Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

MOODY MARINE LTD

Ref: 82036 v5

Author(s): Tran Truong Luu, Terry Holt, Andrew Hough

Public Certification Report for

BEN TRE CLAM FISHERY

Client: Ben Tre Department of Agriculture and Rural Development / WWF

Certification Body: Client Contact: Moody Marine Ltd Tran Thi Thu Nga Moody International Certification Vice-Director, Ben Tre DoFi Merlin House Ben Tre Peoples Committee Department of Fisheries Stanier Way 87, 30-4 Street Wyvern Business Park Ward 3 Derby. DE21 6BF Ben Tre Town UK Social Republic of Vietnam

Tel: +44 (0) 1633 401092 Tel: 84 75 823453 Fax: +44 (0) 1332 675020

FN 07/019 82030 v5 i Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

SUMMARY

The Assessment team

Evaluation leader: Dr Andrew Hough: Moody Marine Limited. Dr Hough has a PhD in marine ecology from the University of Wales, Bangor and fourteen years post-doctoral experience in commercial marine and coastal environmental management projects. He is manager of Moody Marine operations within Moody International Certification with particular responsibility for the implementation of MSC Certification procedures and development of MSC methodologies. Dr. Hough has acted as lead assessor on the majority of Moody Marine MSC pre assessments and main assessments.

Expert advisor: Dr Terry Holt. Dr Holt is a director of CMACS Ltd, UK, with responsibility for managing marine consultancy projects, Environmental Assessments and ecological surveys. He has over twenty five years experience in shellfish ecology, marine aquaculture, EIA’s and benthic fish and invertebrate surveys, including providing expert evidence on molluscan fisheries at planning enquiries. Dr Holt has previously been involved in Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre- assessments and main assessments for Moody Marine (Burry Inlet Cockle fishery and South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish) and has worked on mollusce fishery pre-assessments in SE Asia. He also contributed at early MSC workshops on the development of generic scoring guidelines and refining of assessment methods.

Expert advisor: Mr Tran Truong Luu. Mr Luu is a Fisheries/ Aquaculture consultant, and until 1996 was Senior Researcher on Fisheries Resources and Aquaculture Planning at the Research Institute for Aquaculture No.2 (RIA 2), HCMC, Vietnam. His particular experience includes (since 2003) assessments on clam fishing methods, clam management area, clam management system, management practices implemented, estimates of fishable biomass and other relevant activities. He has also carried out surveys on value of clam resource, clam researches carried out by Vietnamese authors, distribution of clam ground in the Mekong Delta, clam management and markets and processing methods. Other experience includes various aspects of wild-harvest and aquaculture fisheries and other water management projects. Mr. Luu has also been involved in an MSC feasibility study of the Ben Tre Clam fishery

Assessment timeline

Key stages in the assessment are as follows: 9 July 2007 Notification of confirmation of assessment 10 July 2007 Notification of Assessment Team nominees 14 August 2007 Confirmation of Assessment Team 12 May 2008 Consultation on draft Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts 26 June 2008 Release of final Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts 17 June 2008 Notification of assessment visit and call for meeting requests 31 July to 4 August 2008 Assessment visit 21 January 2009 Notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers 28 July 2009 Notification of Draft Report

Key strengths and weaknesses of the fishery management The fishery is a hand-gathered harvest, operated by local fisher cooperatives. The cooperative provide close management and surveillance of the broodstock and harvestable clams within their area. Support and advice is provided to the cooperatives by the Ben Tre Peoples Committee Department of Fisheries

Scores for each Principle

FN 07/019 82030 v5 ii Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock Overall : 89 PASS Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall : 84 PASS Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall : 93 PASS

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any Indicators. It is therefore Determined that the Ben Tre Clam Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

Conditions and timescales

The fishery attained a score of below 80 against a number of Performance Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that Ben Tre DARD, as the client for certification, is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.

As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification', to be approved by Moody Marine.

The conditions are associated with three key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses a number of Scoring Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Scoring Indicators are set out below.

Condition 1. Effects on sandflat communities

Action required: The impacts on clam harvest on sandflat invertebrate communities are expected to present a low risk to community structure. The fishery currently exploits a minority of the available sandflat area, but this is expected to increase. The effects of clam harvest on community structure (e.g. comparisons of the species composition and number of each species in harvested and non- harvested areas) have not, however been studied.

The effect of clam harvesting should be investigated to determine the impact on sandflat community structure and the level of impact considered in terms of overall impacts on sandflat invertebrate communities within Ben Tre. If impacts are significant, appropriate management measures should be implemented.

Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the second annual surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the third surveillance audit.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.4.4

Condition 2. Effects of disturbance of shorebirds (chim choi choi)

Action required: Ben Tre may support internationally important numbers of some species of shorebird (e.g the wader, greater sand plover). Disturbance during harvesting may pose a risk to these migratory species through prevention of feeding which may place an energetic stress on the birds.

There should be estimation (e.g in some representative co-operatives) of the numbers and species of shorebirds present (seasonally) and the extent to which these may be disturbed by harvesting (e.g. the distances/number of times birds need to move to find alternate feeding locations).

FN 07/019 82030 v5 iii Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the third surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the fourth surveillance audit.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.2.1.3

Condition 3. External review

Action required: Mechanisms exist for DARD to instigate scientific studies to answer specific management questions, and are subject to monitoring by, for example, the Ministry and PCC. However, there is no systematic and thorough independent review of the appropriateness of the entire management system from DARD to co-operative level. This may be particularly relevant given proposed changes in clam harvest areas within Ben Tre.

Timescale: A review programme with terms of reference and review frequency should be developed by the first annual surveillance audit and enacted thereafter.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 3A.1.4

FN 07/019 82030 v5 iv Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1

THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION ...... 1 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 1 INFORMATION SOURCES USED...... 2 2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY...... 5

2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES ...... 5 2.2 STOCK EVALUATION ...... 9 2.3 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY...... 12 2.4 MARKETS ...... 15 2.5 CLAM RE-LAYING AND HARVEST ...... 15 2.6 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES...... 18 2.7 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS...... 18 2.8 BY-CATCH AND DISCARDS ...... 20 2.9 INTERACTIONS WITH PROTECTED, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES...... 20 2.10 OTHER FISHERIES RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT...... 21 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT ...... 21

3.1 LEGISLATION ...... 21 3.2 REGULATIONS...... 22 3.3 MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 22 3.4 RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES ...... 24 3.5 ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL...... 24 4 FISHERY MANAGEMENT:...... 26

4.1 MANAGEMENT ADVICE ...... 26 4.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 26 4.3 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ...... 26 4.4 REVIEWS OF THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM...... 27 5 STANDARD USED...... 27

PRINCIPLE 1 ...... 27 PRINCIPLE 2 ...... 28 PRINCIPLE 3 ...... 28 6 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION...... 31

6.1 EVALUATION TEAM...... 31 6.2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS...... 31 6.3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY ...... 31 7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION...... 33

7.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 33 7.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES...... 33 8 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING...... 34

8.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY...... 34 8.2 EVALUATION RESULTS...... 34 9 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS...... 35

10 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION...... 36

10.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION...... 36 10.2 SCOPE OF CERTIFICATION...... 36 10.3 PRE-CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION ...... 36

FN 07/019 82030 v5 v Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

1 INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Ben Tre Clam Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

The fishery proposed for certification

The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (typically the vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock)."

The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined as:

Species: Asiatic hard clam Meretrix lyrata Geographical Area: Vietnamese Province of Ben Tre Method of Capture: Hand-gathering Stock: Ben Tre Management: Provincial People’s Committee (PPC): Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD): Clam Co- operatives Client Group: All Co-operatives within Ben Tre

Report Structure and Assessment Process

The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 5.

This report firstly sets out:  the background to the fishery under assessment  the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment  the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria)  stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)

Section 9 of the report sets out the methodology used to assess (‘score’) the fishery against the MSC Standard. The scoring table then sets out the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring Guidelines which aid the team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators.

The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring commentary in context.

Finally, as a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification.

In draft form, this report is subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (‘peer review’). The comments of these scientists are appended to this report. Responses are given in the peer review texts and, where amendments are made to the report on the basis of Peer Review comments, these are also noted in the

FN 07/019 82030 v5 1 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 peer review text. The updated report is then circulated for public scrutiny on the MSC website.

The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments and the peer review comments is then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (a body independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board then make the final certification determination on behalf of Moody Marine.

It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.

Finally, the complete report, containing the Moody Marine Ltd Determination and all amendments, will be released for further stakeholder scrutiny.

Information sources used

Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews during site visits, feed back from workshop and correspondence with stakeholders in the fisheries, notably:

Meetings and site visits

A meeting with Dr Nguyen Thanh Tung of the Research Institute for Aquaculture no. 1 (RIA no 1) was held at RIA offices in Ho Chi Minh City on 30/7/08.

A meeting with fisheries staff of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) of Ben Tre Province (former Dept of Fisheries of Ben Tre Province was very recently amalgamated into DARD) on the morning of 31/7/2008. Staff present included:  Head of Technical division  Vice Director – works with all co-ops including clam management as well as investment and processing.  Vice head of economic planning div – aquaculture brackish and sea  Representative of policy division (livelihood in rural areas)  Head of technical division – agriculture and cultivation  Vice director directorate of fish exploitation and protection and monitor quality of fish produce  Representative of fishery extension centre – monitoring investment in fishery extension and monitoring environment  Officers from the economic planning and technical division

Along with several representatives of DARD Ben Tre province, a meeting with management board members of Rang Dong co-operative (a relatively long- established and well respected clam co-operative in Binh Dai District) to discuss clam resource and management, was carried out on July 31st, 2008. This was followed by a site visit to sand flat areas where clam seed collection, clam management and commercial clam harvesting were observed. During the site visit some members of the co-op who take part in clam management activities were observed or interviewed to discuss things such as clam-relaying methods, harvest tools, workings of the co-operative from the point of view of ordinary co-operative members, catches per man day, clam predators and their control and a variety of

FN 07/019 82030 v5 2 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 other issues.

On August 1st, 2008 a meeting and site visit were carried out in Doan Ket – a newly established co-op (September, 2007) in Thanh Phu District. Several co-operative board members including chairman, vice chairman and several members responsible for fishery protection issues were present. As well as general clam management issues, this allowed the team to investigate the ways in which new potential areas for clam fishery are identified and developed.

During this assessment, some further ad-hoc meetings were held with various representatives of DARD Ben Tre to discuss various aspects of the fishery.

Finally a workshop with the participation of 31 stakeholders was held at the office of DARD Ben Tre to receive information relating to the impacts of the clam fishery on the natural clam resource, local environment and ecology, as well as clam management systems. Stakeholders present were: DARD 9 people Dept of Science and Technology 1 “ District level DARD 3 “ Processors 2 “ Co-operative alliance 1 “ Co-operative management board members 15 “ (10 co-operatives).

Other information sources

Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are: 1. NTOI (Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute) 2001. Scientific facts of some solutions for preservation and development of clam and blood cockle resources in coastal and inland water bodies of Ben Tre province. 184p. 2. Nguyen Huu Phung et al, 2001. Some nutritionally biological characteristics of Clam (Meretrix lyrata Sowerby, 1851) and Blood cockle (Aenadara granosa, Linneaus) in the sandflat area – Ben Tre province. 48p. 3. Nguyen Van Luc et al, 2001a. Research on spawning biological characteristics of Clam (Meretrix lyrata Sowerby, 1851) and Blood cockle (Aenadara granosa, Linneaus) in the sanｄflat area – Ben Tre province. 30p. 4. Nguyen Van Luc et al, 2001b. Research on growth characteristics and quantitative changes of Clam (Meretrix lyrata Sowerby, 1851) and Blood cockle (Aenadara granosa, Linneaus) in the sandflat area – Ben Tre province. 122p. 5. Nguyen Tac An et al, 2001. Water quality and primary productivity in clam/blood cockle sandflat areas and nearby water bodies – Ben Tre province. 112p. 6. Tran Kim Hang, 2002. Existing situation of clam culture (Meretrix lyrata). Problems faced and recommendations for development orientation in coastal areas of Tien Giang and Ben Tre province. 7. Nguyen Van Luc et al, 2001c. Characteristics of geochemical, geomorphology and water flow in clam/blood cockle sand flat areas – Ben Tre province. 75p. 8. National Assembly of Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2003. Fisheries Law No. 17/2003/QH 11 9. Ministry of Fisheries, 1999. Program of developing aquaculture for the period from 1999 to 2010. 10. Ministry of Fisheries, 1999. Program of controlling water quality and

FN 07/019 82030 v5 3 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Bivalves hygienic safety before harvesting. 11. Ben Tre People’s Committee, 1999. The Decision Number 1244/QD-UB dated in June 11, 1999 of Chairman of Ben Tre People’s Committee on banning clam harvest in the area of Ba Lai river mouth. 12. Ben Tre People,s Committee, 2003. The Decision Number 2108/Qd –UB dated in July 31, 2003 on promulgating the regulations of fisheries in coastal and inland water bodies of Ben Tre province. 13. Fisheries Department of Ben Tre province, 1998. Procedures for controlling hygienic safety in harvesting clam. 14. NAFIQAVED, 2000. Summing up report of sub-project on setting up and experimental implementation of controlling program on Molluscs harvested areas exported to EU market. 15. Phan Nguyen Hong, 1992. Mangrove ecosystem of Vietnam and the problems in silvofishery production in Vietnam. 16. Nguyen Thanh Tung et al, 2007 (RIA No. 2). Research on the solutions to protect and develop clam (Meretrix lyrata, Sowerby 1851) resource in Ben Tre province. 229p. 17. Nguyen Nguyen Du et al, 2007. Characteristics of distribution, density, production and estimated standing stocks of clam seed and clam brood stock in the research areas belonging to Ben Tre province. 58p. 18. Nguyen Thi Xuan Lan, 2007. Establishment of sustainable models to protect and develop clam resource in Ben Tre province. 14p. 19. Le Huy Ba, 2008. Research and assessment of biodiversity and creature resources in the areas of coastal river mouths, Ben Tre province serving for establishment of solutions to sustainable utilization and management. 350p. 20. Ministry of Fishery 1999 – 2006. System of documents on clam management. 74p. 21. Ben Tre Statistical Office, 2008. Statistical Yearbook of 2007. 303p. 22. Birdlife International, undated. Directory of important bird Areas of Vietnam: VN062 Binh Dai and VN063 Ba Tri available at :http://birdlifeindochina.org/iba/english/pdf/VN062_Binh_Dai.pdf and http://birdlifeindochina.org/iba/english/pdf/VN063_Ba_Tri.pdf. In English. 23. Moores, N. and Nguyen Phuc Bao Hoa, 2001. Vietnam Mekong shorebird site survey 2000. Unpublished report to Wetlands International Asia-Pacific and Can Tho University. 24. Kumagai and Ozawa, 2001. Phylogenetic relationships among species of the genus Meretrix (Heterodonta:Veneridae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences Tsuyoshi Kumagai and Tomowo Ozawa, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan. Abstracts World Congress of Malacology 2001 Edited by Luitfried Salvini-Plawen, Janice Voltzow, Helmut Sattmann and Gerhard Steiner Published by UNITAS MALACOLOGICA, Vienna 2001 Vienna, Austria 19–25 August. In English. Abstract also available at http://www.univie.ac.at/WCM2001/abstractsf2k.htm The lead author was also contacted by e-mail for further clarification of Meretrix taxonomy. 25. Bivalves (http://www.fistenet.gov.vn/DMSP/index_e.asp?menu=haimanhvo 26. Quayle D.B. and Newkirk, 1989. Farming Bivalve Molluscs: Methods for Study and Development. International Development Research Center, Canada, 294p. 27. Nguyen Chinh, 1996. Some species of molluscs with high economic value in Vietnamese sea. Selected Works of Vietnamese Sea research, Volume 2, Part I: p 153-173.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 4 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

28. Habe, T. & S. Kosuge, 1966. Shells of the World in Colour. Vol. II The tropical Pacific. Ed. 1, 1-193, col.pls. 1-68, b/w pls. 1-2. Tokyo. 29. Gulland, J.A. 1979. Stock assessment in tropical fisheries: Past and present practices in developing countries, pp. 27-34. In: S. Saila and B. Roedel (eds.) Stock Assessment for Tropical Small-scale Fisheries. International Center for Marine Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, USA.

2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY

2.1 Biology of the Target Species

Systematics and taxonomy of Meretrix lyrata, including ability to distinguish from M. meretrix

According to Habe and Kossuge (1966) and systematic research carried out by Nguyen Chinh (1996), the morphology of clam species Meretrix lyrata in Mekong Delta is given as follows: - The clam have two thick, firm and round shells, each shell linked with another shell by a hinge, base of two shells has some teeth which closely fit together. - The inside of the shell is smooth with ivory white colour. The outside of the shell is characterized by having concentric ribs. The shell has 25-60 ribs depending on the size of the shell, (bigger shells have more ribs). - Meretrix lyrata exhibits a considerable inter population colour variation, usually with a white or brown ground colour; of which the white clam typically form around 90%, and the brown clam 10% of the natural population. - Meretrix lyrata is clearly distinguished from the brown-shelled species Meretrix meretrix, the only species for which there would be any real possibility of confusion, since the latter has a larger shell than M. lyrata and either lacks concentric rings/ or has only faint concentric growth lines. Perhaps more importantly, M. meretrix appears to be absent from the Mekong Delta, recent work suggesting that previous reports were probably misidentifications of the brown form of M. lyrata.

The species encountered in the fishery is M lyrata. Systematics and taxonomy of this species is given below: - Phylum:Mollusca - Class: Bivalvia - Super Order: Autobranchia - Order: Eulamellibranchia - Sub- Order: Heterodonta - Super family: Venericea - Family: Veneridae - Genus: Meretrix - Species: Meretrix lyrata (Sowerby, 1851)

Distribution of Meretrix lyrata

Meretrix lyrata is a bivalve mollusc inhabiting intertidal and shallow sub tidal sand flat areas, typically in outer estuary areas where the proportions of sand and mud are

FN 07/019 82030 v5 5 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 around 80% and 20%, respectively. It is reported from large parts of South East Asia including Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, but is densest from Taiwan to Vietnam. It commonly grows to 50mm in length inter-tidally but can be much larger subtidally. In the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, the species is widely distributed in sand flat areas belonging to Can Gio District (Ho Chi Minh City, HCMC), Go Cong Dong District (Tien Giang province), Districts of Binh Dai, Ba Tri, Thanh Phu (Ben Tre province), Districts of Cau Ngang, Duyen Hai (Tra Vinh province), Vinh Chau District (Soc Trang province), Vinh Loi District (Bac Lieu province) and Ngoc Hien District (Ca Mau province), of which the highest density and production are recorded in Ben Tre province.

The coastal sand flat areas of Ben Tre province are part of the tidal plain of the Mekong Delta and have a relatively large tidal amplitude. The area is strongly divided by several large branches of the Mekong River and numerous smaller tidal channels. Areas suitable for clams are characterized by fine sand with low mud content; the deposits are usually rich in the elements carbon and phosphrus and poor in nitrogen.

The surface of sand flat areas usually slopes extremely gently from the coast line (above which the mangrove forest typically occurs) to the sea with a typical slope level of 0.001 – 0.002%. However, the sands can sometimes be very mobile, with rapid deposition/erosion of sand bars or larger sand banks especially around the mouths of a major river. The areas of sand flats vary from hundreds to thousands of hectares, of which the large sand flat area can be considered in terms of tidal height: a) The areas lying > 3m above low water that are inundated for 2 – 8 hours/ per 24 hr day; very few clams occur; b) Lower intertidal areas with elevation from 1 – 2.5m that are inundated for 16 – 20 hours/ 24 hr day flooded by tide; the clams are very plentiful. c) Sub-tidal and low-shore areas with elevation from -3 – (+0.5m) that are inundated for 20 – 24 hours/24 hr day. Large old clams likely to represent brood stocks occur in these areas.

The bottom structure is the most important ecological factor affecting the survival and development of clams. Meretrix lyrata occur typically 4 – 6 cm below the surface and they prefer living in sandy – muddy bottoms with a sand grain size of 0.062 – 0.250mm, where sands form 68 – 80% of the sediment. M. lyrata prefer softer sediments in order to be able to bury easily. No clams occur naturally in muddy or clay bearing bottoms and they are rare in hard packed sands.

In summary, according to the results of surveys and investigations carried out by Vietnamese organizations and institutes, a suitable clam management area must have the following characteristics:

 Sufficient breeding stock to ensure adequate spatfall;  A sandy bottom without too much silt, suitable for clam burial;  Protection from prolonged flooding, strong winds and waves;  High natural productivity of sea water;  Moderate tidal current flow for transport of phytoplankton and oxygen as well as elimination of wastes;  Physical – chemical conditions of the sand flat area must be suitable for growth and survival, especially salinity and temperature, and  Must be free from industrial wastes, sewage and other pollutants including toxic and harmful algae.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 6 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Life history and feeding

The life history of Meretrix lyrata is divided into three stages as follows: - The stage of plankton post-larvae (Trochophora): The post larvae move up to the water surface at night time, and down to bottom during day time. When the high tide occurs the post-larvae also move up to water surface, and during the low tide they move down to the bottom. The vertical movements do not exceed 4 – 5m. This is the reason why during the plankton stage, post-larvae can exist in areas next to river mouths and avoid being carried off shore. - The stage of attached post-larvae (Veliger) which represents the transfer to bottom living: for a short period, the post-larvae develop byssus for attaching to hard substrates such as stones and shells in sand flat areas. - Adult stage, in which the clams are buried in sand.

Clams bury in the bottom of sand flat using movements of the foot. During this time, the muscular foot fully develops, and the animals become capable of strong burial movements, particularly in softer sands.

Small sized clams, known as clam seed, tend to settle at high densities in specific areas adjacent to dense areas of subtidal broodstock and migrate to other areas of the sandflats as they grow. In later years the adults tend to migrate down shore towards the subtidal where the majority of large clams are found. Clam managers seem to be convinced that the spatfall originates from the local broodstocks.

According to Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute (NTOI), the body length growth rates of clams in the first year is faster than those of the coming years; the average growth in length attained in the first, second and third years are 20-26mm, 10-15mm and 4-7mm, respectively. The theoretical maximum body length is 85mm, with an estimated body weight of 157 g and an age of 11 years.

In areas where the clams are managed by relaying, growth rates of clams can be high. A marketable size of 30-110 clams/kg is reportedly reached 10 months after relaying for the large clam seed (1,000 – 6,000 clams/kg) and 18 months after natural settlement or relaying for small clam seed (>22,000 clams/kg), respectively (although note that relaying seed clams smaller than 5000/kg is now illegal; and also that more recently the commercial size has been increased to 25-80 clams/kg by the introduction of a standard mesh size, although the above indicative growth rates probably still stand).

The clams are filter feeders that depend on the movement of gill bands in the respiratory process sucking water to the gill. The research results of NTOI shows that the food found in clams digestive systems (by weight) are detritus (68.3 – 69.2%), phytoplankton (14.4 – 17.8%), zooplankton (0.8 – 0.9%) and unidentified portion (12.2 – 16.5%). These results were fairly consistent over a large size range of clams. Algae genus/species including Achnanthes, Amphora, Campilodiscus, Campiloneis grevillei, Cymbella, Diploneis, Gyrosigma, Navicula, Nitzschia, Surirella, Synedra, Rhizosolenia, Pleurosigma angulatum, Trachyneis aspera, Thalassionema nitzschioides (PENNALES); Biddulphia, Chaetoceros ceratium, Coscinodiscus, Cyclotella striata, Melosira granulate, Skeletonema costatum (CENTRALES) are identified at a high frequency in clam digestive systems. Some

FN 07/019 82030 v5 7 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 species of zooplankton belonging to Protozoa, Copepoda, and Cladocera are recorded at low frequency.

In 2007, surveys carried out by Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2 (RIA2) on the digestive systems of clam living in sandflats area of Ben Tre province commonly identified 9 species of Coscinodiscus, 3 species of Pleurosigma, 3 species of Cyclotella and 3 species of Rhizosolenia.

M. lyrata has separate sexes, and hermaphrodites do not exist. It is not possible to identify the difference between the male and females on the basis of shell morphology. However, they can be distinguished by the colours of mature reproductive glands. When mature, the male individuals have milky-white coloured reproductive glands, while the female individuals have orange yellow/brick red colour reproductive glands. After spawning, the reproductive glands of the female individuals normally have a milky-white colour. Thus, it is impossible to distinguish male and female when the reproductive glands are not mature. The reproductive glands of mature clam are not concentrated in one place; they consist of narrow bands lying on two sides of the digestive system. It is very difficult to distinguish reproductive glands by eye in the young clams, or in adult clams after fully releasing the reproductive products. There are five stages of reproductive gland development widely recognised for bivalves in general, including Ben Tre clams.

The research results of NTOI in 2001 showing the M. lyrata sex structures by size shows that the ratio of male and female in natural conditions is close to 1:1 but with a small preponderance of males.

Clams longer than 30mm (equivalent to a weight of around 8.5g/individual) can be expected to spawn. This size is typically reached during the second year. A marketable size of 80/kg is equal to 12.5 g/individual.

Fully mature reproductive glands have been recorded in M. lyrata in almost all survey months, suggesting that M.lyrata can probably spawn to some degree all year round. However, the majority of spawning appears to take place during the periods from March to June/July, with a secondary spawning in some years from October/November to December/January.

Fecundity

Female clams over 30mm in length can be expected to spawn with reasonably high fecundity. This is the reason why clam juvenile recruitment (usually known as “seed”), under normal conditions, is very plentiful. The research results of Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute NTOI in 2001 showing the Absolute and Relative Fecundity of female clams with body length of 32.4 – 76mm, are given below.

Item Range Mean ± 1 standard deviation No of eggs per female 3,204,849 to 8,798,586 5,753,985 ± 2,013,994 clam No of eggs/g body weight 64,000 to 363,782 195,631 ± 115,162 (inc shell) No of eggs/g body weight 371,437 to 2,007,255 1,060,420 ± 573,583 (excl shell)

FN 07/019 82030 v5 8 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

2.2 Stock evaluation

Surveys that involved the counting and size classification of clams on a stratified – random basis along 24 transects during April and October – November 2000 in Ben Tre sand flat area were carried out by NTOI, 2001.

The survey results of NTOI relating to the densities of natural clam in sand flat area of Ben Tre during the period 1999-2001 are given below. It was found that there were large variations between differing areas, and also that distribution of the clams according to tidal height varied with season, with adults increasing in density at river mouths and subtidal areas during the dry season and increasing in density on the lower intertidal during the rainy season.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 9 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Adult clam surveys (± = 1.std dev) Area / date No of clams Clam density per m2 g/m2 Binh Dai District June, 2000 44 178 5,420 Ha October, 2000 85 712 27 survey sites January, 2001 72 836 Thoi Thuan and Thua Duc March, 2001 76 689 Communes, May, 2001 104 1,022 Ba Tri District November, 1999 49±48 345±339 5,000 ha June, 2000 59±79 674±880 24 survey sites October, 2000 64±60 634±719 Bao Thuan clam sand flat January, 2001 61 604 area March, 2001 68 742 May 2001 73 813 Thanh Phu District November, 1999 100±158 440±614 3,650 ha April, 2000 54 362 24 survey sites June, 2000 102 1,077 Thanh Phong clam sand flat October, 2000 81 922 area January, 2001 103 1,064 There were six sites at March, 2001 108 1,299 which no clams were ever found May, 2001 130 1,084 Clam seed surveys Dong Tam Coop Jul 2005 to Aug 2006 15 – 260 10 – 160 Rang Dong Coop Jul 2005 to Aug 2006 15 – 700 20-920 Thanh Loi Coop Jul 2005 to Aug 2006 10-620 10 – 220 Doan Ket Coop Jul 2005 to Aug 2006 6-115 20 – 180

On the basis of this stock assessment, an estimate of likely fishable biomass was made by the officers of the Institute. This took into account factors such as likely mortality and growth over the coming months, largely determined on the basis of field survey data and historical clam landings. An annual landing figure (quota) was then calculated by according to the methods of Gulland (1979. The results obtained were as follows: the total potential sand flat area of 15,128 ha supported an estimated clam stock at that time of 216,000 – 465,000 tonnes, while the managed (at that time) area of 3,115 ha supported an estimated 47,000 – 102,000 tonnes. The likely fishable biomass for the two areas was estimated at 150,000 – 312,000 tonnes and 32,000 – 69,000 tonnes, respectively. Thus the estimated fishable biomasses represented 68 – 69% and 67 – 68% of clam standing stocks. These figures also indicate that the average density of clams in tonnes/ha in managed and non-managed areas may have been similar, although there is a high level of variation in the figures and hence a low level of confidence

The 15,128 ha of potential sand flat identified as being suitable for clams Meretrix lyrata have been divided into managed and non-managed areas (in which no harvesting is allowed) with the aim of limiting the amount of clams which can be harvested. This has been limited to no more than 35 – 40% of the fishable biomass, according to National Regulations. Under these regulations, the managed areas have to reach up to around 6,000 ha, representing 40% of the suitable clam area. Further surveys are planned, however, which may allow development of up to 70% or more of sand flats.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 10 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

There is a subtidal stock of very large old clams in depths of up to around 8 or10 m located on either side of the Ba Lai River (a branch of the Mekong River). Areas immediately adjacent undergo very good spat settlement and it is assumed that these large clams are an important breeding resource, and all forms of fishing on this area are therefore banned. Furthermore, following one cycle of management from spat to commercial clams lasting approximately 24 months (see 2.5 for more details), only up to 80% of adult clam biomass is harvested, the remaining 20% are left alive in the sand flat, especially in areas adjacent to deep channels, and these become a supplementary broodstock in subsequent years. Moreover, during the harvest the larger clams are not taken but are left on the sand to re-bury, which they do rapidly. These adult clams are known to migrate in subsequent months down the beach to the subtidal area, although on occasion this is aided by the fishers physically relocating them. This development of ‘broodstock’ is a major feature of clam management in Ben Tre.

External factors affecting clam stock and seed recruitment

Build up of silt during the rainy season and high temperatures during the dry season are two of the major problems facing the clam resources.

Hot weather and associated poor water quality may lead to mass mortality, typically in the period February to April when the clams may be concentrated in some small sand flat beds at high densities. High temperatures were considered to be the cause of widespread mass clam deaths in the dry season of 1999 and 2005. Adult clams were much more affected more than seed clams. The experience of clam co- operatives is that mass clam deaths result in greatly reduced clam landing in the subsequent year affecting both local and export markets, but have no noticeable impact upon subsequent clam seed settlements.

Deposition of silt on clam beds occurs annually during October and November due to the arrival of flood–water from the Mekong River with a heavy load of sediment. Silt is difficult to remove due to the banning of suction dredges and in practice the negative impact of siltation is mainly minimized, if necessary, by transplanting the stock once or twice during the management period. Another possible management measure sometimes used in response to this problem is to immediately harvest the marketable clams for sale.

Exceptional flooding of the Mekong River can in some years decrease the salinity of river mouths to less than 2‰, which can kill all stages of clam (e.g. clam seed, adult clam and brood stock clam). On occasion other factors such as drought associated high salinity intrusion or sandbank erosion can create negative impacts to clam broodstock and clam seed recruitment.

Losses are also incurred due to predation by crabs, gastropods (e.g. Polynices didyma – oc ran, Natica maculosa – oc mo hoa, Lamarch sp – oc bong, Nassarius sp – oc gai) and starfish. The majority of these are subtidal and do not generally occur intertidally in high densities. Before the clam growing season, predators and materials such as nylon bag, clam shell, litter and so on may be removed by hand picking, particularly those species that are considered edible. Although birds also feed on young clams they are not thought by co-operative managers to have significant effects on clam numbers.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 11 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Recent years have seen the accumulation in some places of clam shell created by the mass mortalities of clams. To maintain the fishery, these clam shells are removed periodically under the authority of the Commune People’s Committee and clam co- operatives. Most recently this has been achieved by using hand raking. Many of these shells are crushed to make lime or may have other uses.

2.3 History of the Fishery

Ben Tre Clam fishery is a traditional source of food with a high nutritional value and provides employment for the local people living in coastal areas. Ben Tre Clam (Meretrix lyrata) is an abundant and valuable resource in large coastal areas stretching from Can Gio District (Ho Chi Minh City) to a number of provinces of the Mekong Delta including Tien Giang, Ben Tre, Tra Vinh, Bac Lieu and others, of which Ben Tre is the most important.

In Vietnam, the simplest traditional method of clam management in sand flat area is the bottom management system that is also called the broadcast, bottom sowing or relaying technique. Wild spat, or “clam seed”, at a size typically of 300-5000 clams/kg, is transferred to suitable “nursery” sand flat areas for a period of 10 – 12 months up to a size of 100 – 300 clams/kg, which are used for further relaying and ongrowing to adult size in dedicated “commercial management” sand flat areas. The technique is described in more detail in 2.5 below.

With the help of national/foreign technical and financial supports, several institutes have carried out research on this resource in order to further develop the fishery, and have resulted in it being a high value export product for the EU and other markets. Nationally, the highest recorded production of processed clams serving for export mainly to EU markets was recorded to be 50,000 tonnes with an export value of 60 millions USD for one year, although there is some doubt about the accuracy of earlier production figures.

In recent years it was recognised that there were some problems, said to include the existing research situation, assessment and management of fishery resource, and ability to form a good management program for long term harvest fishery. In order to protect and harvest natural clams resources in a sustainable manner, Ben Tre province have established 10 clam co-operatives and 4 clam groups involving members who have the responsibility to share all activities relating to clam protection and management as well as receiving benefit from clam co-operatives or clam groups. Clam groups are smaller scale than co-operatives but carry out similar operations in order to prove the viability of an area prior to setting up full scale co-operatives.

Recent production figures for Ben Tre province are given below. The landing and average yields (tons/ha) of clams have fluctuated depending mainly on the degree of wild seed availability. Whilst figures for earlier years are available, these are widely thought to be very unreliable, with landings possibly having been grossly exaggerated in order to meet production targets.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 12 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Item/Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 (*) Clam 3,251.3 2,537.3 3,516.3 3,151.3 management area (ha) Commercial 9,433.21 2,602.20 7,740.74 8,660 clam landing (tons) Average 2.90 1.02 2.20 2.74 yield (tons/ha) Area of clam 60 222 175 304 seed (ha) Seed 329.63 1,214.8 763.2 860.5 production (tons) Average 5.49 5.47 4.36 2.83 yield of Clam seed (tons/ha)

(*): Estimated figures Source: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Ben Tre, 2008

Ben Tre Province has three coastal districts (Binh Dai; Ba Tri and Thanh Phu), all of which have clam resources and are involved in clam management. The province contains a total potential sand flat area of 15,128 ha that is suitable for clam protection and management.Since 2007, up to 24% has been used for clam management.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 13 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Binh Dai

Ba Tri district

Ba Lai river Thanh Phu : Seed clam area : Brood stock clam

North 10 km Figure 1 Location showing areas assigned to clam co-ops and groups in Ben Tre Province, along with main protected areas for seed clams and broodstock. Source: DARD Ben Tre Province, 2008.

No of No of co- Ha Recent tonnages (2007) Item Households op managed Commercial Clam seed (T) members sized clams (T) A Clam Cooperatives 10,965 ∑ Binh Dai District 3,447 14,943 1803.5 4647 762 1 Rang Dong 1,785 7,357 1003.5 3,055 614 2 Dong Tam 1,662 7,586 c. 800 1592 148 ∑ Ba Tri District 6,402 2413 2883 3 An Thuy 1,852 1015 533 4 Tan Thuy 2,166 309 1786 5 Bao Thuan 2,384 1089 564 ∑ Thanh Phu 1,116 854 20 District 6 Doan Ket 200 94 0 7 Thanh Loc 30 70 0 8 Thanh Loi 471 250 20 9 Binh Minh 211 425 0 10 Hai Duong 204 165 0 B Clam Groups (Binh Dai 36 1630 188.5 and Thanh Phu districts) 1 Bao Thuan (TP dist) 15 2 An Thuy (TP dist) 15 3 Tan Thuy (TP dist) 5 4 Thoi Thuan (BD dist) 1 ∑ 11,001 - 6702.5 7738.5 762 Figures indicative of the scale of activities within the co-operatives and clam groups of each district of Ben Tre Province. Source: DARD Ben Tre Province, 2008. Note that many co-operatives are just establishing production.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 14 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

According to DARD Ben Tre up to the year 2020 the clam management area will be increasing to 7,800 ha, representing 51% of the total potential sand flat area for clams. At July 2008, Ben Tre province had 10 clam co-operatives and 4 clam groups including 11,001 clam households. Using available information from Binh Dai district it can be estimated that this probably equates to around 48,000 co-operative members.

Binh Dai district:

Over 1,800 ha of clam grounds stretch along around 5 km of the coastline of Thoi Thuan Commune (width of 500 – 3,000 m during neap tide). These are managed by the well established co-operative of Rang Dong and the recently created co-operative of Dong Tam. These two co-ops produce clam seed for sale to other co-operatives as well as commercial sized clams. There is also a small clam group in Binh Dai.

Ba Tri district

The clam resource preservation and clam management are managed by the three following co-operatives: Bao Thuan co-op; An Thuy co-op; Tan Thuy co-op; as well as three small clam groups.

Thanh Phu district:

Since 2006 there have been 5 newly established clam co-operatives in Thanh Phu district, namely Doan Ket, Thanh Loc, Thanh Loi, Hai Duong and Binh Minh. The total clam landing of Thanh Loi co-op in 2007 was 20 tonnes, while the other 4 co- ops had not yet produced either clam seed or commercial clams.

2.4 Markets

Local markets, both in Ben Tre and elsewhere in Vietnam, are still the main markets for the clams. However, following the achievement of HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) standards in a number of processors, IQF (Individual Quick Frozen) clam meat and other clam products have increasingly been exported to international markets such as the EU, Japan, China, Taiwan, USA, of which the EU is usually the most important. In 2005 the typical price was 3,200 – 3,500 USD/ton. As an example, frozen clam meat and boiled whole-shell or half-shell clams are now major export commodities of Aquatex Ben Tre Company; typically in recent years, over 200 tonnes of processed clams and some clam shells have been exported by Aquatrex each month.

2.5 Clam re-laying and harvest

The shallow sand flat areas of natural clam seed located next to brood stock area in the deep sub tidal on either side of the Ba Lai River are strictly protected. Under natural conditions, it takes about one year from spat settlement (which typically comprises small size clam spats of 100,000/kg) to the “normal” (as far as relaying operations are concerned) sized clam seeds which are approximately 5,000/kg.

According to regulations clam seeds can be taken at the size of 5,000/kg for the purpose of seed transplanting to the management areas or for sale to other

FN 07/019 82030 v5 15 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 organisations. The harvest of smaller sized clam seeds is forbidden. Clam seeds are harvested using a metal framed hand tool (referred to as a rake, but lacking the tines of a conventional rake; see Figure 1) with a mesh of suitable size ensuring that clam seed smaller than 5,000/kg pass through.

Available harvestable clam seeds are generally used primarily to satisfy the co-ops requirement for clam re-laying in the management area (for subsequent ongrowing to commercial size); any excess clam seeds can be sold to other co-ops. The time and amount of clam seed used for re-laying in identified plots of management area are recorded and kept in the co-ops. The clam seeds are spread at pre-determined densities within intertidal areas that are under the management of the co-operatives and have been designated specifically for ongrowing of clams. The season at which the clam seeds are moved appears to vary from co-op to co-op – at Rang Dong clam seeds were reportedly typically relayed around October to December whilst at Doanket this was done in April to June. a)rakewithnomesh b)rakewithmeshforseedclamsfitted

Figure 1 showing rakes used to collect the clams

In many cases the clam seed may be bought from other co-ops, and for some co-ops like Dong Tam, and Rang Dong (Binh Dai District) the production of clam seed for sale is, or has been, the most important commercial activity.

The survival rates of clam seeds used for transplanting depend on the distance of transportation, e.g. the shorter transport distance the higher survival rate. In general, the clam seed survival rates during transportation inside and to nearby co-ops are estimated to be around 95% and 85-90%, respectively. Clam seed may be transported further afield by boat in damp sacks for long distance up to 72 hours, with survival rates of 75 – 80%.

After releasing clam seeds, the main activities in clam management plots are further clam re-laying and security. From the high density of 5,000/ m2 at the beginning of the management cycle, the clams will typically be re-layed several times, on each occasion at lower densities, until a final density of about 150/ m2 is reached. Thus at each relaying the area of sand flat utilised for each batch is increased. The number of relayings carried out for each “batch” of clams varies but is typically 2 to 3. This measure ensures the clams have sufficient room to grow when they are large.

Mud sedimentation on clam management areas occurs annually during October and November due to the arrival of flood water from the Mekong River, with a heavy

FN 07/019 82030 v5 16 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 load of sediment. One possible management measure in response to possible severe problems is to immediately harvest the commercial size clams for sale, while another measure sometime used is to move undersize clams to nearby better situated clam areas.

Commerical harvesting takes place all year round, but the great majority takes place in the period April to October. Over low tide the commercial size clams are harvested manually, usually with the aid of a rake as described above; see Figure 1). A net to allow the return of small clams is used.. In some cases the net is attached to the rake while in other cases the two are separate. The width of the rake and the mesh size on the net must abide by the regulations of management organizations. Interviews with members of Rang Dong co-operative carried out in March 2004 and August 2008 showed that the width of rake and mesh size were of 35 cm and 30 mm, respectively. With this mesh size only the commercial clams of typically 25 – 80 clams/kg are harvested and small sized clams can escape from the net.

The use of machines for harvesting clams is fully banned. Bags of clams are taken to a boat moored on the sand where they are checked, counted and weighed, and transport to markets or processors is normally by boat.

In order to quantify the biomass of commercial clams available in management plots, co-ops carry out simple site-specific surveys prior to harvest. Typically all clams of marketable size are weighed from 1m2 areas located in three different parts of the identified plot, normally at upper, mid and lower levels (relative to tidal height). The total biomass of clams in each plot is calculated by multiplying the average biomass/ m2 by the area of plot). The size of plots surveyed depends on the clam amount required by the markets but is typically 1 – 2 ha. In most cases the plots are resurveyed after harvesting in order to confirm that the expected 20% of clams have been left, and to re-lay clams at reasonable densities if necessary. Many of the training courses and workshops organised by DARD (see section 4.1) include advice on the pre-harverst surveys.

Before the harvesting period, the members of a co-operative are organized to carry out clam harvest in rotation within the identified plots, for which purpose harvest coupons are provided to individual members by the co-op. Each member harvests clams for 12 days/month on average, with typical catches per man-day of 66 kg. Also before commercial clam harvesting, the local merchants are given information on available clam amounts, size and selling price, and use this information to produce a tender. Merchants who are selected from the tender process will receive clams and transport them mainly by boats to processing plants or to local markets.

Both relaying and harvesting are organised in such a way that all activities are concentrated on relatively small areas that are moved day by day.

The clam brood stocks present in the deep sub tidal area on either side of the Ba Lai River have been strictly protected following Decision No. 1244/QD-UB dated June 11, 1999 of the Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) Ben Tre.

According to the Decision all harvesting of clam brood stocks is forbidden within strictly defined locations as follows:

- River side of Binh Dai District: From Co-ordinate (1): φ = 10o02.227N; λ = 106o41.248E (belonging to the area of Thoi Binh

FN 07/019 82030 v5 17 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Border Defending Station) to Co-ordinate (2): φ = 10o00.288N; λ = 106o44.320E (belonging to the area Ong Bai Island).

- River side of Ba Tri District: From Co-ordinate (3): φ = 9o59.720N; λ = 106o44.553E (belonging to the southern area located in front of Ong Bai Island) to Co-ordinate (4): φ = 10o02.350N; λ = 106o41.023E (belonging to the mouth of Bac Ky Canal).

These locations are the main habitats of natural clam brood stocks which supply clam seeds for clam management in sand flat areas of Ben Tre province and other provinces in the Mekong Delta.

Large clams with a size of 15 – 20/kg are kept by co-ops in the sand flat areas adjacent to deep channels – with the largest clams encountered during harvesting (typically ≥ 6cm) replaced onto the sands to increase the broodstock. These clams, which may represent up to around 20% of the harvestable clam biomass, provide an important supplemental clam brood stock, and this procedure is therefore given strong emphasis within the co-ops. Accordingly, it is reported in recent years that natural clam seed settlements have occurred in some co-ops which were formerly reliant on clam seeds bought from elsewhere.

2.6 Fishing Locations and Administrative Boundaries

Politically, Ben Tre province is divided into the provincial capital (also known as Ben Tre) and seven districts of which the three district of Binh Dai, Ba Tri and Thanh Phu are the coastal areas where Ben Tre Clams are found (Figure 2).

These three coastal districts occupy 52% of Ben Tre province in term of area and house 35% of the population. These districts have have long been recognised as having potential for development of clam management and shrimp farming. According to the Ben Tre Statistical Yearbook, in 2007 these districts contributed more than 56% of the aquaculture production (with clam management clsassified as aquaculture for the purposes of these statistics) of Ben Tre province.

2.7 Ecosystem Characteristics

With the presence of four large branches of the Mekong River and 65 km of coastline, Ben Tre province is very rich in coastal habitats.

Mangrove forest

Before the Vietnam War, mangrove forest occupied about 400,000 ha of Vietnam most of which were in the Mekong Delta (250,000 ha). Due to the over exploitation of mangrove for timber, charcoal and firewood, as well as the destruction caused by the war, the total Vietnamese mangrove forest area decreased greatly to about 252,500 ha in 1983. Since then thousands of ha of mangrove forest in the Mekong Delta have been converted into shrimp ponds, including in Ben Tre Province. For example, in Ca Mau province where the highest density of mangrove forest exists, over a period of 8 years (1983 – 1995) more than 66,253 ha mangrove forest areas have been converted into shrimp ponds.

In order to provide natural protection of the coast, contribute to sustainable

FN 07/019 82030 v5 18 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 aquaculture and restore biodiversity, projects funded by international and national governments commenced during the period 1995 – 2000.

Most of the water in the mangroves comes from the ocean, but heavily influenced by the outflows from the Mekong River mouths, with only a little freshwater input from rainfall during the rainy season.

In terms of natural fish production, each hectare of mangrove area can reportedly yield as many as 91 kg of fish per year. Surveys in the mangrove area and in the estuarine waters of Ben Tre province show that the marine biota therein is varied and abundant with 280 species of algae (mostly phytoplankton), 48 species of zooplankton, 62 species of zoobenthos, 102 species of fish and 20 species of shrimp having been reported. In particular, for many of the shrimp species which are the main crops for cultivation and export, the mangrove area is the ideal nursery for their growth. In fact, almost all species of high economic value such as Penaeus indicus, P. merguiensis and P. monodon are dependent upon the mangroves for their life cycle; they lay their eggs in the open sea, following which the larvae migrate to shallow water and especially to the mangrove area where they grow for 3 – 4 months, before leaving once again for the open sea to mature.

Upper beach

Some relatively new sandy islets located near to river mouths are occupied by some wild local grasses. Some areas of them are also used for cultivation of corn and watermelon. Fauna are usually sparse except for large numbers of fiddler crab in many places. The upper beaches are sometimes planted with Casuarina tree (Casuarina equisetifolia) in order to stabilise the land and reduce winds, but the trees usually do not grow well due to frequent strong winds and occasional storms.

Muddy areas

These areas are located in the subtidal and high tidal regions and are the main habitats of blood cockle (Anadara granosa), another commercially exploited species.

Sand flat ecology

As described elsewhere, the intertidal sand flat areas are suitable habitats for clams. The soft sediment in these areas typically consists of about 80% sand and 20% mud. According to Centre for Ecology, Environment and Resources (CEER) 2008, the sand flat areas in Ben Tre province are rich in flora and fauna. The survey results of CEER showing the species composition of zoobenthos are given below. These surveys suggest a modest suite of species with a strong seasonality.

Phylum/Class December 2005 June 2006 ∑ No. % No. % No. % species species species Mollusca 0 0 7 20.6 7 20.6 Crustacea 4 66.6 16 47.1 19 51.4 Annelida 0 0 1 2.9 1 2.7 Holothuroidea 1 16.7 1 2.9 1 2.7 Pisces 1 16.7 9 26.5 9 24.3 ∑ 6 100 34 100 37 100

FN 07/019 82030 v5 19 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Some of the species reported, such as the Aphelodactyla australis (Holothurian) prefer burying in sticky mud and are likely to be uncommon in clam sandflats areas where sand is dominant.

Predators of clam, and the importance of clam to other species

On the sand flat areas used for clam management some predators such as Polynices didyma (oc mo tron), Natica maculosa (oc mo hoa), Lamarch sp (oc long), Nassarius sp (oc gai) are commonly found at rather low densities. These gastropod species can predate small size clam seed. In order to control oc mo, hand picking for food is allowed in sand flat areas used for clam management as well as clam seed nursery, although it is not clear to what degree this does actually control oc mo numbers or whether it has any beneficial effects for the clams. Also, some waders including plover (chim choi choi) that migrate seasonally into the area are known to predate on small size clams.

2.8 By-catch and Discards

The harvests of clam seeds for transplantation and commercial clams for sale are carried out at low tide. At this time the majority of other species such as swimming crabs and other small crabs and various gastropod species have followed the ebb to the near shore subtidal waters. By–catch is therefore negligible. Some larger clam are left on the sandflats to provide future broodstock (as described above), but are not considered to be discard.

2.9 Interactions with Protected, Endangered and Threatened Species

Many parts of the Mekong Delta are of importance for birds, and previous reports by Birdlife Indochina (undated), based largely on surveys during April and December 2000 by Moores, N. and Nguyen Phuc Bao Hoa (2001), have highlighted the main areas. Of particular note to this fishery, sand flats in Bin Dai and Ba Tri are considered to be of importance for waders. Globally endangered species Chinese egret Egretta eulophotes (Binh Dai and Ba Tri districts) and spotted greenshank Tringa guttifer (Binh Da district) were reported in very small numbers (mostly less than ten individuals) on intertidal flats in 2000. The near-threatened Malaysian Plover was found on sand flats in similar numbers in both districts.

However, the major species found in higher numbers are other migratory plovers: the Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus for which a count of 1,300 individuals was made in December 2000 in Ba Tri, and, and the Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaulti of which a maximum count of 3,000 individuals was made on intertidal flats in Binh Da district December 2000; while counts of 140 and 1,425 individuals were made in April and December 2000 respectively in Ba Tri district. Neither of these was reportedly a globally endangered or threatened species but both species were thought to probably meet the 1% population threshold for the Asian biogeographic population. Most co-operative members were aware of the presence of plovers in general (“chim choi choi”), the majority of which would arrive in October and leave in January or February. Some considered that, while the birds would probably feed on small clams, they appeared to preferentially feed on the large numbers of fiddler crabs on the upper shore, but others reported them feeding mainly at the waters edge. If disturbed during clam related activities they would fly a short distance and settle again. During the period that the birds are present in high numbers the main activities would be likely to be harvest or relaying of seed clams.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 20 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

However, due to the rotational nature of the activities, overall disturbance is likely to generally be low.

In the “Decision of proclaiming the list of rare and valuable aquatic species at risk of extinction in Vietnam that should be protected, restored and developed” issued by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development dated on July 17, 2008, the family of Holothuridae is listed as being at the vulnerable level. The species Aphelodactyla australis (Holothurian) is recorded in Ben Tre intertidal flats, although it is thought likely to be more abundant in muddier areas such as channels associated with mangroves. Two large holothurians were observed exposed on the flats during the field visit at Rang Dong when harvesting activities were ongoing, although the species is not known.

There appears to be no scientific data on by-catch during clam harvesting. However, given the low apparent diversity of the sand flat fauna, information from clam managers and co-op members, and experience in other parts of the world where intertidal bivalves are harvested by hand, it seems very unlikely that highly significant by-catches could be expected. Observations made during clam seed and adult clam harvesting support this.

2.10 Other Fisheries Relevant to this Assessment

There are no legal clam activities within Ben Tre outside the fishery as defined for this assessment.

In order to protect clam resource and the natural environment of sand flat areas, other commercial fisheries, whether for clams or other species, are forbidden in the clam management areas including broodstock, clam seed and commercial clam. But in practice, there have been some fishermen from outside the co-operatives who possess fishing boats equipped with engine and trawl net who trespass the management areas and harvest clams illegally. Enforcements by co-operative security officers and Branch of Fisheries Resource Preservation belonging to DARD Ben Tre province are said to have greatly reduced illegal fishing recently, especially during the last 4 years, in which no case of clam illegal fishing have been recorded in any clam co-operatives or groups in Ben Tre Province.

Blood cockle (Andara granosa) is collected on a much smaller scale close to many of the same areas as Meretrix lyrata. While there is some overlap, the blood cockle is mainly found in much muddier areas than Meretrix.

In practice, there is also some artisanal fishing such as occasional small longlines set on the sandflats or various forms of net based traps set in the shallow subtidal including the channels. Statistics on sea fish catches show reported catches of over 50,000 tonnes for the three Ben Tre coastal districts as a whole, coming mainly from the offshore boats associated with Binh Dai and Ba Tri districts.

3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT

3.1 Legislation

In Vietnam as a whole, the Fisheries Law No. 17/2003/QH 11 was approved by National Assembly and it came into effect from July 1st, 2004. According to this law,

FN 07/019 82030 v5 21 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 the clam fishery should abide by some important articles such as preservation of the aquatic environment; and preservation, protection and sustainable development of fisheries resources etc. In particular, Biodiversity Law, Chapter III, article 12 allows no more than 70% of sand flats to be used for clam management.

3.2 Regulations

Regulations applied in Ben Tre for clam management:

 Minimum landing size (implemented through a specified mesh size of usually 30 mm) to protect clams at the size of the first spawning; the mesh size has been 30 mm since September 1998.  The harvest of clam seeds at a size smaller than 5,000 nos./kg (i.e. more than 5,000 nos./kg) for transplanting is fully banned. Only clam seed with a size of 5,000 nos./kg or larger may be harvested, whether for transplanting by the same co-operative or group or for selling on to other co-ops.  Establishment of 10 clam co-operatives and 4 clam groups in three coastal districts to reasonably develop clam management systems and protect clam resources as well as sand flat area environment.  No tractors are allowed on beaches to transport commercial clam harvested.  Only hand collection with rakes and sieves is allowed for harvest of commercial clams and clam seeds.  Temporary closure of clam sand flat area for fishery management purposes can be effected when it is necessary.

3.3 Management organisations and responsibilities

In order to assist with interpretation, a diagram showing the main points in the following section is presented in Figure 3.

At a national level, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) sets regulations such as minimum landing size and mesh size, limitations on the amount of area within which clam management and harvesting is permitted, and regulations banning harvesting from areas recognised as important clam spawning areas. The ministry is also responsible for some aspects such as long term clam fishery planning, assisting with budgets for research projects on aquatic environment and clam resources, hygiene regulations including analysis of chemical / bacterial contamination etc and decisions regarding whether clam quality is suitable to allow harvesting.

At province level, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) of Ben Tre sets by -laws controlling minimum landing size, minimum size for clam seed harvesting; banning of harvesting equipment other than rake, sieve and hand – picking; provides certificates for traceability of commercial clams harvested; services clam extension activities; and organises surveillance activities and takes action against illegal acts. They are also responsible for planning clam management in sand flats areas of coastal districts; controlling matters of hygiene; issuing certificates of origin of marketable clams; issuing (and, if needed, withdrawing) licenses to collectors, and collating statistics on clam activities, including tonnages harvested and exported. Allocation of areas where clam management activites may be carried out is the responsibility of the Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) of Ben Tre.

Within Ben Tre province, clams are managed in the three coastal districts of Binh

FN 07/019 82030 v5 22 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

Dai, Ba Tri and Thanh Phu (see Figure 2). District Fisheries Bureaux have certain responsibilities for the activities of Co-operatives within their district, including setting of targets (via a mollusc working group that considers clam related issues in liaison with other interested parties) and collation of statistics on landings and clam seeds production provided by the co-operatives (to be provided in turn to the DARD Ben Tre province). The Bureaux also organise the local fisheries patrols and enforcement including the use of fisheries patrol boats; many of the enforcement activities include, or are entirely carried out by, members of the co-operatives themselves (see below). Based on information provided from co-operatives they may also request the closure of beds including clam seed beds. This request is made to DARD Ben Tre and reportedly is usually acted upon within a day or two. Although channelled through the bureaux, the closure is often at the request of the co- operatives themselves.

The current licensing arrangements are designed to ensure that customary livelihoods and fishing methods are maintained within the fishery. All locals have the rights to join the clam co-operative, select the chairman and vice – chairman of the co- operative, share in all aspects of the fishery and complain to co-operative leadership or local authorities about unsatisfactory issues. However, the collection of clams by residents and visitors for non-commercial purposes is not allowed.

Within co-operatives the clam management focuses mainly on the setting of annual targets on production of clam seeds and commercial clams; implementing of national regulations on clam resource preservation, environmental protection and clam product hygiene; preventing of illegal fishing in the areas of clam seeds, adult clams and clam brood stock, for example by setting up permanently manned observation posts along the shore, and taking part in fishery patrols on foot or in boats; collecting of natural clam seeds for transplant and re-laying of seed in management area; organising of commercial clam harvest based on the harvest coupons provided to members of the co-op; carrying out of pre and post- harvest surveys on clam biomass available in management areas; keeping of all data related to clam management; sharing of benefit to members of co-operative based on members work contributions during the year.

Clam co-operatives are typically comprised of a management board (one Chairman and two Vice-chairmen) and related units such as an Inspection Board, Security Unit, Organisation and Administrative Unit, Planning and Business Unit, Accountant and Financial Unit. Co-ops own rules are agreed by majority member vote after consultation with members. Typically, once a month all members can attend a financial / management meeting of the clam co-operative, while there are ad hoc other meetings for specific purposes. Management boards meet more frequently than this.

PPC/DARD provides training in management of clams, covering regulations and their implementation as well as more practical matters. However, there is no direct subsidy of the fishery.

There are set levels of dispute resolution. There appear to be few, if any, major disputes, but there are frequent disputes over minor things such as clarifying why people have done or not done certain amounts of work. Disputes are normally settled internally, either by the management board or at meetings of the whole co-operative. Co-ops have recourse to legal and political mechanisms in the theoretical case that they have a dispute with DARD, although it is understood that this has not been

FN 07/019 82030 v5 23 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 necessary in any co-operatives yet. Disputes between adjacent co-operatives also appear not to occur as boundaries are clearly set.

Whilst the preceding, and the diagram in Figure 2, concentrates on the roles of the main organisations with day to day management and advisory responsibilities, other political groups have roles, notably the PPC, which must enact many of the recommendations made by DARD. For example, based on advice provided from DARD and other organisations, the PPC will provide a “red book” to each co- operative that effectively gives the co-operative the right to manage the clams in a given area, and includes a map outlining the area involved. At a more local level the PCC also has a role, including liaison with district bureaux.

There is also a fledgling “Co-operative Alliance” that is expected to allow co- operatives to share experience and knowledge, and to increase co-operationj in areas such as management, clam seed, and brand development (in conjunction with processors).

3.4 Research organisations and research priorities

Research organisations that may be involved in clam related issues include the Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute and HCMC Research Institute for Aquaculture No 2 (RIA no 2) Research Institute of Marine Fisehries (RIMF) and Can Tho University. With input from DARD and others regarding research priorities, they are involved in an advisory role, for example carrying out surveys on mud flat water quality, food chain, and the clam resource itself, including spawning season, growth rates, broodstock surveys and assessing fishable biomass. These organisations mainly report formally to DARD but also advise other organisations within the management chain.

There is presently a research plan developed largely at the request of DARD that is in the early stages of being carried out by RIA no 2. This has a number of important targets including planned and on going projects that will include prevention of waste from fish/shrimp ponds, reduction of oil pollution and research into red tides and other pollutants, improvement of clam protection and development, and development of a co-management model to protect biodiversity in Ham Luong estuary.

3.5 Enforcement and control

Co-ops regularly carry out patrols, or man surveillance posts, with the aim of protecting the clam management area from illegal clam fishing, for example by external fishermen who possess fishing boats equipped with engine and trawl net. However the feed back of 10 clam co-ops shows that in recent years the illegal clam fishing is greatly reduced; and in some clam co-ops no illegal clam fishing is thought to occur.

FN 07/019 82030 v5 24 NATIONAL LEVEL Ministry of Agriculture Sets national regulations (e.g. clams shall only be harvested in identified plots; no harvesting shall take place in areas defined as important clam spawning and Rural Development areas; no more than 70% of suitable sandflats to be used for clam management; no chemicals, antibiotics to be used during management, harvest, post harvest) NAFIQAVED, a part of the Ministry, is the organisation responsible for analysis of chemical / bacterial contamination etc and decisions regarding whether quality is suitable to allow harvesting

Ben Tre Department of PROVINCIAL LEVEL Agriculture & Rural Devt Using advice from DARD, PPC allocates areas where authorised clam management may be carried out. Branch of fisheries resource preservation is responsible for controlling matters of hygiene; issues certificate of origin of marketable clam; issues (and may withdraw) licenses to collectors; DARD ssues other bye-laws including minimum landing size, minimum size for clam seed harvesting; banning of harvesting equipment other than rake and sieve etc. Collate statistics collected from districts and Co-ops and communes.

DISTRICT LEVEL Binh Dai District Fisheries Ba Tri District Fisheries Thanh Phu District Responsible for setting targets for clam fishery via two way Bureau Bureau Fisheries Bureau discussions with communes, via a mollusc working group that considers clam related issues in liaison with other interested parties Collate statistics collected from co-ops and communes. Organise security patrols etc.

FISHERMEN’S CO-OPERATIVES & groups Clam management in sandflat areas of coastal communes. Rang Dong Thanh Thanh Bao An Responsible for security, decisions on harvesting/closing areas locally; Dong Tam Loi Loc ensure that fisheries laws are obeyed; survey clam seed and adult Thuan Thuy Co-op Co-op Co-op Co-op clam areas; organise and carry out relaying / harvesting of Co-op Co-op clams (including decisions on percentage harvested); record amounts collected. Communicate with district Plus one smaller “clam group” Doan Hai Binh Tan bureaus through peoples committee of commune’s. Ket Dong Minh thuy All members of the commune have the right to join the Co-op Co-op Co-op Co-op co-operative and thus take part in labour and share in investment, management and benefits. Plus three smaller “clam groups” OTHER Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute and HCMC Research Institute for Aquaculture No 1 and ResearchFigure 2 InstituteSummary no 2 are of involvedmanagement in an advisory structure, role, roles for example and responsibili carrying outties surveys at September on mud flat 2008. water quality, food chain, clam resource and assessing fishable biomass. Mainly report formally to Province (DARD) but also advise other organisations within the management chain. Research Institute of Marine Fisheries (RIMF) and Can Tho University also carry out clam related research. pxh/ttl/11/2/2009 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

4 FISHERY MANAGEMENT:

4.1 Management Advice

DARD carries out training of co-operative management boards that includes advice to Co-ops on broodstock enhancement and protection, harvest areas, seed clam utilization and management, methods for clam relaying including suitable timing, relaying densities, relaying frequency etc. Major recommendations also include the retention within the sand flat of at least 20% of commercial sized clams (by weight) during harvesting; and that these retained (i.e. non-harvested) clams should consist of the larger clams that can act as a broodstock; advice is provided to less experienced co- operatives for those situations where environmental conditions require action such as movement of clams to more suitable areas.

Recommendations to DARD from Research Institiute for Aquaculture that 40% of suitable clam sand flats should be unmanaged has been revised by DARD which now requires that only 10% should be permanently protected. The main way this is achieved appears to be by limiting the allocation of sand flats to co-operatives, but it seems increasingly that protected/enhanced broodstock areas are included within the definition of unmanaged areas.

A number of worksops and training courses have been run by DARD, in which issues such as relaying techniques, stock survey, harvest percentages, storage and transport of clams, clam survey prior to harvest were covered in detail, and legal and adminsistrative requirements, including the following

 Technical training on clam harvesting (2001, 2008)

 Worshop on assessement and improvement of clam management effect in the clam Co-ops (2007, 2008)

 Technical training on the model of clam co-management in Thanh Phong Commune (2008)

 Workshop on integrated management of coastal area in Thoi Thuan Commune (2008).

4.2 Management Objectives

DARD objectives for fishery and environmental protection are primarily to develop a sustainable clam fishery that effects protection of broodstock, and effective exploitation of the resource of adults and seeds. Objectives are implicit rather than clearly documented.

There are clear short term objectives set by the co-operatives each year in response to market demands, but taking into account the sustainability of the resource, which belongs to them.

There are clear longer term objectives within the co-operatives that relate to the build up and maintenance of broodstock as supply of seed to their management areas. Objectives also include the fair inclusion of all commune members that want to be part of the local clam co-operative.

4.3 Consultative Process

There are significant consultations by DARD – including via Dept Science and Technology and Dept Natural Resources when introducing regulations. Co-operatives hold meetings and internal

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 26 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 consultation/decision-making on a regular basis.

4.4 Reviews of the management system

Internally, DARD is reviewed at 6 or 12 monthly intervals by the Ben Tre Provincial Peoples Committee and by the Ministry Agriculture and Rural Development. Although less formal, there are other activities that constitute informal reviews. Co-operatives have regular meetings (typically at least monthly at which financial and management issues are discussed) together with ad hoc meetings required. At these they regularly review their harvest strategy, relaying activities etc. There are also regular reviews of Co-operative activity by district Fishery Bureaux. DARD carries out regular reviews of both the district Fishery Bureaux and the co-operative activities.

Some aspects of management are reviewed externally at the request of DARD e.g. resurvey of broodstock areas by RIA 2 was requested by DARD to test successful management by broodstock maintenance/enhancement. Also, every major project must by national law have an accompanying EIA which must take into consideration socio-economic, economic and environmental factors and this is thoroughly reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, there is no comprehensive review of the overall effectiveness of the management system at appropriate intervals.

5 STANDARD USED

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.

Principle 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1:

Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame.

1 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 27 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

Principle 3

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

A. Management System Criteria:

1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall:

2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 28 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.

4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.

5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system2.

6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.

10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate.

11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

B. Operational Criteria

Fishing operation shall:

12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.

13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

2 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 29 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;

15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc.

16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.

17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 30 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

6 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

6.1 Evaluation Team

Evaluation leader: Dr Andrew Hough: Moody Marine Limited. Dr Hough has a PhD in marine ecology from the University of Wales, Bangor and fourteen years post-doctoral experience in commercial marine and coastal environmental management projects. He is manager of Moody Marine operations within Moody International Certification with particular responsibility for the implementation of MSC Certification procedures and development of MSC methodologies. Dr. Hough has acted as lead assessor on the majority of Moody Marine MSC pre assessments and main assessments.

Expert advisor: Dr Terry Holt. Dr Holt is a director of CMACS Ltd, UK, with responsibility for managing marine consultancy projects, Environmental Assessments and ecological surveys. He has over twenty five years experience in shellfish ecology, marine aquaculture, EIA’s and benthic fish and invertebrate surveys, including providing expert evidence on molluscan fisheries at planning enquiries. Dr Holt has previously been involved in Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre- assessments and main assessments for Moody Marine (Burry Inlet Cockle fishery and South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish) and has worked on mollusce fishery pre-assessments in SE Asia. He also contributed at early MSC workshops on the development of generic scoring guidelines and refining of assessment methods.

Expert advisor: Mr Tran Truong Luu. Mr Luu is a Fisheries/ Aquaculture consultant, and until 1996 was Senior Researcher on Fisheries Resources and Aquaculture Planning at the Research Institute for Aquaculture No.2 (RIA 2), HCMC, Vietnam. His particular experience includes (since 2003) assessments on clam fishing methods, clam management area, clam management system, management practices implemented, estimates of fishable biomass and other relevant activities. He has also carried out surveys on value of clam resource, clam researches carried out by Vietnamese authors, distribution of clam ground in the Mekong Delta, clam management and markets and processing methods. Other experience includes various aspects of wild-harvest and aquaculture fisheries and other water management projects. Mr. Luu has also been involved in an MSC feasibility study of the Ben Tre Clam fishery

6.2 Previous certification evaluations

The fishery has not been previously assessed against the MSC standard.

6.3 Inspections of the Fishery

Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations, the mechanisms and effectiveness of management agencies and the operation of the clam Co-operatives. The landing and subsequent handling of clams was also briefly investigated to determine the suitability of clams landed to enter into a subsequent chain of custody.

Meetings were held as follows. The key issues discussed have been identified for each meeting.

A meeting with Dr Nguyen Thanh Tung of the Sub-Institute for Fisheries Economic and Planning (SIFEP) was held at SIFEP offices in Ho Chi Minh City on 30/7/08.

A meeting with fisheries staff of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) of Ben Tre Province (former Dept of Fisheries of ben Tre Province was very recently amalgamated into DARD) on the morning of 31/7/2008. Staff present included:  Head of Technical division

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 31 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

 Vice Director – works with all Co-ops including clam management as well as investment and processing.  Vice head of economic planning div – aquaculture brackish and sea  Representative of policy division (livelihood in rural areas)  Head of technical division – agriculture and cultivation  Vice director directorate of fish exploitation and protection and monitor quality of fish produce  Representative of fishery extension centre – monitoring investment in fishery extension and monitoring environment  Officers from the economic planning and technical division

Along with several representatives of DARD Ben Tre province, a meeting with management board members of Rang Dong co-operative (a relatively long-established and well respected clam co- opeative in Binh Dai District) to discuss clam resource and management, was carried out on July 31st, 2008. This was followed by a site visit to sand flat areas where clam seed collection, clam management and commercial clam harvesting take place; commercial clam harvest was observed. During the site visit some members of the co-op who take part in clam management activities were observed or interviewed to discuss things such as clam-relaying methods, harvest tools, workings of the co-operative from the point of view of ordinary co-operative members, catches per man day, clam predators and their control and a variety of other issues.

On August 1st, 2008 a meeting and site visit were carried out in Doan Ket – a newly established co-op (September, 2007) in Thanh Phu District. Several co-operative board members including chairman, vice chairman and several members responsible for fishery protection issues were present. As well as general clam management issues, this allowed the team to investigate the ways in which new potential areas for clam fishery are identified and developed.

During this assessment, some further ad-hoc meetings were held with various representatives of DARD Ben Tre to discuss various aspects of the fishery.

Finally a workshop with the participation of 31 stakeholders was held at the office of DARD Ben Tre to receive information relating to the impacts of the clam fishery on the natural clam resource, local environment and ecology, as well as clam management systems. Stakeholders present were: DARD 9 people Dept of Science and Technology 1 “ District level DARD 3 “ Proceessors 2 “ Co-operative alliance 1 “ Co-operative management board members 15 “ (10 co-operatives).

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 32 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

7.1 Stakeholder Consultation

An eventual total of 29 stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine. Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment:

Table 1: Stakeholder Consultations Held Date Purpose Media 9 July 2007 Notification of confirmation of Direct E-mail/letter assessment Notification on MSC website 10 July 2007 Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail nominees Notification on MSC website 14 August 2007 Confirmation of Assessment Team Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 12 May 2008 Consultation on draft Performance Direct E-mail Indicators and Scoring Guideposts Notification on MSC website 26 June 2008 Release of final Performance Direct E-mail Indicators and Scoring Guideposts Notification on MSC website 17 June 2008 Notification of assessment visit and Direct E-mail call for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 31 July to 4 August Assessment visit Meetings 2008 21 January 2009 Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail Reviewers Notification on MSC website 28 July 2009 Notification of Draft Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 12 Ocotber 2009 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website

7.2 Stakeholder Issues

Feedback from stakeholders has not resulted in the identification of issues requiring specific investigation.

No comments or submissions were received from stakeholders in response to consultation on this report in draft.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 33 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

8 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING

8.1 Introduction to scoring methodology

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Performance Indicators against which the performance of fishery can be measured according to pre-specified guideposts.

The Performance Indicators developed by the Moody Marine assessment team have been identified on the MSC website (Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts). In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these guideposts identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Performance Indicator.

These generic Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts have been the subject of stakeholder consultation and have been confirmed or modified following this process based on the judgement of the assessment team. Prior to scoring, the Indicators are also ‘weighted’ in relative importance according to the nature of the fishery undergoing certification.

At the top level, no weightings are assigned in terms of each MSC Principle; a fishery must ‘pass’ each of Principles 1, 2 and 3 in order to achieve certification and these are of equal importance.

Within each Principle, and related to each MSC Criterion, Sub-criteria and Performance Indicators are grouped in a hierarchy. Each level represents separate areas of important information (e.g. Indicator 1.1 requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on).

At the level of the Performance Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall weighted average score of 80 is necessary for each of the three Principles and no Indicator should score less than 60. Accordingly, 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of performance and 60 a measurable shortfall. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is used in evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude level of scoring, weighted average scores are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Weights and scores for the Fishery are presented in the scoring table. Weights for criteria, sub-criteria and Performance Indicators add to a total of 100 at each level of the hierarchy. Scores are allocated relative to the Scoring Guideposts.

8.2 Evaluation results

Observations are presented in the scoring table, together with any weighting applied to the Fishery and the scores allocated.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 34 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

9 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS

Traceability

Product is recorded at the point of capture and immediately transported to processing facilities. Traceability is secure.

At-Sea processing

Product is always landed whole in-shell.

Points of Landing

Product is collected on the shore during low water and immediately transferred into waiting vessels which are ‘beached’ at the collecting point. The vessels then transfer product to processing faciltities when tide flood the shore.

Eligibility to enter Chain of Custody

Product from the certified fishery is eligible to enter future Chain of Custody.

The target eligibility date for product from the fishery (as and when certified) to bear the MSC label is confirmed as 14 February 2009.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 35 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

10 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Certification recommendation

The Performance of the Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below:

MSC Principle Fishery Performance

Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock Overall : 89 PASS

Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall : 84 PASS

Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall : 93 PASS

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any Indicators. It is therefore Determined that the Ben Tre Clam Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

10.2 Scope of Certification

This assessment relates only to the fishery defined in Section 1.1 up to the point of landing as defined in Section 9

10.3 Conditions or Recommendations Associated with Certification

10.3.1 Conditions

The fishery attained a score of below 80 against a number of Performance Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that Ben Tre DARD, as the client for certification, is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.

As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for Meeting the Conditions for Continued Certification', to be approved by Moody Marine.

The conditions are associated with three key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses a number of Scoring Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Scoring Indicators are set out below.

Condition 1. Effects on sandflat communities

Action required: The impacts on clam harvest on sandflat invertebrate communities are expected to present a low risk to community structure. The fishery currently exploits a minority of the available sandflat area, but this is expected to increase. The effects of clam harvest on community structure (e.g. comparisons of the species composition and number of each species in harvested and non- harvested areas) have not, however been studied.

The effect of clam harvesting should be investigated to determine the impact on sandflat community structure and the level of impact considered in terms of overall impacts on sandflat invertebrate

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 36 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 communities within Ben Tre. If impacts are significant, appropriate management measures should be implemented.

Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the second annual surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the third surveillance audit.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.4.4

Condition 2. Effects of disturbance of shorebirds (chim choi choi)

Action required: Ben Tre may support internationally important numbers of some species of shorebird (e.g the wader, greater sand plover). Disturbance during harvesting may pose a risk to these migratory species through prevention of feeding which may place an energetic stress on the birds.

There should be estimation (e.g in some representative co-operatives) of the numbers and species of shorebirds present (seasonally) and the extent to which these may be disturbed by harvesting (e.g. the distances/number of times birds need to move to find alternate feeding locations).

Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the third surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the fourth surveillance audit.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.2.1.3

Condition 3. External review

Action required: Mechanisms exist for DARD to instigate scientific studies to answer specific management questions, and are subject to monitoring by, for example, the Ministry and PCC. However, there is no systematic and thorough independent review of the appropriateness of the entire management system from DARD to co-operative level. This may be particularly relevant given proposed changes in clam harvest areas within Ben Tre.

Timescale: A review programme with terms of reference and review frequency should be developed by the first annual surveillance audit and enacted thereafter.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 3A.1.4

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 While the present level of use appears undoubtedly sustainable the future increases in exploited areas may lead to inadequate protection of sand flat areas. This will be a subject monitored closely during future surveillance audits. Protected sand flat areas can be viewed as an important element of “the precautionary principle” in bivalve fisheries, and have numerous potential benefits, including acting as a reservoir of adult clams; acting as an area of undisturbed habitat for other benthic fauna, and acting as a refuge from disturbance for birds. Information presented to the team on likely future usage of sand flats was unclear and this could lead to issues in future audits. It is therefore recommended that the fishery prepare a clear definitive statement of proposed future usage within the regulatory framework. This should be based on sand flat areas suitable for clams, and not subject to

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 37 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5 confusion with other protected areas such as mud flats or mangrove areas. It should be made clear in all cases whether the definition of “managed” or “Protected” (=unmanaged) areas include broodstock areas, or areas where clam seed naturally settle. Clear, accurate maps of present managed and unmanaged areas would be extremely helpful in this regard.

A further recommendation has been suggested by peer reviewer B which is hereby brought to the client’s attention.

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 38 Moody Marine Public Certification Report: Ben Tre Clam Fishery v5

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Scoring Table

Appendix B: Peer Review Reports 1. Peer Reviewer Biographies 2. Peer Review Report A 3. Peer Review Report B

Appendix C: Client Action Plan

FN 07/019 82036 v5 Page 39 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those 33.0 93 populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 75.0 93 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 1.1.1 There should be sufficient information on the target species and stock separation to allow the effects of the fishery on the stock to be evaluated. 25.0 - 1.1.1.1 Is the species readily identified as adults and juveniles? 16.7 100 60 Misidentification is possible and Only one species of Meretrix occurs in the South of Vietnam. This is M. lyrata (Ben Tre clam) which Tadashiige Habe, increases recording errors of occurs in two colour forms, white and brown. Sadao Kossuge catches, but this does not (1966); &Nguyen compromise monitoring to Adults can be clearly identified at all sizes encountered. Clam seed at sizes used for management are also Chinh 1996) unacceptable levels. easily identified. Nguyen Huu Phung 80 The target species are unlikely to et al (2001). be confused with any other species; or, if target species are grouped, then life history or stock identification information exists to justify this grouping. 100 The species is readily identified by fishers and by regulators and is recorded appropriately.

1.1.1.2 Is the life history of the species understood? 16.7 85 60 There are gaps in information The life history is clearly documented. It is known that males and females are separate, with good Nha Trang Oceanog. but the basics of the life history information on size and age at maturity, fecundity, and habitat preferences (typically sands with 20% or Inst. 2001. are understood. less of mud) and timing of spawning seasons (March to June/July, strongest in June /July, with a secondary Nguyen Huu Phung 80 The life history of the species is spawning in some years in the autumn and/or winter; but some spawning is possible all year). et al, 2001 clearly documented and Nguyen Van Luc et understood. Larval phase is less well described, although diurnal movements within the water column have been al, 2001a;b 100 The life history of the species is described. However, the main ecological interactions of adults are well known: there are limited predators Quayle 1988 clearly documented and on adults, mostly gastropods that live mainly subtidally. There are a number of other species including Interview with Dr understood including behaviour crabs and birds that feed on the younger clams. Nguyen Thanh and ecological interactions. Truang RIA No 1 The life history of the species is clearly documented and understood, together with some information on ecological requirements (sediment types) and behaviour (movement of large adults to deeper water).

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.3 Is the geographical range of the target stock known? 16.7 100 60 An estimate of the geographical Information is available on the distribution of the species. DARD interviews; range of the target stock is Co-operative available. A management unit The target population is within Ben Tre, mapped by NTOI, and distribution is known in detail, including interviews and field approximating the stock is used seed clam, commercial sized and adult broodstock clams, for each co-operative. visits with some biological justification. NTOI, 2001; 80 A reliable estimate of the The complete geographic range of the stock is therefore demonstrably understood and verified. geographic range of the target stock is available. 100 The complete geographic range of the stock is demonstrably understood and verified.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.4 Is information collected on the abundance/density/composition of the stock? 16.7 90 60 Either fishery dependent or fishery NTOI survey of whole Ben Tre coastline reported in 2000 of entire managed and non-managed (then) Nguyen Nguyen Du independent indices are available areas. Subsequent surveys by RIA2 (2005-07) provide fishery independent surveys. et al, 2007 on the Nguyen Van Luc et abundance/density/composition of Each co-op also surveys own area prior to harvest to estimate harvestable biomass, and in most cases al, 2001b the stock biomass. Qualitative also post-harvest to verify results. Occasionally more than one stock survey may be carried out each NTOI (Nha Trang information exists on the season. Surveys may also be carried out to determine whether further relaying is required. Oceanographic appropriateness of the indices as Institute) 2001 proportional indicators of stock Sub-tidal broodstock is also surveyed during low tides to estimate abundance and allow management DARD interviews status. although these surveys probably lack detail. Co-operative 80 Fishery dependent and/or fishery interviews independent indices are available Management activities provide clear indications of seed and adult biomass within managed areas. on the abundance / density / composition of the stock. Some post-harvest analyses of harvest in relation to available area are carried out. Uncertainties have been analysed and those uncertainties have been Fishery dependent and fishery independent indices are therefore available on the density of the stock. reduced so as to allow trends to be Uncertainties are largely irrelevant as the fishery is intertidal – trends can be clearly and directly determined from indices. determined from indices. 100 Fishery dependent and fishery independent indices are available on the abundance /density / composition of the stock. Indices are consistent and there is clear evidence that they are proportional to the stock status.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.5 Is information available on environmental influences on the stock dynamics? 16.7 90 60 Some relevant studies have been Events affecting stock dynamics such as suspended sediment/siltation; salinity; dissolved oxygen levels NTOI 2001 undertaken on the effects of and temperature events have been determined. Tolerance ranges of clam have been determined based on Nguyen Nguyen Du biological and physical factors observation. et al, 2007 which could affect the stock Nguyen Thanh Tung (including natural mortality). Sediment preferences and shore height (in terms of immersion times) have been determined for seed, et al, 2007 Research is encouraged and adult and broodstock. ongoing. 80 There is knowledge of biological Natural mortality of adults is known to be low. Predators of small clam are known (gastropods and crabs and physical factors affecting can be important; birds also feed probably on small clams but not considered problematical). distribution, survival and year class strength (including natural Information is used to manage clam – for example to move broodstock in high sediment/low mortality). Some information is salinity/strong current events or to remove predatory gastropods. sufficiently robust for use in the stock assessment process. There is knowledge of biological and physical factors affecting distribution, survival and year class 100 There is comprehensive knowledge strength (including natural mortality). Key information is sufficiently robust for use in the stock of biological and physical factors management process. affecting distribution, survival and year class strength (including natural mortality). Key information is sufficiently robust for use in the stock assessment process, either in the assessment models or formally in the interpretation of results of assessment models.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.6 Is there information on the variability in recruitment and can this be used to predict recruitment to the 16.7 100 fishery? 60 There is some information on Broodstock is managed to enhance ongoing recruitment. Broodstock and seed are protected in relevant DARD interview factors generating recruitment areas. Co-operative variability, including some time- interviews/field visits series data. Recruitment to adult beds is known accurately as seed is re-distributed or re-laid in the management 80 There is some direct measurement area. This provides a clear indication of future recruitment to the fishery. In general settlement of seed of recruitment and/or ongoing clams occurs very close to adult broodstock areas and the main influences on recruitment of importance research into the factors generating for managers are mortalities of young adult clams due to siltation / salinity / temperature events. recruitment variability so as to predict future recruitment. Good There is, therefore, reliable monitoring of recruitment through monitoring and re-distribution of seed. time series data are available. Information (combined with the effects of environmental events) can be reliably used to predict 100 There is reliable monitoring of recruitment for short-medium term stock projections. recruitment and/or strong evidence of ongoing research projects to study recruitment variability factors with some evidence of an understanding of those factors. Information, built up over a long time series exists and can be reliably used to predict recruitment for medium term stock projections.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2 There should be sufficient information on the fishery to allow its effects on the target stock to be evaluated 25.0 - 1.1.2.1 Are all major sources of fishery related mortality recorded/estimated, including landings, discards, 35.1 100 incidental mortality and mortality of juveniles? 60 Sufficient information is available Landings are accurately recorded. DARD interview to allow accurate estimates to be Co-operative made of landings. Estimates of Discards are of small clam below commercial size (which re-bury) or large clam which provide interviews/field visits discards and incidental mortality broodstock. Nguyen Nguyen Du are available. et al, 2007 80 Landings are accurately recorded. There is a long history of movement and redistribution of clam of all ages that demonstrates good Discards and incidental mortality survivorship. are well estimated or survivorship of discards can be expected to be Therefore, landings, discards and incidental mortality are accurately monitored or survivorship of high. discards can be demonstrated. 100 Landings, discards and incidental mortality are accurately monitored or survivorship of discards can be demonstrated.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.2 Are fishing methods and gear types known throughout the fishery? 10.9 100 60 Main fishing methods and gear Fishing is through hand-gathering with simple mesh bags, with or without the aid of a simple metal National regulations. types are known for the fishery. implement. This is the only method used. Seasonal and geographical DARD interview variations are estimated. Fishing practices are observed by co-operative and DARD officials. Co-operative 80 Main fishing methods and gear interviews/field visits types are known and information is Therefore, all fishing methods and gear types employed in the fishery are known. In-situ observations available on the geographical areas are made of fishing practices. of use. This is updated at irregular intervals. Seasonal and geographical variations are known. 100 All fishing methods and gear types employed in the fishery are known. In-situ observations are made of fishing practices.

1.1.2.3 Is the target species taken in other fisheries in the area that are not subject to this certification and are 35.1 90 such catches recorded or estimated? 60 There is some information relating The only other ‘fishery’ affecting clams is the illegal fishery. Illegal fishing is much reduced in recent DARD interview to other fisheries in the area that years due to the strong incentives for co-operatives to protect their own resources. Surveillance is Co-operative are not subject to this certification, carried out through co-operatives (by setting up permanently manned observation posts along the shore, interviews/field visits although these are not fully and taking part in fishery patrols on foot or in boats) with help from DARD and Fisheries Bureaux, and identified. Catches are estimated. infringements can be punished, for example by fines, or loss of co-operative rights. 80 The main fisheries not subject to certification are identified. Catches All fisheries in the area that are not subject to this certification are therefore identified and monitored. of the target species are either IUU catches are estimated to be low and would be effectively taken into account, pre-harvest, by the co- recorded or estimated. operative stock surveys (including surveys of broodstock). 100 All fisheries (and other sources of human-induced mortality) in the area that are not subject to this certification are identified and monitored. All the catches are recorded.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.4 Is gear selectivity known for the fishery? 18.9 100 60 Information is available on Clams are collected by hand gathering (for seed and adult) and selectivity is extremely high and well NTOI 2001 selectivity and qualitative changes controlled in all locations and times of fishing. Nets allow small clam to return and gathered clams are in selectivity. also sorted by hand. Fishers are strongly encouraged to return large clams that will form the future RIA surveys 80 Selectivities of gear types are well broodstock, and due to the way in which the co-operatives are organised there seems to be little or no estimated for key locations and incentive for them not to do so, as was observed; frequency of return of large clams is therefore expected DARD interview times. to be extremely high. Co-operative 100 Full selectivities have been interviews/field visits accurately estimated for all gears, Full selectivities have therefore been accurately estimated for all gears, locations and times of fishing locations and times of fishing over over a suitable time period. a suitable time period.

1.1.3 There is a well-defined and effective harvest strategy to manage the target stock. 25.0 - 1.1.3.1 Is the stock status evaluated relative to appropriate reference points/spawning stock levels? 20.0 90 60 The stock status is estimated Within Ben Tre there are levels set on the allocation of intertidal area. Within each allocated DARD interview relative to reference points or management area there are also unharvested ‘buffer’ areas. Co-operative levels of spawning stock that interviews/field visits would reasonably be expected to Each co-operative sets limits on harvest of commercial sized adult clam. The level of harvest varies maintain productivity. between co-operatives depending on the status of local broodstock; well established broodstock will lead 80 There is an adequate evaluation of to higher harvest (maximum is 80%), whereas newer co-operatives will typically collect 60% of adult the stock status relative to the biomass on the first harvesting occasion to allow build-up of a local broodstock. Broodstock is reference points or known/tested protected. levels of spawning stock that would reasonably be expected to There is therefore an adequate evaluation of the stock status relative to known/tested levels of spawning maintain productivity. stock that would reasonably be expected to maintain productivity, and is subject to continual monitoring 100 The assessment makes a reliable and adjustment. probabilistic evaluation of the stock status relative to reference points or known/tested levels of spawning stock and projects these into the future over appropriate timescales and under appropriate assumptions about future management actions.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.3.2 Are limits on harvest, and/or other management actions, specified which would maintain a population 20.0 85 consistent with that maintaining high long-term productivity (in a precautionary manner).

60 Limits and / or other management Clam seed above a minimum size are harvested and re-laid for on-growing in suitable allocated areas. National regulations actions are specified which can Each co-operative sets limits on harvest of commercial sized adult clam. The level of harvest varies on clam seed size, reasonably be expected to maintain between co-operatives depending on the status of local broodstock, well established broodstock will lead harvestable clam a population consistent with that to higher harvest (maximum is 80%), whereas newer co-operatives will typically collect 60% of adult size; DARD providing high long-term biomass on the first harvesting occasion to allow build-up of a local broodstock. Broodstock areas are regulations productivity. Some precaution is protected. implementing these; applied in the absence of clear DARD interview definition of population levels Limits on allocation of intertidal area for harvest, harvest control and other management actions (such as Co-operative required to maintain long term broodstock protection and relaying of seed) are specified which can be expected to maintain a population interviews/field visits productivity. consistent with that providing high long-term productivity. Appropriate levels of precaution are applied. 80 Limits and / or other appropriate management actions are specified which can be expected to maintain a population consistent with that providing high long-term productivity. Appropriate levels of precaution are applied. 100 Limits and / or other management actions are specified which have been clearly demonstrated to be effective in maintaining a population consistent with that providing high long-term productivity.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.3.3 Are clear, tested decision rules set out to constrain harvest, or apply other appropriate management 20.0 90 actions, in relation to these limits? 60 It can be demonstrated that decision Harvest decision rule making by co-ops are clear on harvesting of adult and seed (size grade is DARD interview making, though not documented, is specified). Co-ops have a management board that takes advice from DARD on and has clear guidance Co-operative logical and appropriate. Rules may for implementation of harvest rules. interviews/field not have been tested. visits 80 Clear decision making rules exist, Co-ops generally prioritise relaying into their own area first and will sell excess seed if available. This is are fully documented, but may not purely a local decision made at the time. Co-operative “red have been fully evaluated. Decision books” rules are reconciled with appropriate Rules are specified on maintenance of broodstock. Percentage of available clam harvested is based on reference points (or equivalent broodstock condition (re long-term productivity), clam resource in management area (determined by measures) and with data and survey) and market requirements. The percentage harvested may increase with broodstock security. assessment limitations. 100 Clear, documented and tested Clear, recorded and tested decision rules are therefore fully implemented within co-operatives and are decision rules are fully implemented fully reconciled with relevant necessary measures to maintain productivity (broodstock maintenance), and have been fully reconciled with and data on clam abundance, and are kept under continuing review. reference points (or equivalent measures), and the data and assessment limitations, and have been periodically evaluated.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.3.4 Is there a mechanism in place (e.g. through input or output controls) to contain harvest as required? 20.0 100 60 Mechanisms exist to monitor and There is estimation of the amount of clam available and so the amount to be harvested (based on DARD interview reduce harvest (or apply other decision rule percentage). This includes a proportion of the stock which is to be retained for future Co-operative appropriate management actions), broodstock. interviews/field visits but may not fully contain harvest, or have not been tested/evaluated. In some co-operatives, the harvest area is divided into smaller areas which are exploited at different 80 Mechanisms are in place to reduce times. harvest (or apply other appropriate management actions) as and when Finally, there is a bag limit per gatherer per day (typically 2-4, as specified by the co-operative) and required to maintain, or allow the gatherers are assigned rights to gather. All gathering is carried out as a group activity in the presence of target stock to return to, productive co-operative and DARD / Bureaux managers and security officers. levels. 100 Mechanisms are in place to reduce Mechanisms are therefore in place within co-operatives to control harvest (and apply other appropriate harvest (or apply other appropriate management actions such as re-seeding or broodstock enhancement) as and when required to maintain, management actions) as and when or allow the target stock to return to, productive levels. Measures are demonstrably effective. required to maintain (or allow the target stock to return to) productive levels. Measures to demonstrate effectiveness are in place.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.3.5 Are appropriate management tools specified to implement decisions? 20.0 100 60 Management tools exist to Harvesting relaying and any other clam related activities can only be carried out by the co-operative DARD interview implement decisions (e.g. of input members and are organised by the co-operative. For example, when the harvest limit has been reached Co-operative and/or output controls) although no more harvesting will be allowed. Because bags harvested are strictly controlled by a coupon system interviews/field visits these are not developed for the and bags are counted and weighed as they arrive at the single collection point (boat moored on the beach specific fishery, or management at the collection area), harvest is very accurately known at all times. Co-operative red tools are not fully developed, but books are specifically related to the Management tools, appropriate to the species and fishery, have therefore been specified to implement fishery. Some evidence exists to decisions through closure of fishery when specified level of harvest is reached. Tools are responsive, show that tools can be effective. relevant and timely, being developed by the co-operative themselves. Performance of the tools has been 80 Management tools have been evaluated within the co-operatives and evidence exists to show clearly that tools achieve their objectives specified to implement decisions in closing the fishery. (e.g of input and/or output controls). These are generic although some attempt has been made to relate them to the specific fishery OR tools are lacking in some details but are specifically related to the fishery. Evidence exists to show clearly that tools are effective. 100 Management tools, appropriate to the species and fishery, have been specified to implement decisions (e.g. of input and/or output controls). Tools are responsive, relevant and timely. Performance of the tools has been evaluated and evidence exists to show clearly that tools achieve their objectives.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4 The stock is/are at an appropriate level to maintain long-term productivity. 25.0 - 1.1.4.1 Is there evidence that stock status is consistent with that providing long-term productivity? 100 80 [YES - Criteria 1 is complete. NO - Answer Criteria 2] 60 The stock has a high probability of Within the Province as a whole allocation of sand flat for clam management has not yet reached the Nha Trang Oceanog being above limit reference points target in terms of total area. Inst. 2001. or is biologically close to levels of Nguyen Huu Phung spawning stock that would Within individual co-operatives the stocks are maintained in a way that prioritises maintenance of the et al, 2001 reasonably be expected to maintain local broodstock before harvest of adult clams. Stocks of commercial clams are maintained by measures Nguyen Van Luc et long-term productivity. outlined elsewhere. al, 2001a;b Nguyen Nguyen Du 80 The stock has a high probability of While these levels of protection appear precautionary and experience shows that they lead to high levels et al, 2007 being above its limit reference of production, they have not been formally tested. point and the stock is at, or fluctuating around, its target Comparison of 2007 surveys by RIA 2 with those of 2001 by Nha Trang suggest there may have been a reference point; or the stock has a decline in broodstock status at Rang Dong (along the Ba Lai River), at least partially because of changes high probability of being at or to sand flats/river channel reducing suitable areas. On the other hand the adjacent area of dense clam above known/tested levels of seed settlement is reported to have increased in recent years, and there are efforts to establish an spawning stock that would additional substantial area of broodstock in a channel a few km east of the main broodstock that appear reasonably be expected to maintain to be succeeding. long-term productivity The stock in the province as a whole, and within each district, therefore has a high probability of being at 100 The stock has a high probability of or above levels that would reasonably be expected to maintain long-term productivity. being consistently at or above its target reference levels or well above known/tested levels of spawning stock that would reasonably be expected to maintain long-term productivity.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.2 (MSC Criterion 2) Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a - - specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 1.2.1 If the stock is below the appropriate reference point, or trends in the stock are significantly negative, are - - measures to rebuild the stock specified? 60 Appropriate rebuilding measures This Criterion does not apply as the score for PI 1.1.4.1 is over 80. through reduction in exploitation exist and are being implemented. Rebuilding measures other than reduction in exploitation are being considered.

Measures are implemented but may not have been tested. 80 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery within reasonable time frames.

Measures have been tested, in this or a comparable situation, and can be shown to be effective in rebuilding the stock. 100 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery as quickly as possible.

Additional measures are being implemented to prevent problems in the future.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs 25.0 83 reproductive capacity. 1.3.1 Fishing activity maintains the age, genetic structure or sex composition of the stock to a degree that does not impair reproductive 100 - capacity. 1.3.1.1 Is there adequate information on the population and sex ratios and age structure and the existence of 33.3 80 possible sub-populations? 60 There is some information Beyond a few years clams are difficult to age. However, density and size of clams in broodstock is Nha Trang Oceanog available on the sex and age known in general by periodic checks by the co-operative (and by recent re-surveys of the RIA no 2). Inst. 2001. structure and the presence of sub- There are local populations of broodstock especially along the Ba Lai River Mouth but also elsewhere Nguyen Huu Phung populations within the stock, and that are enhanced or created by the management methods. There have been surveys (in 2001) of natural et al, 2001 the relationship of these to adult clam populations that are not managed (that include information on age structure and sex ratios of Nguyen Van Luc et reproductive capacity. adults). Managed broodstocks are the main sub-populations. al, 2001a;b 80 Estimates are available of the sex and age structure and the presence Knowledge of adult clam and broodstock age and sex composition is therefore adequate for the purposes of sub-populations within the of assessing reproductive capacity stock, and the relationship of these to reproductive capacity. 100 There is comprehensive and reliable information on the sex and age structure and the presence of sub-populations within the stock, and the relationship of these to reproductive capacity as well as evaluations of the implications of shifts in these parameters on productivity and management quantities.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3.1.2 Are the age and sex structure and genetic structure/status of sub-populations of the stock monitored so as 33.3 80 to detect any impairment of reproductive capacity? 60 Population structure is based on Age structure is monitored mainly by using size as a proxy by the co-operatives; additional surveys from Nha Trang Oceanog some sampling and verification. the whole sand flat have been carried out by research organisations in 2000 and more recently. Sex Inst. 2001. Some information on sub- structure and genetic structure are not considered likely to be strongly important in the clam fishery. Nguyen Huu Phung populations is available as Strong gene flow between sub populations is likely. et al, 2001 necessary. Nguyen Van Luc et 80 Population structure is based on Population structure is well known in individual commercial clam beds because the co-operatives place al, 2001a;b adequate sampling and verification them there. Population structure in individual broodstock areas is monitored by regular inspection by the DARD interview for this stock. Genetic or sub- co-operatives. Co-operative population studies have been interviews/field visits carried out as appropriate. Sex structure is less well studied because there has been no reason to assume that it is of relevance to 100 Population structure is well management of a clam fishery (more relevant to finfish fisheries). One study has shown that sex ratio estimated with only insignificant can vary with season and size. There is no indication of any recruitment problems caused by sex errors. Genetic or sub-population structure but this criterion would score higher if there was more information. studies have been conducted at appropriate time intervals. Thus sub populations are well monitored for size/age at the level of individual co-operatives with occasional surveys within the overall sandflat; less information is available on sex ratios but there is no evidence of any likelihood of problems in this respect, but this criterion would score higher if there was more information. Genetic studies are not considered necessary.

1.3.1.3 Does information indicate any changes in structure that would alter reproductive capacity? 33.3 90 60 Changes is stock structure have Broodstock composed of a varied age structure including some old clams may have to be built up from Nha Trang Oceanog been detected but there is no initial low levels. Broodstock clams reportedly sometimes reaches levels after a few years where there is Inst. 2001. evidence of negative effect on strong competition for space between clams, and large broodstock clams that cannot bury have to be Nguyen Huu Phung recruitment of the stock. harvested or moved, although there is no evidence for such high densities from any survey data. et al, 2001 80 There is evidence of no fishery- Nguyen Van Luc et related changes in stock structure Although clam seed recruitment is variable, the major cause of this variability is thought to be al, 2001a;b that would affect recruitment. environmentally induced (e.g. high temperatures) and not due to larval supply except in the case of new DARD interview 100 Data strongly indicate a robust age, management areas with insufficient natural seed supply. Co-operative sex and genetic structure in the interviews/field visits stock, such as would maintain Thus there is no evidence of any likelihood of problems in this respect with either broodstock clams or reproductive capacity. clam seed recruitment

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including 33.3 84 habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends 2.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 50.0 87 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2.1.1 There is adequate determination of ecosystem factors relevant to the geographical scale and life history strategy of the target species. 33.3 - 2.1.1.1 Are the nature, sensitivity and distribution of habitats relevant to the fishing operations known? 16.7 90 60 Information exists on the main Access to sandflats is by boat or on foot. The distribution of fishing operations (locations of managed DARD interview habitat types but may not be areas and location of fishing within managed areas) is extremely well known. Co-operative comprehensive or up to date. The interviews/field visits seasonal distribution of fishing There is no evidence, despite local knowledge and scientific studies, of the presence of sea grass beds or operations is known. other particularly sensitive habitats. 80 The nature and distribution of all main habitat types are known in General habitat distributions have been mapped to a broad level and habitat distributions in managed moderate detail. Information is areas are well understood. The information is continually updated. recent. The distribution of fishing operations is monitored and the The nature and distribution of all main habitat types relevant to fishing operations are therefore known in sensitivity of key habitats is good detail. Information is recent. The distribution of fishing operations is monitored and the sensitivity understood. of key habitats (in terms of time for recovery) is understood by fishers and managers. 100 The nature, sensitivity and the distribution of all habitats relevant to the fishing operations are known in detail. Information is recent. The distribution of fishing operations and their effort is monitored.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.2 Is information available on non-target species directly affected by the fishery? 16.7 90 60 The main non-target species There is no by-catch in the fishery, only clam are directly harvested. DARD interview affected have been identified. Co-operative 80 Information is available on non- There are effects associated with the fishery on other molluscan species notably the gastropods Natica interviews/field visits target species directly affected by and Polyices. These are lower shore/subtidal species that may be harvested as food when on sandflats in the fishery including some higher densities, normally during north-easterly monsoon winds. These are thought to be possibly information on their distribution predatory on clams but not harvested because of this. and ecology. 100 Information is available on all non- Other benthos would be indirectly affected by harvesting activity. Studies have been undertaken on target species directly affected by benthic species within sandflats during general scientific investigation of the area, detailing species and the fishery including their their distribution along the Ben Tre coast. distribution and ecology. Information is therefore available on non-target species directly affected by the fishery including some information on their distribution and ecology.

2.1.1.3 Is information available on the trophic position, status and relationships of the target species within the 33.3 80 food web? 60 Key prey, predators and Clam are filter feeders on plankton. Main predators are gastropod molluscs and crabs and also (in all NTOI 2001 competitors are known. likelihood) migratory shorebirds (notably waders predating on small seed clams). For these, clams are a RIA no 2 surveys 80 Information is available on the part (potentially significant in areas of high density, particularly in October to January or February when position, relationships and the birds are present at highest numbers) of the overall benthic food resource. Moores, N. and importance of target species in the Nguyen Phuc Bao environment at key life stages. Information is available on the position, relationships and importance of target species in the Hoa (2001) 100 Information is available on the environment at key life stages. Birdlife International, position and importance of the undated target species and their relationships within the food web at key life stages. Qualitative information is available on major interactions.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.4 Is there information on the potential for the ecosystem to recover from fishery related impacts? 33.3 80 60 Key elements of the functioning of Fishery related impacts relate to sediment disturbance, prey (clam) removal (or increase) and possible RIA2 2007 reports. the ecosystem, relevant to the removal of predators (effects on birds are considered under Criterion 2). Major changes to species DARD interview fishery, are identified. compositions of areas seem unlikely. Co-operative 80 The main elements of the interviews/field visits functioning of the ecosystem, Co-operatives report removal of evidence of disturbance from sandy areas in one to a few tides, and in relevant to the fishery, are muddier habitats (especially very muddy areas where people need to cross channels to reach harvesting understood. areas, for example) in several tides. Studies on hand-gathered fisheries in similar environments 100 Detailed information is available elsewhere have shown similar rapid recovery of habitats. on the potential for affected elements of the ecosystem to The main elements of the functioning of the ecosystem, relevant to the fishery, are therefore understood. recover from fishery related impacts.

2.1.2 General risk factors are adequately determined. 16.7 - 2.1.2.1 Is information available on the nature and extent of the by-catch (capture of non-target species)? 32.3 100 60 Qualitative information is available Hand gathering and sorting of the catch is carried out. Observations of both seed and commercial sized DARD interview on significant by-catch species. harvested clam showed no other species in the harvest. Co-operative 80 Quantitative information is interviews/field visits available on significant by-catch. If Selectivity can therefore be demonstrated to avoid any meaningful by-catch. obtained by sampling, this is considered sufficient to provide adequate information OR selectivity is demonstrably such that significant by-catch is avoided. 100 Accurate records are kept on the nature and extent of all by-catch species OR selectivity can de demonstrated to avoid any meaningful by-catch.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2.2 Is information available on the extent of non-retained catch? 67.7 100 60 Information is available of the During commercial harvesting the entire selected catch is landed. Non-retained clam returned (and DARD interview extent of non-retained catch, or the redistributed) on the sand flat have a demonstrably very high likelihood of survival. During clam seed Co-operative likely significance of this. harvesting the entire catch is either landed and sold, or redistributed within the adjacent management interviews/field visits 80 Information is available to allow areas. estimates of the non-retained catch to be calculated and interpreted. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the extent of all non-retained catch, and the 100 Accurate and verifiable consequences of this information is available on the extent of all non-retained catch, and the consequences of this. Or the entire catch is landed.

2.1.3 There is adequate knowledge of the effects of gear-use on the receiving ecosystem and extent and type of gear losses. 16.7 - 2.1.3.1 Is there adequate knowledge of the physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear? 100 90 60 Main impacts of gear use on Only hand gathering with the aid of very simple implements is allowed. DARD interview habitat are identified including Co-operative extent and locations of use. Effects Impacts of gear use on the habitat are identified including very accurate information on the extent, interviews/field visits of habitat perturbations estimated timing and location of harvesting and access points. Managed areas are thought to have slightly looser and appear stable. sediments than previously unmanaged areas allowing easier burrowing of the clams. Habitat 80 Impacts of gear use on the habitat perturbations appear entirely sustainable. There is no significant gear loss. are identified including extent, timing and location of use. Habitat No irreversible changes would be expected to occur. perturbations appear sustainable. 100 The physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear have been studied and quantified, including details of any irreversible changes.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4 Assessments of impacts associated with the fishery including the significance and risk of each impact show no unacceptable impacts on 33.3 - the ecosystem structure and/or function, on habitats or on the populations of associated species. 2.1.4.1 Does the removal of target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and function? 25.0 85 60 The impacts of target stock Management of clams does not suggest any unacceptable impacts on ecosystem function, and may DARD interview removal are unclear but there is an enhance quantities of seed clam, likely to be the main life stage predated upon by many organisms. Co-operative expectation that impacts are not interviews/field visits unacceptable (applying the Also, not all of the sand flat is open to harvesting, although the proportion is planned to increase. RIA2 2007 reports precautionary approach where necessary). A programme is in Sufficient information is therefore available on consequences of current levels of removal of target development to identify these and, species to suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on ecological systems within major fishing if appropriate, reduce impacts to areas, and offers protection to non-harvested areas (especially broodstock areas and buffer zones). acceptable limits. 80 Sufficient information is available on consequences of current levels of removal of target species. These suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on ecological systems within major fishing areas. 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of removal of target stocks have been evaluated and determined to be within acceptable limits.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4.2 Does the removal of non-target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and function? 12.5 85 60 The impacts of non-target stock Very little by catch is observed during harvesting and none is removed from harvesting areas. DARD interview removal are unclear but there is an Co-operative expectation that impacts are not Impacts on other benthos are not expected to have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and interviews/field visits unacceptable (applying the function, although this has not been clearly demonstrated. The score for this Performance Indicator RIA2 2007 reports precautionary approach where would be higher if such studies had been undertaken. necessary). A programme is in development to identify these and, Sufficient information is therefore available on consequences of current levels of removal of non-target if appropriate, reduce impacts to species to suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on ecological systems within major fishing acceptable limits. areas, and offers protection to non-harvested areas (especially buffer zones). 80 Sufficient information is available on consequences of current levels of removal of non-target species. These suggest no unacceptable impacts of the fishery on ecological systems within major fishing areas. 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of removal of non- target stocks have been evaluated and determined to be within acceptable limits.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4.3 Does the fishery have unacceptable impacts on habitat structure? 12.5 85 60 There is no evidence that the Observation of harvesting practice shows extremely limited and transitory impacts on sediment in DARD interview fishery is having unacceptable harvest areas. Co-operative impacts, based on a reasonable interviews/field visits understanding of the fishery, There is no harvesting allowed outside of designated harvest areas, sensitive habitats outside of these although the issue has not been (notably broodstock areas) will therefore be protected. Estimates of habitat recovery times according to directly studied. visual observations (a few tides for sand, several tides for muddy areas) have been made. 80 It can be demonstrated that the fishery does not have unacceptable There is no evidence of other, more sensitive habitats, within the clam harvest areas. impacts upon habitats within major fishing areas or on sensitive It can therefore be considered that the fishery does not have unacceptable impacts upon habitats within habitats elsewhere. major fishing areas or any impacts on sensitive habitats elsewhere. 100 Effects on habitat structure are well documented and are within acceptable tested/justified limits.

2.1.4.4 Are associated biological diversity, community structure and productivity affected to unacceptable 25.0 75 levels? 60 There is no evidence that the The fishery currently exploits a minority of available sandflat area (although plans are to continue DARD interview fishery is having unacceptable extending this, subject to scientific approval, to 80% of available sandflat). However, the effects of the Co-operative impacts, based on a reasonable fishery on sandflat community biological diversity, community structure and productivity have not been interviews/field visits understanding of the fishery, studied. Given the enhancement of clams on the sandflats that is carried out it is unlikely that overall although the issue has not been productivity is reduced and it may well be increased. There is little information on which to gauge likely directly studied. changes to community diversity or structure, however. 80 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community There is no suggestion of any unacceptable impacts, and, based on associated studies and a clear structure and productivity have understanding of the fishery, they are assumed to be low. However, the issue does not appear to have been considered and it can be been directly studied, and justification should be provided for this assumption. demonstrated/justified that there are no unacceptable impacts. 100 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community structure and productivity have been quantified and are within acceptable tested/justified limits

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4.5 Are management objectives set in terms of impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 25.0 85 60 Management systems include some Only hand-gathering of clam is allowed, vehicular access to beaches is also not allowed. Large clam are DARD interview impact identification and released during harvest to sustain broodstock. Co-operative avoidance/reduction. interviews/field visits 80 Management objectives are set to The designation of areas of suitable sand flat as management areas, and within these, harvest areas, detect and reduce impacts, currently provides a significant area of sand flat (such as seed areas and broodstock areas) which is although these may not have been excluded from harvesting. fully tested. These are designed to adequately protect key aspects of This measure is designed to provide ecosystem protection but its effectiveness in terms of environmental the ecosystem within main fishing indicators has not been fully tested. The score would be higher if such measurement of environmental areas. indicators were in place. 100 Tested management objectives are set to detect and reduce impacts. Significant management objectives are therefore set to avoid impacts, but these have not have been fully These are designed to adequately tested. These are designed to adequately protect key aspects of the ecosystem within main fishing areas. protect ecosystems, habitats and populations of target and non- target species.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2 (MSC Criterion 2) The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity (at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids 50.0 81 or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 2.2.1 Fishing is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on recognised protected, endangered or threatened 50.0 - species. 2.2.1.1 Is there information on the presence and populations of protected, endangered or threatened species? 33.3 85 60 There is a program in place to The only protected species that would be affected by the fishery are shore birds (notably migratory Birdlife International identify protected, threatened and waders). A study within Ben Tre has identified the most common species likely to be present these are endangered species directly related plovers, notably greater sand plover and Kentish plover, both of which are listed by IUCN as species of to the fishery. There is periodic “least concern”, but which may occur in October to January/February in Ben Tre province in numbers monitoring of the main population that represent over 1% of the South-east Asian biogeographic populations (densities that in many areas trends and status of protected, would be considered to warrant protection); the most protected species are present in mangrove or endangered and threatened species. saltpan areas or present on sandflats in extremely small numbers. Better recording of the species and 80 Key protected, threatened and numbers present would lead to a better score for this Performance Indicator. endangered species directly related to the fishery have been identified. Monitoring of populations of shorebirds (globally) is in place, together with evaluation of threats to their Populations are monitored on a conservation in the East Asian – Australasian flyway. Several programmes are in place to further bird regular basis. conservation. 100 There is knowledge of all populations of protected species Biogeographic populations of key protected, threatened and endangered species directly related to the directly or indirectly related to the fishery have therefore been identified and populations are monitored on a regular basis. fishery including their dynamics. Regular monitoring of protected, endangered and threatened species is undertaken, supported by research programmes to assess threats and promote their conservation. The type and distribution of critical habitats have been identified.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.1.2 Are interactions of the fishery with such species adequately determined? 33.3 85 60 The main interactions directly Fishery management will maintain or increase numbers of younger stages of (seed and small) clam for DARD interview related to the fishery are known. bird predators. Co-operative 80 Estimates are made of the effects interviews/field visits of interactions directly related to Indirect impacts (disturbance) have not been formally evaluated, although fishers report movement of the fishery. There is a requirement birds over limited distances away from harvesting locations with rapid resumption of normal activities. to record and report all incidental Disturbance only occurs over very limited areas due to the rotational nature of activities. mortalities. 100 Reliable quantitative estimates are There are, therefore, no direct interaction (in terms of capture or mortality) related to the fishery, and made of the interactions of all indirect effects appear likely to be very limited. populations directly related to the fishery, and qualitative information is available on indirect impacts. Incidental mortalities are recorded and reported.

2.2.1.3 Do interactions pose an unacceptable risk to such species? 33.3 75 60 Known effects are within Interactions are not believed to create a biological threat to the populations present. There are no known acceptable limits of national and national or international requirements in relation to disturbance effects. international legislative requirements and are believed to However, interactions are at present only poorly estimated, and so the full extent and potential create no biological threats to the consequence of disturbance is not fully determined. species concerned. 80 Critical interactions are well estimated and do not threaten protected species. 100 It is known that the direct and indirect effects of fishing on threatened and endangered species are within acceptable limits.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.2 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts of the fishery 50.0 - on protected, endangered or threatened species. 2.2.2.1 Are management objectives set in terms of impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 100 80 60 Some management systems exist in No direct impacts of the fishery on Protected Endangered and Threatened (PET) species have been DARD interview terms of impact identification and identified. Indirect impacts would be limited to possible disturbance effects on shorebirds. Co-operative avoidance/reduction. interviews/field visits 80 Management objectives are set to Management of the fishery will maintain or increase numbers and availability (through distribution of detect and reduce impacts. These seed clam) of small clam for bird predators. are designed to adequately protect endangered and threatened species As harvesting takes place within restricted areas at any given time, significant amounts of intertidal area within main fishing areas. are undisturbed at any given time. 100 Tested management objectives are set to detect and reduce impacts. Management of the fishery will therefore avoid or minimise effects. Within their overall aims, these These are designed to adequately management measures are expected to also provide undisturbed areas for shorebirds within protected protect endangered and threatened areas outside of active harvest areas. These measures are expected to provide overall ecosystem species. protection, but their effectiveness in terms of environmental indicators has not been fully tested. The score would be higher if such measurement of environmental indicators were in place.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Where exploited populations (of non-target species) are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is - - allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields. 2.3.1 There are management measures in place that allow for the rebuilding of affected populations. - - 2.3.1.1. Is there sufficient information to allow determination of necessary changes in fishery management to - - allow recovery of depleted populations? 60 There is some information on No populations of depleted non-target species are affected by this fishery. PI’s 2.3.1.1 to 2.3.1.3 are functional relationships, sufficient therefore not applicable to this fishery. to allow alterations to be made to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species. 80 There is adequate information, combined with a precautionary approach wherever necessary, to allow alterations to be made to fishing to recover and rebuild depleted species. 100 There is a clear understanding of functional relationships between the impacted population and the fishery. Intervention measures based on this understanding have been tested.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.3.1.2 Are management measures in place to modify fishery practices in light of the identification of - -- unacceptable impacts? 60 A mechanism exists for the N/A modification of fishing practices in light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. 80 Effective management measures are in place to modify fishery practices in light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. 100 Monitoring programs are in place within the management system to allow modification of fishery practices in light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. Objectives and limits for environmental change are used to guide operational practices. It is demonstrated that these are effective.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.3.1.3 Do management measures allow for recovery of affected populations? - - 60 Rebuilding measures exist and are N/A being implemented. Measures may not have been tested, but are considered appropriate. 80 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented. Measures have been tested and can be shown to be rebuilding the affected populations. 100 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote recovery as quickly as is possible.

Additional measures are being implemented to prevent problems in the future.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and 33.3 93 incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

3.A Management System Criteria 60.0 91 3A.1 (MSC Principle 3 Intent A management system containing an institutional and operational framework exists with clear lines of responsibility. 13.4 - and Criterion 3) 3A.1.1 Are organisations with management responsibility clearly defined including areas of responsibility and 25.0 100 interactions? 60 Organisations with management Day to day management is carried out by the co-operatives. Co-operative management itself DARD interview responsibility are known. (management board; surveillance and monitoring units) is clearly defined Production plans for each Co-operative Responsibilities and interactions year are agreed between Fisheries bureaux (district level) DARD, and the co-operatives. National interviews / field require clarification. regulations are implemented by DARD along with allocation of clam flat areas for management, and visits. 80 Organisations with management training of co-operative managers. DARD collate clam landings statistics that are provided from the co- Co-operative red responsibility have been defined operatives. Surveillance is carried out by co-operatives with help from DARD and Fisheries Bureaux. books including key areas of responsibility and interaction. Management responsibilities are very clear and interactions are demonstrably effective. 100 Organisations with management responsibility are clearly defined including all areas of responsibility and interaction. Interactions are demonstrably effective.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.1.2 Is the system consistent with the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery? 25.0 100 60 Inconsistencies arise in some key Co-operative systems are well established in other rural/agricultural/aquaculture fishery industries in DARD interview areas but a programme is in place Vietnam. The system is entirely consistent with the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery. Co-operative to address these. interviews/field visits 80 The system is consistent with key elements of the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery. 100 The system is entirely consistent with the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery.

3A.1.3 Is the management system subject to internal review? 25.0 90 60 There are mechanisms in place to Co-operatives have regular meetings (typically at least monthly at which financial and management DARD interview allow for internal review. issues are discussed) together with ad hoc meetings as required. At these they regularly review their Co-operative 80 The management system is subject harvest strategy, for example; there are also regular reviews of co-operative activity by district Fishery interviews/field visits to internal review. Review Bureaux, and by DARD, and regular reviews of the Fishery Bureaux by DARD. DARD are reviewed at outcomes are considered and 6 or 12 monthly intervals by the B-T Provincial Peoples Committee and by the Ministry of Agriculture actioned as appropriate. and Rural Development. 100 The management system is subject to regular and frequent internal The management system is therefore subject to regular and frequent internal review. Monitoring and review. Monitoring and evaluation evaluation are ongoing and there is good evidence that improvements quickly tested and implemented. are ongoing and improvements quickly tested and implemented.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.1.4 Is the management system subject to external review? 25.0 75 60 There are mechanisms in place to Some aspects of management are reviewed at the request of DARD e.g. resurvey of broodstock areas by DARD interview allow for external review. RIA 2 was requested by DARD to test successful management by broodstock 80 The management system is subject maintenance/enhancement. Every major project must have an EIA which must take into consideration to regular external review. socio-economic, economic and environmental factors and this is thoroughly reviewed by the Ministry of 100 The management system is subject Agriculture and Rural Development. However, there is no comprehensive review of the overall to regular and frequent external effectiveness of the management system at appropriate intervals. This may be particularly relevant review. Monitoring and evaluation given the potential for increase to higher percentages of available clam sand flat. are ongoing and improvements quickly tested and implemented.

3 A.2 (MSC Criteria 1, 2, 4) The management system has a clear legal basis. 13.4 - 3A.2.1 Is the fishery consistent with International Conventions and Agreements? 33.3 100 60 The management system operates No international conventions are applicable to the operation of this fishery. under relevant international conventions and agreements, but some management actions may be questionable in relation to the terms of these. 80 The management system appears to be in full compliance with relevant international conventions and agreements. 100 The management system is demonstrably compliant with all relevant international conventions and agreements.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.2.2 Is the system consistent with National legislation? 33.3 100 60 The management system operates The management system is fully established within the legal system and operates within it. DARD interview under relevant national legislation, but some management actions may be questionable in relation to the terms of these. 80 The management system appears to be in full compliance with national legislation. 100 The management system is demonstrably compliant with all relevant national legislation.

3A.2.3 Does the system observe the legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing? 33.3 100 60 The customary and legal rights of All members of the commune have the right to join the local co-operative and share in the work and DARD interview people dependent upon fishing are profit of the fishery. There is a clear formal codified system. Co-operative known and no major conflicts have interviews/field visits occurred. 80 The system observes the legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing but does not necessarily have a formal codified system. 100 The system observes all legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing under a formal codified system.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3 (MSC Criteria 2, 5, 7) The management system includes strategies to meet objectives including consultative procedures and dispute resolutions. 12.4 -

3A.3.1 Does the management system contain clear short and long-term objectives? 20.0 90 60 Appropriate short and long-term There are clear short term objectives set by the co-operatives each year in response to market demands DARD interview resource and environment but taking into account the sustainability of the resource which belongs to them. Co-operative objectives are implicit within the interviews/field visits management system. There are clear longer term objectives within the co-operatives that relate to the build up and 80 The management system contains maintenance of broodstock as supply of seed to their management areas. appropriate short and long-term resource and environment Long term objective of the DARD (and Fisheries Bureaux) is the sustainable development of the fishery, objectives. protection of broodstock, and effective exploitation of the resource of adults and seeds. 100 The management system contains appropriate, clear and explicit short Thus the management system contains appropriate short and long-term resource and environment and long-term resource and objectives environment objectives that can be measured by performance indicators.

3A.3.2 Do operational procedures exist for meeting objectives? 20.0 100 60 Operational procedures exist which Co-operatives have clear operational procedures that relate to harvesting correct proportion of clams, are applied to the meeting of including simple stock surveys immediately prior to harvest, and sometimes following harvest as a objectives. check; and in relation to ongrowing clams for suitable periods to meet market demands as closely as 80 Transparent operational procedures possible. There is also a procedure that at least sometimes is used to enhance broodstock by release of are applied to the meeting of the larger clams during harvesting. Co-operatives and DARD/Fisheries Bureaux officers have effective objectives. These procedures can procedures for setting up security patrols and guards. be shown to support the objectives. 100 Operational procedures are Procedures for meeting DARD objectives include allocating suitable amounts of clam sandflat areas to transparent and clearly applied. appropriately trained co-operatives, and checking that size of clams and clam seed meet regulations and There is a feedback mechanism guidelines, and that activities are restricted to allocated areas. testing effective application. Information exchange between all parties is good and acts as a feedback mechanism.

Operational procedures are therefore transparent and clearly applied. There is a feedback mechanism testing effective application.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.3 Are there procedures for measuring performance relative to the objectives? 20.0 90 60 Operational procedures exist which Detailed landings figures and area under management are available for all co-operatives although in DARD interview can be used to measure previous years not all figures have been provided from smaller or newer co-operatives. Co-operative performance relative to the interviews/field visits objectives. There are also occasional extensive (ie over the whole of B-T Province) surveys carried out by RIA no 2 RIA2 2007 reports 80 There are procedures used for on sand flat clam status plus broodstock areas, including one under way. measuring performance relative to the objectives. There are, therefore, procedures used for measuring performance relative to the objectives. 100 Tested procedures are used for regular measurement of performance relative to the objectives.

3A.3.4 Does the system include a consultative process including relevant and affected parties? 20.0 80 60 The system includes a consultative There is regular and ongoing dialogue between co-operatives and DARD/Fisheries Bureaux through DARD interview process including key stakeholders which issues can be discussed and agreed. There is no history of dispute between co-operatives but Co-operative within the fishery. within co-operatives there are very clear processes that allow all members of the co-operative to interviews/field visits 80 The system includes a consultative influence decisions. process including all main public and private stakeholders and can DARD consults with a variety of organisation including, Universities including Can Tho University and demonstrate consideration of Nha Trang Oceanographic Institute and RIA no 2 regarding research needs, although this appears to be representations made. mostly research requests, and Dept of Science and Technology etc in terms of policy. This score would 100 The system includes a consultative be higher if wildlife bodies such as Birdlife International (BLI) were involved in the consultative process including all affected process. stakeholders. Decisions specifically discuss and/or address stakeholder concerns.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.5 Is there an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes within the system? 20.0 90 60 Mechanisms are theoretically There is an appropriate and tested mechanism within the co-operatives for the documentation and DARD interview adequate but have not been resolution of disputes of varying magnitude. Co-ops have clear recourse to communes in the case of Co-operative consistently applied or tested. more serious disputes, which in turn provides access to political representatives if necessary. interviews/field visits 80 There is an appropriate and established mechanism for the There are systems for resolving disputes between co-operative and fisheries Bureaux or DARD – resolution of disputes within the normally resolved by dialogue but there can be recourse to local Peoples Commune or District system. Committee or Province Peoples Committee (Local Authorities). 100 There is an appropriate and tested mechanism within the system for There is, therefore, an appropriate and established mechanism for the resolution of disputes within the the documentation and resolution system at various levels. of disputes of varying magnitude.

3A.4 (MSC Criterion 6) The management system operates in a manner appropriate to the objectives of the fishery. 7.4 - 3A.4.1 Does the system include subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing? 50.0 100 60 Subsidies exist that may contribute The system has no subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. DARD interview indirectly to unsustainable fishing. Co-operative These are short-term and are in the interviews/field visits process of being removed within acceptable timescales. 80 The system is essentially free from subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. 100 The system has no subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.4.2 Does the system include economic/social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing? 50.0 90 60 Measures to allocate fishing The management system is based around local ownership and control of the fishing and is operated in DARD interview opportunities and/or entry to the such as way as to incentivise people to manage the fishing in a sustainable and environmentally Co-operative fishery, or other incentives, are acceptable way. There are some training grants that are aimed at establishing co-operatives ability to interviews/field visits generally supportive of achieving effectively manage the clams within the management system. fishery objectives 80 Allocations of fishing opportunities, and/or other incentives, promote fishery and ecosystem management goals. 100 The system has established economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and ecosystem management

3A.5 (MSC Criterion 8) A research plan exists in line with the management system to address information needs. 13.4 - 3A.5.1 Have key research areas requiring further information been identified? 33.3 80 60 Major areas requiring further Key areas of research has been identified, and primarily a continued detailed understanding of clam DARD interview research have been identified. populations throughout the sand flats of B-T province. Information on commercial sized clam, clam Co-operative 80 Key areas requiring further research seed and broodstock (distribution & densities, age/size and, in the case of broodstock, sex of clams) interviews/field visits (with some analysis of associated will be collected during this survey, plans for which are at an advanced stage. Other identified research information requirements) have needs include water quality and plankton resource, including possible effects of increased turbidity been identified. (caused by harvesting activities) on plankton; and levels and effects of factors such as nutrient inputs 100 A comprehensive review of and organic enrichment from shrimp ponds. information requirements has been undertaken. Strong consideration is being given to development of hatchery rearing techniques.

Key areas requiring further research have therefore been identified, notably the distribution of clam throughout Ben Tre.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5.2 Is research planned/undertaken by the scientific advisers to meet the specific requirements of the 33.3 80 management plan? 60 Research is planned for highest A research plan has been prepared by RIA2. Information on commercial sized clam, clam seed and DARD interview priority information needs. broodstock (distribution & densities, age/size and, in the case of broodstock, sex of clams will be RIA2 2007 reports 80 Research is planned and undertaken collected during this survey. Water quality and plankton resource will be studied, including possible to provide necessary scientific effects of increased turbidity (caused by harvesting activities) on plankton. Levels and effects of things support to the plan. There are such as nutrient inputs and organic enrichment from shrimp ponds will be studied. Some of these are demonstrable resources to allow covered by monitoring programmes of other organisations such as Fisheries Extension centre. implementation of the programme. 100 There is an ongoing, funded, Strong consideration is being given to development of hatchery rearing techniques. comprehensive and balanced research programme, linking Research is therefore planned and undertaken, coordinated by DARD, to provide necessary scientific research to the management plan. support to the plan. There are demonstrable resources to allow implementation of the programme, through the support of the PPC.

3A.5.3 Is relevant research carried out by other organizations (e.g. Universities) and is this taken into 33.3 85 consideration? 60 The management system is aware of In Ben Tre and Ho Chi Minh City area and Mekong Delta coastal provinces there is a considerable DARD interview. research carried out by other amount of research by university of Can Tho in areas such a water quality, food chain, fish and mollusc Moores, N. and organisations and elements of this research, although much of this is carried out in provinces outside Ben Tre. DARD are aware of this Nguyen Phuc Bao are taken into consideration. research and take it into consideration where relevant. Hoa, 2001 80 Appropriate research carried out by Birdlife International other organisations is taken into Research has come to light from BLI identifying potential threats to migratory birds arising from clam (BLI) undated consideration, although there is not collection (removal of food resource and disturbance). This does not appear to have been made necessarily any proactive co- available to fishery managers. However, BLI are active in Ben Tre province inland (mangroves; ordination between organisations. shrimp ponds) and the Fishery managers appear to be well aware of this. 100 Relevant research carried out by other organisations is taken into account for management considerations. This research is often co-ordinated with existing research plans of the management system.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6 (MSC Criteria 7, 9, 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the stock. 13.4 - 3A.6.1 Are the resource and effects of the fishery monitored? 33.3 90 60 A monitoring programme is in NIO survey of whole Ben Tre coastline covering entire managed and non-managed areas was reported in DARD interview place that addresses some aspects 2000. Co-operative of resource and effects and which interviews/field visits can be extended. Subsequent surveys by RIA2 (2005-07) have been carried out and future research has been identified RIA2 2007 reports 80 A monitoring programme is in and is about to start. Water quality and plankton resource will be studied, including possible effects of place that addresses all key aspects increased turbidity (caused by harvesting activities) on plankton. Levels and effects of things such as of resource and effects at nutrient inputs and organic enrichment from shrimp ponds will be studied. appropriate intervals and results are recorded. Closely linked to this, the Sub-Institute for Economic and Aquaculture Planning are carrying out 100 The resource and effects of the ongoing work aimed at improving the management system. fishery are closely monitored over appropriate geographical areas and Each co-op carries out surveys own area prior to harvest to estimate harvestable biomass, and in some time periods. Full records are kept cases also post-harvest to verify results. Sub-tidal broodstock also surveyed during low tides to estimate of monitoring results and these are abundance and allow management. Management activities provide clear indications of seed and adult made available to relevant research biomass within managed areas. and management bodies. Landings are accurately recorded and the only discards are of small clam (which re-bury) or large clam which provide broodstock. There is long history of movement and redistribution of clam throughout its life history to show good survivorship.

The resource and effects of the fishery are therefore closely monitored over appropriate geographical areas and time periods. Records are kept of monitoring results and these are made available to the relevant research and management body, DARD.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6.2 Are results of monitoring evaluated against appropriate reference point(s) or equivalent measures of 33.3 90 stock status? 60 Reference points (or equivalent Within Ben Tre there are levels set on the allocation of intertidal area. Within each allocated DARD interview measures of stock status) exist and management area there are also unharvested ‘buffer’ areas although these may be small. Co-operative some level of evaluation against interviews/field visits these is possible. Each co-operative protects and enhnaces broodstock (this is protected unless at excessive densities) and 80 Results of monitoring are regularly many co-operatives have protected seed areas. interpreted in relation to reference points (or equivalent measures of For adult clams, the level of harvest varies between co-operatives depending on the status of broodstock; stock status). well established broodstock will lead to higher harvest %, e.g. 60 to 80% of clam biomass within harvest 100 Results of monitoring are area – larger clams tend to be returned for future broodstock enhancement. It is less clear how much quantitatively evaluated against meaningful evaluation of broodstock levels is carried out, nor what would be considered viable levels. precautionary reference points (or equivalent measures of stock Results of monitoring are quantitatively evaluated against the measures of stock status used on a regular status) on a regular and timely and timely basis. basis

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6.3 Do procedures exist for reductions in harvest, or other appropriate management actions, in light of 33.3 90 monitoring results and how quickly and effectively can these be implemented? 60 Practical procedures exist to reduce Harvest decision rule making by co-ops is clear on harvesting of adult and seed. Size of clams that can DARD interview harvest, or to implement other be taken are clearly specified). Clear and simple rules are also specified on maintenance of broodstock. Co-operative appropriate management actions, interviews/field visits Programmes to link these with The percentage of available commercial clam that is harvested is based on broodstock condition (re monitoring results are underway. long-term productivity), clam resource in management area (determined by co-operative survey) and 80 Practical procedures exist to reduce market requirements. The amount of available commercial clam that is left by the different co- harvest, or to implement other operatives varies between 20 and 40% depending upon the status of the broodstock and commercial appropriate management actions, in clam. the light of monitoring results and provide for stock recovery to Rules on harvesting and/or selling of seed stock are simple and decided largely on the basis of surveys of specified levels. Measures can be the amounts available (prioritising relaying of the co-operatives own management areas in most cases). implemented speedily 100 Practical procedures exist to reduce In the event of long term failure in recruitment of clam seed, DARD would advise co-operatives on the harvest, or to implement other best strategy to rebuild the clam populations. Mechanisms clearly exist for co-operatives to implement appropriate management actions, in changes in harvest strategy. light of monitoring results and provide for stock recovery to specified levels within specified time frames. There are well documented procedures to implement changes and these can be introduced with immediate effect.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.7(MSC Criterion 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the affected ecosystem. 13.4 - 3A.7.1 Are measures in place to address (avoid or minimise) significant environmental impacts? 80.0 85 60 Significant environmental impacts Only hand-gathering of clam is allowed. The designation of areas of suitable sand flat as management DARD interview are known and measures are being areas, and within these, harvest areas, provides a majority area of sand flat which is excluded from Co-operative applied to reduce key impacts. harvesting although this is likely to reduce in future. The effectiveness of the measure is to be tested interviews/field visits 80 Environmental impacts are known. through re-surveys. Measures are being applied to minimise all significant ones and This measure is designed to provide ecosystem protection but its effectiveness in terms of environmental there is evidence that the measures indicators, while expected to be successful, has not been fully tested. The score would be higher if such are working. measurement of environmental indicators were in place. 100 Measures are in place to avoid all significant environmental impacts Environmental impacts are therefore known. Measures are being applied to minimise all significant and are subject to monitoring and ones and there is evidence that the measures are working. periodic review.

3A.7.2 Are no take zones, Marine Protected Areas or closed areas for specific periods appropriate and, if so, are 20.0 100 these established and enforced? 60 Suitability of no-take zones and Suitability of no take zones has been reviewed and approx 40% of available sand flat allocated for DARD interview closed areas / seasons has been harvest (although this Is likely to increase, possibly to as high as 80%, in future years). Part of this Co-operative reviewed against objective allocated area is then set aside (in some co-operatives, depending on the local situation) for further interviews/field visits biological criteria. Plans are in protection as seed areas. Broodstock areas (in subtidal areas) are highly protected and the status of RIA2 2007 reports place to implement some or all of broodstock and seed is monitored closely. these as appropriate. 80 Suitability of no-take zones and These areas are closely monitored by co-operatives to monitor status of clam and to control IUU fishing. closed areas / seasons has been reviewed and these have been or Harvest seasons are also specified by co-operatives for seed and adult harvest, although there is no are currently being implemented overarching national regulation. Harvest of major broodstock areas e.g. the Ba Lai river is completely and enforced if and where forbidden and elsewhere harvest of locally enhanced broodstock is prohibited by law in the main appropriate. spawning season (April-May and October-November). 100 No-take zones and closed areas / seasons are established and There is some indication that increased broodstock in the Ben Tre area may be increasing clam enforced if and where appropriate settlement in adjacent provinces. and, if implemented, the consequences are being monitored. No-take zones and closed areas and seasons are established and enforced and the consequences are being monitored.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 A.8 (MSC Criterion 11) There are control measures in place to ensure the management system is effectively implemented. 13.4 - 3A.8.1 Are information, instruction and/or training provided to fishery operatives in the aims and methods of 33.3 95 the management system? 60 Mechanisms exist for the DARD provides information and training to co-operative members, together with ongoing supervision DARD interview dissemination of information, and assistance. Co-operative instruction and training of fishery interviews/field visits operatives. Implementation of Operatives demonstrate good understanding of operational requirements required by the management these mechanisms may not be system (harvest, monitoring control and surveillance (MCS), protection of broodstock etc.) universally implemented. 80 Information, instruction and Information, instruction and training are therefore provided to fishery operatives in the aims and training are provided to fishery methods of the management system allowing effective management of the fishery and operatives operatives in the aims and methods demonstrate good knowledge of this information. of the management system allowing effective management of the system. 100 Information, instruction and training are provided to fishery operatives in the aims and methods of the management system allowing effective management of the fishery and operatives demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of this information.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.8.2 Is surveillance and monitoring in place to ensure that requirements of the management system are 33.3 90 complied with? 60 An enforcement system has been DARD provide monitoring and advice to co-operatives in meeting management system requirements. DARD interview implemented; however, its Co-operative effectiveness and/or compliance Within each co-operative, Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) units are established to protect interviews/field visits has not been fully demonstrated the area from illegal (IUU) fishing. These usually comprise representatives of co-ops, fishery bureaux relative to conservation objectives. and DARD staff. Activities may include foot patrols, setting up of manned observation posts, and in 80 An effective enforcement system some areas with extensive subtidal broodstocks use of boat based patrols, as well as inspections of mesh has been implemented and there is sizes, size of clams and seed clams taken etc. an appropriate degree of control and compliance. Compliance within co-operatives is closely controlled. 100 An effective enforcement system has been implemented and there is Unallocated areas are susceptible to IUU fishing, which are patrolled less intensively by Ben Tre fishery a high degree of control and patrol vessels. compliance. An effective enforcement system has therefore been implemented and there is a good degree of control and compliance.

3A.8.3 Can corrective actions be applied in the event of non-compliance and is there evidence of their 33.3 90 effectiveness? 60 Mechanisms exist or are being Co-operatives have internal sanctions – fines, expulsion etc. developed which can be implemented or applied to deal DARD can apply sanctions to co-operatives in the event of breaches of regulations. with non-compliance. 80 There are set measures that can be Measures are codified by co-operatives and DARD and are agreed, but not all have been tested. applied in the event of non- compliance although these may not Of eight clam co-operatives available for comment, all reported that there was no case of significant be included in a formal or codified transgression in the last two years including outsiders because surveillance is effective. Of the more system. established co-operatives, Rang Dong had cases in around 2003 of small scale illegal fishing sanctioned 100 An effective enforcement system by loss of share of profit for a month or two). has been implemented and there is an appropriate degree of control An effective enforcement system has therefore been implemented and there is an appropriate degree of and compliance. control and compliance.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 B Operational Criteria 40.0 95 3B.1(MSC Criterion 12) There are management measures that include practices to reduce impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target 21.1 - species. 3B.1.1 Do management measures, principally through the use of gear and other fishing practices, include 100 90 avoidance of impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target species? 60 Measures have been implemented The selectivity of the gear and fishing activity avoids or minimises impacts on non-targets species and DARD interview that are intended to reduce the small seed and large adult clam (future broodstock) are returned with very good survivorship Co-operative major impacts on non-target interviews/field visits species and inadvertent impacts on Measures have therefore been implemented to reduce the major impacts on non-target species and target species, but their inadvertent impacts on target species, and their effectiveness is clearly demonstrated. effectiveness is uncertain. 80 Measures have been implemented to reduce the major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species and there is evidence that they are having the desired effect. 100 Measures have been implemented to reduce the major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species, and their effectiveness is clearly demonstrated.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.2 (MSC Criterion 13) There are management systems in place that encourage fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat. 21.1 - 3B.2.1 Do fishing operations implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on 100 100 habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas? 60 Fishing operations use measures to Co-operatives harvest clam using hand-operated gear only to minimise effects on habitat. Seed areas reduce major impacts on habitat, and lower shore/subtidal broodstock areas are protected from all fishing operations. especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery Control of IUU fishing, which appears to have dramatically improved in recent years, also protects areas. habitat. 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are effective in avoiding There is therefore clear evidence that fishing operations are effective in avoiding significant adverse significant adverse effects on the effects on the environment, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. environment, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations implement appropriate methods to avoid significant adverse impacts on all habitats.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.3 (MSC Criterion 14) The management system incorporates measures that discourage destructive practices. 2.2 - 3B.3.1 Does the fishery employ destructive fishing practices (such as poisons or explosives)? 100 100 60 The fishery does not allow any Fishing practices are documented by co-operatives. No other techniques than hand-gathering are DARD interview such destructive fishing practices. allowed. Co-operative 80 The fishery does not employ any interviews/field visits such destructive fishing practices The fishery does not employ any destructive fishing practices. There is a code of conduct for and enforcement is considered responsible fishing that is fully supported by fishers. sufficient to prevent their use. 100 The fishery does not employ any destructive fishing practices. There is a code of conduct for responsible fishing that is fully supported by fishers.

3B.4 (MSC Criterion 15) The management system incorporates measures that reduce operational waste. 6.0 - 3B.4.1 Do measures exist to reduce operational waste? 100 100 60 Measures/facilities are in place to As this is a tidal, predominantly land-based fishery, operational waste is not a significant problem, reduce sources of operational waste probably limited to occasional loss of bags. However, waste (including clam shell) is removed to that are known to have detrimental maintain the clam habitat. Many co-operatives form a unit with responsibility for cleaning beaches. environmental consequences, but further reductions may be possible. There was no evidence of trash deposited on the strand line during field visits. 80 Measures/facilities are in place to reduce all sources of operational Measures/facilities are therefore in place to reduce all sources of operational waste that are known to waste that are known to have have detrimental environmental consequences, and there is evidence that they are effective and these detrimental environmental measures are supported by the fishers. consequences, and there is evidence that they are effective. 100 Measures/facilities are in place to reduce all sources of operational waste that are known to have detrimental environmental consequences, and there is evidence that they are effective and these measures are supported by the fishers.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5 (MSC Criterion 16) Fishing operations are conducted in compliance with the management system and legal and administrative requirements. 38.9 - 3B.5.1 Are fishers aware of management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 100 60 Fishers are aware of key When clam co-operatives are allocated an area they are given a “red book” by the PCC with much of the DARD interview management and legal information they require including maps of where they may and may not carry out activities. DARD Co-operative requirements. provide information and training to co-operative members, together with ongoing supervision and interviews/field visits 80 Fishers are aware of management assistance. and legal requirements upon them and are kept up to date with new Fishers demonstrate good understanding of operational requirements required by the management developments. system (harvest, MCS, protection of broodstock etc.) 100 All fishers are aware of management legal requirements All fishers are aware of management legal requirements through regular co-operative meetings. through a clearly documented and communicated mechanism such as a code of conduct.

3B.5.2 Do fishers comply with management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 90 60 Fishers appear generally to comply There are no data on compliance, but certainly no indications of any major violations. Fishers support DARD interview with requirements, but there is management measures through their co-operatives. Co-operative incomplete information on the interviews/field visits actual extent of compliance. Fishers are considered to be fully compliant with, and fully supportive of, legal and administrative 80 Fishers appear compliant with requirements through the co-operative system. relevant management and legal requirements and there are no indications of consistent violations. 100 Fishers are fully compliant with, and fully supportive of, legal and administrative requirements, such as through a code of conduct.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5.3 What is the record of enforcement of regulations in the fishery: e.g. quota control, by-catch limits, 33.3 90 MLS, mesh regulations and closed areas? 60 There is information on breaches of Surveillance is mainly carried out by the co-operatives themselves, and is therefore strong and there is DARD interview regulations and on corrective action evidence that enforcement of transgressions is carried out. Co-operative system for closing fishing Co-operative to prevent or curtail these. when correct amounts have been harvested is very effective. interviews/field visits 80 Evidence of rigorous monitoring of all the enforcement measures and Of eight clam co-operatives available for comment, all reported that there was no case of significant evidence of actions taken in the transgression in the last two years, including outsiders, because surveillance is effective. Of the more event of breaches is available. established co-operatives, Rang Dong had cases in around 2003 of small scale illegal fishing, punished 100 Strong evidence of rigorous by loss of share of profit for a month or two. monitoring and control of the enforcement measures. Strong National minimum landing size is relatively small compared to the desired commercial size so there is evidence of firm action taken in the unlikely to be significant transgression in this respect. event of breaches is available. There is evidence of enforcement of regulations where most appropriate.

3B.6 (MSC Criterion 17) The management system involves fishers in data collection. 10.6 - 3B.6.1 Do fishery operatives assist in the collection of catch, discard and other relevant data? 100 100 60 Fishery operatives are involved in All information is provided through the co-operatives, with training and ongoing advice, supervision DARD interview the collection of some catch, discard etc by District and Provincial DARD offices. Co-operative and other information. interviews/field visits 80 Fishery operatives are regularly Fishery operatives therefore assist significantly in the collection and recording of catch, discard and involved in the collection and other information. recording of catch, discard and other information. 100 Fishery operatives assist significantly in the collection and recording of catch, discard and other information.

FN 07/017 82036 v5 Appendix B

Ben Tre Peoples Committee Department of Fisheries Ben Tre Clam Fishery

Marine Stewardship Council Certification

Certification Body: Moody Marine Ltd

Notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers

A Peer Review panel has been proposed for this fishery. Potential peer reviewers have been approached on the basis of their experience of one or more of the following; the fishery under assessment, fishery management, stock assessment issues and relevant ecosystem interactions.

Brief details of each reviewer are provided below.

Dr Colin Chapman. Dr Chapman graduated in 1962 with a B.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Nottingham and in 1977 with a BA in Mathematics from the Open University and was awarded a D.Sc. by the University of Nottingham in 1997. He joined the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen in 1962 and initially worked on fish behaviour in relation to fishing gear. In 1972, transferred to the Shellfish Resources Section at Aberdeen and worked with this group, from 1988 as Section Head, until taking early retirement in 1997. In 1966, established a field research station at Upper Loch Torridon and carried out research there for many years, particularly on the ecology, behaviour and general biology of the Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus).He has published many scientific papers and research reports on this species, also on other shellfish and fish species and on the efficiency and selectivity of fishing gears. An active member on several ICES working groups including the ICES Nephrops Study Group and the Stock Assessment Working Group, from 1977-96. He was appointed an Honorary Senior Lecturer by Aberdeen University in 1992. Since retirement he has been involved in projects on Nephrops, European lobsters, cockles, mussels, crab species and scallops as well as various teaching roles and part-time consultancy work.

Dr David Bennett. David Bennett has 36 years experience in fisheries research, specialising in the biology, population dynamics, and assessment of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks, the provision of national and international fisheries management advice, and fisheries aspects of environmental impact studies. Dr. Bennett has particular experience in UK shellfisheries. He chaired the International Committee for Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Group on Nephrops stocks, has been a member of a number of ICES Working and Study Groups and of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management, and an expert for DG XIV of the EU Commission. Peer Review A

Public Comment Draft Certification Report for the Ben Tre Clam fishery

Authors: Tran Truong Luu, Terry Holt, Andrew Hough

Peer Review

The authors provide a comprehensive report on the fishery, environment and management of this very interesting fishery. The fishery seems to be amply qualified to seek MSC accreditation and has achieved high scores under the three MSC principles for a sustainable fishery. The fishery has many important features which contribute to this view, not least of which is the fact that it is a hand gathering fishery and that the normal fishery problems of assessment of stock status hardly feature because stakeholders can exercise control over stock levels, spawning stock biomass, recruitment and yields by means of stock enhancement approaches. Nevertheless, I have some questions about some small aspects of the fishery which I hope can be addressed in the final report.

1) Section 1 (p. 1): Method of capture In the summary details of the fishery for certification, the method of capture is described as ‘hand gathering’ but it was difficult to find a coherent description of the methods, though some rather vague details are given in various parts of the text. On p. 6, information is given that Meretrix lyrata occurs 4-6 cm below the sediment surface, yet the gear (on p. 15) is described as a ‘simple metal hand tool’ or rake without tines; there are other mentions of gear; hand raking of dead shells (top of p. 11), metal framed net for seed (top p.15), various mentions of nets and sieves (p.15, 21 & P.I. 1.1.2.2); ‘hand gathering is also allowed’ (p.15) suggesting that it is an alternative method. In view of the environmental concerns expressed about the fishing method, giving rise to Condition 1 (relevant P.I. 2.1.4.4), it would be useful if the various bits of information about the hand gathering and gear methods could be brought together into one small section of the text, preferably with a clear description of the gear, perhaps illustrated by diagrams or photographs. Moody Marine Comment: The text in section 2.5 has been clarified. The tool referred to as a rake in translated texts received by the team is always a simple metal implement with no tines, and may or may not have a mesh attached. We understand that when harvesting clam seed for relaying the mesh is almost always attached. When harvesting large clams the mesh bag may be separate. Harvesting by hand may occur but the mesh bag is still required.

2) Section 2.1 (p. 5): Species The fishery is stated as having one target species Meretrix lyrata (M.l) but another species M. meretrix (M.m) is also referred to. There are distinguishing features, such as size and banding; M.m grows to a larger size but it must be remembered that it will

1 pass through a range of smaller sizes comparable to M.l for part of its life cycle. My questions are:  Do the two species co-exist in the same habitat so that they could be gathered together? They are both reported in the Ben Tre area.  What is the stock status of M.m?  Whilst there are taxonomic differences between the species, are they sufficiently distinct that fishers would be able to separate the two species when they overlap in size?

Obviously, if the answer to the first Q. is negative, the other questions are irrelevant. Moody Marine Comment: Recent genetic work has supported previous publications suggesting that only M. lyrata occurs in the Mekong delta, occasional reports of M. meretrix probably having been misidentifications of the brown form of M. lyrata. Report text has been amended to clarify this.

3) Section 2.2 (p. 9): Surveys

A Table of clam densities is given for the period 2000-2001 only, yet more recent surveys are mentioned later in the text (eg. in 2005-2007, P.I. 1.1.1.4). Could the more recent data be included in the report? This is a fairly minor point because to a large extent the stock density seems to be determined mainly as a result of relaying by fishers who control the level of recruitment and growing conditions. In the table presented, some results are given with a ± range, though it is not stated whether or not these are 95% confidence intervals; incidentally, the range of variation is rather large, bigger than the means, showing great variability.

In the text below the clam density table, there is a reference to Gulland (1979), which I could not find in the bibliography, and no reference is given to so called ‘Matrix’ methods. These references are important, as they relate to estimation of the most appropriate harvest ratio, so full details should be given. Moody Marine Comment: Since the 2001 surveys the emphasis of the fishery has changed dramatically from wild collection to relaying. Overall targets of percentage fishable biomass are arguably less relevant now. The most important surveys are therefore those of the fishable biomass within the re-laid plots. While the team did expressed concern at the small scale of the surveys for this purpose (typically single 1m quadrats at each of three shore levels for a relaying plot; the managers pointed out that the clams would have been laid at a very even density (usually at most a year earlier, and often less, depending upon the number of relaying operations employed), in areas generally known for good growth, and the plots are small at typically 1-2 ha. They often carry out similar surveys following harvest and these typically confirm the expected levels of remaining clams. When asked what action they would take if the amount of clams being harvested turned out to be less than had been identified during the surveys, the clam managers claimed it had never happened. DARD officials confirmed all of these assertions, and supported the view that the surveys were sufficient to quantify the available harvest. DARD have organised a number of workshops in which stock surveys were an important part of the training provided to the clam managers. The report text has been amended to include the above information.

The team accept that ongoing surveys of broodstock biomass in particular need to be rigorous to prove that the management system is continuing to work in the long term,

2 and that some view on likely viable levels will be required. While it is known that more recent surveys of clams, including broodstock, were requested and carried out, detailed results for these were not available to the team in time for the scoring assessment.

In the clam survey table, in all cases “+/-“ represented 1 standard deviation. References added.

4) Section 2.2 (p. 10): Recruitment The chief potential problem for the clam fishery is the year-to-year variability in spat settlement and future recruitment to the harvestable stock. External factors can affect this, as detailed on p. 10. There are key questions concerning the source of spat in the fishery area, namely:

 Is the production of clam spat self-contained, in other words, does spat that settles on the sand flats derive from the local brood stock?  Conversely, does spat arrive from outside the fishery area as a result of larval dispersal?

This topic should be mentioned in the report, particularly in view of the fact that the fishers must devote a fair amount of time establishing and protecting a brood stock of large clams in the sub-tidal areas. Moody Marine Comment: Knowledge of this appears to be limited to the opinion of the local co-operative managers who have become convinced that spatfall is primarily from adjacent broodstock. As stated in the section on life history and breeding, settlement tends to occur at high densities in specific areas adjacent to dense areas of subtidal broodstock. There are supporting studies that have demonstrated vertical migrations that prevent the larvae being carried offshore as also mentioned in section 2.1. This subject has been further clarified in the report.

4) Section 2.9 (p. 19): Birds I was surprised that the lists of stakeholders consulted during site visits did not seem to include any one from an environmental organisation who could have contributed to the debate about disturbance to birds during the fishing operations. I note that the WWF are part of the client partnership and I would have expected to see environmental NGOs taking part in the early discussions, particularly in relation to some of the scores in Principle 2 (see below). Moody Marine Comment: Birdlife International representatives in Vietnam were invited to take part and were contacted a number of times for their opinions during the assessment.

5) Scoring indicators: In general the scores given for the Performance Indicators are fair and reasonable, but I wonder whether the marking of three of them, 2.3.1.1- 2.3.1.3, as N/A is fully justified. It would be OK to do this if there had been some previous work done to show that the abundance and behaviour of bird species were not adversely affected by the fishery activities. The assessment team obviously were sufficiently concerned about possible adverse effects in P.I. 2.2.1.3 that Condition 2 was required to address this issue but as a precaution there is perhaps a need for the fishery management to take advice now from ornithologists as to ‘best practice’ in the reduction of

3 disturbance to bird populations. This information could then be fed into the above 3 P.I.s and scored appropriately. It seems illogical to raise a concern, put in a condition and then score as N/A, the P.I.s that address responses to the problem. It would be interesting to know how many of the 48,000 co-operative members are engaged in fishing activities at any one time and how this relates to the total area of sand flats that are currently exploited and to the space requirements for feeding birds. Did WWF express any views on this issue? Moody Marine Comment: There is no suggestion at present that bird populations are in a depleted state as a result of fishery activity. There is sufficient lack of information on fisheries/birds interactions, together with stated concerns from NGOs, that more information is justified under the precautionary principle, but in the opinion of the team, requiring the fishery to take action to counter an unproven depletion of bird populations is too onerous. Figures as stated would be interesting but are not readily available to the team at this time. WWF have not stated any specific views on this issue.

6) Minor typographical errors: P. 9, para 1, line 8:’are’ after ‘ha’ is superfluous P. 14, bottom line: superfluous ‘or’ P. 16, para. 3, lines 2-3: phrase should perhaps be ‘for which purpose harvest coupons are provided…….’ P. 17, para. 5, line 5: insert ‘of’ before ‘mangrove’ P. 21, para. 2, line 2: there is reference to Fig. 4 which should presumably be Fig. 2? P. 21, para. 5, line 2: reference to Figs. 2 & 3 which again I assume should be to Fig. 2 alone? P. 22, para. 3, line 1: PPC – I couldn’t find a definition of this abbreviation P. 22: there is a header (3.4) at the foot of the page which should be shifted to the top of the relevant section on next page

P.I. 1.1.1.6, line 3: spurious characters before ‘adult’ P.I. 3A.4.2, line 2: how about ‘offer incentives to’ instead of ‘incentivise’? P.I. 3A.6.2, line 3: mis-spelling of ‘enhnaces’ Moody Marine Comment: These errors have been amended

7) Conclusions: This review has highlighted some areas in the report, mostly of a minor nature, where clarification is needed, but in general the report provides a comprehensive assessment of the Ben Tre clam fishery. I am in agreement with the assessor’s recommendation that the fishery be certified according to the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fisheries. The Certification Report has highlighted three areas of concern and proposed appropriate conditions to meet these concerns.

4 PEER REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION REPORT FOR BEN TRE CLAM FISHERY

Client: Ben Tre Dept. of Agriculture & Rural Development / WWF

Certification Body: Moody marine Ltd.

(A). PREAMBLE

My review is based on a reading of the Main Report, together with the detailed Scoring Comment Table. I have no direct knowledge of this species or fishery, and I have made no attempt to access or peruse the extensive list of publications cited by the assessment authors. The review benefits from my past experience with shellfisheries stock assessment and management, and the various MSC certification assessments and peer reviews I have undertaken. My comments are referenced to the section numbering in the Report and Scoring Table. Relatively minor editorial notes are listed in a separate annex, which need not be published with the main review as long as satisfactory responses can be made.

(B). SUMMARY

This is a competent and comprehensive assessment of the Ben Tre Clam fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The Report provides an authoritative overview of the fishery and the issues that relate to the three MSC Principles. In the main, I concur with the comments and scoring in the Scoring Comment Table. I have made some suggestions for text amendments and questioned a small number of the scores.

I have three main concerns. The first relates to the robustness and statistical analysis of biomass surveys. As the management of the fishery is very dependent upon reasonably reliable biomass estimates to both constrain harvesting and maintain broodstock, it is essential to have confidence in the survey methods and analysis. Unless my reservations can be alleviated by the addition of relevant information, results, survey and research plans in the Main Report I would like to see a Recommendation made to set up a Survey Workshop to provide guidance on survey protocol and analysis.

Secondly, the management objectives (Main Report 4.2) set by DARD are quite generalised in nature, and short-term objectives are set by the Co- operatives in response to market demands. There is scope for a clearer and more robust statement of objectives, quantified to provide transparent and enforceable decision rules.

My third concern is the plan to extend the areas available for exploitation at the expense of the existing no-take zones. Applying the Precautionary Principle, if the area of the so-called ‘managed areas’ is to be increased, it will be important to progress very carefully with robust monitoring. This issue is to some extent addressed in Condition 3, but I would like to see strong expressions of concern within the Main Report and in the appropriate Scoring Comments.

(C). GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE MAIN REPORT.

2.1. Biology. Life History.

Page 7, 5th parag. “….typical marketable size of 30-110 clams/kg….”

Page 8, 3rd parag. “Clams longer than 30mm (equivalent to a weight of around 8.5g/individual) can be expected to spawn.”

As 8.5g equates to 118 clams/kg, the clams being marketed should all be mature. This relevant conclusion should be explicitly mentioned in the text. Moody Marine Comment: Text has been amended as suggested

2.2. Stock evaluation - surveys

I have serious concerns about the robustness of the surveys undertaken to estimate stock and fishable biomass and their statistical analysis as presented in the Main Report. The surveys of clams during April and October – November 2000 were on a stratified – random basis (NTOI, 2001). The stratification rationale is not provided, but, given that “the bottom structure is the most important ecological factor affecting the survival and development of clams”, was the sampling stratified by sediment type and/or just tidal height?

I have extracted six examples to illustrate my concerns. It is possible that adding a more comprehensive explanation of the surveys and analysis to the Main Report can alleviate my concerns.

(1). Pages 8-9. Surveys were done in 1999-2001. Have there been any subsequent surveys? How frequently are surveys undertaken to allow estimation of fishable biomass, and hence management by allowable catch/landings? In the Scoring Comment Table 1.1.1.4. there is a quote “Subsequent surveys by RIA2 (2005-07) provide fishery independent surveys.”, but these are not mentioned in the Main Report and no results are provided.

(2). Page 9. Clam survey table. I am not happy with the presentation of biomass estimates and the conclusions drawn. In the survey table there appear to be some statistical parameters (mean + an unspecified value), but not for all density estimates. It is not clear if the stock biomass ranges quoted in the text (page 9, 1st parag) are based on a statistical analysis. If the range is based on a mean + a statistical parameter (e.g. 95% confidence limits), then the quoted percentages for fishable stock as a proportion of standing stock should also have confidence limits applied. With apparently such wide confidence limits I do not think it is appropriate to conclude “These figures also indicate that the average density of clams in tons/ha in managed and non-managed areas were likely to have been very similar.”

2 (3). See also Page 16, 2nd parag. With such high variability demonstrated by the scientific surveys, are the (unquoted) number of simple 1m2 quadrat samples carried out by the co-ops at three tidal height areas adequate to achieve the desired estimates of potential fishable biomass and the remaining biomass following harvesting within acceptable statistical limits?

(4). Page 18. Text table. Why were there no Mollusca (e.g. clams) in Dec 2005? Is this indicative of a very small survey and sample size which missed the contagious distribution of the clams?

(5). See also Scoring Comment Table 3A.6.2. – the comment in Italics below seems to confirm my reservations. “For adult clams, the level of harvest varies between co-operatives depending on the status of broodstock; well established broodstock will lead to higher harvest %, e.g. 60 to 80% of clam biomass within harvest area – larger clams tend to be returned for future broodstock enhancement. It is less clear how much meaningful evaluation of broodstock levels is carried out, nor what would be considered viable levels.

(6). See also (Scoring Comment Table 3A.5.1/2/3, 3A.6.1/2/3, 3A.7.1 Research, Monitoring, Environmental Impacts.) below where the robustness of surveys is a major factor in the efficacy of the implementation of MSC Principle 3 Criteria. Moody Marine Comment: Since the 2001 surveys the emphasis of the fishery has changed dramatically from wild collection to relaying. Overall targets of percentage fishable biomass would therefore be less relevant. The most important surveys are therefore those of the fishable biomass within the relaid plots. While the team did question the small scale of the surveys for this purpose (typically single 1m quadrats at each of three shore levels for a relaying plot; the managers pointed out that the clams would have been laid at a very even density (usually at most a year earlier, and often less, depending upon the number of relaying operations employed), in areas generally known for good growth, and the plots are small at typically 1-2 ha. They often carry out similar surveys following harvest and these typically confirm the expected levels of remaining clams. When asked what action they would take if the amount of clams being harvested turned out to be less than had been identified during the surveys, the clam managers claimed it had never happened. DARD officials confirmed all of these assertions, and supported the view that the surveys were sufficient to quantify the available harvest. DARD have organised a number of workshops in which stock surveys were an important part of the training provided to the clam managers. The report text has been amended to include the above information.

The team accept that surveys of broodstock biomass in particular need to be rigorous to prove that the management system is working in the long term, and that some view on likely viable levels is required. While it is known that more recent surveys of clams, including broodstock, were requested and carried out, detailed results for these were not available to the team in time for the scoring assessment. This will, however, be a key factor at future annual surveillance audits.

3 In the clam survey table, in all cases “+/-“ represented 1 standard deviation.

Re comment 4) the clam biomass prior to very extensive relaying operations was certainly contiguous and it was mentioned elsewhere in the report that there were areas with no clams.

The report text has been amended to clarify the team’s understanding of the situation with respect to some of the uncertainties in surveyed biomass.

2.2. Page 10. External factors.

Very low salinity <2‰ causes mortality, and high (unspecified) salinity can have negative impacts. Is the salinity tolerance of seed, adult and brood clams known?

Are there any studies to quantify the possible level of predation on clams by gastropods, crabs, and starfish, or is only anecdotal information (as given) available? The lack of information on possible bird predation is addressed by Condition 2. Moody Marine Comment: Salinity tolerances of clams at different stages have been studied although the studies did not, as far as we are aware, distinguish between adult and brood stock clams. There is no available quantitative data on predation rates as far as the team is aware.

2.5. Clam re-laying and harvest.

I am somewhat confused about the proportion of clam grounds exploited now and in the future. Clarification is surely needed!

There are a number of percentage values used in the Main Report and Comments Table (see examples below). The quote (Page 25, 4.1, last sentence) “but it seems increasingly that protected/enhanced broodstock areas are included within the definition of unmanaged areas” adds further confusion.

Page 9, last paragraph quotes “This has been limited to no more than 35 – 40% of the fishable biomass, according to National Regulations. Under these regulations, the managed areas have to reach up to around 6,000 ha, representing 40% of the suitable clam area. Further surveys are planned, however, which may allow development of up to 70% or more of sand flats.”

Page 12, last line “Since 2007, up to 24% has been used for clam management.”

Page 14, lines 1-3 “According to DARD Ben Tre up to the year 2020 the clam management area will be increasing to 7,800 ha, representing 51% of the total potential sand flat area for clams.”

4 Page 20, 3.1, “Biodiversity Law, Chapter III, article 12 allows no more than 70% of sand flats to be used for clam management.

Page 25, 2nd parag. “Recommendations to DARD from Research Institute for Aquaculture that 40% of suitable clam sand flats should be unmanaged has been revised by DARD which now requires that only 10% [= 90% managed] should be permanently protected.”

Comment Scoring Table 2.1.4.4. The fishery currently exploits a minority of available sandflat area (although plans are to continue extending this, subject to scientific approval, to 80% of available sandflat).

See also Comment Scoring Table 3A.7.2. No Take Zones.

My Comments: -

How can DARD (Page 25) over-rule (at 90%) the (Page 20) primary legislation (maximum 70%), or are the numbers quoted incorrect?

Page 9, last paragraph, mentions an objective of exploiting no more than 35 – 40% of the fishable biomass. No rationale has been provided to justify the choice of these values. There are plans to consider increasing the proportion exploited to as high as 90%, with again no explicit rationale or justification.

Applying the Precautionary Principle it will be important to progress very carefully with robust monitoring if the area of the so-called ‘managed areas’ is to be increased at the expense of the ‘no-take zones’. (The use of ‘managed areas’ is a euphemism for ‘exploited areas’.) It is noted that under the Scoring Comment Table 3A.1.4. the need for external review is considered important if the proportion of available clam sand flats is increased, and this is addressed in Condition 3. One of the aims of future annual surveillance visits should be to assess the degree of expansion onto previously un-exploited areas, particularly by the many co-operatives just establishing production. Moody Marine Comment: The team agrees that there is some confusion over this issue. Some of the confusion seems to arise over differing definitions of the “sand flats” to which the percentages apply – in some instances the term sand flats has been used extremely loosely and includes mud flats and sometimes even mangrove areas. In some cases broodstock and seed clam areas seemed to be included in the clam management figures and in other cases not. While the present level of use appears undoubtedly sustainable, and this is expected to continue to be the case given the levels of surveillance applied, the future increases in exploited areas will need to be clearly identified and evaluated. A recommendation (Recommendation 1) has been added to the report to help the client in dealing with this issue.

2.8. Bycatch and discards.

Page 19, line 4-5. There is no description (yet in the report) of how the fishers select and return the larger clams to the sandflats to provide future broodstock.

5 I fail to understand why the report says that these rejected larger clams “are not considered to be “discard[s]”, particularly as in the Scoring Comment Table 1.1.2.1 it says “ Discards are of small clam below commercial size (which re-bury) or large clam which provide broodstock.”, and in 3A.6.1. large clams are considered to be discards. Moody Marine Comment: The selection of larger clams is done simply by hand. Clam managers (from both co-operatives and from DARD) present in the field during the harvest encourage this. During the team scoring meeting it was decided that the large clams should indeed be considered as discards and the text has been amended to reflect this.

3.2. Regulations

The Scoring Comments Table 3B.5.3 quotes “National minimum landing size is relatively small compared to the desired commercial size so there is unlikely to be significant transgression in this respect.” A reference to this observation here (3.2) would be relevant.

The practices of returning larger (essentially a maximum size limit of 15-20/kg, >=60mm) clams and harvesting only 80% (by weight) of the fishable biomass to maintain broodstock are not listed as regulations. These are presumably voluntary measures with no force in law or potential for enforcement. Have there been any observations to assess compliance with this practice? Would the imposition of a maximum size limit be a way of allowing enforcement? Moody Marine Comment: There is no regulation in respect of these. From interviews with clam managers (from co-operatives, Fisheries Bureaux and DARD) and observations of the fishery in practice (members of the team observed both clam seed collection and adult clam harvest), the team were left with no doubt that the co-operatives regard these as essential parts of the strategy in order to continue to benefit from the fishery in future, which is to be expected given the “ownership” of the fishery that the co-operatives enjoy. Whilst there are some concerns about the accuracy of surveys of clam broodstocks, and the knowledge of what broodstock levels are actually appropriate there is no doubt that the co-operatives have been very effectively trained by DARD to take seriously the aim of protecting, or even building up their own, local broodstocks. In particular, the way in which the fishery is managed gives little incentive not to release the larger clams – the individuals concerned would not get paid any more, would not finish their day’s work significantly earlier, and would appear not to have to work significantly harder; whilst at the same time their activities are monitored and they are actively encouraged to release the larger clams.

4.4. Reviews of the management system

Page 25, last parag. “Some aspects of management are reviewed externally at the request of DARD e.g. resurvey of broodstock areas by RIA 2 was requested by DARD to test successful management by broodstock maintenance/enhancement.”

6 Is this survey published and listed in the “Other Information Sources”, if yes, have the conclusions been referred to in the report? If not, is it a pending or in progress project as mentioned in 3.4, 2nd paragraph, and are there any results and conclusions yet? Moody Marine Comment: Some aspects of this resurvey were available for review but the majority was not available at the time the report was prepared.

10.3.1. Conditions.

The Conditions 1-3 cover the three scores of <80 (2.1.4.4. / 2.2.1.3. / 3A.1.4.).

10.3.2. Recommendations.

Proposed Recommendation.

Recommendation 1.

As the management of the fishery is very dependent upon reasonably reliable biomass estimates to both constrain harvesting and maintain broodstock, it is essential to have confidence in the survey methods and analysis. The Main Report fails to demonstrate the required robustness and statistical analysis of the biomass surveys.

Action required: It is recommended that a Survey Workshop is set up to examine the existing survey protocols, design and statistical analysis. All those involved in clam surveys (Co-operatives, management bodies, and research institutes) should provide representatives. An agreed approach for future biomass surveys, clearly designed to meet the respective objectives of setting harvest levels and advising on broodstock maintenance and enhancement, should be drawn up with a clear set of instructions and guidance notes (could be added to the ‘red book’). The sourcing and provision of appropriate statistical analysis, particularly for the Co-operatives, should be explored and resolved.

Timescale: By the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Moody Marine Comment: Such a recommendation would be appropriate for the fishery and could be considered by the client. Implementation of recommendations is, however, at the discretion of the client.

(D). REVIEW OF THE SCORING COMMENT TABLE.

Comments are referenced to the Scoring Table notation.

PRINCIPLE 1.

1.1.1.4. Stock abundance.

7 I have serious doubts about the positive nature of the comments and the relatively high score of 90. See my comments for the Main Report (2.2. Stock evaluation – surveys; 10.3.2. Recommendations – my proposed Condition) about the frequency and extent of surveys, and the statistical analysis and presentation of abundance, density and biomass estimates. The issues I have highlighted need to be addressed in the Main Report and Scoring Comments to see if it is still possible to justify a score of 90.

In general, despite the relative ease of sampling inter-tidal mollusc populations, the distribution is often contagious, demanding quite high sampling intensity with well designed sampling distributions, and leading to high variability in biomass estimates. Moody Marine Comment: Under present management regimes the biomass surveys that are carried out shortly before harvest in order to inform the harvest strategy are the most important. Discussion of this is given in the response to query “2.2 Stock evaluation surveys”. Some doubts about the effectiveness of broodstock surveys have been expressed in the report text and scoring table. The team considers that the score is justified

1.1.1.6. Variability in recruitment.

Page 10 of the Main Report describes the external factors affecting clam stock and seed recruitment. Silt build up, high temperatures, poor water quality, and salinity fluctuations have the potential to cause mortality of seed or adults, and can result in mass mortalities.

The experience of clam co-operatives is that mass clam deaths result in greatly reduced clam landings in the subsequent year affecting both local and export markets, but have no noticeable impact upon subsequent clam seed settlements. This observation could imply there is no stock/recruitment relationship, i.e. recruitment is independent of stock size (although there would be a minimum threshold biomass). However, it is possible that the areas of deeper water, where broodstock is maintained by preventing exploitation, are less susceptible to environmental factors so that recruitment is maintained.

While accepting that there is considerable management of seed survival by transportation to more suitable areas, I have to question the very positive comments and the score of 100. There is information on the variability in recruitment, but is it quantitative or qualitative? Even if it is quantitative, the natural variability and sampling errors would be large. Is future recruitment to the fishable stock predictable when there are such opportunities for significant, even mass, mortalities from environmental fluctuations? Can the performance indicator “Information, built up over a long time series exists and can be reliably used to predict recruitment for medium term stock projections.” be supported and justify a perfect score of 100? Moody Marine Comment: Clearly future mass mortalities based on climatic factors as has happened on two major occasions in the past decade cannot be predicted. The score is based on the ability that the clam managers have

8 to estimate future (short /medium term as stated in the scoring table for 1.1.1.6) clam stocks once clam-seed settlement has occurred, under normal conditions. Obviously the predictions will increase in both precision (and usefulness) closer to harvest time.

1.1.2.1. Incidental Mortality. (See also Scoring Comment Table 3B.1.1)

There was no mention in the Main Report of studies on the incidental mortality of clams due to the fishing method (hand rakes), minimum size selection (nets), and discards of large clams. It is noted that tractors and machine harvesting are banned, but vessels are permitted to lay on the beds at low tide to collect raked clams. I would expect the impact of vessels to be relatively small. Studies of mortality during transportation of seed have been undertaken.

Unless evidence can be provided to show that any incidental fishery related mortality is insignificant the score of 100 is not justified. Moody Marine Comment: It is important to bear in mind the management methods employed (whereby the weight of clams that are re-laid are known at each relaying, and the weight of clams available for harvesting is estimated by survey); and also that there is knowledge from both widespread relaying experience plus studies on mortality during transfer of seed clams, so that the additional benefit of very detailed studies of incidental mortality would be extremely limited. In the context of the question being asked (essentially whether fishery related mortalities are sufficiently well known to allow their effects on the stock to be evaluated) accuracy of landings data, including any allowances that have to be made for incidental mortality, is considered to be very good, particularly given how unimportant this information actually is in terms of assessing stocks. We therefore believe that the score is justified.

1.1.2.3. Other fisheries.

I would assume that illegal catches are at best estimated. In which case can you justify the score of 90? Moody Marine Comment: Illegal catches are of course not known in detail, but as with the above comment, their importance in the context of the question would contrast greatly with the situation for a typical finfish stock assessment, for example, where accurate estimates of illegal fishing are a valuable input to fisheries models. In the Ben Tre clam, there is a stock survey immediately prior to harvest and if there had been any thefts these would be reflected in the estimate obtained. Reduction of illegal catches is still considered of importance in maintaining broodstock levels, of course.

1.1.2.4. Selectvity.

To justify a score of 100 I would have expected to see some selection results in the Main Report. Even with nets there will be some selection variability.

9 Hand selection for the discards of larger clams appears to be done by eye, and is thus subject to individual fisher subjectivity. Moody Marine Comment: Hand selection is indeed mainly done by eye for the large clams, although the importance of this is probably low – there is a percentage of the available clams, usually 20%, that is not taken, and this will predominantly be the larger clams.

1.1.3. There is a well-defined and effective harvest strategy to manage the target stock.

Throughout this section it should be borne in mind during scoring that management objectives (Main Report 4.2) set by DARD are quite generalised in nature, and that short-term objectives are set by the Co-operatives in response to market demands. Moody Marine Comment: It is perhaps a bit unfair to say that the short term objectives are set by the co-operatives in response to market demands. The co-ops have a strategy that prioritises maintaining broodstocks, and they tell the market what amount of clams will be available based on survey estimates. Whilst the DARD objectives may be somewhat generalised, they have prioritised an overall strategy of “ownership” by the co-ops that is intended to, and has, encouraged the co-operatives to view the future sustainability of the clams as an important priority, and also have prioritised training and information provision (including specific harvest rules etc) to the co-ops, as well as reduction of illegal fishing. This cannot guarantee responsible behaviour, but certainly is an extremely good incentive, and one that is well adopted.

10 1.1.3.1. Reference points.

See my comments above in 1.1.1.4 Stock abundance and 1.1.1.6. Variability in recruitment. To score 90 it would be necessary to be convinced about the reliability of quantitative estimates of spawning stock biomass and recruitment, and the ability of Co-operatives to undertake satisfactory surveys. I remain sufficiently unconvinced, so question the high score. Moody Marine Comment: Concerns about surveys are addressed by the comments and recommendation referred to in “2.2. Stock evaluation – surveys” above.

1.1.3.2. Harvest limits.

While harvest limits are set, I am not convinced that they are based on sufficiently robust surveys and biomass estimates to satisfy that “high long- term productivity (in a precautionary manner)” is achieved, or that precautionary allowance can be made for the significant unpredictable impact of environmental variability on survival of fishable and brood stock. Moody Marine Comment: Concerns about surveys are addressed by the comments and recommendation referred to in “2.2. Stock evaluation – surveys” above. Furthermore it would be hard to ask the fishery to be more precautionary re the main broodstock areas than the complete and permanent no-take rule that is presently in force.

1.1.4.1. Long-term productivity.

Glad to see more pragmatic comments that concur with a realistic score (see high scores questioned above). Moody Marine Comment: Noted

1.3.1.1. Population structure.

I agree with the score and comments, but see my concerns about surveys (Main Report 2.2. above). Moody Marine Comment: Concerns about surveys are addressed by the comments and recommendation referred to in “2.2. Stock evaluation – surveys” above.

PRINCIPLE 2.

2.1.1.2. Non-target species.

Comment: “There are effects associated with the fishery on other molluscan species notably the gastropods Natica and Polyices. These are lower shore/subtidal species that may be harvested as food when on sandflats in higher densities, normally during north-easterly monsoon winds. These are thought to be possibly predatory on clams but not harvested because of this.

11 Main Report Page 18, 2.7, last parag. “In order to control oc mo, hand picking is allowed in sand flat areas used for clam management as well as clam seed nursery.

Texts in Italics are conflicting! Moody Marine Comment: We understand that it is very unusual to pick the gastropods with the aim of deliberately reducing their populations and hence predation effects, although it may have been tried in the past. Whenever we asked co-operative managers about this they either told us that there were not many gastropods in their area, or that on those occasions when gastropods were present in the general area in larger amounts than usual local people were told they could collect them for personal consumption if they want to, although there is no clear understanding of whether this makes any real difference to the clams. This was observed by the team (Rang Dong co- operative visit) this took the form of a small number of families collecting gastropods with a bucket along the waters edge adjacent to the areas, and the team were informed that this was typical.

2.1.3.1. Gear impacts

Score seems a bit high bearing in mind that studies on habitat impacts are not directly “studied and quantified” (PI 100). Moody Marine Comment: The team are satisfied that a score of 90 is justified given the nature of the harvesting activities.

2.1.4.2. Non-target impacts

“Very little by catch is observed during harvesting and none is removed from harvesting areas.” What about the gastropods (see 2.1.1.2.)? Moody Marine Comment: Gastropod removal appears to be limited and tends to occur along the waters edge in nearby areas. See response to 2.1.1.2 above.

PRINCIPLE 3.

3A.3.2. Operational Procedures.

I would need my reservations about the robustness of biomass surveys and their statistical analysis to be positively addressed before I could contemplate a score above 80, let alone 100. Moody Marine Comment: This is addressed by the comments and recommendation referred to in “2.2. Stock evaluation – surveys” above.

3A.3.3. Measuring performance.

I would need my reservations about the robustness of biomass surveys and their statistical analysis to be positively addressed before I could contemplate a score above 80, let alone 90. Moody Marine Comment: see above

12 3A.3.4. Consultation.

The 80 score seems a little harsh. Surely it was up to BLI, if they had concerns, to make contact as they were working nearby (see Scoring Comment Table 3A.5.3.). Moody Marine Comment: The management makes insufficient attempts to consult more widely to score more highly than this.

3A.5.1/2/3, 3A.6.1/2/3, 3A.7.1 Research, Monitoring, Environmental Impacts.

My concerns about the robustness of biomass surveys and their statistical analysis should be addressed and the relevant scores re-assessed. I would like to see a Recommendation proposing a Survey Workshop unless my reservations can be alleviated by the addition of relevant information, results, survey plans and details in the Main Report. Moody Marine Comment: see above

3B.2.1. Fishing impacts.

The score of 100 is not justified bearing in mind the research planned on turbidity (see 3A.5.2 “Water quality and plankton resource will be studied, including possible effects of increased turbidity (caused by harvesting activities) on plankton”). Moody Marine Comment: While every possible factor has not been considered, the fishery is judged to meet the 100 scoring level here.

13 ANNEX: MINOR EDITORIAL COMMENTS REQUIRING ATTENTION.

My comments are referenced to the section numbering in the Report and Scoring Table. Moody Marine Comment: Suitable amendments have been made

MAIN REPORT.

1. Introduction

Meetings and site visits. Page 2, 6th line from bottom. “………harvesting were ??????.” Sentence not completed.

2.1. Biology.

Page 6, 5th line. Spell out elements C, P, N. 14th line. 2.5, not “2,5”.

Life history. Page 6, last parag. “……..three stages as follows”, but only 2 listed in subsequent text.

Page 7, 5th parag. Confusing sentence construction. Suggest rewording (if I have interpreted it correctly): - The typical marketable size of 30-110 clams/kg is usually reached 10 months after relaying for the large clam seed (1,000 -– 6,000clams/kg) and 18 months for small clam seed (>22,000 clams/kg), (although………).

Fecundity table on page 8, penultimate value “1,060,42” is missing a last number - 1,060,42?.

2.2. Stock evaluation.

Page 8, penultimate line “…..reas…” should be ….areas…

Page 9. 1st text line, “On the basis of this stock assessment,….”. Line 5, “Gulland (1979)” not in reference list.

Page 9 et seq. Tons or tonnes?

Page 10, 3rd line from bottom, and elsewhere. …..Co-operative managers…., not “co-operative”

Page 11, 1st parag. No explanation as to why the removal of clam shells should be necessary to “maintain the fishery”.

Figure 1. A size scale (km) should be added.

2.5. Clam re-laying and harvest.

14 Page 14, 2nd sentence “Under natural…… one year… to 100,000/kg… and…. 5,000/kg? Needs clarification. Does it mean growth to 100,000/kg and then to 5,000/kg in one year, or one year to 100,000/kg, and then a second year to 5,000/kg or what?

Page 15, penultimate line, “With this mesh size only the commercial clams of 25 – 80 clams/kg….” On Page 7, 5th parag “….typical marketable size of 30- 110 clams/kg….” Using the 30mm gathering net it should not be possible to retain clams >80 clams/kg. Which is the appropriate range?

Page 15, last line “Hand gathering is also allowed…..”. Hand gathering (with rake) has just been described in previous paragraph.

Page 16, 3rd parag. lines 2-3; change to “…….for which purpose a harvest coupon is provided……”.

Page 17, 3rd parag. and elsewhere. Unnecessarily precise percentages given e.g. …34.81% of the population. …35%… would have been fine!

2.6. Fishing locations.

Refer back to Fig 1 with some explanation of the local definition and allocation of areas to co-ops.

Section 3.3 mentions Figures 2, 3 & 4. I can only see Figure 2 "Summary of management structure, roles and responsibilities at September 2008". Figure numbering in text will need to be checked. [An email was received from Moody Marine clarifying that there should only be two Figures and that the text will be modified accordingly.]

SCORING COMMENT TABLE

1.1.1.1. et seq. First reference not listed in “Other Information Sources” in Main Report. I have not checked the rest of the subsequent references, leaving this for the authors to complete.

1.1.1.2. The last sentence is somewhat repetitive. Just add the bit on movements to the 2nd paragraph.

1.1.1.5. “….birds also feed probably on small clams but not considered problematical).” Do you mean not considered to be significant? If so, what is the evidence; most seems to be anecdotal.

1.1.2.3. First use of “IUU catches” – spell out.

15 Appendix C

ACTION PLAN FOR MEETING THE CONDITIONS OF THE MSC CERTIFICATION FOR BEN TRE CLAM FISHERY

Condition 1. Effects on sandflat communities

Action required: The impacts on clam harvest on sandflat invertebrate communities are expected to present a low risk to sandflat community structure. The fishery currently exploits a minority of the available sandflat area, but this is expected to increase. The effects of clam harvest on community structure (e.g. comparisons of the species composition and number of each species in harvested and non-harvested areas) have not, however been studied. The effect of clam harvesting should be investigated to determine the impact on sandflat community structure and the level of impact considered in terms of overall impacts on communities within Ben Tre. If impacts are significant, appropriate management measures should be implemented. Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the second annual surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the third surveillance audit. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.4.4

Plan of Ben Tre Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for condition 1: DARD will respond to this requirement. Research on the impacts of clam harvesting on community structure of the sandflat along the coast of Ben Tre must be implemented. Based on the results of research, if the impacts are significant, DARD will work with relevant management authorities to issue regulations, recommendations for sustainable maintenance of the community structure on the sandflat The research will be conducted from 2010 to 2011. Any necessary management responses will be implemented in 2012

Condition 2. Effects of disturbance of shorebirds

Action required: Ben Tre may support internationally important numbers of some species of shorebird (e.g the wader, greater sand plover). Disturbance during harvesting may pose a risk to these migratory species through prevention of feeding which may place an energetic stress on the birds. There should be estimation (e.g in some representative cooperatives) of the numbers and species of shorebirds present (seasonally) and the extent to which these may be disturbed by harvesting (e.g. the distances/number of times birds need to move to find alternate feeding locations). Timescale: Studies should be designed by the time of the first annual surveillance audit. Studies should be carried out by the third surveillance audit and any necessary management response in place by the fourth surveillance audit. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.2.1.3

Plan of Ben Tre Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for condition 2: In 2008 there was a research on the composition of the bird species a long the coast of Ben Tre (project “Research and assessment of the biodiversity and biology resource in the estuaries of Ben Tre. Develop management solutions and reasonable use”, led by Professor, Dr. Le Huy Ba). However, up to date, there has been no research on the impacts of clam harvesting on the food finding of birds as an input for management decisions on conservation of birds (at international important level) which are present on the Ben Tre coast. The research will be conducted from 2011 to 2012 Any necessary management responses will be implemented by 2013

Condition 3. External review

Action required: Mechanisms exist for DARD to instigate scientific studies to answer specific management questions, and are subject to monitoring by, for example, the Ministry and PCC. However, there is no systematic and thorough independent review of the appropriateness of the entire management system from DARD to cooperative level. This may be particularly relevant given proposed changes in clam harvest areas within Ben Tre. Timescale: A review programme with terms of reference and review frequency should be developed by the first annual surveillance audit and enacted thereafter. Relevant Scoring Indicators: 3A.1.4

Plan of Ben Tre Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for condition 3: An independent consultant will be identified to conduct assessment periodically on the appropriateness of the entire management system from DARD to cooperative level, starting from 2010. Based on the result of the assessment, adjustment will be made if necessary in order to keep up with the intention of expanding and developing the clam area in Ben Tre. The assessment will be conducted every two year, started in 2010 over the 10 clam cooperatives or the Alliance of Cooperatives