DERIS, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery MSC Certificate code: MSC-F-30022

Picture from : fao.org

First Surveillance Audit Report January 2020

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS Assessment team Beatriz Roel & José Ríos Fishery client DERIS, S.A. Assessment Type Surveillance audit

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 1 Contents

Insert a table of contents

1. GLOSSARY ...... 4

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5

3. REPORT DETAILS ...... 7

3.1 SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION ...... 7 3.2 BACKGROUND ...... 8 3.2.1 PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN SCIENCE , MANAGEMENT OR INDUSTRY ...... 8 3.2.2 CERTIFIED FLEET AND CLIENT GROUP ...... 9 3.2.3 FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 9 CM 51-07 (2016) EXPIRING BY END 2020 ...... 9 NEW CHILEAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ON REDUCING BIRD DISCARDS ...... 9 ARK AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT VOLUNTARY RESTRICTED ZONES ...... 10 DETAILS OF THE ANTARCTIC ENDEAVOUR FISHING OPERATIONS DURING 2018-2019...... 14 3.2.4 MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE ...... 19 OBSERVER COVERAGE AND PROGRAM ...... 19 MONITORING , COMPLIANCE AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ...... 19 3.2.5 TRACEABILITY ISSUES ...... 20 3.2.6 SCIENTIFIC BASED INFORMATION RELATED TO P1 ...... 20 INTERNATIONAL SYNOPTIC SURVEY 2019 ...... 20 PREFERRED OPTION FOR KRILL MANAGEMENT ...... 21 INFORMATION AND MONITORING ...... 21 ASSESSMENT OF STOCK STATUS ...... 22 3.2.7. SCIENTIFIC BASED INFORMATION RELATED TO P2 ...... 22 DATA COLLECTED BY OBSERVERS ON CATCH COMPOSITION ...... 22

4. VERSION DETAILS ...... 28

5. RESULTS ...... 29

5.1 SURVEILLANCE RESULTS OVERVIEW ...... 29 5.1.1 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS ...... 29 5.1.2. TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH (TAC) AND CATCH DATA ...... 29 5.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 30 5.2 CONDITIONS ...... 31 5.3 CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 32 5.4. RE-SCORING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...... 32

6. REFERENCES ...... 32

7. APPENDICES ...... 33

7.1 EVALUATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES ...... 33

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 2 7.1.1. SITE VISIT ...... 33 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ...... 33 6.2 STAKEHOLDER INPUT ...... 33 6.3 REVISED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM ...... 35 6.4 HARMONISED FISHERY ASSESSMENTS ...... 36

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 3 1. Glossary

Concepts and terms:

B0 Unexploited biomass BLIM Precautionary reference point. SSB below B lim indicate increase risk of impairment of recruitment BMSY Spawning biomass (equilibrium) when fishing at FMSY BPA Precautionary reference point SSB below B PA indicate that action should be taken to recover the stock Btrigger Biomass level below which fishing mortality should be reduced BRP Biological Reference Points CAB Conformity Assessment Body (in the case of this particular assessment the CAB is Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS) CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CR (MSC) Certification Requirements CSIs Combined Stardardised Indices ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected FCR (MSC) Fisheries Certificacion Requirements f/v Fishing vessel FLIM Fishing mortality which should be avoided with high probability because it is associated with unknown population dynamics or stock collapse FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY FPA Fishing mortality to ensure that there is a high probability that F lim will be avoided and that the spawning stock biomass will remain above the threshold B lim FPI Fishery Performance Index GYM Generalized Yield Model LTL Low Trohic Level MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA Marine Protected Area MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PCL Precautionary Catch Limit PRI Point where Recruitment would be Impaired SISO Scheme of International Scientific Observation SSMUs Small-Scale Management Units UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMS Vessel Monitoring System

Organizations: ASI Acreditation Service International BAS British Antarctic Survey BV Bureau Veritas CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora DIRECTEMAR Chilean General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Navy (Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y de Marina Mercante) DIRINMAR Chilean Directorate of Maritime Interests Aquatic Environment (Direccion de Intereses Marítimos Medio Ambiente Acuático) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations SGSSI South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands IDEAL Research Institute of Marine Ecosystems of High Latitudes (Centro de Investigación Dinámica de Ecosistemas Marinos de Altas Latitudes) INACH Chilean Antarctic Institute (Instituto Antártico Chileno) IWC International Whaling Commission MINECON Chilean Ministry of Economy (Ministerio de Economia) MINREL Chilean Foreign Affairs (Ministerior de Relaciones Exteriores) MSC Marine Stewardship Council SCAF CCAMLR Standing Committee on Administration and Finance SCIC CCMALR Standing Committee on Administration and Finance SERNAPESCA Chilean Fishing and Aquaculture Service (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura) SUBPESCA Chilean Undersecretariat of Fishing and Aquaculture (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura) UACH Chilean Southern University (Universidad Austral de Chile) WG -FSA CCAMLR Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment WG -EMM CCAMLR Working Group for Ecosystem Monitoring and Management

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 4 WG -IMAF CCAMLR Working Group on Incidental Mortality Associated with Fishing WG -SAM CCAMLR Working Group on Statistics, Assessments and Modeling

2. Executive summary The fishery is certified since the September 6, 2018. The fishery was assessed against version 2.0 of the MSC Certification Requirements. Current surveillance audit was conducted against FCP2.1 and MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.01 was used to elaborate current report. During the initial assessment a single condition was set on the Performance Indicator (PI) 2.1.2 (see section 5.2 for more details). Further, 5 non-binding recommendations were set (see section 5.1.3 for more details). The first annual surveillance audit was conducted offsite during the week of 1st October 2019. As a result of this surveillance audit, 2 more recommendations were issued, while the existing condition was found to be on target. Table 2.1 presents scores given to each MSC Principle as published at the PCR and after subsequent surveillance audits, while table 2.2 presents scores for each Performance Indicator. Table 2.1. Average scores for each MSC Principle as published in the PCR and after current SA. MSC Principle PCR 1SA Principle 1 89.2 = Principle 2 89.0 = Principle 3 94.2 =

Table 2.2. PIs scores of the certified fishery as published in the PCR and after current SA (in red scores below 80, meaning a condition was raised for that PI. In bold scores modified from initial assessment)

Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) PCR 1SA

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90 =

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 =

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

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 =

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

2.2.1 Outcome 80 = Secondary species 2.2.2 Management strategy 85 = 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 85 =

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

2.4.1 Outcome 100 = Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 100 = 2.4.3 Information 85 =

2.5.1 Outcome 100 = Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 85 =

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 5 2.5.3 Information 95 =

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 95 =

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

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 = 3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 = Fishery specific management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 85 = Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 90 = evaluation

Main findings from this surveillance audit are summarized below: . INACH and the client confirmed that the CCAMLR observer program at a national level is active and performs well. No complains on the quality of the data reported by the observers were raised neither by INACH nor by the CCAMLR Secretariat. The client has ensured a 1005 observer coverage during the 2018-2019 . Sernapesca confirmed that the certified vessel fulfilled with its reporting obligations and no infringements were raised during the 2018-2019 fishing season (until September). Sernapesca confirmed that all landings took place in Punta Arenas, all of them were audited by their inspectors. . The large-scale Synoptic Survey in Area 48 conducted in 2019 is a very important step forward in order to improve antarctic krill stock assessment. The Subgroup advised the Scientific Committee that the krill biomass estimate from the 2019 Area 48 Survey was 62.6 million tonnes with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 13%. A rigorous cross-checking of the results from the 2019 survey was carried out by SG-ASAM in 2019 . The ARK (including Deris, S.A.) participated in the multinational large-scale krill synoptic survey in Area 48 being proposed by Norway. In order to do this Norway made available its icebreaker ship and a Norwegian research centre hired from Deris, S.A. the f/v ‘Cabo de Hornos’ with Chilean flag. . Subarea 48.1 was closed with 155 900 tonnes in the most recent season 2018 – 2019, a 0.5 % in excess of the trigger level. . CM 51-07 expires on the 30 th November of 2021 if agreement has not been reached on an update or replacement of the conservation measure. It is therefore imperative that other conservation measures are developed if CCAMLR management objectives are to be achieved. It is for this reason that this year the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) has considered the development of a preferred option to manage krill a priority for 2020. . The ARK members signed an agreement to a stepwise implementation of voluntary restricted zones and implementation of transhipment and vessel standards for the krill fishery in the Antarctic Peninsula. This agreement started to be implemented in 2019. Proposed buffer areas around major breeding agregations for penguins were respected by the certified vessel in accordance with maps provided . Based on data provided by the client, Arana & Rolleri (2019) prepared a preliminary report accounting for the main features of the fishing operations carried out by the Antarctic Endeavour between December 2018 and July 2019. Data on catch composition show that the frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of companion fauna in the krill fishery is almost negligible. Observers did not report any catches of bigger fish, such it was the case during the first fishing trip of the Antarctic Endeavour in 2018, when 7 tons of mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) were caught . Brierly and Proud (2018) presented a paper to the WG-EMM in 2018 stating the very likelihood that ice krill (Euphausia crystallorophias) could be taken as bycatch in the Antarctic krill fishery without being reported. To this date there is no record of ice krill being identified by any observer on board or reported to CCAMLR by any other mean. This issue was discussed during the WG-EMM meeting in 2018, but no more papers were presented this year and no in depth discussions took place. The team considers that the client should make an effort to clarify whether ice krill is being caught as part of the Antarctic krill fishery, and a recommendation has been issued on this matter (see section 5.1.3).

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 6 However, at this stage the team does not consider that re-scoring is needed based on this controversy. . No changes affecting traceability. All landings in 2019 were performed in Punta Arenas (Chile)

The assessment team concludes the MSC- FISHERY CERTIFICATE FOR THIS FISHERY SHALL REMAIN ACTIVE , subject to the agreed annual surveillance schedule and progress on the existing condition.

3. Report details 3.1 Surveillance information According to the ‘MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v2.01’ the following table shall be included.

Table 3.1.1. Surveillance information 1 Fishery name DERIS S.A – Pesca Chile- Antarctic Krill Fishery 2 Unit o f Assessment Target stock: Antarctic krill ( Euphausia superba ) in FAO Area 48 Fishing Area: FAO 48.1, 48.2, 48.3 and 48.4 UoA Fishing method: Midwater trawl targeting Antarctic krill Fishing operators: ‘Antarctic Endeavour’ f/v

3 Certificate detail s Certificate code MSC-F-30022 Date certified 06 Sep 2018 Date of expiry 05 Sep 2023 4 Surveillance level and type The surveillance level determined in the PCR was 5 (3 on-site surveillance audits and 1 off-site surveillance audit). Initially, the off-site audit was planned for the third surveillance audit. However, Level the CAB has decided to move the off-site audit to the 1st surveillance audit. No further modifications to the surveillance level and type are proposed for future surveillance audits, as indicated in Appendix 5.3 Type Therefore, an off-site visit is scheduled for the first surveillance audit. 5 Surveillance number 1st Surveillance X 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance Other (expedited etc) 6 Assessment t ea m1 Team leader José Ríos Team member 1 Beatriz Roel 7 Audit/review time and location Off-site visit. Meetings held between October 1 and 3. 8 Assessment and review activities

1 See the Surveillance announcement at the MSC website for more details on how the team meets the competency criteria and the areas that they are responsible for.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 7 During the site visit, the team conducted assessment activities in accordance with FCP 7.28.15-18. In the case of the Deris antarctic krill fishery the team concentrated in: (i) checking for any relevant modification affecting the fishery; (ii) assess progress against conditions set to the fishery. See Appendix 6.1 for details on the people interviewed, topics discussed, locations inspected, and Appendix 6.2 for details on the stakeholder engagement strategy. Harmonization activities with overlapping fisheries are described in section 6.4 9 Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Name Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS Address c/ Valportillo Primera, 22-24, Edificio Caoba, Pol. Ind. La Granja, 28108 Alcobendas, Madrid. Spain. E-mail/s [email protected] / [email protected] Contact Macarena García 10 Client

Name Deris, S.A

Address Avda. Carlos Ibáñez del Campo s/n Km 5,5 Norte, Sector Tres Puentes Punta Arenas, Chile E-mail/s [email protected] Phone Contact Enrique Gutierrez

3.2 Background

The report shall outline any changes to the fishery since the initial assessment or last surveillance report, including (but not limited to) changes to: - Management systems - Relevant regulations - Personnel involved in science, management or industry - Scientific base of information, including stock assessments - Where enhanced fisheries, any updates on fishery’s position in relation to scope criteria - Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish). This includes any changes in the UoC which could impact traceability, and should include how these changes have been addressed by management or traceability systems The CAB shall state if no changes have been identified.

Major changes to the fishery since the last surveillance are outlined below: 3.2.1 Personnel involved in science, management or industry At CCAMLR no significant modifications on the personnel involved in science or management were identified by the team. At national level, Chile got a new Government in March 2018 and therefore there have been changes in some of the positions within Subpesca and Minrel. However, no significant modifications on the personnel involved in science or management were identified by the team. The only modification that is worth noting here is that reporting INACH, Subpesca and Sernapesca are now reporting directly to the CCAMLR Secretariat, instead of reporting the National Antarctic Directorate (under the MINREL). A MINREL representative (Mario Artaza pers. comm.) confirmed that the Antarctic Directorate is now focused on political issues (New Chilean Antarctic Law, new regulation on the Antarctic tourism, proposal for a new MPA) and they are leaving the competent bodies to deal with fisheries issues. This fact was also confirmed on the interviews held withINACH, Subpesca and Sernapesca. However, this modification does not entail any implication towards the fishery of the certificate. INACH confirmed that they are still the institution in charge of coordinating the national observers for the CCAMLR area (while IFOP is the institution in charge for the domestic observer programme). Subpesca wanted IFOP to coordinate the CCAMLR observer program too, but no progress on this direction has been taken since the initial assessment. INACH ensures that Chilean shipowners who need observers in the CCAMLR area can get access to them a timely manner. INACH also compiles and reviews data recorded by the observers before reporting to the CCAMLR Secretariat and then to the different ship-owners. INACH recognized that the observer’s capacity building workshop developed in October 2017 (already mentioned in the PCR) helped them to increase from 6 to 12 the number of people trained to work as observers in the

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 8 CCAMLR area. The person responsible at INACH for the observer programme is Lorena Rebolledo. Lorena confirmed that the CCAMLR observer program is active and they are performing well. No complains on the quality of the data reported by the observers were raised neither by INACH nor by the CCAMLR Secretariat. They recognised, however, some weaknesses: (i) some of the people trained for becoming CCAMLR observers do not have the IMO course required by the Marine Authority, and (ii) a second training course for CCAMLR observers scheduled for the second semester of 2019 could not be organised.

3.2.2 Certified fleet and client group No changes were identified in the certified fleet or the client group. Deris –Pescachile- is still an active member of the Association of responsible Krill harvesting companies (ARK). The f/v ‘Antarctic Endeavour’ is the only Chilean vessel targeting Antarctic krill and the one vessel included in the certificate. In 2019 the ARK participated in a multinational large-scale krill synoptic survey in Area 48 being proposed by Norway. In order to do this Norway made available its icebreaker ship and a Norwegian research centre hired from Deris, S.A. the f/v ‘Cabo de Hornos’ with Chilean flag. Despite of being an acoustic survey, the ‘Cabo de hornos’ also made some hauls in order to test the acoustic signals (only scientific purpouses). In order to avoid any kind of problems due to the scientific hauls, this fishing vessel got a permission by the Chilean Undersecretariat for the Dec 2018- Nov 2019 fishing season and submitted the formal notification to CCAMLR Secretariat on the intent to fish krill during the fishing season. The f/v ‘Cabo de Hornos’ was listed in the Convention website, together with the certified fishing vessel ‘Antarctic Endeavour’, as the two Chilean vessels authorized for targeting krill in subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3. The participation of the f/v ‘Cabo de Hornos’ in the survey consisted in a 3 month trip, between January and March 2019. The ‘Cabo de Hornos’ did not perform any commercial fishing at all, and the vessel was not included in the current certificate. See Table 3.2.2.1 for details included in the licence issued by CCAMLR). The large-scale survey was an international effort: UK made available one of its research vessels, while China, Ukraine and Korea also made some of their fishing vessels available for accomplishing the task. Table ¡Error! No hay texto con el estilo especificado en el documento. .2.2.1. List of authorised Chilean vessels to target Antarctic krill inside the Convention area. The f/v Cabo de Hornos did not perform any commercial fishing as explained above, this vessel contributed to the multinational large-scale krill synoptic survey. Source: CCAMLR website https://www.ccamlr.org/en/compliance/authorised-vessels-0 Vessel Flag Authorisation period Area(s) Target species Subarea 48.1 Antarctic Chile 01 Dec 2018 to 30 Nov 2019 Subarea 48.2 Euphausia superba Endeavour Subarea 48.3 Subarea 48.1 Cabo de Hornos Chile 01 Dec 2018 to 30 Nov 2019 Subarea 48.2 Euphausia superba Subarea 48.3

3.2.3 Fishery management and regulatory framework

CM 51-07 (2016) expiring by end 2020 CM 51-07 expires on the 30 th November of 2021 if agreement has not been reached on an update or replacement of the conservation measure. It is therefore imperative that other conservation measures are developed if CCAMLR management objectives are to be achieved. It is for this reason that this year the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) has considered the development of a preferred option to manage krill a priority for 2020. See section 3.2.6 for a more detailed discussion on this issue. However, during the assessed fishing season 2018-2019, no changes in the krill management options were adopted. New Chilean regulatory framework on reducing bird discards A new regulation to reduce bird bycatches in trawl fisheries, both in national and international waters, has been recently issued by Subpesca (Resolucion 2914 del 28 de Agosto de 2019 que establece medidas de

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 9 Administración para reducer las capturas incidentals de aves marinas en las pesquerías de arrastre que se indicant). However, the krill fishery is not included among the fisheries for which the regulation is applicable. This Resolution regulates the mitigation measures and the best practices on board. The use of laser bird scaring devices is not included among the accepted mitigation measures for any of the applicable fisheries (mainly demersal fisheries such as hakes and squat lobsters). So far, the Antarctic Endeavour will keep using the laser scaring device (the SeaBirdSaver©, see Roel et al 2018) apart from the mandatory tori lines. However, they are closely monitoring any potential modification regarding CCAMLR and/or national regulations on this matter and considering the possibility to remove their current laser system to keep only the mandatory tori lines. ARK agreement to implement voluntary restricted zones In July 2018 the ARK members signed an agreement to a stepwise implementation of voluntary restricted zones and implementation of transhipment and vessel standards for the krill fishery in the Antarctic Peninsula. This agreement (including Attachement 1) is presented below. The CEO of Deris confirmed during the meeting held that the fishing season of the Antarctic Endeavour was planned in order to fulfil the requirements established in this agreement, see figures 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 for more details on the geographical distribution of the fishing operations performed.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 10

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 11

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 12

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 13

Details of the Antarctic Endeavour fishing operations during 2018-2019 Based on data provided by the client, Arana & Rolleri (2019) prepared a preliminary report accounting for the main features of the fishing operations carried out by the Antarctic Endeavour between December 2018 and July 2019. Positions of all the hauls performed by month are presented in Figures 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 . It can be appreciated that fishing operations within the Bransfield strait were delayed until April to prevent interfering with breeding agregations for penguins in this area, and also proposed buffers around major breeding agregations for penguins (see Attachemen 1 to the ARK Agreement copied in the previous section) were respected. Comparing these figures against presented in Roel et al 2018 it is clear that fishing operations in areas very close to shore have decreased (see previous section). Table 3.2.3.1 and figures 3.2.3.3 and 3.2.3.4 provide other details on the fishing operations carried out by the certified vessel. Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 14

66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island DECEMBER s land d Is tlan She 62°00' outh S ait Str ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island JANUARY s land d Is tlan She 62°00' outh S ait Str ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island APRIL s land d Is tlan She ait uth Str 62°00' So ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island MAY s land d Is tlan She ait uth Str 62°00' So ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00'

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 15 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island JUNE s land d Is tlan She 62°00' outh S ait Str ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' 66°00'W 64°00' 62°00' 60°00' 58°00' 56°00' 54°00' 60°00'S Elephant Island JULY s land d Is tlan She 62°00' outh S ait Str ield nsf Bra

64°00' la su nin Pe ic rct nta A SUBAREA 48.1 66°00' Figura 3.2.3.1. Monthly distribution of fishing sets in the capture of Antarctic krill made by the Antarctic Endeavor in Subarea 48.1, between December 2018 and July 2019.

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

DECEMBER Southern Ocean

60°30'

South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' 47°18'W 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 60°00'S

JANUARY Southern Ocean

60°30'

South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 61°00'

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 16 47°18'W 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18' 60°00'S

FEBRUARY Southern Ocean

60°30'

South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' 47°18'W 46°48' 46°18' 45°48' 45°18' 44°48' 44°18'

MARCH Southern Ocean

60°30'

South Orkney Islands

SUBAREA 48.2 61°00' Figura 3.2.3.2. Monthly distribution of fishing sets in the capture of Antarctic krill made by the Antarctic Endeavor in Subarea 48.2, between December 2018 and March 2019

Table 3.2.3.1 Main indicators in the fishing operations carried out by the Antarctic Endeavor between December 2018 and July 2019. Marea= fishing trip; Mes=month; Captura total= total catch; dias de pesca= fishing days; lances =hauls, Duracion total lances= total haul duration; duracion media lances =average haul duration

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 17 Duración Captura total Dias de Lances Duración total CPUE CPUE Marea Mes Subárea media lances (ton) pesca (n) lances (h) (ton/h) (ton/lance) (h) 48.1 993,32 14 59 236,15 4,00 4,21 16,84 Diciembre 48.2 88,38 4 15 57,03 3,80 1,55 5,89 Total 1.081,70 14 74 293,18 3,96 3,39 13,42 48.1 730,55 13 47 197,93 4,21 3,69 15,54 1 Enero 48.2 2.444,55 18 75 319,02 4,25 7,66 32,59 Total 3.175,09 31 122 516,95 4,24 6,14 26,03 48.1 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Febrero 48.2 2.303,92 14 65 241,45 3,71 9,54 35,44 Total 2.303,92 14 65 241,45 3,71 9,54 35,44 48.1 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2 Marzo 48.2 5.568,26 28 148 464,85 3,14 11,98 37,62 Total 5.568,26 28 148 464,85 3,14 11,98 37,62 48.1 2.402,32 17 88 311,58 3,54 7,71 27,30 Abril 48.2 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 2.402,32 17 88 311,58 3,54 7,71 27,30 3 48.1 2.293,04 22 112 357,53 3,19 6,41 20,47 Mayo 48.2 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 2.293,04 22 112 357,53 3,19 6,41 20,47 48.1 3.001,23 26 132 459,52 3,48 6,53 22,74 Junio 48.2 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 3.001,23 26 132 459,52 3,48 6,53 22,74 4 48.1 1.305,55 13 83 235,77 2,84 5,54 15,73 Julio 48.2 0,00 0 0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Total 1.305,55 13 83 235,77 2,84 5,54 15,73

Captura total (ton) 6.000 48.1

48.2 5.000 Total 4.000

3.000

Captura (ton) Captura 2.000

1.000

0 Dic Ene Feb Mar Abr May Jun Jul Mes Figura 3.2.3.3 Total (ton) monthly catch of Antarctic krill obtained by the Antarctic Endeavor, between December 2018 and July 2019.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 18 CPUE (ton/h) 25 48.1

48.2 20 Total

15

10 CPUE (ton/h) CPUE

5

0 Dic Ene Feb Mar Abr May Jun Jul Mes Figura 3.2.3.4. Monthly CPUE (ton / h) achieved by the Antarctic Endeavor vessel in the Antarctic krill fishery, between December 2018 and July 2019.

3.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance Observer coverage and program As stated in section 3.2.1 , INACH is the institution in charge of coordinating the national observer program for Chilean vessels operating in the CCAMLR area. Despite weaknesses pointed in section 3.2.1, all stakeholders interviewed confirmed that ship owners operating in the Convention area can get access to qualified observed in a timely manner. Both INACH and the client confirmed a 100% observer coverage on board the ‘Antarctic Endeavour’. Average fishing trips last between 40 and 50 days, but they can go up to almost 3 months, and it might be the case that there is a need to change the observer during the fishing trip. In order to cover this kind of eventualities the client has an extra observer coordinating the data collection regarding their hake fleet (operating within Chilean waters) who is qualified to work in CCAMLR area, so in case of emergency this observer is always ready to replace any vacancy on the observers working at the Antarctic Endeavour. Monitoring, Compliance and Surveillance system Sernapesca confirmed that the certified vessel fulfilled with its reporting obligations and no infringements were raised during the 2018-2019 fishing season (until September). Sernapesca confirmed that all landings took place in Punta Arenas, all of them were audited by their inspectors. Catches (green weight estimates) are reported on a daily basis to Sernapesca. Then, during landing Sernapesca weights the final product and estimates green weight using a conversion factor. To estimate green weight out of the final production Sernapesca uses the conversion factor approved in the Chilean regulation, which might not be the same as the one used by CCAMLR. The conversion rate is very close to 20% (i.e. 20kg of final product equals to 100kg green weight). At a CCAMLR level, given the different on- board processing methods and the resulting range of conversion factors used in the overall krill fishery, specific detail of the method used to estimate catch on all of the krill-catching vessels is included in the CCAMLR notification process. Chile has been designing and implementing an ambitious program involving the installation of cameras on- board on all its fisheries (excluding artisanal vessel) in order to ensure compliance and minimise discards. Several regulations and participatory processes with the fishing fleets involved has already been issued and implemented in recent years, including 2019 (see Saa Collantes et al 2019 for a review of the regulations on this issue). The process is now almost completed, and from January 2020 it will be mandatory to all Chilean fishing vessels to have cameras on board to control their fishing operations, including discarding. This is a complex process to be implemented in large muti-species fleets such as demersal trawlers targeting hakes or squat lobsters. However, this is not the case of the Chilean fleet targeting krill, which is comprised by a single vessel and there are almost no bycatches or discards. During the meeting held with Sernapesca, they confirmed that a total of 6 cameras will be installed on board the Antarctic Endeavour (2 of them on deck and the other 4 in the factory). These cameras are expected to be installed before the end of 2019. On the other

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 19 hand, the client confirmed that the vessel was ready to install the cameras (the wiring was ready since August). Subpesca receives from CCAMLR an annual notification of infringements performed by Chilean vessels operating in the Convention area. This notification is sent before the annual meeting. The Subpesca representatives interviewed during the remote visit confirmed that no notification of infringements regarding the certified vessel was received in 2018 or 2019.

3.2.5 Traceability issues The problems to estimate green weight of krill caught detected during the first fishing trip performed in 2018 (see Roel et al 2018) are now solved. The conversion rate is close to 20% (see table 4.1.2.1 ), in accordance with the conversion rate applied by Sernapesca. No significant changes were identified in relation to traceability issues compared to the description provided in the PCR, During the remote meetings held with the CEO of Deris and Sernapesca both confirmed that Punta Arenas (Chile) was the only landing port used during the assessed fishing season, despite another 2 more lading ports were included in the PCR (Bahía Blanca in Argentina, and Montevideo in Uruguay). The landed product (full fat dried krill already packed in 20kg labelled aluminium bags) is stowed in a warehouse owned by the client and located in Punta Arenas. This warehouse has the authorization of Sernapesca to be used for this purpose (and it is being regularly inspected by this Institution). Initially, a total of 7-8 transhipments at certain locations within the Antarctic territory per year were expected in order to avoid sailing to Chile after each fishing trip. However, no transhipments to the supply ship ‘Antarctic Warrior’ were undertaken during the assessed fishing season. Transhipments are allowed for the krill fishery as far as they are performed in accordance with CM 10-09. All landing (and transhipments) of the certified vessels shall be inspected by Sernapesca. Sernapesca confirmed that 100% of the landings performed by the Antarctic Endeavour were inspected (see section 3.2.4 for more details). The client shared with the team the landing declarations issued by Sernapesca as a result of the landing inspections performed for certified vessel. These documents detail the departure and arrival of the inspected fishing trip, greenweigh caught in each of the CCAMLR subareas, the weight of the final product/s obtained, the destination of those product/s (the warehouse) and the date of the stowage. The CEO of Deris confirmed that their product is being exported, mainly to the Asian market at this moment.

3.2.6 Scientific based information related to P1 International Synoptic Survey 2019 In this section we focus on changes to the scientific based information, including stock assessment in the period since certification. So far, krill stock assessment has primarily been based on the results from CCAMLR 2000 krill synoptic survey of Area 48. Therefore, the International Synoptic Survey in Area 48 conducted in 2019 is a very important development in this context (see section 3.2.2 for more details on the countries and means involved in this survey). This involved large scale transects based on the design of the CCAMLR 2000 krill synoptic survey of Area 48 (CCAMLR 2019). Initial estimates of nautical area scattering coefficients (NASC) from krill were obtained using the swarm discrimination method at 120 kHz and processed to yield standing stock estimates based on the 2019 Area 48 Survey and the AMLR transects and were presented in the Subgroup on Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods (SG-ASAM) in 2019 (CCAMLR 2019a). This analysis made several processing decisions and assumptions that were discussed and revised during SG-ASAM. Some processing errors were also identified. The Subgroup advised the Scientific Committee that the krill biomass estimate from the 2019 Area 48 Survey was 62.6 million tonnes with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 13%.

It should be noted that the methodology used for the 2019 survey differed in some respects from what was used for the CCAMLR 2000 survey (Macaulay et al. 2019). Firstly, the swarm-based approach for krill discrimination was used in 2019 as opposed to the standard ‘dB-difference’ used in 2000. Secondly, acoustic transects were carried out day and night in 2019 survey compared to only daytime during the CCAMLR 2000 survey. Thirdly, different net sampling equipment on different vessels could introduce bias in the krill length

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 20 frequency distributions which could result in differences in the acoustic method used to determine krill density. However, it should be noted that a consistent sampling method was used by the two vessels which together covered most of the 2019 grid.

A rigorous cross-checking of the results from the 2019 survey was carried out by SG-ASAM in 2019 (see CCAMLR 2019a). A number of studies compared acoustic estimates of the mean krill density between the swarms-based and three-frequency (38, 120 and 200 kHz) dB-difference (as applied for the CCAMLR-2000 survey analysis). The Subgroup noted that the analyses presented suggested that the estimates of krill biomass density from the swarms-based method and dB-difference method were generally in agreement and comparable. Similarly, the implication of acoustic data collection day and night in the 2019 survey was evaluated. The Subgroup agreed that while there are differences in the biomass estimates using all of the data and when restricting the data to that collected between civil dawn and dusk (i.e. during the day), these differences were not significant and the inclusion of all data in the estimation process results in a reduction in the CV of the resulting biomass. Other exploration of the sensitivity of the 2019 estimate to methodological differences were also conducted and it does appear that the 2000 and 2019 biomass estimates are very similar. This gives us some confidence that assumptions about stock size made as a result of the 2000 survey are still valid. Based on the most recent estimates of biomass, the actual exploitation rate remains < 3%, supporting the view that management is precautionary at the subarea level. However, these surveys do not tell us anything about trends in stock size (S. L. Hill pers. comm .), but there is still no evidence of a decline since 2000.

Preferred option for krill management The establishment of trigger levels by subarea and their implementation through CM 51-07 have protected local availability of krill for its predators. However, CM 51-07 expires on the 30th November of 2021 if agreement has not been reached on an update or replacement of the conservation measure. It is therefore imperative that other conservation measures are developed if CCAMLR management objectives are to be achieved. It is for this reason that this year the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM) has considered the development of a preferred option to manage krill a priority. The preferred option would take a subarea-based approach, nested within an overall large-scale approach, for Subareas 48.1 to 48.4 based on subarea-scale stock assessment models and biomass estimates from regular surveys within subareas, to determine precautionary catch limits. The spatial distribution and scaling of the catch limits would then be based on the risk assessment framework (CCAMLR 2019b). This approach is seen as a first step towards management at the level of the SMUUs which is deemed necessary by the Commission to render the management procedure fully consistent with ecosystem requirements. Trathan et al. (2018) highlight that consideration of risks at small ecological scales is vital, as management at Area and Subarea scales might not be able to deal with all ecosystem scales of risk.

Information and monitoring Subarea 48.1 was closed with 155 900 tonnes in the most recent season 2018 – 2019, a 0.5 % in excess of the trigger level. Although the excess was marginal and catches in Sub Area 48.1 have been less than 155 000 tonnes since implementation of CM 51-07 in 2016 and in years before (see Fig 3.2.6.1 ) it raises some concerns about the effectiveness of CCAMLR tools to control exploitation. Exploitation levels still meet requirements under the HCRs and re-scoring of PI 1.2.2 is not attempted in this surveillance audit since changes in terms of krill management are expected for 2020 as a result CM 51-07 expiring in November, but this slight over-catch need not become the norm and should be flagged to the management authorities. A new recommendation regarding this issue has been set as a result of current surveillance audit, see section 5.1.3.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 21 Subarea 48.1: Annual Catch (tonnes) as reported from SSMUs 160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019

Figure 3.2.6.1: Annual catch of krill from small-scale management units (SSMUs) in Subarea 48.1. More than 95% of the catches can be allocated to SSMUs based on haul by haul location reporting (adapted from Table A2.1, CCAMLR 2018, Krill Fishery Report)

Assessment of stock status The results from the 2019 International Synoptic krill survey support the perception that the assessment of stock status based on the 2000 circumpolar survey was reasonable. However, the uncertainty associated with these survey estimates precludes detecting a significant trend in krill biomass between 2000 and 2019. The Antarctic environment is experiencing significant change, which is predicted to continue in future. There is evidence that krill is vulnerable to such change (Hill et al . 2019) therefore, it is very important that krill is monitored regularly and much more often than once every two decades, and at appropriate spatial scales (S. L. Hill pers. comm ). This is an important consideration that needs to be continuously raised at the level of CCAMLR WG-EMM in support of future research surveys initiatives. However, the team consider that information collected during current surveillance does not trigger any re-scoring on the status of the krill stock.

3.2.7. Scientific based information related to P2 Data collected by observers on catch composition Observers on board the Antarctic Endeavour took samples in accordance with the CCAMLR standards, this results have been compiled in Arana & Rolleri 2019. Tables below (from Table 3.2.7.1 to 3,2,7.4 ) show the species composition by fishing trip, while table 3.2.7.5 provides details on the % of hauls where other species than krill were identified (varies between 48 and 74% of total hauls). Which is clear from these tables is that % the frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of companion fauna in the krill fishery is almost negligible. Observers did not report any catches of bigger fish, such it was the case during the first fishing trip of the Antarctic Endeavour in 2018, when 7 tons of mackerel icefish ( Champsocephalus gunnari) were caught.

Table 3.2.7.1 Percentage of companion fauna (FA) at fishing trip 1 of the Antarctic Endeavor between December 2018 and February 2019. Third column presents the % accounted by that species among hauls where that species was present, while the Fourth column presents the % accounted by that species among all hauls with companion fauna .

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 22 % de captura de la especie % de captura de la Código Especie en el total de lances con especie en el total de CCRVMA presencia de ella lances con FA KIF Chionodraco rastrospinosus 0,001880 0,0000296 NOL Nototheniops larseni 0,000014 0,0000001 ANH Anotopterus pharao 0,002179 0,0000651 PDG Paradiplospinus gracilis 0,000039 0,0000004 JEL Medusae 0,001042 0,0000507 SPX Salpidae 0,000085 0,0000001 ANI Champsocephalus gunnari 0,014270 0,0039038

NOG Notothenia gibberifrons 0,002453 0,0001763 SGI Pseudochaenichthys georgianus 0,001793 0,0007621

SSI Chaenocephalus aceratus 0,004880 0,0005470 AQM Amphipoda 0,000005 0,0000013 SQQ Teuthoidea 0,001015 0,0000359 NOE Notolepis spp. 0,000447 0,0000192 LXX Myctophidae 0,001123 0,0001027

Table 3.2.7.2 Percentage of companion fauna (FA) at fishing tri 2 of the Antarctic Endeavor March 2019. Third column presents the % accounted by that species among hauls where that species was present, while the Fourth column presents the % accounted by that species among all hauls with companion fauna % de captura de la especie % de captura de la Código Especie en el total de lances con especie en el total de CCRVMA presencia de ella lances con FA KIF Chionodraco rastrospinosus 0,001691 0,000143 PMA Pagetopsis macropterus 0,000979 0,000029 ANI Champsocephalus gunnari 0,017666 0,002641 JIC Neopagetopsis ionah 0,001601 0,000087 NOG Notothenia gibberifrons 0,001890 0,000034 SGI Pseudochaenichthys georgianus 0,003117 0,000312 SSI Chaenocephalus aceratus 0,007211 0,000279

AQM Amphipoda 0,000003 0,000002 SQQ Teuthoidea 0,000085 0,000002 NOE Notolepis spp. 0,000544 0,000020 LXX Myctophidae 0,000085 0,000002

Table 3.2.7.3 Percentage of companion fauna (FA) at fishing trip 3 of the Antarctic Endeavor between April and May 2019. Third column presents the % accounted by that species among hauls where that species was present, while the Fourth column presents the % accounted by that species among all hauls with companion fauna

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 23 % de captura de la especie % de captura de la Código Especie en el total de lances con especie en el total de CCRVMA presencia de ella lances con FA KIF Chionodraco rastrospinosus 0,003427 0,000493 ANI Champsocephalus gunnari 0,000197 0,000060 JIC Neopagetopsis ionah 0,001800 0,000091 NOG Notothenia gibberifrons 0,002424 0,000108 SGI Pseudochaenichthys georgianus 0,000058 0,000001 SSI Chaenocephalus aceratus 0,000141 0,000003 AQM Amphipoda 0,000003 0,000000 LXX Myctophidae 0,000011 0,000000 NOL Nototheniops larseni 0,000114 0,000021 NOT Patagonotothen brevicauda 0,000126 0,000001 ANH Anotopterus pharao 0,002177 0,000014 FIC Cryodraco antarcticus 0,000043 0,000006 ANS Pleuragramma antarcticum 0,000068 0,000008 WIC Chaenodraco wilsoni 0,002139 0,000101 JEL Medusae 0,005123 0,000546 GYA Gymnodraco acuticeps 0,000156 0,000001 SPX Salpidae 0,000137 0,000064 NOC Notothenia coriiceps 0,000027 0,000002 ELT Electrona spp. 0,000003 0,000000 LIC Channichthys rhinoceratus 0,000343 0,000003 SIX Sardinella spp. 0,000010 0,000000 BTI Bathydraconidae 0,000445 0,000009

Table 3.2.7.4 Percentage of companion fauna (FA) at fishing trip 4 of the Antarctic Endeavor between June and July 2019. Third column presents the % accounted by that species among hauls where that species was present, while the Fourth column presents the % accounted by that species among all hauls with companion fauna

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 24 % de captura de la especie % de captura de la Código Especie en el total de lances con especie en el total de CCRVMA presencia de ella lances con FA KIF Chionodraco rastrospinosus 0,005595 0,0024560 FIC Cryodraco antarcticus 0,000022 0,0000012 ANS Pleuragramma antarcticum 0,000205 0,0000072 WIC Chaenodraco wilsoni 0,001520 0,0000135 JEL Medusae 0,006952 0,0002247 GEP Gempylidae 0,000712 0,0000032 SPX Salpidae 0,000020 0,0000088 ANI Champsocephalus gunnari 0,000254 0,0000295 JIC Neopagetopsis ionah 0,002389 0,0002271 NOR Notothenia rossii 0,073076 0,0000502 SGI Pseudochaenichthys georgianus 0,049519 0,0004446 SSI Chaenocephalus aceratus 0,180021 0,0001237 AQM Amphipoda 0,000007 0,0000003 CEP Cephalopoda 0,001351 0,0000064 NOE Notolepis spp. 0,000204 0,0000247 LXX Myctophidae 0,000108 0,0000171 NOC Notothenia coriiceps 0,034798 0,0000239

Table 3.2.7.4 Percentage of companion fauna (FA) for all the operations performed by the Antarctic Endeavor between December 2018 and July 2019. Lances =Hauls; Lances con FA =Hauls with accompanying fauna; % lances con FA =% of hauls with companion fauna Marea Lances Lances con FA % Lances con FA Marea 1 (Dic 2018-Feb 2019) 261 126 48,28 Marea 2 (Mar 2019) 148 109 73,65 Marea 3 (Abr-May 2019) 200 146 73,00 Marea 4 (Jun-Jul 2019) 215 124 57,67

On the possibility to catch ice krill as bycatch in the Antarctic krill fishery Brierly and Proud (2018) presented a paper to the WG-EMM in 2018 stating the very likelihood that ice krill (Euphausia crystallorophias) could be taken as bycatch in the Antarctic krill fishery without being reported. According to these authors: “Since the present day Antarctic krill fishery operates in geographic areas that overlap with the known range of Ice krill, that Ice krill and Antarctic krill can occupy similar depths in the water column, and that both species are morphologically similar, the possibilities of bycatch and the failure to detect it cannot be dismissed. (…)We conclude that the likelihood is effectively 100%”. The team interviewed Andrew Brierly as part of the surveillance audit and it was agreed that since the Antarctic krill fishery has moved in recent closer to the coast (despite the recent ARK agreement might diminished this trend), which is the preferred habitat of the ice krill it is likely that this species is being caught inadvertently. However, CCAMLR observers are sampling krill, including size and sex. Many of the vessels operating for Antarctic krill have 100% observer coverage (including the certified vessel). To this date there is no record of ice krill being identified by any observer on board or reported to CCAMLR by any other mean. This issue was discussed during the WG-EMM meeting in 2018, but no more papers were presented this year and no in depth discussions took place, according to Cesar Cardenas (INACH and current coordinator of the WG- EMM). Brierly and Proud recognize that it might be difficult to identify ice krill from Antarctic krill without using microscopes on board. Brierly also consider that further exploration on the possibility to use acoustic data collected during fishing operations to attempt to identify targets comprising ‘small’ krill: “As the echosounder

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 25 samples water ahead of the net opening, detection of such target could be a prompt to alter course or to cease fishing in the expectation that ‘small’ krill could be Ice krill”. Ice krill is much smaller than Antarctic krill (below 35mm), and current size distribution sampled by observers indicated that fraction below that size accounts for a low % of the total krill catches. For instance, data from the client between December 2017 and June 2018 show that only 9% (in number of individuals) of the total krill caught was below that size (see table below).

Table 3.2.7.5 . Percentage of krill sampled by observers on board the Antarctic Endeavour which is below 35mm length. Porcentaje de individuos de krill observados en los muestreos de realizados a bordo del FV Antarctic Endeavour con longitudes totales igual o menores a 35 mm, entre diciembre 2017 y junio 2018

SUBAREA 48.1 SUBAREA 48.2 n ind. hasta Total ind. en % igual o bajo n ind. hasta Total ind. en % igual o bajo Mes 35 mm la muestra los 35 mm 35 mm la muestra los 35 mm

dic-17 60 1.800 3,3 si si si ene-18 278 4.400 6,3 397 3.600 11,0 feb-18 105 1.200 8,8 373 4.000 9,3 mar-18 112 2.200 5,1 0 1.000 0,0 abr-18 81 1.200 6,8 si si si may-18 692 5.400 12,8 si si si jun-18 390 3.200 12,2 si si si jul-18 si si si si si si ago-18 si si si si si si sept-18 si si si si si si

Total 1.718 19.400 8,9 770 8.600 9,0

si = sin información

However, this varies on the season and fishing area. Figures below show the size frequency for krill sampled on board the Antarctic Endeavour during 2019, depending on the month and area (see figures below). The observers on board the Antarctic Endeavour were adviced early in 2019 about the need to identify ice krill among the small Antarctic krill and according the Arana (pers.comm) they swear they could not identify any individual of ice krill. The team considers that the client should make an effort to clarify whether ice krill is being caught as part of the Antarctic krill fishery, and a recommendation has been issued on this matter (see section 5.1.3 ). However, at this stage the team does not consider that re-scoring is needed based on this controversy.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 26 Diciembre Diciembre Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 2.601 n = 800 18 Lt = 49,00 18 Lt = 33,92 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Enero Enero Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 2.601 n = 3.600 18 Lt = 50,86 18 Lt = 44,76 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Febrero Febrero Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 0 n = 2.601 18 Lt = 0 18 Lt = 46,50 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Marzo Marzo Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 0 n = 5.401 18 Lt = 0 18 Lt = 48,73 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Figure 3.2.7.1 Frequency distribution of monthly Antarctic krill lengths in subareas 48.1 and 48.2, between December 2018 and March 2019.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 27 Abril Abril Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 2.352 n = 0 18 Lt = 38,46 18 Lt = 0 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Mayo Mayo Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 3.220 n = 0 18 Lt = 36,01 18 Lt = 0 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Junio Junio Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 5.200 n = 0 18 Lt = 39,56 18 Lt = 0 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Julio Julio Subarea 48.1 Subarea 48.2 20 20 n = 2.600 n = 0 18 Lt = 39,76 18 Lt = 0 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 Frequency- Frecuencia relativa (%) 2 0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Total length - Longitud total (mm) Total length - Longitud total (mm)

Figura 15. Frequency distribution of monthly Antarctic krill lengths in subareas 48.1 and 48.2, between April 2019 and July 2019.

4. Version details Details on the version of the fisheries program documents used for this assessment are presented in table 4.1.1 , as required in the ‘MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v2.01’.

Table 4.1.1. Details on the versions of the fisheries program documents used for this assessment Document Version number , date of publication (and date effective) MSC Fisheries Certification Process FCP v2.1, 31 August 2018 (28 February 2019)

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 28 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01, 31 August 2018 (31 August 2018) MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1, 7 May 2019 (28 September 2019) MSC Surveillance Reporting Template Version 2.01, 28 March 2019 (28 March 2019)

5. Results 5.1 Surveillance results overview 5.1.1 Summary of conditions Table 5.1.1 lists the only condition raised in the PCR for the fishery, and also presents its status after current surveillance audit. As a result of current surveillance audit, a new recommendation was set (see section 5.1.3 ).

Table 5.1.1 Summary of conditions Condition Performance PI original PI revised Condition Status number Indicator (PI) score score The client shall provide evidence that the measures/partial strategy 1 in place to maintain or to 2.1.2 On target 75 Not revised not hinder rebuilding of mack erel icefish (C.gunnari) will work.

5.1.2. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data The Antarctic Endeavour reports estimates of catches in green weight to Sernapesca on a daily basis, and then Sernapesca reports to CCAMLR. In turn, the CCAMLR Secretariat reports to Subpesca the overall krill catches by subarea on a weekly basis to allow monitoring the consumption of the trigger levels established per each subarea (155,000 tons for 48.1, 279,000t for 48.2, 279,00t for 48.3 and 93,000t for 48.4). In recent years, subarea 48.1 is being closed because its trigger limit is achieved before the end of the fishing season. According to the information provided by Subpesca during the meeting, in 2019 the trigger level for subarea 48.1 was exceeded in 0.5% (900 tons above the trigger level) before closure was effective, which is unusual. The other subareas are always exploited below the trigger levels (e.g. in October 2019 only 26% of the trigger level was used in subarea 48.3, and 58% in subarea 48.2). There is no quota allocation to countries or vessels. Table 5.1.2.1 presents the Precautionary catch limit (PCL), the total trigger limit for the entire area 48 and the catches of the certified vessel. It is worth mentioning that the Antarctic Endeavour could only start fishing in September 2018 and due to technical problems it could only perfom a single fishing trip during that fishing season, that is the reason why the total catches for the 2017-2018 fishing season are son low. UoC catches for the 2018-2019 are only including data until mid-July, since the remote visit was performed early October and the vessel was still fishing. The weight of the final product is also presented. Table 5.1.2.1. Antarctic krill Precautionary Catch Limit (PCL) and Trigger level in FAO Area 48 and UoC catch data Fishing season (Dec 1 -Nov 30) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/2019 PCL (t) 5,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 CCAMLR Trigger level (t) 620,000 620,000 620,000 UoC share of TAC N/A N/A N/A Total green weight c aught by UoC (t) N/A 1,896 26,050(*) Total production (dry krill) (t) N/A 379 4,523 (*) Catches until mid-July

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 29 5.1.3 Recommendations Existing recommendations As a result of the initial assessment a total of 5 recommendations were set to this fishery. They can be found below, together with a brief comment of the progress found by the team: RECOMMENDATION 1. Although CM51-06 targets a 100% on-board observer’s coverage for the 2019/20 fishing season, it is recommended the assessed vessel implements it since the beginning of its operations (December 2017), as stated by the client during the site visit. Progress: The client has ensured a 100% observer coverage. They even have a plan to ensure that even in exceptional circumstances a substitute observer can be located (see section 3.2.4 for more details). This recommendation can be considered accomplished. RECOMMENDATION 2. Despite previous concerns in the non-reporting of fish bycatch in the C1 data, WG- FSA has recognized (WG-FSA16/04) recent improvements in the reporting of fish bycatches by the commercial fishery (C1 form). However, frequencies of occurrence shown in C1 form are normally much lower than those reported by observers. Therefore, it is recommended that the UoA pays special attention to provide a detail record of bycatches in the C1 form. Progress: The client show some C1 forms to the team and these results were taken into consideration when elaborating the report handed to the team (Arana & Rolleri 2019 ). However, a more detailed follow-up and crosschecking of these forms against the reports collected by the observers are advisable. RECOMMENDATION 3. New measures have been implemented on board the UoA to reduce interactions with birds (a wireless net sounder and a laser bird scaring device). It is recommended that the observer on board the UoA devotes sufficient effort to monitor warp strikes and incidental mortality of birds in the gear, so their effectiveness can be properly evaluated. Progress : The observer reports do not provide conclusive results on the effectiveness of the laser device. In general they are still focused on reporting the implementation of the mandatory mitigation measure (tori lines). However, no interactions with seabird were reported in the observer reports checked by the team or in the report presented by the client (Arana & Rolleri 2019). RECOMMENDATION 4. It is not unnoticed to the assessment team that F/V Antarctic Endeavour is a new vessel which is just beginning krill fishing operations, but draws the attention to the need that skipper and all crew members are well aware of the current conservation measures in relation to dumping or discarding and ensure their compliance. Progress : No infringements were identified by the observers (they do check compliance with dumping and discarding as part of their duties and record it in their reports) or reported by CCAMLR to Subpesca. It is thought that the certified vessels are complying with this regulations. This recommendation can be considered accomplished RECOMMENDATION 5. It is not unnoticed to the assessment team that F/V Antarctic Endeavour is a new vessel which is just beginning krill fishing operations, but make it clear that there is a need to have on board all the instruments and tools required to properly comply with the fishery regulations in relation to provide accurate estimations of the green weight of krill caught. Progress : As explained in section 3.2.5 the process to estimate greenweight at the factory is now working without problems, as reported by the observers. This recommendation can be considered accomplished

New recommendations issued as a result of the current surveillance audit As a result of current surveillance audit two new recommendations are issued for this fishery: RECOMMENDATION 6. The Client should use its influence with its national representatives speaking collectively as a Member of CCAMLR to stress the need to ensure swift and accurate catch reporting, forward projection and closure forecasting mechanisms to prevent the krill fishery generally ever exceeding Subarea catch limits.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 30 RECOMMENDATION 7. The client should make an effort to clarify whether ice krill is being caught as part of the Antarctic krill fishery, either improving sampling methodologies on board or exploring the possibility of using acoustic data collected during fishing operations

5.2 Conditions Table 3.3. Condition 1

Performance PI 2.1.2 Indicator

Score 75

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

Year 1.- By the first surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA dur ing its first fishing year, based both on data from the C-1 form and the observer’s reports; No re-scoring foreseen at this stage. Year 2. - By the second surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefis h caught by the UoA during its second fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 2 year data) (iii) Proposal of additional measures, if necessary, to minimise mortality caused to mackerel icefish. In the case the client can provide some evidence that the strategy in place will work SG80 would be achieved at this stage Year 3.- In the case complementary measures to minimise mortality were needed and Milestones proposed during the second year, by the third surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its third fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 3 year data); (iii) preliminary review of the effectiveness of the complementary measures implemented to m inimise the mortality (based on 1 year data); No re-scoring foreseen at this stage. Year 4 .- By the fourth surveillance audit the client shall provide: (i) Updated scaled-up estimations of the mackerel icefish caught by the UoA during its fourth fishing year, based both on the C-1 form and the observer’s data; (ii) Review of the mortality caused by the UoA on the mackerel icefish (based on 4 year data); (iii) An analysi s of the effectiveness of the complementary measures implemented to minimise the mortality (based on 2 year data); In the case the client can provide evidence that the strategy in place will work SG80 would be achieved at this stage

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 31 The action plan proposed by the client does not rely upon the involvement, funding and/or Consultat ion on resources of other entities. Therefore, its acceptance by the CAB is not subject to consultation condition to other stakeholders.

The client ensured a 100% observer coverage and managed handed all observer data and C1 forms to researchers from the Pontificia Univesidad Catolica de Valparaiso t o compile and present all preliminary data (up to July) in a comprehensive report (Arana & Rolleri 2019). Tables 3.2.7.1 -3,2,7.4 show the species composition by fishing trip, while table 3.2.7.5 Progress on provides details on the % of hauls where other species than krill were identified (varies Condition (Year X) between 48 and 74% of total hauls). Which is clear from these tables is that % the frequency of occurrence and mean mass ratio (kg taxa/kg krill) of companion fauna, including mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) in the krill fishery is almost negligible. Observers did not report any catches of bigger fish, such it was the case du ring the first fishing trip of the Antarctic Endeavour in 2018, when 7 tons of mackerel icefish were caught.

Status The team found that progress against this condition is ON TARGET

Additional N/A information

5.3 Client action plan No updates to the client action plan already presented in the PCR

5.4. Re-scoring Performance Indicators No re-scoring was considered necessary after current surveillance audit

6. References Arana, P.M., Rolleri, R.o. 2019. Operacion del Antarctic Endeavour en la pesquería de krill antartico, ano 2019. Valparaiso, Septiempre 2019 Brierly, A.S. & Proud.R. 2018. On the very high likelihood of bycatch of ice krill (Euphausia crystallorophias) in the present-day fishery for Antarctic krill (E. superba). WG-EMM-18/05 CCAMLR 2018 – Krill Fishery Report CCAMLR 2019a - Report of the Meeting of the Subgroup on Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods (SC- CAMLR-38/06) Bergen, Norway, 26 to 30 August 2019. CCAMLR 2019b - Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (WG-EMM-19), Concarneau, France, 24 June to 5 July 2019. Hill, S. L., Atkinson, A., Pakhomov E. A. and V. Siegel 2019 - Evidence for a decline in the population density of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba Dana, 1850 still stands. A comment on Cox et al. Journal of Crustacean Biology 39(3) 316–322, 2019. doi:10.1093/jcbiol/ruz004. Macaulay, G., Skaret, G., Knutsen, T., Bergstad, O. A., Krafft, B., Fielding, S., Choi, S. G., Chung, S., Demianenko, K., Podhornyi, V.,Vishnyakova, K., Pshenichnov, L., Chuklin, A., Shishman, A. and M.J. Cox 2019 - Preliminary results from the International Synoptic Krill Survey in area 48, 2019 (WG-EMM- 2019/47). Roel, B., Campodonico, I., Rios, J. 2018. DERIS S.A – Pesca Chile- Antarctic Krill Fishery. Public Certification Report. September 2018. Bureau Veritas. Client: Deris, S.A. Available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/deris-s.a.-pesca-chile-antarctic-krill-fishery/@@assessments Saa Collantes, E., Dawe, G.E & Rios, J. 2019. Chile squat lobsters Camanchaca demersal Trawl Fishery. 2nd Surveillance report. June 2019. Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS. Client: Camanchaca Pesca Sur, S.A. Available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/chile-squat-lobsters-demersal-trawl- camanchaca-fishery/@@assessments

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 32 Trathan, P., Warwick-Evans, V., Young, E., Thorpe, S., Murphy, E., Kelly, N., Kawaguchi, S.and D. Welsford 2018 – Developing the risk assessment framework for the Antarctic krill fishery in Area 48. CCAMLR WS- SM-18/04.

7. Appendices 7.1 Evaluation processes and techniques 7.1.1. Site visit The first annual surveillance audit for the first period of certification was conducted offsite between the 1 st and the 3 rd of October 2019. Both members of the assessment team participated in all meetings listed in table 6.1.1 . However, the meeting scheduled with MINREL was cancelled and substituted by a call between the MINREL representative and the team leader. During this call the MINREL representative confirmed that the National Antarctic Directorate is now focused on political issues, while reporting on fisheries issues is done directly between the different competent bodies at a national level (Sernapesca, Subpesca, INACH, Chilean Army) and CCAMLR, as described in section 3.2.1 . Therefore, the MINREL representative considered that there was no need to hold a specific meeting since all the competent bodies would provide the necessary information to the assessment team. All the other meetings were held according to schedule. Table 7.1.1. Details of the meetings held during the remote visit for the 1SA audit of Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery Date Place/Address Time Institution Attendees (CEST) Cesar Cárdenas Call 16:00-17:00 INACH Lorena Rebolledo October 1 Meeting cancelled and substituted by a call 21:00 MINREL Mario Artaza with the team leader Call 9:00-10:00 Deris, S.A. Enrique Gutierrez Call 10:00-11:00 University of Saint Andrews Andrew Brierly October 2 Karin Mundnich Call 14:00-15:00 SUBPESCA Aurora Guerrero Call 11:00-12:00 BAS Simeon Hill Call 14:00-15:00 Client’s technical assessor Patricio Arana Fernando Naranjo October 3 Call 16:00-17:00 SERNAPESCA Daniela Catalan Call 17:30-17:45 Deris, S.A. Enrique Gutierrez (closing meeting) Day Venue Time Institution / Company Topics Stakeholder participation The site visit for the surveillance audit was announced at the MSC website on the 19 th of August 2019. In addition, the notification of the surveillance audit was sent to a list of stakeholders identified during the initial assessment and revised before current surveillance audit. This list included up to 32 different contacts from management institutions (SUBPESCA; MINREL, SERNAPESCA, Chilean Army, CCAMLR Secretariat), research institutions (UACH, INACH, CEFAS, University of St Andews, BAS), NGOs (WWF, Oceana, ASOC, AWI, Greenpeace, Birdlife) and CABs from overlapping fisheries (Lloyd’s Register and Control Union). Further, the team with the assistance of the client elaborated a list of key stakeholders to be interviewed and were contacted via email and telephone in order to ensure their participation and arrange the meetings. The list of institutions and people finally interviewed during the site visit is detailed in table 6.1.1. 6.2 Stakeholder input The stakeholder input was restricted to the information collected during the meetings held at the site visit and the documents sent by the stakeholders as a result of the requests made by the team during those meetings. Overall, the surveillance team is satisfied that the information presented and summarised warrants maintenance of the certification as is, with the next surveillance to be onsite.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 33 Table 6.2.1 presents the main topics discussed with the different stakeholders during the different meetings. All relevant information collected on updates or modifications affecting the fishery is summarized in section 3.2 of the current report, while harmonisation activities with overlapping fisheries are presented in Appendix 6.4 . All documents used for the assessement are listed in Section 5 (References). No other stakeholder inputs were received by email using the template provided by MSC. Table 6.2.1. Details of the main topics discussed during the remote visit carried out as part of the current surveillance audit Stakeholder Topics discussed Feedback on the observer program for CCAMLR (training, coordination with IFOP ...) Implementation of the observer program aboard the Antarctic Endeavor (% coverage, results, results of the laser system for birds ...) Feedback on Ice-krill: discussion in the WG-EMM and possibility of modifying observer sampling protocols INACH Feedback on the participation and coordination of INACH with: (i) National section for CCAMLR (ii) CCAMLR-SC (iii) WG-EMM (iv) IDEAL Options discussed at the WG-EMM regarding the expiry date of CM 51-07 MINREL Current role performed by the National Antarctic Directorate in relation to fisheries General feedback on the performance of the certified ship Feedback on observer data, with special attention to ice mackerel and what is set in the milestone of the first year Client Feedback on the steps taken by the WG-EMM in relation to the preferred option for krill management MoU with NGOs: Coastal Buffers ?? Likelihood of bycatch of ice krill ( E. crystallorophias ) Available studies showing the co-existence between the 2 krill species Reception by the WG-EMM of your paper last year. Any further work presented this year? Univ. St. Andrews Next steps adopted by the WG-EMM in relation to modify the observer sampling programme Any thoughts on the recommendation from the WG-EMM on the preferred option for krill management? Update on the authorization of Antartic Endeavor and Cape Horn Any other relevant aspect in relation to the krill fishery in which the Secretariat is involved SUBPESCA Have you followed the fishing season? Do you know anything about the closures in zone 48.1? Captures, are they reported to them? Prohibition of the laser method to scare birds? Monitoring, assessment and management of Antarctic krill: 1) Options discussed at the WG-EMM regarding the expiry date of CM 51-07 2) Details on the synoptic krill survey 2019: There have only ever been three large scale acoustic surveys of krill biomass (in subareas 48.1 to 48.4) : in 1981, 2000 and 2019. Due to methodological differences, these surveys are not strictly comparable with each other. However, there has been some exploration of the sensitivity of the 2019 estimate to differences from 2000. The 2019 biomass estimate is very similar to that for 2000. BAS This gives us some confidence that assumptions about stock size made as a result of the 2000 survey are still valid. These surveys do not tell us anything about trends in stock size. For this (identifying trends) one would need data for many more years. Estimates of numerical density (number per m2 of sea surface area) from scientific nets are available for most years between 1976 and 2016. These provide an indicator of stock size. The proportion of nets which had high densities of krill was higher in the 1980s than in later decades. Further analysis of these data suggest environmental forcing of stock size and spatial differences in the rate of change (with almost no change South of the Antarctic circle).

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 34 There are uncertainties about whether these changes are due to an actual change in the stock size within the study area, or to changes in the distribution of krill (e.g. do they move deeper to avoid warming surface waters?). Also the data are very noisy and it is important to understand that the trends explain relatively little of the observed variance. In practical terms this means that even if the overall tendency is a declining trend, the index in any one year could be higher than that in a comparable previous year. This is why the acoustic surveys do not tell us anything about trends in stock size. Cox and co-authors did not detect a trend. This isn’t surprising as they effectively repeated a previous analysis that didn’t detect a trend, and they used a method which reduces sensitivity to the data that drive the trend (i.e. the change in high density records). Distribution of ice krill versus antarctic krill using the krill data base Feedback (and evidence if deemed necessary) on: (i) inspections carried out on the Antarctic Endeavor (AE) vessel before and after the last two fishing seasons (ii) Landing inspections made to the EA in the last 2 campaigns (iii) Operation of the VMS on board the AE (iv) Implementation of the onboard camera system in this fishery and in the AE SERNAPESCA Is there an annual report of activities carried out by Sernapesca regarding the inspection of the krill fishery? Capture data catches / effort of the AE in the last two campaigns Feedback on the participation and coordination of Sernapesca with: (i) National section for CCAMLR (ii) CCAMLR SCIC

6.3 Revised surveillance program The surveillance level determined in the PCR was 5 (3 on-site surveillance audits and 1 off-site surveillance audit). Initially, the off-site audit was planned for the third surveillance audit. However, the CAB has decided to move the off-site audit to the 1st surveillance audit. No further modifications to the surveillance level and type are proposed for future surveillance audits. It is expected that subsequent surveillance audits will take place close to the anniversary date of the fishery. See tables below for the surveillance program as published at the announcement of the current surveillance audit. Table 5.3.1. Fishery surveillance program Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Off-site On-site On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit & Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit audit re-certification site visit

Table 5.3.2. Timing of surveillance audit

Proposed date of Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale surveillance audit 2-4 September September NA

Table 5.3.3. Surveillance level rationale

Surveillance Year Number of auditors Rationale activity Considering that milestones indicate that the 2 On-site 2 auditors on-site condition can be closed in year 2, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 2 auditors on-site Considering that milestones indicate that the 1 auditor on-site with condition can be closed in year 2, the CAB proposes 3 On-site remote support from to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with another auditor remote assistance

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 35 4 On-site 2 auditor on-site No rationale needed

6.4 Harmonised fishery assessments There is another overlapping fishery (see table below) and also another fishery which is preparing the Announcement Comment Draft Report. Both fishing methog (continuous pumping) and flag state (Norway) of the other certified fishery are different from the Antarctic Endeavour. Based on that and the fact that the Aker Biomarine fishery did not have any conditions, it was agreed between both CABs that no harmonisation was needed as far as some of the P1 and P3- PIs show similar scores. However, this time Bureau Verita’s intention was to harmonize scorings (at least PI1 scores and also the issue of how to deal with the controversy around the ice krill). Bureau Veritas requested a variation request for this purpose. Bureau Veritas exchanged emails with Lloyd’s Register and communicated our decision to not proceed with re-scoring and open a recommendation regarding krill sampling in order to improve the ability to ascertain whether ice krill is being caught or not as part of the Antarctic krill fishery. However, delays in the BV work plan prevented to share the report in advance with the other CAB. Bureau Veritas is aware of this and it will take the necessary actions after the publication of this surveillance report to ensure that harmonisation activities are undertaken in case the team assessing the Aker Biomarine fishery finds discrepancies with our findings. Also, the team assessing the new fishery entering assessment will be included in these discussions.

Deris, S.A. –Pesca Chile- Antarctic krill fishery – 1st surveillance audit report page 36