MAC ALISTER ELLIOTT AND PARTNERS LTD Final Report Normandy and Jersey lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) fishery 28 APRIL 2010 MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 6790 16 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.macalister-elliott.com
Table of contents Report summary ...... 1 Résumé du rapport ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 General background ...... 5 1.2 Client ...... 5 1.3 Unit of Certification ...... 5 1.4 Assessment team and peer reviewers ...... 7 1.5 Previous assessments by MEP ...... 8 1.6 Report structure ...... 9 2. The fishery ...... 10 2.1 Target species and population ...... 10 2.2 Fishing operations ...... 10 2.3 Fishing effort ...... 12 2.3.1 Licenced pots ...... 12 2.3.2 Other metrics of effort ...... 13 2.4 Landings ...... 15 2.4.1 Basse Normandie ...... 15 2.4.2 Jersey ...... 15 2.4.3 Recreational landings ...... 16 2.5 Retained species, by-catch and protected species ...... 16 2.6 Ecosystem context ...... 18 2.6.1 Oceanographic context ...... 18 2.6.2 Benthos ...... 18 2.6.3 Protected and designated areas ...... 18 2.7 Interactions with other fisheries and non-fisheries activities ...... 20 3. Stock status and assessment ...... 21 3.1 Fisheries-dependent data and analysis ...... 21 3.2 Fisheries-independent data and analysis ...... 22 3.3 Size structure ...... 23 4. Management System ...... 25 4.1 Organisations involved in management ...... 25 4.2 Legislative and administrative context ...... 26 4.2.1 National / regional frameworks ...... 26 4.2.2 Co-management framework ...... 26
2147R02B April 2011
4.3 Management plan and objectives, rules and tools ...... 27 5. Fishery evaluation process ...... 29 5.1 MSC standard ...... 29 5.2 Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ...... 30 5.3 PSA for lobster ...... 30 5.4 Assessment process ...... 30 5.5 Assessment of Normandy and Jersey lobster fishery ...... 31 5.6 Stakeholder consultations ...... 32 6. Scoring ...... 33 6.1 Scoring methodology ...... 33 6.2 Weighting ...... 33 7. Assessment results ...... 35 7.1 Overall results ...... 35 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 35 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 36 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 36 7.5 Conditions ...... 37 7.5.1 Timetable for Conditions ...... 37 7.5.2 Formal Conditions ...... 37 7.5.3 De facto conditions ...... 39 7.5.4 Recommendations ...... 40 7.5.5 Client Action Plan ...... 40 8. Chain of custody ...... 41 8.1 Vessels in the Unit of Certification ...... 41 8.2 Points of landing ...... 41 8.3 Processing on board ...... 41 8.4 Traceability within the fishery ...... 41 8.4.1 Jersey ...... 41 8.4.2 Basse Normandie ...... 42 8.5 Eligibility date ...... 42 Annex 1 – Assessment tree ...... 43 Annex 2: SICA and PSA Tables with scores and justifications ...... 98 1. Principle 1 (target species) SICA tables. ...... 98 2. Principle 1 (target species) PSA tables. ...... 107 3. Principle 2 (retained and by-catch species) SICA tables. ...... 111
2147R02B April 2011
Annex 3 – Client Action Plan ...... 117 Annex 4 – Summary of stakeholder comments ...... 126 Annex 4 – Summary of stakeholder comments ...... 126 Annex 5 – Peer reviewer comments with responses ...... 128 Annex 6 - References ...... 161
2147R02B April 2011
Report summary This is the Final Report for the MSC assessment of the fishery for European lobster (Homarus gammarus ) co-managed by the Bailiwick of Jersey (UK) and the region of Basse Normandie (lower Normandy, France). Co-management of the fishery is also shared by the region of Bretagne (Brittany, France) whose fishermen land a small proportion of the catch; however, they did not choose to participate in the assessment. The assessment was carried out by the Certification Body MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. on behalf of the two clients: the Comité Regional de Pêche Maritime (CRPM) de Basse Normandie and the Department of Fisheries, States of Jersey. Co-management of the fishery takes place within the framework of the Granville Bay Treaty (between the UK and France), which allows for shared access to French and Jersey waters in Granville Bay, with shared management of marine resources. The Granville Bay Treaty sets out objectives for fisheries in the shared Granville Bay Treaty area. Agreements made at the Granville Bay Treaty level are implemented at the national or regional level via existing institutional structures. Enforcement is tackled at national or regional level, but discussed at the Granville Bay Treaty level. The fishery is a fixed gear (trap) fishery, using two types of traps – parlour pots and standard or ‘inkwell’ pots. Management is by control of effort. There is a maximum number of licences in both jurisdictions and for the Granville Bay Treaty area. Fishermen are subject to a maximum number of pots, and the use of parlour pots is restricted in some areas. There is a minimum landing size and five closed areas where lobster fishing is not permitted in French waters. Much of the area is designated or protected in some way, either by Natura 2000 (SPA) or Ramsar designations. Retained species are brown crab and to a lesser extent spider and velvet swimming crab. The only by-catch identified is the bait used in the pots (freezer damaged fish or trawler by-catch). A wide variety of protected species use the area but none interact with the fishery. For most Performance Indicators (PIs), the fishery was scored as one fishery – i.e. both Normandy and Jersey aspects were taken into account, but a single score was given. However, for some elements of Principle 3 the two sides were scored separately, and different scores were given. PIs 1.1.1 (stock status outcome), 2.1.1 (retained species outcome) and 2.2.1 (by-catch species outcome) were scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). The fishery has been certified as sustainable under the MSC standard . For Principle 1, the fishery scored an overall score of 80. Two PIs scored less than 80: PI 1.1.1 where the PSA gave a score of 75, and PI 1.2.2 (harvest control rules and tools) which received a score of 75. Two conditions were thus imposed for Principle 1: i) that the fishery should work to reduce exploitation rate and dependence on recruits; and ii) that the fishery should better define harvest control rules such that it is agreed that fishing effort will be reduced as a pre-defined reference point is approached. For Principle 1 there are also two de facto ‘conditions’, because the fishery cannot be scored using the RBF again. This means that PIs 1.1.2 (reference points) and 1.2.4 (stock assessment) also need to be met.
1 | 2147R02B April 2011
For Principle 2, the fishery scored an overall score of 88.7 One PI received a score of <80: PI 2.1.3 (retained species information). Here the team was concerned that although velvet swimming crab is not an important retained species, no effort seems to be made to collate catch and effort data to keep track of the stock status. The team felt that existing data should be periodically reviewed to ensure that risk remains low. For Principle 3, Basse Normandie scored an overall score of 87.75, while Jersey scored an overall score of 91. One PI scored <80 for both sides: PI 3.2.4 – research. While the team agreed that a wide range of pertinent research contributes to the management of the fishery, they note that MSC requires a written research plan, which does not exist. The condition is to prepare a joint plan. Although not a condition, the team was slightly concerned about the slow communication of catch statistics on the French side. We would recommend that action is taken to ensure swift annual publication of landings statistics. Overall, however, the team were impressed by the fishery, particularly from the management point of view, and particularly given the challenges of the trans-national and multi-lingual management environment, which are negotiated very successfully. The main concerns are around Principle 1, and do not reflect a perception that the stock is in poor shape – rather they reflect concerns about future risks and a slightly ill-defined management framework for this fishery specifically. The team recognises that the conditions imposed on this fishery for certification are very challenging, but feels that they are necessary for a robust and sustainable fishery in the long term, in a changing environment.
2 | 2147R02B April 2011
Résumé du rapport Ce rapport est le Rapport Final pour l’évaluation MSC de la pêcherie de homard (Homarus gammarus ), gérée conjointement par le Bailiwick de Jersey (Royaume- Uni) et la région Basse Normandie (France). Le système de cogestion est partagé aussi par la région Bretagne (France), dont les pêcheurs prennent une faible part des captures; la région n’a cependant pas choisi de participer à la certification MSC. L’évaluation a été faite par le CB (‘certification body’ ; bureau de certification) MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. pour les deux clients: le Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes (CRPM) de Basse Normandie et le ‘Department of Fisheries’ de Jersey. La cogestion de la pêcherie est encadrée par la Traité de la Baie de Granville (entre la France et Jersey), qui permet un accès partagé aux eaux françaises et jersiaises dans la Baie de Granville dans le cadre d’une gestion partagée des ressources marines. Le Traité définit des objectifs pour les pêcheries de la zone. Les accords sont appliqués aux niveaux national ou régional à travers les structures institutionnelles existantes. La surveillance est aussi gérée au niveau national ou régional, et discutée à l’échelle de la Baie de Granville. La pêcherie est une pêcherie aux casiers, deux sortes de casiers étant utilisés: les casiers classiques et les casiers pièges. La gestion est surtout effectuée par un contrôle de l’effort de pêche. Dans chaque zone côtière, ainsi que dans la zone partagée, le nombre de permis de pêche est plafonné. Des règlementations locales fixent le nombre maximum de casiers par pêcheur et interdisent l’utilisation des casiers pièges dans certaines zones. Une grande partie de la zone est désignée ou protégée par le système Natura 2000 ou la convention Ramsar. En dehors du homard, l’espèce retenue la plus importante est le crabe tourteau, et on note aussi des captures de crabe araignée et d’étrille. La pêcherie utilise les captures accessoires de chalutiers non commercialisables ou abimées en congélation. L’écosystème est important pour un grand nombre d’espèces protégées qui n’ont pas d’interaction avec la pêcherie. Pour le plupart des IPs (indicateurs de performance), la pêcherie a été notée comme une seule pêcherie – c.à.d. les aspects normands et jersiais ont été pris en compte, mais la pêcherie a reçu une seule note. Pour certains éléments du Principe 3, cependant, les deux systèmes de gestion ont été notés séparément et ont obtenu des notes différentes. Le cadre d’analyse de risque (‘Risk-Based Framework’, RBF) a été utilisé pour la notation des IPs 1.1.1 (état du stock), 2.1.1 (espèces retenues) et 2.2.1 (espèces rejetées). La pêcherie a été certifié comme durable, selon le Standard MSC . Pour le Principe 1, la pêcherie a reçu un score global de 80. Deux IPs ont été notés à moins de 80: IP 1.1.1, où l’évaluation PSA a donné un score de 75, et IP 1.2.2 (contrôles des captures: règles et outils de gestion) qui a reçu un score de 75. Deux conditions ont été donc imposées pour le Principe 1: i) que la pêcherie agisse pour élargir la structure de taille des captures de sorte que la pêcherie dépende moins du recrutement récent; et ii) que la pêcherie élabore des règles de contrôle des captures mieux définies, telles qu’un accord sur une réduction de l’effort de pêche lorsqu’un point de référence prédéfini
3 | 2147R02B April 2011 est atteint. Pour le Principe 1, il existe aussi deux ‘conditions’ liées au fait que la pêcherie ne peut pas être notée à nouveau avec le RBF – ce qui veut dire que les IPs 1.1.2 (points de référence) et 1.2.4 (analyse du stock) doivent être aussi respectés. Pour le Principe 2, la pêcherie a reçu un score global de 88.7. Un seul IP a reçu un score inférieur à 80: IP 2.1.3 (espèces retenues: information). Dans ce cas, l’équipe s’inquiéte de l’absence de suivi de l’état du stock d’étrille. Bien que cette espèce ne soit pas importante dans la pêcherie, l’équipe pense que les données existantes doivent être évaluées de temps à autre, pour s’assurer que les risques restent faibles. Pour le Principe 3, la Basse Normandie a reçu un score de 87.75, et Jersey a reçu un score de 91. Un seul IP a été noté à <80 pour chaque région: IP 3.2.4 – recherche. Bien que l’équipe soit d’accord qu’il existe un grand nombre de recherches pertinentes qui jouent un rôle important dans la gestion de la pêcherie, on note que le MSC exige un plan de recherche écrit, qui n’existe pas. La condition est donc la préparation d’un tel plan au niveau de la Baie de Granville. Bien que ce ne soit pas une condition, l’équipe s’inquiète de l’absence de communication rapide des statistiques de suivi des captures dans le secteur français de la Baie de Granville. Elle suggère que des actions concrètes soient mises en place pour une publication annuelle des statistiques de débarquement. Dans l’ensemble, cependant, l’équipe d’évaluation a été impressionnée par cette pêcherie, notamment du point de vue de la gestion, et particulièrement en ce qui concerne les défis que posent un cadre de gestion plurinational et plurilinguistique, qui sont surmontés avec beaucoup de succès. La plupart des difficultés, du point de vue du MSC, concernent le Principe 1; bien que il n’y ait pas de perception d’un mauvais état du stock – au contraire, l’évidence suggère que le stock est en bonne santé. Les conditions associées au Principe 1 montrent plutôt les préoccupations de l’équipe pour ce qui est des risques futurs, ainsi que pour le cadre de gestion qui n’est pas toujours clairement défini. L’équipe comprend que les conditions imposées sur la pêcherie sont exigeantes, mais aussi qu’elles sont nécessaires pour une pêcherie robuste et durable à long terme, dans un environnement en changement.
4 | 2147R02B April 2011
1. Introduction 1.1 General background The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a non-profit organisation which aims to use market mechanisms to support the long-term sustainability of marine fisheries. MSC has developed a standard for well managed and sustainable fisheries, and an associated methodology for assessing individual fisheries against the standard – this collectively is now called the Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM) (1). The standard and methodology is periodically updated. This assessment uses version 2 of November 2009. Assessments are carried out by private companies (Certification Bodies – CBs) who are accredited to carrying out MSC assessments by the accreditation organisation Accreditation Services International (ASI). This report is the Final Report for the Normandy and Jersey lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) fishery in Granville Bay. The report has been prepared by an assessment team from the CB MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. (MEP). The report will be available for comment on the MSC website, and MEP welcomes comments on the report at any time (contact details on the MSC website or at www.macalister- elliott.com). 1.2 Client There are two clients for this assessment. The client on the French side is the Comité Regional des Pêches Maritimes de Basse Normandie (CRPM). The CRPM Basse Normandie is a professional organisation that brings together fishermen and fish farmers and is empowered to propose bylaws for the management of fishing effort, catches and landings in the lower Normandy region (2). The client on the Jersey side is the Fisheries and Marine Resources Office of the Planning and Environment Department, which is the Jersey government body charged with fisheries management, conservation, research and enforcement of the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law and Regulations (3). Project management for the assessment has been carried out on behalf of the clients by Normandie Fraîcheur Mer (NFM), an organisation set up for Basse Normandie in 1998 by the CRPM and a Producer Organisation (OPBN) to promote and support seafood production (http://www.nfm.fr/htm/present.html). 1.3 Unit of Certification The unit of certification defines exactly what is being assessed and certified. It is set out at the beginning of the assessment process (in the Notification Report to MSC). The unit of certification has been defined as follows: The lobster fishery in the Granville Bay Treaty area and associated Basse Normandie and Jersey territorial waters by commercial fishermen from Basse Normandie (West and North Cotentin) and Jersey.
5 | 2147R02B April 2011
The logic of putting Jersey and Basse Normandie together in the same assessment comes from the existence of the Granville Bay Treaty (4, 5), which provides for co- management of marine resources between Jersey and France (the regions of Basse Normandie and Brittany). While each of the three regions has jurisdiction over its own coastal territorial waters (out to 3 or 6 nautical miles), the rest of the area is managed under a joint regime, which is described in more detail in Section 3 below. The area covered by the Granville Bay Treaty (and hence this Unit of Certification) is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Simplified map of the Granville Bay Treaty area. The dark blue line shows the political boundary between French and Jersey waters, the black line likewise between Norman and Breton waters and the pale blue line Jersey and Guernesey waters. Exclusive territorial waters (where only fishermen from that region have access) are i) for Basse Normandie to the right (east) of the purple line; and ii) for Jersey within the orange circle around Jersey. Between these lines is the area of jurisdiction covered by the Granville Bay Treaty. Some areas have special access rights (not shown here). Some other locations mentioned in the text are shown: 1, 2 and 3 are important lobstering grounds: 1=Minquiers (shared zone), 2=Chausey (Normandy zone); 3=Ecrehous (shared zone); 4=Granville, 5=St. Malo.
The two fisheries are so closely connected (under the Granville Bay Treaty management system) that it was originally decided that they would not be separated into different Units of Certification within the assessment. However, during the
6 | 2147R02B April 2011 process of scoring, it became clear that for a few PIs in Principle 3, the appropriate scores were different for Jersey and Basse Normandie. In these cases, different scores have been given, leading to a different aggregate score for Principle 3 for Jersey and Basse Normandie. This has, however, not led to a different outcome for the assessment. Despite being a full member of the Granville Bay Treaty system, Brittany is not included in this assessment (by choice). In fact, Brittany accounts for a fairly small percentage of lobster production from Granville Bay, according to managers. The figure is reported to be around 5% but since catch statistics are compiled separately for each of the three regions, and are not made public at any centralised point, the fact that Brittany is not participating in the assessment means that the team could not verify this figure directly. In any case, Brittany is a full participant in the Granville Bay Treaty management system, so lobster production by Breton fishermen is assumed to be from the same stock and would be subject to the same management regime as for the other two regions. At present, however, this production would not be eligible for MSC labelling. Nonetheless, lobster from the Granville Bay area (the joint area and associated Breton territorial waters) produced by Breton fishermen might be eligible to join the Unit of Certification in the future should they so wish, as long as they conform to the requirements of the assessment, and if an agreement for certificate sharing can be made. The other Channel Islands (notably Guernsey) are outside the Granville Bay Treaty structure and do not participate in management of the zone. Under the Granville Bay Treaty, however, 30 Guernsey vessels are in theory entitled to Granville Bay licences. Very few, if any, have such licences at present, and lobster landings from the zone by Guernsey boats are trivial. These landings are not included in the Unit of Certification. The addition of Guernsey vessels to the certification in the future would be considerably more complicated than for Breton vessels, because they are not politically a part of the Granville Bay management framework.
1.4 Assessment team and peer reviewers The assessment team was made up of three experts, each of whom has competences in fisheries stock assessment, marine ecology and fisheries management – i.e. in each of the three Principles of the MSC standard. All three experts therefore had equal input on the scoring of each PI in each of the three Principles. For the purpose of drafting the rationales and reporting, each member of the team took responsibility for one of the Principles, and their drafts were then reviewed and revised by the other two team members. The assessment team was composed of the following individuals: Prof. Jean-Claude Brêthes : Jean-Claude is professor of fisheries science at the Institut des Sciences de la Mer, Université de Québec à Rimouski and an expert in fisheries analysis and stock assessment. He has been involved in four other MSC assessments – the Gulf of St. Lawrence northern shrimp fishery, the Euronor and Scapêche /
7 | 2147R02B April 2011
Comapêche saithe fisheries and the Mauritania mullet fishery (trial assessment). Jean- Claude was responsible for Principle 1. Dr. Jo Gascoigne : Jo is the Director for Fisheries Certification at MEP and a former research lecturer in marine biology at Bangor University, where she researched mussel beds and their ecosystem impacts. She has been involved in several previous and ongoing assessments. Jo was responsible for Principle 2. Dr. Sophie des Clers : Sophie des Clers is an independent expert in fisheries management and socioeconomics, as well as an affiliated research fellow of University College London. She is involved in two other ongoing MSC assessments (the Biscay sardine seine fishing and the UK/German offshore saithe fishery). Sophie was responsible for Principle 3. CVs for all three experts are available on the MSC website. The peer reviewers for the report are the following individuals: Dr. Colin Bannister : Colin Bannister retired from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science at Lowestoft, UK, in 2004 after a career of nearly 40 years spanning research, stock assessment, programme management, and advice on the management of shellfish and finfish stocks. From 2000 until retirement he was the Senior Fisheries Science Advisor, providing high level advice to DEFRA and the fishing industry. From 1981-2000 he was head of the Shellfish Resource Group, responsible for research and advice on the management of an array of crustacean and molluscan stocks He was also chair of the ICES Shellfish Committee for several periods during the 1990s. Colin has participated in four MSC certification assessment teams and two peer review teams. Dr. Johan Groeneveld : Johan is a senior scientist at the Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) in Durban, South Africa, and specializes in the biology, impacts of fishing gear, and sustainable management of lobster resources. He obtained a PhD in 2001 at the University of Cape Town with a thesis on the impacts of trap-fishing on two deep-water lobster stocks off South Africa. He spent 12 years (1995-2006) as a research scientist at Marine and Coastal Management (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Government of South Africa), rising to a senior research position as head of crustacean research. During this period he served on several technical working groups responsible for fisheries assessments and management. In 2006-2008 he held a position as fisheries advisor to the Ministry of Fisheries Wealth in the Sultanate of Oman. 1.5 Previous assessments by MEP MEP has completed one full assessment (the Euronor saithe fishery) and is working on seven ongoing assessments (three European groundfish fisheries, a South Atlantic lobster fishery, a toothfish fishery, a mussel fishery and this fishery). Euronor was given a certification without conditions, and so far no annual audits or re-certifications have been carried out by MEP.
8 | 2147R02B April 2011
1.6 Report structure The report is structured as follows: Section 1: Introductory material; Section 2: The fishery – information on the target species; catches; interactions with by-catch species, protected species, habitats and ecosystems; interactions with other fisheries and non-fishing activities; Section 3: Stock status and assessment – fisheries-dependent and -independent data sources and analyses; Section 4: The management system – including management organisations, legislative context, objectives and plans, rules and tools and evaluation; Section 5: MSC fishery evaluation process – including the evaluation process and timeline, use of the Risk-Based Framework and additional PIs and stakeholder consultations; Section 6: Scoring- methodology and weighing; Section 7: Results of the assessment and certification outcome; Section 8: Chain of custody – brief description and risk assessment; Annex 1: Assessment tree – detailed scores and rationales for each PI; Annex 2: SICA Table – details of risk-based scoring process; Annex 3: Client Action Plan Annex 4: Summary of stakeholder comments during information-gathering; Annex 5: Peer reviewer reports and responses; Annex 6: References for main report, Annex 1 and Annex 2
9 | 2147R02B April 2011
2. The fishery 2.1 Target species and population The target species for the fishery is the European lobster Homarus gammarus . The species is abundant around the coast of Western Europe from Norway to North Africa, although it is most abundant around the coasts of the North Sea, the UK and northern France (6, 7). It is depleted by fishing in many areas, but is still abundant in many areas where there is a lot of suitable habitat such as rocky reefs – as in the Granville Bay area. The population structure of Homarus gammarus is not well known, since in common with most invertebrate fisheries, not much research has been done into larval connectivity or genetics. There are, however several lines of evidence to suggest that the Granville Bay stock might be a defined (sub)-population, albeit probably linked to others via larval transport: • Evidence from studies elsewhere (e.g. European lobster – Norway (8); American lobster (9); • Tidal gyres centred on the Minquiers and Jersey are likely to retain larvae in Granville Bay (10, 11); • Jersey is oceanographically isolated from Guernsey and points northwest by a strong tidal front with different water masses on either side (12). Thus, although the geographic and genetic delineation of the stock is far from clear, the best information available suggests that Granville Bay is a rational management unit from the biological point of view. 2.2 Fishing operations The fishery (at least, the part included in the Unit of Assessment – see above) is operated by around 50 vessels from Basse Normandie and 60 to 75 vessels from Jersey. The vessel numbers are imprecise because not all licensed vessels target lobster on a full time basis in either Basse Normandie or Jersey, so the number of vessels targeting lobster is an estimated proportion of those that are eligible to do so. Of those that do target lobster, many are part time. The majority of fishing vessels are less than 10m and nearly all are less than 12m. All these vessels require a licence from the relevant authority to fish in their territorial waters, plus a further joint ‘Granville Bay’ licence to fish in the shared management zone (this system is described in detail in Section 3 below). The vessels fish for lobster using two types of pots: i) inkwell pots / casiers classiques and ii) parlour pots / casiers pièges (Figure 2). The inkwell pots are a simple round or square pot with an opening at the top from which lobster may enter and exit at will. The parlour pots are rectangular with two chambers, and trap the lobster inside. Parlour pots are strictly restricted on the French side, less so on the Jersey side (more details on regulations are given below), and in all cases are required to have an escape
10 | 2147R02B April 2011 gap for undersized lobster. Pots are deployed in strings of 12–50 pots (depending on vessel size – a typical 10m vessel would have pots in strings of ~25). They are not generally anchored, but rely on a heavier pot at each end of the string to remain in place. Both types of pot target both lobster and brown crab ( Cancer pagurus ) in a mixed fishery. A Basse Normandie vessel may have a maximum of 1000 pots, while a Jersey vessel may have up to 1500 – most vessels have fewer, however (details of the regulations controlling pots per vessels are given below).
Figure 2. The types of lobster traps used in this fishery: left = inkwell pot / casier classique (as suggested by the name, this can also be round); right = parlour pot / casier piège. The lobster can exit at will from the inkwell pot but becomes trapped in the parlour pot, which is divided into two ‘rooms’.
The number of vessels operating in the fishery from Basse Normandie, with trends over time, is shown in Figure 3. In Basse Normandie, the majority of vessels with a ‘gros crustacés’ (GC) licence do not target lobster, although they are entitled to do so should they wish – in fact, many are part time or non-active – around a third of these vessels actually participate in the fishery on a regular basis (Figure 3). Trends in the total number of licensed fishing vessels in Jersey are shown in Figure 4 – of these vessels, around 60% are shellfish qualified, and not all these target lobster on a regular basis – however these data were not available in quantitative form. Around one third of the Basse Normandie catch is sold at auction in Granville and Carteret, with the remaining two-thirds sold direct to wholesalers or other clients (such as restaurants and hotels). This latter part of the catch may be landed at a variety of small landing sites around the west Cotentin coast. The Jersey fishermen land their catch mainly in St. Helier, although there are also a few other small ports around the island. They can also land into the auction in Granville, although this is not done regularly except by a few fishermen. About 75% of the Jersey catch goes to wholesalers in Jersey, while the remained is usually sold direct, also in Jersey (to restaurants etc.).
11 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 3. The number of vessels with a GC licence (purple) and those actively targeting lobster on a regular basis (green) for Basse Normandie (data from CRPM).
Figure 4. Trends in the number of licensed Jersey fishing vessels with a shellfish licence, and those specifically targeting lobster (data from Jersey Department of Fisheries). Note that these data were provided in response to peer review comments, and are therefore more up-to-date than the rest of the data presented in this report, which were provided before or during the site visit.
Shellfish licenced 120 Lobster target 100 80 60 40 20 Number of vessels 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2.3 Fishing effort
2.3.1 Licenced pots The most straightforward means of getting a reasonably accurate measure of fishing effort in this fishery is to consider the number of licenced pots. Trends in fishing effort as measured by the number of licenced pots is given in Figure 5 for both fisheries. The number of licenced pots shows a gradual decline for both fisheries, following an explicit management policy of effort reduction where possible.
12 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 5. Number of licenced pots for Jersey (squares) and Basse Normandie (triangles). Parlour pots are in red and inkwell pots in green.
25000 parlour Jersey inkwell Jersey 20000 parlour BN inkwell BN
15000
10000
5000 number of licenced pots
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2.3.2 Other metrics of effort In Basse Normandie, fishing effort is also calculated in vessel-months for different parts of the fleet, giving a more nuanced picture of effort – however these data are rather out of date since recent data have not yet been collated in this form – it is nonetheless given in Figure 6 below, up to 2007. While the number of vessels with crustacean (GC – gros crustacés) licences declined over this period, the effort on lobster in vessel-months for vessels under 8m specifically appears to have increased over the last few years. This is most likely due to the fact that while the price of lobster has remained stable or increased, the price for other ‘GC’ species (brown crab, spider crab and velvet swimming crab) has generally declined (7). In 2008 this trend continued. 2009 and 2010 were particularly poor years for the price of all GC species, including lobster (because exchange rate fluctuations meant that UK product was cheaper), leading to a decline in effort, landings and the proportion of landings sold at auction (as opposed to privately). Jersey data are also available for the total number of pot lifts per year, although for smaller vessels (the majority) only since 2007 (Figure 7). These data do not show any particular trends for the moment. In both fisheries, there is some latent effort, arising from the facts that i) some vessels with licences to fish full time for lobster operate only part time (or even less); ii) vessels with GC licences (Basse Normandie) or shellfish attachments (Jersey) can switch between lobster and other large crustacean species at will and iii) not all licenced vessels fill their full allocation of pots. Thus in principle, effort could increase without any change in the regulations.
13 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 6. Trends in fishing effort (fishing months) over time for Basse Normandie, for GC licensed vessels, and for the subset of those vessels targeting lobster; vessels are also divided into size categories below and above 8m (7). Note that following comments from Peer Review 2, additional data were acquired from Ifremer to update this graph (for lobster vessels only) to 2009 – the most recent data available at the time of the preparation of the PCDR. Note that the 2008 and 2009 data were NOT available during scoring.
500 GC <8 450 GC 8-12 400 lobster <8 lobster 8-12 350
300
250
200
150
100 fishing effort months) (vessel fishing 50
0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 7. Number of pot lifts by Jersey vessels, including pot lifts for the lobster and brown crab fisheries together. Data provided by the Jersey Department of Fisheries.
1200 Over 10 1000 Under 10 800
600
400 '000 pot lifts
200
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
14 | 2147R02B April 2011
2.4 Landings
2.4.1 Basse Normandie Since 2000 there has been a requirement for fishermen to submit daily catch details from logbooks (for >10m vessels) or ‘fiches de pêche’ (for <10m vessels); these can be cross-referenced with sales data from the auctions or from ‘notes de ventes’ from private sales, although the latter are not very easy to supervise given the number small private buyers (restaurants etc.) and of small landing sites used by fishermen. This problem has meant that in the past, lobster landings by Basse Normandie fishermen are not very precisely known. However, discussions with Pôle PAM (formerly Affaires Maritimes - the French enforcement organisation; see below) indicated that this problem is no longer significant, and in general, fiches de pêches can be cross- checked against notes de vente with reasonable accuracy. A recent report by Ifremer has gone some way towards compiling historical data and calculating an abundance index based on landings and effort (7). The Ifremer estimate of landings along the coast between St. Malo and Cherbourg is shown in Figure 8 below. Note that this includes some landings by Breton fishermen, but these are a small proportion of the total. Ifremer considers that these landings are actually an underestimate of true landings (because of the high proportion of private sales and the lack of supervision as regards submission of ‘notes de ventes’) but that the trends are robust. Figure 8. Declared landings of lobster from St. Malo to the northwest tip of the Cotentin peninsula, in tonnes (7)
2.4.2 Jersey Trends in landings in Jersey are shown in Figure 9. Landings have been more or less stable in the last decade or so. Jersey fishermen must declare their landings in daily logbooks – the standard EU logbook for >10m vessels and simpler logbooks for <10m vessels that are submitted quarterly to the Department of Fisheries. Logbooks may be checked at sea and at the quayside by enforcement officers. Jersey landings data were considered by the team to be reliable and adequate for assessment purposes.
15 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 9. Lobster landings by Jersey fisheries from logbook data ( 12 ).
2.4.3 Recreational landings Recreational landings are controlled in both jurisdictions by bag limits and other restrictions. There is, however, no systematic compilation of statistics on recreational catch of lobster in either Basse Normandie or Jersey. Based on knowledge of the fishery, the CRPMBN has attempted to estimate recreational landings in West Cotentin, and conclude (based on reasonable assumptions) that the maximum recreational catch is of the order of 2 tonnes per year (Véronique Legrand, CRPMBN, unpublished data). It is not clear whether a similar exercise has been attempted in Jersey, but we note that even if the recreational catch in Jersey is significantly higher (which is unlikely based on population and length of coastline), the recreational fishery is not likely to have any significant impact on the level of overall landings. 2.5 Retained species, by-catch and protected species There are three retained species for this fishery: i) brown crab / tourteau ( Cancer pagurus ); ii) spider crab / araignée ( Maja squinado 1) and iii) velvet swimming crab / étrille ( Necora puber ). Brown crab is targeted along with lobster using the same gear in what is in essence a mixed fishery. Spider crab is basically a separate fishery using different types of pots or nets, but spider crab may from time to time be caught in lobster traps during the season when spider crab is in the area. (They migrate coastward in spring, arriving in April, and can be captured until June when they moult (so do not enter the pots), after which the fishery is closed until they migrate offshore again in autumn.) Velvet swimming crab is not well retained in the pots (being small,
1 The species formerly known as M. squinado has recently been split into two species, with M. brachydactyla on the Atlantic coast of Europe and M. squinado in the Mediterranean. However, the name M. squinado still seems to be in general use and we retain it here.
16 | 2147R02B April 2011 and since parlour pots have an escape gap). When it is found in the pots, French fishermen will retain it for sale, while nearly all Jersey fishermen will discard it alive. The only non-trivial ‘by-catch’ (i.e. discards) identified by stakeholders and the assessment team is the bait for the pots, which is considered as by-catch by the MSC standard (7.2.7 in 1). Four species are used as bait by the fishery: horse mackerel / chinchard ( Trachurus trachurus ), red gurnard / grondin rouge ( Aspitrigla cuculus ), redfish (known locally as rascasse) / sébaste ( Sebastes spp.) and Ballan wrasse / vieille ( Labrus bergylta ), with the latter mainly used by recreational fishermen. Gurnard and wrasse are a by-catch of the local trawler fleet, while horse mackerel and redfish are bought in by wholesalers from other fisheries in various countries, including Ireland (horse mackerel) and Russia (redfish). In neither case is the fish targeted specifically for bait – the local by-catch would probably otherwise be discarded, while the horse mackerel and redfish generally comes from freezer damaged landings that have been rejected by quality control as unfit for human consumption. Granville Bay is an important area for a variety of protected species – particularly marine mammals and birds (Table 1). The area supports a large resident population of bottlenose dolphins (Jersey annual reports 12 and 13, and 14 for Ramsar Information sheets for sites 23001 to 23004). According to the Ramsar designation (14), harbour porpoise and grey seal are also known to be resident in the area. Other cetacean species seen periodically include common, white-beaked, Risso’s and striped dolphins and pilot whales. Jersey supports internationally important populations of three bird species - great cormorant, sandwich tern and European storm petrel. Protected fish in the area include Atlantic salmon, twaite shad, basking shark and short-snouted seahorse (14, see Table 1). On the French side, the islands of the Baie du Mont St. Michel, and in particular the Chausey Islands SPA (15) are classified as important areas for their breeding pairs of European storm-petrel, European shag, Great black- backed gull, sandwich tern and common tern (16). None of these species are considered likely to interact with the fishery.
Table 1. Rare or protected species present in the Granville Bay area (14, 16) Marine mammals Birds Fish Benthos Bottlenose dolphin Common tern Sterna Sturgeon Acipenser Ormer Haliotis Tursiops truncatus hirundo sturio tuberculata Common dolphin Eurasian Allis shad Alosa Beadlet Delphinus delphis oystercatcher alosa anenome Protected Haematopus Twaite Actinia equina ostralegus white-beaked dolphin shad Alosa fallax Lagenorhynchus European Shag Basking shark albirostris Phalacrocorax Cetorhinus aristotelis Risso’s dolphin maximus European Storm- Grampus griseus Giant goby Gobius petrel Striped dolphin cobitis Hydrobates Stenella coeruleoalba pelagicus Short-snouted Harbour porpoise Great Black-backed seahorse Phocoena phocoena Gull Hippocampus Pilot whale Larus marinus hippocampus
17 | 2147R02B April 2011
Marine mammals Birds Fish Benthos Globicephala melas Great cormorant Common goby Atlantic grey seal Phalocrocorax Pomatoschistus Halichoerus grypus carbo microps Ringed plover Sand goby Charadrius hiaticula Pomatoschistus Sandwich Tern minutus Sterna sandvicensis Atlantic salmon Salmo salar 2.6 Ecosystem context
2.6.1 Oceanographic context Granville Bay is one of the more ecologically interesting marine areas in western Europe. Its position at the confluence of warm and cold currents leads to high biodiversity, with species surviving at both the northern and southern limit of their distributions (14). Oceanographically, the ecosystem is characterised by large tidal amplitude (among the largest in the world) and very strong tidal currents, which dictate almost every aspect of the marine environment (and human activities within it). Granville Bay itself appears to be contained within a tidal gyre which may promote retention of planktonic larvae such as lobster (10, 11). The strong currents also provide a plentiful supply of food to suspension feeders (an energy input which is propagated through the food web by the many species that feed on suspension feeders such as bivalves).
2.6.2 Benthos Benthic habitats are obviously strongly scoured by the tidal flows in most places, and any soft bottom habitat thus is generally comprised of coarse mobile sand, although there are seagrass beds in some more sheltered areas (17). Generally, however, the dominant habitat is rocky reefs, many of which break or come close to the surface at low tide. The dominant benthic species in these areas are seaweeds ( Fucus and kelp), with some sponges and ascidians. The reefs of course provide excellent habitat for lobster and other benthic species, including bivalves, ormer (abalone – Haliotis tuberculata ) and anemones, as well as high densities of juvenile fish (14).
2.6.3 Protected and designated areas There are a number of protected areas within Granville Bay. Chausey (in Basse Normandie territorial waters) has a European designation as a Special Protected Area - SPA (18 ‘Zone de Protection Spéciale’ – ZPS) under the EU Birds Directive (19). The species of birds mentioned in the designation are given in Table 2.
18 | 2147R02B April 2011
Table 2. Birds mentioned in the SPA (ZPS) designation for Chausey (15, 18). Species (English) Species (French) Species (Scientific) great black-backed gull goéland marin Larus marinus herring gull goéland argenté Larus argentatus lesser black-backed gull goéland brun Larus fuscus common tern sterne pierregarin Sterna hirundo sandwich tern sterne caugek Sterna sandvicensis Arctic tern sterne arctique Sterna paradisaea storm petrel pétrel tempête Hydrobates pelagicus great cormorant grand cormoran Phalacrocorax carbo carbo shag cormoran huppé Phalacrocorax aristotelis oystercatcher huîtrier-pie Haematopus ostralegus curlew courlis cendré Numenius arquata common redshank chevalier gambette Tringa totanus dunlin bécasseau variable Calidris alpina turnstone tournepierre à collier Arenaria interpres red-breasted merganser harle huppé Mergus serrator Slavonian grebe grèbe esclavon Podiceps auritas divers (3 species) plongeons (3 espèces) Gavia spp. grey heron héron cendré Ardea cinerea little egret aigrette garzette Egretta garzetta shelduck tadorne de belon Tadorna tadorna brent goose bernache cravant Branta bernicla Dartford warbler fauvette pitchou Sylvia undata kingfisher martin-pêcheur Alcedo atthis merlin faucon émerillon Falco columbarius peregrine falcon faucon pèlerin Falco peregrinus short-eared owl hibou des marais Asio flammeus Several sites in Jersey waters are protected as Ramsar sites, including most of the key lobster fishing areas. These sites are shown in Table 3, and the definition of the Ramsar criteria are given in Table 4. (NB: A map of the Granville Bay area is given in Section 3 below.) Table 3. Ramsar designations in Jersey (14). Ramsar Sites Ramsar Reasons for designation information criteria sheet ref. (see Table 4 below) UK23001 Southeast 1,2,3,4,7,8 Rocky shores, extensive mudflats, Zostera coast of beds, wintering and migratory shorebirds, Jersey bottlenose dolphins, high benthic and fish biodiversity and genetic diversity, nursery areas and fish feeding grounds UK23002 Les 1,2,3,4,7,8 Rocky reefs and a wide range of rare and Minquiers protected species, including cetaceans, birds, fish and benthos – see Table 1 above. UK23003 Les 1,2,3,4,7,8 as above
19 | 2147R02B April 2011
Ramsar Sites Ramsar Reasons for designation information criteria sheet ref. (see Table 4 below) Ecréhous and Les Dirouilles UK23004 The 1,2,3,4,7,8 as above Paternosters Table 4. Ramsar criteria for designating wetlands (20) Criterion Criterion number 1 Supports a representative, rare or unique example of a natural or near- natural wetland type 2 Supports vulnerable or endangered species or threatened ecological communities 3 Supports populations of plant or animal species important for maintaining biological diversity 4 Supports plants or animals at a critical stage in their life cycle 5 Supports more than 20 000 water birds 6 Supports more than 1% of individuals of the population of one species or subspecies of birds 7 Supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families 8 Important for food for fishes, spawning grounds, nursery area or migration path 9 Regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species. 2.7 Interactions with other fisheries and non-fisheries activities The lobster / brown crab fishery is the dominant commercial fishery in Granville Bay. Other commercial fisheries in the area include trapping and netting for spider crabs, and some demersal trawling (mainly by vessels from France and Guernsey) but these activities generally take place outside the Granville Bay Treaty zone to the west, where the substratum is more suitable (hard and flat rather than rocky and rough). The other main commercial fishery within Granville Bay is potting for whelks – a fishery than has been in decline in recent years. Whelk pots are different from lobster pots and there is no interaction in a biological sense (i.e. lobster are not a by-catch of the whelk fishery or vice versa). Commercially, the decline of the whelk fishery may have a driver of the increased importance of the lobster fishery, although the main driver, as noted above, has been the relative price of lobster compared to other important commercial species (7). There is some recreational fishery for lobster (and other species) in the area, particularly around the coast. Recreational fishermen may put out a few traps and keep some lobster (for personal consumption) – however this is regulated in both
20 | 2147R02B April 2011
Basse Normandie (21) and Jersey (22, 23) and, given the relatively tight restrictions, recreational catches are likely to be trivial relative to the commercial fishery. As noted above (under Unit of Certification, Section 1), a small percentage of the commercial lobster catch comes from fishermen in Brittany who are part of the Granville Bay Treaty system but are not participating in this assessment. Recreational boating is an important activity in Granville Bay, despite the challenging conditions (strong tides and rocky reefs). There are no significant interactions with the lobster fishery.
3. Stock status and assessment 3.1 Fisheries-dependent data and analysis The main tool for keeping track of the stock status is LPUE data. These data come from four sources: i) Jersey logbook data (since 2002); ii) Basse Normandie logbook and ‘fiche de pêche’ data (since 2002 for West Cotentin – the main area); iii) LPUE data from a ‘reference fleet’ (‘flotille de référence’) of 11 vessels 2 operating along the west Cotentin coast (although it is not clear to what extent these data are fed into assessments); and iv) a long-term dataset from vessels operating around ‘les Roches Douvres’, a Breton site to the west of Granville Bay. The number of vessels contributing to this long-term dataset has varied, from a 17 vessels in 1988 to 6 in 2009. A recent Ifremer report (7) used datasets ii) and iv), along with size-frequency data, to generate a standardized index of abundance, shown in Figure 10. The only long-term dataset (from les Roches Douvres) shows a clear trend towards increasing abundance, while the shorter-term data sets give a variable picture without any clear trends, except perhaps for a dip around 2004-6 followed by a recovery. However, just as the PCDR went to public review, additional information was provided by Ifremer updating the three shorter time series in Figure 10 (see Figure 11). This information is provided for stakeholders reading the PCDR, but it is important to note that it has not been considered in the scoring or by the peer reviewers. 2 Gastibelza, Iris de Suze, Renaissance, Joker, Pte Laura, Pitou 2, Klabouter, Karu Kera, Alizé, Crepuscule and Bleiz Mor.
21 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 10. Index of abundance for lobster (7), taken from LPUE data in kg/100 pots from the Roches Douvres fishery (blue) and Basse Normandie logbook data from landings in North Cotentin (pink), St. Malo (yellow) and West Cotentin (purple). The data have been standardised relative to 2005.
Figure 11 . Index of abundance for lobster calculated as above for Ouest Cotentin (OC, blue), St. Malo (SM, pink) and Nord Cotentin (NC, yellow), 2001-2010.
14
12
10
8 OC SM NO 6 CPUE (kg/100 pots) 4
2
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 3.2 Fisheries-independent data and analysis The main source of fisheries-independent data comes from an annual survey (carried out since 2004) by the Jersey Department of Fisheries, using a standardized protocol to sample with parlour pots with the escape gaps blocked up – i.e. sampling juvenile as well as legal sized lobsters (24). These data are shown in Figure 12, along with the commercial LPUE data since 2007. The data show a gradual increase, apart from a large spike in the most recent year (2009). This spike does not appear in analyses of the commercial LPUE data for 2009, suggesting it might be an artefact of the sampling sites or periods.
22 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 12. LPUE and CPUE data from Jersey from the fisheries-independent survey, for sub- legal sized lobster (<87mm CL - blue), legal-sized lobster (>87mm CL - black) and commercial LPUE (green). The spike in abundance seen in the survey data in 2009 should be treated with caution because the 2009 survey was truncated due to logistical problems, so may not be directly comparible with other years. (24, 12 and 13)
These data have not so far fed into the study carried out by Ifremer (cf. Figure 10). However, this work is ongoing, and the survey data are used by managers at the Jersey and Granville Bay Treaty level as a ‘reality check’ on analyses using commercial LPUE, as well as to monitor the abundance of recruits before they enter the fishery. This latter is key because of the fishery’s dependence on new recruits. 3.3 Size structure The minimum size for the fishery is 87mm carapace length (CL). According to buyers, the majority of lobster taken by the fishery are not much over this size, suggesting that the fishery is significantly reliant on recruits. This is borne out by the size structure of lobster sampled in the Jersey sampling programme (24), which is shown in Figure 13. It is apparent that the size structure is truncated at the minimum size, suggesting that the fishery has a significant impact on the population above this size. It is not completely clear whether this is entirely a fisheries-related effect. Lobster are reported locally to migrate from shallower to deeper water as they mature. Granville Bay is basically shallow, and it may be that large lobster are not naturally present in the area in any great numbers. This is a generally held view of lobster behaviour, but the team could not find any objective data to support the idea in this context. Similar survey research is carried out on the French side by CRPM suggests, however, that a fisheries-related effect is important (although it may not be the whole story). Figure 14 shows the size structure at Chausey, inside and outside a closed area (discussed further below). It is clear that the size structure inside the closed area does not show the same abrupt collapse above 87mm CL, although it does show a decline.
23 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 13. Lobster size distribution from six years of sampling by the Jersey Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources 24).
Figure 14. Size distribution inside a closed area (top graph) and outside the closed area (second graph) at Chausey, as sampled by CRPM staff. The pale blue line shows the minimum legal size in the fishery (25).
24 | 2147R02B April 2011
4. Management System 4.1 Organisations involved in management The organisations involved in the management of the fishery for Jersey and Basse Normandie are given in Table 5 below. Table 5. Organisations involved in management in Basse Normandie, Jersey and in the joint Granville Bay framework. Organisation Role Basse Normandie BN Comité National des Policy and regulatory recommendations for national-level Pêches - CNP crustacean licence and conservation measures Comité Régional des Licensing and other by-laws; represents BN at national Pêches Maritimes de fisheries level and on JMC, some scientific research Basse-Normandie CRPM BN Comité Local des Local committees that hold Crustaceans licences on behalf of Pêches Maritimes the CRPM BN in the Granville Bay area CLP de Cherbourg, and CLP Ouest Cotentin Délégation à la Mer et Enforcement on the quayside and at sea, regional pole (was au Littoral de Basse- DRAM Direction Régionale des Affaires Maritimes) Normandie - DML DDTM Manche local level: Direction Départementale des Territoires et de la Mer, was DDAM. Ifremer Scientific research and stock assessment Syndicat Mixte pour Local partner and sponsor of scientific research into coastal l’Equipement du environmental issues Littoral SMEL Normandie Fraîcheur Promotes and supports Normandy seafood production; Mer NMF project managers for this assessment Commission Stakeholder group that provides expert advice on crustacean Crustacés du Comité fisheries to CRPM National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages marins CNPEM - CC Jersey Department of Implementation of fisheries management, enforcement, Fisheries and Marine scientific research; represents Jersey on JMC Resources Jersey Fishermen’s Represents commercial fishermen in Jersey – member of Association FMRAP Jersey Inshore Represents small-scale fishermen – member of FMRAP Fishermen’s
25 | 2147R02B April 2011
Association Fisheries and Marine Decision-making body for fisheries management in Jersey – Resource Advisory includes stakeholders and politicians Panel FMRAP Granville Bay Joint Management Committee made up of management authorities from each of Committee JMC Jersey, Basse Normandie and Brittany (CRPM from Basse Normandie and Brittany and Jersey Department of Fisheries). Take decisions at Granville Bay Treaty level. Joint Advisory Committee made up of four fishermen from each of Jersey, Committee JAC Basse Normandie and Brittany – to debate and propose management measures to JMC for decision-making at Granville Bay Treaty level. 4.2 Legislative and administrative context
4.2.1 National / regional frameworks In Basse Normandie, day-to-day management of the fishery is the responsibility of the professional organization Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes de Basse Normandie (CRPM BN). The Commission Crustacés of CRPM BN meets two or three times per year in rotating port locations along the coast to deliberate fisheries management and conservation aspects specific to crustaceans (26). The regional level is supported at national level by the Commission Crustacés of the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins CNPEM-CC, which examines and recommends legislation on strategic aspects of fisheries management, such as crustacean specific national licence types, principle and implementation of effort control, and minimum legal sizes. The Basse Normandie CRPM calls upon scientists (Ifremer) and state officials (Pôle PAM) to review the stock status and fisheries operations, and provide expert advice on management actions. Management actions proposed by the Commission Crustacés are discussed and recommended (or not) by the CRPM BN council. These can then be brought into law at the regional prefectural level. In Jersey, the implementation and enforcement of sea fisheries management (3), as well as science and management advice, is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (part of the Department of Planning and Environment of the Bailiwick of Jersey government). Management actions are proposed and agreed within the framework of the Marine Resource Advisory Panel (MRAP). MRAP brings together representatives from commercial and recreational fisheries, angling, aquaculture, merchants, politicians and the Harbour Authority as well as the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources.
4.2.2 Co-management framework If management legislation enacted in Basse Normandie or Jersey applies only within territorial waters then the above procedures are sufficient. However, the majority of management actions for this fishery - certainly any which focus on maintaining the status of the stock as a whole - need to apply over the whole area of lobster habitat in Granville Bay. This trans-boundary management framework is provided by the
26 | 2147R02B April 2011
Granville Bay Treaty (4 and 27), which provides for shared fishing rights and shared management over the area (outside the coastal zones limits of 3 to 6 miles) and divides the area into management zones. The Granville Bay Treaty is a treaty signed in 2000 between the Governments of the UK and France. It is administered by the States of Jersey through a UK-Jersey agreement (28), and on the French side its implementation involves the two regions of Basse Normandie and Brittany, who each have equal status with Jersey in the institutional structures set up by the Treaty – i.e. all the structures are tripartite. The Treaty provides for exclusive coastal fishing zones for Basse Normandie, Jersey and Breton fishermen. In between these zones, all three groups may fish within an agreed management framework which divides the area into further zones, depending mainly on historical rights of certain fleets to fish in certain areas. The management of the ‘Granville Bay zone’ is via a joint Norman-Breton-Jersey structure: the Joint Management Committee (JMC). The JMC consists of government officials and is responsible for the management of fishing effort through “Permits […] issued annually […] increasing or reducing the number and size of boats, the extent and nature of fishing gear carried on board, the level of catch allowed etc” (5). The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) meets at regular intervals to give advice to the JMC. The key members of the JAC are four fishermen from each area (i.e. 12 fishermen in all). Biologists and managers also usually participate in JAC meetings in an advisory capacity. The JAC makes management recommendations to the JMC, which if it approves them, passes them back to be brought into law via the legislative structures described above (i.e. the CRPM in Normandy (and Brittany) and the MRAP in Jersey). Vessels from either side who wish to fish in the jointly-managed area (for any species) require a Granville Bay licence. Only local 3 boats are eligible for a Granville Bay licence, which therefore provides a means of controlling fishing effort in the area. There are a fixed total number of Granville Bay licences available, with the share between Jersey, Basse Normandie and Brittany set out from historical rights by the Treaty. The Granville Bay Treaty area is also bound by EU management requirements via the French membership, and for Jersey represented by the UK membership through the UK Fisheries Department Agreement with the Jersey Fisheries Committee (28) – i.e. these provide a minimum management baseline. 4.3 Management plan and objectives, rules and tools In terms of overall strategy, the fishery follows the Common Fisheries Policy which ensures a minimum standard in French, Jersey (via agreement with the UK) and thus shared zones. Various management objectives are also included in the Granville Bay Treaty, although there is no ‘objectives’ section in the Treaty as such. The Treaty does however state (for example) that management should be in accordance with precautionary approach; that it should take into account socio-economic issues; and that it should be on the basis of ‘constant maximum yield’. As regards management rules and tools, these vary somewhat between Basse Normandie and Jersey, within the common management framework that exists for 3 Dielette to Paimpol, plus Jersey
27 | 2147R02B April 2011 most of the area. Key management rules, however, are agreed and harmonised. This includes the following: • There are a fixed number of Granville Bay licences, and within that fixed number of ‘Gros Crustacés’ (GC) licences (Basse Normandie) and ‘shellfish attachments’ (Jersey); • There is a limit on the pots per vessel; • A minimum landing size (87 mm CL); • Escape gaps are required in parlour pots so that they do not retain undersized animals; • Parlour pots are banned in an area in the Granville Bay Treaty zone (Les Minquiers) to reduce effort and avoid ghost fishing; • All pots must be tagged with boat registration and year – only a limited number of replacement tags are available for lost pots. In Basse Normandie, the following additional management measures are in place: • There is a stricter limit on pots per vessels which in particular limits the number of parlour pots each vessel can have to half the total (there are no restrictions on the ratio of inkwell to parlour pots in Jersey); • Five areas (‘cantonnements’) are closed to lobster and all other forms of professional and recreational fishing apart from line fishing (29); • No parlour pots are permitted in Basse Normandie territorial waters, including around Chausey. • Pot tags in Basse Normandie are renewable every year instead of every two years, with different colours for parlour and inkwell pots (Jersey has recently changed from annual to biennial tagging for logistical reasons.) The maximum limit on pots per vessel is calculated via a different formula in the two areas. In Basse Normandie it is based on the number of crew on board, with a cap of 1000 (of which only 500 can be parlour pots). In Jersey it is based on the length of the vessel, with a cap of 1500, and no regulation about the proportion that can be parlour pots. This effectively results in a larger number of pots per vessel in Jersey, although the difference is not huge. There is a much bigger difference in the number of parlour pots, with many Jersey fishermen having most or all of their pots as parlour pots – note that they are then excluded from one of the main lobster fishing areas (Les Minquiers). There are no closed areas in Jersey waters.
28 | 2147R02B April 2011
5. Fishery evaluation process 5.1 MSC standard This assessment follows the Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance (FAM), version 2 from November 2009 (1). The FAM sets out the MSC Standard against which the fishery is assessed, as well as setting out the assessment methodology and providing definitions of key terms (1). The MSC Standard is composed of three Principles, as follows: • 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; • 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. • 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. Each Principle is divided into a series of Performance Indicators (PIs). Each PI can be either related to ‘outcome’ (i.e. the current situation in regard to the element described in the PI), ‘management’ (i.e. the management objectives, strategy or rules for that element) or ‘information’ (i.e. the available knowledge about that element). For each PI, there are three Scoring Guideposts (SGs). The lowest SG corresponds to a minimum requirement for certification, under the condition that the situation can be improved; the middle SG corresponds to a minimum requirement for certification without conditions, while the highest SG corresponds to an optimal or ‘perfect’ scenario. These three SGs are assigned scores of 60, 80 and 100. The consequences for each score are set out in Table 6 below. Table 6 - Categories of score for a PI, and the consequences of a given score for the overall outcome of certification (1). Score Consequence < 60 If even one PI scores < 60, certification cannot be awarded 60 – 80 Certification is possible but with conditions: performance under any PI scoring between 60 and 80 must be improved to at least the 80 level within a time period specified by the assessment team 80 – 100 If all PIs score 80 or above, certification will be achieved without any conditions Note that this assessment methodology (the FAM) differs from the methodology used in assessments prior to mid-2008, because PIs and SGs were previously defined by
29 | 2147R02B April 2011 the Certifying Bodies (CB). They are now set out in the FAM, and cannot be altered except under exceptional circumstances (see below). The full set of PIs and SGs are set out in the assessment tree for this fishery, with the scores given for each PI and a detailed rationale for each score according to the SGs. The assessment tree is provided in Annex 1 of this report. The scores are also summarised in Section 8. 5.2 Risk-Based Framework (RBF) Several of the PIs were scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). This is an alternative methodology for scoring some selected PIs, which is described in detail in the FAM (1). In summary, the RBF uses two techniques to score a PI, instead of the standard SGs given in the FAM. The first technique is a SICA (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis), which takes the form of a structured discussion about the fishery with a representative set of stakeholders. If the score given by the stakeholders at the end of this discussion is 80 or above, then this score is the score given for the relevant PI. If the score given by stakeholders is below 80 (or for 1.1.1 in any case), a second type of assessment is carried out: a PSA (Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis) (see below). If the PSA is required, the PSA score is the final score used for the PI. Initially, we felt that the RBF would be required for Principle 1 (PI 1.1.1 – stock status outcome) and Principle 2 (PI 2.1.1 retained species outcome; PI 2.2.1 by-catch species outcome; PI 2.4.1 habitats outcome and PI 2.5.1 ecosystem outcome). However during the information-gathering phase, the team concluded that sufficient information was available on habitats and ecosystems to score these in the normal way (using the FAM). The RBF was therefore used to score three PIs: 1.1.1 (stock status: outcome), 2.1.1 (retained species: outcome) and 2.2.1 (by-catch species: outcome). One PSA was required, for the target species. The SICA Tables for these three PIs and the PSA for 1.1.1 (the target species) are given in Annex 2. 5.3 PSA for lobster The PSA scores the likely productivity and resilience to fishing pressure of the population in question (target, retained or by-catch) against the likely susceptibility of the population to fishing pressure. On the productivity side, the analysis considers age and size at maturity, maximum age and size, fecundity, reproductive strategy and trophic level. On the susceptibility side, the analysis considers the extent to which the population overlaps with the fishery in terms of geographic range, depth and habitat, and the susceptibility of the species to the gear. Each of these elements is scored using tables that group the possible outcomes into three categories (i.e. low, medium or high risk). Full details, tables and scores for the PSA are given in Annex 2. 5.4 Assessment process The steps to follow in the assessment process are set out by MSC in the Fisheries Certification Methodology (30, most recent version Version 6.1, May 2010 update of the September 2006 version 6). In summary, these steps are as follows:
30 | 2147R02B April 2011
1. Pre-assessment 2. Full assessment step 1: Preparation and scoping. This phase forms the start of the formal assessment process, and includes i) the formal notification of the assessment to MSC, stakeholders and public; ii) the selection and approval (including the possibility of stakeholder input) of team of experts and iii) selection of the appropriate assessment methodology (as described above). 3. Full assessment step 2: Data gathering and evaluation. In this phase the fishery is assessed using data from a variety of sources including: i) published and unpublished scientific data, reports and other similar sources; ii) a site visit by the expert team; and iii) stakeholder consultations via face-to-face interview, phone or email. On the basis of the information gathered, the fishery is scored against the standard (using the FAM or RBF). A preliminary assessment report is produced, which is reviewed by the client and by two external peer reviewers. The resulting Public Comment Draft Report is then made available for stakeholder comment. 4. Full assessment step 3: Final report and objections procedure. In this phase, the CB produces a Final Report, which must present and respond in full to all comments by reviewers and stakeholders. The Final Report is made available on the MSC website, and stakeholders are given the opportunity to object formally to the determination made by the CB. If such objections are received, the CB must respond in detail to the objector and to MSC. A final determination decision is then made, either by the CB or in the case of a formal objection by an external independent reviewer. 5. Ongoing review of certification. A certified fishery is audited every year and re- assessed every five years. 5.5 Assessment of Normandy and Jersey lobster fishery Pre-assessment : MEP prepared a pre-assessment study of the Normandy / Jersey lobster fishery in June-July 2008. The outcome of the pre-assessment led the clients to decide to apply for MSC certification. The intention to proceed with full assessment was announced by MEP on the MSC website on 19 October 2009. Full assessment : The team was nominated on 27 October and confirmed on 17 December. The decision to use the RBF for some PIs was announced on 1 December and confirmed after 30 days. No comment or objections were received about the composition of the team or the assessment procedure. The site visit and scoring meeting took place on 9 March 2010 in Granville, Normandy, and on 11 March 2010 in St. Helier, Jersey. The peer reviewers were nominated by MEP on 6 July and approved after 10 days. The Public Comment Draft Report was returned after review by the clients and drafting of Action Plan on 29 November and by the peer reviewers on 27 January 2011. Peer reviewer comments were incorporated, and it was placed on the MSC website for stakeholder review on 11 March 2011. No stakeholder comments were received. Comments were received from MSC relating to questions of chain of custody on the French side – these comments have not been included into this report, but the relevant section has been clarified. The MEP Certification Committee met on the 21 st April 2011 to confirm the certification of this fishery, and this Final Report was submitted to the MSC on the 28 th April 2011.
31 | 2147R02B April 2011
5.6 Stakeholder consultations As well as making announcements and documents available via the MSC website, as required by the MSC assessment process, MEP twice made direct contact with key stakeholders, to ensure that they were aware that the assessment was taking place and that they had the opportunity to comment or object to any part of the process. This process of contact was conducted primarily by email, backed up by telephone when there was difficulty in making contact by email. The first set of contact letters was sent out in November 2009 and announced the start of the assessment. The second was sent out on 4 February 2010 and announced the details of the site visit. The stakeholders who participated in the SICA workshop and site visit are shown in Table 7. Table 7 - Stakeholders who participated in the SICA workshop and site visit. Name Affiliation Notes Granville, 9 March 2010 Béatrice Harmel Comité Regional de Pêche client for Basse Normandie Maritime Véronique Comité Regional de Pêche client for Basse Normandie Legrand Maritime Arnaud Manner Normandie Fraîcheur Mer director of NFM Dominique Normandie Fraîcheur Mer project manager for MSC Lamort assessment Nicolas Normandie Fraîcheur Mer quality control expert Leterreux Gerard Mongin Comité des Pêcheurs President of recreational Amateurs de Granville CPAG fishermen committee CPAG Jean Lepigouchet Comité des Pêcheurs Vice-president of recreational Amateurs de Granville CPAG fishermen CPAG Laurence SMEL environmental research Hégron-Macé Jersey, 11 March 2010 Simon Bossy Dept. Fisheries and Marine client for Jersey Resources Greg Morel Dept. Fisheries and Marine client for Jersey Resources Jon Shriver Dept. Fisheries and Marine client for Jersey Resources Don Thompson Jersey Fishermen’s commercial lobster fisherman Association Jo Lemarquand Jersey Inshore Fishermen’s part time / recreational Association fisherman Ian Syvret Jersey Inshore Fishermen’s part time / recreational Association fisherman Nanda Porritt Aqua-Mar fisheries buyer
32 | 2147R02B April 2011
Natalie Porritt Aqua-Mar fisheries buyer A commercial fishermen from Basse Normandie (Eric Leguelinel), who is also president of the Commission Crustacés of the CRPM BN and vice-president of the Commission Crustacés of the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages marins (CNPEM), was contacted separately by telephone by one team member, and met in person by another team member. A team member also interviewed Affaires Maritimes in Cherbourg (Pôle PAM, the organisation responsible for enforcement coordination on the French side) by telephone.
6. Scoring 6.1 Scoring methodology Each PI is scored with reference to the three scoring guideposts (SGs) (see above). During the site visit and scoring meeting, each PI was discussed in the light of all the information received from the client and from stakeholders during the site visit, as well as the scientific literature and the knowledge of the team members. The score and rationale were discussed by the team members and a consensus score arrived at. Scores between 60 and 80 or between 80 and 100 were arrived at by a semi- quantitative method. For example, if the fishery achieves all the elements set out in SG 80, but only some of the elements in SG 100, the fishery would have been scored as shown in Table 8. Table 8 - Example of how the team decided on a score between 80 and 100 (the same principle would apply to a score between 60 and 80, as well as to SG with different numbers of elements). Number of elements in Score Number of elements in SG Score SG 100 achieved by the 100 achieved by the fishery, out of four fishery, out of five 0 80 0 80 1 85 1 80 2 90 2 85 3 95 3 90 4 100 4 95 5 100 For the PIs that were scored using the RBF, the PSA score was given to the PI (see details above), but could be subject to modification based on other information (SICA, quantitative data or other). The rationales for each score are given in Annex 1 and the tables, analyses and rationales for the SICA and PSA are set out in Annex 2. 6.2 Weighting
33 | 2147R02B April 2011
The FAM sets out how the score of each PI should be weighted. The weighting ensures that overall scores for each Principle are equally important in the overall score. Within each Principle, each component is weighted equally. Within each component, each PI is weighted equally. The aggregate score for each Principle, and the overall score, is thus a weighted average of the scores for each PI. The overall weighting for the FAM is shown in Figure 15. Figure 15. Weighting of Principles, components and PIs in the FAM (1). The alternative weightings for Principle 1, Component 1 depends on whether PI 1.1.3 is scored or not – in this case it was not so the first alternative was used.
34 | 2147R02B April 2011
7. Assessment results The outcome of this assessment is that the fishery is certified as sustainable in accordance with the MSC standard. No PI scored less than 60, and the aggregate score for each Principle was 80 or above. In this section we summarise the results of the assessment. The full assessment tree with scores and rationales for each PI is in Annex 1 of this report. The SICA and PSA tables and rationales for the PIs scored using the RBF are given in Annex 2. For a small number of PIs in Principle 3, the scores for Basse Normandie and Jersey were different – in this case, separate scores are given, as well as a separate aggregate score for Principle 3. 7.1 Overall results The scores for each Principle (calculated as described above) are shown in Table 9. Table 9. Scores for each Principle for the Normandy-Jersey lobster fishery assessment. Principle Aggregate score Principle 1 80 Principle 2 88.67 Principle 3 87.75 (BN); 91 (Jersey) 7.2 Principle 1 The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 1 are shown in Table 10. Table 10 . Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 1 for the Normandy-Jersey lobster fishery. Component PI Score Outcome Mean outcome 77.5 Stock status 75 Reference points 80 Stock rebuilding n/a Harvest strategy Mean harvest strategy 82.5 (management) Harvest strategy 90 Harvest control rules and 75 tools Information/monitoring 85 Assessment of stock status 80
35 | 2147R02B April 2011
7.3 Principle 2 The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 2 are shown in Table 11. Table 11. Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 2 for the Normandy-Jersey lobster fishery. Component PI Score Retained species Mean retained 83.3 Outcome 90 Management 85 Information 75 By-catch Mean by-catch 100 Outcome 100 Management 100 Information 100 ETP species Mean ETP 100 Outcome 100 Management 100 Information 100 Habitat Mean habitats 80 Outcome 80 Management 80 Information 80 Ecosystem Mean ecosystems 80 Outcome 80 Management 80 Information 80 7.4 Principle 3 The scores for each PI, and the aggregate score for each component for Principle 3 are shown in Table 12. Table 12. Scores for each PI, and aggregate scores for each component for Principle 3 for the Normandy-Jersey lobster fishery. Component PI Score Score BN Jersey Governance and policy Mean governance and policy 92.5 95 Legal and/or customary framework 100 100 Consultation, roles and 100 100 responsibilities Long term objectives 90 90 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 90 Fishery-specific Mean fishery management system 83 87 management system Fishery-specific objectives 80 80
36 | 2147R02B April 2011
Component PI Score Score BN Jersey Decision-making process 100 100 Compliance and enforcement 80 100 Research plan 75 75 Monitoring and management 80 80 performance evaluation 7.5 Conditions Four PIs scored below 80 and are therefore subject to conditions. In addition, because the SICA for Principle 1 scored below 80, the fishery cannot be re-certified using the RBF (1). This imposes some other de facto conditions based around the PIs in Principle 1 that are given a default score of 80 under the RBF. In this section we first set out the conditions arising from the scoring and then the de facto conditions arising from the RBF.
7.5.1 Timetable for Conditions As is clear in this report, the co-management system, as well as the participatory system for management in each jurisdiction, imposes significant constraints on decision-making. Decisions must be approved at Granville Bay level (in some cases requiring the agreement of Breton members who are not participating in this assessment) and then by stakeholders at the Jersey and Basse Normandie level, before they can be implemented. This process of course takes time, and the time frames required for the conditions incorporate a realistic assessment of these constraints, noting that the management system is in practice extremely effective.
7.5.2 Formal Conditions PI 1.1.1 stock status outcome – score 75 The main concern of stakeholders (reflected in the SICA scores – see Annex 2) was not with the stock status per se, which appears by most metrics to be stable with a low risk of collapse, but rather with the size structure, which suggested an element of dependence of the fishery on recent recruits (i.e. those recently grown to the minimum size). The team was concerned that this posed an element of risk to the fishery of recruitment overfishing, particularly in this era of environmental change. The team recognises that changing the size structure of a population to include a higher proportion of larger animals is a long-term activity that probably cannot be achieved within five years – thus the five-year time limit is imposed on the development, agreement and implementation of a credible plan of action, rather than a visible impact at the population level. The peer reviewers noted that population size structure should perhaps be regarded not as a problem per se , but rather as a symptom of a broader problem of high exploitation rate. The team agreed with this analysis, and reviewed this condition, as
37 | 2147R02B April 2011 well as the proposed Client Action Plan, to see whether it should be re-drafted to make this more explicit. However, the team concluded that any actions proposed to address this condition would by definition have to address the underlying problem of exploitation rate in some way, and that it was appropriate to retain the condition as closely tied to the issue identified in the RBF analysis. Condition : Design and implement an action plan that will result in the long-term in an expansion of the size structure of the harvested stock, or will allow a higher proportion of individuals to survive over the minimum size or for a longer reproductive period, in order to minimise the risk of recruitment overfishing. Note on this condition : Stakeholders and clients requested further guidance from the assessment team on what type of size structure would be deemed to be ‘acceptable’ (i.e. would score 80 or above for PI 1.1.1 on re-assessment). While MEP recognises that it is not appropriate for members of the assessment team to give formal advice about how the conditions should be met, it seemed reasonable to give further guidance on this point, so that the clients could recognise what was needed to meet the condition. Based on previous work in Canada and the US (58), the logical approach would seem to be based on egg production per recruit, with a size structure for the population in question that would provide a rate of egg production per recruit above some threshold of the egg production of the unfished population (to estimate these figures is a relatively simple modelling exercise given sufficient data). The team did not feel that it was appropriate for them to quantify the exact threshold (particularly given that the assessment team in five years time may be different) but thresholds of 5% and 10% have been used (in Canada and the US respectively). This information was summarised for the clients and reference 58 provided to them. Peer reviewer 1 also provides significant useful information in his review along the same lines, which is commended to the clients. The team noted that this type of approach would address the concerns raised by the peer reviewers. Time-table for implementation : Within three years, the fishery should have collected data and carried out modelling and other analyses as appropriate in order to select effective actions. Within four years, a list of actions should be agreed. Within five years, actions should be implemented in the fishery. PI 1.2.2 harvest control rules and tools – score 75 The team’s concern with this PI was that while the harvest control rules have worked well up till now, there are no agreed actions in place at the Granville Bay Treaty level to reduce fishing mortality in the event of a limit reference point being reached. Condition : The management system needs to develop harvest control measures that will elicit a clear response in the face of a decline in stock size that threatens the future productivity of the stock. Reference points and pre-agreed decisions rules to limit fishing mortality in response to decreased stock abundance or increased fishing mortality (as measured directly or by suitable proxies) should be agreed and implemented. Time-table for implementation : Within two years, the fishery should have collected data and carried out modelling and other analyses as appropriate in order to select appropriate reference points. Within four years, reference points and a harvest control
38 | 2147R02B April 2011 rule should be agreed. Within five years, all elements should be implemented in the fishery. The team noted that since the site visit, significant progress has already been made towards the development of reference points for this fishery. PI 2.1.3 retained species information – score 75 The concern here was with data on one of the retained species – velvet swimming crab or étrille ( Necora puber ). While this fishery is not likely to have a major impact on the species (the majority of fishermen discard it alive), the team was concerned that while data exist (e.g. from fiches de pêche or logbooks) there appears to be no attempt to analyse these data in order to keep track of populations of this species. Condition : The existing information on catch and effort in the velvet swimming crab fishery (e.g. from reference vessels) and/or another source of proxy information on biomass (e.g. from surveys in the cantonnements) should be analysed and reviewed on a periodic basis by an appropriate body within the Granville Bay Treaty system, to ensure that no negative trends are apparent. Time table for implementation : Within two years the fishery should have brought together existing data on velvet swimming crab, and evaluated these. Within three years, a system should be in place such that there are periodic evaluations of these data in the future at reasonable time intervals (at least every two years). PI 3.2.4 research plan – score 75 The team felt that the sum total of research on this fishery was adequate (apart from the small gap noted above for velvet swimming crab), particularly given the size and intensity of the fishery. However, this PI requires a written research plan for the fishery, which does not at present exist.
Condition : Based on existing research and perceived research needs, develop and agree a strategy to guide research on the lobster fishery at the Granville Bay Treaty level.
Time-table for implementation : A research plan should be developed within two years, agreed within three years and implemented within four years.
7.5.3 De facto conditions PI 1.1.2 reference points – default score of 80 under RBF The PI on reference points is not scored when the RBF is used for Principle 1. However, as noted above, when the fishery is re-certified, the RBF cannot be used, so this PI will have to be addressed. The team notes that i) the definition of at least a limit reference point is already required by the condition for PI 1.2.2 above, and is in fact already underway; and ii) that points such as B MSY are difficult to define for crustacean fisheries, meaning that any target reference point will be of necessity of a more general precautionary nature.
39 | 2147R02B April 2011
Condition : Define a limit reference point above the point at which there is an appreciable risk of recruitment overfishing. Define a suitable target reference point. Integrate these reference points into the management system. Time-table for implementation : This is not a formal condition in the sense that the PI scored below 80, so there is no formal auditing attached to it. However, reference points need to be in place (agreed and incorporated into the management system) by the time of re-certification in five years. PI 1.2.4 stock assessment – default score of 80 under RBF This PI requires that the stock status be estimated in relation to reference points. Since reference points will be defined in relation to current estimates of stock status, once they have been defined this condition will automatically be met. However, to meet the 80 level, the assessment also needs to take uncertainty into account and be peer- reviewed. Time-table for implementation : This is not a formal condition in the sense that the PI scored below 80, so there is no formal auditing attached to it. However, a system for the assessment of stock status in relation to reference points must be in place (agreed and implemented) by the time of re-certification in five years.
7.5.4 Recommendations The team recommended that the client on the Basse Normandie side look at ways to speed up the process of turning logbooks and fiches de pêche into formal catch and effort data – this process currently takes up to two years. The team recognises, however, that the system is partially out of the client’s control.
7.5.5 Client Action Plan The Client Action Plan is given in Annex 3.
40 | 2147R02B April 2011
8. Chain of custody 8.1 Vessels in the Unit of Certification The vessels potentially forming part of the Unit of Certification are those with licences to fish lobster either i) in Jersey coastal waters 4 only (a Jersey fishing licence with shellfish attachment); ii) in Basse Normandie coastal waters only (a Basse Normandie ‘crustacés’ licence); or iii) in the Granville Bay Treaty co-management area (a Granville Bay licence in addition to one of the two former licences). These vessels are too numerous to list here, but a full list of the licensed vessels can be obtained from CRMP (for Basse Normandie) and the Department of Fisheries (for Jersey). 8.2 Points of landing Vessels from Jersey land mainly at St. Helier, with small amounts landed at a few other small ports around the island. One or two Jersey fishermen land habitually into France – usually Granville or Carteret. The most important landing points for fishermen from Basse Normandie are Granville, Carteret and (to a lesser extent) Cherbourg. Norman fishermen may also land into St. Malo. However, there are a large number of small ports and other landing sites along the west coast of the Cotentin peninsula – probably the majority of the Basse Normandie catch is dispersed among these small landing sites. 8.3 Processing on board There is no processing on board – lobsters are landed live. The claws are banded. 8.4 Traceability within the fishery
8.4.1 Jersey For catch landed into Jersey, traceability should not be too complicated since only Jersey lobster fishermen land lobster into Jersey, and all (commercial) Jersey lobster fishermen are included in this Unit of Certification. Therefore, all lobster landed in Jersey will be MSC lobster, and the chain of custody can start at the first point of sale in Jersey . Around 75% of the Jersey catch is sold to a relatively small number of wholesalers who operate a professional export business with the usual EU standards of traceability. The other 25% is sold directly to hotels, restaurants etc.
4 Out to 3 nautical miles
41 | 2147R02B April 2011
8.4.2 Basse Normandie For catch landed into Basse Normandie, traceability is somewhat more complicated. For catch landed into the auctions at Granville, Carteret and Cherbourg there are traceability systems in place. As far as the team is aware, all the lobster landed into these auctions will be part of the Unit of Certification (mainly from Basse Normandie, occasionally from Jersey). A possible risk is that Breton fishermen may occasionally choose to land their catch into Granville – this is not at present included in the Unit of Certification so would have to be kept separate. The main problem, however, is the myriad of small ports and other landing sites along the Basse Normandie coastline, where catch is landed to private buyers. Given this complex situation, significant chain of custody mechanisms will need to be put in place before any lobster landed in Basse Normandie can be sold with the MSC logo. CRPM-BN are starting a risk-assessment study to look at whether labelled claw bands could be one way of marking MSC lobster, but this study is in its early stages. Until the chain of custody situation is more clear, no MSC labelled lobster can be sold from landings in Basse Normandie . 8.5 Eligibility date The eligibility date for this fishery is the date of certification.
42 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 1 – Assessment tree 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.
1.1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing SG 60: It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SG 80: It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years . Score: 75 Rationale This PI was scored using the RBF because reference points are not in place (see RBF decision tree in the FAM). The score above is the score from the PSA, as required by the FAM. SICA and PSA tables, along with full rationales, are given in Annex 2. The rationales are summarised here. Landings per unit of effort (LPUE) are used as a proxy for detecting trends in population size. There are several sources of LPUE data, including various fisheries and an annual survey by the Jersey Department of Fisheries, which also includes pre- recruits. Short-term datasets show no particular trends. The one long-term dataset shows a gradual rise in LPUE, although this may be linked to factors other than an increase in population size (7, 12, 13).
43 | 2147R02B April 2011
Data on the size structure of the population suggest that the exploitation rate is high – i.e. that the fishery takes a significant proportion of the population above the minimum size, and therefore relies largely on the recently recruited year class (7, 12, 13). This was a source of concern to some stakeholders and to the assessment team. The overall outcome of the SICA was a score of 80 for the component ‘population size’ and a score of 60 for the component ‘age/size/sex structure’, on the basis of stakeholder views and the above datasets. For the PSA, the overall score for productivity was 1.43, and for susceptibility 2.33, leading to an overall PSA score of 2.73 and an MSC score of 77.2 (for details see Annex 2). The final score for this PI is below 80, leading to a condition on the fishery. In drafting the condition, the assessment team noted firstly that the key issue identified by the SICA was the population size structure – and therefore this is the issue that should be addressed specifically by the condition. However, they also noted that the truncated population size structure is a sympton of a broader issue of high exploitation rate on new recruits to the fishery. As a result of comments made by the peer reviewers, the team considered whether to generalise the condition away from population size structure towards more generally an evaluation of exploitation rate. However, the team considered that the condition as it stood, and the proposed Client Action Plan, addressed the broader issues already, and therefore decided to retain the link between the condition and the key issue identified by stakeholders. Condition Design and implement an action plan that will result in the long-term in an expansion of the size structure of the harvested stock, or will allow a higher proportion of individuals to survive over the minimum size or for a longer reproductive period, in order to minimise the risk of recruitment overfishing. 1.1.2 Reference points Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock. SG 60: Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. SG 80: Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with B MSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. SG 100: Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.
44 | 2147R02B April 2011
The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues . The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with B MSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level , and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty . Score: 80 Rationale: This PI is given a default score of 80 when using the RBF above. Basse Normandie and Jersey have already agreed that reference points will be defined and have started the discussion about the appropriate value and how they should be measured. However, since the details have not yet been fully worked out, the default score was used. Note that because PI 1.1.1 scored <80, the re-certification cannot use the RBF, and therefore at least the minimum requirements for this PI must be met within five years. See Section 8.2.2 of the main report. 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding N/A 1.2 Harvest strategy (management) 1.2.1 Harvest strategy There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place SG 60: The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. SG 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. SG 100: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
45 | 2147R02B April 2011
The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary . Score: 90 Rationale 1. Strategic framework for the fishery The general strategy is included in the Agreement concerning the Fishing in the Bay of Granville, signed in 2000 between Great Britain and France (4). The broad scope of the agreement is to " […] conserve fisheries resource in the seas situated in the region of the Island of Jersey and the neighbouring coast of France" and to […] contribute to the prosperity of the local communities which depend […] on the fisheries resources of those seas". The regulations implemented under the Agreement should be set on the basis on precautionary approach, but with regard to socio-economic factors. In order to meet those objectives, a Joint Advisory Committee was implemented with the mandate to ‘ensure the conservation and effective management of the fishery resources in the area covered by the Agreement’, conservation meaning ‘the rational use and the maintenance or reestablishment of stock of species at levels which ensure constant maximum yield’ (4). As per the Agreement, the Joint Advisory Committee facilitates scientific research, gathers statistical data on catch and fishing effort and shares the information with stakeholders. It has the mandate to make recommendations on: • The management of fishing effort by introducing fishing permits, which may if necessary be capped at a certain number; • Setting TACs, minimum sizes or weights and other regulations for the control of harvest; • The designation of fishing sectors, and their open and closed seasons; • The opening and closures of permitted catch seasons; • The regulation of catch methods. The JAC meets two to three times a year. Management and conservation measures are evaluated and discussed during those meetings. Under those rules, the system is able to react relatively fast to emerging situations. 2. Regulations – joint, Normandy and Jersey For this fishery specifically, several measures have been implemented, covering both Normandy and Jersey. These include: • A minimum legal size of 87 mm (cephalothorax length); this limit was increased from 85 mm in 2002;
46 | 2147R02B April 2011
• Restrictions on parlour pots in the joint zone: these are prohibited in Les Minquiers, and should have in all areas a compulsory escape vent (44 mm x 79 mm). • Maximum number of pots per vessels on a sliding scale according to vessel length (Jersey) or crew number (Normandy). In Normandy vessels are permitted 200 pots per crew member up to a maximum of 1000; in Jersey a linear formula is used to calculate pot allocation in relation to vessel length, with a maximum of 1500. In the Normandy fishery, additional measures have been implemented with the objective of reducing fishing effort: • Some fishing licenses were not reallocated, so that the number of licences has declined from 227 in 1989 to around 150 in 2010; the regulation stipulates that no more then 50 % of the free licences should be reallocated 5; • No more than 50 % of pots can be parlour pots; • Further prohibition of parlour pots in the Normandy zone - inside the 3 nautical miles coastal zone, on the Chausey shelf and around Cap de la Hague, i.e . a total surface of 55 000 ha (Fig. 1); • Implementation of closed areas (“cantonnements”): five protected areas are present along the Normandy coast, for a total surface of 2000 ha (Fig. 1). In the Jersey fishery, regulations are somewhat less strict. There is a limitation on licenses, as per the Agreement. The number of traps is proportional to the vessel size, with a maximum of 1500 traps per vessel. The number of registered parlour pots has declined from 23 000 in 2003 to 17 000 in 2008 (12), but there are no restrictions on the type of traps to be used. As regards recreational fisheries, in Jersey, recreational fishers (i.e., those who do not have a commercial shellfish licence) are allowed a maximum of 15 lobsters/day. In Normandy there are no access restrictions for recreational fishers by boat, but vessels are allowed a maximum of two traps on board. Foot fishers have a possession limit of four lobsters a day. Most recreational fishers in Normandy belong to the local association, who records around 450 fishers and 250 vessels. Among those vessels, 10 to 15 % carry traps, either for lobster or for spider crabs. Thus overall catches in the recreational fishery are estimated at 1-2 tonnes for Basse Normandie (Véronique Legrand, CRPMBN, unpublished information), and are unlikely to be significantly greater in Jersey – they can therefore be considered marginal compared to the recreational fishery. 5 Direction régionale des affaires maritimes de Haute-Normandie. 2009. Arrêté n°161/2009 rendant obligatoire la délibération n°EXP-CR 15MW/2009 u Comité régional des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins de Basse-Normandie portant création de la licence crustacés en Manche Ouest et organisation de cette pêche.
47 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig 1. Map of the area prohibited for parlour pots (purple) and the fishery closed areas (approximate locations, red stripes). Source: CRPM.
3. Outcome of strategy There is evidence that the strategy is working to achieve the management objectives to conserve the resource. As noted above and in Annex 2, fishing effort is under control and has been reduced, while catch rates per unit of effort are increasing. The assessment team considers, therefore, that 80 score is entirely met. The management strategy is clearly designed to achieve management objectives and the management system is periodically evaluated, through the meetings of the Joint Advisory Committee, and improved if necessary. For instance, the Committee is currently studying the feasibility of new measures such as: further reduction of vessels number, protection of berried females, and ‘V-notching’6. However, the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. There are currently no target levels for the lobster stock. Therefore 100 score is partially met. An overall score of 90 is warranted. 6 The V-notching is a technique by which a notch is made on the tail of a berried female; notched females are returned to the water. The notch is still visible after the following moult and the female remains protected for another year.
48 | 2147R02B April 2011
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place SG 60: Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. SG 80: Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. SG 100: Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range of uncertainties. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Score: 75 Rationale Harvest control rules (HCR) are defined as the adjustment of one or several management measures based upon the evaluation of an indicator against an established reference point (Rice and Connolly 2007, 31). Harvest control tools are the means by which the harvest control rules (and more broadly, the harvest strategy) are implemented. A comprehensive set of management measures (harvest control tools) is in place: • Limited access by access permits and fishing permits; • Ceiling on the number of vessels involved; • Limited number of pots by vessel; • Minimum legal size; • Restriction of the use of parlour pots; • Escape gaps in parlour pots; • Protected areas. In both France and Jersey, traps are tagged and lost pots must be declared for tags to be reissued, with a ceiling on the number of replacements possible. This ensures that fishing effort remains under control and ghost fishing is strictly limited.
49 | 2147R02B April 2011
Those measures are in complete agreement with management objectives to control and limit exploitation. There is evidence that the implemented measures are being effective. However, the reference points and decision rules needed to devise Harvest Control Rules (HCR) remain an issue. In the Jersey fishery, the Fisheries and Marine Resources section of the Environment Division is committed to monitoring and analysing lobster LPUE (kg/100 pots) annually (32). Harvest Control Rules (HCR) have been proposed based on LPUE thresholds, as analyzed from the data provided in compulsory logbooks (Drs Simon Bossy and Greg Morel, Jersey Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). LPUE (kg per 100 pots) Action Greater than 6 kg Continue monitoring Between 5 – 6 kg Caution increasing monitoring Less than 5 kg Action required The trigger point of 5 kg/100 pots was set on the basis of the lowest LPUE (per 100 pots) recorded. From that value, LPUE was able to recover quickly, thus indicating that stock biomass status was good enough at this level to recover quickly. This level is therefore considered as conservative, assuming there are not great changes in the way the fishery is carried out (which would in any case be prevented by the management regulations). If the LPUE trigger point is reached the possible following actions are proposed: • Minimum size increase (1, 2 or 3 mm), plus, possibly, an increase of the size of the escape vent; • Ban of landing of berried females for closed season (initially June and July), either by a V notch scheme, or by a simple ban on landing, for instance; • Introduce a maximum size; • Reduce number of pots per vessel; • Reduce bag limits for recreational fishers; • Reduce the number of permits. It is important to note, however, that these references points and the associated action plan remain a proposal for the time being. They have been discussed in some detail with counterparts in Normandy, and there is agreement in principle of the idea of a precautionary and a limit reference point, but the details of how they should be defined are complex, since it would obviously be preferable to include at least an element of the Normandy fleet and/or fishing zone into the trigger points. Jersey is of course free to apply this plan to their exclusive area at any time, but for it to be implemented across the Granville Bay Treaty zone, agreement would be required by the JMC. For the moment, no such clearly defined approach exists in the Normandy fishery. However, the system is nonetheless able to react should the situation become worrying. The main tool in this case would be to prevent the reallocation of licences freed by some fishermen (for instance, in 2009, six licences were available, but only three were allocated). Informally, stakeholders consider that the relative low LPUEs
50 | 2147R02B April 2011 observed in 2005 and 2006 would be an alert to further discussion and action, even if catches were still considered satisfactory. In more general terms, the team noted that the approach of fisheries managers has been continually to reduce effort, regardless of the level of proxy stock status indicators. The team took the view in this case, that a set of ‘generally understood harvest control rules’ was being applied continually, regardless of the status of the stock, and that this approach was in fact more precautionary than an approach in which a harvest control rule only kicked in below a certain pre-agreed level. The generally precautionary approach, plus the informal proxy references points discussed above were considered by the team sufficient to meet SG 60. Under SG 80, there are well defined harvest control rules consistent with the strategy; as explained above, and there is evidence that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. However, due to the absence of defined reference points, the team considered that SG 80 was not fully met, since they felt that the informal structure set out above was not sufficient at the SG 80 level. The team therefore considers that a score of 75 is appropriate for this performance indicator. This leads to a condition as set out below. Condition: The management system need to develop harvest control measures that will elicit a clear response in the face of a decline in stock size that threatens the future productivity of the stock. Reference points and pre-agreed decisions rules to limit fishing mortality in response to decreased stock abundance or increased fishing mortality (as measured directly or by suitable proxies) should be agreed and implemented. 1.2.3 Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy SG 60: Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule SG 80: Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data are available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule , and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG 100: A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.
51 | 2147R02B April 2011
All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Score : 85 Rationale 1. Fishery data All registered fishermen are obliged, as a licence condition, to report catches. In Jersey a daily logbook must be filled in. Logbooks provide information on date, catches, effort (number of traps hauled) and landings. Observations are taken, as a control measure, in the buyers’ holding tanks. On the Normandy side, three sources of information are available. The Ifremer survey programme (Système d'informations halieutiques SIH; Fishery information system) follows the number of active vessels each month. From this it is possible to calculate the number of months of activity by ‘metier’ (lobster, spider crabs...) – i.e. a measure of effort. The second source of information comes from records kept by the fish markets (declaration criée, Granville, Carteret and St. Malo) of local landings, whether sold at auction or not. The last source of information is the fishermen’s declarations. Vessels above 10 m length must fill a daily logbook as in Jersey. Vessels below 10 m length must provide a monthly production report (‘fiche de pêche’) indicating landings. Finally, French buyers, or fishermen in the case of direct sales, must fill a purchase slip. This last measure is, however considered as partial and not very efficient. Finally, in order to have a more precise idea of trends in LPUE, Ifremer follows 11 ‘reference vessels’ (among the 50 targeting lobster) in more detail. Despite the various sources of data set out above, however, it is clear that the Normandy landings data do not provide a comprehensive picture of landings. For instance, in 2007, 1500 activities-months are recorded in the SIH data, but only 81% of this effort appears in the fishermen’s declarations, essentially due to missing data from the smallest vessels (where only aggregate data for all vessels are given, 33). Data from fishermen appear to underestimate catches and corrections must be made by cross-checking the various data sources given above – this is done by the CRPM although sometimes with some delay. For Jersey area, size structure of the population is obtained from the juvenile survey (see below). For the Normandy fishery, three sources of data are available. Once a month, size measurements are taken at the auction place in Granville. At-sea observers (the national OBSMER program run by Ifremer) embark on commercial vessels twice a month and gather data on the total catches 7. Measurements are also taken during the scientific surveys in the marine protected areas. 7 This programme was operating at the time of the site visit but in February 2011 was reported to MEP as suspected due to lack of funding. MEP did not amend any of the scoring as a result, but it may have an impact on subsequent re-assessments.
52 | 2147R02B April 2011
In general, despite some of the caveats noted above, it is possible to say that we have a clear perspective of total production of the area. The trends in LPUE, used as a proxy for stock abundance, as well as the size structure, provide also a fair view of stock trends. There is no consistent monitoring of recreational catches; however catches have been estimated in Basse Normandie based on the number of recreational fishermen (known from membership of fishing organisations and from surveys) and the bag limits on recreational catch. The maximum size of the recreational fishery is estimated at 1-2 tonnes (Véronique Legrand, CRPMBN, unpublished data), and is unlikely to be any greater for Jersey. 2. Fishery-independent data The effort in gathering fisheries independent data ( i.e. scientific data) is shared between French and Jersey scientists. Since 2004, Jersey scientists have been carrying out adult and juvenile surveys, by fishing with parlour pots with a closed escape vent. Three stations have been selected and are annually fished in May and in June, with a sample size of between 58 and 180 hauls. This survey provides information on trends in both commercial size lobster and in pre-recruits (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 . Catch rates (CPUE - number of lobsters per 100 pots) of individuals below minimum legal size and above minimum legal size (aMLS). Drawn from Jersey’s scientific data.
CPUE-bMLS 300,0 60,0 CPUE-aMLS 250,0 50,0 200,0 40,0 150,0 30,0 100,0 20,0
MLS /100 pots 50,0 10,0 Number of lobsters above MLS /100 pots Number of lobster below 0,0 0,0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years Periodically, the CRPM in partnership with the SMEL carries out lobster surveys in the MPAs (‘cantonnements’): e.g. in 2006 and 2008 in Blainville (34) and in 2009 in Chausey (35). Those surveys provide information on recruitment patterns and allow a comparison between a “virgin” (sub)-population and an exploited one (see PI 1.1.1). From the oceanographic perspective, the region has been well studied. Hydrological features have been described. A clockwise gyre, closed to the north by a front between the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, may represent a retention area for lobster larvae, which would favour recruitment (11).
53 | 2147R02B April 2011
3. Conclusions In conclusion, the team considers that SGs 60 and 80 are entirely met. Sufficient relevant information on stock size, recruitment, age/size structure, fleet composition and effort is available to support the harvest strategy. Fisheries removals are monitored by various means – not all of them completely accurate but in aggregate more than sufficient for management purposes given the scale of the fishery. Survey data (from Jersey) are available annually, while fisheries-dependent data are available more frequently should that be considered necessary. The fisheries-independent data (scientific surveys, oceanographic data), mean that the first part of SG 100 is also met, giving a global score of 85. 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status There is an adequate assessment of the stock status SG 60: The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. SG 80: The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. SG 100: The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Score: 80 Rationale: This PI is given a default score of 80 when using the RBF for 1.1.1. Note that because PI 1.1.1 scored <80, the re-certification cannot use the RBF, and therefore at least the minimum requirements for this PI must be met within five years. See Section 8.2.2 of the main report.
54 | 2147R02B April 2011
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.
2.1 Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species. SG 60: Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. SG 80: Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits. Target reference points are defined and retained species are at or fluctuating around their target reference points. Score 90 Rationale
This PI was scored using the RBF. SICA workshops were held in Granville (Basse Normandie) and St. Helier (Jersey). The list of participants in each workshop is given in Section 5 of the main report. The rationale for the SICA is given in detail in Annex 2 and is summarised here. In both Basse Normandie and Jersey, the stakeholders considered the retained species (components) to be i) brown crab / tourteau ( Cancer pagurus ); ii) spider crab / araignée ( Maja squinado ) and iii) velvet swimming crab / étrille ( Necora puber ). Some other species were discussed (see SICA rationale Annex 2) but considered to be unimportant. Brown crab is targeted along with lobster in what is in essence a mixed fishery. Spider crab is basically a separate fishery, but spider crab may from time to time be caught in lobster traps during the season when spider crab is in the area and available to the fishery (roughly April to June). Velvet swimming crab is not well retained in the pots (being small, and since parlour pots have an escape gap) but where it is found in the pots, French fishermen will retain it for sale, while the
55 | 2147R02B April 2011 majority of Jersey fishermen will discard it alive, since there is not much market for it in Jersey. While there were some differences in the SICA analyses between stakeholders in Basse Normandie and Jersey as to how spatial and temporal scale and intensity should be scored, both groups agreed that impacts of this fishery on the population size of the three main retained species is negligible, giving a SICA consequence score of 100. The only dissent was that stakeholders in Normandy gave a score of 90 for impacts on velvet swimming crab population size, while those in Jersey gave 100. The team accepted the logic of the stakeholders for velvet swimming crab and spider crab. Velvet swimming crab is retained only by Norman fishermen, is caught only in the coastal zone and can escape from both forms of trap. Spider crab is only present and fished in Granville Bay for about 3 months each year, while the population in question is much more widely distributed and mobile than that of lobster, with a commercial fishery that dwarfs the retained by-catch from this fishery. However, the team was concerned that the high score given to brown crab is given with little basis in solid information, since the fishery is essentially a mixed fishery (i.e. brown crab is targeted as much as lobster), while data are collected and monitored less carefully for brown crab than for lobster (perhaps due to this perception of minimal impact). The team therefore reviewed LPUE data from brown crab, which is monitored by the Jersey Department of Fisheries (see Fig. 3 below). Fig 3. LPUE for brown crab (kg per 100 pot lifts) for the under 10m and over 10m fleet in Jersey, 2002-2009 (from the Jersey Department of Fisheries).
50
40
30 Over 10m Under 10m 20
10 LPUE (kgs per 100 pot lifts)
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year The team noted that the LPUE was somewhat variable with no particular trends. This variation is probably a function of market changes rather than population dynamics, since the fisheries exploit the various crab species as a function of their market value (as noted above, this has declined in recent years). Overall, however, the team could
56 | 2147R02B April 2011 see no evidence of any cause for concern. Nonetheless, the team decided to overrule the stakeholders and put the score for brown crab down to 80. While there is no evidence of a detectable change in population size for brown crab, the team decided that there was insufficient evidence to say that the impact of the fishery was negligible. The three main components therefore scored as follows: brown crab = 80; velvet swimming crab = 90 and spider crab = 100, giving an overall score of 90. 2.1.2 Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. SG 60: There are measures in place that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully , and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective . Score 85 Rationale As set out in the rationale for PI 2.1.1 above, three main retained species were identified: brown crab, velvet swimming crab and spider crab. The brown crab is a secondary target species of the lobster fishery, the spider crab is a retained by-catch species, and the velvet swimming crab is retained only by the French fleet and a small minority of the Jersey fleet.
57 | 2147R02B April 2011
Since the fishery is managed by effort control rather than quotas, the team considered that the measures in place to control effort on lobster also applied to these retained species. These measures are set out in detail in rationales for Principle 1 but include: i) limits on the number of licences; ii) limits on the number of pots per boat; iii) limits on the number of parlour pots (France only) and closed areas for parlour pots; and iv) areas closed to fishing (‘cantonnements’) (France only). These measures act to cap or reduce effort on the main retained species as much as the lobster. In addition, there are minimum sizes for brown crab (140 mm widest dimension of carapace), spider crab (120 mm carapace length) and velvet swimming crab (50 mm carapace length in Basse Normandie and 65mm in Jersey) below which they must not be retained (36 and 37). The team notes that large fines have in the past been levied against fishermen who retain undersized crab as bait (data provided by Jersey Department of Fisheries). For the velvet swimming crab, the obligatory escape gaps in the parlour pots mean that they are not often retained by either type of gear. The team considered that this suite of measures could be considered a ‘partial strategy’ for main retained species, although since they were not directed at retained species specifically they did not constitute a full ‘strategy’. Since the measures appear to be working well for lobster, the team felt that they were likely to work for the retained species. The LPUE data (presented in PI 2.1.1 above) for brown crab and spider crab also do not present any cause for concern. It is clear that the measures are being implemented (see further information in the rationale for PI 3.2.3 – monitoring, control and surveillance – below). On this basis the team considered that SG 80 was met. As regards SG 100, while the team did not consider that the measures had been specifically tested for these species, there is clear evidence that they are being implemented and that they are achieving their objective (LPUE data appear to be fine). Thus the last element of SG 100 is met, giving an overall score of 85. 2.1.3 Information / monitoring Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species SG 60: Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species SG 80: Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Note: not included if RBF used for 2.1.1 Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). SG 100: Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations.
58 | 2147R02B April 2011
Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty . Note: not included if RBF used for 2.1.1 Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species Score 75 Rationale Quantitative information is available on catches of brown crab and spider crab by the fishery, although for Basse Normandie the information may not be completely accurate (see rationale for PI 1.2.3) – trends are, however, considered to be robust (7). Catch information from Jersey is, however, considered to be accurate, and these data are used to calculate a LPUE for brown crab and spider crab, as a proxy for monitoring the stock status. This information is used to support a partial strategy for management of these species, as outlined above, which appears to be operating successfully. For velvet swimming crab, these LPUE data do not exist, because there is no fishery for the species in Jersey. The information on this species must therefore be considered to be semi-quantitative at best. The team noted, however, that i) velvet swimming crab can escape from both types of pots used in the fishery (due to their small sizes and the escape gaps) and is therefore only caught opportunistically in this fishery, ii) that it essentially has a refuge from fishing in Jersey waters and iii) that there is less than half the fishing effort on this species than on lobster and brown crab (because there is no Jersey fishery) – the team therefore felt that monitoring requirements for this species were lower than for the other two main retained species. Nonetheless, the data exist in principle for a LPUE time series to be constructed for this species (e.g. from Basse Normandie reference vessels) and some periodic scrutiny of these data would be desirable for this species. The team considered that as regards the data per se, SG 80 is met, although the data from Basse Normandie vessels do not appear to be analysed or scrutinised in any detail for retained species (with the exception of the directed spider crab fishery). While this is not too important for brown crab and spider crab (because a Jersey time series of LPUE is available) it is more important for velvet swimming crab for which there are no data in Jersey. The team were concerned that for this species in particular data analysis and scrutiny was not sufficient to detect any trends, although the team considered that the management measures in place were adequate. None of SG 100 is met for any retained species. Scores were thus 80 for brown crab and spider crab and 75 for velvet swimming crab, giving an overall score of 75. This leads to a condition on the fishery as set out below. Condition
59 | 2147R02B April 2011
The existing information on catch and effort in the velvet swimming crab fishery (e.g. from reference vessels) and/or another source of proxy information on biomass (e.g. from surveys in the cantonnements) should be analysed and reviewed on a periodic basis by an appropriate body within the Granville Bay Treaty system, to ensure that no negative trends are apparent. 2.2 By-catch species 2.2.1 Outcome status The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the by-catch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted by-catch species or species groups. SG 60: Main by-catch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the by-catch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery SG 80: Main by-catch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that by-catch species are within biologically based limits Score 100 Rationale This PI was scored using the RBF. SICA workshops were held in Granville (Basse Normandie) and St. Helier (Jersey) as described above. The rationale is also included here. The only ‘by-catch’ identified by the stakeholders at both workshops are the species used as bait in the lobster traps. Non-commercial species that are brought up in the traps are discarded alive – this is quite rare but may on occasional include dogfish and brittlestars. The team concurred with the stakeholders that impacts on these species by this fishery was trivial and they were not included formally in the SICA. The stakeholders identified four species used as bait by the fishery: horse mackerel / chinchard ( Trachurus trachurus ), red gurnard / grondin rouge ( Aspitrigla cuculus ), redfish (known locally as rascasse) / sébaste ( Sebastes spp.) and Ballan wrasse / vieille ( Labrus bergylta ), with the latter mainly used by recreational fishermen. Gurnard and wrasse are a by-catch of the local trawler fleet, while horse mackerel and redfish are bought in by local wholesalers from other fisheries in various countries, including Ireland (horse mackerel) and Russia (redfish). In neither case is the fish targeted specifically for bait – the local by-catch would probably otherwise be
60 | 2147R02B April 2011 discarded, while the horse mackerel and redfish generally comes from freezer damaged landings that have been rejected by quality control as unfit for human consumption. On this basis, the SICA was scored 100 (i.e. negligible impact) for all three species by both sets of stakeholders, and the team concurred with this view. 2.2.2 Management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing by-catch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to by-catch populations. SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main by-catch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing by-catch that is expected to maintain main by-catch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising by-catch. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. Score 100 Rationale There is essentially no by-catch in this fishery (see PI 2.2.1 above). The team therefore felt that management strategy was not an issue. Under these circumstances, the maximum score can be given. 2.2.3 Information / monitoring Information on the nature and amount of by-catch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage by-catch
61 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 60: Qualitative information is available on the amount of main by-catch species affected by the fishery. Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support measures to manage by-catch SG 80: Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main by-catch species affected by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Note: not included if RBF used for 2.1.1 Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main by-catch species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main by-catch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). SG 100: Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all by- catch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty . Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage by-catch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Monitoring of by-catch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all by-catch species.
Score 100 Rationale As above, since there is essentially no by-catch , this is not an issue. 2.3 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome status The fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG 60: Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species SG 80: The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts
62 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 100: There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species Score 100 Rationale Note that although this section is entitled ETP (endangered, threatened and protected) species, the MSC definition of ETP only encompasses protected species. Marine protected species in the two jurisdictions (France and Jersey) are given in Table 1 below. Table 1. Protected marine species in France (38) and Jersey (39).
France Jersey All cetaceans All cetaceans All seals All seals All turtles All turtles Some seabirds All seabirds Patella ferruginea – giant limpet Cetorhinus maximus - basking shark Pinna spp. – pen shell (proposed) Lithophaga lithophaga – date mussels Scyllarides latus - slipper lobster Of these species, bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ), harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena ), grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ), harbour seals ( Phoca vitulina ) and seabirds are present in Granville Bay. No negative interactions with pot fisheries are recorded for any of these species in the area. In Canadian and South African lobster fisheries some whale mortality has been reported through entanglement, but small cetaceans are not affected (pers. comm. to the team from various sources). Anecdotal reports to one team member suggest that a UK whelk potter has reported some turtle mortality, but such incidents are considered to be rare and have never been reported in this fishery – in any case, turtles are likely to be extremely unusual visitors to Granville Bay. The team also noted that the fishery takes place to a large extent in protected or designated areas – Chausey is an SPA (i.e. a site designated under the EU Birds Directive - 19), while the Minquiers, Ecréhous, Paternosters and the SE corner of Jersey are Ramsar sites (14). This ensures oversight and monitoring in the area in regard to protected species. There are no particular issues related to the lobster fishery or to any of the retained species in the designations for any of these protected areas.
63 | 2147R02B April 2011
Overall, the team felt that impacts on this fishery on protected species are negligible, leading to a score of 100. 2.3.2 Management strategy The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; - ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and - minimise mortality of ETP species. SG 60: There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). SG 80: There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG 100: There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Score 100 Rationale As for by-catch above, since there is no interaction of this fishery with ETP species, a management strategy specifically for the fishery is not relevant. However, the team noted that the protected areas, which cover a large proportion of the most important grounds for this fishery, have management plans in place (Chausey SAC / SPA – 15) or in the process of development (Jersey Ramsar sites, 14).
64 | 2147R02B April 2011
2.3.3 Information / monitoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: - information for the development of the management strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. SG 60: Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. SG 80: Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. SG 100: Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. Score 100 Rationale As above, since the fishery does not interact with any ETP species, this is not an issue. Again, however, the team would note that there is good information available for cetacean, seal and seabird populations in Granville Bay, separate from the fishery (e.g. see 12 and 13 for routine bottlenose dolphin survey data collected by the Jersey fisheries patrol vessel). 2.4 Habitat 2.4.1 Outcome status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. SG 60: The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
65 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 80: The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG 100: There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Score 80 Rationale 1. Gear details Pots are deployed in strings of variable length (depending on vessel size) – anywhere between 12 and 50 is standard. Pots are spaced about 20-25m apart, and are attached by short (2m) lengths of floating rope to a leaded line. At one end is a buoyline 2.5 times longer than the depth, made up of leaded rope at the surface end and floating rope at the bottom end (to avoid fouling the seabed as it sweeps around on the change of tide). Pots formerly had steel frames, but polythene is now more common, with a steel ring added for weight. The use of weights or anchors is now rare, with fishermen favouring instead a heavy end pot (30-40 kg), which acts as an anchor and also earns its keep with a lower risk of material damage or crew injury. 2. Habitat The fishermen describe the habitat in which the pots are deployed as a mixture of Fucus and kelp on hard bottom, with some sponges and ascidians. Other key benthic species include bivalves, ormer (abalone – Haliotis tuberculata ) and seahorses (Hippocampus sp.). The lobster fishing areas are also reported to support high densities of juvenile fish, birds and dolphins. Details of habitat type are also given in the Ramsar designations for the key Jersey lobster fishing sites (14). Other important habitats in the area include seagrass beds, saltmarsh, sandbanks, dunes etc. (15, 16, 18) – but lobster gear is not deployed in these areas. 3. Conclusions In general, fixed gear fishing such as this is not considered to be damaging to most benthic habitats, and is often permitted in areas where towed gears are banned due to habitat concerns (such as in parts of Lyme Bay in southern England). The gear described above does have the potential to do some local damage if delicate benthic species were present (e.g. seafans, corals). However, such species are not reported in the information available about habitats and benthic species (e.g. 15, 18). The team considered that the dominant habitats present in Granville Bay are not liable to be damaged by the deployment of fixed fishing gear, and indeed the strong tidal currents in the area mean that habitats are likely to be very resilient to physical disturbance. SG 80 is thus met. There have, however, been no studies on habitat impacts of this fishery in particular, so SG 100 is not met. 2.4.2 Management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types.
66 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. The measures are considered to work, based on plausible argument (e.g general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG 100: There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Score 80 Rationale There are a series of management plans for various areas of Granville Bay, either in existence or in preparation, as a consequence of the various conservation designations that exist for the most important lobster fishing sites (15, 15, 18). There are also a series of fisheries management measures that have the effect of reducing habitat impacts. This includes the cantonnements (closed areas) in Basse Normandie, and the requirement to tag pots (with a limited allowance for replacing lost tags), which limits gear loss. The team considered that these measures together constituted a partial strategy to avoid habitat impacts, which is successful at achieving the SG 80 outcome level. It is clear that these measures are being implemented successfully. SG 80 is thus met. However, there is not a formal ‘strategy’ for habitats in this fishery, nor has there been testing in relation to habitats, nor are these habitats monitored for fisheries impacts on a regular basis. No part of SG 100 is therefore met. 2.4.3 Information / monitoring Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. SG 60: There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. Information is adequate to broadly understand the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial extent of interaction.
67 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 80: The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). SG 100: The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully. Score 80 Rationale The various conservation designations, which focus on some of the key lobster fishing areas (Chausey, Minquiers, Ecréhous, Paternosters and the SE corner of Jersey) provide considerable information on the types of habitats and species present in these areas, as outlined above (15, 16, 18). The most important area not covered by these designations is the West Cotentin coast, however various areas here are monitored on a regular basis (e.g. the closed areas – 34, 35). The main lobster fishing areas are known, as is the number of pots (parlour and inkwell) and the main fishing season. This allows managers to assess more or less the number of pots deployed in a given area at a given moment. Changes in risk of habitat impacts might arise if there was a significant increase in effort or a change in the nature of the pots – however this is precluded by management regulations. SG 80 is thus met, but none of SG 100. 2.5 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome status The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. SG 60: The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG 80: The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG 100: There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
68 | 2147R02B April 2011
Score 80 Rationale
Lobsters appear to be an important species in the Granville Bay ecosystem, both because of their relatively high biomass in the system and also because of their relatively aggressive behaviour (at least as adults) towards their own and other species.
However, lobsters do not have specific prey species (they are very unselective feeders); nor are they important prey for any other species in the ecosystem. When octopus were abundant in Granville Bay, they were the main prey, but octopus are now very rare in the area – not apparently due to fishing but (it is hypothesised) due to the exceptionally cold winter of 1962/63 (Dr Simon Bossy, Jersey Department of Fisheries, pers. comm.). In assessing the potential impact of the fishery, the team took the view that the ultimate outcome depends on two issues: i) the role of the population in the ecosystem and ii) the extent to which the fishery depletes the population and thus reduces that role. In terms of the role of lobster in the marine ecosystem, there are some well- documented cases of significant ecosystem changes due to changes in lobster populations, although the issues are better known in the context of rock lobsters as opposed to clawed lobster (see references provided by Peer Reviewer 2). We note that in this ecosystem specifically, the trophic role of lobster overlaps with other abundant species such as brown crab, dogfish and rays. We also note that the ecosystem is very physically dynamic, and therefore is probably more likely to be structured by bottom- up type forces than by the top-down trophic role of a high trophic level predator. In terms of the reduction of the lobster’s ecosystem role by this fishery, we note that although the impact of fishing is visible in the population size distribution, suggesting a relatively high exploitation rate, there are other factors to take into account: i) no evidence from the fishery or surveys of significant change in biomass of fishable sized lobster over recent years; and ii) by the time the lobsters reach the minimum size of the fishery they are ~5-7 years old, suggesting a large biomass of sub-minimum size lobster. In the course of the assessment, two more specific ecosystem-type issues were raised. 1. Interactions with brown crab : It is apparent that in the cantonnements (areas closed to lobster fishing), as lobster populations have increased so populations of brown crab have declined. It is hypothesised that this is due to competition, probably for habitat (Veronique Legrand CRPM scientist, pers. comm.). Thus the lobster fishery may, by suppressing to some extent the biomass of lobster (particularly large lobster) support or enhance the brown crab population (although of course this is also fished). 2. Interactions with conger : It is reported that the presence of conger eel in an area tends to reduce the lobster population in that area. It is not known whether this is due to competition or to predation. If mainly the latter, conger may be competing with the fishery for access to lobster – however the stakeholder consensus was that the competition was more important, in which case conger may also benefit from the
69 | 2147R02B April 2011 lobster fishery. Either way, there does not appear to be any issue with the status of conger stocks in the area. Overall, the team concluded that since the stocks of all the species discussed above seem to be in good shape, it seemed reasonable to suppose that they can play their role in the ecosystem. The team therefore considered that the fishery was highly unlikely to have significant ecosystem impacts - thus 80 is met. However, a lack of specific evidence (except anecdotal) means that no higher score can be given. 2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. SG 60: There are measures in place, if necessary, that take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. SG 100: There is a strategy that consists of a plan , containing measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience , plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. Score 80 Rationale The team considered that an explicit strategy for the management of ecosystem impacts of this fishery is not really necessary, given that such impacts are considered to be highly unlikely. Having said that, a variety of measures exist that together the team considered constituted a ‘partial strategy’ as required by SG 80. These include: i) the limitations on parlour pots in the French zone, in the Minquiers and in coastal areas; ii) the various management plans in force or in preparation for protected or
70 | 2147R02B April 2011 sensitive areas as outlined above (for Chausey and other areas in France e.g. 25, and Jersey Ramsar sites and ICZM Strategy (40), the measures for the protection of species such as cetaceans, seals and birds (see rationale for PI 2.3.1 for details) and ormer biodiversity action plan (41), and the various measures that ensure that the lobster and main retained species are not over-exploited (see rationales for PIs 1.1.1 and 2.1.1 for details). The team considered that since these various elements are all being implemented successfully, and appear to cover the key ecosystem elements, that SG 80 is met. However, there is no explicit ecosystem plan, as required by SG 100, so a higher score could not be given. 2.5.3 Information / monitoring There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. SG 60: Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail . SG 80: Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail . The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, by-catch, retained and ETP species and habitats) in the ecosystem are known . Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). SG 100: Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated . The impacts of the fishery on target, by-catch, retained, ETP and habitats are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood . Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.
71 | 2147R02B April 2011
Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Score 80 Rationale The ecology and the trophic relationships of Homarus gammarus are fairly well understood (e.g. 6, 42, 43), although data are lacking on the newly settled juvenile stage which has rarely been found in the wild – it is assumed that it inhabits small crevices and is a generalist feeder like the adult. A similar situation pertains for the brown crab, which is also a generalist feeder. In both species, adults (particularly males) are agonistic to each other, suggesting that density-dependence might be important, at least in adults. The velvet swimming crab and the spider crab are also generalist feeders, as are almost all large crustaceans. The habitat requirements of the four key species are overlapping but not identical. Lobster appreciate habitat with large amounts of physical structure, with the rocky reefs of Granville Bay almost ideal. Brown crab and spider crab can also inhabit this kind of habitat, but also live in flatter, less highly structured hard-bottom habitats, such as the areas to the north and west of Granville Bay. These species are probably more widely distributed than lobster in the area for that reason. Spider crab populations are known to be highly mobile, covering relatively large areas (e.g. from western Brittany to Granville Bay and back) over the course of an annual migration cycle. Velvet swimming crab, conversely, is generally confined to shallow coastal areas. In general the ecosystem is fairly well studied: e.g. for bio-oceanography (11, 12), birds (15, 16, 18), small cetaceans (Jersey annual reports 12, 13), habitats / benthos (14, 15) and seagrass beds (17). Sites such as the cantonnements on the French side and the Ramsar sites on the Jersey side have been extensively surveyed (14, 16, 25, 34, 35). This ecosystem level information includes all the key ‘components’ (i.e. in this case lobster, crabs, small cetaceans, birds and benthic communities and habitats). The team concluded that the information available (of which only a subsample is presented above) is sufficient to give a broad understanding of the key elements of the ecosystem. The impacts of the fishery on these elements and components can be inferred from this information plus, for example, the information on trends in lobster and crab population size (7, for crab data see PI 2.1.1 above) and their distribution and ecology (e.g. the interactions between lobster and crab and lobster and conger cited in 2.5.1 above). Ongoing monitoring exists for i) the fishery (i.e. LPUE data, number of tags and licences etc.); ii) the cantonnements in Normandy (34, 35); iii) the various surveys carried out the Jersey Department of Fisheries (e.g. for whelks, juvenile lobster, lobster larvae, bottlenose dolphins and birds – 12, 13) and iv) the SPA site at Chausey (15, 16, 18). The team concluded that this would be sufficient to detect any increase in risk to the ecosystem. Overall, the team concluded from the above that SG 80 is met. However, the interactions of the fishery and the wider ecosystem have not been specifically investigated, except for a few anecdotal observations, so SG 100 is not met in any of its elements.
72 | 2147R02B April 2011
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
3.1 Governance and policy
3.1.1 Legal and/or customary framework
The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. SG 60: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. The management system has a mechanism to generally respects the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 80: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.
73 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 100: The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective . The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Score 100
Rationale 1. Note on combining or separating scores for P3 For Principle 3, we have composed the rationale for each PI using the same framework: i) discussion of the Granville Bay Treaty joint framework; ii) discussion of the French framework and iii) discussion of the Jersey framework. In several cases, each of these three elements receive different scores. In some cases, such as for this PI (which considers the overarching legal and governance framework for the whole fishery) or for PIs that consider issues such as objectives for the fishery, the team felt that it was meaningless to award separate scores for each side, since the policy and actions of each side interact to make a cooperate and co-managed whole, and any conditions would in any case have to be cooperatively implemented at the Granville Bay Treaty level. For other PIs, however, such as enforcement, where each side takes responsibility for its own fishery (on land) or its own zone (at sea), each side is scored separately, but the final score can be modified by the Granville Bay score. In this case, conditions may be imposed on one side but not the other. For each PI, we make clear at the start of the rationale whether we have chosen to combine scores or not. 2. Granville Bay Treaty The legal framework for the management system is provided by the Agreement concerning the Fishing in the Bay of Granville known as the Granville Bay Treaty, signed in 2000 between the United Kingdom and France (4). The broad scope of the agreement is to ‘ […] conserve fisheries resource in the seas situated in the region of the Island of Jersey and the neighbouring coast of France" and to […] contribute to the prosperity of the local communities which depend […] on the fisheries resources of those seas’. The regulations implemented under the Agreement have to be set on the basis of a precautionary approach, but with regard to socio-economic factors. The Treaty recognises and is consistent with laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2.
74 | 2147R02B April 2011
Under the Treaty, the Joint Management Committee (JMC) has the mandate to ‘ensure the conservation and effective management of the fishery resources in the area covered by the Agreement’, conservation meaning ‘the rational use and the maintenance or re-establishment of stock of species at levels which ensure constant maximum yield’ (4). The JMC meets three times per year in ordinary session, but may hold extraordinary sessions at a week’s notice if a Party wishes to introduce emergency conservation measures. Under those rules, the system is able to react relatively fast to emerging situations. Decisions taken under the Treaty are translated into the regulatory system for the fishery under the French system by Basse-Normandie and under the States of Jersey and UK system by Jersey. Under both systems of fisheries management, there is a clear hierarchy of legal frameworks, management institutions and responsibility under the European Common Fisheries Policy (44). At Treaty level, the management system is consistent with local, national or international laws or standards aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2 (4 and 5). The JMC is under an obligation to seek the views of the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) before it reaches a decision. The JAC brings together fishermen’s representatives, government officials and scientists and meets three times a year in ordinary sessions held in turn in Granville (Normandy), St Malo (Brittany) and Jersey in rotation (these meetings are generally held just before the JMC meetings). The JAC may also meet in extraordinary session at a week’s notice. Management and conservation measures are evaluated and discussed during those meetings and recommendations are made to the JMC. The JAC provides a forum for discussion and a transparent mechanism for the resolution of disputes including emergency arbitration procedures (Art. 4 and Art. 1 and 2 annex D, 4) that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The role of the JAC as a conduit to discuss, for example, gear conflicts and resolve them through the proposal of targeted management measures regarding fishing season and areas has been tested and proven to be effective (e.g. for spider crabs management measures, 45). Through the JAC, the management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges (Art. 3(e), 4). The Bay of Granville Agreement puts a cap on the total fishing effort in the Area through an access permit that was awarded to vessels registered in Jersey, in certain French ports and to those out-of-Area boats that can demonstrate a track record. The recognition and formal commitment to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 is at the core of the Treaty (4, 5 and 27). At Treaty level, all four parts of 100 Scoring Guideposts are met. 3. French fisheries management system For the French side, the Prime Minister’s Secretary General for the Sea organised inter-ministerial action at sea, supplies strategic directions such for biodiversity (see 19) and coordinated the action of all authorities involved in sea fisheries. Following a reform taking effect from 1 st January 2010, two central government departments are in charge of marine fisheries matters, the Ministère de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et de la pêche and the Ministère de l'écologie, de l'énergie, du développement durable et
75 | 2147R02B April 2011 de la mer (Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea Ministry). Not all details of the reform are yet implemented, but functions of the Agriculture ministry (national and international fisheries management, sectoral production monitoring), the Interior and Local Government ministry, the Equipment ministry (transport and infrastructure) and the Environment ministry (protected areas) have been brought together under fewer inter-ministerial territorial administrations at regional (région) and local (départment) government levels. For Basse-Normandie, the key levels of decentralised public administration currently involved are: • Préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord (from Mont St Michel to Belgium border, 46) is in charge of marine pollution prevention, surveillance and sea rescue coordination through the centre régional opérationnel de surveillance et de sauvetage (CROSS) in Jobourg (Manche). • Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement (DREAL) de Basse-Normandie (since January 2010) in particular for environmental, infrastructure development and research aspects; • Direction départementales des territoires et de la mer (DDTM - Manche) is a local inter-ministerial directorate that covers the responsibilities of the ex- DDAM Direction départementale des Affaires Maritimes, within it, the • Délégation à la Mer et au Littoral (DML - Manche) and its Pôle Pêche et Activités Maritimes (Pôle PAM) is responsible for the monitoring, enforcement and surveillance of fishing activities. Finally, at the most devolved level, • For the lobster fishery, which is entirely taking place inside the French 12 nautical miles of territorial waters (with the exception of the co-managed area as discussed above), fisheries management is delegated by central government to the regional Committee of professional fishermen (CRPMEM Basse- Normandie, CRPM for short, regional committee for fishing and fish farming, 47). The CRPM participates in the co-management of commercial fisheries through the definition of “measures aiming to ensure a sustainable marine resources management” (Décret art.21, 47). Deliberations adopted by the majority of its Council members are ratified into bylaws by the regional government (Préfet de région, e.g. 29) to supplement existing European and French fisheries legislation for a period of four years at a time. The French system of central and devolved administrations and Comités des Pêches (Comité national CNPM and Comité régional Basse-Normandie CRPM, Comités locaux) recognises and is consistent with laws and standards aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The first set of key tasks of the CRPM (art. 22a, 47) are the “organisation of fisheries with respect to limiting fishing time, fix the dates of start and end of fishing for certain species, the zoning, area management measures and set cohabitation rules between various gear types (“métiers”) including commercial fishermen on foot (“pêcheurs à pied”) whose activities are akin to those of recreational fishers but who can sell their catch. Therefore it can be said that the co-management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes, and that the committee meetings, deliberations and majority voting system constitute a transparent system for the resolution of disputes.
76 | 2147R02B April 2011
In the event that the CRPM cannot resolve internally disputes regarding licence removal or licence variations, decision can be appealed in front of an Administrative Tribunal. The team believes that the absence of disputes is the result of a management system that has been set up in order to act proactively to avoid legal disputes, which is effective in the context of the lobster fishery. At regional (CRPM Basse-Normandie) and local (Comités locaux de Cherbourg et Ouest Cotentin) levels, the committees are set up to represent all categories of those dependent on professional fishing for their livelihood, including vessel owners, salaried or share vessel crew, those fishing professionally on foot and fish and shellfish farmers and employees (art 26, 47). Therefore, the system is formally committed to the customary rights of people dependent on fisheries for their livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. All of the four points in SG100 are verified, the French system is given a score of 100. 4. Jersey fisheries management system The Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994 revised 2007 “make[s] provision for the regulation of sea fishing and the conservation of sea fish” (including shellfish) to implement the legislations that relate to the CFP, the UK Fisheries legislation and the Granville Bay Treaty in Jersey territorial waters that extend 12 miles from the points where baselines are drawn or to median lines with France and Guernsey, and outside for Jersey-registered fishing vessels (3). The system of fisheries management in Jersey relating to the Granville Bay Treaty area is framed by the UK/Jersey Fisheries Management Agreement (FMA) signed in 1996, which “takes account, where appropriate, of relevant Jersey, United Kingdom and European Community legislation and international obligations” […] and recognizes that fisheries “should be managed in a manner consistent with the requirements of EC legislation and, where appropriate, in a manner consistent with UK legislation” (28). The European Common Fisheries (CFP) is therefore an overarching governance framework for all Jersey fisheries and, according to the main objectives of the CFP, fishing opportunities are set at levels which ensures sustainable exploitation of resources (basic fisheries regulation (2371/2002, 44) in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994 revised 2007 includes an appeal procedure for “any person aggrieved by a refusal to grant, vary or renew a licence, or permit, under this Law or the [associated] Regulations” (art. 28, 3). Therefore, the management system includes a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. The system appears appropriate to the context of the fishery, and the fact that it has not been tested specifically in the context of the lobster fishery is taken as evidence that the management system effectively acts to avoid legal disputes. The management system acts proactively to avoid legal challenges to the provisions of its Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law and Regulations through a number of avenues. The Fisheries and Marine Resources Panel, initially set up to address Jersey’s fishermen’s concerns about over exploitation, neighbourhood agreements with the French and local conservation issues, meets six times a year and is involved from the early stages of policy making. Its membership includes professional and amateurs interested in the marine environment, i.e. from the boat owning communities on the north and south coasts, the chairman of the Jersey Aquaculture Association, the president of the Jersey
77 | 2147R02B April 2011
Federation of Sea Anglers and commercial fishermen from the Jersey Fisherman’s Association. The States Assembly examines proposals for new Regulations by the Executive through a process of public consultation and public enquiry. A recent example is provided by the scrutiny of the Sea Fisheries Bag Limits (including a maximum of 5 lobsters per person) for recreational fishermen by the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel in 2009 (48). The Sea Fisheries Law in Jersey (art 2(6), 3) formally commits the management system to the legal rights of individuals created explicitly or established by custom in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. All of the four points in SG100 are verified, the system in Jersey is given a score of 100. Since all three elements scored 100, the overall score is thus 100.
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.
SG 60: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood . The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 80: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved SG 100: Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used . The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Score 100
78 | 2147R02B April 2011
Rationale
The management system for the Granville Bay Treaty area brings together the French and the States of Jersey systems and provides a joint management forum that coordinates and consolidates those of Basse-Normandie and Jersey for the lobster fishery. All three jurisdictions facilitate stakeholder involvement based on strong consultation processes and clear and understood roles and responsibilities for relevant organisations and individuals taking part. Because the management system for this fishery is most crucially at the Granville Bay Treaty level, scores for Jersey and Normandy are not separated, as per the note in PI 3.1.1 above. 1. Granville Bay Treaty
For the Granville Bay Treaty area, interested and affected parties involved in the management process are identified and represented on the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) set in Annex C of the Agreement (4). Annex C also defines areas of interactions and responsibilities as follows. The JAC facilitates scientific research, gathers statistical data on catch and fishing effort and shares the information with stakeholders. It has the mandate to make recommendations to the JMC on: • Management of fishing effort by introducing fishing permits, which may if necessary be capped at a certain number; • Setting TACs, minimum sizes or weights and other regulations for the control of harvest; • Designation of fishing sectors, and their open and closed seasons; • Opening and closures of permitted catch seasons; • Regulation of catch methods. The JAC meets three times per year and adopts its recommendation by consensus. Recommendations are made to the Granville Bay JMC and also relayed through the Basse-Normandie CRPM and Jersey Fisheries and Marine Resources Panel to their respective administrations. Evidence that the management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used is provided by the deliberations and adoption of new regulations to implement JAC recommendations in both Basse Normandie and Jersey (Arrêté préfectoral in France and Fisheries regulation in Jersey). The JAC has 20 members with voting rights, 12 from professional fishermen’s committees/associations, 8 from French and Jersey administrations, and also three scientists (2 France and 1 Jersey) and a variable number of trade secretaries-general who have no voting rights. Minutes are not public but are widely distributed to commercial fishermen’s associations, administrations and research administrations in Jersey and France (Basse Normandie and Brittany). Recent minutes made available to the team provide clear evidence that functions, roles and responsibilities that are explicitly defined are well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction.
79 | 2147R02B April 2011
In conclusion, the Granville Bay Treaty process ensures a consultation process that provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. For this element, all 4 scoring guideposts are met and the score is 100. 2. French system
The French government undertook a nationwide consultation during 2009 that underpinned the identification new coastal and marine policy objectives (see Grenelle de la Mer, 49). Government services were also reorganised in January 2010, and the DML (Délégation à la Mer et au Littoral ) at the local “département” level now brings together the management of marine and coastal commercial and recreational fisheries with environment, aquaculture, integrated coastal zone development, cultural heritage, coastal and marine engineering, ports and shipping. Among other duties, the Pôle PAM of the DML is in charge of relations with the CRPM and POs, and this facilitates an even wider local consultation process. Day-to-day, the lobster fishery is co-managed by the CRPMEM (CRPM for short) Basse-Normandie. Membership of the CRPM is compulsory for all involved in commercial fishing in the region, from catching to selling to processing (art. 20, 47). One of the roles of the CRPM is to participate in the drafting of fisheries management regulations. It is apparent that the functions, roles and responsibilities of its members clearly defined in the 1992 legislation (art. 21, 47) are well understood in all areas. Within the CRPM, its “Commission Crustacés” discusses matters specifically related to lobsters (and to other crustaceans e.g. brown crab, spider crab and velvet swimming crab). The Commission also includes the CRPM’s and other scientists involved in fisheries research and assessment projects (from NFM, SMEL and Ifremer), although these do not have voting rights. Minutes of the “Commission Crustacés”, which meets every three months or so, provide evidence that the management system directly relies on information provided by professional fishers, including local knowledge and debates how information is used or not. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement. Thus this element of the management system meets all of the SG100 requirements. 3. Jersey system
In Jersey, the Fisheries and Marine Resources section of the States of Jersey Planning and Environment Department is the fisheries management body assisted by the Fisheries and Marine Resources Panel. The Panel has 15 members including representatives from the boat owning communities on the north and south coasts, the chairman of the Jersey Aquaculture Association, the president of the Jersey Federation of Sea Anglers as well as commercial fishermen from the Jersey Fisherman’s Association. The Panel was set up in the 1970’s to address fishermen’s concerns about over exploitation, neighbourhood agreements with the French and local conservation issues. Over the years functions have been extended and the Panel has been renamed (from its original name of Sea Fisheries Advisory) to reflect wider responsibilities. Recent minutes provided to the team provide evidence that roles and responsibilities are well understood by its members for all areas of responsibility and interaction.
80 | 2147R02B April 2011
The process obviously provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement, which is particularly evident during the drafting of new regulations (cf. public scrutiny of the Sea Fisheries Bag Limits for recreational fishermen mentioned above (48). The Panel meets every two months. It provides regular input to the management process in Jersey’s territorial waters and also to the Granville Bay Treaty process via the JAC. The minutes demonstrate that in Jersey, the management system regularly seeks and accepts relevant information, including local knowledge. The Section’s annual report and minutes of the latest Panel meeting are published on the government website. Both publications provide evidence that the management system considers the information provided and, as appropriate, explains how it is used or not used. For example, the fishermen’s records of lobster condition are analysed and presented in the 2009 Annual Report, which concludes that the data “may well be a useful tool in the future for monitoring changes in the economic value of the stock” (13: 20). For Jersey, all 4 scoring guideposts are met and this element scores 100. Since all three elements score 100, the overall score is 100.
3.1.3 Long term objectives
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach
SG 60: Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy. SG 80: Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy. SG 100: Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy
Score 90
Rationale
Both French and Jersey (through its Agreement with UK) fisheries management systems have clear and explicit long-term objectives that guide decision-making and are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. For Principle 1, these are required and set out explicitly in the Granville Bay Treaty,
81 | 2147R02B April 2011 meeting the 100 level. For Principle 2, the national level objectives meet the 80 but not 100 level. The overall score is thus 90. 1. Granville Bay Treaty
The treaty has clear objectives relating to Principle 1, such as for the conservation for any fished species (art. 1 and Annex C- JAC p15 and art. 2, 4), and the precautionary approach (art 4), but there are no specific objectives clearly relating to Principle 2 that are explicit within or required by the Treaty. However, both parties are bound by their national-level objectives, which in recent developments provide clearer long-term ecosystem objectives – these are discussed further below. 2. French system
At regional and local level, the first mission of the CRPMEM (Décret n°92-335 du 30 mars 1992) is to « Contribute to the definition of measures to insure a balanced management of marine resources », but this relates essentially to Principle 1 and the need to balance fisheries management and socio-economic constraints. The precautionary approach is all explicit in the fishery management policy at all levels for Principle 1. Regarding Principle 2, the Bird (79/409/CE) and Habitats (92/43/CE) Directives underpin the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and are fully integrated at national level in the “Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité – Plan d'action Mer 2008-2009” (19). More recently, the Grenelle de la Mer has pledged “the development of marine protected areas to represent 10% of our economic expansion area by 2012 and 20% by 2020 (half of which will become fishing preserves) (49). Thus clear long-term objectives for both P1 and P2 and the precautionary approach are explicit within the French policy at national level, but not explicitly required by fisheries management policy for Principle 2. This indicator thus scores 90. 3. Jersey system
Jersey’s Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy published in 2008 (40) provides very clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making. The Precautionary Principle and ecosystem approach explicitly underpin the Strategy, and its Key Aim C in particular “to promote and encourage sensitive use of natural resources” and sub-aim C3 in particular, to “Encourage better returns for Jersey caught marine species by investigating the possibility of supporting the adoption of an internationally recognised certification programme, which promotes well-managed fisheries”, are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach.. The Fisheries and Marine Resources section, which is in charge of fisheries management in Jersey, also has an ecosystem view at the core of its deliberations and the following objectives: • to ensure sustainable use of the marine resources of the Bailiwick • to maximise overall benefits to the people of Jersey • to protect the marine environment.
82 | 2147R02B April 2011
Finally, the Fisheries and Marine Resources panel, which provides advice to government on management “is aware that the marine species they seek to conserve do not live in isolation but are part of a complex food and environmental web. The diverse membership of the panel aids this holistic approach to management” (50). Therefore for Jersey, clear long-term objectives and the precautionary approach are explicit within all levels of management policy and required by it for both Principles 1 and 2. This indicator meets the SG100 requirements.
3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing
SG 60: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 80: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise SG 100: The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Score 80 (Basse Normandie) 90 (Jersey)
Rationale
1. Separation of scores
In this case, because incentives for sustainable (or unsustainable) fishing are operated at the regional or national level, and because the management systems are reviewed at this level rather than at the Granville Bay Treaty level, the team considered it appropriate to separate the scores for the two elements. The Granville Bay element is also considered for completeness, but is not really so relevant here. 2. Granville Bay Treaty
This issue is not really dealt with at the Granville Bay level. Discussions at the JAC apparent from minutes communicated to the team show that both the French and Jersey management systems provide for incentives consistent with Principles 1 and 2. There is no explicit consideration of incentives, and these are not regularly reviewed at this level.
83 | 2147R02B April 2011
3. French system The management system has made it possible for Basse-Normandie fishermen to benefit from incentives consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by Principles 1 and 2. In general terms, the fact that fishermen have security of retention of the licence, including the right to fish, and the right to use a specific pot number. Fishermen all have the right to participate in the Comités Locaux and Regionaux des Pêches and are able to participate in decision-making for the management of the fishery. The decision-making bodies also have their own scientists to advise them on sustainability. There are also the following projects which have CRPM involvement:
• with the SMEL and Conservatoire du Littoral, European co-funded “Interreg IVB de l’ARC Atlantique Projet MAIA», to develop and implement a set of indicators and devise management plans for Chausey archipelago and MPA (51);
• with Normandie Fraîcheur Mer, the fishing, fish selling and fish processing industry body, various Quality assurance and eco-label development and promotion, also the marketing and locally produced lobsters, partly funded by European Fisheries Fund and other French public subsidies; However, the management system does not explicitly consider incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Only SG80 is thus met for this element. 4. Jersey system
As for Basse Normandie, fishermen have security of retention of the licence, including the right to fish, and the right to use a specific pot number. Again, decision- making structures for the management of the fishery include fishermen and other stakeholders, and have their own scientists to advise them on sustainability. The States of Jersey being outside the European Union, fishing businesses cannot benefit from European EFF or Interreg grants. However, they may obtain government training grants (52), and business grants under the Rural Initiative Scheme (to a maximum 50% co-funding), to adapt to the changing market place and /or diversify into new areas, but “projects need to add value, be environmentally friendly, and increase economic productivity or reduce costs” (53). The management system in Jersey reviews its management policy and procedures every year to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices (see annual Planning and Environment Business Plan, 32). Incentives are not considered as such in the Fisheries and Marine Resources’ annual reports, but this is may be due to the fact that there haven’t been any government incentives in the system. The overall score is thus 90.
84 | 2147R02B April 2011
3.2 Fishery-specific management system
3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
SG 60: Objectives , which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system. SG 80: Short and long term objectives , which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. SG 100: Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives , which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system
Score 80
Rationale
The lobster fishery management system has short and long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, which are explicit in the Granville Bay Treaty and French and Jersey fishery’s management systems. However, the objectives are not measurable, or always well defined. The overall score is 80. 1. Granville Bay Treaty
The overarching objective, to “conserve fishery resources in the seas situated in the region of the Island of Jersey and neighbouring coast of France” is not fishery-specific at the Granville Bay Treaty level. However, minutes of the JAC show that lobster management measures are considered regularly and joint objectives are discussed (45 and 55:3 point 6.1). For this fishery, the specific objectives at the Granville Bay level are not formally set out in writing, but can be discerned from the management strategy: i) to conserve the lobster resource (by capping fishing effort consistent with maintaining stable long term LPUE, as well as via closed areas); ii) to reduce latent capacity by restricting the reallocation of licenses; and iii) to protect immature lobsters by implementing an MLS and escape gaps. 2. French system The Comité National des Pêches Maritimes (CNPM for short) Crustaceans Commission has clear long-term and short-term objectives to achieve the outcomes expressed by Principle 1 (see 47). The CRPM Basse Normandie has clear long-term and short-term objectives explicit in its system for both Principle 1 and 2. For Principle 1, the main objective to control fishing effort translates into various measures to control the number of licences and permits, pot types, pots per person,
85 | 2147R02B April 2011 and minimum landing sizes. With regards to Principle 2, escapement of other species are facilitated by a limit in the number of parlour pots, gear loss is monitored through pot tags, and ecosystem effects of fishing are limited by the designation of controlled and no-take areas that cover the main lobster grounds in French waters. All these measures are explicit in the management system annual “arrêté ” for the organisation of the crustacean fishery in the area (29). However, these objectives are not put together into a well-defined and measurable plan to the fishery. Only SG80 is met. 3. Jersey system In Jersey, Fisheries management is objective driven. Short and long-term objectives are set out in the Planning and Environment annual Department Business Plan (32), and performance against these are discussed in the Fisheries and Marine Resources (FMR) annual reports (13). For lobsters specifically, for Principle 1, the main objective to determine the conservation needs and how they may be achieved, is measured with the CPUE of adult and juvenile lobsters monitored through fisheries-independent surveys of adults and juveniles, the analysis of LPUE logbooks data (24), and a lobster plankton assessment surveys using light traps. For some aspects of Principle 2, Management Plans are being developed for Jersey’s Ramsar sites, which cover the main lobster grounds. The plans will reflect the objectives of the ICZM Strategy (40) to safeguard habitats (nursery grounds and feeding areas) for commercial species, and to ensure that conservation designations are respected and such sites are protected from damage and development (54). Thus, short and long-term objectives are explicit in the fisheries management system and SG80 is met. However, even though many objectives are measurable – and measured – including some for P2, they are not well defined as a clear and coherent set for the lobster-potting fishery specifically, the final score of SG80 is kept.
3.2.2 Decision-making processes
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives SG 60: There are informal decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions SG 80: There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.
86 | 2147R02B April 2011
Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. SG 100: There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
Score 100
Rationale
The decision-making processes for the Granville Bay lobster fishery are well established by the French and Jersey systems and strengthened by being brought together through the Granville Bay Treaty process. 1. Granville Bay Treaty Basse Normandie and Jersey have demonstrated their commitment to a joint management strategy for the lobster-potting fishery by the high level of coordination between their two management systems. The Treaty establishes a mechanism for the coordination of the two decision-making processes through the JAC and JMC, which respond to all issues identified by relevant research, monitoring and evaluation and is in accordance with precautionary approach. The JAC minutes seen by the team show that debates are transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions on both sides. They are widely circulated to fishermen’s representatives (CRPM Basse Normandie and Brittany, and Jersey Fishermen’s Association), fisheries management government services and research institutes, giving formal report to all interested stakeholders. The Treaty provides additional opportunities for the decision-making process to respond to all issues on a regular basis. As the lobster fishery lies only within France and Jersey territorial waters, the decisions debated and agreed at the JAC are then taken in each country separately. 2. French system
The CRPM Basse Normandie has clear established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and use the precautionary approach for the lobster-potting fishery. This is evidenced by the
87 | 2147R02B April 2011 detailed set of measures and strategies discussed by its Crustaceans commission, agreed by the CRPM and translated into bylaws. From the minutes copied to the team, it is apparent that all issues identified as relevant to the crustaceans potting fishery are discussed in a timely and adaptive manner, these range from fishing logs to ghost fishing, pot escapement gaps, the design of juvenile surveys and the monitoring of protected areas (26). As the CRPM works in collaboration with Ifremer, also commissions its own research projects and discusses research, monitoring and evaluation with Jersey at the JAC three times per year, decision-making is evidently based on the best available information. Formal reporting, in the form of minutes of the CRPM “Commission Crustacés” and of the CRPM meetings that describe how the management system responds to findings and relevant recommendations are not publicly available, but they are available to the CRPM membership, which is very wide (see 4.1.1). All four points of SG100 are met for this element. 3. Jersey system
Fisheries Management in Jersey has a well-established and transparent decision- making process through the Fisheries and Marine Resources government section (FMR) and its Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel brings together stakeholders from the commercial and recreational fisheries (see PI 3.1.2). Fisheries management officials and scientists attend meetings of the Advisory Panel and describe how the management system responds to findings and any emerging recommendations that may affect the fishery. The relatively small size of the States of Jersey government services means that the management and conservation of Fisheries and Marine resources are highly integrated, therefore all issues identified by research, monitoring, evaluation, and consultations are discussed in a timely manner, including matters arising from the previous JAC/JMC meetings (cf. Marine Protected Areas; offshore tidal and wind energy projects; need to reduce the number of Granville Bay Access permits, 52). Conversely, the wider context, such as the possible effect of climate change and market prices and the wider implications of decisions such as the need for fishermen to diversify (for brown crab in 2009) are also discussed (52). The various measures and strategies in place to ensure stable or increasing lobster CPUE, control effort and monitor recruitment are compatible with the precautionary approach, based on the best available information and regularly discussed at FMR Advisory Panel meetings. Minutes of the latest FMR Advisory Panel meeting are posted on the FMR website. The minutes, together with the FMR annual report, also available on the website, provide formal reporting to all interested. All 4 components of SG 100 is met, giving a score for this element of 100.
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with.
88 | 2147R02B April 2011
SG 60: Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery SG 80: A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance SG 100: A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.
Score 80 (Basse Normandie) 100 (Jersey)
Rationale
1. Separation of scores Like incentives, enforcement is an issue where there is no particular responsibility at Granville Bay level, although the system promotes cooperation. However, enforcement activities are implemented and managed (and funded) at regional / national level. Scores are thus separate for the two elements. 2. Granville Bay Treaty
The Granville Bay Treaty limits fishing to those holding a Granville Bay “fishing permit” delivered by the French or Jersey authorities. The permit issuing authorities of both countries keep a common database of licensed vessels, and vessels have to carry their permit available for inspection at all times (art. 2, 4). The Granville Bay Treaty does not have independent means of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), but
89 | 2147R02B April 2011 provides a platform for the French and Jersey systems to coordinate their activities and organise joint operations. In the words of the Jersey administration (13) “brisk dialogue between Jersey and French fishermen and administrators occurred through the Granville Bay Treaty meetings which continue to be a very useful conduit for fisheries issues in the jointly fished waters”. 3. French system
In French coastal fisheries a number of different agencies come together to deliver monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). For the Basse Normandie Bay of Granville lobster fishery, compliance and enforcement matters are coordinated by the pôle PAM - Pôle pêches et activités maritimes of the Délégation à la mer et au littoral (PAM – DML of the DDTM). The PAM replaced the Affaires Maritimes (DDAM) in January 2010 to implement the government policy in marine and maritime matters. It has a dual role of collecting data in support of regulations and controlling fishing activities and landings and has police powers at sea and on land. The DML’s powers to enforce maritime and fisheries regulations are exercised in the field by ULAM’s vessels and fisheries enforcement agents (ULAM 50 - Unité Littorale des Affaires Maritimes Manche, based in Cherbourg), in collaboration with the Gendarmerie Maritime, Customs, Gendarmerie départementale and the French Navy (Marine Nationale). The PAM also has a local office in Granville (“Station Maritime”). In addition, French vessels in the Treaty area may be checked at sea by the Jersey authorities and vice-versa for the French to control Jersey vessels. The PAM - DML - DDTM organises its lobster fisheries MCS activities through the following three main channels: a. Controls of fishing activities at sea (permits, pots, minimum legal size for commercial fishermen, pots and bag limits for recreational fishers) b. Collection and analysis of commercial fishing declarations, as daily effort by area, gear used, catch by species in logbooks for over-10m, and as monthly returns of daily logs for under-10s. c. Collection and analysis of market sales slips (“notes de vente”) mandatory for commercial fishermen and fish buyers. In addition, the research institute Ifremer collects: d. monthly data on the fishing activity (main two “métiers = vessel size and gear combination” and two fishing areas used) of all fishing vessels. The team did not obtain precise data on the number of controls and infractions from the PAM office who does not compile its statistics separately by fishery (apart from quota species). They receive copy of each infraction note (Procès Verbal or PV) from all enforcement agencies, and for each one issue some advice to the Court with regards to national regulations and local bylaws, and to notify of any recurring offence as the case may be. According to PAM, the Bay of Granville commercial lobster fishery has no significant or recurrent enforcement issues. French inspections are in addition to inspections from the Jersey fisheries surveillance vessels and agents (see below), who report no evidence of systematic non-compliance from French vessels.
90 | 2147R02B April 2011
Ifermer (7) asserts that fishermen do not declare all their catch, but notes that catch reporting increased significantly after 2001, and has since concerned a stable percentage of all landings. The exact amount of non-reporting is not known, but Ifremer notes that half the annual reported catch was from 10 more specialised out of 57 vessels from Basse Normandie (West Cotentin) catching “a minimum” of 94 tonnes of lobsters altogether in 2007, and that 29 vessels reported catching less than 600 kilos of lobster per year. It is thought that the reporting gap is mainly from the smaller vessels that do not use the market (“criée”) because of its additional charge and lower prices. The collection of sales slips (c. above) for landings sold directly (“hors-criée”) is alleged to be poorly enforced for fishermen selling directly to the public. However, the PAM systematically crosschecks commercial catch declarations with the sales notes as these are received (within 48 hours for over-10m, and monthly by under-10m), and reports no specific concerns for the fishery, including for those who sell directly to the public or to fishmongers. It is likely that reporting gap is a problem for historical data, but is no longer a major concern from the enforcement point of view. For those vessels landing through the market (including Jersey vessels), the MCS is believed to be effective (57). The annual catch of recreational fishers along the Ouest Cotentin near shore is estimated at 1-2 tonnes – i.e. trivial in comparison with the commercial fishery (Véronique Legrand, CRMPBN, unpublished data). PAM also noted that an unknown number of recreational fishermen may sell their catch, although this is forbidden under the French system. However, this is also likely to be negligible according to the PAM. Overall therefore, the monitoring, control and surveillance system in the Bay of Granville lobster fishery is obviously able to enforce all relevant management measures. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist for the fishery and are consistently applied. They are thought to provide effective deterrence, according to the fishermen, the CRPM and according to the PAM who report no evidence of re-offending, and greatly improved compliance regarding minimum landing sizes in the last few years. Evidence exists therefore to demonstrate that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery, and there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. SG80 is met. However, the enforcement gaps for some direct sales and recreational catches mean that the MCS coverage is not complete, and in the absence of fishery-specific statistics, the final score is 80. 4. Jersey system
Jersey has implemented a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system in the fishery under assessment. The Planning and Environment Department takes the lead on fisheries enforcement for Jersey and its territorial sea. The fisheries team (Senior Fisheries Inspector and 5 full time staff appointed as Fishery Officers) spend a significant part of their work time in an enforcement role. The section also employs a further Fishery Officer on short-term contract (normally for enforcement duties at sea)
91 | 2147R02B April 2011 and an honorary voluntary Fishery Officer who provides support, particularly out of normal working hours and at weekends. Also within the Department 3 other environmental staff are appointed as Fishery Officers and can be called upon in extremis. The Department also employs a number of other enforcement officers, and these are used in a supportive role, assisting with the interviewing of suspects. The Law also empowers all Police Officers (Honorary and full time) and certain Harbour Masters as Fishery Officers. Support is obtained from full time Police Officers when investigating serious offences (detaining suspects, interview facilities, transport, and photographic evidence) and Honorary Officers to assist with enforcing fisheries regulations around the Islands beaches. In times of serious need, a large number of such officers can be called upon (typically this occurred when the Ormer fishery reopened after a lengthy closure and extra officers were required to enforce the minimum size limits). The Fisheries Section has 2 Landrovers for shore surveillance and uses its 15m patrol- vessel equipped with a semi-rigid inflatable (RIB) boarding vessel for enforcement. Both vessels are well equipped with surveillance and communications kit. The patrol vessel is capable of operating in bad weather and has a maximum speed exceeding 24 knots; it is fitted with equipment to lift pots and can carry up to 100 seized commercial pots. A 5m inshore potting vessel, equipped to lift and recover potting equipment and a further RIB used as a back up are used for inshore work, and two pilot vessels and a further RIB operated by Jersey Coastguard may also be used. Finally, the Island also has the option of using fisheries enforcement vessels operated by the UK on a request basis. Fishery Officers have full access for enforcement purposes to the EU based VMS satellite monitoring system, access to AIS coverage for the entire area in real time and shore based radar coverage for a large part of the area close to Jersey. In Jersey, fisheries enforcement covers a number of areas, including the activities of low water fishermen (who regularly target lobster), fishing equipment set at sea, commercial premises including restaurants, fishing vessels both at sea and landing and the checking of log books, AIS and VMS information. The amount of inspection varies year on year, depending on weather, size of tides and fishing effort. Fig. 4 gives the number of annual inspections by type undertaken by the Fisheries team.
92 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig 4. Number of inspections by The States of Jersey Fisheries Team
INSPECTIONS
2500
COMMERCIAL PREMISES 2000 LOW WATER FISHERMEN LANDINGS - ELSEWHERE 1500 LANDINGS - ST HELIER ANGLERS
AMOUNT 1000 BEACH FRENCH BOARDINGS 500 BRITISH BOARDINGS
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YEAR
There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. In Jersey, all breaches of the Fishery Regulations and the action taken are recorded. Depending on the severity of the breach, sanctions range from a verbal warning, a written advisory letter of caution and a record, a verbal or written warning from a Parish Hall Enquiry, to prosecution in the Magistrates or the highest Royal Court. Court sentences may include a fine, confiscation of catch and equipment and the fishing licence to be suspended. The list of all infractions and prosecutions regarding lobster and crab in the last five years (2005 to 2009) shows an average number of 20 breaches per year, ¾ by commercial and ¼ by recreational fishermen. The most severe breaches concern the use of undersize crabs as bait for whelks and the catch of undersized crabs as by- catch. For lobsters specifically, the most severe breaches regard blocked escape gaps and unmarked pots. For commercial fishermen, the most common offence concerns a late return of logbooks, followed by small numbers of retained undersize lobster, but in the majority of incidents the Fisheries enforcement staff note that lobsters were within 1 mm of the minimum size. Therefore, sanctions to deal with non-compliance clearly exist, and appear to be applied in a consistent manner that demonstrates effective deterrence with rare instances of repeat offences (e.g. from written warning to Parish Hall Enquiry for late logbooks). The data demonstrate a consistent ability to enforce relevant management regulations and the absence of systematic non- compliance. All 4 SGs are met in Jersey, a score of 100 is given.
93 | 2147R02B April 2011
3.2.4 Research plan
The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
SG 60: Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are available to interested parties. SG 80: A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. SG 100: A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available .
Score 75
Rationale
The research activities of each side combine together through the Granville Bay Treaty system (where they are discussed at JAC and JMC meetings) to make a coherent whole for this fishery. Therefore research is described as a single entity rather than being split up by jurisdiction. The cooperation between Basse-Normandie and Jersey extends to research through the Treaty process that came into effect in 2004. Research projects are undertaken by scientists from France and Jersey as required to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are reliable and timely, and disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. However, there is no plan providing the management system with a strategic approach to research. All points of SG60 are met, and all but the first part of SG80, giving a score of 75. 1. Granville Bay Treaty
The Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) “facilitate(s) research and scientific studies of the fisheries resources” (Annex C, 4). Minutes seen by the team provide evidence that research undertaken by Basse-Normandie and Jersey together is as required to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, is presented and that the management implications are discussed at the JAC. Research projects are shared between Basse-Normandie and Jersey according to their local priorities and opportunities although the team was no shown any formal research plan. Lobster research is not a recurring item on the JAC meeting agenda. 2. French system
94 | 2147R02B April 2011
Lobster is an important coastal fishery resource in France, and Ifremer - the national research institute - has monitored its populations and ecosystems for many years (cf. “Des populations côtières de crustacés sous haute surveillance” 55: 48-51). Research projects have recently been carried out specifically on the Basse-Normandie lobster at the initiative of the CRPM, in collaborations between in-house and other scientists. With respect to Principles 1 and 2, recent research projects include: • Assessment of the Normand-Breton lobster stock (with Ifremer 2010, 7 Principle 1)
• Blainville, assessment of lobster and crab catches and escapement for two pot types, size distribution and sex ratio in 2006 and 2008 (with SMEL, 34 Principles 1 and 2)
• Chausey archipelago (CRPM presentation to the Chausey management group, with SMEL Feb. 2010, 25 Principles 1 and 2), stock assessment inside and outside MPA, juvenile lobster habitat study, effect of pot ghost fishing on lobsters and habitats in 2008 and 2009
• MAIA project, in collaboration with SYMEL, Conservatoire du littoral, to develop a management plan (Principle 3) and lobster monitoring (Principle 1 and 2) inside and outside the Chausey NTZ (2009, 51) At the initiative of the CRPM, research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, and research results are made available to interested parties, including CRPM members, the JAC and research partners. SG60 is met. In fact, research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion, but neither the CRPM nor Ifremer, its government research partner tasked to monitor and assess the lobster stock (Principle 1), appear to have a plan that provides a strategic approach to research. Furthermore, there is currently a problem of reliability and delay with the information provided by Ifremer, which is not entirely sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1. Thus for this element, SG80 is only partly met, giving a the final score of 70. 3. Jersey system
The lobster fishery is the most important fishery in Jersey waters, generating more than half all fisheries’ annual landed value in 2009 (13). Fisheries and Marine Resources (FMR) undertakes research as required, to achieve management objectives consistent with Principle 1 and 2, and makes its results available to all interested parties. SG60 is met. In 2008 and 2009, FMR conducted research on lobster CPUE including pre-recruits, on juveniles and on plankton stages with respect to Principles 1, and participated to the review of the SE Jersey coast Ramsar site ecological status review (56) and initiated the development of its Ramsar sites management plans with respect to Principle 2. For Principle 3, work progressed on the recreational bag limit legislation designed to make the current system more effective, the sales of fish and shellfish by recreational fishers was forbidden, and consultation on the Ramsar management plans was initiated.
95 | 2147R02B April 2011
FMR programmes its recurrent and new research projects in its annual Business Plan (32), and reports on these in its Annual Report (13), which together amount to a research plan. Research projects are discussed at Advisory Panel meetings (52) and shared with the French at the JAC. They are widely disseminated in a timely fashion and made publicly available of the FMR website. While all this represents good research on the fishery, given its size and intensity, there is no comprehensive research plan for the lobster fishery and so SG80 is not met, leading to a final score of 75 for this element. The scores for the various elements making up the fishery combine as noted above to give an overall score of 75, with a condition as set out below.
Condition Based on existing research and perceived research needs, develop and agree a strategy to guide research on the lobster fishery at the Granville Bay Treaty level.
It is up to the clients to decide on the content of the Research Plan, but the team recommends that the plan include research on population size structure, egg production and recruitment, both in regard to the issues identified under Principle 1 and also more generally in terms of understanding better the dynamics of the Granville Bay lobster population.
3.2.5 Monitoring and management performance evaluation
There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.
SG 60: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to occasional internal review. SG 80: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review . SG 100: The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and external review.
Score 80
Rationale The fisheries management system exists most importantly at Granville Bay Treaty level, so this is the key element for this PI. However, portions of the management system are also reviewed and monitored at national/regional level, so these elements are also considered below. The fishery management system is monitored and its key parts evaluated at regular intervals internally for both Basse Normandie and Jersey. The Granville Bay Treaty process provides regular external reviews of each other’s systems, and is in turn reviewed by France and the UK’s government departments, but
96 | 2147R02B April 2011 there is no detailed regular external scrutiny of the lobster fishery management. All of SG80 is met, but SG 100 is not met. 1. Granville Bay Treaty The Treaty process provides the fishery with mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system. These are discussed several times a year, which amounts to regular internal reviews, and provide Basse-Normandie and Jersey with occasional external review of each other’s management initiatives. However, there is no formal review process at this level – this occurs at national or regional level as discussed below. Regarding ‘internal review’ at the Granville Bay level, each side provides rather stringent informal review of the management system of the other side during JAC and JMC meetings. To take an example on each side, Jersey is pushing France for more at-sea enforcement in their zone, while the Normans are critical of the lack of restriction on parlour pots in Jersey. 2. French system The CRPM reviews its management system internally every year in the deliberation debated ahead of the next fishery bylaw or “arrêté”. The arrêté covers all parts of the management system under the CRPM responsibility, but it does not address matters outside its jurisdiction such as the monitoring of sales declarations or the timely provision of statistics and research. On these matters the team did not obtain performance evaluation reports for either the PAM or Ifremer. Some key elements of the Basse Normandie lobster management system may be scrutinised externally at national level by the CNPM Commission Crustacés (47) and, for the management of MPAs, by the CRPM’s science partners (e.g. SMEL, SYMEL). Othersparts, such as licence numbers, technical measures, research and management of MPAs and stock assessment results are presented and discussed at the JAC meetings, which provide occasional external review. The score for this element is 80. 3. Jersey system Jersey has a number of mechanisms to evaluate its management system for lobsters. FMR has an objective led programme, which covers lobster abundance, effort monitoring, surveillance and infringement targets. It reviews its management system internally in its annual report and Business Plan. The JAC/JMC provides for an external review of key parts, but the Jersey agreement with the UK government (27) provides a regular external review, that ensures its compatibility with UK and EU law. Copies of the agenda for recent Annual Fisheries Management Agreement meetings show that key (not all) parts of the management system discussed that are relevant to the lobster fishery range from vessel licensing to technical measures, berried lobsters and recreational bag limits. The score for this element is 90.
97 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 2: SICA and PSA Tables with scores and justifications 1. Principle 1 (target species) SICA tables. Two workshops were held to score the SICA; one in Granville (Basse Normandie) and the other in St. Helier (Jersey). The issues raised at these two meetings were not identical, neither was the perception of stock status quite the same between the two groups of stakeholders. It therefore seemed preferable to present two separate SICA tables, and afterwards to consider a synthesis of the issues and an overall score. 1. SICA Tables Basse Normandie Performance Activities Spatial scale Temporal scale Intensity of activity Relevant sub- Consequence MSC indicator producing risk components score Score 1.1.1 Outcome Directed trap 6 – throughout area (Granville 4 – maximum of 180 3 – obvious but local in key Pop. size 2 80 for target fishery Bay) fishing days / year lobster areas Size structure 2 80 species: lobster Loss of inkwell 6 – as above 4 – as above 1 - Lost traps are not numerous Size structure 1 100 traps and 84% of caught lobsters can escape. Loss of parlour 3 - Due to exclusion zones, 4 – as above 2 - Fewer traps but escapement Pop. size 1.5 90 traps only 30% of the area is more difficult (26%) concerned Trawl fishery 2 – trawling only in small 3 – Impact only when 1 – very little trawling in lobster Pop. size 1 100 areas of Granville Bay lobsters are moving fishing area due to habitat type away: May-June and September
98 | 2147R02B April 2011
Performance Activities Spatial scale Temporal scale Intensity of activity Relevant sub- Consequence MSC indicator producing risk components score Score Recreational 3 – Recreational fishers 3 – Less than 100 2 – Localized effect could occur Pop. size 1.5 90 fishery remain in coastal areas and days/year. Occasional on commonly visited areas. don't visit offshore areas ( e.g. activity (fair weather ; Les Minquiers) ebb tides…). Jersey Fishery Performance Activities Spatial scale Temporal scale Intensity of activity Relevant sub- Consequence MSC indicator producing risk components score Score 1.1.1 Outcome Directed trap 6 – throughout area 5 – 200 days / year 4 – detectable at broad spatial Population size 1 100 for target fishery scale Size structure 2.25 75 species: lobster Recreational 2 – only in shallow / coastal 3 – summer weekends / 3 – obvious but only local Population size 1 100 fishery holidays Scallop dredging 2 – Impact only on the margin 4 – around 100 days / 2 – rare in area Population size 1 100 of the geographical year distribution of Lobster Accidental 6 – Would impact the entire 1 – Rare events 1 – scored low because quite Population size 1 100 pollution population unlikely; however impact could be intense Predation & 6 – throughout area 2 ? >3 – intensity of conger fishing Population size 1 100 competition ( e.g. Conger)
99 | 2147R02B April 2011
Performance Activities Spatial scale Temporal scale Intensity of activity Relevant sub- Consequence MSC indicator producing risk components score Score Climate change 6 – worldwide! 1 – Due to the ? Population size 1 100 uncertainty. H. americanus 6 – Could have a large impact 1 – Currently only a 1 Population size 1 100 disease on population concern for the future.
100 | 2147R02B April 2011
2. Synthesis For both groups of stakeholders, the main issue in terms of risk to the stock was the directed trap fishery (i.e. the fishery under assessment here), but there was no precise agreement on the most important sub-components or on the level of impact (the consequence score). In Jersey, the perception of stock status in terms of biomass was more optimistic then in Granville. Conversely, the issue of size structure (decline in frequency above the minimum size, dependence of the fishery on recruits) did not seem to raise the same concern in Granville as it did in Jersey. Below we provide a detailed discussion of both these issues. Since one score (Jersey – size structure) was below 80, the team decided that the overall SICA score should reflect this. In any case, the final score comes from the PSA analysis (see below). The overall retained score for this Performance Indicator is, therefore, the score obtained from the PSA table. 3. Rationale for SICA scores
Population size
Total landings are shown in Figures 1 and 2. French production (nearly all of which is from Basse Normandie) has generally increased between 2001 and 2008, due an increased fishing effort, mainly from the smallest vessels, and also to a better reporting by fishermen (7). Nonetheless, this production is likely still to be underestimated, especially in 2001 (7). Jersey production does not show a clear trend. In both fisheries, a strong decline in landings were observed in 2005-2006, but landings subsequently recovered. Fig. 1. French lobster landings (tonnes) for Granville Bay (from 7).
101 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig. 2. Total Lobster landings of the Jersey fishery. Drawn from Jersey’s data (12). 180 170 160 150 140 130
(tonnes) 120 110
Jersey landings 100 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Years An abundance index has been derived from the various LPUE datasets. In Jersey, commercial LPUE has been relatively constant between 2007 and 2009, while the scientific surveys indicate a clear increase in LPUE (Figure 3). The same surveys show strong recruitment between 2008 and 2009. Fig. 3. Catches per unit effort (LPUE) from the Jersey’s scientific surveys, compared to the commercial LPUE (12, 13, 24). For the French fishery, a standardized LPUE has been calculated using a GLM 7. This model uses data from 27 fishermen operating in Granville Bay and incorporates variations due to year, month and geographical area. The index was calculated from 2001 to 2008. For the three regions considered (North-West Contentin, West Cotentin, Saint- Malo), the trends are similar: a steep decline in 2004 and a recovery afterward (Figure 4). Another standardized LPUE is obtained from the fishermen operating on the Roches Douvres, at the western limit of the area, for which the time series is longer. This area is deeper and lobsters are bigger. This series shows a constant LPUE increase from 1985 to 2009.
102 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig. 4. Standardized abundance index (standardized LPUEs) from French fishermen in four geographical areas. NC = North-West Cotentin; SM = Saint-Malo; OC = West Contentin 7. The Jersey juvenile scientific surveys indicate constant good recruitment between 2004 and 2009 (Figure 5). Fig. 5. Lobster size structure from 2004 to 2009, obtained from the juvenile scientific surveys (24).
The size structure observed in the French catches also shows a high proportion of lobster below the minimum legal size (Figure 6), although it does not show so clearly the dramatic drop in CPUE for larger lobster.
103 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig. 6. Size structure of lobsters observed in the French catches (7). The arrow indicates the minimum legal size. All available data converge to indicate that the lobster population is stable in terms of overall biomass and recruitment, with a low risk of collapse: LPUE trends are generally increasing and recruitment remains at high level. Therefore, the team estimates that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The team felt that this would at least justify the score of 2 indicated in the SICA table, giving an overall score of 80 for this sub-component. Size structure
The Jersey juvenile surveys show the effect of fishing mortality on the part of the population above the minimum size and available to the fishery (Figure 5). There appears to be a sharp decline of lobster abundance at the minimum legal size and few large lobsters remain in the population. This is indicative that the fishery relies mainly on new recruits. The team felt that this was a potential source of risk to the fishery and the population and that it justified the more pessimistic score of 2.25 in the Jersey SICA table, leading to a score of 75, rather than the more optimistic score given by Normandy stakeholders. French data give a more conflicting picture of size structure, which may explain the different perception of stakeholders as set out in the SICA tables. On one hand, scientific surveys of the closed areas show the same trend as the Jersey surveys. While a wide size distribution is observed in the closed area, a sharp narrowing of the size structure is observed in the open part (Figure 7). On the other hand, the landings size structure collected at the auction places is much more spread out, with a fair representation of large individuals (Figure 8, see also Figure 6). If these data were reviewed by itself, it might 104 | 2147R02B April 2011 well justified the score of 2 (i.e. 80) given in the Normandy SICA table. Since lobster are relatively sedentary as adults, it may be that the higher fishing effort in Jersey waters has resulted in a bigger depletion of larger lobsters here than on the French side. However, as the two fisheries are exploiting the same biological population, a common score has to be defined. The team considered overall that there is a risk that the both fisheries rely too much on recruitment. Therefore a global score below 80 is considered appropriate – leading to an overall score of 75 for the Principle 1 SICA. In any case, the final score for the PI comes from the PSA, which is set out below. Fig. 7. Lobster size structure in the Chausey closed area (above) and in the open part of the area (below), from the Ifremer scientific survey. Data provided by the CRPMBN.
105 | 2147R02B April 2011
Fig. 8. Lobster size structure obtained at two auction places (Granville and Saint-Malo) and from the Roches Douvres fishery 7. Roches Douvres is known to provide larger lobsters, due to the depth, then in Granville Bay.
106 | 2147R02B April 2011
2. Principle 1 (target species) PSA tables. 1. Productivity Producitivity considers and scores seven attributes of the life history of the species (Homarus gammarus ) and uses these scores to generate an aggregate score (the arithmetic mean of the seven scores). The scoring table for productivity is provided by MSC (see FAM) and is given in Table 1 below. Table 1. Scoring table for productivity in the PSA (see FAM)
Low productivity / Medium productivity High productivity / high risk – score 3 / medium risk – score low risk – score 1 2 Average age at > 15 years 5-15 years < 5 years maturity Average > 25 years 10-25 years < 10 years maximum age Fecundity < 100 eggs / year 100-20,000 eggs / year > 20,000 eggs / year Average > 300 cm 100-300 cm < 100 cm maximum size Average size at > 200 cm 40-200 cm < 40 cm maturity Reproductive live bearer demersal egg layer broadcast spawner strategy Trophic level > 3.25 2.75-3.25 < 2.75 The scores for lobster for productivity are given in Table 2. Table 2. Values for each attribute for lobster, with corresponding scores, references and overall productivity score.
Value Score Refs Average age at 50% maturity at 5-7 years 2 V. Legrand, maturity CRMP scientist, pers. comm. Average Can be higher than 25 years 3 6 107 | 2147R02B April 2011
Value Score Refs maximum age Fecundity ~50,000 eggs for a large mature female 1 6 Average Around 50 cm (largest recorded animal > 1 6 maximum size 1m but this is very rare) Average size at Carapace length around 85-90 mm leads 1 V. Legrand, maturity to overall length of about 20-30 cm CRMP scientist, pers. comm Reproductive Eggs incubated by the female under the 1 strategy tail until hatching into the water column Trophic level Generalist feeder – some predation (e.g. 2 6 molluscs), animal and vegetable detritus leads to a trophic level round about 3 Overall score Arithmetic mean of scores 1.57 2. Susceptibility Scoring criteria Susceptibility scores four attributes of the fishery in relation to the population in question (Homarus gammarus , Granville Bay), and generates an aggregate score by a linear rescaling process (see FAM). The scoring table for three of these four attributes is provided by MSC (see FAM). The last attribute (selectivity) was not at the time of scoring defined by MSC for this particular gear type, and therefore had to be defined by the team. However, MSC have provided advice for scoring selectivity of traps (see Policy Advisory12 available on MSC website). This advice states that the target species of the trap should be scored 3 for selectivity, so the scoring was revised to follow this advice here. Table 3 shows the scoring table for susceptibility, incorporating the criteria for scoring selectivity from PA 12. Table 3. Scoring table for susceptibility in the PSA (from the FAM), with selectivity criteria as designed by the team.
Low susceptibility / Medium susceptibility High susceptibility / low risk – score 1 / medium risk – score high risk – score 3 2 Availability – Overlap < 10% Overlap 10-30% Overlap >30% overlap of geographic range of species with fishery 108 | 2147R02B April 2011
Low susceptibility / Medium susceptibility High susceptibility / low risk – score 1 / medium risk – score high risk – score 3 2 Encounterability – Low overlap with Medium overlap with High overlap with overlap of habitat fishing gear (strong fishing gear (small fishing gear (little or and/or depth range depth or habitat depth or habitat refuge no depth of habitat with fishery refuge from fishing) from fishing) refuge from fishing) Selectivity (see 1. Cannot physically 1. Can enter and easily 1. Can enter, but discussion above) enter the trap (e.g. escape from the trap, cannot easily escape too big for openings, but is attracted to the from the trap, and is sessile species, trap (e.g. does eat the attracted to either the wrong shape, etc). bait, or trap is attractive bait, or the habitat as habitat) provided by the trap. 2. Can enter and easily escape from 2. Can enter, but cannot 2. Species regularly the trap, and no easily escape from the found in the trap incentive to enter the trap, and no incentive trap (does not eat to enter the trap (does bait, trap is not not eat bait, trap is not attractive as habitat, attractive as habitat, etc.) etc.) 3. Species occasionally found in the trap. Post-capture Evidence of post- Released alive Retained or discarded mortality release survival dead
Scores for susceptibility The scores for susceptibility, with the overall score, is given in Table 5. Note that because this PSA refers to Principle 1, it is scored in relation to all fisheries on the stock or species, rather than this fishery alone. Table 4. Scores for susceptibility and overall score (calculated by linear re-scaling).
Value Score Availability The species is fished across almost all of its range 3 Encounterability Some habitat refuges from fishing: i) very shallow water into 2 the low intertidal, where lobster can be abundant; ii) areas fished by mobile gear such as trawls and scallop dredges which rarely trap lobster but which are inaccessible to static gear fishermen; iii) areas where lobster are at lower density due to shelter limitation.
109 | 2147R02B April 2011
Value Score Selectivity Species regularly found in the trap 3 Post-capture Retained species 3 mortality Overall score Linear re-scaling (see FAM) 2.33 3. Overall PSA score The overall PSA score is calculated as the root mean square of the productivity and the susceptibility scores (i.e. √(1.57 2 + 2.33 2) = 2.81 . The MSC score is computed by a formula derived from a linear regression model: 11.956(PSA) 2 + 32.28(PSA) + 78.259. This works out at 74.6 . The PSA score is the starting point for the score for the relevant PI (PI 1.1.1 in this case). The assessment team may, however, adjust the score within the relevant category (i.e. 60- 80 in this case) should they wish to take other factors into account. In this case, the score largely coincides with the SICA score (minimum 75), so the team decided it was appropriate, but rounded it to the nearest whole number (i.e. 75). This is the score that was given for PI 1.1.1.
110 | 2147R02B April 2011
3. Principle 2 (retained and by-catch species) SICA tables. 1. SICA Tables Basse Normandie Fishery Performance Risk-causing Species Spatial scale of Temporal Intensity of Sub- Consequence MSC Indicator activity activity scale of activity component score Score activity 2.1.1 – Commercial brown 3 – brown crab 4 – 180 days 2 – potters pop. size 1 – stakeholders 100 Retained fishery for crab population fishing / year present in some saw no evidence species lobster / extends further max. (lobster) areas of impact on outcome edible crab west than lobster but none in population size Brown crab / – no potting others Tourteau there Cancer VS crab 4 – retained in 3 – only 2 – incidental – pop. size 1.5 – considered 90 pagurus coastal zone in periodically no active basically Spider crab / BN but not caught during targeting negligible but araignée Maja Jersey fishing period perhaps more squamado important than Velvet other retained swimming species (VS) crab / spider 2 – lobster 3 – caught in 1 – quite rare pop. size 1 – impact of this 100 Etrille Necora crab fishery only lobster fishery by-catch – fishery negligible puber overlaps with Apr - June different habitat compared to small proportion requirements directed fishery of population distribution
111 | 2147R02B April 2011
Performance Risk-causing Species Spatial scale of Temporal Intensity of Sub- Consequence MSC Indicator activity activity scale of activity component score Score activity Loss of spider 2 – as above 3 – as above 1 – as above pop. size 1 – spider crab 100 inkwell pots crab cannot always escape from trap unlike other species – but loss of traps rare Loss of spider 2 – as above 3 – as above 1 – as above pop. size 1 – as above 100 parlour pots crab 2.2.1 – By- Bait fishery gurnard 1 – this bait 4 – operation 1 – bait used in pop. size 1 – impact of this 100 catch species fishery small of commercial this fishery fishery negligible outcome proportion of fishery from negligible compared to total red gurnard / total distribution which bait amount of total catch grondin rouge comes activity (Aspitrigla HM 1 – as above 4 – as above 1 – as above pop. size 1 – as above 100 cuculus ) wrasse 2 – not targeted 4 – by-catch of 1 – bait used in pop. size 1 – very small 100 horse mackerel in many areas recreational this fishery amount used (HM) / fisheries negligible mainly in chinchard amount of total recreational (Trachurus activity lobster fishery trachurus ) Balan wrasse / vieille (Labrus bergylta )
112 | 2147R02B April 2011
Jersey Fishery Performance Risk-causing Species Spatial scale Temporal Intensity Sub- Consequence score MSC Indicator activity of activity scale of of activity component Score activity 2.1.1 – Retained Commercial brown 5 – estimated 5 – 3 – pop. size 1 – stakeholders 100 species outcome fishery for crab around half estimated obvious saw no evidence of Brown crab lobster / edible population around 200 but local impact on Spider crab / crab area fished days per detection population size Velvet swimming year (VS) crab VS 6 5 2 pop. size 1 – discarded alive 100 crab by Jersey fishermen spider 2 3 2 pop. size 1 – this fishery 100 crab unlikely to have impact relatively to retained fishery – and different habitat 2.2.1 – By-catch Bait fishery gurnard 1 4 1 pop. size 1 – consumption of 100 species outcome bait by this fishery red gurnard trivial relative to horse mackerel total catch redfish (rascasse) HM 1 4 1 pop. size 1 – as above 100 / sébaste Sebastes redfish 1 4 1 pop. size 1 – as above 100 spp., spurdog Squalus acanthus
113 | 2147R02B April 2011
2. Rationale for retained species (PI 2.1.1) In both Basse Normandie and Jersey, the stakeholders considered the retained species (components) to be i) brown crab / tourteau ( Cancer pagurus ); ii) spider crab / araignée (Maja squinado ) and iii) velvet swimming crab / étrille ( Necora puber ). Brown crab is targeted along with lobster in what is in essence a mixed fishery. Spider crab is basically a separate fishery, but spider crab may from time to time be caught in lobster traps during the season when spider crab is in the area and available to the fishery (roughly April to June). Velvet swimming crab is not well retained in the pots (being small, and since parlour pots have an escape gap) but where it is found in the pots, French fishermen will retain it for sale, while the majority of Jersey fishermen will discard it alive, since there is not much market for it in Jersey. For all three species, both sets of stakeholders considered that the main activity causing an impact was fishing for lobster, and the sub-component most likely to be impacted was population size. There was some disagreement (different logic used) in assessing spatial and temporal scale and intensity of overlap with the fishery, but all stakeholders basically agreed that the impact of the fishery on retained species was negligible (score 100). The only dissent was a score of 90 given to impacts on velvet swimming crab by stakeholders in Basse Normandie, reflecting some concern that the population should be better monitored in case of any change. Spider crab scored 100 because the impact of this fishery was considered to be negligible compared to the geographic range of the stock and the impact of the directed fishery on the stock. The team was reasonably happy with these scores for velvet swimming crab and spider crab, but was concerned that the high score given to brown crab had a limited basis, since the fishery is essentially a mixed fishery (i.e. brown crab is targeted as much as lobster), while data are collected and monitored less carefully for brown crab than for lobster (perhaps due to this perception of minimal impact). The Jersey Department of Fisheries, however, does keep track of LPUE for brown crab, as well as spider crab (not velvet swimming crab because there is no fishery in Jersey for this species). These are shown in Figures 9 and 10 below.
114 | 2147R02B April 2011
Figure 9. LPUE for brown crab (kg per 100 pot lifts) for the under 10m and over 10m fleet in Jersey, 2002-2009 (from the Jersey Department of Fisheries).
50
40
30 Over 10m Under 10m 20
10 LPUE (kgs per 100 pot lifts)
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Figure 10. LPUE for spider crab (kg per 100 pot lifts) for the under 10m and over 10m fleet in Jersey, 2002-2009 (from the Jersey Department of Fisheries).
40
30
Over 10m 20 Under 10m
10 LPUE (kgs per 100 pot lifts)
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year
115 | 2147R02B April 2011
The team noted that the LPUE was quite variable, particularly for spider crab, but that this was most likely a function of market changes rather than population dynamics, since the fisheries exploit the various crab species as a function of their market value. Note that as noted above, while the fishery for brown crab is a mixed fishery with lobster, the fishery for spider crab is largely separate. Overall, the team could see no evidence of any cause for concern in the above data for either species. Taking this information into account, the team accepted the views of stakeholders for these species, that the fishery was not likely to impact population dynamics to any great extent. However, the team were not necessarily prepared to accept a score of 100 for brown crab, despite the views of stakeholders. Instead, the team decided to give brown crab a score of 80. While there is no evidence of a detectable change in population size for brown crab (as would normally lead to an 80 score), the team decided that there was insufficient evidence to say that the impact of the fishery was negligible, as is required by a score of 100. This is reflected in the overall score given to PI 2.1.1 in the main assessment tree (Annex 1). Some additional retained species were discussed during the SICA workshops: rock lobster / langouste ( Palinurus elephas ), bass / bar ( Dicentrachus labrax ), whelk / bulot (Buccinum undatum ), wrasse / vieille ( Labrus spp.) conger / congre ( Conger sp.) and spurdog (Squalus acanthus ). It was agreed by stakeholders that these species were caught only occasionally in the traps and that impacts of this fishery on these species was certainly negligible. The team accepted this view. 3. Rationale for by-catch species (PI 2.2.1) The only ‘by-catch’ identified by the stakeholders at both workshops is the species used as bait in the lobster traps. Non-commercial species that are brought up in the traps are discarded alive – this is quite rare but may on occasional include dogfish and brittlestars. The team concurred with the stakeholders that impacts on these species by this fishery was trivial and they were not included formally in the SICA. The stakeholders identified four species used as bait by the fishery: horse mackerel / chinchard ( Trachurus trachurus ), red gurnard / grondin rouge ( Aspitrigla cuculus ), redfish (known locally as rascasse) / sébaste ( Sebastes spp.) and Ballan wrasse / vieille (Labrus bergylta ), with the latter mainly used by recreational fishermen. Gurnard and wrasse are a by-catch of the local trawler fleet, while horse mackerel and redfish are bought in by local wholesalers from other fisheries in various countries, including Ireland (horse mackerel) and Russia (redfish). In neither case is the fish targeted specifically for bait – the local by-catch would probably otherwise be discarded, while the horse mackerel and redfish generally comes from freezer damaged landings that have been rejected by quality control as unfit for human consumption. On this basis, the SICA was scored 100 (i.e. negligible impact) for all three species by both sets of stakeholders, and the team concurred with this view.
116 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 3 – Client Action Plan Note: The Action Plan was provided by the clients in French. It is given here in its original form, with English translations in red added by MEP. PECHERIE DE HOMARD DE NORMANDIE ET DE JERSEY -PLAN D’ACTION- réunion JAC du 21 octobre 2010 Réponses aux 4 conditions relevées / Evaluation MSC Nous remercions l’équipe des experts de nous avoir fait parvenir les résultats de l’évaluation de la Pêcherie de Homard de Normandie et de Jersey selon les critères MSC. Nous avons bien pris en compte les conditions énoncés pour lesquelles n’avons pas d’opposition majeure. Conjointement entre Jersey et la Basse-Normandie, nous nous engageons à respecter le Plan d’Action suivant, en réponse aux 4 conditions relevées par l’équipe d’évaluation. We thank the team for their evaluation of the fishery. We have noted the conditions, with which we have no major disagreements. Jersey and Basse Normandy jointly commit ourselves to respect the following action plan, which responds to the four conditions imposed by the assessment team. Condition 1 : IP111- Etat du stock- Résultat (Stock status) / Structure de taille de la pêcherie Le score est de 77,2 Le rapport d’évaluation indique : The team’s main concern here was not with the stock status, which appears by most metrics to be good, but rather with the size structure, which suggested an element of dependence of the fishery on recent recruits (i.e. those recently grown to the minimum size). The team was concerned that this posed an element of risk to the fishery of recruitment overfishing, particularly in this era of environmental change. The team recognises that changing the size structure of a population to include a higher proportion of larger animals is a long-term activity that probably cannot be achieved within five years – thus the five year time limit is imposed on the development, agreement and implementation of a credible plan of action, rather than a visible impact at the population level. Design and implement an action plan that will result in the long-term in an expansion of the size structure of the harvested stock, or will allow a higher proportion of individuals to survive over the minimum size, in order to minimise the risk of recruitment overfishing. Plan d’Action : Dans un premier temps, il conviendra de préciser la structure de taille des homards de la pêcherie. Ceci sera réalisé par un suivi important, que ce soit au niveau des homards 117 | 2147R02B April 2011 débarqués que des homards pêchés. L’analyse des résultats permettra d’évaluer la nécessité d’entreprendre ou non des actions propres à favoriser une augmentation de la diversité des tailles des homards de la pêcherie. Dans un deuxième temps, et si besoin est, il conviendra de définir les actions à entreprendre, puis de les mettre en application. Action Plan : Firstly it is important to acquire better data on the size structure of the lobster in the fishery. This will be done by means of a large-scale survey, either of landed lobster or of fished lobster. An analysis of the results of this survey will show whether or not it is necessary to undertake actions that will lead to an increase in the size spectrum taken by the fishery. Once this has been done, the actions required to be taken can be better defined and implemented. (Note: the assessment team recognises that data on the size structure of the population and of lobsters taken by the fishery is somewhat conflicting, and probably variable from place to place within Granville Bay. The assessment team agrees that if the clients can show that in some or most of the area, the size structure is not an issue, then fewer actions will need to be taken.) Planning : le planning prévisionnel est décrit ci-dessous Année 1(2011) Action Premier semestre Recensement des études et des données des années First 6 months précédentes sur les différentes zones de pêche (Minquiers, Ouest Cotentin côte, Nord Cotentin, Jersey) Définition des bases du suivi des données (plan d’échantillonnage en criées et embarquées, fonction des zones, cantonnements et périodicité + recueil et traitement…) Review of studies and data from previous years from different areas (Minquiers, coastal west Cotentin, north Cotentin, Jersey). Sampling plan developed for auctions, landings, by fishing areas, in closed areas, frequency, methods, data analysis … Second semestre Suivi et recueil des données Second 6 months Analyses des données des années précédentes Surveys and data analysis from previous years. Année 2 en continu Suivi et recueil des données continuing Surveys and data collection Trimestre 3 et 4 Traitement et Analyses des données- Bilan et Constat/ (date du JAC) zones de pêche 3rd and 4th quarters during - selon la nature du constat, 3 options : each JAC meeting 1. bons résultats –pas de mise en application de mesures 2. résultats moyens- mise en place de mesures 3. résultats mauvais- mise en place de mesures 118 | 2147R02B April 2011
Analysis and review of data by fishing area. According to the outcome, 3 options : 1. good results – no need for further action 2. medium results – measures agreed 3. bad results – measures agreed. Année 3 Premier trimestre Validation des résultats lors du JAC First quarter Définition des mesures éventuelles à mettre en place en fonction des options 1 à 3 Validation of results during JAC Definition of possible measures based on outcome of options 1-3 above . Suivi et recueil des données en continu Surveys and data collection continuing 3ème trimestre (date JAC) Analyse des donnés. Bilan et Constat: Third quarter (JAC) Validation des mesures à mettre en place Si option 3 : mise en application des mesures retenues Analysis of data – summary Agreement of measures to be implemented If outcome 3 above : measures starting to be implemented Année 4 Début année Si option 2 : mise en application des mesures retenues Start of the year If outcome 2 : implementation of measures Suivi et recueil des données en continu Surveys and data collection continuing 3ème trimestre (date JAC) Analyse des donnés. Bilan et Constat Third quarter (JAC) Data analysis and summarising Année 5 Suivi et recueil des données en continu Surveys and data collection continuing 3 et 4 ème trimestre (date Analyse des données- Bilan et Constat. JAC) Data analysis and summary Third and fourth quarters (JAC) 119 | 2147R02B April 2011
Condition 2 : IP 122- Mesures de contrôles/ Pêche (Harvest control rules and tools) / Définition Point de référence Le score est de 75 Le rapport d’évaluation indique: The team’s concern with this PI was that while the harvest control rules have worked well up till now, there are no agreed actions in place at the Granville Bay Treaty to reduce fishing mortality in the event of a limit reference point being reached. The management system need to develop harvest control measures that will elicit a clear response in the face of a decline in stock size that threatens the future productivity of the stock. Reference points and decisions rules to limit fishing mortality in response to decreased stock abundance (as measured directly or by proxies such as LPUE) should be agreed and implemented.
Plan d’Action : La définition de deux points de référence ainsi que les mesures associées est envisagée : un seuil d’alerte et un seuil de danger. Il conviendra, dans un premier temps de définir, sur la base d’un suivi scientifique des LPUE ou d’un indice d’abondance standardisé, ces points de référence, puis d’appréhender et déterminer les mesures à mettre en place dans le cas où l’analyse des données montrerait que l’un de ces points est atteint. We envisage two reference points (with associated measures) : an ‘alert threshold’ and a ‘danger threshold’. (Note from the team : since MSY is not particularly well defined for lobster populations, this seems to be an appropriate approach in this case.) Initially, these reference points will be defined based on an ongoing scientific analysis of LPUE or an standardised index of abundance, and then to determine the measures to be put in place when and if these points are reached.
Planning : le planning prévisionnel est décrit ci-dessous Année 1 (2011) Action Définition, méthodologie, harmonisation (entre Jersey et 1er semestre Basse Normandie) du plan d’échantillonnage par zone first 6 months Definition, methodology and agreement (Jersey and Basse Normandie) of a sampling plan by zone Suivi et analyse des données historiques Survey, analysis of historical data en continu Suivi et analyse des données nouvelles sur bateaux continuing référents Survey, analysis of new data from reference vessels Année 2 1er trimestre Bilan du suivi des données first quarter Review of surveys and data analysis 2ème trimestre (date JAC) Définition des points de référence (seuil d’alerte + seuil de second quarter (JAC) danger) et validation 120 | 2147R02B April 2011
Definition of reference points (alert, danger) and validation 4ème trimestre (date JAC) Détermination des mesures afférentes aux points de 4th quarter (JAC) référence et validation Determination of measures to be taken at each reference point, validation Année 3 Suivi des données historiques Review of historical data en continu Suivi et analyse des données nouvelles sur bateaux continuing référents Survey, analysis of new data from reference vessels 4ème trimestre (date JAC) Bilan et mise en application éventuelle des mesures de 4th quarter (JAC) restauration définies précédemment selon le résultat du suivi Assessment, possible implementation of restoration measures previously defined, depending on the outcome of the surveys Année 4 Suivi des données historiques Review of historical data en continu Suivi et analyse des données nouvelles sur bateaux continuing référents Survey, analysis of new data from reference vessels Bilan et mise en application éventuelle des mesures de restauration définies précédemment selon le résultat du 4ème trimestre (date JAC) suivi Assessment, possible implementation of restoration measures previously defined, depending on the outcome of the surveys
Condition 3 : IP 213- Suivi des espèces retenues (information/ montoring) / Etrilles Le score est de 75 Le rapport d’évaluation indique : The concern here was with data on one of the retained species – velvet swimming crab or étrille (Necora puber). While this fishery is not likely to have a major impact on the species (the majority of fishermen discard it alive), the team were concerned that while data exist (e.g. from fiches de pêche or logbooks) there appears to be no attempt to analyse these data in order to keep track of populations of this species. The existing information on catch and effort in the velvet swimming crab fishery (e.g. from reference vessels) and/or another source of proxy information on biomass (e.g. from surveys in the cantonnements) should be analysed and reviewed on a periodic basis by an
121 | 2147R02B April 2011 appropriate body within the Granville Bay Treaty system, to ensure that no negative trends are apparent.
Plan d’Action : Bien que la pêcherie de homard ne semble pas avoir d’impact sur la population d’étrilles, il convient de s’en assurer par l’analyse des différentes données existantes et par la mise en place d’un suivi plus pointu pour cette espèce. Ce suivi sera réalisé au travers de l’analyse des débarques et des fiches de pêche de bateaux référents. D’autres moyens d’informations peuvent également être mis en œuvre. En fonction de ces données, l’état du stock sera estimé et d’éventuelles mesures seront envisagées et mises en application dans le cas où le stock montrerait une tendance au déclin.
Even though the lobster fishery does not appear to have any impact on the velvet swimming crab population, it is appropriate to make sure of this by means of analysis of the various datasets in existence, as well as the implementation of a better defined system for tracking the population of this species. This will be done by means of analysis of landings and logbooks of the reference vessels, as well as other information sources if necessary. These data will be used to estimate the stock status and define possible measures to be applied if a declining trend is observed.
Planning : le planning prévisionnel est décrit ci-dessous Année 1 (2011) Action 1er trimestre Recensement des données existantes (criées, 1st quarter cantonnements, log book……) et choix des plus pertinentes Inventory of existing data (auction data, closed area surveys, log books, etc.) and selection of those that are most relevant. en continu Recueil et suivi des données continuing Collection and monitoring of data Année 2 1er trimestre Bilan du suivi de l’année 1 1st quarter Monitoring results year 1 en continu Recueil et suivi des données continuing Collection and monitoring of data Année 3 1er trimestre Bilan et détermination de mesures éventuelles 1st quarter (augmentation taille de capture, diminution du nombre de prises par pêche récréative…) Results and identification of potential measures to be taken (increase in catch size, reduction in catches made by recreational fishing, etc.) en continu Recueil et suivi et suivi des données continuing Collection and monitoring of data 4ème trimestre Validation des mesures de restauration 122 | 2147R02B April 2011
4th quarter Validation of rebuilding measures Année 4 1er trimestre Mise en application des mesures de restauration 1st quarter Implementation of rebuilding measures en continu Recueil et suivi des données continuing Collection and monitoring of data
Condition 4 : IP 324- Plan de recherche (research plan) Le score est de 75 Le rapport d’évaluation indique : The team felt that the sum total of research on this fishery was adequate (apart from the small gap noted above), particularly given the size and intensity of the fishery. However, this PI requires a written research plan for the fishery, which does not at present exist. Based on existing research and perceived research needs, develop and agree a strategy to guide research on the lobster fishery at the Granville Bay level.
Plan d’Action : Le recensement des différentes recherches actuellement an cours, que ce soit du côté de Jersey que du côté de la Normandie sera rapidement effectué. Ces actions seront formalisées dans un document écrit (plan de recherche) conjoint visant au respect des Principes 1 et 2 du MSC. Les résultats de ces travaux seront diffusés annuellement lors du JAC pour une information aux pêcheurs concernés (Jersey et commission crustacés du CRPM). Si de nouvelles études sont élaborées, elles seront incorporées dans le plan de recherche au fur et à mesure de leur déclenchement. The inventory of different research initiatives currently taking place in Jersey and Normandy will be completed soon. The initiatives will be formalised in a joint research plan in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The results of the research will be annually distributed during the JAC meeting to inform involved fishermen (Jersey and CRPM crustaceans committee). If any new research initiatives come forward, these will be incorporated into the research plan as they become active. Planning : le planning prévisionnel est décrit ci-dessous The preliminary programme is decribed below :
Année 1(2011) Action 1er semestre Recensement des différentes études en cours 1st six months Inventory of current research initiatives 2ème semestre Rédaction du plan de recherche 2nd six months Write-up of the research plan 4ème trimestre (date JAC) Validation du plan de recherche 123 | 2147R02B April 2011
4th quarter (JAC meeting) Validation research plan Année 2 4ème trimestre (date JAC) Présentation des résultats et nouvelles études éventuelles 4th quarter (JAC meeting) Presentation of research results and potential new initiatives Mise à jour éventuelle du plan de recherche Potential update of the research plan Année 3 et suivantes 4ème trimestre (date JAC) Présentation des résultats et nouvelles études éventuelles 4th quarter Presentation of research results and potential new initiatives Mise à jour éventuelle du plan de recherche Potential update of the research plan Liste des Mesures d’Encadrement Envisagées Planned management measures L’ensemble des mesures envisagées ci-dessous constitue une liste non exhaustive et non priorisée. Elles pourront être prises en ce qui concerne les points de référence, la structure de taille et le plan de recherche. Des mesures complémentaires pourront être envisagées. The list of planned measures below is non-exhaustive and is not in order of importance. The measures involve reference points, size structure and the research plan. Additional measures may be included at a later stage. Diminution de l’effort de pêche Reduction in fishing effort - Diminution du nombre de casiers par bateau, éventuellement en fonction du type de casiers (classique ou piège) et de zones de pêche particulières. Reduction in the number of pots per vessel, potentially depending on the type of pots (inkwell or parlour) and specific fishing zones. - Diminution du nombre de licences Reduction in the number of fishing licenses - Détermination d’une proportion de casiers piège / casiers classiques Establish the proportion parlour pots/inkwell pots. - Adoption de mesures spécifiques pour la lutte contre la pêche fantôme des casiers perdus Adoption of specific measures against ghost fishing by lost pots - Interdiction de débarquement des homards épatés Ban to land lobsters with missing appendages. Augmentation de la production œufs (doc. Jonathan Schrivers / Martial Laurans) Increase in egg production
124 | 2147R02B April 2011
- Augmentation taille de capture (87 à 90 mm) et augmentation de la taille trappe d’échappement Increase in catch size (87 to 90 mm) and increase in size of the escape hatch - Adoption d’une taille de capture maximale (120 mm ?) Adoption of a maximum catch size (120 mm ?) - Interdiction de débarque des femelle grainées toute l’année Ban to land egg-bearing females throughout the year - Interdiction de débarque des femelle grainées en mai- juin Ban to land egg-bearing females during May-June - Adoption de la pratique du V-notching Adoption of V-notching - Création de nouveaux cantonnements Creation of new closed areas
125 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 4 – Summary of stakeholder comments 1. Basse Normandie The Normandy stakeholders had the following comments : • Recreational fishermen reported that they sometimes found lost pots washed up – particularly at Chausey. • There is concern around Cherbourg about reported theft of catch from pots. • They pointed out that lobster is sometimes taken as a (retained) by-catch in the trawl fishery (but it was agreed that this is minor). • The extent of recreational fishing (on foot and by boat using pots) was debated – it was agreed that compared to the commercial fishery it is minor. • It was agreed that spider crab is a fairly rare by-catch when targeting lobster. • Recreational fishermen fishing on foot did not agree about whether size and density of lobster in the intertidal has changed. One thought that both size and density had decreased, particularly at Chausay, but a second thought that size had increased while density had not changed. • There was debate about size differences of lobster inside and outside the protected areas, but no clear conclusions were reached as to whether there was a difference and if so why. • It was agreed that fishing pressure on lobster has increased since the 1960s, particularly at Chausey and at the Minquiers, but has recently declined in the Minquiers, at least for French vessels. • They noted that some areas with lobster are difficult to access due to tides / rocks / depth and therefore provided de facto ‘protected areas’. • There was concern about latent fishing capacity, particularly in the event that the whelk fishery declines, because many fishermen who largely fish whelks might return to fish crustaceans (the majority having the appropriate licence). The ongoing effort to reduce both latent and actual fishing effort in the fishery was noted. Stakeholders also noted that fishing effort is higher on the Jersey side than on the Normandy side. • One report seen by the team suggested that whelks were sometimes a retained species in lobster pots – however the stakeholders did not agree that this was a common, or indeed likely occurrence. The team noted these points, and in particular the point about latent effort and effort reduction. This is considered in our scoring of Principle 1.
126 | 2147R02B April 2011
2. Jersey The Jersey stakeholders had the following comments : • It was pointed out that not many vessels fish their full pot allocation. • It was noted that while fishermen are allowed 10% additional pot tags (over two years) for lost pots, in practice the uptake of additional tags is minimal. • It was noted that a variety of additional management issues are under discussion within the Granville Bay Treaty framework, including another increase to the minimum size, the introduction of a maximum size, V-notching and the release of berried females for some of the year. There was concern over the idea of a maximum size because of issues of competition / density-dependence. • Buyers pointed out that at certain times of year, the market is for larger lobster than are produced by this fishery, and fishermen might benefit from a higher proportion of larger lobsters in the catch. • The risk of disease (cf. Homarus americanus ) and climate change were pointed out, and stakeholders agreed that it would be preferable to continue to work to make the fishery more robust rather than waiting till some notional reference point was reached before action was taken. It was noted that 2009 had a highest LPUE ever in the time series, but that action to reduce effort was still being taken. • It was noted that lobsters of <55mm CL were never caught in juvenile surveys and there was some debate about why this is, but no conclusions were reached. • Some concern was expressed about the enforcement regime at sea on the French side, but it was noted that enforcement at the main centres in Normandy is good (such as the auction at Granville, for example). • The logistical difficulties of cooperating with France on data collection were noted – it was agreed that all parties were enthusiastic about cooperation, but the Jersey side felt that the French system was complicated for outsiders to understand, and they had experienced difficulties, particularly in regard to Affaires Maritimes. • The limited information on catches by recreational fishermen (on both sides) was noted – a survey is planned by Jersey during 2010. It was noted that fishing on foot is unusual in Jersey (as opposed to Normandy). • Concern was expressed about scallop dredging in the area, and whether it might destroy post-larval or juvenile lobster habitat. The team noted these comments, particularly the comments about the minimum size and the mean size of the catch. This issue played an important role in the team’s assessment of Principle 1. The team also noted the comments about enforcement and data collection on the French side (and agreed with the comment that liaison with Affaires Maritimes is difficult – although this appears to have been an issue related to a re-organisation at the time the site visit was in progress, and should now improve significantly).
127 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 5 – Peer reviewer comments with responses Peer Review 1 Peer Review of the Public Comment Draft Report on the Normandy and Jersey lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) fishery Dr R C A Bannister, Lowestoft This Peer Review Report comprises A.General Comments; B.Assessment and related issues; C.Scoring and related issues; D.Other points; E. References. Responses from MEP in boxes in the text. A. General Comments The Draft Report provides a comprehensive overview of a fishery and management system that are notable for a) the framework of cooperation between the fisheries management authorities in Basse-Normandy and Jersey, and between these authorities and stakeholders, b) the commendable initiatives to cap lobster fishing effort, and c) the positive interactions between the fishery and conservation areas around the coasts of Normandy and Jersey. Although the management of regulations to cap effort puts this fishery in the forefront of the management of Homarus stocks in Europe, the MSC assessment also reveals gaps/weaknesses, mainly under Principle 1, which presumably explain why the RBF was adopted for PI 1.1.1. The weaknesses include the limited nature of the stock assessment (including the seeming absence of a quantitative estimate of exploitation rate), the limited knowledge on recruitment dynamics, and the need to develop quantitative reference points and a true harvest control rule that take uncertainty into account. There is also potentially a latent effort issue. In section B I have discussed some of these topics in order to provide additional perspectives relevant to the Principle 1 text and scores, and the aims and guidance for Conditions 1and 2. My comments are also relevant to the fact that as the RBF cannot be used for a second time, the fishery will in the future need to meet the more exacting standards of the FAM. I have relatively few comments on Principle 2 and Principle 3, where the fishery has generally, and deservedly, scored very well, but I have commented on some PIs where I feel that the rationale requires more focus, or more specific information, to support the scores given. The issues under Principle 1, though common in lobster fisheries, are such that, without the adoption of the Risk Based Framework for PI 1.1.1, this fishery would surely not have achieved a
128 | 2147R02B April 2011 pass score for this Principle. As a general rule I feel that the assessment of the consequence score in the SICA, and the life history options in PSA tables, can be somewhat undiscriminating, but for this fishery the MSC score of 77 produced by the PSA table for PI 1.1.1 is a reasonable outcome. Use of the RBF results in default pass scores for PIs 1.1.2 and 1.2.4 that would otherwise have struggled to reach the standard, but I accept the overall recommendation of the Report to certify this fishery subject to the stated conditions. B. Assessment and related issues At present, stock assessment in these fisheries is restricted to the analysis of trends in fishery- dependent and fishery-independent LPUE, and the qualitative perusal of size structure. The following perspectives are relevant to various aspects of scoring Principle 1 PIs, and their conditions. The stock assessment limitations It is valuable to have several LPUE indices from different components of the fishery (including the long run at Roches Douvres, the Basse-Normandy log book data, and the scientific survey data from Jersey), but, as the team was aware, even when these are slightly increasing or are fluctuating without trend, only limited conclusions are possible. Stable LPUE implies that harvesting is in equilibrium with the surplus production at current abundance, so we can probably conclude that current abundance is above the recruitment overfishing threshold, otherwise LPUE would decline progressively. Above the recruitment threshold, however, an equilibrium between harvesting and surplus production could occur at any level of stock biomass, so LPUE alone cannot determine whether productivity is high or low, or how near to the threshold the stock actually is. This suggests that there is scope for re-balancing parts of the text on stock status e.g. section 8.2.1 on page 42, which states ‘the team’s concern was not with stock status, which appears to be good ..’, or Annex 2 on p115, which states ‘All available data converge to indicate that the lobster population is in good shape in terms of overall biomass and recruitment’. I suggest that our real knowledge is more open ended than that. This has some implications for the empirical reference points based on LPUE that are being considered in Jersey, since unless the data were collected over a wide range of fishing effort, recruitment and abundance, which does not appear to be the case here, it will be difficult to determine a biologically rigorous threshold, unless other information is available, say on fishing mortality (see below). These restrictions on the range of the available LPUE data probably also rule out their analysis using production modelling. The reviewer makes a good point: the text fails to distinguish clearly enough between stock status in regard to risk of decline or collapse (which can be inferred from stable or gradually increasing rates of CPUE) and stock status in terms of absolute biomass relative to carrying capacity (which cannot). The text noted by the reviewer has been revised bearing this in mind. Reference points are discussed further below. We note that information other than CPUE is available – see discussion below. 129 | 2147R02B April 2011
Estimating mortality rate The major gap in the assessment is the seeming absence of a published quantitative estimate of the harvest rate, since a value for Z (total mortality rate) or F (fishing mortality rate) would clarify whether biomass is relatively high or low, and would therefore sharpen perceptions about the risks to recruitment. An attempt could be made to estimate Z or F by some form of tag-recapture approach, but this would require a new project, whereas there is obviously scope to use existing size distributions to estimate mortality using length-based methods. As the assessment team has noted, stakeholder and team concerns about the dependence of the fishery on recruits stem from the Jersey size distribution, which decreases steeply above the MLS (Figure 13). This is a strong clue that Z or F could be high. Although lobster biologists often worry whether size distributions are determined more by the effects of habitat structure, dispersion/emigration, or pot selectivity than by exploitation (e.g. Addison, 1986), the team has pointed out that the role of fishing is strongly indicated by the difference in size distribution inside and outside the closed areas at Chausey (Figure 14). It is therefore clearly worthwhile to explore the analysis of size distributions in this fishery using length based models such as length cohort analysis (Jones,1974), or equivalent depletion methods which estimate the depletion rate between the unfished recruits below minimum size, and the fished population above minimum size (see Collie and Sissenwine, 1983, and ASMFC 2009). Although vulnerable to uncertainty over the estimation of growth parameters, length based methodology (Smith, 2008) is in any case the basis for developing the egg per recruit reference points discussed in the guidance for Condition 1 in section 8.2.1 of the Draft Report, so it is already implicit in Condition 1 that Z or F should be quantified. The robustness and the implications of these data on population size structure has been the subject of long discussions between the assessment team, the clients and scientists during this assessment. The best data come from the Jersey fisheries-independent surveys and suggest that the exploitation rate on lobster above the minimum size in this fishery may be quite high, as the reviewer notes. Data from 2009 survey at Chausey also support this view, although perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent. Data from the auctions at Granville and St. Malo, however, suggest that several cohorts are represented in the catch, and also that the natural size structure is rather variable from place to place. We also note that levels of effort are significantly higher from the Jersey fleet than the Basse Normandie fleet, particularly given the differences in the proportion of parlour pots between the two fisheries, so effort as well as size structure is highly likely to vary from place to place. The Jersey survey takes place within the Jersey / joint zone, and is thus to some extent focused on the areas of highest effort. The size structure data are not, therefore, conclusive, although a precautionary assumption is that F is high, and the scoring was done on this basis. In any case, the proposed approach to developing reference points would extend and make use of this dataset to provide absolute (as opposed to relative) estimates of stock status, as noted above (see Client Action Plan). (All these datasets are summarised in the report - Annex 2.) Recruitment dynamics Not much is known about the dynamics of recruitment in lobster fisheries, whether in Granville Bay or elsewhere, so the collection of abundance data for undersized lobster by the Jersey scientific survey is a valuable tool for monitoring changes in the time-space distribution and 130 | 2147R02B April 2011 abundance of immature recruits. The collection of size distribution data in the proposed response to Condition 1 would be a valuable extension of this approach, particularly if coupled with the investigation of oceanographic and habitat factors likely to modulate local production, distribution and survival of juveniles. We agree. Latent effort The harvest strategy involves the commendable step of capping the total number of licences, and the type and maximum number of pots that can be used, but there is a latent effort issue because fewer fishers are active than the total number of licenses, and some fishers do not use their maximum permitted pot number. Consequently there could be an increase in the harvest rate, and an additional threat to the stock, if unallocated licences or pot numbers are taken up, and even existing active fishers might possibly be able to increase their true effort by fishing more days in the year, or increasing the frequency of hauling pots. Until steps are taken to measure mortality, and to set reference points, there is no ready way of estimating the extra risk to the stock posed by such effort increases. This needs to be considered when establishing reference points and the harvest control rule. We agree. This latent effort issue was also the subject of considerable discussion. It is very hard to address in the context of a mixed fishery (lobster and crab) where fishermen in any case switch effort between the two species depending on the relative state of the market. We note that this issue should be considered carefully in the future review of proposed reference points and harvest control rules in this fishery. C. Scoring and related issues C.1. Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 Stock status (high productivity, low probability of recruitment overfishing) This PI was scored using the RBF. Page 55 does not actually state why the RBF was chosen, and although the limitations on the assessment are obvious in various sections of the Draft Report, it would still be helpful to add a simple sentence on this at the beginning of the Rationale for this PI. Added. The application and outcome of the SICA and PSA I found the application of the SICA and the PSA broadly acceptable, although from the foregoing I suspect that the SICA stakeholders somewhat underestimated the likely impact of the fishery on population size. As Section B makes clear, we do not at present know whether the impact of the fishery on the stock is low or high, but if Z or F is quantified by applying length based models to the Jersey size distributions, we might expect to find quite high values. Since the MSC score of 131 | 2147R02B April 2011
77 is based on the PSA, however, the conclusion is that the stock is likely (but not highly likely) to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which accords with my independent comments in Section B about the recruitment threshold, so I do not disagree with this final outcome. Note that in the PSA table on p118 lobster longevity could well be significantly higher than 20 (as described by Sheehy et al, 1999, using the analysis of lipofuscin pigment from lobster eyestalks). The change of lobster longevity from score 2 (10-25) to score 3 (>25) changes the score for PI 1.1.1 (from the PSA) from 77.2 to 75, and the score for Principle overall from 80.55 to 80. Since this is more precautionary, we have made the change. The general outcome of the assessment is not changed. Condition 1 This condition arises out of concern for the seeming dependence of the fishery on recruits. I do not disagree with this concern, or with the long term ‘fail-safe’ aim of reducing the dependence on recruits, but based on Section B I suggest that a first priority is to develop improved stock assessment capability in order to measure mortality using length based models, which in any case need to be developed in order to establish the egg per recruit criterion suggested in the guidance. Modelling mortality would quantify the likely scale and urgency of the recruitment issue, and would identify which tools are best suited to improving size structure by comparing the likely contribution from reducing fishing mortality (effort), or raising MLS, or banning the capture of egg bearing females, or whatever. Without this quantification, I fear that the large efforts to be expended on the field programme, and potentially on additional management measures, would otherwise be carried out ‘blind’. I agree with the team incidentally that expanding the size structure, if feasible, is a long-term project. It may be a moot point whether the modelling of mortality should be a joint aim of the condition, or merely part of the guidance on p 43, or even whether it more properly belongs to PI 1.2.4 on stock assessment (except that a condition under PI 1.2.4 is presumably not feasible because under the RBF the default score for that PI is 80) 1. Condition on expanding the size structure We agree with the reviewer that this is not a straightforward process, nor is it necessarily the core problem with the fishery – being a symptom of a broader (potential) issue of high exploitation rate, at least in some areas. The team felt constrained to some extent because MSC requires the conditions address rather specifically the issue which has been identified as a problem. Obviously the PSA gives no guidance in this regard, so we turn to the issues identified as scoring <80 under the SICA – i.e. the size structure. Nonetheless, the actions taken to address this problem will inevitably need to address the broader underlying issues. The question of the size structure is therefore in some sense a ‘peg’ on which we have hung the various broader but interlinked issues of stock status, exploitation rate and how it can be measured. The assessment team reviewed the condition and the Client Action Plan to see whether it was appropriate to re-draft both. However, the team concluded i) that it is not in fact possible to address the condition without addressing the underlying issues of high exploitation rate identified 132 | 2147R02B April 2011 correctly by the reviewer; and ii) the Client Action Plan as proposed would address these issues by some means (as yet unclear – identifying the most appropriate actions is part of the Action Plan). The team therefore felt that it was appropriate to retain the condition as focused on the key issue identified by stakeholders (see SICA Annex 2). There is also the question of the rather partial nature of the data that gave rise to the condition. The scientists and managers on the Basse Normandie side dispute that there is an issue at all with population size structure (and by extention with exploitation rate) in most of their zone. They note that auction data show that several cohorts are well represented in the fishery, and further that the data from exploited areas of Chausey come from an area which is very accessible and therefore heavily fished relative to parts of the Basse Normandie zone. They also note that the exploitation rate on the Jersey side is almost certainly higher than in the French areas because of the higher limit on pots per vessel and the lack of restrictions on parlour pots in Jersey. It may therefore be that further investigation of this issue will show that exploitation rate is spatially very variable, and that actions may only be required for some parts of the stock. This issue is addressed in the Client Action Plan. 2. Condition on stock assessment There is no requirement for a formal condition on stock assessment at the moment, because with the RBF this PI receives a default score of 80. However, since PI 1.1.1 scored <80, the RBF cannot be used for re-certification, so there is nonetheless a de facto condition. At least the minimum requirements of this PI will need to be met within five years – and if only the minimum requirements are met, improvements will have to made for the third re-certification. The condition is set out in the report in Section 8.2.2, although not particularly clearly. The wording has been improved. PI 1.1.2 Reference points Formally, this PI has been given a default score of 80 under the RBF, but it goes without saying that the development of long term (target), precautionary (trigger), and limit (threshold) reference points is highly desirable for the future. In mainstream fisheries with a stock-recruitment relationship, these reference points serve as operational objectives for the harvest strategy, and indicators for the decisions that are required by the harvest control rule. Section B commented on the problems likely to be encountered when using LPUE trends empirically, and in the light of the guidance given on Condition 1 it would seem practical to pursue the egg per recruit approach (In addition to reference 58, the application of egg per recruit reference points is discussed in Mace and Sissenwine,1993; FRCC, 1995 and 2007; Fogarty and Gendron,2004; Smith, 2008; and Tully et al, 2006). Other options include a ‘traffic light approach’ based on trends in multiple indicators, as used in, for example, the Canadian northern shrimp fishery (Koeller et al, 2002). For the lobster fishery in Maine relevant sections of text in ASMFC (2006) and ASMFC (2009) illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the trend-based approach. Whichever approach is used, the estimation needs to take into account the statistical uncertainty of the data. 133 | 2147R02B April 2011
MEP as the CB is not permitted to dictate the method by which the reference points should be defined. The team also has confidence in the ability and expertise of managers and scientists on both sides to come up with an appropriate system. However, these are all excellent suggestions which we have commended to the clients. PI 1.2.1 Harvest strategy Pages 57-60 illustrate the mandate to conserve stocks; the management methods prescribed under the management framework; and the regulations that are currently implemented to control the fisheries. The question is whether this is a strategy, or an assemblage of opportunistic tools. I suggest it would therefore be very helpful to have a tight statement at the very top to say something like : “to conserve fisheries resources, the harvest strategy is to cap fishing effort using licences and limitations on pot number and pot type; to reduce effort by limiting the reallocation of entitlements; to regulate MLS; and to close certain areas to fishing, as described in the following supporting paragraphs”. It is clear that these tools and regulations ‘work together’ to manage the fishery and that there is evidence of their effectiveness, but they have not been ‘designed to achieve objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points’ since the latter are not yet implemented. I am unclear whether changes to the regulations represent convincing examples of how ‘the strategy has been responsive to the state of the stock’, as opposed to being simply opportunistic, but as the Joint Management Framework has the scope to respond to any stock changes, based on regular reviews, I accept the 90 score. The reviewer raises an interesting point, since all three SGs refer to target and limit reference points – and yet, presumably since the RBF has been put in place for situations when there are no formal reference points, it is not the intention of MSC for a fishery to fail on this PI due to a lack of reference points. As regards ‘responsive to the state of the stock’, without dramatic changes in any of the indices of stock abundance, it is difficult to evaluate this one way or the other, but we would suggest that the harvest strategy has been precautionary rather than opportunistic. PI 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools I would describe the bulleted list of management measures on p61 as harvest control tools that are being implemented as part of a harvest strategy to achieve stock conservation objectives, but they are not control rules as defined in section 9 of the MSC FAM and Guidance Document, where a harvest control rule is ‘ A set of well-defined pre-agreed (my underline) rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points’. I do not see any such pre-agreed rule in place (e.g. there is nothing that says “ when stock or an indicator falls to such and such a level, or mortality or an indicator rises to such and such a level, action will be taken to do x”, and where the trigger points and x are defined quantitatively). I accept however that the proposed actions on p62 are candidates for such a rule, if the proposed reference points and criteria (or something comparable) become accepted and implemented throughout the fishery in the future.
134 | 2147R02B April 2011
It is clear that the fishery does not reach SG80, so that Condition 2 is necessary. Regarding SG60, however, there are certainly tools in place that are effective and are from time to time adjusted (second element of SG60), but is it valid to say that the ‘informal proxy reference points discussed above are sufficient to meet the first element of SG60’, as stated in the text? My dilemma is that I consider reference points to be indicators, not rules, and that although the candidate pre-agreed actions on p62 are potential harvest control rules, the team has said quite clearly that neither the reference points nor the candidate rules are yet implemented throughout the fishery. The team may wish to consider some redrafting here to justify reaching, and exceeding, SG60. The reviewer raises a good point here – our rationale does not get to the core of the issue. As he notes, the first part of SG 60 requires ‘ Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached.’ The problem with evaluating this at the 60 level is that, as the reviewer points out, there have not been any significant trends in the LPUE or any other data, apart from perhaps a gradual improvement. Without any fluctuations in the proxy biomass indicators, it is hard to assess whether there are ‘generally understood harvest control rules’ in place specifically for the eventuality that the stock biomass declines below a certain point. The approach of fisheries managers has been to continually try and reduce effort, as noted by the reviewer above. The team took the view in this case, that a set of ‘generally understood harvest control rules’ was being applied continually, regardless of the status of the stock, and that this approach was in fact more precautionary than an approach in which a harvest control rule only kicked in below a certain pre-agreed level. We felt that to conclude otherwise would be to penalise the fishery for the precautionary approach to management that they have taken. We have added to the rationale to make this point clear. Condition 2 . In the light of previous comments about reference point options that may be more suitable than those based only on LPUE, I suggest a slight amendment to the wording to make the second sentence more general as follows (using italics to show the changes): ‘Reference points, and pre- agreed decision rules to control fishing mortality in response to decreased stock abundance or increased fishing mortality (as measured directly or by suitable proxies) should be agreed and implemented’. I have not checked whether the proposed action plan allows scope for reference point options other than those based on LPUE. The wording has been changed as proposed. The action plan proposes reference points based on LPUE or ‘other standardised indices of abundance’ – giving reasonably wide scope for action. P1 1.2.3 Information/Monitoring I accept the score of 85, but it would be useful to emphasise whether enough is known about the level of private sales to hotels and restaurants in Basse-Normandy, and about ‘other removals?’ Also, what coverage is achieved by the Ifremer OBSMER programme?
135 | 2147R02B April 2011
Following this comment (and those from the other peer reviewer), CRMPBN provided additional data estimating undeclared landings in Basse Normandie. As regards undeclared landings by professional fishermen, the other peer reviewer addresses this issue in some detail, and we note in our responses to him that in fact our perspective on this was considerably changed (improved) when we managed to discuss the issue with Affaires Maritimes. Unfortunately this was not until sometime after the scoring meeting, when the report had already been drafted. While our rationales in the scoring table mainly reflect our changed view, some elements of the main report do not, and these have been revised (see responses to other peer review for more details). In brief, it appears that the issue of undeclared landings by professional fishermen is now marginal, although of course it affects historic data to some (unknown) extent, which is unfortunate. As regards recreational landings, CRMPBN estimate these at about 1-2 tonnes per year for West Cotentin. Even if we assume landings of double that for Jersey (probably unlikely given the relative length of coastline and population), these therefore remain trivial in relation to commercial landings. The relevant data have been added to the report. Unfortunately, since the scoring the OBSMER programme has been suspended for the moment due to lack of funds. This has been noted in the report, but we did not review the scoring as a result. PI 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status The default score is 80, but from previous comments it is clear that important gaps in the stock assessment need to be addressed for the future (estimation of mortality rate, evaluation of statistical uncertainty, development of the recruitment index, development of reference points). It may therefore be appropriate to consider recommending an expert review of the stock assessment methodology in the research plan. The team formed a good opinion of the expertise of Ifremer in this regard, but certainly further expert review would not hurt. The de facto condition set out in section 8.2.2 notes that to meet the 80 level, the stock assessment must take uncertainty into account and be peer reviewed. C.2 Principle 2 Relatively few comments. PI 2.1.2 Management Strategy p69 second paragraph of rationale, penultimate line: suggest ‘These measures act to cap or reduce effort on the main retained species.’ Changed as suggested. PI 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring. 136 | 2147R02B April 2011
I agree the score and the Condition. PI 2.2.2 and PI 2.3.2 By-catch management strategy Although a maximum score is nominally permissible for these, does this not unduly influence the overall score? Would ‘not applicable’ be more fair? The FAM does not make provision for scores of ‘not applicable’. In any case, if a fishery has no by-catch, surely it should benefit from this? PI 2.4.2 Habitat management strategy What proportion of the habitat is covered by the specific habitat management plans (i.e. how ‘partial’ is the partial strategy?). Is there a specific commitment to habitat management for the fishery as a whole--we normally look for this in a fishery management plan. As far as the total Granville Bay area goes, the strategy is relatively ‘partial’. However, lobster fishing is not evenly distributed across the area, and tends to be strongly focused on particular areas (the Minquiers, the Ecrehous, Chausey etc.), which provide the best habitat. These are also the areas that feature strongly in the various habitat management initiatives, as noted in the text. It therefore does not seem to us that a straightforward calculation of the percentage area covered would give a fair picture in terms of the proportion of fishing effort focused on these areas. The team did not consider that the nature of the habitat plus the fishery required a formal ‘habitat management plan’ from the fishery itself. We were satisfied with the broader picture of strong and coherent marine habitat conservation in the Granville Bay area, of which the fishery is one partner. C.3 Principle 3 PI 3.1.4 Incentives I recognise that there are some projects listed on p96 but according to Paragraph 8.2.28 of the FAM guidance, we are looking for the fundamental incentives for fishing sustainably. The text is not very precise on this point (e.g. last line of p 95 says ‘the management system…has made it possible …to benefit from incentives consistent with achieving the outcomes of Principles 1 and 2’. This restates the question but does not say what the incentives actually are (e.g. ownership and retention of the licence (i.e. the right to fish, and to use a specific pot number), plus, in the case of Basse-Normandy, the obligation to be a member of the regional organisations that contribute to the management of the fishery. Maybe some textual clarification is necessary to justify the 90 score. Rationale revised as suggested – see Peer Review 2 for more details. 137 | 2147R02B April 2011
PI 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives. I suggest it would be more direct to say that, based on current regulations, the fishery objectives are to conserve the lobster resource by capping fishing effort consistent with maintaining stable long term LPUE; reducing latent capacity by restricting the reallocation of licenses; protecting immature lobsters by implementing an MLS, escape gaps, and closed areas; etc etc. (Had there been reference points, the year to year operational objectives would be to keep stock above the threshold reference point, and to aim for maintaining a stock level that fluctuates round a target reference point). As a general point, it might be helpful at some stage in the future if the fishery produced a collation of all the framework documents and their provisions and objectives into a single evergreen fisheries management plan. Rationale revised as suggested. Regarding a single management plan for the fishery, this is an excellent idea in principle, but in practice it is complicated because of the two jurisdictions and three zones (Jersey zone, BN zone, shared zone) and also because the agreement of Brittany would be needed for the mixed zone. We were concerned that it would use up resources at the JAC and JMC that would be better used in more concrete discussions about stock assessment and reference points. PI 3.2.2 Decision making . I agree that this is a notable feature that deserves a high score. We agree. Co-management is a straightforward idea in principle, but can only be made to work well in practice through a great deal of hard work and good will by all the participants, and this has been amply demonstrated in this case. PI 3.2.3 Compliance and Enforcement It is good to see the level of the information that has been examined. There are clearly some issues however (second half of page 102; last section of paragraph 5 on p103; last paragraph of p 104 and top of p105). A score no higher than 80 is probably about right for Basse-Normandy, but perhaps the Jersey score should be lower than 100 because “20 breaches a year; using undersized crabs as whelk bait; closing up lobster escape gaps; using unmarked pots”, all suggest that compliance is NOT 100%. We had extensive discussion on this issue as well, notably because we were unlucky that the evaluation of the fishery fell within a period during which the French fisheries enforcement service was undergoing an extensive re-organisation involving considerable disruption to normal activities. We note that the SG 100 does not require 100% compliance – just that there is no evidence of ‘systematic’ non-compliance. In fact, without the occasional breach it is hard to show that the enforcement system provides ‘demonstrably effective deterrence’. We reviewed the scoring but could not find a justifiable means to reduce the score for Jersey below 100!
138 | 2147R02B April 2011
PI 3.2.4 Research plan The text in the last line of p 105 seems to involve a transpose: my reading of the evidence is that all of element 2 is met (timely dissemination) but only part of element 1(there is research but no strategic plan). P 106, penultimate para, line 4 . ‘ there is currently..’ You are right on both counts – amended. Regarding the plan itself, it would be helpful if this includes in particular the stock assessment and reference point issues, and the measurement of the scale and cause of recruitment variation, including the question of any recruitment subsidies from outside Granville Bay. It is up to the clients to decide on the content of the Research Plan, but we have added a recommendation as follows: the team recommends that the plan include research on population size structure, egg production and recruitment, both in regard to the issues identified under Principle 1 and also more generally in terms of understanding better the dynamics of the Granville Bay lobster population. PI 3.2.5 Performance evaluation of the management system p108, last para of section 2 last line. How occasional is the external review, e.g. when was the last one done, and who did it? Despite the scrutiny of, for example, compatibility between EU and UK laws, the emphasis seems to be primarily on internal self-review. I feel it would be an advantage to create a more explicit external peer review of assessment and management methods along the lines developed in the public advisory and review processes of Canada and the USA. The JAC meets every three months, but issues relating to the management of the lobster fishery are not always on the agenda. Regarding ‘internal self-review’ – it rather depends what is defined as ‘internal’. Certainly taking the Granville Bay area as a whole, Basse Normandie and Jersey are both ‘internal’ but in practice the two management systems are rather different, although harmonised. This is logical given that the fishery and the wider socio-economic context is also different on each side. In the experience of one team member, who has been involved with this fishery for quite a while now, each side provides rather stringent review of the management system of the other side – to take an example on each side, Jersey is constantly pushing France for more at-sea enforcement in their zone, while the Normans are critical of the lack of restriction on parlour pots in Jersey. On reflection, the team could have made more of this element of review, and the rationale has been revised to incorporate this aspect better. Overall, the team felt that the system was adequately reviewed.
139 | 2147R02B April 2011
D. Other points. P18 . Section 2.4.2, line 6. I suggest something more informative than ‘fairly reliable’; e.g. data quality is good/moderate/poor, or adequate/not adequate for assessment purposes. Changed to ‘reliable and adequate for assessment purposes’. P21 . The reefs support high densities of juvenile fish. The text does not indicate whether the inkwell or parlour pots retain any significant incidental fish by-catches of these (parlour pots do occasionally retain individual whiting and codling at some seasons of the year off the NE Coast of England). A list of occasional by-catch species is given in Annex 2, based on reports from fishermen, clients and Jersey scientists (from the surveys). The only fish species that is reported occasionally retained in the pots is dogfish. P23 Para 3. 1 How many vessels contribute to the long term trend in LPUE at les Roches Douvres? The number of vessels has varied from 17 vessels in 1988 to 6 in 2009. This has been added to the report. P24 Para 3.2 Helpful to indicate the scale of this survey (how many vessels, months, pots?) The data from the surveys (from the Jersey Fisheries Department report 2009) are given in the table below. The survey used the Fisheries Department vessel the Norman le Brocq, and was truncated in 2009 because the vessel was being refitted. The survey uses three reference sites and fishes the parlour pots for 4 periods of 48 hours in May, and two in June. The total number of pots hauled and lobsters caught is given below, as well as other relevant information.
140 | 2147R02B April 2011
P25, Figure 12 legend . ‘the spike should be treated with caution’. Yes indeed (since the spike is very large after a period of almost no change) but it would help to state why, briefly, since most readers will not be familiar with the content of the references cited. As noted above, the survey in 2009 was truncated relative to previous years because of logistical problems. The spike is probably a consequence either of the larger error in the smaller dataset or because the survey was concentrated more in June than in May. It is not reflected in CPUE data, which is considered more reliable for 2009. This has been briefly explained in the figure legend. P32 . Helpful to give a reason why parlour pots are banned at Les Minquiers The Minquiers are a prime lobster fishing area as well as being important reef habitat. Parlour pots were banned primarily to maintain local effort at sustainable levels, with a secondary objective of avoiding any risk of ghost fishing. This has been noted in the text. P47. Section 10, Client Action Plan . I have not commented on this but if, in the light of my comments and suggestions under Section B or the PIs, the assessment team change aspects of the Conditions or recommendations then it may wish to check whether corresponding changes will be required to aspects of the Action Plan. We reviewed the Client Action Plan after having re-worded the condition on stock assessment somewhat; however, all the elements were covered. As noted above, the population size structure can be regarded as a ‘symptom’ of a more general issue of exploitation rate, and the size structure cannot therefore be addressed without tackling this more general issue. 141 | 2147R02B April 2011
P86 , para 2 of rationale, line 4, edit: interact, not interaction P92 , para 2, last line, edits: ‘an’ not ‘and’. Next line, Day-to-day Corrected E. References: Addison, J.T., 1986. Density-dependent mortality and the relationship between size composition and fishing effort in lobster populations. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.43:2360-2367. ASMFC, 2006. American Lobster Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review. Stock Assessment Report No. 06-03 (Supplement). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. pp366. ASMFC, 2009, Stock Assessment Report No.09-01 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Terms of Reference and Advisory Report to the American Stock Assessment Peer Review. Washington, DC: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 38pp. Collie, J.S, and Sissenwine, M.P. 1983. Estimating population size from relative abundance data measured with error. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 1871-1879. Fogarty M. J. and L. Gendron, 2004. Biological reference points for American lobster ( Homarus americanus ) populations: limits to exploitation and the precautionary approach. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61(8): 1392-1403. FRCC Canada, 1995. A Conservation Framework for American Lobster. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries Resource Conservation Council of Canada, FRCC 95.R1. FRCC Canada, 2007. Sustainability Framework for Atlantic Lobster. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries Resource Conservation Council of Canada, FRCC 07.R1/July 2007. pp66. Koeller, P.A., M Cover and M King, 2002. A new traffic light assessment for the Easterrn Scotian Shelf Shrimp fishery in 2001. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, 2002. 50pp. Mace, P. and M P Sissenwine, 1993. How much spawning is enough? In: Smith et al (ed).’ Risk evalutation and biological reference points for fisheries management’. Pp 101-118 in Canadian Special Publications of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 120, viii+442pp. Sheehy, MRJ., RCA Bannister, JF Wickins and PMJ Shelton, 1999. New perspectives on the growth and longevity of the European lobster (Homarus gammarus). Can. J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 56: 1904-1915. 142 | 2147R02B April 2011
Smith, M.T., 2008. Potential reference points, precautionary management frameworks and harvest control rules for UK shellfish species. Report commissioned for the Shellfish Industry Development Strategy by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB) and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 63 pp (mimeo) Tully, O., M Robinson, E O’Keefe, R Cosgrove, O Doyle and B Lehane, 2006. The Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus L.) Fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004-2005. Fisheries Resource Series, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, vol 4, 2006., 48pp. END OF PEER REVIEW Peer Review 2 Peer Review of Public Comment Draft Report Normandy and Jersey lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) fishery Dr JC Groeneveld 26 th January 2011 Overarching comments I have thoroughly reviewed the Public Comment Draft Report for Normandy and Jersey lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) fishery, and have found it to be comprehensive, describing a fishery that does, to a large extent, conform to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3. The overall recommendation that the fishery can be certified is supported by the outcomes in the Components of Principles 1 and 2, and by the Governance and Policy, as well as the fishery-specific management system in Principle 3. I have some comments on the conditions raised by the assessment team (see sections below). It was surprising that the management of the fishery is not supported by more formal resource assessment models to assess stock status and the risks associated with alternative management strategies. Leading on from this, there remains some doubt on the status of the stock, and I am not convinced that the existing abundance indices tell the whole story. Mainly the time series are too short, and the 2009 spike in the fisheries-independent survey should be treated with caution. However, P1.1.1 Stock status was assessed using RBF, and the fishery now has to move towards the more conventional FAM methodology which will require improved data collection (PI 1.2.3), setting of limit reference points (PI 1.1.2), and more formal estimation of stock status (PI 1.2.4). In itself, this can be considered a positive result of the MSC process in this particular case. 143 | 2147R02B April 2011
The impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem (Principle 2) appear to be minor (as expected in a trap-fishery in a resilient environment), and the scores given in Principle 2 are justifiably high. There is one exception (P2.5.1), where the scoring may have to be adjusted. Governance and management structure (Principle 3) are complicated by the shared jurisdiction, but on the whole the different parties are to be commended for their collaborative efforts to manage the fishery. There are some issues with compliance and enforcement, particularly reporting of catches in Basse Normandy, that need to be addressed. Specific comments Introductory sections (Chapters 1-4) P9. Last para. The unit of certification has some niggles. The first is whether ‘fishermen’ refers to licensed commercial fishermen only, or whether it includes recreational fishers as well. This could be clarified with an additional sentence. Commercial fishermen only – this has been clarified in the text. Some information on estimates of recreational catch have been added to the text (see previous peer review). A second niggle is what is meant by “Granville Bay”? Is it the actual bay including the territorial waters of all three departments plus the shared zone, or is it used as a term to describe only the shared zone (i.e. Granville Bay Treaty area)? Good point – the usage of the term has been rather variable through the report. This has been clarified as necessary. P10. 3 rd para. A pity that Brittany is not included in the assessment. Based on the map (p31), Breton fishers will likely target the shared zone at Minquiers (1), apart from their territorial waters. So even if their catches don’t have a large overall impact, they may have a significant local impact at Minquiers. Unclear whether the 5% taken by the Breton fishers refers to the lobsters taken from the whole of Granville Bay (see the query above), i.e. from the territorial waters of all three departments plus the shared area, or whether it refers to the shared area only? We agree that it is a pity. and we hope that there will be scope and will for them to join in the future.
144 | 2147R02B April 2011
As regards the location of Breton fishing effort on lobster, it is reported to be concentrated more in areas to the west of the Granville Bay area (i.e. outside the treaty area). The Breton fleet is, however, much more oriented towards spider crab, because the habitat (flat, hard bottom) in the ‘breton zone’ is more suitable for this species than for lobster. The 5% figure refers to the wider area – i.e. all three contiguous territorial waters plus the shared area. As regards the Minquiers, it is a key fishing area for Jersey and Basse Normandie fishermen, and probably the area with the highest effort of anywhere in the zone – on this basis, it is probably unlikely that effort from Brittany is decisive. P12. 1.6 Report structure. Is this section really necessary? It’s all in the Table of Contents anyway? It doesn’t do any harm though, does it? P13. Agreed that the lobster population in the Granville Bay zone is a rational management unit from a biological viewpoint (Granville Bay = 3 * territorial waters + Treaty area). P13. 2 nd last line. “Parlour pots are strictly restricted on the French side….”. Are they not allowed at all on the French side or are their numbers restricted?? Their numbers are restricted to 50% of the total number of pots per boat for Basse Normandie vessels, and they are banned in Basse Normandie territorial waters (as well as in the Minquiers). P14. Not a good picture of a Parlour pot as the 2 ‘rooms’ are not visible. Any chance of a better pic, or a line-drawing? Picture replaced with clearer one. P14 and 15. Last sentence on P14 and Figure 4. It is difficult to believe that the Jersey authorities do not have a record of the number of vessels that are shellfish qualified (i.e. licensed by them to catch shellfish, including lobsters). Figure 4 on page 15 is rather meaningless if it includes “all licensed fishing vessels”. This is true. We went back to Jersey asking for better effort data, and have now included number of pot lifts (to 2009) and number of shellfish licences, including those targeting lobster specifically (to 2010) – see Figures 4 and 7. P16. 2.3.1. The numbers of licensed pots measure latent fishing effort only, not actual fishing effort, which should be measured as the numbers of pots hauled. It is bothersome that there is no accurate measure of the number active vessels, how many days they spend
145 | 2147R02B April 2011 at sea, and nor is there now an indication of the numbers of traps hauled. So actually, there is no good data on fishing effort at all?? Consider this in the scoring (P3). See above - data on the number of pot lifts are now provided. P16 & 17. 2.3.2. The other metric of effort, vessel-months in BN, is rather dated (last available is 2007). An extra 3 years of data would have confirmed (or not) the very interesting trends shown in Figure 6. Consider in the scoring (P3). Good point. We have managed to acquire an additional two years of effort for the lobster vessels only – this has been added to Figure 6. These data points do not suggest any dramatic change in the situation in 2008-9 relative to previous years. P17 & 18. Landings. Two problems here – landings are not always declared by fishers (offload at unsupervised sites) and lobsters are sold to distributors / restaurants that do not report their sales. So the BN landing statistics underestimate the actual catch, but it is not known by how much. This should be taken into account in the scoring (P3). This is an important issue that was not explained clearly in the report up till now, for reasons which will become clear below. Fishermen who do not declare catches in their fiches de pêche are breaking the law. Nonetheless, it was highlighted to the assessment team during the site visit that fishermen selling to small buyers such as restaurants may not fill out a note de vente, and the logbook data do not then always cross-check against sales – a standard enforcement procedure in French and other EU fisheries. Ifremer also note in their report the risk that landings are underestimated. On this basis, the assessment team originally scored Basse Normandie below 80 for monitoring and enforcement (see below). However, as noted in the report, the site visit unfortunately took place during a period when Affaires Maritimes (the body in France responsible for enforcement) was being reorganised and there was a considerable dislocation in enforcement responsibilities in the area. Subsequent to the site visit, one of the team members (SdC) was able to speak to the person responsible for enforcement in this fishery in Affaires Maritimes Cherbourg (see under stakeholder consultations). Affaires Maritimes did not agree with Ifremer’s assessment that there was a problem in this regard, and stated that they were able to check fiches de pêche, and cross-check them with notes de vente, and did so on a regular basis. The rationale for PI 3.2.3 (Monitoring and enforcement) was updated, but the rest of the report apparently was not. This has now been corrected. The issue is discussed further under PI 3.2.3. P19, 2 nd para. Having read 7.2.7 in the MSC standard (i.e. considering bait used in pots as by-catch), it remains difficult to conceptualize the influence of the Normandy and Jersey lobster fishery on redfish catches in Russia and horse mackerel catches in Ireland, and how this will actually be taken into account in the scoring. It’s a long stretch! Might be
146 | 2147R02B April 2011 better to restrict this condition to by-catches made by the fishery under assessment (or at least in the area under assessment) and used for bait. MSC require that all bait species are considered in the same way under by-catch. But we agree that it is a stretch! P23, 2 nd para. Would be useful to know what the restrictions on the recreational fishery are. Is there an estimate of annual recreational catches? Further to comments in both peer reviews, we received an estimate of recreational catches by the CRPMBN, of around 1-2 tonnes per year for West Cotentin. Even if we assume landings of double that for Jersey (probably unlikely given the relative length of coastline and population), these therefore remain trivial in relation to commercial landings. This has been added to the report (new section 2.4.3 – recreational landings). P24 & 25, Figures 10 and 12. The units on the two Y-axes appear to be the same (kg/100 pots hauled), but the values differ by two orders of magnitude? Possibly this could be clarified in a sentence? The data in Figure 10 have been standardised relative to 2005 – possibly because the various datasets were not directly comparable (the original report does not make this clear). We have clarified this in the legend. P26, Fig 13 and 1 st para. Agreed, the reduction in the numbers of lobsters >87 mm CL is far more likely to be as a result of fishing mortality, than as a result of migration to deeper waters. This is confirmed, to a large extent, by the situation inside and outside the marine reserve at Chausey (Fig. 14). Yes – although the CRPMBN note that the ‘outside’ area at Chausey is an area that is very easily accessible to fishermen and therefore likely to suffer from very significant fishing pressure – so the contrast between the two sites might be more marked than in other areas. P31, Fig 12. This map is very helpful in understanding the various jurisdictions, and having access to it earlier on in the document might avoid confusion when reading about the different areas. Could it perhaps be moved closer to the beginning of the document. Maybe replace section 1.6 (p12) with the map? Good point – map moved to new Figure 1. P36, 1 st line. Delete “out”. 2 nd para 1 st line, replace “were” with “was”. 3 rd para 4 th line. Replace “objective” with “object” P40, Table 10. Add mean scores for outcome and harvest strategy components, respectively, as in Tables 11 and 12. 147 | 2147R02B April 2011
Done P42, 8.2.1 Conditions; PI 1.1.1 Stock status outcome – score 77.2. The condition might be premature, and based on perceptions and short-term databases rather than a proper analysis of the data. Many lobster fisheries have a truncated size structure and rely on catches of recent recruits growing into an MLS. It is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as egg-production is kept high, and the fishery is based on several cohorts. Instead of forcing the clients into a certain (unproved) direction by asking them to implement the condition as stated, possibly some research and modelling are first required? And a few more years of LPUE data would be very helpful in assessing the stock status. Questions that could be addressed are: How close is the present MLS to the size at which females become mature in the Granville Bay area? How important are very large females to egg-production? Once these questions have been answered, then management measures can be adapted (i.e. increase MLS, or no take of females > 120mm CL etc), but not before then! It is suggested that the Condition be rephrased. The other reviewer made a similar point about this condition, and a detailed discussion of this issue is given in the other peer review and responses. The team felt somewhat constrained in fixing the condition by the main issue that scored <80 – MSC requires that conditions be targeted to the specific issue perceived as posing the problem. On the other hand, the Client Action Plan focuses in the first instance on research to find out whether this issues is really causing a problem or not, and to the extent that the truncated size distribution is a symptom of a wider potential problem (a high exploitation rate) dealing with one will fix the other. As noted in the other peer review, we reviewed the condition with a view to re-drafting. However, we felt that the condition as it stood will require the clients to address the issues noted above, as well as those emphasised by the other peer reviewer. The Client Action Plan envisages precisely the type of research emphasised here, and notes that action will be taken when and where it is required, rather than in a blanket way without being backed up by good data. The team explicitly avoided drafting a condition which stated that ‘X impact on population size structure must be made within 5 years’, allowing as much time as possible for more research. We are constrained by the five-year MSC cycle to show concrete action to address the issues identified in the evaluation of PI 1.1.1, but if the data available at re-certification show a different (or more nuanced) picture, these data can be taken into account at that point.
148 | 2147R02B April 2011
With hindsight, a short section on the biology and life history characteristics of H. gammarus in the region would be very useful – maybe between 1. Introduction and 2. The fishery . From the Literature Cited it appears as if a lot of research has been done on H. gammarus , but not so much in the Granville Bay area?? Biological characteristics may be site specific, so where possible, local information should be used. This is most relevant to the scoring of the PSA, and we have where relevant used local data provided by the CRMPBN scientific staff based on their long experience of studying lobster in Granville Bay (see Annex 2). There are unfortunately not enough formal data to justify a separate section. P43, 2 nd para, Condition: Generally this would mean increasing the MLS or releasing a proportion of captured mature females. Again, it depends on the size at which maturity is reached and fecundity-size relationships. See comment above. Yes – or other indirect measures, such as a general reduction in effort, should also have an impact on population size structure. PI 1.2.2 Condition: Agreed. PI 2.1.3 Condition: Agreed. Depends on what data have been collected up to date. Otherwise a velvet swimming crab data-collection protocol will first need to be put into place. See next comment as well. Data already exist on catches (fiches de pêche, notes de vente), and on overall fishing effort. In the team’s view, the problem was not so much a lack of data or research as the fact that the existing data were slow to be analysed or reviewed. The team does not perceive a significant risk to this population, which is an occasional and opportunistic catch in French waters only, but thought that someone should nonetheless keep half an eye on it, just in case. P44, PI3.2.4: Agreed. Formalize the existing and additional research into an agreed strategy. P45, 9.2. ……“probably the majority of BN catch is dispersed among these small landing sites”. Is this catch recorded, or reported? Otherwise landed lobster in BN may be grossly underestimated? P46 “The main problem, however, is the myriad of small ports and other landing sites along the BN coastline, where catch is landed to private buyers” Agreed. This could be a major problem and must be taken into account in the scoring. As noted above, all catches are required to be recorded in fiches de pêche. Notes de vente should also be filled out, although for very small buyers this does not always happen. There is no legal difference between small and large ports, of course. However, a
149 | 2147R02B April 2011 fisherman landing at a small landing site is of course less likely to meet an enforcement official on the quayside. See discussion under enforcement below. P47 – 54: 10. Client Action Plan. This section sits very uncomfortably here. Would it not be better positioned as an Annex 2 or Annex 3, so that it falls AFTER the assessment tree and Rationales for the scores given to each PI? Ok, this has now moved to Annex 3 P51: The plan of action (last paragraph in red) is disproportionate relative to the concern stated in Condition 3. All that is required is that existing data on velvet swimming crab from the reference vessels be analysed to assess whether there is a declining trend. Possibly these reference vessels can, in the future, make sure that they collect specific abundance and size information on velvet swimming crab catches, so that a long-term trend can be established. Good point – the clients have amended the Action Plan to focus on the review of existing data rather than collecting additional data which was not considered by the team to be necessary. P54: The list of ‘planned measures’ need to be rationally thought through and prioritized. For instance, why ban the landing of lobsters with missing appendages?? These will grow slower than uninjured lobsters anyway – i.e. lower productivity. Reviewing and prioritising these measures is part of the process set out in the Action Plan. Because of the joint management system (as well as the need for agreement with the Breton fishermen for some of the measures) it is not a straightforward process to decide the final set of measures that should be taken. The rationale for banning the landing of lobsters with missing appendages is just that they fetch a low price, so it gives a ‘gain’ back to the population (albeit small) with minimal impact on the fishermen. P54, under increase in egg production, does the first measure suggest increasing the Minimum Legal Size (MLS) from 87 to 90 mm CL? If so, then what is this 3mm increase based on? Or is it arbitrary? The next measure is to adopt a maximum catch size of 120 mm CL. Again, what is this limit based on? Both these are just proposals for the moment. All these possibilities remain to be reviewed, evaluated and prioritised as the reviewer proposes above. 150 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 1 – Assessment tree PRINCIPLE 1 1.1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status Score 77.2 using RBF (PSA) There are several gaps in the long-term databases on landings and fishing effort (see comments above and Annex 2 of the Assessment document), which need to be addressed. The Condition for PI 1.1.1 needs to be rethought. See comments above. Agreed that the RBF was the right way to go in this assessment. Some comments on the scores given in the PSA are as follows: Productivity a) Average maximum age may be longer than 25 years (see Sheehy et al 1999). Does a PSA score of 3 instead of 2 make a large difference to the outcome? The other peer reviewer also pointed this out. A score of 3 changes the score for PI 1.1.1 to 75 and the average score for Principle 1 to 80, and this change has been made. b) Average size at maturity appears to be highly variable, ranging from 80-140 mm CL depending on site (see Cobb and Castro 2006). Is there a reference in which the size at maturity is estimated for the Granville Bay area? I expect it to be in the lower half of the range, and a PSA score of 1 is probably realistic (i.e. TL of <40 cm). As noted, unpublished information from the CRPMBN suggests a size at 50% maturity of ~87-90mm CL, equating to an overall length of <40cm. Susceptibility Susceptibility criteria and scores given are realistic. Condition: I think this condition is premature. See above for comments. 1.1.2 Reference points Score 80 Default score used. No comment. 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Not applicable 151 | 2147R02B April 2011
1.2 Harvest Strategy (Management) 1.2.1Harvest strategy Score 90 Agreed. All conditions are met at SG100, except that the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. P60, Para 1, line 6. Replace ‘recreational’ with ‘commercial’. This section of the rationale describes how the harvest strategy extends to recreational fishermen in both jurisdictions. This has been clarified. 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools Score 75 Agreed. Score of 75 is fair, and the condition to formalize the existing informal reference points and harvest control measures into a robust management system, including both Normandy and Jersey, is appropriate. P62, 6 th line from the top. Replace ‘hens’ with ‘female lobsters’ P62, 16 th line from the top. Replace ‘preferably’ with ‘preferable’ Done 1.2.3 Information / monitoring Score 85 At SG80, the condition that “There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock” is not met , for instance unreported landings in smaller towns in Normandy and recreational landings are largely unknown. Governing bodies will always underplay these quantities, but the fact is that the removals from these sources are unknown. The first 2 conditions at SG80 are, however met. Suggest that the score be reconsidered, and if below 80, that an appropriate condition be raised. The reviewer raises two different issues here. The question of unreported landings (lack of notes de vente) is a part of the data from this fishery, so does not come under this element of ‘all other fishery removals’. The requirement here under SG 80 is the following: Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule
152 | 2147R02B April 2011
The team decided that this was met because i) there are detailed catch and effort data from most of the fleet – for example, the BN reference fleet, from landings at auction and from Jersey; ii) Ifremer considers that overall trends in BN catches and LPUE are robust and iii) there are fisheries-independent data such as the Jersey annual survey and periodic surveys in BN waters, particularly in the closed areas. For the recreational fishery, there are strict limits in both jurisdictions, which are set out in PI 1.2.1 (harvest strategy). An order of magnitude calculation as to the potential total capture on this basis shows that it is marginal compared to the commercial fishery – see details above and in the rationale for PI 1.2.1. The reviewer is right, however, that this is not included in the rationale for PI 1.2.3 as it should be, and a discussion has been added. 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status Score 80 Default score used. No comment. PRINCIPLE 2 2.1 Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome status Score 90 Agreed. Marking brown crab down to 80 is conservative based on the figure and SICA scores, but the overall score of 90 appears to be justified. P67, under Rationale, 7 th line. Spider crab is given as Maja brachydactyla here, but as Maja squinado on page 19. Which one is it then?? Good question. The species formerly known as M. squinado has recently been split into two species, with M. brachydactyla on the Atlantic coast of Europe (i.e. here) and M. squinado in the Mediterranean. However, not all ecologists accept this split, and the name M. squinado still seems to be in general use. We have stuck with M. squinado but included a brief explanation in a footnote the first time the name is used. P67, same line. Replace ‘Necora’ with ‘ Necora ” Done
153 | 2147R02B April 2011
2.1.2 Management strategy Score 85 Agreed. Two of the three SG100 guideposts are met. 2.1.3 Information / monitoring Score 75 The score is fair, but the Condition needs to include all three species, and not only velvet swimming crab. The other two species are monitored and managed already, having a similar economic importance to lobster. The management system is more or less similar to lobster, although management of the spider crab stock is complicated by their much wider range and migratory habit. The only species for which there is no formal monitoring is the velvet swimming crab. 2.2. By-catch species 2.2.1 Outcome status Score 100 OK. No comment. 2.2.2 Management strategy Score 100 OK. No comment. 2.2.3 Information / monitoring Score 100 OK. No comment. 2.3 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome status Score 100 OK. No comment. 2.3.2 Management Strategy Score 100 OK. No comment. 154 | 2147R02B April 2011
2.3.2 Information / monitoring Score 100 OK. No comment. 2.4 Habitat 2.4.1 Outcome status Score 80 The habitat is likely to be resilient because of the oceanographic conditions, and trap- fishing is not particularly destructive. SG80 is met. 2.4.2. Management strategy Score 80 Agreed, SG80 is fully met but no part of SG100 is met, therefore 80 is a fair score. 2.4.3 Information / monitoring Score 80 Agreed, SG80 is fully met but no part of SG100 is met, therefore 80 is a fair score. P80, 2 nd line. Replace ‘Patermosters’ with ‘Paternosters’ Done 2.5 Ecosystems 2.5.1 Outcome status Score 80 At SG60, the fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function, and at SG80 it is highly unlikely . The distinction is subjective, at best, and it can easily be argued that the rationale provided meets only the SG60 level. Indeed, the 2 nd last line of the rationale provided states that the team concluded that “…the fishery is not likely to have significant ecosystem impacts.” I suspect that not likely = unlikely = score 60. It really is very difficult to distinguish here between unlikely and highly unlikely impacts on the ecosystem, particularly because there is only anecdotal information available. The interactions with brown crab and conger argue rather for, than against, considerable effects of the fishery on ecosystem structure and function. This is to be expected in
155 | 2147R02B April 2011 fisheries targeting organisms near the top of the pyramid. Perhaps the scoring can be reconsidered? Also, several cases have been documented showing that lobsters (or their absence) may have very major impacts on shaping the biotic components of benthic environments. Examples are provided by Barkai and Branch (1988) and by Mayfield and Branch (2000). The team agrees wholeheartedly with the reviewer that this is a difficult issue to score. In assessing the potential impact of the fishery, the team took the view that the ultimate outcome depends on two issues: i) the role of the population in the ecosystem and ii) the extent to which the fishery depletes the population and thus reduces that role. In terms of the role of lobster in the marine ecosystem, we agree that there are some well- documented cases of significant ecosystem changes due to changes in lobster populations, although we are more familiar with the issue in the context of rock lobsters, as in the Mayfield and Branch reference. We note that in this ecosystem specifically, lobster play a similar trophic role (predator of invertebrates / general scavenger) to other abundant species such as brown crab, dogfish and rays. We also note that the ecosystem is very physically dynamic, and therefore is probably more likely to be structured by bottom-up type forces than by the top-down trophic role of a high trophic level predator. In terms of the reduction of the lobster’s ecosystem role by this fishery, we note that although the impact of fishing is visible in the population size distribution, suggesting a relatively high exploitation rate, there are other factors to take into account: i) no evidence from the fishery or surveys of significant change in biomass of fishable sized lobster over recent years; and ii) by the time the lobsters reach the minimum size of the fishery they are ~5-7 years old, suggesting a large biomass of sub-minimum size lobster. On this basis, the team considered ecosystem impacts ‘highly unlikely’, justifying the 80 score. We agree with the reviewer that the rationale was not well written, and it has been extensively revised along the lines above. 2.5.2 Management strategy Score 80 Based on the comment in 2.5.1, I consider the ecosystem impacts to be unlikely, rather than highly unlikely, as stated in the first sentence of the rationale. The SG80 guidelines are, however, met as there is a partial strategy and there is evidence that it is implemented successfully. 2.5.3 Information / monitoring Score 80 156 | 2147R02B April 2011
Agreed, SG80 fully met. PRINCIPLE 3 3.1 Governance and Policy 3.1.1 Legal and / or customary framework Score 100 Agreed, score at SG100 is justified. 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities Score 100 Agreed, score at SG100 is justified. Comment on SG80 and SG100 guideposts: Too similar and difficult to score objectively. The additions at SG100 are artificial. We agree. P92, 2. French system, 2 nd paragraph: replace ‘Day-t-day’ with ‘Day-to-day” Done 3.1.3 Long term objectives Score 90 The 3 scores are 90 (Granville Bay Treaty), 90 for the French system, and 100 for the Jersey system. The average is therefore 93.3, and the overall score of 90 is somewhat conservative. But a score of 95 is too high? Following Table 7, we kept the score at 90. 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing Score 80 (Basse Normandy); 90 Jersey I fail to see the relevance of the rationale expressed for 3. French system . Based on the last sentence of the rationale (p96, 11 th line from the top) the guidepost should be scored at SG60? Have any of the incentives for 4. Jersey system been taken up? As incentives, they sound a bit weak. SG80? Incentives do not appear to be much of a strong point in either country. Maybe MSC certification will fit neatly into the gap??
157 | 2147R02B April 2011
The other reviewer also commented on this issue. In general terms, the fact that fishermen have security of retention of the licence, including the right to fish, and the right to use a specific pot number. Fishermen all participate in decision-making for the management of the fishery. The decision-making bodies also have their own scientists to advise them on sustainability. We have revised the rationale to reflect these more general issues better. 3.2 Fishery-specific management system 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives Score 80 Agreed – the objectives are there and appear to be consistent with the Principle 1 and 2 (sometimes) outcomes, but they are not put together in a well-defined and measurable plan to the fishery. 80 is a fair score, but it can easily be increased by the clients over a relatively short period, by formalizing the objectives into a clear plan. 3.2.2 Decision making process Score 100 Agreed, SG100 is met. Please correct this on the Table on Page 42, where the score is given as 90. Oops – corrected. The averages were correct. 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement Score 80 (Basse Normandy) 100 (Jersey) 3. French system Is catch reporting required by law? If so, then there is evidence of systematic non- compliance, i.e. the landing and sale of lobsters by smaller vessels without reporting it. It is sobering that >50% of annual reported catch come from 10 out of 57 vessels. Should be scored at SG60, not SG80. A condition should be raised to improve reporting taking place in the smaller harbours along West Cotentin. See discussion of this issue above. Filling out a fiche de pêche or logbook (for vessels >10m) is required by law. The scoring of this PI for Basse Normandie has a complicated history, and was in fact originally scored below 80 due to the concerns cited by the reviewer, although the team did not feel that it amounted to ‘systematic non-compliance’. However, as noted in the
158 | 2147R02B April 2011 rationale, Affaires Maritimes (PAM) dispute the assertion of Ifremer that there is a significant problem, although they agree that it occurs from time to time. The discussion with PAM, who have no particular interest in whether or not the fishery passes this assessment, convinced us, however, that this issue was more marginal than we had originally supposed, and more marginal than it was originally painted in the report. We note, however, that it does affect historical data. As far as the majority of the catch coming from a minority of vessels, this is also true in Jersey and is a consequence firstly of the part-time nature of much of the fishery, and secondly of the mixed species nature of the fishery, with some fishermen specialising in brown crab, others specialising in lobster and still others holding a few pots while using partially or mainly other fishing methods entirely (such as netting for spider crabs or other). P103, 4 th line from the top. Delete the superfluous ‘does’. Done 4. Jersey system Agreed, a score of 100 can be justified. Should be noted that the situation is probably much simpler than in Basse Normandy, as there are not as many small harbours etc. Yes indeed – much simpler, not only because of the coastline but because the Jersey Department of Fisheries have control over all elements of implementing fisheries management, including enforcement. They can decide directly when and where to carry out enforcement, with lobster as the main species of interest. In Basse Normandie, enforcement is outside the control of the CRPMBN, and must compete with other important fisheries, including some perceived to have much more significant enforcement problems. P103. First para under 4. Jersey system: enclose ….(Senior Fisheries Inspector and 5 full time staff appointed as Fishery Officers)… in parenthesis. Done 3.2.4 Research Plan Score 75 Agreed. The research is being done, it just needs to be formalized into a strategy. The Condition is fair. P106, under 2. French system , 1 st line. Delete superfluous ‘fishery’
159 | 2147R02B April 2011
Done 3.2.5 Management and management performance evaluation Score 80 SG80 is well met. Annexes 2 - 6 No comments. Used as supportive information on methodology and scoring. REFERENCES Barkai A, Branch GM (1988). The influence of predation and substratal complexity on recruitment to settlement plates: a test of the theory of alternative states. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 124(3): 215-137. Mayfield S, Branch GM (2000). Interrelations among rock lobsters, sea urchins, and juvenile abalone: implications for community management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(11): 2175–2185 END OF PEER REVIEW
160 | 2147R02B April 2011
Annex 6 - References Web references Basse Normandie Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins www.comite-peches.fr Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes de Basse-Normandie www.crpbn.fr Comité des Pêcheurs Amateurs Granvillais – CPAG http://cpagranville.net Délégation à la Mer et au Littoral de Basse-Normandie - DML http://www.affaires-maritimes.basse-normandie.equipement.gouv.fr/ Direction départementales des territoires et de la mer (DDTM - Manche) http://www.manche.equipement.gouv.fr/ Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement (DREAL) de Basse-Normandie http://www.basse-normandie.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/ Ifremer www.ifremer.fr http://www.legrenelle-mer.fr Ministère de l'alimentation de l'agriculture et de la pêche, Directiondes Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture (DPMA) http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/thematiques/peche- aquaculture Ministére de l’écologie, de l’énergie, du développement durable et de la mer (MEEDDM) http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr Natura 2000– Chausey SAC and SPA site in http://natura2000.environnement.gouv.fr/sites/FR2500079.html Normandie Fraîcheur Mer www.nfm.fr Préfecture maritime de la Manche et de la mer du Nord http://www.premar-manche.gouv.fr/ Syndicat Mixte d'Equipement du Littoral (Manche) – SMEL http://www.smel.fr/ Syndicat Mixte des Espaces Littoraux de la Manche – SYMEL http://www.symel.fr/ partner in the Maia project for Chausey “cantonnements”. Jersey States of Jersey http://www.gov.je/ States of Jersey Fisheries and Marine Resources http://www.gov.je/INDUSTRY/FARMINGFISHING/FISHING/Pages/index.aspx Jersey Coastguards http://www.portofjersey.je/JerseyCoastguard/Environment/Pages/FishingExclusion Zones.aspx Others Cites http://www.cites.org/fra/index.shtml?reloaded=true Marine Stewardship Council www.msc.org Ramsar Information Sheets http://ramsar.wetlands.org
161 | 2147R02B April 2011
References 1 MSC 2009. Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework, version 2, 31 July 2009. 2 Journal Officiel de la République Française. Loi n° 91-411 du 2 mai 1991 relative à l'organisation interprofessionnelle des pêches maritimes et des élévages marins et à l’organisation de la conchyliculture - faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/Fra10501.pdf 3 Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1984, revised Revised Edition 14.825 showing the law as at 1 January 2007 and subordinate regulations below. Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1998 Sea Fisheries (Minimum Size Limits)(Jersey) Regulations 2001 Sea Fisheries (Underwater Fishing)(Jersey) Regulations 2003 Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment No4)(Jersey) Regulations 2007 Sea Fisheries (Les Minquiers) (Jersey) Regulations 2007 Sea Fisheries (Logbooks and Landing Declarations)(Jersey) Regulations 2007 Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment No5)(Jersey) Regulations 2009 4 Granville Bay Treaty, 2000. Agreement concerning the Fishing in the Bay of Granville 5 Birt, M. 2000. A fishy tale, Jersey and Guernsey Law Review 4(3) 5pp. 6 Palomares, M.L.D. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2010. SeaLifeBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.sealifebase.org, version (05/2010) 7 Laurans, M. and V. Legrand, 2010. Situation du stock de homard dans le golfe Normano-Breton. Estimation d’un indice d’abondance. Rapport Ifremer Brest, Laboratoire LBH Mars 2010 – STH/LBH/ 10-002, 15pp. 8 Jørstad KE and Farestveid E 1999. Population genetic structure in lobster ( Homarus gammarus ) in Norway, and implications for enhancement and sea-ranching operations. Aquaculture 173, 447-457. 9 Fogarty MJ 1998. Implications of migration and larval interchange in American lobster in Homarus americanus : spatial structure and resilience. Proceedings of the North Pacific Symposium on Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Management; National Research Council of Canada. 10 Bertrand, J. 1982. Données sur la distribution des larves de homard ( Homarus gammarus L.) dans le Golfe Normano-Breton. ICES C.M. 1982/K:32. 11 Bossy, S.F. & Morel, G.M. 2001. Do continuing high catch rates for the European lobster, Homarus gammarus L., around Jersey, Channel Islands in an area of a large tidal gyre suggest that hydrographic mechanisms are at work in addition to the normal recruitment processes ?. Life Histories, Assessment and Management of Crustacean Fisheries, A Coruna, Spain. October 8 - 12 th 2001. 12 Pingree, R.D. and Mardell, G.T. 1987. Tidal flows around the Channel Islands. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK, 67:691-707. 162 | 2147R02B April 2011
13 Fisheries and Marine Resources, annual report 2009. Fisheries & Marine Resources, Planning and Environment Department, Environment Division, Howard Davis Farm, Trinity, Jersey, April 2010 14 JNCC. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) www.jncc.gov.uk/ , UK23001 South East Coast of Jersey, UK23002 Les Minquiers Jersey, UK23003 Les Écréhous & Les Dirouilles, Jersey, UK23004 Les Pierres de Lecq (the Paternosters) Jersey, Channel Islands 15 see Natura 2000– Chausey site info (accessed 10 July 2010) http://natura2000.environnement.gouv.fr/sites/FR2500079.html 16 Birdlife IBA factsheet, consulted June 2010 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SitHTMDetails.asp&sid=21 90&m=0 17 Jackson, E.L. 2003. Importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species around Jersey. PhD. University of Plymouth. 18 Inventaire des Zones Naturelles d'Intérêt Ecologique Faunistique et Floristique : ZNIEFF n° 0000 0008 - Archipel de Chausey. DIREN de Basse-Normandie Chausey form http://www.basse-normandie.ecologie.gouv.fr/pdf/ZPS04f.PDF 19 The European Bird (79/409/CE) and Habitats (92/43/CE) Directives underpin the designation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas and are integrated at French national level in the “Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité – Plan d'action “Mer” - 2008-2009” from http://www.sgmer.gouv.fr/article.php3?id_article=84 20 Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Third edition, as adopted by Resolution VII.11 (COP7, 1999) and amended by Resolutions VII.13 (1999), VIII.11 and VIII.33 (COP8, 2002), IX.1 Annexes A and B (COP9, 2005), and X.20 (COP10, 2008); from http://www.ramsar.org/ 21 DDAF Cherbourg arrêté 21/2006 du le 17 02 2006 fixe pour le département de la Manche de nouvelles règles pour la pêche maritime de loisir pratiquée à pied, à la nage ou en plongée et tableau synthétique: Tailles de capture, périodes de pêche, engins autorisés et quantités maximales de pêche par jour et par pêcheur pour les espèces de coquillages, poissons, crustacés et cephalopods from http://www.crpbn.fr/comite- regional-peche-loisir-reglementation.html 22 Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment No5) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 prohibiting selling of sea fish coming from unlicensed fishing boat 23 Sea Fisheries (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations 1998 Revised Edition 1January2008: 8B 24 Morel, G, 2009. Juvenile Lobster Project Assessment 2009. Jersey Fisheries and marine resources draft report, 8pp.
163 | 2147R02B April 2011
25 CRPM-BN, 2010. Presentation to the Comité de gestion de l'archipel de Chausey -10 février 2010 (in French) regarding Lobster monitoring inside and outside no-take zone, juveniles and lost gear. 26 CRPM Basse Normandie, 2009. Conclusions de la Commission CRUSTACES Ste MERE, le 5 septembre 2009, obtained from CRPM. 27 Explanatory memorandum on the Agreement between the UK and France concerning fishing in the Bay of Granville, Presented to Parliament in 2004. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/publications-and-documents/treaty-command-papers- ems/explanatory-memoranda/explanatory-memoranda-2004/FishingGranville 28 Fisheries Management Agreement between UK Fisheries Department and the Fisheries Committee of the States of Jersey, 16 August 1996. 29 Direction régionale des affaires maritimes de Haute-Normandie. 2009. Arrêté n°161/2009 rendant obligatoire la délibération n°EXP-CR 15MW/2009 du Comité régional des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins de Basse-Normandie portant création de la licence crustacés en Manche Ouest et organisation de cette pêche. 30 MSC, 2010. Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Certification Methodology v6.1, May 2010, 46pp. 46pp. from http://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/methodologies/msc- fishery-certification-methodology 31 Rice, J.C., and P.L. Connolly, 2007. Fisheries management strategies: an introduction by the Conveners. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:577-579. 32 Planning and Environment Business Plan 2009, States of Jersey, 63pp. 33 Ifremer. 2009. Synthèse des flottilles de pêche 2007 - Façade Mer du Nord – Manche. Flottille des caseyeurs. Système d'information halieutiques. 34 CRPM-SMEL, 2008. Suivi du cantonnements à homards de Blainville sur mer – 12 au 16 mai 2008, et bilan 2006-2008. Powerpoint presentation report, 22 slides. 35 CRPM-SMEL, 2010. Chausey suivi homard. Powerpoint presentation report to the Comité de gestion de l’archipel de Chausey – 10 février 2010, 32 slides. 36 Guide Pêche de crustacés en Basse Normandie, http://www.crpbn.fr/comite-regional- peche-casiers.php (consulted 10 July 2010). 37 States of Jersey Recreational fishing - Pêche de loisir Guide à la legislation - in French and English – from http://www.gov.je/Environment/LandMarineWildlife/FishShellfish/Pages/Lobster.aspx (consulted 10 July 2010). 38 Article L. 411-1 du Code de l’environnement from http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000022495748&idSe ctionTA=LEGISCTA000022495753&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074220&dateTexte= 20100727 (accessed 10July 2010)
164 | 2147R02B April 2011
39 The Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000 http://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce/consolidated/22/22.450_Cons ervationofWildlifeLaw2000_RevisedEdition_1January2010.htm (accessed 10July 2010) 40 States of Jersey, 2008. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy, 42p. 41 States of Jersey Biodiversity Action Plans 42 States of Jersey, 2008. European lobster Homarus gammarus Biology and regulations in Jersey, leaflet. 43 Cobb J.S. and Phillips B.F. (eds) 1981. The Biology and Management of Lobsters – Volume II: Ecology and Management. Academic Press, New York. 44 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 45 JAC minutes, March 2008 and March 2010. 46 See http://www.premar- manche.gouv.fr/services/prefecture/virtual/10_rub_prefecture_prefet/e- docs/00/00/20/3B/document_prefecture.php for the remit of the Préfet Maritime. 47 Décret n°92-335 du 30 mars 1992 fixant les règles d'organisation et de fonctionnement du CNPMEM ainsi que des CRPMEM et CLPMEM appliquant la Loi n°91-411 du 2 mai 1991. 48 The States of Jersey Scrutiny Website, example for the proposed regulation on Sea Fisheries Bag Limits for a number of species (including lobsters) caught by recreational fishermen (accessed 23 July 2010): http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/review.asp?reviewid=118 49 Blue Book Commitments of the Oceans Round Table (Grenelle de la Mer) July 10th and 15th, 2009 from http://www.legrenelle-mer.gouv.fr/spip.php?rubrique61 50 from the Fisheries and Marine Resources Panel page of the States of Jersey official website http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/PlanningEnvironment/AdvisoryGroups/Pag es/FisheriesManagement.aspx consulted 5 July 2010. 51 CRPMEM-Basse Normandie, Février 2010. Interreg IVb de l’Arc Atlantique: Projet “MAIA”, 2 pages. 52 Fisheries and Marine Resources Advisory Panel, minutes of the 16 September and 25 November 2009 meeting. 53 Rural Initiative Scheme (RIS) Guidelines (Revised October 2009) 54 States of Jersey Strategic Plan 2006-2011. 55 Ifremer, 2009. Grands invertébrés et poissons observés par les campagnes scientifiques. Bilan 2007. Ifremer, Nantes, EMH : 09-002. 103 p.
165 | 2147R02B April 2011
56 PML Applications Ltd, 2009. Review of the current ecological status of the SE coast Jersey Ramsar site, 84p. 57 Miller RJ and Hannah CG 2006. Eggs per recruit as a management indicator for the Canadian lobster fishery. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2655, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Canada. Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/325129.pdf.
166 | 2147R02B April 2011