MSC Surveillance Reporting Template V2.01

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211 Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected]

President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

AUSTRALIA SILVER-LIPPED PEARL OYSTER FISHERY

2nd Surveillance Report

Prepared for Pearl Producers Association / Northern Territory Seafood Council Certificate No: MSC-F-30005

MRAG Americas, Inc. 18 March 2020

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) MRAG Americas, Inc.

Assessment team Richard Banks and Cameron Dixon

Fishery client Pearl Producers Association / Northern Territory Seafood Council

Assessment Type Second Surveillance

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 1

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

1 Contents

1 Contents ...... 2 2 Glossary ...... 3 3 Executive summary ...... 3 4 Report details ...... 3 4.1 Surveillance information ...... 3 4.2 Background ...... 5 4.3 Version details ...... 6 5 Results ...... 7 5.1 Surveillance results overview ...... 7 5.1.1 Summary of conditions ...... 7 5.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 8 5.1.3 Changes in the management system and relevant regulation ...... 8 5.1.4 Changes to personnel...... 8 5.1.5 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments ...... 8 5.1.6 Stock status ...... 8 5.1.7 Recommendations ...... 9 5.2 Conditions ...... 9 5.3 Client Action Plan ...... 11 5.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators ...... 11 6 Appendices ...... 25 6.1 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 25 6.1.1 Site visits ...... 25 6.1.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 25 6.2 Stakeholder input ...... 27 6.3 Revised surveillance program ...... 28 6.4 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 28 7 References ...... 29

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 2

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

2 Glossary GAG Catch and Grow CAP Client Action Plan CPUE Catch Per Unit of Effort DoF Department of Fisheries (WA), pre DPIRD DPIRD Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development DPIR Department of Primary Industry and Resources EPA Environmental Protection Act (NT) ETP Endangered, Protected and Threatened HCR Harvest Control Rule MRAG Marine Resources Assessment Group MOP Mother of Pearl MSC Marine Stewardship Council NGO Non Governmental Organisation NT Northern Territory NTDLPE NT Department of Lands, Planning and Environment PPA Pearl Producers Association PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment SAWG Stock Assessment Working Group SHL Sustainable Harvest Limit TAC Total Allowable Catch UoC Unit of Certification WA Western Australia WAFIC Western Australia Fishery Council

3 Executive summary

The annual surveillance audit is the second audit of the Australia Silver Lipped Perl Oyster Pinctada maxima) fishery. Seven conditions were set from the Fishery assessment completed in November 2016. The first surveillance audit closed out 4 conditions leaving three outstanding.

This surveillance audit, rescored three performance indicators – Fishery Specific Management 3.2.1 and Performance Evaluation 3.2.4 to 100 and upgrades the scoring of 3.1.2 Consultation to 95; closing out two conditions and leaving one outstanding condition. The outstanding condition that remains on Harvest Control Rules, has to be completed by the fourth surveillance audit.

All recommendations set out from the second surveillance audit have been met.

MRAG Americas confirms that this fishery continues to meet the MSC Fisheries Standard and shall remain certified.

4 Report details 4.1 Surveillance information

Table 1. Surveillance information

1 Fishery name

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 3

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Australia Silver-Lipped Pearl Oyster (Pinctada maxima) Hand gathered, wild- caught production

reared to production at on-growing sites (UoC 1); and mother of pearl and pearl meat (UoC2).

2 Surveillance level and type

Level 5 – on-site surveillance audit

3 Surveillance number

1st Surveillance

2nd Surveillance X

3rd Surveillance

4th Surveillance

Other (expedited etc.)

4 Team leader

Mr. Richard Banks will serve as lead assessor. Richard Banks has considerable MSC experience having served as the Lead Assessor for four Australian prawn trawl assessments, including Spencer Gulf, and on the PNA free school skipjack full assessment. Richard has also designed several fishery improvement plans in South East Asia and the Pacific, and acted as external reviewer to a number of MSC assessments on behalf of WWF. Richard currently works as an advisor to FFA, MFMR, and PNA as an offshore tuna advisor. Richard is an economist and fisheries management and policy programming specialist having worked on similar issues for international agencies, Commonwealth and State Fisheries. Richard holds a bachelor degree in Fisheries Economics and a Masters in Agricultural Economics from the University of Portsmouth, and Imperial College, London, respectively.

MRAG Americas confirms that Mr. Banks meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team leader as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has passed the MSC team leader training; • He has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2; • He meets ISO 19011 training requirements; • He has undertaken two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years, and • He has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders.

In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 3 assessor as described in FCP Annex PC table PC3.

MRAG Americas confirms that Mr. Banks has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

5 Team member

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 4

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Dr. Cameron Dixon. Cameron Dixon has 20 years of experience in fisheries science and stock assessment in Australia, with particular expertise in trawl fisheries and ecosystem-based fisheries management. He has managed multiple research grants (FRDC, CRC and NRM) and core stock assessment programs concurrently across prawn, blue crab and abalone fisheries, and has spent the past 18 months with WWF Australia providing technical advice to market partners (Coles, John West, Tassal and Blackmores) on sustainability of >500 seafood products sourced from Australia and overseas. This includes developing Scoping Documents and Action Plans for fisheries entering into Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs), explicitly assessed against MSC criteria. He recently signed the Commonwealth Trawl Fishery into a FIP, with the Scoping Document and Action Plan reviewed against the MSC standards by MRAG Asia Pacific. Dr. Dixon holds a PhD from Melbourne University.

MRAG Americas confirms that Dr. Dixon meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows: • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in

management and research in fisheries; • He has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years; • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored.

In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 & 2 assessor as described in FCP Annex PC table PC3, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

The whole assessment team collectively meets the requirements as described in FCP Annex PC table PC3.

A discussion between team members regarding conflict of interest and biases was held and none were identified.

6 Audit/review time and location

The site visit will occur in Freemantle, Australia the week of 20-24 January 2020.

7 Assessment and review activities

The surveillance reviewed changes in science and management and progress in closing out any

applicable conditions.

4.2 Background

This report outlines the process and outcome of the 2nd annual surveillance audit for the MSC certified Western Australia Silver Lipped Pearl Oyster fishery, following certification in September 2017). The fishery is located in the in waters of Western Australia between the boundaries from Exmouth Gulf in the south-west of its range, and Lacepede Channel in the north-east. The fishery is conducted by fishing companies within the membership of the Pearl Producers Association (PPA). Pinctada maxima pearl oysters are harvested by drift diving, with divers breathing air supplied from the surface harvesting legal-sized oysters by hand as they pass slowly over the pearl oyster

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 5

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

beds. The catch of pearl oysters is divided up into two size classes; ‘culture’ shell, between 120 and 175 mm; and mother-of-pearl (MOP) shell, which are greater than 175 mm. The fishery is managed by the Western Australia Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) through a combination of input controls (limited entry) and output controls (quota), implemented under the Pearling Act 1990 and the Pearling (General) Regulations 1991. Fishing operations comprise hand collection by divers operating at depths of around 15 m, between the months of March and July. Fourteen vessels are licenced to operate in the fishery. An on-growing process takes place in both the waters off Western Australia and Northern Territory. Oyster on-growing is assessed using Annex SB, enhanced Catch and Grow (CAG). This requires all Governance components (P3) to include an assessment of governance systems in Western Australia and Northern Territory. All vessels utilised in the transportation or culturing of pearl oysters must be registered in accordance with s18 of the Fisheries Act and Fisheries Regulations Part 6 Division 2. Culture of pearl oysters also requires the holding of a Pearl Oyster Fishery Licence, and a Pearl Oyster Industry Cultivation Licence. The Standard Pearl Oyster Culture Licence Conditions require that all pearl farming activities must be undertaken on an approved farm lease. In the case of NT, Crown Leases for pearl farms are issued by the NT Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (NTDLPE) and require approval under the NT Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The process required for lease applications and the requirements for site environmental impact assessment and environment management plans are contained in a Notice of Intent for Aquaculture. All pearling farms in the NT have an Environmental Management Plan. The principal units within DPIRD associated with the pearl oyster fishery are Aquatic Management, Research and Compliance. Management of the pearl oyster beds falls to NT DPIRD. The NTDLPE is responsible for the allocation of Crown Leases for the purpose of a pearling farming. The NT Pearl Oyster Culture industry is subject to a Management Plan (as in force since 2014) and a monitoring process for the pearl sites is specified under a NT Pearling Compliance Plan. Following the first surveillance audit, where three conditions were closed in response to rescoring, there were 3 outstanding conditions and 2 Recommendations. The conditions set for 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 have now been scored out at 100.

3.1.2 has been rescored to 95 to reflect the consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement (3.1.2 c). Terms of Reference were provided for the Pearl Industry Management Advisory Committee which demonstrates provision for all interested and affected parties which provides for a score of SG 100.

The precautionary approach (Recommendation 2): has been explicitly included into the text of the text of the Pearl Industry Compliance Plan and the Transboundary movements of living aquatic animals: A zoning strategy for disease control in the northern territory 2020.

4.3 Version details

Table 2. – Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 6

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.0

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

MSC Surveillance Reporting Template Version 2.01

5 Results 5.1 Surveillance results overview 5.1.1 Summary of conditions

Table 3 – Summary of

conditions Condition PI original PI revised Condition Performance Indicator (PI) Status number score score UoC 2. 1.2.2 a: 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 Harvest consistent with (or above) MSY, or 2 control rules for key LTL species a level On target 65 75 and tools consistent with ecosystem needs.

UoC 2. 1.2.2 c: Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. 3.2.1 a: Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent Fishery with achieving the outcomes 6 specific Closed 75 100 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 objectives and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. 3.2.4 a: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts Monitoring & of the management system. management 7 Closed 60 100 performance 3.2.4 b: The fishery specific evaluation management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 7

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

5.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Table 4. Pearl Oyster TAC and Catch data 2015 - 2019

5.1.3 Changes in the management system and relevant regulation There have been no important changes to the management of the fishery or regulation since re-certification. The Draft Aquatic Resources Act remains pending. 5.1.4 Changes to personnel There have been no changes to the personnel involved in the management of the fishery. 5.1.5 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments Preliminary work has been completed to improve the stock assessment for MOP. The model developed for culture shell has been adapted for MOP by lagging the recruitment of MOP by 7 to 8 years. Initial fits to the model are encouraging. The model will be tested in 2020 with mind to develop explicit HCRs for MOP in the revised Harvest Strategy. Researchers are considering developing a biomass dynamics model for pearl oysters in line with similar models for other WA fisheries already in place (e.g. abalone). 5.1.6 Stock status

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 8

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

The stock of culture shell for 2019 was close to the model predicted level. The stock of MOP fell below the threshold limit for the first time since 2011, however it is predicted to recover to above target levels by 2022. The SAWG discussed reasons for the decline in MOP CPUE and concluded that the decline was partly a predicted decline in abundance of MOP, but was also influenced by a lack of targeting of MOP throughout the year (i.e. MOP was predominately caught as bycatch from culture pearl fishing). 5.1.7 Recommendations None at this time.

5.2 Conditions

Table 5 – Condition 2 Harvest Strategy

UoC 2. 1.2.2 a

Performance Indicator UoC 2. 1.2.2 c:

Score 75

Evidence required that well-defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the Justification stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and provide evidence that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that well-defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are Condition expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and provide evidence that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. September 2020 and 2021 (year 2 and 3): Implement the harvest control rule for MOP and monitor its performance. Performance will be monitored through the ongoing collection of data from annual population surveys that are the performance indicator (PI) for the stock. The expected score outcome for these years would remain the same: 75.

Milestones September 2022 (year 4): Review the effectiveness of the HCRs with respect to their ability to reduce exploitation as the stock declines. Explore the long-term relationships between the PI, Age 1+ settlement and the environment to establish a stock-recruitment relationship and determine whether a CPUE-based HCR can be developed. Resulting PI score ≥80. By 4th Audit: (September 2022) The 2016 Harvest Strategy outlines specific HCRs for MOP. By the 4th surveillance audit, the evidence that these HCRs are Consultation on appropriate will be reviewed. At this point, the Harvest Strategy (and by extension, condition its PIs, HCRs and control rules) will have been applied for five years, and subject to the annual cycle of iterative improvement. This will provide sufficient testing as to its effectiveness.

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 9

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Preliminary work has been completed to improve the stock assessment for MOP. The model developed for culture shell has been adapted for MOP by lagging the recruitment of MOP by 7 to 8 years. Initial fits to the model are encouraging. The model will be tested in 2020 with mind to develop explicit HCRs for MOP in the Progress on Condition revised Harvest Strategy. (Year 2)

Researchers are considering developing a biomass dynamics model for pearl oysters in line with similar models for other WA fisheries already in place (e.g. abalone).

Status On target

Additional information

Table 6 – Condition 6 Fishery Specific Objectives

Performance Indicator 3.2.1 a

Score 100

Requires evidence that the precautionary approach to fisheries management is Justification being applied in the Northern Territory management system. By the 2nd surveillance audit demonstrate that decision-making consistent with the Condition precautionary approach is required within management policy for the pearl culture component of the NT management system. 1st Surveillance Audit: Complete a review of NT Pinctada maxima pearl culture management policy with respect to the application of the precautionary approach within the management system in fact and in effect. Milestones 2nd Surveillance audit: demonstrate that decision-making consistent with the precautionary approach is required within management policy for the pearl culture component of the NT management system. Consultation on See milestones above. condition Progress on Condition (Year 2) The condition has been met, see rescoring indicator below.

Status The fishery rescored at 100.

Additional information

Table 7 – Condition 7 Monitoring & management performance evaluation

3.2.4 a Performance Indicator 3.2.4 b

Score 100

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 10

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

The process of internal and external performance reviews were not being applied Justification for the Northern Territory component of the management system By the third annual surveillance audit provide evidence that there is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system in the Northern Territory against its objectives. He management system, Condition including

In addition, provide evidence that there is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific management system in the Northern Territory. 1st Surveillance Audit: Complete a review of NT Pinctada maxima pearl culture management policy with respect to the application of relevant P2 objectives within the management system in fact and in effect.

2nd Surveillance Audit: Provide an update on progress toward a system of monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the fishery-specific management Milestones system in the Northern Territory against its objectives (particularly related to P2).

By the third annual surveillance audit provide evidence that there is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system in the Northern Territory against its objectives. In addition, provide evidence that there is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific management system in the Northern Territory. See milestones above. By the third annual surveillance audit provide evidence that there is a system of Consultation on monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management condition system in the Northern Territory against its objectives. In addition, provide evidence that there is effective and timely review of the fishery- specific management system in the Northern Territory. Progress on Condition The condition has been met, see rescoring indicator below. (Year 2)

Status The fishery rescored at 100.

Additional information

5.3 Client Action Plan There are no updates to the Client Action Plan.

5.4 Re-scoring Performance Indicators

PI 1.2.2 – UoC 1 WA Pearl Oyster Catch and Grow - Harvest control rules

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

A HCRs design and application Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 11

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Generally understood Well defined HCRs The HCRs are expected to keep the HCRs are in place or are in place that stock fluctuating at or above a target available that are ensure that the level consistent with MSY, or another

expected to reduce the exploitation rate is more appropriate level taking into exploitation rate as the reduced as the PRI is account the ecological role of the point of recruitment approached, are stock, most of the time. impairment (PRI) is expected to keep the approached. stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Guidepost Met Y N N ? The HCRs are documented in the formal “harvest strategy” document for the fishery (DoF 2016). There are two robust measures of abundance for the fishery: 1. spat settlement surveys, which are used to calculate an index of abundance of 0+ and 1+ pearl oysters, 2. standardised commercial catch per unit effort (SCPUE) of culture pearl oysters (120 – 175 mm shell length). Note that a third measure of abundance is MOP CPUE on the main fishing grounds, however this is not used directly for assessment of stock status, it is only used to inform the LRP for MOP. The MOP measure only influences the SHL for MOP if it is below the LRP. The two primary abundance measures have allowed two predictive indices to be developed: 1. between spat abundance and culture pearl oyster SCPUE four years into the future, 2. between the current season’s sustainable harvest level (SHL) and culture pearl oyster SCPUE (4+ and 5+ age classes). These relationships allow recommendations on SHLs to be made up to three years in advance based on the spat settlement surveys. The HCRs ensure that the total catch is reduced when predicted recruitment is low and allows total catch to be raised in years when predicted abundance is high. Performance Indicators with associated limit, threshold and target reference levels have been established for both Culture Pearl and MOP sized oysters. The reference levels have been established based on historical data, with the Limit Reference Point for culture pearl of 15 oysters per hour being close to the lowest SCPUE observed for the fishery (16 oysters per hour). In line with a constant exploitation harvesting approach, the HCRs calculate a Sustainable Harvest Limit (SHL) for culture pearl in Zone 2/3 (i.e. the main fishing grounds) for each year based directly as a function of SCPUE when measures are above target levels. When the stock is predicted to be below target levels, the HCRs adjust the total SHL against a ‘baseline’ of 457 000 pearl oysters for Zone 2/3. These are the lowest values of the SHL since 2003 when the SCPUE index began. A range of fixed and variable reductions to the baseline SHL are made to ensure that exploitation is reduced as the stock abundance decreases and the limit reference level is approached. It is noted that since the stock has not previously been below the point where recruitment is impaired, the relationship between spat abundance and legal-sized abundance at low population sizes is not known. A fixed SHL of 54 970 pearl oysters is currently recommended for Zone 1. The SHL for MOP is determined separately, based on independent population surveys undertaken between 1999 and 2001. Hart and Friedman (2004) determined that a SHL of MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 12

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

up to 53 000 MOP oysters could be taken within the Zone 2/3 total SHL each year without adversely affecting future recruitment to the fishery. Performance indicators for MOP are based on fishery independent surveys conducted within Zones 2/3 each year. The Limit Reference Point is slightly below the lowest SCPUE of 6.6 pearl oysters per hour observed during the reference period. The Harvest Strategy document (DoF 2016) states “Reference points will be refined as more information is collected”. Broader surveys of MOP abundance outside of the annual surveyed regions are undertaken on occasion, however these are not currently incorporated into the harvest strategy. In 2019, MOP abundance fell below the threshold RP for the first time since 2011. Values between the limit and threshold RPs for MOP allow for a catch in the range of 26,500 to 31,800 shells to be harvested. The SAWG discussed reasons for the decline in CPUE and concluded that the decline was partly a predicted decline in abundance of MOP, but may also have been influenced by a lack of targeting of MOP throughout the year (i.e. they were predominately caught as bycatch from culture pearl fishing). Also, modelling predicted that MOP abundance would increase to above target levels by 2022. On this basis, the upper end of the MOP catch range was selected to establish the TAC. The final overall TAC that was determined included by voluntary agreement a catch of MOP of 31,990. While this was over the pre-agreed range by 190 shells, this was done to round up to an ITQ of 70 MOP shells per quota unit (from 69.58). Given the influences on MOP CPUE, and the prediction of increases in MOP biomass to above target levels by 2022, the TAC for MOP in 2020 is likely to be sustainable. In response to the condition for 1.2.2 established at the first surveillance, researchers have extended the existing model for culture pearl to include MOP with a lag of 8 years. Initial fits of the model are promising, and it is planned that HCRs specific to MOP can be developed for the Harvest Strategy revision in 2021. The revised HCRs will be tested in 2020 and will be considered in the current Weight of Evidence approach used to establish the MOP TAC for 2021. In summary, there are clear HCRs for the fishery when the Limit Refence Points are breached for both UoCs. The HCRs for culture pearl oysters are well defined and do reduce exploitation as PRI is approached. The overall TAC also appears to maintain biomass at productive levels. In recent years, the SAWG increased allowable MOP catch on the basis of above average recruitment observed in 2005 that moved into the fishery from 2009. Importantly, the SAWG also decreased the MOP TAC as these measures of abundance began to decline, including in 2019 when MOP CPUE fell below the threshold level. While the decisions made regarding changes in the SHL for MOP appear to have been sound and within sustainable limits, formal HCRs for MOP oysters when stocks are above the LRP are only now being developed and thus SG80 for PI 1.2.2a is not met. Nevertheless, given the MOP catch is maintained within the global TAC, and increases in MOP catch have been well managed previously, there is clearly a set of generally understood HCRs that reduce exploitation as PRI is approached (PI 1.2.2a SG60 is met). References Meeting Minutes: Pearl Oyster Stock Assessment Working Group, 7 October 2019

Presentation “Western Australian Pinctada maxima Fishery 2019”. Meeting of Stock Assessment Working Group (SAWG). 7th October 2019.

Signed Minute: Pinctada maxima Resource - 2020 Total Allowable Catch and related matters. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

PI 3.1.2 – UoC 1 WA Pearl Oyster Catch and Grow – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 13

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

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 SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue A Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.

Guidepost Met? Y Y Y The roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and WA Governments in the management of fisheries resources are determined under the OCS. The roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government with respect to ecological sustainability and conservation of marine resources in WA fisheries, are clearly set out in the Commonwealth EPBC Act.

DoF has identified the key organisations and individual positions relevant in the Department and their roles and responsibilities are clearly articulated (Hart et al. 2015). DoF is structured along clearly defined roles relating to aquatic management, research and regional services (including compliance and licensing). The roles and responsibilities of each of these areas are spelt out in DoF’s Annual Report to Parliament (See for example DoF 2014).

WAFIC’s roles and responsibilities as the peak body for the commercial fishing operations in WA is clearly established under a SLA with DoF. The PPA is DoF’s first point of contact in relation to matters that affect only the WA POF. Industry’s responsibilities in relation to compliance with fisheries regulations including reporting are well defined.

The key bodies involved in management of the farming of WA wild stock pearl oysters in the NT are the Fisheries Division of DPIR, the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment and the EPA.

The role of the Fisheries Division of DPIR derives from the Fisheries Act and the Division is structured around the key service delivery areas:

. Aquatic Management: provides management, policy development, licensing, legislation and education related to the territory’s commercial and recreational fisheries, aquaculture, fish processing, the charter boat industry,

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 14

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

customary fishing and protection of aquatic ecosystems; . Research and Monitoring: provides timely, quality scientific knowledge and advice to support the conservation and sustainable use of the territory’s fish resources, aquatic systems and aquaculture development Fisheries Management Advisory Committees, in this case the PIAC, established under section 24 of the Fisheries Act, provide advice to the Director of Fisheries in preparing management plans, such as the Pearl Oyster Culture Industry Management Plan, and giving advice in relation to operative plans.

The Crown Lands Section of the NT Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment is responsible for the granting of pearl farm leases and the EPA must approve such leases. The roles and responsibilities of the Department are set out in the NT Crown Lands Act. Roles and responsibilities of lessees are set out in the Crown Lease Terms. Fishery licence holders in the NT have a responsibility to make themselves aware of the fisheries legislation that relates to their activities. Pearl Oyster Industry Cultivation Licence holders have a number of responsibilities including completion of 6-monthly production returns to ensure that all of the relevant data and information is collected. Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The requirements of SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. B The management The management The management system includes system includes system includes consultation processes that regularly seek consultation processes consultation processes and accept relevant information, including that obtain relevant that regularly seek and local knowledge. The management information from the accept relevant system demonstrates consideration of the main affected parties, information, including information and explains how it is used or including local local knowledge. The not used.

knowledge, to inform management system the management demonstrates system. consideration of the information obtained. Guidepost Met? Y Y N

Justific The WA Government’s commitment to consultation with stakeholders is stated in the ation Government’s Fisheries Policy Statement (DoF 2012b). That document identifies WAFIC as the key source of coordinated industry advice for the commercial fishing sector. In relation to the WA POF, WAFIC ensures adequate consultation is conducted with their constituents on broad policy issues, however the PPA is the main forum for communication between the pearling industry and DPIRD.

Consultation requirements with ‘affected persons’ (commercial licence holders) that the Minister must adhere to when developing a new management plan or mending an existing plan are specified in the FRMA (Sections 64 and 65). DPIRD have also strengthened consultation to include participation on key fisheries policy matters and initiatives. The DPIRD has created

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 15

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

a public comment space on its website. This allows all interested and affected parties to view information and make submissions on draft documents released for public comment for specified periods of time. Key stakeholders are invited directly to provide comment through this forum.

The WA public consultation space can be accessed at the following web address: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/About-Us/Public-Comment/Pages/default.aspx, This shows all of the documents currently open for public comment.

There is a process that allows other organisations to provide submissions, and engage directly. For management issues, evidence does show consideration of the information obtained from stakeholders that respond to the consultations.

Evidence from various management workshops conducted in for WA shows consideration of the information obtained from stakeholders that respond. Therefore, the consultation process meets the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100.

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 16

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

The primary mechanism for consultation in NT fisheries is through management advisory committees. The role of the committee is to provide advice to assist the Director in preparing proposed management plans and in relation to the operation of management plans made under the Fisheries Act, which includes both pearl culture and access to wild harvest (Northern Territory of Australia, Pearl Oyster Culture Industry Management Plan 1998). The Fisheries Act 1988 (as amended in 2018), provides for these committees to include members representing commercial, processing, wholesaling, retailing, recreational, consumer, or other interests in the area relating to fishing, fish, or aquatic life. The management advisory committee for the NT MOP fishery is the PIAC. Members of the Committee comprise pearl industry representatives, and government representatives from NT and WA. Members of the Committee comprise pearl industry representatives, and government representatives from NT and WA.

However, the key issue in pearl oyster cultivation is in granting leases, as opposed to management, with all pearl oysters derived from the WA fishery. Consultation in respect to leasing is undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics. Application for a Crown Lease for the purpose of a pearling farm is subject to consultation with: • Planning Coordinator (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics); • Development Assessment Services (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics); • Harbour Master (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics); • Aboriginal Land ((Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics)); • Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority; • Land Development (Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics); • Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority (Department of Environment and Natural Resources); • Fisheries Licensing (Department of Primary Industry and Resources); • Mineral Titles (Department of Primary Industry and Resources) • Heritage Branch (Department of Tourism and Culture)

A notice is also placed in the NT News notifying and inviting any comments from the general public.

DPIR regularly reports to key stakeholders on annual fishery performance, including information on fishery outcomes, management, relevant findings and recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activities. This information is primarily provided to licence holders at the individual fishery management advisory committees. Information on each of the Territory-managed fisheries is compiled regularly and published in a number of publicly-available documents that can be found on the Fisheries website, including: . The Annual Fisheries Status Reports . The Department’s Annual Report . Fisheries Research Reports and peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. . The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge, and mechanisms exist for consideration of that information. While, in the case of the NT management system the lack of regular meeting of the PIAC constrains the transparency of the consultation process and the extent to which explanations are provided for how information obtained is used or not used, the assessment team considered that the requirements of SGs 60 and 80 are met. SG 100 is not met for NT because there is a lack of evidence explaining how information is used or not used through the consultation process. MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 17

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Overall, the fishery meets SG 60 and SG 80 but does not meet SG100.

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 18

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

C The consultation The consultation process provides process provides opportunity and encouragement for

opportunity for all all interested and affected parties to interested and affected be involved and facilitates their parties to be involved. effective engagement. Guidepost Met? Y Y

The existing system for consultation includes both statutory and non-statutory opportunities for interested stakeholders to be involved in the management system. Opportunities for stakeholder input are provided through calls for submissions on Fisheries Management Papers (see above reference to the public consultation space), and through expert reference groups which are open to stakeholders. To ensure coverage and engagement during the consultation period with stakeholders and the wider community, the Department uses a variety of processes including: Management meetings, Direct consultation in writing; Press releases; newspaper, radio and television interviews; information posted on the Department’s website information; inviting stakeholders to sit on tasked working groups, scientific reviews / workshops, risk assessments and management reviews.

Specific to the Pearl fisheries, an engagement process has been implemented to improve fisher stakeholder consultation processes. These include:

• Stock Assessment Working Group between Department (Management, Research), Licence holders and representatives and PPA • Management meetings to discuss management, research and compliance updates and ARMA specific, between the Department (Management, Research, Compliance), Licence holders and representatives, PPA and Chair- Industry Consultation Unit, • A Department-Industry Aquatic Resources Management Act 2016 (ARMA) Working Group to develop ARMA legislative arrangements, held between Department (Management, Compliance), Licence holders and representatives and the PPA, with 8 meetings held between 27 February 2017 and 12 September 2018 • Fishery-specific stakeholder lists have been developed in an effort to implement the new consultation process for each stakeholder group on the list the ‘area of interest’ and ‘level of interest’ has been described. These include Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW), the Kimberly and Northern land councils, Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation and NGOs, Environs Kimberley and WWF and Recfish West. • The Department has established the key contacts within these stakeholder groups to develop processes for opportunity to be involved in or informed of management decisions where relevant. A number of discussions are held with staff relevant to the governing bodies of the relevant (NT Government) and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCAA)

• to develop strategies for better collaboration and communication with these key stakeholders going forward. A number of other documents are also made available for public review: • The Pearl oyster harvest strategy (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp276.pdf)

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 19

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

• Full Assessment- Pearl Oyster Fishery (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/wamsc_reports/wamsc_report_no_5.p df)

• Ecological Risk Assessment- Pearl Oyster Resource (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/wamsc_reports/wamsc_report_no_6.p df)

• State of the Fisheries- Annual Report (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/status_reports_of_the_fisheries_ and_aquatic_resources_2016-17_north_coast_bioregion.pdf).

The assessment team considers that the requirements of SGs 60 and SG 80 are met for WA fisheries, providing opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

In the NT, at the management system level the management advisory committee process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

The NTPIAC is comprised of representatives from DPIR, POF licensees, the PPA and the NTSC. This means that essentially the committee is now comprised of government and commercial fishing interests. Under the NT Fisheries Act (s24) the Minister may appoint members to an advisory committee (NT Pearl Industry Management Advisory Committee, Terms of Reference 2019) and these members may represent:

A person with knowledge of, or experience in the field of recreational/charter fishing; • A person with knowledge of indigenous culture and traditional marine harvest; • A person with knowledge of, or experience in the field of fisheries compliance and enforcement; • A person with knowledge of, or experience in the field of marine conservation; Some of these members have not been appointed due to a general lack of interest

Apart from members of the pearling industry, no other stakeholders have shown any interest in participating in an advisory capacity on the committee (Murray Barton, pers. comm. April 2019). However, at the discretion of the Chairperson, Persons seeking to attend the meeting as an observer can write to the Chair seeking permission and outlining the reasons for their attendance (Para 3.4 NT MAC TOR). It is the view of

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 20

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

this assessment team that other stakeholders are not precluded from participation, and evidence shows that, when required, may also be nominated as Advisory Committee Members.

The assessment team considered that the requirements of SGs 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. References DPIRD Pearl Oyster Fishery Summary of Consultation Since First Audit, January 2020 Northern Territory of Australia, Fisheries Act, 1988 (as amended June 2018. Available at https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/FISHERIES-ACT-1988 Northern Territory of Australia, Pearl Oyster Culture Industry Management Plan 1998 Meeting 28, Northern Territory Pearling Industry Advisory Committee Meeting November 2019 Fletcher et al. 2006; DoF 2012b; DoF 2014; DoF 2016; Travaille et al. 2015; Crown Lands Act available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cla134/. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are broadly Short and long-term Well defined and measurable consistent with achieving the objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, outcomes expressed by consistent with which are demonstrably MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the consistent with achieving the implicit within the fishery’s outcomes expressed outcomes expressed by MSC’s

management system by MSC’s Principles Principles 1 and 2, are explicit 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s within the fishery’s management system. management Guidepost system. Met? Y Y Y

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 21

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 The long-term ecological objectives of the WA POF, relating to the target species, bycatch, ETP species, habits and ecosystems are defined in the harvest strategy (DoF 2016). The harvest strategy translates these objectives into short-term operational objectives (see Table 3.1) and contains measurable performance indicators to enable monitoring of the fishery’s performance against the objectives.

As noted above, the NT management system only applies to the culture of pearls taken from the wild under the WA management system and plays no role in pursuit of the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 for the WA wildstock of pearl oysters. In relation to MSC Principle 2, the long-term objectives of the NT Pearl Oyster culture industry can be implied from those contained in the Fisheries Act and, as discussed above, these are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC 2. The NT Pearl Oyster Industry Culture Management Plan does not contain specific long or short-term objectives relating to Principle 2. Its overriding role is to regulate the number of oysters seeded each year with a view to maintaining the market for pearl oysters. The assessment team concluded that there are well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the WA fishery’s management system.

Long-term objectives of the NT management system with respect to MSC Principle 2 are contained within the NT Pearling Compliance Plan (2020) and include:

1. Ensuring that the impact of fishing and related activity does not result in serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species populations; 2. Ensuring that the impact of fishing and related activity does not result in serious or irreversible harm to ETP species populations; 3. Ensuring that the impact of fishing and related activity does not result in serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function; and 4. Ensuring that the impact of fishing and related activity does not result in serious or irreversible harm to ecological processes.

The NT Compliance Plan also includes specific reference to ‘Well defined and measurable indicators consistent with the objectives.

The management system is considered to meet the requirements of SG 60, SG 80 Justification and SG 100. DoF 2016 References NT Pearling Oyster Compliance Plan 2020

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

PI 3.2.4 – UoC 1 WA Pearl Oyster Catch and Grow - Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 22

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

place mechanisms place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management to evaluate some evaluate key parts of system. parts of the the management management system Guidepost system. Met? Y Y Y Most parts of the WA POF fishery management system are subject to evaluation. Evaluation processes include strategic planning and risk assessments (ERAs for the POF will be undertaken every 3–5 years) and annual compliance risk assessments. AMMs are held with licence holders to discuss current research programs, management changes and future research needs. The effectiveness of the harvest strategy will be evaluated in 2020 and amended as necessary before then, if required. Fishery performance against long-term and short-term objectives is evaluated annually through the Status Reports of the Fisheries and and more broadly through DoF’s Annual Report to the Western Australian Parliament (see, for example, DoF 2014). The environmental issues of the WA POF associated with the collection of pearl oysters from the wild stocks, up to the stage of shells being placed in fishing holding sites awaiting the implantation process is subject to assessment under the EPBC Act. The last assessment was conducted in 2013. At that time the Commonwealth Department of the Environment approved the fishery for five years, the maximum term available at that time. There are mechanisms in place that require an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the Perling Compliance Plan. These include: An annual internal

audit by Fisheries to assess effectiveness of the Plan with a report to PIAC; and an External review by third party to assess auditable processes and outcomes every 5 years.

SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met Justification b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management

management system management system system is subject to regular internal and is subject to is subject to regular external review. occasional internal internal and review. occasional external Guidepost review. Met? Y Y Y

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 23

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system The management system for the WA POF is subject to regular internal review as described under scoring issue (a). Annual internal reviews are undertaken as part of the process for completing (and updating) the annual Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in Western Australia. Multiple risk assessments have been undertaken previously for the WA pearling industry, with the cultivation aspects assessed at stakeholder workshops in 2001 (Jernakoff 2002) and 2004 (PPA 2004) and the wild collection and hatchery aspects (as part of the POF) assessed at a stakeholder workshop in 2005 (Fletcher et al. 2006) and subsequently internally reviewed by the Department and the Executive Officer of the PPA in 2008 (Department of Fisheries 2008) and 2013 (Department of Fisheries 2013). In recent years DoF has had a schedule for peer review of assessments for all fisheries; this “rolling” schedule aimed to generate major reviews of 5-8 fisheries per year, employing a mix of internal and external (e.g. universities, CSIRO, inter-state fisheries departments) fisheries experts. This has not been specifically undertaken for pearl oyster because the significant aspects of the work undertaken have been peer reviewed in the scientific literature (Hart et al. 2015). The environmental aspects of the fishery are subject to external assessment under the EPBC Act. In 2015, the Department of the Environment extended the maximum timeframe for EPBC Act approval from five to ten years for those fisheries assessed as posing low environmental risk. The fishery has been granted the maximum extension of 10 years and is now approved until 2025 (see http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/4a6157be-1012-4018-88df- 97dcbf58bfa1/files/letter-10-year-extensions-wa-2015.pdf). While this is a positive outcome for the fishery in terms of its environmental credentials, it does mean a reduced level of external review of the fishery. The effectiveness of the harvest strategy will be evaluated in 2020 and amended as necessary before then, if required. However there is no indication provided as to whether this will include an element of external review. The NT pearl culture sector has been subject to occasional internal review through the publication of status reports up until 2011. Seeding numbers in the pearl culture sector are monitored. An internal and occasional external review process is now contained within the Pearl Industry Compliance Plan and an external review was completed in January 2020 (C-AID Consultants) which evaluated:

• Monitoring and reporting on ESD performance • Measures to address excessive seeding of pearl oysters above total (first

operations) seeding rights • Adherence to quarantine/translocation disease management protocols and requirements • Operations to be in line with conditions of pearl licence and/or lease

Justification SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are now met Jernakoff 2002; PPA 2004; Fletcher et al. 2006; DoF 2008; DoF 2013

References NT Pearling Oyster Compliance Plan 2020

C-AID CONSULTANTS, Northern Territory Pearling Compliance Plan – Audit

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 24

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

6 Appendices 6.1 Evaluation processes and techniques 6.1.1 Site visits

The Western Australia Silver Lipped Pearl Oyster (Pinctada maxima) fishery, Hand gathered, wild- caught production reared to production at on-growing sites (UoC 1); and mother of pearl and pearl meat (UoC2). was certified on 5 September 2017 using MSC FCR 2. This 2nd annual audit covers the period from re-certification from June 2019 to January 2020. The on-site audit took place on 22 January 2020. No requests for direct consultation were received from Stakeholders. A list of stakeholders contacted are provided in Appendix 3. Additional information was provided by Aaron Irving, Chief Executive Officer, Pearl Producers Association and Murray Barton from NT Department of Primary Resources.

A wide range of stakeholders were contacted including Government organisations, NGOs, and indigenous groups, and invited to submit comments. The report text above provides details which address the points raised New information provided warrants some important changes to the scoring.

Surveillance discussions have covered all issues as laid out in Annex CG of the MSC Certification Requirements, including the principal changes occurring to the fishery within the 1st year of certification and provided in the Client Action Plan against the conditions set.

Perl Oyster Annual Assessment Meeting Attendees 22 January 2020

Name Affiliation Aaron Irving Executive officer, Pearl Producers Association

Antony Hart Stock Assessment Scientist

Mathew.Hourston EcI osystem Management Scientist

Rhiannon Jones, Senior Management Officer, DPIRD

Paula Kalinowski, Fisheries Management Officer, DPIRD

Annie Steel, Fisheries Management Officer, DPURD

Richard Banks MRAG Americas TL/P3

Cam Dixon MRAG Americas P2/P3

6.1.2 Stakeholder participation

Stakeholders contacted

Aaron Irving PPA [email protected]

Alan Kendrick Dep. Of Parks and Wildlife [email protected]

Alan Byrne Dep. Of Parks and Wildlife [email protected]

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 25

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Northern Territory Department of Primary Fisheries NT Industry and Resources [email protected]

Murray Barton [email protected]

[email protected] DPIRD

Rhiannon Jones [email protected]

Shirree Blazeski [email protected]

Anthony Hart [email protected] Mathew Hourston [email protected] Kim Walshe [email protected]

Alexander Watson WWF [email protected]

Jo-anne McCrae WWF [email protected]

Jason Fowler Environs Kimberley [email protected] Australian National Deborah Thiele [email protected] University

Kimberley Land Council [email protected] Tom Holyoake Kimberley Land Council [email protected] Darwin/Daly/Wagait

Regional Office Northern Land Council [email protected]

Robuck Bay working group Robuck Bay working group [email protected] University of Western

Jessica Meeuwig Australia [email protected]

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 26

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

6.2 Stakeholder input There were no stakeholder submissions.

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 27

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

6.3 Revised surveillance program

Table 8– Fishery surveillance program

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Level 5 April 2019 December 2019 December 2020 December 2021

Table 9 – Timing of surveillance audit

Proposed date of surveillance Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale audit Scientific advice to be released in November 2019, proposal to 3 September 2019 January 2020 postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice.

Table 10 – Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

One P1 condition remains open, but 3 On-site audit 2 auditors on-site on target.

6.4 Harmonised fishery assessments

Table 11 – Overlapping fisheries

Fishery name Certification status and date Performance Indicators to harmonise

Peel Harvey Estuarine fishery: Recreational and Commercial blue Jun 2016 – Jun 2021 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only) swimmer crab and Commercial sea mullet

Western Australia Octopus Fishery Oct 2019- Oct 2024 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

Western Rock Lobster May 2017-May 2022 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

Western Australia Abalone Fishery April 2017-April 2022 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

Exmouth Gulf Prawn Trawl Oct 2015-Oct 2020 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

Shark Bay Prawn Trawl Oct 2015-Oct 2020 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 (WA only)

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 28

MRAG-MSC-F27-v2.01 September 2019

Table 12 – Scoring differences

Blue swimmer Performance Western Rock Exmouth Gulf Shark Bay Prawn crab and sea Pearl Oyster Indicators (PIs) Lobster Prawn Trawl Trawl mullet

PI 3.1.1 100 100 100 100 100

PI 3.1.2 75 100 100 100 80

PI 3.1.3 100 100 100 100 80

Table 13 – Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6) This is a catch (WA) and grow (NT) fishery. All WA fishery components meet SG 100, NT components meet SG 80.

7 References

C-AID Consultants, Northern Territory Pearling Compliance Plan – Audit

DPIRD, Pearl Industry Fishery Summary of Consultations Since First Audit, 2020 Northern Territory Compliance Pearl Industry Compliance Plan 2020

NT Pearl Industry Management Advisory Council Terms of Reference, 2019

Meeting 28, Northern Territory Pearling Industry Advisory Committee Meeting November 2019

NT Transboundary movements of living aquatic animals: A zoning strategy for disease control in the northern territory.

Meeting Minutes: Pearl Oyster Stock Assessment Working Group, 7 October 2019 Presentation “Western Australian Pinctada maxima Fishery 2019”. Meeting of Stock Assessment Working Group (SAWG). 7th October 2019.

Signed Minute: Pinctada maxima Resource - 2020 Total Allowable Catch and related matters.

MRAG Americas Surveillance Report – US2751_MF Pearl Oyster 29