Vottunarstofan Tún ehf.
Sustainable Fisheries Scheme
Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment Guyana Seabob Fishery
Surveillance Report
Report on the 1st surveillance of the fishery
Conformity Assessment Body Vottunarstofan Tún ehf.
Assessment Team Tristan Southall, Julian Addison & Bert Keus
Assessment Secretary Gunnar Á. Gunnarsson
Fishery Client Guyana Association of Trawler Owners and Seafood Processors (GATOSP). Assessment Type Remote Surveillance
Report Date 04/08/2020
Contents
Glossary ...... iii Executive Summary ...... 4 1 Report details ...... 6 1.1 Surveillance Information ...... 6 1.2 Background ...... 9 1.2.1 Changes to the Management ...... 9 1.2.2 Changes to relevant regulations ...... 10 1.2.3 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry ...... 10 1.2.4 Changes to scientific base (P1 Stock status) ...... 10 1.2.5 Changes to the scientific base (P2 Ecosystem) ...... 18 1.2.6 Traceability update ...... 18 1.3 Version Details ...... 18 2 Surveillance details ...... 19 2.1 Surveillance results overview ...... 19 2.1.1 Summary of Conditions ...... 19 2.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 20 3 Progress on Conditions and Recommendations ...... 21 3.1 Conditions update ...... 21 3.1.1 Condition 1 ...... 21 3.1.2 Condition 2 ...... 23 3.1.3 Condition 3 ...... 26 3.1.4 Condition 4 ...... 28 3.1.5 Condition 5 ...... 30 3.1.6 Condition 6 ...... 32 3.1.7 Condition 7 (NEW 2020) ...... 34 3.2 Recommendations update ...... 35 3.3 Client Action Plan ...... 40 3.4 Surveillance Conclusions ...... 40 4 Re-scored Performance Indicators ...... 41 4.1 Stock Assessment ...... 41 4.2 Monitoring, Control & Surveillance ...... 44 4.3 Monitoring & Management Performance Evaluation ...... 47 4.4 Revised Principle Level Scores ...... 49
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page i
5 Appendices ...... 50 5.1 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 50 5.1.1 Site Visits ...... 50 5.1.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 50 5.2 Stakeholder Input...... 51 5.3 Revised surveillance programme ...... 51 5.4 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 52 5.5 References ...... 53 5.6 Consultation on new condition 7 ...... 54
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page ii
Glossary BMSY Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (PA/TRIGGER/LIM/LOSS) CAP Client Action Plan CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CAP Client Action Plan CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism EEZ Exclusive economic zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected FMSY Fishing mortality giving maximum sustainable yield (MSY/PROXY) FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GATOSP Guyana Association of Trawler Owners and Seafood Processors HCR Harvest Control Rule HR Harvest rate LRP Limit Reference Point MCMC Markov Chain Monte Carlo MOU Memorandum of understanding MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PCR Public Certification Report PI Performance indicator PRI Point of recruitment impairment (stock reference point) RBF Risk based framework SG Scoring guidepost SSB Spawning stock biomass SWG Seabob Working Group t tonnes TAC Total Allowable Catch TAE Total Allowable Effort TRP Target Reference Point UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring System
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page iii
Executive Summary This report presents the results of a surveillance audit of Guyana Seabob fishery as required by the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Fisheries Standard. The Guyana Seabob fishery was first certified in August 2019 for a 5-year period. However, as a result of the Covid 19 global pandemic, MSC have issued a derogation for all certified fisheries, which extends certicates and all associated deadlines (i.e. condition milestones) by 6 months. As a result, the certificate is now due to expire in February 2025. The surveillance and subsequent reporting have been carried out by an assessment team from Vottunarstofan Tún, an accredited Conformity Assessment Body (CAB), on behalf of the client fishery of The Guyana Association of Trawler Owners and Seafood Processors (GATOSP). The report provides an account of the surveillance process undertaken and provides a description of any relevant changes in the fishery since the time of certification. The report is not intended to follow standard editing norm of scientific journals, but instead follows a normative surveillance reporting template which aims to highlight all details of relevance to the audit. The assessment was conducted by a team of the following experts: o Tristan Southall: Team leader and P3 assessor; o Julian Addison: P1 and application of RBF; o Bert Keus: P 2 and application of RBF. Gunnar Á. Gunnarsson served as assessment Secretary on behalf of Vottunarstofan Tún. This 1st annual surveillance audit was carried out remotely (i.e. off-site) on May 18th & 19th 2020 with the use of video conference call facility. Meetings were held with members of the client group; key personnel from the management authority; and representatives of the marine eNGO community. All stakeholders, pre-identified by V Tún´s stakeholders registry for this fishery, were notified about the surveillance via e-mail and given the opportunity to submit a request for a meeting or written comment. No such submissions were received. The purpose of the surveillance audit is set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Process (v2.1). Principle amoung these is a requirement to update any changes in the fishery or management system in the preceding 12 months (or since the last assessment or surveillance report) and to provide an update on progress against conditions. No significant changes were identified to operational practices, management systems, regulations or personnel. Additionally, no changes which were identified which would change the traceability risk of non-certified product entering the Chain of Custody. Significant progress has been achieved by the fishery in the first year of surveillance. Condition 1 and Condition 6 are both ‘closed’ as a result of reviews completed well ahead of the projected timeline, sufficient to meet SG80. However, in the case of peer review of stock assessment a further ‘Recommendation’ is added. Conditions 2, 3 and 4 relating to ecosystem interactions were concluded to be ‘on-target’. However, the assessment team have reiterated the intention that the overall aim should be to achieve an SG80 score by the time of recertification.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 4
Condition 5 relating to demonstrating evidence of compliance was concluded to be ‘on- target’, however the projected progress against future milestones has been hampered by an unforeseen technical issue in relation to the operation of older VMS units. As a result, the condition timeline has been extended to allow this issue to be rectified. This does not change the requirement for the scoring issue to meet SG80 by the time of recertification. The unforeseen technical issue in relation to the operation of older VMS units is concluded to have had had an effect of reducing the overall systemic functioning of monitoring, control and surveillance in the fishery. As a result, scoring issue 3.2.3a is rescored, which has resulted in a new condition (no. 7), requiring that the VMS system be reinstalled as soon as practically possible. The client fishery remains aware of the 4 non-binding recommendations and has commenced action to address these. The assessment team has added a fifth non-binding recommendation with regard to issue 1.2.4e, i.e. that a stock assessment expert is commissioned to evaluate the new stock assessment model including testing the coding in the software and ensuring that the output from the model is reproducible. At the conclusion of the 1st surveillance audit of the Guyana Seabob fishery, Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that the fishery continues to meet the MSC standard and its certification should continue.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 5
1 Report details
1.1 Surveillance Information Table 1 Surveillance announcement
1 Fishery name
Guyana Seabob Fishery
2 Surveillance level and type
Surveillance Level 4 / Remote surveillance
3 Surveillance number
1st Surveillance X
2nd Surveillance
3rd Surveillance
4th Surveillance
Other (expedited etc)
4 Team leader
Tristan Southall: Team leader, principle 3 and knowledge of regional/national fisheries management Tristan Southall is an experienced fisheries assessor and assessment team leader who has worked as bothprinciple 2 and 3 expert on many previous MSC assessments, including assessments of pelagic fisheries in UK and Ireland, trawl fisheries for demersal species in mainland Europe and Russia and crustacean fisheries in the UK and Central America. He has also undertaken a large number of pre-assessments of a diverse range of fisheries all over the world and was instrumental in developing the multi-fishery project pre-assessment methodology which has now been widely adopted as an efficient means for pre-assessing many fisheries simultaneously. Tristan’s expertise has been drawn upon by the MSC to undertake benchmark scoring exercises and help pilot changes to the standard, including the adoption of the Risk Based methodologies and more recently exploring alternative structures for the standard. Tristan was the lead author of the MSC Capacity Building Toolkit and developed and has delivered capacity building training on behalf of MSC in Europe, Asia, Africa and North America. He is also a member of the MSC peer review college. When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan runs an independent marine science consultancy business which specialises in projects relating to fishing and other marine industries, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure, policy and management. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Tristan Southall meets the fishery team leader qualification and competency criteria specified in Annex PC1, Table PC1, in particular: - has a university degree in marine biology and in marine resource development and protection; - has over five years´ experience in the fisheries sector related to the tasks under his responsibility; - has passed MSC team leader training; - meets the qualifications and has the competencies specified in section 2 of Table PC1, taking into account MSC´s 2018 clarification of requirement (b);
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 6
- - has undertaken 2 MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits as team member in the last 5 years; - - has the experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and the ability to effectively communicate with the client and other stakeholders. Tristan has completed an Exemplar Global training course Lead Auditor – Management Systems Auditing, with the qualification Exemplar Global AU – Auditing Management Systems ISO 19011:2018 and Exemplar Global TL – Leading MS Audit Teams ISO 19011:2018. Furthermore, Tristan has the qualifications and competencies required for serving as an assessor as outlined in Annex PC3, Table PC3. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Tristan Southall has no conflicts of interest in relation to the Guyana seabob fishery.
5 Team members
Bert Keus: Team member, principle 2 Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the Netherlands. He holds degrees in biology and law and has previously held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board, and research fellow with the Netherlands Research Institute for Fishery Investigation (RIVO-DLO) and the fisheries division of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Holland (LEI-DLO). Over the years 2003 and 2004 he managed fishing and processing companies in the Gambia handling fish from industrial and artisanal fisheries, and he maintains his contacts with the Gambian seafood industry. In addition, however, he has long association with the shellfish fisheries of the Wadden Sea and neighbouring areas of northwest Europe, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative and sitting on the project’s management board. Through this work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process. Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group, Fisheries Working Group of IUCN. Currently a major part of his work as a fisheries consultant is the drafting of appropriate assessments of fishing activities in Natura 2000 sites. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Bert Keus meets the fishery team member qualification and competency criteria specified in Annex PC2, Table PC2, in particular: - has a university education in marine biology; - has over five years´ experience in the fisheries sector related to the tasks under his responsibility; - has passed MSC team member training; - has undertaken 2 MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits as team member in the last 5 years; - has the experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and the ability to effectively communicate with the client and other stakeholders. Furthermore, Bert has the qualifications and competencies required for serving as an assessor as outlined in Annex PC3, Table PC3. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Bert Keus has no conflicts of interest in relation to the Guyana seabob fishery.
Julian Addison: Team member, principle 1 Dr Julian Addison is an independent fisheries consultant with over 30 years’ experience of stock assessment and provision of management advice on shellfish fisheries, and a background of scientific research on shellfish biology and population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Until December 2010 he worked at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in Lowestoft, England where he was Senior Shellfish Advisor to Government policy makers, which involved working closely with marine managers, legislators and stakeholders, Government Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and environmental NGOs. He has also worked as a visiting scientist at DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia and at NMFS in Woods Hole, Massachusetts where he experienced shellfish management approaches in North America. For four years he was a member of the Scientific Committee and the UK delegation to the International Whaling Commission providing scientific advice to the UK Commissioner. He has worked extensively with ICES and most recently was Chair of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs, a member of the Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History and a
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 7
member of the Steering Group on Ecosystems Function. He has extensive experience of the MSC certification process primarily as a P1 team member but also as a P2 team member and team leader. He has undertaken over 30 MSC full assessments of crustacean and mollusc fisheries worldwide which use a wide range of stock assessment methodologies and fishing gears. He has also undertaken MSC pre-assessments in Europe, North America and Australia and over 60 annual surveillance audits and technical reviews. He is a member of the MSC Peer Review College and has carried out peer reviews of MSC assessments worldwide of a wide range of fish and shellfish fisheries. Other recent work includes a review of the stock assessment model for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, USA, and an assessment of three Alaskan crab fisheries under the FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management scheme. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Dr. Addison meets the fishery team member qualification and competency criteria specified in Annex PC2, Table PC2, in particular: - has a university degree (Ph.D.) in Population Dynamics; - has over five years´ experience in the fisheries sector related to the tasks under his responsibility; - has passed MSC team leader/member training; - has undertaken 2 MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits as team member in the last 5 years; - has the experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and the ability to effectively communicate with the client and other stakeholders. Julian has completed an Exemplar Global training course Lead Auditor – Management Systems Auditing, with the qualification Exemplar Global AU – Auditing Management Systems ISO 19011:2018 and Exemplar Global TL – Leading MS Audit Teams ISO 19011:2018. Furthermore, Julian has the qualifications and competencies required for serving as an assessor as outlined in Annex PC3, Table PC3. Vottunarstofan Tún confirms that Dr. Julian Addison has no conflicts of interest in relation to the Guyana seabob fishery.
6 Audit/review time and location
The surveillance audit was conducted remotely via conference call facilities during the 18th and 19th of May 2020.
7 Assessment and review activities
The surveillance audit team actively engaged with the client and stakeholders. In particular, the team reviewed the following: - any potential or actual changes to the fishery and its management systems; - any changes to, deletion or introduction of, law and regulations affecting the fishery; - any changes in personnel in industry, science or management and their potential impact on the management of the fishery; - any changes to scientific information, including stock assessments; - any changes to its traceability systems; - any changes affecting harmonisation of overlapping fisheries – and – - the fishery´s progress against open conditions and recommendations.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 8
1.2 Background Full details about the certified Guyana Seabob Trawl fishery, which is the focus of this surveillance audit, are contained in the public certification report (Southall et al 2019) which is available to download on the MSC website (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/guyana-seabob/ ). This includes full details about area of operation, fleet operations, management regulations and audit evidence. The focus of this surveillance audit is not to revisit all aspects of the original certification but instead to focus on material changes that may have occurred since the last annual surveillance (in particular any which may lead to a change of score) and to monitor progress against conditions and, to a lesser extent, non-binding recommendations that were introduced either at the time of the full assessment or during subsequent surveillance audits. Below the report highlights key changes / development of the last year.
1.2.1 Changes to the Management There have been no significant changes to management. The management plan remains in force, although this has been subject to review. During 2019, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) convened a management review meeting of the Suriname and Guyana Seabob Fisheries, which took place in Georgetown, Guyana12. This meeting undertook a critical review of the 2019 scientific stock assessments of the Atlantic seabob fisheries of Suriname and Guyana, proposed revised Harvest Control Rules, and the related fisheries management plans. To complete its agenda of work, the CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group (CSWG) meeting was convened in three sessions as follows: Session 1 – Face-to-Face meeting held in Guyana, 20-22 August 2019; Session 2 – Electronic Meeting, 24 September 2019; and Session 3 – Electronic Meeting, 27 September 2019.
Figure 1. Participants of the CRFM CSWG Meeting, assembled outside of the Fisheries Department in Guyana, included representatives from Guyana’s and Suriname’s fisheries departments, private seabob trawl companies, the NGO community, and independent technical experts with seabob fishery assessment and management expertise (Source CRFM).
1 A press release from the meeting is available on the FAO website: http://www.fao.org/in-action/rebyc- 2/news/detail/en/c/1208014/ 2 The proceedings of the meetings are published on the CRFM website: http://www.crfm.int/images/CRFM_fishery_Report_- _2019-1_19_Feb_2020.pdf
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 9
The participants included members from the Seabob Working Groups of both Suriname and Guyana, government officials, industry personnel and NGO (WWF) representatives from both countries, as well as fisheries technical staff from Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the CRFM Secretariat and the consultant stock assessment scientist. As a result of this review the Seabob Management Plan has been reviewed and updated for the period 2019-2022.
1.2.2 Changes to relevant regulations The regulations in place in the fishery remain in force. These are unchanged from those described in the original assessment report. However, there has been a change in how the regulation in relation to VMS has been applied as a result of technical issue which arose in April 2019 due to older internal GPS units resetting their date, in effect rendering them inoperable (IMO 20193). This change is deemed to be significant and non-temporary (still not fully resolved by May 2020). This has resulted in the change of score for PI 3.2.3 and the addition of a new condition (7). See later report sections for further details.
1.2.3 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry There have been no significant changes to personnel.
1.2.4 Changes to scientific base (P1 Stock status) The harvest strategy for the seabob fishery is characterised by a restriction of fishing effort through a limited entry licensing scheme, measures to minimise bycatch, restrictions to fishing areas, the implementation of reference points and harvest control rules to safeguard against overfishing, and a rigorous monitoring, control and enforcement regime. There is no TAC for the seabob fishery. Fishing effort is limited as there is a maximum limit of 87 vessels in the fishery with a maximum total fishing effort set at 15,000 standardised days at sea (equivalent to approximately 20,000 nominal days at sea) with each vessel currently limited to 225 days fishing per year. This limit on days fishing per vessel is evaluated each year based on observed changes in the main stock status indicator for the seabob fishery - the annual catch rate (CPUE) calculated as total landings of seabob processed (peeled tail) weight in kilograms divided by the total number of standardised days-at-sea. (The landed catch is recorded as weight of processed shrimp, representing about 43% of the live weight.) If the annual CPUE for the whole fleet drops below agreed reference points, then the fishing companies are required to reduce the number of days fishing per vessel for next year in line with the harvest control rule (HCR) described below. The stock assessment model estimated that 15,000 standardised days at sea achieves an average spawning stock biomass (SSB) of 0.4 x the unexploited biomass, B0, a proxy for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The average catch rate at that level would be 630 kg/day and this is therefore defined as the target reference point (TRP). The fishing industry stated that catch rates of 600 kg/day would be a reasonable economic catch rate to target, and this is slightly below the TRP of 630 kg/day. The limit reference point (LRP) was set at 0.2 x B0, which corresponds to a catch rate of 315 kg/day, which industry has noted is the lowest commercially viable catch rate at the current time. In addition, a trigger reference was set at 540 kg/day (approximately 70% of the distance between the LRP and TRP) at which point exploitation rates will be reviewed and reduced as the LRP is approached. A summary of the reference points is given in Table 1.
3 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/Documents/SN.1-Circ.182-Add.1.pdf
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 10
Table 1. Reference points for seabob fishery used in the Harvest Control Rule (HCR)
Reference point Value in kgs / standardised days at sea (kg / sdas) Target Reference Point (TRP) as defined by 0.4 x B0 630 Alternative TRP - commercial target defined by industry 600 Intermediate trigger point 540 Limit reference point (LRP) 315
The HCR in place when the fishery was certified and applicable to the 2019 and 2020 fisheries is described below: The Total Allowable Effort (TAE) days-at-sea quota shall be set dependent on the value of the catch index as follows: when the catch index is at or above the TRP, a maximum of 225 days at sea per licenced vessel. when the current index is above the trigger reference point, but below the TRP a linearly declining value, according to the calculation (TAE in days at sea per vessel): TAE = 205 + 20*(Current Index – Trigger ref. point) / (TRP – Trigger ref. point) when the current index is above the LRP, but below the trigger reference point, a linearly declining value, according to the calculation (TAE in days at sea per vessel): TAE = 205*(Current Index – LRP / (Trigger ref. point – LRP) if the current index is at or below the LRP, TAE is zero (there is an export moratorium). The current index for each year shall be calculated as the average between the previous year’s index value and the catch rate of the previous year (i.e. a moving average). The HCR Index in any given year t (It) is calculated as:
Where Ct-1=catch (kg processed tail weight) in the year t-1 and Dt-1 = total nominal days-at-sea required to catch Ct-1. The index calculation should include all observed reliable catch and effort data. The calculation of the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) days-at-sea quota dependent on stock status is shown graphically in Figure 2.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 11
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the harvest control rule (HCR), with the days-at-sea per vessel based on a maximum of 87 vessels. The HCR index is in kilograms of seabob processed tail weight per standardised day at sea. (Source: Medley, 2014)
At the time of the certification of the fishery, CPUE data were available for the whole fishery for 2017 (Richardson, 2018). With a calculated catch index of 616 kg/sdas and an annual CPUE for 2017 for the whole fleet of 715 kg/sdas, the catch index for 2018 was calculated to be 0.5 x (616 +715) = 665.5, which is above the TRP and meant therefore that the annual days-at-sea quota for all vessels remained at 225 days for 2018. Since the PCR was published, annual CPUE data for the whole fleet have been collected for 2018 (Jacobs, 2019) and 2019 (Fisheries Department, 2020a). In 2018, the seabob fishing fleet expended a total of 12,840 standardised days-at-sea (sdas), well below the maximum permitted total fishing effort of 15,000 sdas, with a catch of approximately 11,700 tonnes of processed seabob tails, resulting in an annual CPUE of 912 kg/sdas. With the previously-calculated catch index of 665.5 for 2018 and an annual CPUE of 912 kg/sdas for 2018, the catch index for 2019 was calculated as 0.5 x (665.5 + 912) = 788.8 kg/sdas, which is well above both the TRP of 630 kg/sdas and the industry’s alternative target of 600 kg/sdas, and therefore there was no change for 2019 in the annual days-at-sea quota of 225 days for all vessels. During the site visit, the audit team were provided with CPUE data for both 2018 and 2019. The CPUE data for 2018 were not the same as the data presented in Jacobs (2019). The total standardised days- at-sea for 2018 were unchanged, but the landings weights had been adjusted downwards. The Client subsequently confirmed that the landings data originally presented in Jacobs (2019) had contained an error in that landings data provided by one of the processing companies were raw landings weight data and not processed landings weight. The corrected annual landings were confirmed as 8,703,860 kg giving an annual CPUE of 678 kg/sdas (instead of 912 kg/sdas). Using this revised figure for CPUE, the audit team calculated that the catch index for 2019 would now be 0.5 x (665.5 + 678) = 671.8. This revised catch index is still above the TRP and therefore the annual days-at-sea quota for all vessels should remain at 225 days for 2019. In 2019, the seabob fishing fleet expended a total of 11,625 standardised days-at-sea (sdas), well below the maximum permitted total fishing effort of 15,000 sdas, with a catch of approximately 6,662 tonnes of processed seabob tails, resulting in an annual CPUE of 573 kg/sdas. Whilst the observed CPUE is below the TRP, the harvest control rule uses a moving average catch index; with the catch index of 671.8 for 2019 (calculated above by the audit team) and an annual CPUE of 573 kg/sdas for 2019, the catch index for 2020 can be calculated as 0.5 x (671.8 + 573) = 622.4 kg/sdas. The audit team notes that the calculation of catch index for 2020 is not the same as that calculated in the official report (Fisheries Department, 2020a), which gives a slightly different catch index of 625.5. The discrepancy between these two values can be explained by the official report using an average of the CPUE data for 2018 and 2019 to calculate the 2020 index, when the agreed HCR clearly states that
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 12
the catch index should be the average of the catch index for 2019 and the CPUE for 2019. However the discrepancy is very small and both values of the catch index are above the industry’s alternative target of 600 kg/sdas, which appears to be used by the Fisheries Department as the TRP, but both values are slightly below the TRP of 630 kg/sdas which was estimated by Medley (2014) to be equivalent to 0.4 x B0. As the catch index is above the TRP used by the Fisheries Department, there was therefore no change for 2020 in the annual days-at-sea quota of 225 days for all vessels. (The Client noted that a new HCR had been agreed for 2020 – see below – in which the annual catch index has been replaced by a monthly catch index.) Since the Public Certification Report (PCR) was published, there have been two major developments that have occurred in relation to Principle 1 issues. Firstly, the new stock assessment undertaken by the consultant, Dr. Paul Medley, has been completed and undergone a peer review at a meeting of the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group in 2019. Secondly there has been a revision to the harvest control rules, which were also evaluated at the CRFM meeting in 2019 and which will be implemented for the 2020 fishery. The stock assessment is an integrated assessment that uses all available information in a single model to estimate the past stock dynamics and the current status for seabob. The assessment consists of a population model that describes the dynamics, an observation model that calculates what would be the expected observed values of total catch, catch and effort and size composition derived from the population model and a likelihood model that link the observation model to the data (Medley, 2019a). The stock assessment model is a statistical catch-at-age model, implemented with the Stan software (mc-stan.org) in R. The model is based on a standard forward-projection design. The model has a one- month time step and males and females are treated separately. Growth is described by the von Bertalanffy growth equation, and length-weight parameters are estimated from a log-linear model of morphometric data. This new stock assessment (Medley, 2019a) differs from that of Medley (2013) as described in the PCR. The key differences to the original stock assessment approach are: The stock assessment is fully implemented in a Bayesian MCMC using Stan (mc- stan.org). As age data are not available, growth is modelled using a size transition matrix, which avoids maintaining the population in age categories and the excessive smoothing that occurs in converting weight to age or vice versa. Selectivity is modelled as a spline function. Recruitment is modelled properly as a log-normal latent variable (“random effect”). Commercial size grading is modelled directly as a process using multiple normal distributions. Catches have been corrected for the presence of white belly shrimp. The random size composition incorporates a model of allocation between mature females, males and immature males/females. The likelihood for the random size composition accounts for overdispersion by using a Dirichlet multinomial. The entire analysis from (almost) raw data to the final fit has been implemented in RMarkdown. This includes detailed documentation of the entire analysis ensuring that it is reproducible. Nominal catch and effort data from processors’ landings data were used in the model. Catches were converted from unpeeled tail weight to processed tail weight for use in the assessment. Fishing effort
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 13
was measured in days at sea but corrected for asymptotic trip length as there was clear evidence of diminishing catches on longer trips possibly due to increased travel time to grounds, poor weather restricting fishing or lower catch rates necessitating longer trips. Fishing effort can be standardised using generalised linear models, but the only covariate available was vessel name, and there was not sufficient information on vessel characteristics to carry out such a standardisation. The model uses a Beverton and Holt stock-recruitment relationship with a steepness parameter. The model calculates log-likelihood for each component (total catch, catch and effort, size composition by size and sex, average count per pound) and uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations to investigate uncertainty. The CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group meeting in 2019 provided a thorough peer review of the assessment methodology and its implementation in both the Guyana and Suriname seabob fisheries. The meeting was attended by government managers and scientists from both countries along with WWF representatives, technical staff from other countries and the CRFM Secretariat. The review group accepted that the integrated assessment model permitted the simultaneous fitting of information from various sources, and therefore afforded an opportunity to make use of all available, suitable data. The review considered inter alia the growth rate (K) for the von Bertalanffy model, the value of the natural mortality rate, the most appropriate size-at maturity estimate, the fitting of average counts data and factors affecting effort measures. Output from the revised assessment model (Medley, 2019a) using inputs agreed by the CRFM peer review showed that stock biomass has been fluctuating around or above BMSY (Figure 3), there was no evidence that recruitment had been reduced significantly by fishing (Figure 4), and that fishing mortality had been fluctuating around or just below FMSY (Figure 5). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model output was insensitive to growth rate, but there could be a significant change in stock status for the plausible range of natural mortality rate (M) estimates of 0.093 to 0.29 per month. The base case scenario described in Figures 3 to 6 used a value of M = 0.2 per month which was considered appropriate by the CRFM peer review.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 14
Figure 3. Estimates of stock biomass in relation to BMSY for the Guyana seabob fishery. (Counts represent the number of MCMC simulations). (Source: CRFM, 2019)
Figure 4. Estimate of Guyana seabob recruitment relative to the unexploited state. (Source: CRFM, 2019)
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 15
Figure 5. Estimate of fishing mortality relative to FMSY for Guyana seabob. (Source: CRFM, 2019)
In addition to a review of the stock assessment, the CRFM meeting reviewed and agreed a new harvest control rule (HCR) which will replace the old HCR described above. The new HCR is as follows: The HCR index is calculated as a moving average of the catch rate each month so:
퐶 퐼 =푚 + (1−푚)퐼 푓 where It = HCR index in month t, Ct = monthly catch associated with effort ft, m = moving average parameter. The maximum fishing effort of X trips/days-at-sea are set for each quarter (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Nov). Vessels may use that fishing effort as they see fit during the quarter, but the maximum effort must not be exceeded in any quarter. X = 3*fmax which is the monthly effort set at a value consistent with MSY. Effort is calculated as the nominal days at sea plus 1 day (to avoid trips of 0 days) If It falls below the trigger reference point Itrig but above Ilim, the monthly effort in the second month after the index has fallen will be limited according to the following: 퐼 −퐼 푓 =푓 퐼 −퐼 If It falls below the limit reference point Ilim, the effort in the second month after the index has fallen will be limited according to the following:
푓 =푓 The rule will apply strictly on a monthly basis when It < Ilim and vessels will not be able to carry over unused effort to the following month. If no effort is applied, then a “natural” recovery rate will be applied to the HCR index of R%: 푅 퐼 =퐼 1+ 100 and the resulting index used in the HCR rule above.
There are two major differences between this new revised HCR and the previous HCR which was in place up until the end of 2019. Firstly the old HCR was triggered in response to changes in CPUE calculated on an annual basis, although there was also scope for the Seabob Working Group (SWG) to
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 16
recommend the introduction of effort restrictions if monthly CPUE data raised any cause for concern about the status of the stock. The new HCR is now explicitly triggered by monthly catch rates declining below reference points. Secondly, the new HCR (Figure 6) triggers changes in fishing effort at two reference points, Itrig and Ilim, instead of the three reference points, target reference point, intermediate trigger reference point and limit reference point, as defined in the old HCR (Figure 1). For the new HCR, default values of the parameters were agreed as set out below in Table 3. The reference points used in the default projection were based on MSY rather than the estimated status quo effort levels which for Guyana represented a 20% increase in effort. Evaluation of the performance of the HCR showed that the HCR was robust to these choices of parameters, and that there is less than 2% chance that the HCR fails to reduce effort when the stock is overfished, and equally a very low probability that the HCR reduces effort when the stock is not overfished (Medley, 2019b). Table 3. Parameter values for the implementation of the new harvest control rule. (Source: Medley, 2019b).
HCR Parameter Value
fmax fMSY
Fmin 0 ma 0.75 R 15%
Ltrig 0.8lMSY
llim 0.5lMSY
Figure 6. Diagram illustrating the revised HCR with parameters: Itrig = HCR Index trigger point below which there is a reduction in the exploitation rate, Ilim = HCR Index limit below which effort is minimised and fmax = the maximum average effort spent each month, equivalent to the MSY exploitation level. (Source: Medley, 2019b)
The CRFM meeting in 2019 reviewed a range of issues in relation to the development of the new HCR. These included the use of a quarterly or monthly index, measures of fishing effort, potential delays in the triggering of measures when the index dropped below the limit reference point and the use of reference points based upon MSY or status quo effort levels. The meeting also considered whether
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 17
it was possible to implement the proposed HCR based upon how the data collection system worked and how the control would work (CRFM, 2019). Following this detailed review of the performance of the proposed HCR, the review group agreed that the proposed HCR should be implemented for the 2020 season and its performance monitored for a year then reviewed and adjustments made for practicality purposes, as necessary (CRFM, 2019). The audit team concluded that the CRFM meeting in 2019 undertook a peer review of the stock assessment and so Condition 1, which required that the assessment of seabob stock status is subject to peer review, can now be closed (see section 3.1) and PI 1.2.4 can be rescored (see section 4). However the audit team noted that whilst the peer review carried out by the CRFM meeting looked in detail at the parameter and data inputs for the model for both the Guyana and Suriname fisheries, the new stock assessment approach would benefit from an expert review of the coding in the software in addition to data input and uncertainties within the model. The stock assessment consultant, Dr Paul Medley, states that all assessment work has been carried out in RMarkdown scripts which are fully documented and reproducible, and therefore amenable to peer review. A new recommendation (no. 5) to this effect has been documented in section 3.2.
1.2.5 Changes to the scientific base (P2 Ecosystem) There have been no changes to management and regulations in relation to ecosystem interactions and no significant changes in the scientific base relating to the Guyana marine ecosystem. The fishery has collated reports on ETP interaction data from at-sea observers, which have been provided by the Fisheries Department for the year 2019. More detail in relation to these is provided in response to relevant conditions, later in the report.
1.2.6 Traceability update There have been no changes to operations, landing procedures or sales which would change the risks of non-certified seabob entering the chain of custody.
1.3 Version Details Table 2 Fisheries programme documents versions
Document Version number
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
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 18
2 Surveillance details
2.1 Surveillance results overview
2.1.1 Summary of Conditions Table 3: Summary of conditions for Guyana Seabob fishery (SA = Surveillance Audit; OT = ‘On Target’; BT = Behind Target; C = Closed).
PI 1st 2nd 3rd 4th No. Condition PI original SA SA SA SA score
The assessment of stock status is subject to peer 1 1.2.4e. 75 C review.
Main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits, or, if below biologically 2 based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a 2.2.1a 75 OT demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Provide evidence that there is a strategy in place that 3 2.3.2a 75 OT can identify unacceptable impacts on ETP species.
Accurate quantitative information that is adequate to 2.3.3 4 measure trends and support a strategy to manage 60 OT a&b impacts on ETP species should be collected.
Evidence should be provided to demonstrate fishers 5 comply with the management system under 3.2.3c 70 OT assessment.
The fishery-specific management system should be 6 subject to regular internal and occasional external 3.2.4b 70 C review.
An MCS system has been implemented in the fishery 7 and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant 3.2.3a 70 n/a NEW management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 19
2.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Table 6: TAC and Catch Data for Guyana Seabob fishery. TAC No TAC is set in the Guyana Seabob fishery UoA share of TAC UoC share of total TAC Total weight catch by UoC Year (most recent) 2019 Processed weight 6,661,990 kg Green Weight 4) 15,322,577 kg
Year (second most 2018 Processed weight 8,703,860 kg recent) Green weight 20,018,878 kg
4 Management is expressed in terms of processed weight. Green weight is calculation with a standard conversion factor of 2.3.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 20
3 Progress on Conditions and Recommendations
3.1 Conditions update It should be noted that due to the Covid 19 global pandemic MSC issued a derogation which extended all MSC certificates by 6 months. This extended timelime also applies to condition milestones. So, a Year 1 milestone is, in practice, a year 1.5 milestone when counted from the time of certification. This applies across all milestones.
3.1.1 Condition 1 Performance PI1.2.4e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. Indicator Score 75 The data inputs and model uncertainties in the 2013 assessment were peer reviewed by CRFM. However, this assessment is now 5 years old, and a new updated stock assessment is in progress. The new assessment is using improved Rationale MCMC simulations within bespoke software, so at present there has been no peer review of this revised assessment approach. The assessment team concluded that whilst the 2013 stock assessment had been peer-reviewed, this assessment was now dated and the SG80 would not be met until the new assessment had been fully peer-reviewed. It should be shown that the assessment of seabob stock status is subject to peer Condition review. Year 1: The current ongoing stock assessment should be completed, and an appropriate external peer review should be commissioned (no change to score). Milestones Year 2: An external peer review of the stock assessment should be completed (resulting PI score: 80). Year 3 & 4: No further action required. Year 1 Action: Arrange peer review. The Guyana Government (Fisheries Department) will contact CRFM and Suriname Fisheries (Yolanda Babb) to arrange a joint review of seabob stock assessments. The SWG will commission and approve appropriate ToRs for the review. The review will, among other things, confirm that best scientific practice has been applied in carrying out the stock assessment, the results are valid (applying corrections if necessary), and how the results will be used for scientific advice taking account the uncertainty. The reviewers will, with the assessment team, prepare the scientific advice appropriate for the next 5 years, including a schedule Client action of further work and recommendations. plan CRFM will arrange the review, employing independent external peer reviewers, and provide international support to Guyana and Suriname in conducting the review. The Shrimp and Groundfish Working Group (SGWG) will supply internal reviewers. External reviewer(s) will be provided by CRFM. The performance of the UoA is not expected to improve before the review itself is complete. Means of Verification: Emails, Approved ToRs, Review schedules, Final stock assessment reports.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 21
Year 2 Action: Complete peer review and respond to findings. The peer review will be conducted before August 2020 to allow time for the assessment team and SGWG response. The review will be organised by CRFM, Guyana Fisheries Department and Suriname Fisheries Department in either Suriname or Guyana. The meeting will convene the CRFM Shrimp and Groundfish Working Group, including 1 or more external reviewers. The meeting and the reviewers will complete separate reports based on their ToRs. With completion of the peer review report, 1.2.4 will meet SG80. Means of Verification: Final SA report. Peer review report. CRFM SGWG Meeting Report. Research plan Year 3-4 Action: No action required, but the peer review recommendations will be addressed. Means of Verification: Minutes of SWG Consultation on (At the time of full assessment) Letters of support from SWG, Fishery condition Department, CRFM and GATOSP. The new stock assessment has been completed by the independent consultant, Dr. Medley, and was presented at the CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group meeting in 2019, which was convened inter alia to provide a thorough peer review of the assessment methodology and its implementation in both the Guyana and Suriname seabob fisheries. The meeting was attended by government managers and scientists from both countries along with WWF representatives, technical staff from other countries and the CRFM Secretariat. The review group accepted that the integrated assessment model permitted the simultaneous fitting of information from various sources, and therefore afforded an opportunity to make use of all available, suitable data. The review considered inter alia the growth rate (K) for the von Bertalanffy model, the value of the natural mortality rate, the most appropriate size-at maturity estimate, the fitting of average counts data and factors affecting effort measures. The CRFM meeting in 2019 also reviewed and evaluated the implementation of revised harvest Progress on control rules (HCRs). Condition (Year 1) The audit team considered that the review of the stock assessment model and its implementation by both internal and external participants at the CRFM meeting constituted an appropriate peer review of the stock assessment, and therefore both the Year 1 and 2 milestones had been met and the condition can therefore be closed. However the audit team noted that whilst the peer review carried out by the CRFM meeting looked in detail at the parameter and data inputs for the model for both the Guyana and Suriname fisheries, the new stock assessment approach would benefit from an expert review of the coding in the software in addition to data input and uncertainties within the model. The stock assessment consultant, Dr Paul Medley, states that all assessment work has been carried out in RMarkdown scripts which are fully documented and reproducible, and therefore amenable to peer review. A new recommendation to this effect has been documented in section 3.2. Status The Year 1 and Year 2 milestones have been met and the condition is now closed.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 22
3.1.2 Condition 2 Performance PI2.2.1a Indicator Score 75 The results of the RBF PSA exercise conclude that there is a potential risk to Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray from the Seabob fishery (which have been identified as “main” secondary species in the fishery). Further evidence is Rationale therefore required to demonstrate that these species are above biologically based limits, or if below such limits there is evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Alternatively, it may be demonstrated that the species are not a “main” species in the fishery. It should be shown that main secondary species are highly likely to be above Condition biologically based limits, or, if below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Year 1: Provide evidence that there is a plan in place to gather information about the status of the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks and effect that the fishery may have on these stocks. Or a plan to ensure that the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray are demonstrated to no longer be considered as “main” secondary species (no change to score). Year 2: Provide evidence of progress against the plan presented at the first audit, including evidence that research into an evaluation of the direct effect of the fishery on the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks or research has commenced on reducing catch rates (no change to score). Milestones Year 3: Provide report evaluating the direct effect of the fishery on the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks or demonstrating that these species no longer meet the MSC definition of “main”. In case the report concludes that the stocks are not above biological based limits then there should be evidence of recovery or evidence that the client is taking further steps to develop a demonstrably effective partial strategy that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of these stocks (no change to score). Year 4: (if concluded necessary at year 3) provide evidence for the implementation of a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks (resulting PI score: 80). Year 1 Action: Development of a plan to assess distribution, abundance and status of rays in the inshore zone. Develop a research proposal to sample demersal fin fish in the inshore no trawl zone using a standard commercial seabob trawler, sufficient to allow assessment of species distribution, abundance, and stock condition. Client action plan The Fishery Department will the extent to which artisanal fisheries catch rays, and continue independent observer coverage of the seabob industrial fleet activities. Means of Verification: Research proposal for fishing survey presented to the SWG. Plan for sampling of artisanal fisheries Year 2 Action: Implementation of the monitoring / sampling research plan.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 23
Means of Verification: Reports on implementation of these research projects in the minutes of the SWG Year 3 Action: Analysis of data with focus on risk to Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks. Report analysing the information collected and evaluation of the direct effect of artisanal and industrial fisheries on the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks – or demonstration that these species no longer meet the MSC definition of “main”. Means of Verification: Report on fin-fish abundance and distribution. Year 4 Action: If necessary, respond to conclusions and recommendations from report and provide evidence for the implementation of a demonstrably effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks. Means of Verification: Minutes from SWG Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP. condition In relation to this Condition the Fisheries Department has drafted two research proposals. These are the “Proposal for Fish Sampling in the Inshore Industrial Fisheries of Guyana.” and the “Draft Proposal for the Analysis of Stingray bycatch in the Inshore Industrial Fisheries in Guyana.”. The objectives of these plans are; to conduct a sampling using a seabob trawler to allow assessment of species distribution, abundance and stock condition of finfish and rays, to determine the impact from industrial trawling on ray populations and to determine the general status and stock condition of rays in within the inshore zone. Data collected will be analysed and used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE) in kg/h for shrimp and fish caught. Client has also provided reports with the results of the Sea Observer Data Collection Programme for 2019. The objective of this programme is to collect data on discards and interactions with endangered and protected Progress on species. The reports show composition of discards (percentages) and interactions Condition with ray species (numbers caught). The team notes that although these reports (Year 1) provide the composition of discards it is not possible to discern the percentages that Longnose stingray and Butterfly ray constitute of the total catch (this information therefore does not allow a revised determination of whether these species are “main” are “minor”, which could lead to a revised score). The alternative way to meet the requirements of this condition would be to show that Longnose stingray and Butterfly ray are highly likely to be above biologically based limits, or, if below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The team notes that the current proposals could be further improved by additional focus on the data and scientific analysis needed to assess the status of Longnose stingray and Butterfly ray or the impact of the fishery on these stocks. The Year 1 milestone for this Condition is ‘to provide evidence that there is either a plan in place to gather information about the status of the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray stocks and effect that the fishery may have on these Status stocks or a plan to ensure that the Longnose stingray and Smooth butterfly ray are demonstrated to no longer be considered as “main” secondary species’. Given that plans are developed to carry out additional field studies of fish and stingray bycatches that will provide data for analysis of impacts on Longnose
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 24
stingray and Smooth butterfly ray and bycatch composition, it is concluded that this condition is ‘on target’.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 25
3.1.3 Condition 3 Performance PI2.3.2 (a) Indicator Score 75 Fishermen are requested to report on ETP interactions through ETP logsheets. The team has concluded that the data collected are insufficient to support a Rationale management strategy that can identify possible unacceptable impacts. Furthermore, a move-on rule is in place, but it is unclear whether fishermen actually practice the prescribed actions in case of interactions with ETP species. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is a strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG80a is not met. Condition Provide evidence that there is a strategy in place that can identify unacceptable impacts on ETP species.
Year 1: Provide evidence of the development of a plan to strengthen the monitoring of impacts on ETP species. (no change to score).
Milestones Year 2: Provide evidence of progress against the plan presented at the first audit (no change to score).
Year 3: Provide evidence for the implementation of a demonstrably effective strategy that enables the identification of unacceptable impacts on ETP species. Score 80. Year 1 Action: Development of a plan to strengthen monitoring and data collection of ETP sightings and interactions. Preparation of a plan to determine the impacts of fishing on ETP species – strengthening ETP reporting, application of the move-on rule, monitoring of application of the move-on rule, oversight of ETP interactions via CCTV monitoring. Means of Verification: Presentation of a plan. Presentation of a review of effectiveness over previous 12 months Client action plan Year 2 Action: Report on progress in implementation of the plan. Review and updating of the adequacy of the plan. Means of Verification: Progress report, including plan review Year 3 Action: Review report. Critical review of the nature and scale of fishery / ETP interaction and the effectiveness of the ETP reporting, monitoring and oversight systems. Means of Verification: Review report Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP condition With respect to this Condition the Fisheries Department has drafted “A plan to strengthen monitoring and data collection of ETP sighting and interaction”. The objectives of this plan are: to improve the collection of accurate data and Progress on monitoring of ETP and vulnerable species sighting and interaction, the Condition strengthening of the compliance of fishers with move on rule and to promote (Year 1) sustainable management of fisheries resources. The main goal of the plan is to improve the reporting systems in the fishery. These are the reporting on ETP interactions through logsheets and the Observer
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 26
Program. Concerning the ETP reporting system two new logsheets have been developed. The ‘ÉTP Species Vessel Log Sheet’ and the ‘Vulnerable Species Vessel Log Sheet’. On the first sheet interactions with turtles, whales and dolphins can be recorded. At the latter the interactions with ray species such as alectric rays, butterfly rays and longnose stringray. The sheets now clearly state that fishermen should mark whether species were only observed or whether they were caught and released (dead or alive). The plan describes that a captains training and a separate species identification training have been organised. Objectives of the training meetings were to improve awareness, improve the survival of caught ETP species by mitigating measures and to train participants to identify ETP species in order to improve the quality of the ETP interaction monitoring through logsheets. Posters and species identification booklets have also been distributed among the fleet. The team concludes that several actions have been undertaken in order to strengthen the monitoring of impacts on ETP species and these actions have been described in a plan. These actions are likely to improve data collection on interactions with ETP species and training of fish captains and crew regarding move on rule and handling of ETP species caught would reduce impacts. The team notes that additional focus on the collection of accurate quantitative data on impacts on turtle species that is adequate to measure trends would further strengthen the strategies in place to meet the requirements of this Condition and Condition 4. The Year 1 milestone for this Condition is ‘to provide evidence of the development of a plan to strengthen the monitoring of impacts on ETP species’. Status Given that this plan has been drafted, it is concluded that this condition is ‘on target’.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 27
3.1.4 Condition 4 Performance PI2.3.3 Indicator Score 60 The available information points to a limited impact on sea turtles in Guyana waters also as a consequence of a consistent use of TEDs. The information is considered adequate to support measures to manage the impact on turtle species Rationale and thus SG60 is met. The information derived from the ETP logsheets and the other available information however does not allow for an accurate quantitative estimation of impacts of the UoA on sea turtle species and consequently is also not adequate to measure trends. Therefore, SG80b is not met and a Condition is formulated. Condition Accurate quantitative information that is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species should be collected.
Year 1: Improvements to the current system of monitoring interactions with ETP species should be implemented (no change to score). Year 2: Collate and analyse data on the interactions with ETP species (no change Milestones to score). Year 3. Collate and analyse data on the interactions with ETP species (no change to score). Year 4: Demonstrate that information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species (resulting PI score: 80). Year 1 Action: Strengthen fishery interaction reporting. Prepare proposals for improvement in the collection and collation of information on ETP interactions on-board and later on-shore, and support and further build on the monitoring and reporting work forming part of the actions with regard to addressing Condition 2. Means of Verification: Report – review of current systems and areas for improvement. Year 2 Action: Review of adequacy of data collection for assessing impact of fishing on ETP species. Interrogate available data and data streams to review the effectiveness of data collection, and reflect on how this might be improved. Client action Means of Verification: Report demonstrating the nature of and changes in the plan interaction between fishing and ETP species. Year 3 Action: Further review of adequacy of data collection for assessing impact of fishing on ETP species. Use the outputs of this analysis to review the effectiveness of data collection, and reflect on how this might be improved. Means of Verification: Report collating and analysing the available data demonstrating the nature of and changes in the interaction between fishing and ETP species. Year 4 Action: Demonstration that data systems working effectively. Report demonstrating the adequacy of data gathering and collation practices to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 28
Means of Verification: Report demonstrating the nature of and changes in the interaction between fishing and ETP species. Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP condition It was reported to the team that several improvements to the system of monitoring interactions with ETP species have been implemented. The ETP logsheet has been improved and a separate logsheet was developed for vulnerable (ray) species. Special attention has been given to the raising of awareness and the training of vessel captains and crew so that they understand the purpose of the ETP monitoring system and know what to do when catching an ETP species (handling om board) and are better able to identify ETP species. It has been reported that these efforts will be continued. The actions taken are likely to improve data collection on interactions with ETP species. Training of fish Progress on captains and crew regarding the move on rule and handling of ETP species caught Condition is likely to contribute to further reduction of impacts on ETP species. The results (Year 1) of the 2019 ETP interaction monitoring through ETP interaction logsheets have been presented in the ETP Annual Report 2019. The report contains mainly information on interactions with (4) ray species that are vulnerable and not ETP species. On ETP species the report states that 18 encounters with loggerhead turtles have been reported. Whether these animals were caught or seen was not noted. The team notes that additional focus on the collection of accurate quantitative data on impacts on turtle species that is adequate to measure trends would further strengthen the strategies in place to help meet the requirements of this Condition and Condition 3. The Year 1 milestone for this Condition is ‘that improvements to the current system of monitoring interactions with ETP species should be implemented’. Status Given that several improvements have been made to this system, it is concluded that this condition is ‘on target’.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 29
3.1.5 Condition 5 Performance PI3.2.3(c): Indicator Score 75 70 (overall PI score revised down due to addition of new Condition 7) Whilst the stakeholders interviewed (most notably the Fisheries Department, Coastguard and TED inspectors) all stated that the level of compliance is good and that it is likely to be further improved since the changes in the 2018 Fishery Regulation and the adoption of CCTV, there is not an updated VMS compliance Rationale report showing the effect of the 2018 Fishery Regulations on compliance. An updated VMS report showing the compliance of the fishery following the adoption of the 2018 Fishery Regulations would meet the evidential requirements of SG80. Evidence should be provided to demonstrate fishers comply with the Condition management system under assessment. Year 1: Consider scope and plan for the provision of evidence to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment (since the 2018 Fishery Regulation). (no change to score) Milestones revised at the time of the Year 1 surveillance audit as a result of Milestones technical issue with older VMS units (see rescored 3.2.3a for details). Year 2: Plan for updated VMS system to be included within next evidential review of compliance (no change to score). Year 2 3: Collate and analyse all relevant compliance evidence (including new VMS evidence) (no change to score) Year 3 4: Complete report (resulting score: 80) Revised at 1st surveillance Note: GATOSP will source new VMS service (see condition 7). Year 2 Action: Critical review of annual fleet performance and VMS records across the fleet for several years to demonstrate extent of compliance / non- compliance – and conformity with management plan and management objectives. Means of Verification: report to SWG
Client action Year 3 Action: Summary report of MCS systems and industry compliance. Critical plan review of annual fleet performance and VMS records across the fleet for several years to demonstrate extent of compliance / non-compliance – and conformity with management plan and management objectives. Means of Verification: report to SWG Year 4: Updated report and review. Updated report, but with focus on whether or not any impact from increased penalties for non-compliance arising from the 2018 Fishery Regulations can be identified. Particular focus on demonstrating that fishers are or are not complying with the management system in place. Means of Verification: progress report to SWG, progress report and review Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP condition
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 30
The Legal & Inspectorate Unit 2019 Annual Report provides an overview of all control and enforcement activities and compliance evidence. This highlights a number of challenges and recommendations which should be followed. A significant challenge for the seabob industry has been the technical fault that has developed within older VMS units due to the GPS digital date rollover issue, which renders units inoperable. In response to this, the Fisheries Department has Progress on increased surveillance and monitoring of the seabob fishery through increased Condition use of on-board CCTV inspection, surveillance inspection and wharf inspection, (Year 1) with the aim of maintaining compliance. The industry continues to be monitored through TED inspections with a high TED Technical Compliance Rate (TTCR), as required by NOAA. At the time of the 1st surveillance audit no anecdotal or material evidence was provided of seabob vessels fishing outside of their permitted zone. In addition, a new VMS system is being sourced (which is the subject of a new Condition 7). The Legal & Inspectorate Unit 2019 Annual Report shows that efforts have been made to provide evidence that the fishers comply with the management system. This is sufficient to conclude that the condition is “On target”. However, the Status unforeseen technical issue with older VMS units means that it is approprirate to extend subsequent milestones by 1 year but the requirement to provide evidence to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system remains.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 31
3.1.6 Condition 6 Performance PI3.2.4(b): Indicator Score 70 Since the Seabob Management Plan was first drafted (within the Guyana Marine Fisheries Management Plan (2013-2018) and was since updated (within the Guyana Seabob Fisheries Management Plan (2015-2020), no formal external Rationale review has been undertaken on the performance of the Seabob Management System. SG80 is therefore not met. Such a review / evaluation should therefore be undertaken to inform the next 5-year period of the Seabob Fisheries Management Plan. The fishery-specific management system should be subject to regular internal and Condition occasional external review. Year 1: Undertake preparations for an external review / evaluation of the Seabob Management Plan (no change to score).
Milestones Year 2: Commission an external review (no change to score). Year 3: External review to be in process (no change to score). Year 4: External review to be completed (resulting PI score change to 80). Year 1 Action: Prepare ToR for external review of the Seabob Management Plan and approach potential service providers and funding agencies (potentially in alignment with the ToR for peer review of the Seabob Stock Assessment – Condition 1). Means of Verification: proposal to the SWG and minute of the decision taken Year 2 Action: Implementation of the proposed option. Approach to one or more Client action bodies to fund and undertaken the external review, and commissioning of the plan work. Means of Verification: relevant minutes of the SWG Year 3 Action: External review in process Means of Verification: relevant minutes of the SWG Year 4 Action: External review completed. Means of Verification: external review report presented to the SWG Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP. condition Considerable progress has been made within the first year of the fishery certifcation in relation to this condition. In May 2019 Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) conducted a short review of (i) the Guyana Seabob Fisheries Management Plan 2015 – 2020 and (ii) the Guyana Marine Fisheries Management Progress on Plan 2013 – 2020 (Murray 2019 a & b). This review was primarily a review of the Condition way the management plan had been written rather than a review of its (Year 1) performance. Subsequently, The CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group (CSWG) met in Georgetown Guyana in August 2019 to review the management of both the Guyana and Suriname Seabob fisheries. Although key stakeholders in the Guyana
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 32
Fishery were involved in this review, the involvement of CRFM regional technical experts and neighbouring Surinamese stakeholders means that it can be considered an external process. The proceedings of this 2-day workshop and 2 follow-up meetings convened electronically have been written up (CRFM 2019). This meets all of the requirements set out in the milestones for the condition. The Status condition is therefore CLOSED. See the revised scoring justification for revised score.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 33
3.1.7 Condition 7 (NEW 2020) Performance PI3.2.3(a): Indicator Score 70 At the time of the first surveillance audit (May 2020) it was revealed that a significant technical problem had arisen with the internal GPS of older VMS units in April 2019 such that, across the fleet, the VMS is no longer operable or enforceable. Industry and government have been collaborating to source and Rationale fund a package of replacement units. In addition, efforts have been made to increase the amount of CCTV inspections, port inspections and increasing the at sea enforcement capacity. In spite of this the lack of VMS means that a vital spatial element of the the MCS system is missing. VMS, or an alternative form of spatial enforcement, therefore needs to be reinstated. A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the Condition fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Year 1: Condition added at Year 1 – therefore no milestone. Year 2: The new VMS (or equivalent) system should have been selected and all Milestones components purchased. Commissioning and testing of the new system should be well underway (no score change). Year 3: The new VMS system should be fully operational on all vessels of the UoC (resulting score: 80) Year 2. GATOSP will source new VMS service, accredited by fisheries department. The new system and service will be commissioned and tested to ensure proper functioning and confer with the required standard. Client action plan Means of Verification: Service provider contract, correspondences Year 3. The new VMS will be fully operational on all vessels of the UOC BY 2021. Means of Verification: VMS report to SWG Consultation on Letters of support from Fishery Department. condition Progress on Not applicable – new condition. Condition (Year 1) Status Not applicable – new condition.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 34
3.2 Recommendations update
Recommendation 1
Performance PI1.2.2b: HCRs robustness to uncertainty Indicator Purpose To ensure that any changes in fishing capacity are taken into account when estimating fishing effort and CPUE Recommendation The assessment team recommends that information on vessel characteristics is obtained so that fishing effort can be standardised by vessel. Client Action Plan A review of how changes in technology might impact variation in / changes to fishing capacity, and in turn how this might affect the adequacy of the current HCR and the estimation of fishing effort and CPUE will be an element included within the Terms of Reference provided to those undertaking the Peer Review of stock status (Condition 1). At the appropriate time – assumed to be during and following the external peer review of the stock assessment – this issue will be revisited by the SWG, and potentially raised as an issue with the Shrimp and Groundfish Working Group (SGWG) of the CRFM. Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP Recommendation Progress on The Client reported that the focus in 2019 had been on completing the stock recommendation assessment and commissioning a peer review of the assessment. Now that work is complete, there are plans to address this recommendation in 2020/2021.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 35
Recommendation 2
Performance PI3.1.2a: Explicit definition of roles and responsibility Indicator Purpose To more clearly define roles and responsibility for all areas. Recommendation It has been concluded that functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. It has also been concluded that these roles and responsibilities are enabling the management system to function well. At the time of assessment, a stock assessment has been effectively undertaken and a further stock assessment is being undertaken which will provide an update on stock status and inform the Harvest Control Rule and management of the fishery in the years ahead. However, the responsibility for who will undertake (and pay for) future stock assessments is not explicitly defined. Because the current system in relation to stock assessment appears to be working and the lack of explicit definition is unlikely to be an issue until the next scheduled stock assessment update (which may not be during this period of certification), this has not triggered a condition. However, it is strongly recommended that the future role is given explicit consideration. Client Action Plan A review of who will undertake (and pay for) future stock assessments will be included within the Terms of Reference provided to those undertaking the Peer Review of stock status (Condition 1). At the appropriate time this issue will be tabled and discussed by the SWG, and outcomes specified in the meeting minutes. Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP Recommendation Progress on This issue is under discussion at the Seabob Working group, although no recommendation definitive conclusions have yet been reached.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 36
Recommendation 3
Performance PI3.2.3d: Accountability and transparency of management system and Indicator decision-making process Purpose To further improve the transparency (and therefore accountability) of the management system by improved information dissemination. Recommendation The website www.guyanaseabobfishery.com is an excellent potential resource to enable all stakeholders and others interested in the fishery to provide information about the management and performance of the fishery. In order to maximise this potential and increase the utility of the resource, a more comprehensive range of information about the fishery should be included on the website. Consideration should be given to how best to structure this in order to provide a useful directory of information. Key documents such as the stock assessment, the Seabob Management Plan, CPUE annual reports should certainly be made available and a wider range of documents (P2 research, VMS annual reports, working group minutes) could also be added. This should also be updated in a timely manner. This would improve the apparent transparency and accountability within the management system. Client Action Plan The SWG will commission a report to the SWG proposing a programme of improvements to the Guyana seabob fishery website, including detailed plans for arrangement of document library, uploading protocols, and site visibility / accessibility – with decision on how to take this forward. Evidence of improvement to the website (scale and nature of content, accessibility, number of visitors to the site). Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP Recommendation Progress on The website www.guyanaseabobfishery.com is no longer available on-line, recommendation however, work is well underway to establish a new and much improved website. It is expected that the new site will be on-line in the summer of 2020.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 37
Recommendation 4
Performance PI3.2.4a: Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation: Evaluation Indicator coverage Purpose To participate in all opportunities to evaluate key parts of the fishery management system Recommendation There are frequently reviews of key parts of the fishery management system undertaken at a regional scale in the wider Caribbean or at the scale of the North Brazil Shelf LME. Both CRFM and WECAFC undertake reviews of certain aspects of fisheries management, capacity or governance in the region. A wider regional evaluation provides a valuable comparative review and enables best practice to be shared. Where possible every opportunity should be taken to participate in these reviews / evaluations. Client Action Plan SWG will support and participate fully, as necessary, in the external peer review of the seabob fishery management plan (part of closing out Condition 1) SWG will review representation of its members at regional / international forums, and participation in regional projects, and discuss how it (and the Fishery Department) can step up its representation and its influence in such forums. Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP Recommendation Progress on There has been significant engagement with CRFM in the first year of recommendation certification (see conditions 1 & 6). This has had the effect of engaging Guyanese officials in the work of CRFM and increasingly the likelihood of on- going engagement in wider regional fisheries and marine conservation initiatives.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 38
Recommendation 5 (NEW 2020)
Performance PI 1.2.4e. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review Indicator Purpose To ensure that an expert external review of the new stock assessment methodology is undertaken. Recommendation The assessment team recommends that a stock assessment expert is commissioned to evaluate the new stock assessment model including testing the coding in the software and ensuring that the output from the model is reproducible. Client Action Plan The Guyana Government (Fisheries Department) will contact CRFM, FAO or other relevant fisheries body to arrange an external review of seabob stock assessments. CRFM, FAO or other relevant fisheries body will approach an external reviewer to evaluate the new stock assessment model including testing the coding in the software and ensuring that the output from the model is reproducible. External reviewer would be required to provide a report of the reviewed stock assessment. Consultation on Letters of support from SWG, Fishery Department and GATOSP, meetings, Recommendation emails, reports Progress on This recommendation was made at the first surveillance audit. recommendation
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 39
3.3 Client Action Plan As the timelines for Condition 5 have changed the client action plan has been amended to reflect these new timelines. There is a new condition 7, therefore a new client action plan is provided for this condition. There is a new Recommendation 5, therefore a new client action plan is also provided for this. All changes are in the relevant cell of the condition table (reports section 3.1 & 3.2). Evidence of support from external entities in the completion of these conditions is provided in report section 5.6.
3.4 Surveillance Conclusions The surveillance team concludes that progress against all conditions is sufficient that The Guyana Seabob Fishery continues to meet the MSC standard and its certification should continue.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 40
4 Re-scored Performance Indicators
4.1 Stock Assessment
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major and for the harvest features relevant to the control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? (Y) (N) Justific No change to justification or score. ation B Assessment approach Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? (Y) (Y) Justific No change to justification or score. ation C Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? (Y) (Y) (N) Justific No change to justification or score. ation D Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? (N)
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 41
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Justific No change to justification or score. ation E Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? (N) (Y) (N) Justific The data inputs and model uncertainties in the 2013 assessment were peer ation reviewed by CRFM. However, this assessment is now 5 years old, and a new updated stock assessment is in progress. The new assessment is using improved MCMC simulations within bespoke software, so at present there has been no peer review of this revised assessment approach. The assessment team concluded that whilst the 2013 stock assessment had been peer-reviewed, this assessment was now dated and the SG80 would not be met until the new assessment had been fully peer-reviewed. As the new stock assessment uses essentially a bespoke piece of software, the peer review of the assessment should include the coding in the software in addition to data input and uncertainties within the model. A condition is therefore raised. The new stock assessment has been completed by the independent consultant, Dr. Medley, and was presented at the CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group meeting in 2019, which was convened inter alia to provide a thorough peer review of the assessment methodology and its implementation in both the Guyana and Suriname seabob fisheries. The meeting was attended by government managers and scientists from both countries along with WWF representatives, technical staff from other countries and the CRFM Secretariat. The review group accepted that the integrated assessment model permitted the simultaneous fitting of information from various sources, and therefore afforded an opportunity to make use of all available, suitable data. The review considered inter alia the growth rate (K) for the von Bertalanffy model, the value of the natural mortality rate, the most appropriate size-at maturity estimate, the fitting of average counts data and factors affecting effort measures. The CRFM meeting in 2019 also reviewed and evaluated the implementation of revised harvest control rules (HCRs). The audit team considered that the review of the stock assessment model and its implementation by both internal and external participants at the CRFM meeting constituted an appropriate peer review of the stock assessment, and therefore the SG80 is met. The audit team noted that whilst the peer review carried out by the CRFM meeting looked in detail at the parameter and data inputs for the model for both the Guyana and Suriname fisheries, the new stock assessment approach has not undergone an external review by a stock assessment expert which would include a review of the coding in the software in addition to data input and uncertainties within the model. The SG100 is not met therefore. The stock assessment consultant, Dr Paul Medley, states that all assessment work in the 2019 assessment has been carried out in RMarkdown scripts which are fully documented and reproducible, and therefore amenable to peer review. The audit
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 42
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status team have therefore made a new recommendation to commission an external peer review by a stock assessment expert. CRFM (2014b); CRFM (2019); Fournier et al (2012); Kingsley, 2016; Medley (2013); References Medley (2014); Medley (2019a,b); Richardson (2018); Quinn & Deriso (1999). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): (1)
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 43
4.2 Monitoring, Control & Surveillance
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a MCS implementation
Guidep Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive ost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has in the fishery and there is a fishery and has been implemented in the reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to fishery and has they are effective. enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Met? (Y) (YN) (N)
Justific All powers of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) are set out in the Fisheries Act ation (2002). This also gives the Coastguard and Police force the powers to act as Fisheries Officers and exercise the powers set out in the Act. Fisheries Regulations (No.3 2018) sets out the requirements for Vessel Monitoring Systems, and technical measures such as TEDs. The Guyana Marine Fisheries Management Plan (2013-2018) sets out further detail on the approach to MCS and identifies risk areas and action points for the plan period. There is no quota on seabob and no minimum landing size. As a result, enforcement is less focused on these aspects, than would be the case if these applied. Instead the focus is more on enforcement of technical measures (Bycatch Reduction Devices, TEDs, minimum mesh size) and spatial measures (remaining in seabob zone). These are achieved by inspection at sea (in partnership with the Coastguard), aerial reconnaissance, inspections on landings and (under normal circumstances – see below) monitoring of VMS. The Coast Guard carry out strategic planning of inspection activities, which stipulate the level and focus of fisheries inspections, however outputs of this strategic planning have not been shared with the MSC assessors as Coast Guard patrols are not exclusively fisheries related. In addition, all seabob vessels are now fitted with onboard CCTV cameras. Although this is not a legal requirement (within the Fisheries Regulations), it is a requirement to land to the processing companies so is effectively a de facto condition of operation in the fishery. The CCTV footage is downloaded after every trip and is fully reviewed by staff within the processing plants. However, Fisheries Officers also now undertake spot checks of the CCTV footage. The CCTV helps to ensure that TEDs or BRDs are not removed or tampered with and that no catch is sold to other vessels. However, because the CCTV is a processing company requirement, rather than a regulatory requirement it is not a formal part of the MCS system. Furthermore, the CCTV system is not able to accurately determine catch composition to monitor compliance with the move-on requirements. Guyana seafood producers are expected to comply with the requirements of EU legislation on IUU (Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported) fishing meaning that all exports to the EU must be supported by a catch certificate showing that the catch has not originated from IUU fishing (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009). At the time of the first surveillance audit (May 2020) it was revealed that a significant technical problem had arisen with the internal GPS of older VMS units in April 2019 (week numbering using the 10-bit binary system reached its limit of 1,024 weeks and reset to week 0 (IMO 2019)).The GPS reset had a major impact on the VMS equipment used by many of the vessels in the Guyanese Seabob fleet, such that the VMS is no longer operable. Industry
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 44
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. and government have been collaborating to source and fund a package of replacement units. In addition, efforts have been made to increase the amount of CCTV inspections and port inspections. New at-sea inspection capacity is also being commissioned. In spite of this it must therefore be concluded that since 2019 a key element of the spatial enformcent system is missing. With an operational VMS in place, the above represents an MCS system which has been implemented with a demonstrated ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. However, with an inoperational VMS the key spatial pillar of the enforcement system is missing, therefore this can no longer be concluded to be a “system” although many enforcement “mechanisms” do remain in place (such at some at sea monitoring, inspection of landings, gear inspections and CCTV). SG60 is therefore met, but not SG80 and a new condition (Condition 7) is raised. However, the assessors conclude that the MCS system does not meet the “comprehensive” definition required to score at the SG100 level, primarily because a more state of the art system, with higher levels of coverage could be achieved with increased resources.
b Sanctions
Guidep Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- ost compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence.
Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Justific No change to justification or score ation
c Compliance
Guidep Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of ost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery.
Met? (Y) (N) (N)
Justific No change to justification or score. See condition 5 ation
d Systematic non-compliance
Guidep There is no evidence of ost systematic non-compliance.
Met? (Y)
Justific No change to justification or score. ation
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 45
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with.
Amsterdam (2016), Ministry of Agriculture (2013); Fisheries Department (2015); IMO (2019) References TED Inspectors pers. comms; Coastguard pers. comms.; Vessel Skippers pers. comms.; Fisheries Act (2002); Fisheries Regulations (No.3 2018)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 70
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5 & 7
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 46
4.3 Monitoring & 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
a Evaluation coverage
Guidep There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in ost place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system.
Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Justific No change to justification or score ation
b Internal and/or external review
Guidep The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific ost management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review.
Met? (Y) (N) (N)
Justific The Fisheries Act 2002 (Part II 5 (1)) requires that the Chief Fisheries Officer shall ation “progressively prepare and keep under review” fishery management plans. The Seabob Management Plan (2015-2020) states that the plan “shall be evaluated at least every year by the Seabob Working Group in deliberation with other participants or their representatives”. The minutes of the Seabob Working Group show that some internal review activity is undertaken. In addition, the Fisheries Department produces an annual CPUE report for the fishery, which includes a review of the fishery relative to the HCR and reference points (Richardson 2018). This meets the requirements of SG60. The review by Commonwealth Marine Economies Programme in 2016 of the legal frameworks that underpin the fishery included consideration of the fishery-specific management system (i.e. the Seabob Working Group and the Seabob Management Plan 2015-2020). This review was external and did focus on the fisheries specific management system but it mainly focused on the degree to which the Management Plan, as written, met the requirements of the MSC scoring guideposts. It was not therefore a review of the performance of the fishery specific management system. No formal external review was undertaken when the Seabob Management Plan was first drafted (within the Guyana Marine Fisheries Management Plan (2013-2018)) and was since subsequently updated (within the Guyana Seabob Fisheries Management Plan (2015-2020)). , has been undertaken on the Fisheries Specific (i.e. Seabob) Management System. SG80 is therefore not met. Such a review should therefore be undertaken to inform the next 5-year period of the Seabob Fisheries Management System. A condition is therefore raised to reflect this. However, there was some review activity in 2019 during the first year of MSC certification. In May 2019 Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) conducted a short review of (i) the Guyana Seabob Fisheries Management Plan 2015 – 2020 and (ii) the Guyana Marine Fisheries Management Plan 2013 – 2020 (Murray 2019 a & b). This review
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 47
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. was primarily a review of the way the management plan had been written rather than a review of its performance. Subsequently, The CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group (CSWG) met in Georgetown Guyana in August 2019 to review the management of both the Guyana and Suriname Seabob fisheries. Although key stakeholders in the Guyana Fishery were involved in this review, the involvement of CRFM regional technical experts and neighbouring Surinamese stakeholders means that it can be considered an external process. The proceedings of this 2-day workshop and 2 follow-up meetings convened electronically have been written up (CRFM 2019). This review meets the requirements for an occasional external review, therefore SG80 is met.
Mahon (1998); CFRAMP (2001); Chakalall et al (2007); CRFM 2014; Commonwealth Marine References Economies Programme (2016); Amsterdam 2016; Fisheries Department (2015); CRFM (2019); Murray (2019 a&b)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 6
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 48
4.4 Revised Principle Level Scores
Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score 1.1.1 Stock status 90 One Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 75 80 Two Primary 2.1.1 Outcome 100 species 2.1.2 Management strategy 80 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 100 Secondary 2.2.1 Outcome 75 species 2.2.2 Management strategy 80 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 80 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 2.3.2 Management strategy 75 2.3.3 Information strategy 60 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 85 2.4.2 Management strategy 80 2.4.3 Information 80 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 80 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 80 Three Governance 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 80 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 80 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 Fishery 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 75 70 system 3.2.4 Monitoring & management 70 80 performance evaluation
Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84.2 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.7 Principle 3 – Management System 84
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 49
5 Appendices
5.1 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
5.1.1 Site Visits This surveillance audit was conducted remotely on 18th & 19th May 2020. All meetings were conducted via an on-line video conference call facility. Cameras were used for initial introductions at the start of meetings, but switched off thereafter to maximise the audio quality. In meetings with multiple stakeholders, speakers were asked to identify themselves by name prior to contributing a comment, to enable comments to be attributable.
5.1.2 Stakeholder participation Stakeholder notification was issued inviting a range of stakeholders to provide information and comments on the fishery. Several key stakeholders were specifically contacted to request a meeting and most of those responded. The team conducted remote meetings with the following stakeholders:
Name Position Organisation Randy Bumbury Fisheries Officer/Chairperson Fisheries Department SWG Desha Husbands-Spellen Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Mikhail Amsterdam Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Saskia Tull Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Devon Reece Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Kadeem Jacobs Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Terrence Browne Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Corwin D’Anjou Fisheries Officer Fisheries Department Reuben Charles President GATOSP GATOSP Dawn Maison Project Officer GATOSP GATOSP Devendra Dudhnath IT and Network Manager Noble House Seafoods Vishnu Panday Executive Pritipaul Singh Investment Brentnol Gibbs Health and Safety Officer Pritipaul Singh Investment Mahendra Ram Plant Manager Gopie Investment Inc. Sopheia Edghill World Wildlife Fund Annette Arjoon Martens Guyana Marine Conservation Society
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 50
5.2 Stakeholder Input No written inputs from stakeholders were received. The files submitted by the client to inform the surveillance are recorded in the references, where these had a material impact on surveillance conclusions. A note of stakeholder meetings referred to above is kept on file by Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. The content of these meetings is reflected in the conclusions of report section 1.2 and in the ‘Progress on Condition (Year 1)’ cell for each of the conditions. No issues of concern of significant change were noted by any of the interviewed stakeholders.
5.3 Revised surveillance programme No revisions to the surveillance programme set out at the time of full assessment are proposed. Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale 1 & 3 Off-site audit 2 (required as this is Relatively few of the conditions require any material initial certification changes in operation or physical changes which must be period) as per verified by site visit. By contrast, documentary evidence of FCP7.28.6.1 actions undertaken may provide an objective basis to assess progress against milestones. In most cases milestone in year 1 requires review, and milestone in year 3 relates to commencing the process of implementation. No score changes are anticipated in years 1 and 3. 2 & 4 On-site audit 2 (required as this is By year 2 actions to address all conditions should be well initial certification underway and initial review and work to address gaps period) as per should be largely complete and moving into the FCR7.28.6.1 implementation phases. An on-site surveillance will be useful at this point to verify progress. Final implementation and completion of all conditions is scheduled for year 4. As a result, score changes are anticipated to occur in year 4. Therefore, an on-site surveillance will be important at this point to verify implementation. This also coincides with meetings to commence recertification (if the client wishes to continue).
Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit All years August August No annual scientific advice, so timing of surveillance 2020-23 expected to be in-line with the anniversary of certification. Precise timing of on-site surveillance will take into account the resumption of fishing after each annual brake.
Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 4 Off site surveillance On-site surveillance Off-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit audit audit audit & re-certification site visit
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 51
5.4 Harmonised fishery assessments Harmonisation is required in cases where assessments overlap, or new assessments overlap with pre- existing fisheries. There are no other MSC certified fisheries which overlap with the Guyana Seabob fishery and therefore no requirement for formal harmonisation. However, there obvious similarities between the Guyana Seabob fishery and the seabob fishery in neighbouring Guyana, although these take place in differing EEZs, target a different stock and are subject to a differing management regime. As a result, the Guyana assessment team have paid due regard to the conclusion of the assessment and most recent surveillance of the neighbouring fishery. In particular it is noted that there is bilateral collaboration (facilitated by CRFM) in relation to conditions requiring review (both of stock assessment and ishery specific management). Therefore, particular attention has been paid to ensure that the conclusions of progress against milestones is fair and non-contradictory. Additionally, the CAB for Suriname Seabob (Lloyds Register) were notified ahead of this surveillance (whilst noting that the fisheries are not technically overlapping).
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 52
5.5 References CRFM (2014b). Report of the 10th Annual CRFM Scientific Meeting – St Vincent and the Grenadines, 10-14 June, 2014.188 pp. CRFM (2019). Report of Meeting of CRFM Continental Shelf Fisheries Working Group (CRFM-CSWG) on Atlantic Seabob, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri, fisheries of Guyana and Suriname. CRFM Fishery Report – 2019/1. 67p. Available on-line at: http://www.crfm.int/images/CRFM_fishery_Report_-_2019- 1_19_Feb_2020.pdf Fisheries Department (2020a). Industrial Seabob Catch Per Unit Effort Annual Report 2019, 24pp. Fisheries Department, (2020b). A plan to strengthen monitoring and data collection of ETP sighting and interactions. Report of the Statistical Unit of the Fisheries Department of The Ministry of Agriculture, Guyana. Fournier, D.A., H.J. Skaug, J. Ancheta, J. Ianelli, A. Magnusson, M.N. Maunder, A. Nielsen, and J. Sibert (2012). AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim. Methods Softw. 27:233-249. Husbands, D., 2020. ETP Annual Report 2019. Fisheries Department Report, 1 February 2020. Husbands, D., 2019. ETP First Quarter Report 2019. Fisheries Department Report, 27 August 2019. Husbands, D., 2019. ETP Second Quarter Report 2019. Fisheries Department Report, 29 August 2019. Husbands-Spellen, D., D. Reece, T. Browne, & C. D’Anjou, 2020. Proposal for Fish Sampling in the Inshore Industrial Fisheries of Guyana. Fisheries Department Report, Husbands-Spellen, D., D. Reece, T. Browne, & C. D’Anjou, 2020. Draft Proposal for the Analysis of Stingray bycatch in the Ishore Industrial Fisheries in Guyana. Fisheries Department Report, 9 May 2020. Jacobs, K. 2019. SEABOB Catch Per Unit Effort Annual Report 2018. Guyana Fisheries Department, 22pp. Kingsley, M. C. S. (2016). A Stock-Dynamic Model of the West Greenland Stock of Northern Shrimp. NAFO SRC Doc. 16/047. Medley, P.A.H. (2013). Guyana seabob stock assessment, September 2013, 35 pp. Unpublished. Medley, P.A. H. (2014). Guyana seabob Harvest Control Rule 2013/14, June 2014, 12 pp. Unpublished. Medley, P. A. H (2019a). Guyana/Suriname Seabob Stock Assessment: Method Summary. Unpublished. Medley, P. A. H (2019b). Guyana/Suriname Seabob Stock Assessment: Results Summary. Unpublished. Quinn, T. J., and Deriso, R. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York. Richardson, S. (2018). SEABOB Catch and Effort Annual Report 2017. Guyana Fisheries Department 2018/02/28 Southall, T., Addison J. & Keus B (2019). Guyana Seabob Fishery. Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment. Public Certification Report. Report by Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. Available on-line at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/guyana-seabob/@@assessments Southall, T., Blyth-Skyrme, R. & J. Tremblay (2017). Suriname Atlantic Seabob Shrimp fishery; Public Certification Report. January 2017. Acoura Marine Ltd., Edinburgh. 177 pp.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 53
5.6 Consultation on new condition 7 Below is evidence that external entities involved in the resolution of a condition are engaged and committed to the process.
Year 1 Surveillance Report – Guyana Seabob Fishery page 54