although this

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 221

temporal element appears to be lacking from the standard CSA analysis, the team and stakeholders agreed that this is an important factor to take into account. Although the habitat overlaps with the gear during only 1/3rd of the year, a precautionary level of overlap of ≤ 60% was decided by the team (there was no consensus amongst stakeholders during the workshop some of whom felt a lower risk score was appropriate). Encounterability This habitat is targeted by the fishery as this is where the rock lobster are found in the circalittoral zone. 3 CSA Score 2.97 MSC equivalent score 73

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 222

Table 29. CSA Rationale Table Habitat 3 - Circalittoral, large erect biota

Attributes Justification Risk score Consequence Regeneration of The biota in this habitat have a slower life cycle, with some species having a regeneration time that is more 3 biota than decadal (e.g. the large erect antipatharians). In this biome and sub-biome (Upper slope / Mid-slope), Table PF12 allocates a high-risk score of 3 for this habitat type. Natural Standard score for deep inner shelf and outer shelf applied as per Table PF13. Although this habitat type 2 disturbance extends into the upper slope, stakeholders concluded that there would be irregular to moderate natural disturbance and awarded a score of 2. Gear-habitat Removability of This habitat meets the description of tall, delicate, large (>30 cm high), rugose, or inflexible biota as per 3 interaction biota Table PF14 Removability of The traps are unlikely to remove the substratum whatever the habitat type. Standard score of 1. 1 substratum Substratum Large rocky outcroppings that form a hard substratum. Standard score of 1 for traps. 1 hardness Substratum Habitat is high relief. Standard score of 2 for traps 2 ruggedness Seabed slope Medium degree (precautionary score of shelf and terraces in inner slope) 2 Spatial Gear footprint Trap : Low risk 2

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 223

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 224

Table 30. CSA Rationale Table Habitat 4 - Bathyal zone with biogenic reef

Attributes Justification Risk score Consequence Regeneration of The biota in this habitat have a slower life cycle, with some species having a regeneration time that is more 3 biota than decadal (e.g. the large erect antipatharians and scleractinians). In this biome and sub-biome (inner shelf to upper slope), Table PF12 allocates a high-risk score of 3 for this habitat type. Natural Standard score for slope applied as per Table PF13. 3 disturbance Gear-habitat Removability of This habitat meets the description of tall, delicate, large (>30 cm high), rugose, or inflexible biota as per 3 interaction biota Table PF14 Removability of The traps are unlikely to remove the substratum whatever the habitat type. Standard score of 1. 1 substratum Substratum Solid reef that forms a hard substratum. Standard score of 1 for traps. 1 hardness Substratum Habitat is high relief. Standard score of 2 for traps 2 ruggedness Seabed slope High degree (standard score of mid to upper slope as per Table PF15) 3 Spatial Gear footprint Trap : low risk 2

Lost traps: The pots deployed in deeper waters are constructed of stronger materials, consisting of an iron frame, rigid and flexible plastic mesh, and a plastic funnel. Although the iron frame will corrode over time, this is likely to be a slow process as the metal has been given anti-rust treatment. None of the other materials are biodegradable. According to the COPEC reports, on average 14 pots are lost per trip in the deep fishery. Any pots that are lost are likely to persist in the environment. However, as they are weighted and natural disturbance in the bathyal zone is considered minimal, movement may be limited. Nevertheless, taking into account the high gradient of the slope in this area, the team felt that a score of 1 for the gear footprint was not sufficiently precautionary to account for lost pots. The score was increased to 2. Spatial overlap This habitat extends from 300m to 2000m depth. However, the deep fishery only fishes up to 350m depth. 1 The spatial overlap therefore only concerns a narrow band in the top layer of this habitat. Furthermore, the pots are not deployed throughout the year as the fishery is open only four months per year (1st Dec

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 225

30th April)). Although this temporal element appears to be lacking from the standard CSA analysis, the team and stakeholders agreed that this is an important factor to take into account. A precautionary level of overlap of ≤ 30% was decided by the team. Encounterability This habitat is targeted by the fishery as this is where the rock lobster are found in the bathyal zone. 3 CSA Score 3.05 MSC equivalent score 71

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 226

Table 31. RBF scoring worksheet for CSA

Yes

Only main habitats scored? Consequence score [1-3] Spatial score [0.5-3]

Habitat Habitat details Gear-habitat interaction

productivity

derived score derived

Scoring UoA/Gear Depth CSA

Biome Sub-biome Feature Habitat type

element type (m)

Regeneratio n of biota Natural disturbance Seabed slope MSC category Risk guidepost scoring MSC

Removability of of Removability biota of Removability substratum Substratum hardness Substratum ruggedness score Consequence footprint Gear overlap Spatial Encounterability score Spatial score CSA Coast / Coastal margin / Inner 1 Trap Rocky infralittoral Large - Outcrop - Flora 0 - 40m 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1.22 1 1.5 3 1.65 2.05 94 Low ≥80 Shelf shelf Shelf / Medium - Flat/low relief - Small 40 - 2 Trap Inner shelf / upper slope Circalittoral, coralligenous 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.89 2 2 3 2.29 2.97 73 Med 60-79 Slope erect/encrusting/burrowing 300m Shelf / Circalittoral, large erect 40 - 3 Trap Inner shelf / upper slope Large - High relief - Large erect 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 2.11 2 2 3 2.29 3.11 68 Med 60-79 Slope biota 300m Bathyal zone with biogenic Solid reef of biogenic origin - 300 - 4 Trap Slope Upper slope / Mid-slope 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 2.44 2 1 3 1.82 3.05 71 Med 60-79 reef High relief - Large erect 2000m

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 227

Appendix 8.2 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

The RBF workshop for the Ecosystem Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) took place during half a day on the 16th October 2019 (following the RBF workshop on Habitats). The list of participants is provided in Appendix 2.2. Prior to the workshop, each participant had received an RBF information pack which is available upon request. The workshop commenced with a team leader presentation on the state of ecosystem information, monitoring and management for the Amsterdam and Saint-Paul islands, as well as an introduction to the RBF process for ecosystem: the SICA.

Note: a summary of known information on the ecosystem is provided in Section 7.4.5. The outputs of the SICA exercise are shown in Table 32.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 228

Table 32. SICA Scoring table for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem

Spatial scale of Temporal scale of Intensity of fishing Relevant Consequence Score fishing activity fishing activity activity subcomponents Species composition Functional group Performance Indicator PI composition 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome 6 4 3 Distribution of the

community Trophic 80 size/structure The stakeholder group first defined the ecosystem under consideration. The ecosystem around Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands rapidly changes from one that is dominated by benthic processes with pelagic larval coupling (from the infralittoral to the circalittoral) to one that is dominated by pelagic processes. There was consensus amongst stakeholders that the ecosystem affected by the fishery could be Rationale for spatial scale described as a subtropical peri-insular plateau ecosystem. Owing to the bathymetry around the islands, it was also important to identify of fishing activity the limit from where this ecosystem is likely to change into a predominantly pelagic one. For Saint-Paul, the depth drops rapidly from 300m down at 5nm from the island. For Amsterdam, this happens at ca. 3 nm. These contours were agreed on by workshop participants and the UoAs ecosystem level impacts were scored at this scale. Based on the UoA fishing footprint shown in Figure 21 (Section 7.4.4.1), a spatial overlap of >60% was determined, or a spatial scale score of 6 for both islands. The fishery is open during only four months in the year (from the 1st December until the 30th April each year – see Arrêté 2019-111). Note Rationale for temporal this is a precautionary estimate as this period is not fished continually (e.g. travel between Reunion and Amsterdam and Saint-Paul needs scale of fishing activity to be factored in and both islands are not fished at the same time). On a precautionary basis 101-200 days per year were estimated, or a temporal scale score of 4. The greatest risk to the ecosystem in the context of this fishery stems from the removal of rock lobster. Given that only rock lobsters above a certain size are harvested, effects are likely to be detectable in size distribution. The fishery impacts on the ecosystem over a large spatial scale, but only does so during four months of the year. Even then, all locations are not fished simultaneously given the input Rationale for intensity of and output controls stipulated in the regulations (rock lobster TAC, limits on the number of pots and pot lifts, limits on the number of fishing activity auxiliary fishing vessels) + the actual logistics of the fishery which prevent both islands to be fished at the same time (the auxiliary vessels are dependent on the mother vessel). Overall, stakeholders agreed that there was moderate detectability of fishing activity at broader spatial scale, or obvious but local detectability, leading to an intensity score of 3. Rationale for As previously stated, the greatest risk to the ecosystem in the context of this fishery stems from the removal of rock lobster, with only rock consequence score lobsters above 56mm (or 150 g) being harvested. The most vulnerable sub-component was therefore selected as the size structure. At high

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 229

population densities, spiny lobsters are instrumental in the trophic dynamics of benthic ecosystems, because they are voracious predators of other shellfish, sea urchins and small fish, while also feeding on coralline algae, barnacles and sponges (Mayfield et al., 2000, 2001; Blamey et al., 2019). The diet of small Jasus lalandii (<75mm CL) consisted of a wide range of species, but by contrast, large specimens (>80mm CL) fed on few species, mainly fish and ribbed mussels (Mayfield et al., 2000). A large reduction in lobster size structure may therefore reduce predation on fish and ribbed mussels but increase predation on other taxa – thus affecting the trophic dynamics of the ecosystem.

The main impact of a change in lobster size structure on the ecosystem as a result of fishing would have occurred at the beginning of the fishery during the 1950s, when fishing on a previously unexploited resource removed ‘old’ lobsters in the largest size categories faster than their replacement rate (Duhamel, 1980). Ecosystem effects resulting from a change in lobster size structure, if there were any effects at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam, would have taken place at that time. Nevertheless, the mean size of lobsters in all exploited areas have since remained well above the MLS (56 mm CL), thus mitigating the potential effects of a reduction in size structure on this ecosystem (Figure 27).

Temporal trends in mean CL over the past 25 years have been relatively stable, with gradual undulations which are more typical of natural variability in lobster growth rates than of the impact of fishing (Selles, 2019a). The difference in male and female size distributions remained constant over the period, suggesting that the fishery does not selectively diminish either sex, compared to the other (Figure 26). Based on these indicators, the impact of selectively removing larger lobsters from the ecosystem appears to have been at an equilibrium for at least 25 years at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands (coastal and offshore zones) – hence further ecological impacts are not considered to be substantial.

Overall, there was agreement amongst stakeholders that any change in mean trophic level and biomass/number in each size class would not exceed 5% for rock lobster, corresponding to a consequence category of 80. As this is a relatively ‘clean’ fishery, the size distributions of other species would remain unaffected. Any impacts resulting from lost pots are unlikely to affect the consequence score as 1) the bait rapidly disappears from any lost pots and 2) all pots have escape gaps as is required under the Arrêté 2019-111.

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 230

Figure 26. Trends in mean CL of male and female J. paulensis caught at Saint-Paul and Amsterdam Islands, in coastal and offshore zones and on Banc Farce over the past 25 years show a stable, undulating trend in size structure, more typical of natural variability in growth rates than fishing impacts. Source: Selles (2019a)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 231

Figure 27. Length frequency distribution (CL in cm) of rock lobster for Saint-Paul (bottom) and Amsterdam (top) since 1986. The minimum landing size (MLS) is shown as a red line on both figures. Source: Selles (2019a)

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 232

Appendix 9 Harmonised fishery assessments

There are sensu strictu no fisheries in the MSC programme that overlap with this fishery. However, on a precautionary basis the team considered the following fisheries as there may be some overlap in terms of management systems (e.g. TAAF), catch methods (pots) and target species (spiny lobster albeit a different species). Following consideration of all information obtained, the team concluded that no comparison of scores was required due to significant differences between how the fisheries are management and the fishing areas concerned.

Table 33. Overlapping fisheries

Performance Fishery name Certification status and date Indicators to harmonise SARPC toothfish Crozet and Kerguelen Certified since 29 August 2013 None Tristan da Cunha rock lobster Certified since 20 June 2011 None

To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 233

Appendix 10 Objection Procedure

To be added at Public Certification Report stage

The report shall include all written decisions arising from a ‘Notice of Objection’, if received and accepted by the Independent Adjudicator.

Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Annex PD

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 234

Appendix 11 Template information and copyright

This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org)

Senior Policy Manager Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900

Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901

Email: [email protected]

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 235

Appendix 12 Letters of support for Client Action Plan

Appendix 12.1 MNHN

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 236

Appendix 12.2 TAAF

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 237

3394R04A Control Union Pesca Ltd MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017) 238