Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Announcement Comment Draft Report
Hiroshima Hanging Pacific Oyster Enhanced Fishery
On Behalf of
Hiroshima Bay Oyster HOC Group (Kurahashijima Kaisan Co., Ltd. Dairyo Co., Ltd. Aya Suisan Co., Ltd. Amibun Kaisan Yoneda Kaisan Co.,Ltd. Kawasaki Suisan Co., Ltd.)
Prepared by
Control Union (UK) Limited
June 2021 Authors: Dr Hugh Jones Yoko Tamura
Control Union (UK) Limited.
56 High Street, Lymington, Hampshire, SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 Email: [email protected] Website: http://uk.controlunion.com
Contents
CONTENTS ...... 5 QA ...... 7
GLOSSARY ...... 8
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9
2 REPORT DETAILS ...... 11 2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 11 2.2 Version details ...... 12
3 UNIT(S) OF ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION ...... 13 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 13 3.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) ...... 14 3.3 Scope of assessment in relation to enhanced fisheries ...... 14 3.3.1 Classification in terms of Bivalve Enhanced fishery type ...... 17
4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS OVERVIEW ...... 19 4.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 19 4.2 Principle level scores ...... 19 4.3 Summary of conditions ...... 19 4.4 Recommendations ...... 20
5 SCORING ...... 21 5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 21 5.2 Fishery overview ...... 22 5.2.1 Client fishery ...... 22 5.2.2 The Hiroshima oyster fishery history ...... 24 5.2.3 UoA gear, methods and operation of the fishery...... 25 5.2.4 Fishing management ...... 29
6 TRACEABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY ...... 32 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 32 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 32 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 34 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody 35 6.5 Principle 1...... 36 6.5.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 36 6.5.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 37 6.6 Principle 2...... 38
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 5
6.6.1 Primary species ...... 38 6.6.2 Secondary species ...... 38 6.6.3 ETP species ...... 38 6.6.4 Habitats ...... 47 6.6.5 Ecosystem ...... 63 6.6.6 Cumulative impacts ...... 74 6.6.7 Scoring elements ...... 75 6.6.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 76 6.7 Principle 3...... 122 6.7.1 Legal and customary framework ...... 122 6.7.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 122 6.7.3 Decision making processes ...... 126 6.7.4 Fishery Right Use Rules ...... 127 6.7.5 Long term goals and fishery specific objectives ...... 130 6.7.6 Compliance and enforcement ...... 139 6.7.7 Management performance evaluation ...... 140 6.7.8 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 141
7 REFERENCES ...... 166
8 APPENDICES ...... 171
APPENDIX 1 ASSESSMENT INFORMATION...... 172 Appendix 1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 173
APPENDIX 2 EVALUATION PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES ...... 174 Appendix 2.1 Site visits ...... 174 Appendix 2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 174 Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author...... 174 Appendix 2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 175
APPENDIX 3 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 177
APPENDIX 4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT – DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE ...... 178
APPENDIX 5 CONDITIONS – DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE ...... 179 Appendix 5.1 New Conditions - delete if not applicable ...... 179
APPENDIX 6 CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 180
APPENDIX 7 SURVEILLANCE ...... 181
APPENDIX 8 HARMONISED FISHERY ASSESSMENTS ...... 182
APPENDIX 9 OBJECTION PROCEDURE ...... 182
APPENDIX 10 ENDANGERED SPECIES ENCOUNTER MANUAL ...... 183
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 6
QA ACDR
Role Signature and date Date Originator: H Jones 10th May 2021 Reviewer: H Ernst 11th May 2021 Approver: T Tsuzaki 24th June 2021
PCDR
Role Signature and date Date Originator: Reviewer: Approver:
FR
Role Signature and date Date Originator: Reviewer: Approver:
PCR
Role Signature and date Date Originator: Reviewer: Approver:
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 7
Glossary
Acronym Definition AAAQ Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity CAG Catch and Grow Chl.a Chlorophyll a. CMS Convention on Migratory Species COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CU UK Control Union UK DO Dissolved Oxygen EBSA Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas ETP Endangered Threatened or Protected FA Fisheries Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FC Fishery Cooperative FCA Fisheries Cooperative Association FCP Fisheries Certification Process FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements FGIP Fisheries Ground Improvement Plan FMW Fresh Meat Weight HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point HOAFCA Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture FCA HOC Hiroshima Bay Oyster HOC Group (the client group) HOPSC Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MLIT Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport MSC Marine Stewardship Council PI Performance Indicator
SG Scoring Guidepost SI Scoring Issue UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Environment
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 8
1 Executive Summary
This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) for the MSC full assessment of the Hiroshima Bay Oyster Co-operative Fishery, by the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Control Union UK (CU UK).
The fishery under assessment consists of rope grown oysters on rafts by members of the Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative, that exclusively use oyster spat caught on spat collection lines from within the Hiroshima Bay area.
This fishery is an enhanced ‘catch and grow’ bivalve fishery, using habitat modification, without translocation. Since the fishery has no impact on the parent stock (and may even enhance the natural stock biomass through additional spat fall), Principle 1 is not scored (see Section 3.3.1). The fishery does not involve translocations, so there was no need to score the fishery against the genetic outcome PIs. Since this fishery is a catch-and-grow fishery based solely on spat collection (as opposed to dredging), without translocation, Primary and Secondary species components are also not scored (see Section 3.3.1 and 6.6).
Management of oyster production in Japan falls mainly under the purview of the Hiroshima prefectural government guided by national law. The national legislation such as the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Resources Protection Act, the Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law and prefectural fisheries coordination rules provide the major framework for the fishery management administered by the prefecture. The implementation measures of the regulations among each fishery are devolved to Fishery Co-operatives as self-management.
In general, the key strengths of the fishery are:
1. There is no known direct interaction with any ETP species the Indo-Pacific finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) due to the nature of the fishery, nonetheless, there appears to be an effective monitoring system in place.
2. Despite the fishery taking place in a eutrophic environment, there is evidence that environmental monitoring is in place and the UoA impact is not hindering habitat or ecosystem recovery.
4. The prefectural government evaluations of the FC administration records show good compliance. There is also regular evaluation of environmental data jointly collected or provided by the FC and/or by the prefectural scientists.
5. An effective national legal system and binding procedures are in place for the fishery.
This fishery does not overlap with any other MSC certified fisheries, although it shares commonalities in the national legislation. This will be checked by the team and full harmonisation as required will be undertaken after the site visit.
At the ACDR stage, information appears to be sufficient to score most Performance Indicators (PIs) for the fishery under Principle 2 against the MSC standard. For Principle 3 a large number of documents and processes need to be checked to finalise scores and as such scores in this Principle are low but expected to change following submissions and evidence provided at the site visit, this is detailed in the scoring tables. In accordance with MSC FCPv2.2 G7.10.2.e, where limited information was
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 9
available to provide a draft scoring range for a PI, a more precautionary score was awarded, in some cases resulting in scores of 60-79.
Draft determination to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage
The executive summary shall include:
- Date and location of site visit. - The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation. - From Public Comment Draft Report reporting stage only - the draft determination / determination reached with supporting justification.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.12, 7.18, 7.21
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 10
2 Report Details
2.1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers
Authors:
The assessment team for this assessment consisted of Yoko Tamura (P2, P3) and Dr Hugh Jones (P2, Team Leader).
Hugh Jones – Team Leader and Principle 2
Dr Hugh Jones (Team Leader): Hugh Jones has a PhD in Ecotoxicology and strong background in marine research including publications and reports on ecotoxicology, environmental risk assessments and fisheries research. Prior to joining CU (UK) he was employed as a fisheries scientist in the development of an empirical harvest strategy for commercial abalone fisheries and fisheries assessments of estuarine bivalves including oysters. This included work on population metrics (recruitment, growth), harvest dynamics (catch rates, market selectivity), and the use of fine scale geospatial techniques as performance measures to assess stock sustainability. He has published stock assessment reports on three species of bivalves including oysters, carpet shells and abalone. Some of these species stock assessments were externally reviewed as part of the Status of Australian Fish Stocks program. The stock assessment techniques used included development of empirical harvest strategy control rules and estimations of MSY and reference points. Dr Jones has completed the required Fishery Team Leader MSC training modules for the new V2.01 Fisheries Certification and V2.2 process requirements. Hugh has completed ISO9001 training in 2019.
Hugh Jones has >8 years’ experience of fishing impact on ecosystem dynamics, including ecosystem surveys and bycatch sampling in bivalves / gastropod fisheries. In addition, he has > 4 years’ experience as a Principle 2 assessor with MSC projects. His work includes analysis of water column abiotic and biotic attributes which determine the functional ecology of fish species. He has secured research funding for ecological studies of fish populations in relation to climate change, which consider the coupling between demersal and pelagic pathways. He has participated in more than 30 MSC assessments and audits in the past four years.
Yoko Tamura
Ms Tamura is a fisheries and marine environment consultant working on broad topics on coastal management issues in Japan and globally. Her expertise spans coastal resources management, sustainable fisheries and international collaboration on marine conservation, and she has significant current knowledge of the country, language, policy and local fishery context. Previously, she worked as a technical expert for Japan International Cooperation Agency on oversea cooperation projects, and NGOs such as Conservation International and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. Ms Tamura holds a MA in Marine Affairs from the University of Washington and a BSc. in Marine Resource Management from the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology. Yoko’s previous MSC experience includes 5 Japanese MSC full assessments including Japan's first MSC fishery, the Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery Federation flathead flounder fishery. She has also participated in various pre-assessments and surveillance audits mostly for Japanese fisheries. Yoko was responsible for both Principle 2 and Principle 3. Yoko is Japanese and meets the requirement in table PC3 for: Current knowledge of the country, language and local fishery context.
Peer Reviewers:
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 11
The MSC Peer Review College will compile a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for this fishery. Three peer reviewers will be selected from the list:
Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage
A summary of their experience and qualifications is available via this link: Enter link
The report shall contain:
- Names of team members. - Specification of which person is the team leader. - Names of the peer reviewers. - Statement that peer reviewers can be viewed on the assessment downloads page on the MSC website.
If the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery the report shall state which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.6, 7.14, Annex PC
2.2 Version details
Table 1. Fisheries programme documents versions
Document Version number MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2 MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01 MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1 MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 12
3 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification
3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)
To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
The report shall include a statement of the CABs determination that the fishery is within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard. For geographical area, the CAB should refer to G 7.5.6
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.4 and 7.5
CU (UK) confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 and 7.5 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2):
• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal (FCP v2.2. 7.4.2.1); • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.2); • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.3); • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years (FCP v2.2. 7.4.2.4); • Has the client or client group been successfully prosecuted for shark finning in the last 2 years (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.10); • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery (FCP v2.2 7.4.2.11 and 7.4.2.11iii); • The fishery is an enhanced fishery (MSC FCP v2.2 7.4.2.12) and its status in this regard is considered under section3.3; • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery (ISBF) (MSC FCP v2.2 7.4.2.13). Crassostrea gigas the Japanese (OR Pacific) oyster is native to Japan.
CU (UK) confirms that the client group has submitted the completed ‘Certificate Holder Forced and Child Labour Policies, Practices and Measures Template’ prior to the start of this assessment.
The proposed Unit of Assessments (UoA) are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Unit(s) of Assessments (UoA).
Species Crassostrea gigas - Pacific oyster
Stock Hiroshima Bay sub-population of Pacific oyster
Geographical range of fishery FAO area 61 Hiroshima Bay in the Seto Inland Sea
Fishing Gear Type and, if relevant, Spat collection - Hanging culture vessel type(s) Oyster Strengthening – hanging culture Outgrowth – Raft suspension / hanging culture
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 13
Client group Hiroshima Bay Oyster HOC Group (Hiroshima Oyster Co-operative comprising (but not limited to Kurahashijima Kaisan Co., Ltd., Dairyo Co., Ltd., Aya Suisan Co., Ltd., Amibun Kaisan, Yoneda Kaisan Co., Ltd and Kawasaki Suisan Co., Ltd.)
Other eligible fishers None the certificate is open only to members of the Hiroshima Bay Oyster HOC Group
3.2 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)
If there are changes to the proposed Unit(s) of Certification (UoC), the CAB shall include in the report a justification.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5
Table 3. Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)
Species
Stock
Geographical range of fishery
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel type(s)
Client group
3.3 Scope of assessment in relation to enhanced fisheries
As per the requirements of 7.2.10.j. A CAB must assess each enhancement activity undertaken by the fishery and provide a documented rationale for the determination that the fishery is within scope. The fisheries considered as part of this assessment are considered as ‘catch and grow’ fisheries, using habitat modification (rafts and collection plates). The fishery is based on a three stage catch, grow and harvest process:
• Oyster spat is collected from the plankton present in Hiroshima Bay using scallop shells as spat collectors; • The spat collectors are then rewired (wire string is changed with a stronger wire to support full grown oysters and larger spacings and built between scallop shells) and moved to tidal areas within Hiroshima Bay for strengthening (conditioning); • The strings of juvenile oysters attached on scallop shells are hung under bamboo rafts at a third location in Hiroshima Bay to allow growth to full size. The fully grown oysters are harvested from these locale. With regards to criteria Ai-Aiii: the system relies upon the capture of oyster spat from the wild environment on hung scallop shells. C. gigas is native to the geographic region of the fishery (Hiroshima Prefecture), and the spat collected comes from natural spat fall. Spat collection makes use
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 14
of floating devices that provide a surface area (suspended scallop shells) for the wild oyster spat to settle and grow on (catch and grow). These spat collectors provide additional habitat to that already in Hiroshima Bay. Stage two - oyster conditioning / hardening occurs on the same medium scallop shells and the final grow-out phase takes place on suspended oyster rafts within the same system and water body. The collection of spat and further on-growing is considered an enhanced fishery of the type HM (Habitat Modified). Natural oyster spat normally settles on substrates in the water or on the sea floor.
At no point is there augmentation of the food supply, nor does the fishery routinely require disease prevention involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties, meeting criteria Bi and Bii. Habitat impacts (criteria C) are reversible (and will be further discussed under PI 2.4).
The criteria for determining whether the fishery is enhanced and within-scope are shown in Table 4. Based on the attributes of the fishery described above and below the assessment team believes the fishery qualifies for criteria Ai-Aiii (this is not a hatch-and-catch fishery), B, and C.
Table 4. MSC scope criteria for enhanced fisheries and analysis for the UoAs under assessment.
A Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock Analysis
At some point in the production process, the system relies upon the capture of fish from The system relies upon the capture of oysters from the wild environment (Hiroshima Bay) and grows the wild environment. Such fish may be taken them from spat to consumer-size within the same i at any stage of the life cycle including eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. The ‘wild ecosystem. environment’ in this context includes marine, Scope is met. freshwater and any other aquatic ecosystems.
The species are native to the geographic C. gigas is native to the geographic region of the region of the fishery and the natural fishery (Hiroshima Bay local sub-population), and the production areas from which the fishery’s spat collected comes from natural spat fall from wild
catch originates unless MSC has accepted a and cultured oysters. variation request to include introduced species for the pilot phase. Scope is met.
The grow-out of the oysters takes place on the suspended oyster farms, and oyster seed needed for the suspended oyster fishery is collected on the same systems. Spat is collected annually from the water There are natural reproductive components of column, the spat is likely a combination of the wild the stock from which the fishery’s catch
originates that maintain themselves without oyster brood stock with additional contribution from the oysters cultured on the rafts. All components are having to be restocked every year representative of the natural reproduction of the stock.
Scope is met.
Where fish stocking is used in hatch-and-catch N/A (HAC) systems, such stocking does not form a
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 15
A Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock Analysis
major part of a current rebuilding plan for depleted stocks.
Note:
This requirement shall apply to the “current” status of the fishery. Wild stocks shall be managed by other conventional means. If rebuilding has been done by stocking in the past, it shall not result in an out-of-scope determination as long as other measures are now in place
B Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock:
The production system operates without substantial augmentation of food supply. In HAC systems, any feeding is used only to grow the animals to a small size prior to release (not more than 10% of the average adult maximum weight), such that most of the total growth It is a CAG system, where feeding is by natural means (not less than 90%) is achieved during the wild i (filter feeding). phase. In catch-and-grow (CAG) systems, feeding during the captive phase is only by Scope is met. natural means (e.g. filter feeding in mussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenance of condition (e.g. crustacean in holding tanks) rather than to achieve growth.
It is a series of CAG systems in open water (Hiroshima In CAG systems, production during the captive Bay) there is no captive phase. No disease prevention phase does not routinely require disease involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal ii prevention involving chemicals or compounds prophylactic properties takes place. with medicinal prophylactic properties. Scope is met.
C Habitat and ecosystem impacts
Any modifications to the habitat of the stock Spat collection makes use of floating devices that are reversible and do not cause serious or provide a surface area (scallop shells) for the wild irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s i oyster spat to settle and grow on this is the habitat structure and function. modification (HM). These modifications are reversible, by removing the systems (anchors, rafts) Note: from the seabed. The rafts are moved by fishers
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 16
A Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock Analysis
Habitat modifications that are not reversible, regularly depending on season and the maturity of are already in place and are not created the oysters. specifically for the fishery shall be in scope. This includes: In PI 2.4.1 the effect of the farms on the habitat are discussed. Though there may be effects underneath Large-scale artificial reefs. the sites as a result of organic build-up, these are thought to be limited, and reversible as well, and if Structures associated with enhancement required, could be mitigated through sea floor activities that do not cause irreversible harm cultivation. to the natural ecosystem inhabited by the stock, such as salmon fry farms next to river Scope is met. systems.
3.3.1 Classification in terms of Bivalve Enhanced fishery type
SB2.1.2 - Is there evidence that an enhanced catch-and-grow (CAG) bivalve fishery negatively impacts the parent stock?
Nakagawa et al., (2010) conducted a genetic study on three Pacific oyster groups (Buzen, Hiroshima and Miyagi) with microsatellite DNA markers and showed that they are genetically independent sub- populations. Sekino et al., (2003) also indicated that the genetic impact of cultured Pacific oysters has negligible influence on the wild population around Japan. Ha et al., (2006) described that the genetic variability of cultured oysters in Hiroshima Bay remained at the same level as the wild oyster, and both populations share the same gene. Cultured oysters with a raft hanging system also spawn at least once after eight months in age (and up to three times depending on the culture length), prior to harvest, and therefore also contribute to the recruitment to the wild population, thereby having potentially beneficial effects on the wild population. Of interest: there is no commercial wild oyster harvesting in Hiroshima prefecture.
SB2.1.3 - Is there translocation?
Translocation impact concerns focus on genetic impacts and disease introduction. Hiroshima is recognised as a genetic sub-population for Pacific oyster (Nakagawa et al., 2010). The main culture sites, including the UoAs, in Hiroshima prefecture are concentrated in Hiroshima Bay and Hiro Bay and fall in the geographic area at ~50 km radius. The oysters are moved twice during their 3-stage production within this area (after settlement and after conditioning) but there is no translocation between regions. Although the oysters are physically moved during their production, they do not leave the Hiroshima Bay ecosystem and therefore team does not consider translocation requirements to be involved. All movement is within the same ecological environment, and there is no indication of genetic of disease introduction impacts as per Ha et al., (2006).
Based on the above, the team has determined that as neither SB2.1.2 or SB2.1.3 are satisfied Principle 1 need not be scored as per SB2.1.4.
Since this fishery is a catch-and-grow fishery based solely on spat collection, without translocation, Principle 1 and Primary and Secondary species components of Principle 2 are not required to be scored as per SB 3.1.1. The fishery will be assessed according to the Figure GSB5 of FCR 2.01 - Figure 1:
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 17
Figure 1. Enhanced catch and growth bivalve fishery based solely on spat-collection (source: Figure GSB5 in FCR 2.01)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 18
4 Assessment results overview
4.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement
To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage
The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.
The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision maker in response to the determination recommendation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 7.20.3 h and 7.21
4.2 Principle level scores
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report
The report shall include scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17
Table 5. Principle level scores
Principle Score UoA 1 UoA 2 UoA 3 UoA 4 UoA 5 UoA 6 Principle 1 – Target N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Species Principle 2 –
Ecosystem Impacts Principle 3 –
Management System
4.3 Summary of conditions
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
The report shall include a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the report shall include a statement confirming this.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18
Table 6. Summary of conditions
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 19
Related to Deadline Exceptional Carried over previous Condition Performance Condition Circumstances? from condition? number Indicator (PI) Pervious Certificate? Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA Yes/No Yes / No / NA Yes / No / NA
4.4 Recommendations
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 20
5 Scoring
5.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
The following scores are preliminary scores derived from the information made available prior to the site visit. In accordance with MSC FCPv2.2 G7.10.2.e, where limited information was available to provide a draft scoring range for a Performance Indicator, a more precautionary score was awarded, in some cases resulting in a score of < 60. It is expected that, with the provision of information during the site visit, some scores will increase.
Table 7. Performance Indicator scores. Wt is weight.
Princi- Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score ple
2.1.1 Outcome 0.33 N/A Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.33 N/A species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 N/A 2.2.1 Outcome 0.33 N/A Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.33 N/A species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 N/A 2.3.1 Outcome 0.33 ≥80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.33 60-79 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.33 ≥80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.33 ≥80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.33 60-79 2.4.3 Information 0.33 ≥80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.33 ≥80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.33 ≥80 2.5.3 Information 0.33 ≥80 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 ≥80 Governance 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.33 60-79 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.33 60-79 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 60-79 Three Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 60-79 management 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 60-79 system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 60-79 performance evaluation
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 21
5.2 Fishery overview
5.2.1 Client fishery
Hiroshima Bay is an enclosed bay within the Seto Inland Sea on the Pacific coast of Japan (Figure 2). It is broadly divided into two areas (North and South) with the north area receiving significant freshwater flow from rivers (e.g. Ohta river) and having an urban coastline (Hiroshima City).
Figure 2. Location of Hiroshima Bay in Japan and the sub-division of the bay into North and South areas. The Hiroshima oyster culture area is divided into 293 oyster production sites/permits, within which 124 sites are specifically designated for strengthening. The production sites are spread from Hiroshima Bay, Hiro Bay and Mitsu Bay (about 50 km from the centre of Hiroshima Bay and not part of the UoA) (Figure 3). The overall set of production sites and the UoA footprint (by lease) is shown in Figure 4.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 22
Figure 3. Oyster bed information chart for 2020-21 season. Source HOC.
Figure 4. Oyster leases in Hiroshima Bay. The dotted lines show the raft areas of the Hiroshima prefecture with those highlighted in pink being the UoA raft leases. Source: HOC 2021.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 23
5.2.2 The Hiroshima oyster fishery history
Hiroshima Bay, including its adjacent area, is one of the most important oysters farming areas in Japan, with oyster culture dating back ~ 500 years1 (Fujiya, 1970). Hiroshima Bay oysters are a famous delicacy throughout Japan and in the 1970s produced approximately 60 % - 65 % of the national total largely thanks to the combination of a sheltered location and raft technology (Fujiya, 1970). From the 1960s, the Hiroshima oyster production increased to 30,000 t fresh meat weight (FMW) by virtue of the once novel hanging raft technology using bamboo. However, in 1969 and 1970, the oyster production decreased because of the red tide outbreak and dense settlement of serpulid worm (Hirata and Akashige, 2004). By the 1970s, the volume of production recovered to 30,000 t when modern day hanging culture method by rafts of bamboo called ‘Ikadashiki Suika’ took hold in Hiroshima Bay (Moriyasu et al., 2018) and became the dominant production type. The production values remained ~30,000 t during the 1980s. However, the 1990’s outbreak of red tide by Heterocapsa circularisquama rapidly reduced production, and shellfish poisoning events prevented harvest (Hirata and Akashige, 2004). By the end of the 1990’s production was ~16,000 t and raft numbers increased to >1,260 following the change to a 3-year culture (described below) and the need for additional rafts.
In the 1960s, oysters were produced by a combination of the 1 and 2-year culture methods. Only a 2- year-culture method was used from the 1970s to the beginning of the 1980s. In the latter half of the 1980s, the 3-year culture method had been introduced in addition to the 2-year-culture method, and its ratio has increased after the consecutive outbreak of shellfish poisoning in the 1990’s.
For the 1-year-culture method "Waka", oyster spats are collected in the summer, grown in the winter, and harvested before the following summer (less than 12 months old). In the 2-year-culture method, named "Yokusei" and "Ikisu", oyster spats are hardened on intertidal racks for 2 to 3 months and 6 to 10 months, respectively, following spat collection in the summer. The hardened oysters are then grown under rafts over the next summer and harvested during the following harvest season (at 13-23 months old). In the 3-year-culture method, "Nokoshi", oyster spats are hardened by the same method as in the "Yokusei" method above, but instead grown over two summers and harvested during the following harvest season (25- 35 months old) (Hirata and Akashige, 2004).
As well as changes in production methods, spat collection and raft hanging culture sites have also changed over time. Until the 1970’s, spat collection was undertaken on the tidal flats and rafts existed in the near shore regions. Since the 1990’s, shellfish poisoning events linked to Alexandrium spp., mortality induced by the harmful dinoflagellate Heterocapsa circularisquama and typhoon events (Hirata and Akashige, 2004) forced producers to move out to offshore areas. Spat collection on tidal areas also became limited by the development of coastal areas (increased surface of reclaimed land) on the northern shore of Hiroshima Bay.
1 http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/suisansc/kaki_rekisi.html
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 24
Figure 5. Changes in cultured oyster annual production by fresh meat weight (FMW) in Hiroshima Prefecture. Source: Hirata and Akashige (Hirata and Akashige, 2004).
5.2.3 UoA gear, methods and operation of the fishery.
Oyster settlement on to hard substrate occurs following ~2 weeks of planktonic life. This occurs during the summer in Hiroshima Bay and spat collection is conducted at this time (mid-July-mid-September). Large-scale spat collection is accomplished by suspending multiple scallop shells on wires ("Ren') of 1 m to 2 m length, from a bamboo framework driven into the seafloor (Figure 6). The wires are hung across the frame in half, thereby forming a double collector string of about 1 m or less in length. The wire is No. 16 galvanized steel, made especially for oyster farming, and is generally called "half-steel" wire (Moriyasu et al., 2018). The scallop shells are holed and strung on the wire about 1 cm - 2 cm apart with bamboo or plastic spacers between the shells.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 25
Figure 6. Spat collectors (scallop shells) in situ under bamboo rafts, and as seen before deployment. Source http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/suisansc/kaki_ikadasiki.html and (Moriyasu et al., 2018). Once the oysters have reached the appropriate size the collectors are removed from the collecting racks, unstrung from the wires, cleaned, and restrung on new, heavier wires (No. 13) with bamboo or plastic spacers about 20 cm in length. These are then moved into a tidal zone for strengthening (rack method) (Figure 7). The timing of transferring the spats to strengthening site depends on each fisher, but the general criterion for transfer is when a minimum of 100 spats on one side are settled. The spat collection lasts about 7-10 days and at the end of collection process the spats reach approximately 0.1- 0.3 mm in shell length (pers. Comm. Mr. Okami, Kurahasijima Kaisan Ltd.). The strengthening phase lasts approximately 3-4 months, with the timing being location- and fisher-dependent. The process of strengthening allows daily periods of exposure to air through the position in the intertidal zone, or in shallow water where tidal range is sufficient. Aerially exposed oysters have higher meat content and better keeping qualities once harvested (Moriyasu et al., 2018).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 26
Figure 7. A oyster strengthening site on the tidal plane and diagrammatic representation. Source: Kurahashijima Kaisan Co., Ltd. and http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/suisansc/kaki_ikadasiki.html Once oysters are strengthened, they are moved to the final culture sites. The rafts used for oyster farming are broadly standardized in size and construction; they are made from 10-15 cm diameter bamboo or wood (cedar) poles (lashed with wire) in two layers at right angles to each other and with the poles 30-60 cm apart. The standard raft in the Hiroshima Bay is about 16 X 8 m in size and carries 500-600 wire ‘Rens’, these dimensions are controlled by the Fishery Right Use rules for each Fishery Co-operative (see section 6.7.4) (Figure 8). The rafts are buoyed by styrofoam cylinders about the size of a 50 gallon drum. As the growth of the oyster proceeds and their weight increases, additional floats are added as required. The styrofoam floats are usually encased in a large polyethylene bag to protect them from barnacles and other organisms. The rafts are secured by anchors. Depending on the market destination, the oysters are harvested in spring or winter (Figure 9). Both Nokoshi and Yokusei growth methods (as described in section 5.2.2) are used by the client group. Individual fishers have the ability to select the proportion of each growing method based on that year’s ocean conditions and market demand. The type of production method (2- or 3- year) is not currently required to be reported and therefore, the proportion per annum is not known, thus it is not possible to determine the dominant method with any certainty.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 27
Figure 8. Bamboo rafts in Hiroshima Bay and graphical representations of the rafts from the top (a) and side (b). Note: the ren spacing and raft sizes can vary depending on the Fishery Right Use Rules obtained by each Fishery Cooperative. Source: http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/suisansc/kaki_ikadasiki.html and Fujiya (1970)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 28
Figure 9. Oyster harvest. Source: http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/suisansc/kaki_ikadasiki.html.
5.2.4 Fishing management
Under the Fisheries Cooperative Association Law (Fisheries Agency, 1948), all fishers with formal fishing licences in Japan are members of a Fishery Cooperative (FC). FCs are grouped together by prefecture, both regionally and nationally to form Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs). FCAs on behalf of its FC members make requests for fishery-specific licenses / fishing rights to their respective prefectures. In the case of this fishery, the current fishing rights for the harvest of oysters from rafts were allocated to the FCs following the submission of a Fisheries Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP) by the FCA (HOPSC, 2013), followed by the submission of Fishery Right Use Rules (漁業権行使規則) by each FC. The FGIP sets the overall rules and management of the fishery including the number of oyster rafts. This is then operationalised through the individual Fishery Right Exercise Rules established by the FCs, and these must be admitted by the government in exchange for granting of the fishing right. Each FC creates the Fishery Right Use Rules for its members to ensure compliance to the FGIP, as well as to put into effect a monitoring system by peers on aspects of the fishery, such as raft sizes and locations. The prefecture provides consultation and guidance to the FC to create appropriate Fishery Right Use Rules so they can implement the FGIP. The principal harvest control tool for controlling the upper production limit in the fishery, and ensuring national environmental legislation is met (MAFF, 1999), is an Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ) of 11,954 rafts for the fishery, written into the FGIP (HOPSC, 2013). The number of rafts within Hiroshima Bay are checked on a biannual basis: firstly, before the season starts in August, and again, when the seeds are set in October (Table 8) by the prefecture’s Division of Aquatic Resources. The current number of rafts operated by the UoA are shown in Table 9 and represent ~ 5 % of the total rafts in Hiroshima Bay (Table 8). The FGIP also sets environmental monitoring requirements and requires each FC’s Fishery Right Use Rule to include raft specifications. The FGIP is further discussed under Section 0. and Fishery Right Use Rule under section 6.7.4.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 29
Table 8. Total number of oyster rafts operating in the Hiroshima Bay by year and audit. Source: Hiroshima Prefecture.
Year Month Entire fishery August 8,830 2017 October 10,335 August 7,990 2018 October 9,228 August 7,966 2019 October 10,069 October Average (higher October 9,877 value per annum
Table 9. Number of rafts operated by the UoA in 2020. Source: HoC 2021.
Client Group Number of rafts Dairyo Co., Ltd 115 Aya Suisan Co., Ltd 169 Amibun Kaisan, 62 Yoneda Kaisan Co., Ltd 105 Kawasaki Suisan Co., Ltd. 37 TOTAL 488
The size and structure of raft are regulated at each culture site by the FCs Cooperative Fishery Right Exercise Rule (漁業権行使規則) as a first category grid fishery. An example of the size of rafts as regulated by an Fishery Right Exercise Rule is as follows (At the site visit the size structure of rafts for all UoA members (5 FCs) will be checked):
• 21.8 m in length • 9.1 m in width • Maximum number of bamboo supporting rod is 43 • Maximum number of scallop shells per string is 26-40 • The hanging ‘ren’ is limited to 9.1 m Adherence to these rules is regulated by the prefecture who attend each farm area once or twice a year and audit raft numbers. They also check the raft size by sight during these audits.
5.2.4.1 Production rates
Pre- 1980s, the oyster production in Hiroshima Bay was about 30,000 metric tons (t) scale by fresh meat weight (FMW) a year. In the early 1990s, the oyster production decreased to around 20,000 t by 2000 (Hirata and Akashige, 2004) and has remained at this volume up to 2015 (Figure 10). A further update on production figures to 2019-20 will be sought at the site visit.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 30
Figure 10. Hiroshima Bay fresh meat weight (FMW) in tonnes production figures by year. Table 10. UoA production figures from the five client fishers between 2017-2019 in kg. Data presented show the fishing year, not calendar year e.g. 2017 represents production total from October 2016 to June 2017. Source: HOC
Yoneda Kawasaki Dairyo Co., Aya Suisan Amibun Year Kaisan Co., Suisan Co., total Ltd Co., Ltd. Kaisan Ltd Ltd. 2017 323,947 184,560 64,197 219,542 83,844 876,090 2018 307,610 166,260 72,692 225,190 92,209 864,231 2019 260,451 132,620 50,077 181,815 70,379 695,342
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 31
6 Traceability and eligibility
6.1 Eligibility date
The eligibility date has been set as the date of the PCDR publication, pending the successful outcome of this evaluation. Product caught by HOC members using the methods outlined in the UoA will be eligible to enter further chains of custody.
6.2 Traceability within the fishery
The traceability system for the UoA is presented below. Fishers harvest oysters from their own raft plots to meet customer requirements. Typically, this is one to three strings of oysters per harvest event, and it would be rare for a whole raft to be harvested at once. Each fisher brings back the harvested oysters from their rafts using their own vessels, thus there is no mixing of catch between growers. The harvest process is as follows: The harvest vessel is fixed to the raft, and each strand of suspended oysters is placed on the deck by use of an onboard crane. There are no onboard measures of weight or oyster number and there is no at-sea processing or transhipment. The oysters are simply laid on the deck of the vessel for transportation to the dock, they are not stored in any container. Prior to docking and unloading there is no requirement to report to any authority, however there is periodic inspection of the operations as required by the Division of Aquatic Resources, who also check raft numbers. Unless there is an identified issue, regular inspections are not required. The oysters are unloaded at the dock and the landed catch is moved to the shucking huts owned individually by each client group. Once landed the oysters follow one of two processing pathways:
1. The oysters are shucked and the extracted meat held in lidded buckets with the fresh meat weight (FMW) recorded. This is the FMW which is reported to the prefecture for the annual production values.
2. Oysters are cleaned of fouling organisms and bagged by number. FMW is estimated from the numbers of units and reported to the prefecture as an estimate of FMW. (The conversion factor is not known and will need to be checked at the site visit).
For both pathways the oyster containers / nets are labelled with harvest date / company name and weight etc (it is expected the client will provide examples at the site visit). The oysters are temporarily stored at the hut until they are sold to the buyer. As all oysters processed in the shucking huts are from the client group, leases included in the UoA the risk of substitution is low. Two of the client group (Dairyo Co., Ltd. and Kawasaki Suisan Co., Ltd.) do provide a separate shucking service for local supermarkets but these processing pathways are entirely separate from the harvested oysters. This physical and documented separation ensures mixing risk is minimalised.
There is no auction in operation in this fishery. A summary of the service provision for the fishery is provided below (Table 11). There are five producers in the client group, the sixth member of which is Kurahashijima Kaisan Co., Ltd., which is not a raft owner but a processor. This client is one of the product receivers from the five other client group members. The five raft owners/fishers can (if certified) sell MSC product to other processors, but at present an exclusivity deal to Kurahashijima Kaisan Co., Ltd is in place.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 32
Table 11. Service provision for the fishery. Source – client. Landing Site Point of sale Agent Storage Services Transport Services / Port 販売点 業者 保管サービス 運送サービス 水揚げ場 所・港 Company’s 倉橋島海産 大良 自社、不動冷凍部、 佐伯急送、ムロオ、 Private Kurahashijima Kaisan ムロオ 佐川急便 Landing Site Co., Ltd In house – immovable Saeki Express, Muroo freezer transport services, Sagawa Express Company’s 倉橋島海産 彩水産 自社 自社保管庫で完結 Private Kurahashijima Kaisan In house Completed in our own Landing Site Co., Ltd storage Company’s 倉橋島海産 網文海産 自社 ムロオ Private Kurahashijima Kaisan In house Muroo transport services Landing Site Co., Ltd Company’s 倉橋島海産 米田海産 自社 ムロオ Private Kurahashijima Kaisan In house Muroo transport services Landing Site Co., Ltd Company’s 倉橋島海産 川崎水産 自社、ムロオ ムロオ、佐川急便 Private Kurahashijima Kaisan In house Muroo transport services Landing Site Co., Ltd and Sagawa Express
Table 12. Traceability within the fishery
Factor Description Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of The UoA fish oysters by rafts with either lines Certification (UoC)? or cages suspended from them. They are not licenced for other gear types and therefore If Yes, please describe: the risk of use of uncertified gears would be If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or minimal. The Division of Aquatic Resources during the same season; maintain biannual checks on raft numbers How any risks are mitigated. and licence conditions. Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? No risk. The vessels in the UoC do not operate If Yes, please describe: outside the UoC. If this may occur on the same trip; How any risks are mitigated. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and Low risk. Since all the oysters harvested by non-certified products during any of the activities covered the HOC will be MSC certified, there will be by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea no risks of mixing substitution between activities and on-land activities. certified and non-certified fish. However at the processing stage, there are Transport two companies (Dairyo Co., Ltd. and Kawasaki Storage Suisan Co., Ltd.) that operate the shucking Processing service for the local supermarkets which uses Landing oysters that are not from within HOC, but Auction from a small batch that is separately processed and packed, thus mixing risks are If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. easily mitigated.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 33
Factor Description Yoneda Kaisan, Kurahashijima Kaisan, Kawasaki Suisan, and Dairyo also purchase non-MSC oysters but all of them are processed and can be traced with documents. They are not processed in the shucking sheds of these companies and as these purchased oysters will enter the supply chain after the fishery certificate ends there is no risk. Does transhipment occur within the fishery?
If Yes, please describe: None. There is no transhipment within the If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or both; fishery. If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; How any risks are mitigated. Since all the oysters harvested by the HOC will be MSC certified, there will be no risks of Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between mixing substitution between certified and certified and non-certified fish? non-certified fish. There is no similar product
caught by the UOA which could be If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. substituted. There are no other risks of contamination other than noted above.
6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody
The audit team considered that the fishery will require to maintain separate Chain of Custody certification after the point of sale, therefore each of the shucking huts located at each fishery should be included in the fishery certificate. All processing and handling of the certified product beyond the point of sale including the Kurahashijima Kaisan processing plant will require separate Chain of Custody certifications.
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Comment Draft Report stage
The report shall include a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.
The report shall include a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.
The report shall include the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.
If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 34
Should the fishery be certified the CAB inform the client that they sell or label non-eligible (nonconforming) product as MSC certified, they must:
a. Notify any affected customers and the CAB of the issue within 4 days of detection.
b. Immediately cease to sell any non-conforming products in stock as MSC certified until their certified status has been verified by the CAB.
c. Cooperate with the CAB to determine the cause of the issue and to implement any corrective actions required.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9
6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody
There is no IPI stock issue identified as per section 3.3.1 of this report. No IPI CoC eligibility requirements are required.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 35
6.5 Principle 1
As per FCR:2.01 SB2.1, the team has assessed the extent of translocations, and the possible impact on the parent stock. The extent of translocations must be considered to ensure that the fishery enhancement programs utilize stocks or populations that are native to the natural production area from which the fishery’s catch originates (FCR: G7.7.4.1.b).
The method for the collection of seed in this enhanced catch and grow fishery are spat collectors (scallop shells hanging in the water column). Seed collected this way is never relocated but grown out in the same licence area (Hiroshima Bay) to where it is caught.
Once the seed is transferred to the grow-out sites in Hiroshima Bay, transfer to another shore or prefecture during this aquaculture phase is prohibited. It is however possible to transfer within the fishery area (Hiroshima Prefecture). This is to assist in operational management e.g., to prevent typhoon damage, avoid parasitic/disease outbreaks and allow for optimal site selection for the growth phase. The oysters collected and moved, are of the same stock and are all within the same geographic area. Section 3.3 and sub-sections give further details on the genetics of the oysters of Hiroshima and the CAG type analysis against FCR:2.01 SB2.1. The team’s evaluation of the parent stock is that, as the UoA under assessment involves the use of spat collectors and the grow-out of the collected oyster spat, the net effect is that the rope growing-activities will increase the local oyster stock biomass. It has therefore been assessed that the cultivation of oysters does not pose a risk to the productivity of the wild population.
Based on these findings, the team have concluded that translocations are not relevant to this fishery. The team conclude that, in accordance with the FCR2.01 - SB2.1.4 – ‘If an enhanced CAG bivalve fishery does not involve translocations, and there is no evidence that it negatively impacts the parent stock, teams may choose not to score Principle 1’, Principle 1 does not need to be included for the UoA under consideration here.
Additionally, for similar reasons, Genetic outcome PI 1.1.3 will not need to be scored as SB2.1.5.2 is not satisfied: SB2.1.5.2- ‘Enhanced CAG bivalve fisheries that involve translocations shall also be scored against the Genetic outcome PI 1.1.3’.
6.5.1 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data
There is no TAC in this fishery. The catch data for the UoAs are shown in Table 10.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 36
6.5.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
Not scored. Scoring tables removed from this report. The team has determined that as neither SB2.1.2 or SB2.1.3 are satisfied Principle 1 need not be scored as per SB2.1.4.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 37
6.6 Principle 2
6.6.1 Primary species
As per Figure GSB5 of FCR 2.01 (Figure 1) when a CAG fishery is not subject to translocation Primary species are not scored.
6.6.2 Secondary species
As per Figure GSB5 of FCR 2.01 (Figure 1) when a CAG fishery is not subject to translocation Secondary species are not scored.
6.6.3 ETP species
Effects on Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species from hanging culture fisheries are likely to arise from entanglement in the ropes that are used in the culture and the mooring system. T Entanglement can occur directly, or indirectly from altering the natural environment.
ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows:
• Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).
6.6.3.1 Species that are recognized by national ETP legislation.
Japan designates legally protected marine species under the Fisheries Resources Conservation Act (Suisan Shigen Hogo Hou) (1951) Article 1, Enforcement Regulations of the Fisheries Resources Protection Law 1993 (amended 2006 (FRA, 2006)) and Species of National Natural Treasure are also legally protected.
There are also species listed as Threatened I (Critical and Endangered) or Threatened II (Vulnerable) in the Red List and the Red Data Book of Japan (http://www.biodic.go.jp/english/rdb/rdb_e.html). The Red List is a compilation of endangered wildlife species of Japan, whereas the Red Data Book provides data on population status of the species included in the Red List. However, both have no legal definition but serve as the scientific basis for the promotion of endangered wildlife conservation. Therefore, the species on these lists do not qualify as ETP species according to MSC criteria.
6.6.3.2 Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g., CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.).
The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has not been ratified or signed by Japan, furthermore no species on either CMS or ACAP are recognized to interact with the fishery (details of those species which do interact are provided in section 6.6.3.4.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 38
6.6.3.3 Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).
This includes species within Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php ).
6.6.3.4 ETP species likely to interact with the fishery
There are two species that would qualify as ETP based on the MSC criteria detailed above, that could have possible interactions with the fishery (see Table 4 below). These are the Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) which is a CITES Appendix 1 species, classified as ‘vulnerable’ (VU) on the IUCN red list, designated as a protected species under the Fisheries Resource Conservation Act (1951), and is also a National Natural Treasure. It is listed as endangered species classification 1 in the Hiroshima Prefecture Redlist (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2021), though this is not a qualifying designation for ETP under MSC.
The second species of relevance is the loggerhead turtle (アカウミガメ; Caretta caretta) which is an out of scope CITES Appendix 1 species, categorised as VU on the IUCN red list and under the Enforcement Regulations of the Fisheries Resources Protection Law 1993 (amended 2006 (FRA, 2006)).
Table 13. ETP species relevant to oyster aquaculture activities and possible risk of interaction. IUCN category: Threatened II (NT), Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR).
Species CITES IUCN Japanese legal Distribution / Risk Appendix I category protection overlap with of fishery inter actio n
Indo- Yes VU Designated as: Widely Low - Oyster culture rafts may Pacific Protected distributed in pose some risk to its Finless species Japan. India, migration or behaviour. Porpoise under Indonesia, China, However, the sonar in small Neophocae Fisheries etc. In Hiroshima, cetaceans is highly sensitive na Resources sightings are to the local environment and phocaenoi Conservatio reported in ropes laden with scallop shells des n Act (1951) Hiroshima Bay. It and maturing oysters would National is also known to be more easily detected than Natural スナメリ enter brackish static nets for example which Treasure water, placing is a known issue for porpoise Fisheries close to species. Resource Conservatio shorelines where n Law oyster leases are (1994.4.1) used. Enforcement Regulations of the Fisheries Resources Protection Law 1993
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 39
Species CITES IUCN Japanese legal Distribution / Risk Appendix I category protection overlap with of fishery inter actio n
(amended 2006 (FRA, 2006)) Loggerhea Yes VU Enforcement Range extends Low – entanglement is not d turtle Regulations beyond reported as a risk, and it is of the Hiroshima and unlikely for entanglement to Caretta Fisheries the UoA is within occur on oyster lines due to caretta Resources this range. This the weight on the lines and Protection species can occur the growth of oysters on アカウミ Law 1993 in coastal areas scallop shells do not present a ガメ (amended outside breeding risk like mono-filament lines. 2006 (FRA, season and nest Furthermore, overlap is likely 2006)) on beaches on limited as nesting beaches are the East Coast of not proximal to the fishery Japan and the main feeding grounds for this species is offshore away from the UoA. Section 6.6.3.6 explores this further.
6.6.3.5 Finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides).
A small coastal cetacean of approximately 1.5 m in length, this species is observed year-round in the Seto Inland Sea (Ministry for the Environment, 2010). Seasonally, it is rarely seen from autumn to winter, but has increasing sightings in the spring, which is the breeding season. It is reported that summer numbers of this species decrease due to its migration to sea areas facing the open ocean (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013). The diet of finless porpoise consists principally of crustaceans (shrimp) and small fish, such as sand lance and anchovy. They do not target oysters.
More broadly this coastal species has an Indian-Pacific Ocean distribution, with the western end distributed from the Persian Gulf through Pakistan, India, the eastern limit along the Indochina Peninsula from the Chinese coast to the Japanese coast, and the northern limit is Sendai Bay in Japan (Figure 12). It is considered to be a highly coastal species, so population separation is likely to be caused by geographical barriers (Ministry for the Environment, 2010). The population structure of finless porpoises in coastal waters of Japan has been documented, and five distinct populations are known with one population present within the Seto Inland Sea, which includes Hiroshima Prefecture (Yoshida et al., 2002). According to the Redlist website (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013) finless porpoise abundances in Hiroshima Prefecture declined off the coast of Takehara City (Hiroshima Prefecture) in the 1980s, which was a previous stronghold. But, in recent years, increased sightings have been reported near Miyajima and within the inner part of Hiroshima Bay (where the UoA operates). A finless porpoise sanctuary area within Hiroshima Prefecture was set up in 1945 with a radius of 1.5 km centered around Awa Island - Takehara City. This was due to the risk of capture associated with a traditional sea bass net fishing method which is no longer practiced (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013). This sanctuary area has no overlap with the fishery under assessment here.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 40
China Japan
Saudi Arabian India
Figure 11. Finless porpoise distribution. Source: (Ministry for the Environment, 2010)
Figure 12. Population structure of finless porpoise in Japan. The Hiroshima Prefecture population extends to the extent of the Seto Inland Sea. Source: (Yoshida et al., 2002). Ogawa (2017), in assessing finless porpoises in Hiroshima Prefecture, indicated that increased water pollution and eutrophication (due to chemical industrial development), land reclaim, and industrial collection of sea sand and gravel in Seto Inland Sea since the 1960’s may have impacted the population of finless porpoise in the past. The effects may have been direct (habitat destruction and pollution) and indirect (by decline of preferred prey i.e. sand eel) (Ministry for the Environment, 2010). According to population estimate comparisons between the 1970’s and late 1990’s, a decline in population size across Japan is evident. As part of the Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) predating this MSC assessment, scientists from the Miyajima Aquarium were interviewed in relation to ETP species and the oyster fishery. Copies of the interview were provided to the assessment team and were referenced are referred to as Akagi and Miura pers comm. This interview record will need to be verified at the site visit. According to the interview record, although there are no specific data on the status of harbour porpoise in Hiroshima Bay, the latest report from the Seto Inland Sea population shows that there were about 10,000 individuals in 2015, and there is no decreasing trend (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). Ogawa (2017) found that the population of the Seto Inland Sea was high from 2000 to 2015, and is currently recovering and expected to increase in the future. The author suggested the possibility
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 41
that the increasing population of finless porpoise in the Seto Inland Sea may be linked to the formulation of Seto Inland Sea Environmental Protection Extraordinary Measures Law (1973), and Special Measures Law (1978), created to deal with water pollution in Seto Inland Sea. These laws, along with the prohibition of sea sand harvesting, may be positively reflecting on the increasing finless porpoise population (Ministry for the Environment, 2010; Ogawa, 2017)
The prefecture operates an open source reporting system for all sightings of the finless porpoise through its website (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013) to encourage ‘citizen science’. In addition to public sightings data, the protection afforded to the finless porpoise under the Fisheries Resource Conservation Law (1994.4.1) makes it obligatory to report dead bodies, strandings, etc, and these are reported through the Prefecture Government to the Ministry of Fisheries (Table 14). The finless porpoises are subject to the Cetacean Grounding Countermeasure Manual (FRA, 2012), and the specific requirements and procedures must be undertaken. In Hiroshima, the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries coordination group oversees the reporting of sightings. Sighting records evidence the porpoise in oyster culture areas, but in low frequencies of ~4 events maximum per annum (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Sighting records of finless porpoise in the Seto inland Sea SF: Sighting frequency. Source: Ministry of Environment, extracted from Moriyasu et al., (Moriyasu et al., 2018).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 42
Table 14. Reporting of cetacean incidents (all finless porpoise) 2018-20, note none are related to the UoA. Source: Hiroshima Prefecture.
Body Date Related municipalities Status place Discovery status length Local citizens discover that individual has been washed Yanoura Taxis, ashore. Several days have passed since his death, and corruption 5/5/2020 Hatsukaichi Grounding Miyajima-cho, 150cm has progressed. The skin turned black and the skull was partially Hatsukaichi exposed. The damage was severe, such as the internal organs being exposed from the lower abdomen. An individual that 1-2-1, Enichicho, died and was drifting Mihara-shi Sea area While raising a single gill net, I found a dead body caught in the 2/19/2019 Mihara City 155 cm was caught in a (about 300m from the net single gill net. land) Suginoura Coast, Local citizens discover that individuals are drifting Corpses washed 121 cm 11/30/2018 Hatsukaichi Miyajima-cho, offshore. After that, the corpse was washed away by the tide ashore (female) Hatsukaichi and washed ashore. There is little damage. Corpses washed Etajima City Etajima 121 cm Already dead and washed ashore. The skin is burned by the sun 7/2/2018 Etajima City (2) ashore Town Kirikushi Town (male) and blackened, and the body swells with gas. 150 cm Same as above Same as above Same as above (male) Miyajima-cho, When I looked around the gill net, I found it hanging on the 5/28/2018 Hatsukaichi City (2) Gillnet to gillnet 115cm Hatsukaichi net. Already dead. (The report is in Kannon Shinmachi, Hatsukaichi City, and the Corpses washed Nishi-ku, Hiroshima Local citizens discover that individuals have been washed 5/28/2018 142cm place of drifting is ashore City (Kanon Marina ashore. Already dead, but not so bad. Hiroshima City) Seaside Park)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 43
Independent of the government program, there has been a finless porpoise network monitoring program in the past, but unfortunately, this program is now obsolete. In Hiroshima, there is a small-scale coordinated effort by a tourism boat operation. that has been collecting voluntary observation reports from ship captains since 2008 (https://setoecokyo.jimdofree.com/スナメリ目撃情報/ ). This network reported 596 sightings in 2020, with an estimated number at 206 (Seto-ECo-Kyo, 2021). All of these sightings were found in the Southern end of Hiroshima Bay, well away from the UoA leases (Figure 14). It is not clear if this is a result of the shipping routes used or a result of the behaviour of the finless porpoise, given the different distributions shown in Figure 13.
Figure 14. Finless porpoise sightings from the voluntary program July 2020. Source:(Seto-ECo-Kyo, 2021)
6.6.3.6 Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
The loggerhead turtle is highly migratory and undertakes trans - oceanic migrations. In the North Pacific, loggerhead turtles that hatch on Japanese beaches reach the vicinity of Baja California (Mexico) in the eastern Pacific (Nishizawa et al., 2014). It has been reported that the Japanese Archipelago is the largest nesting ground for this species in the Northern Pacific and plays an important role in its subsistence (Hatase et al., 2002). Loggerheads are known to occur in and around the Seto Inland Sea but are regarded as rare and typically occupying the open coast rather than the Seto Inland sea. There are no known nesting beaches in Hiroshima but major rookeries are present on the Pacific coast to the north in Minabe, and the south in Kagoshima and Miyazaki (Figure 15). Kagoshima is also a Ramsar site for this reason. The principal feeding areas for this species are also on the open Pacific coast at Shimakatsu and Muroto (Figure 15 and Figure 16). The current thinking is that nesting location is influenced by an oceanic feeding strategy (Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020) and that juveniles and adult females use the Kuroshio Current in order to feed on gelatinous prey (Narazaki et al., 2013). This theory would explain the low occurrence within the Inland Seto Sea.
The assessment team contacted Dr Hatase regarding the presence of nesting areas and feeding area in Hiroshima Bay. The response provided and reproduced on page 174 confirms that Hiroshima Bay is not a known nesting or feeding area.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 44
Figure 15. Location of known nesting beaches proximate to Hiroshima Prefecture. Black circles indicate major nesting rookeries for loggerhead turtles in Japan. Shimakatsu and Muroto, (open circles) where other feeding aggregations of loggerheads are observed, are also shown. Larger grey circles indicate the northern and southern rookeries. The arrow indicates the direction of the Kuroshio Current (Nishizawa et al., 2014).
Figure 16. Sea turtle known locations according to the Japanese government database. source: https://www.msil.go.jp/msil/htm/topwindow.html
6.6.3.7 Interactions with hanging rope culture
Oyster culture rafts instalments in coastal area may interfere with migration behaviours of Indo-Pacific finless porpoise and loggerhead turtle, if they were located in the path of these. Miyajima Aquarium consider it is very unlikely that the finless porpoise will get entangled in rafts, but it is possible for them to be stranded ashore (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). The cetacean stranding record database (National Museum of Nature
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 45
and Science) shows seven stranding events in Hiroshima Bay, of which four are located near to the oyster culture areas. There is no causal evidence of any of these being linked to oyster farming (Table 14).
For loggerhead turtles although there have been sightings in the past, Miyajima Aquarium consider it is rare and that it is not necessary to consider that there is likely any relationship (overlap) with the oyster farming industry (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). The assessment team contacted Dr Hatase author of multiple Japanese research papers on loggerheads regarding the presence of nesting areas and feeding area in Hiroshima Bay. His response provided and reproduced on page 174 confirms that Hiroshima Bay is not a known nesting or feeding area.
Entanglement cases between ETP species and hanging aquaculture operations globally are extremely rare, and where cases have occurred, they have generally occurred in mussel spat collectors or buoy lines connected to them (NOAA, 2017). In comparison to mussel spat collectors, the rope grown oyster cultures use heavy lines that are constantly under tension, due to the scallop shells weighing them down. The lines on a raft are located closely together, which makes it unlikely for porpoise or turtles to swim between the lines and get entangled.
6.6.3.8 UoA ETP management
At the national level under Article 1, Enforcement Regulations of the Fisheries Resources Protection Law 1993 (amended 2006 (FRA, 2006)), harvesting of finless porpoise or turtles is expressly forbidden. The law directs individuals to make best efforts to return to the sea an animal if accidental encountered and all encounters must be reported to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).
Within the UoA the client group have established a Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative Oyster Aquaculture Management Project (full details section 6.7.5.2) which is referred to in this report as the HOC FGIP (HOC, 2018). This transcribes the monitoring requirements of the Hiroshima oyster FGIP (HOPSC, 2013) with respect to sediment and water quality but includes an addition section on ETP management and monitoring relevant to the UoA. As part of the HOC FGIP all fishers are provided with recording sheets (Figure 17) and an ‘Endangered Species Encounter Manual’ (Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual) which describes appearance of the two species listed above, how to record the interaction, provides contact points for management and procedures for dealing with the animals should they come into close to vessels or fishing gear. A translated summary is provided below.
Encountered while the ship is in operation or near to raft:
• taking care of animals navigate slowly around animal • Do not intimidate or abuse (make noise or throw things). • Enter the information (date and place of encounter, etc.) required for the endangered species encounter record to be submitted to the Fisheries Cooperative (Example provided in Figure 17). When entwined with fishing gear such as raft, rope, and net:
• Key target is to do as little damage as possible to the animal and remove from the tangle. Observe the animal for about five minutes after the release is to make sure of its health state. • Enter the information required for the endangered species encounter record to be submitted to the Fisheries Cooperative (date and place of encounter , response taken, etc.). • Also, contact the person in charge of the prefecture if necessary. Handling procedure for sea turtles:
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 46
Hold the shell other than the neck and remove it from the entangled ropes. The reason for not putting your hands on the shell around the neck is to prevent the turtle from getting caught when pulling in the neck. Also, do not pull the forelimbs or hindlimbs because they are easily dislocated.
If the turtle is hurt or shows weakness it is recommended to protect it until it has recovered by placing it in a cool dark place that is wet on-board. If you cannot be protected on-board, it is recommended to be secured by the neck and forelimbs at the sea surface and seek instructions from experts. Ensure the turtle can breathe and can remain wet.
Handling procedure for finless porpoise:
Prioritize the removal work to ensure that it can breathe (the air holes are out of the water surface).
Figure 17. Example ETP recording form from the UoA. Source: client group.
6.6.4 Habitats
The MSC FCR v2.01 requires habitats interacting with the fishery to be defined as ‘commonly-encountered’, ‘VME’ or ‘minor’, with definitions as given in Table 15.
Table 15. Habitat definitions as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.01.
FCR reference Definition
A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with SA3.13.3.1 the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 47
FCR reference Definition
A Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs SA3.13.3.2 (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.2). This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth. VMEs have one or more of the following characteristics, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/ reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., GSA3.13.3.2 nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features
N/a Minor habitats are those that do not meet the above definitions.
6.6.4.1 Notes on MSC guidance
For both commonly encountered and VME habitats, the SG80 requirement under PI 2.4.1 (outcome status) is that “The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of [the habitat] to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm”. However, key differences exist in the way that the MSC requires impacts from fishing activities to be assessed for commonly encountered and VME habitats, based on different definitions of ‘serious or irreversible harm’ for each habitat type.
For commonly encountered (and minor) habitats, the team shall interpret ‘serious or irreversible harm’ as reductions in habitat structure and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80 % of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely (SA3.13.4, MSC FCRv2.0). For VME habitats, the team shall interpret “serious or irreversible harm” as reductions in habitat structure and function below 80 % of the unimpacted level (SA3.13.4.1).
The essence of these different approaches is that it is accepted that fishing is an extractive process, such that the MSC requirement is that commonly encountered (and minor) habitats can recover from impacts within a reasonable timeframe. In contrast, VME habitats may have only limited ability to recover, and/or recovery may take a long time, so the MSC requirement is that fisheries do not cause more than 20 % damage total to VMEs (GSA3.13).
There are several important considerations regarding the MSC’s VME habitat requirement that were clarified through the MSC Interpretations website (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/global-search/VME):
• It is not the responsibility of an assessment team to identify habitats as VME within the fished area. Instead, VMEs need to be identified by a local, regional, national, or international management authority/governance body. In this case we consider what VMEs have been accepted, defined or identified by Japan or Hiroshima Prefecture. • The history of fishing and when the VME was identified is critical to establishing what the ‘unimpacted level’ is; if a VME was already impacted by any fishery/UoA prior to its identification
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 48
as a VME, and fishing impacts occurred prior to 2006, then the ‘unimpacted level’ is considered to be the status at the point of designation2.
6.6.4.2 Habitat area under consideration
The habitat under consideration in this assessment is Hiroshima Bay within the Seto Inland Sea Ecosystem. The MSC defines ‘habitat’ as ‘the chemical and bio-physical environment, including biogenic structures, where fishing takes place’ (Table GSA2, MSC FCRv2.01). For assessment purposes, the MSC requires that benthic habitats are described according to the following criteria (SA3.13.2 and Table GSA6, MSC FCR v2.01):
• characterising substratum - i.e. fine (mud, sand), medium, large or solid reef of biogenic origin; • geomorphology - i.e. flat, low relief, outcrop or high relief; and • biota (i.e., large erect, small erect/encrusting/burrowing, no fauna or flora, or flora)
Finally, for suspended culture, the scoring of Principle 2 habitat PIs should focus on the benthic impacts of bio-deposition and organic enrichment (GSB 3.1.3.1). This is because cultured shellfish (oysters) produce high amount of organic matters (faecal and pseudo-faceal deposits and dead oysters) which fall onto the benthic habitat. Benthic fauna especially polychaetes species actively feed on this accumulated organic matter and biologically agitate the sediment oxidating the habitat. However, when the biomass of cultured shellfish oysters exceeds a certain level, the accumulating bio-deposits cannot be consumed quickly enough by the benthic fauna and anoxic state conditions can occur in the bottom habitat (Figure 18). In addition, anoxic conditions result in activation of sulphate reducing bacteria that produce highly toxic free S2- and can result in mass mortality of macro-benthic fauna. This also impacts prey species such as fish and crustaceans by interrupting energy flow to the animals at higher levels of the food chain (NIES, 2013).
Figure 18. Schematic of potential ecological effects from elevated oyster cultivation. Source (Ahmed and Solomon, 2016).
2 Note: The year 2006 was chosen because it is the date of the UNGA Resolution 61/105
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 49
6.6.4.3 Main habitats
The habitats and the abiotic construct of the sediment ecosystem in Hiroshima Bay are well known and monitored (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a, 2018b). The average depth of Hiroshima Bay is 26 m comprising of a muddy sediment plain of fine-flat relief containing burrowing infauna with solitary sedimentary/sessile epifauna. The basic geological feature in Hiroshima Bay is granite and the rocky shoreline continues underwater and is then buried under a sandy-muddy bottom. In the coastal shallower waters up to 6 m, there are some eelgrass (Zostera spp.) beds observed on sandy-muddy bottom. There is not much exposed bedrock in Hiroshima Bay and cobbles at various sizes are piled forming the base for brown seaweed such as Phaeophiceae spp. The sandy muddy bottom is also preferred by seaweed species such as Sargassum spp. Seagrasses (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) occur in mixed beds and are found up to 14 m in depth bordering the coastline of Hiroshima Bay (Sugimoto et al., 2017). Beyond this depth the bottom sediment is sandy-muddy bottom without any significant seagrasses (Terawaki et al., 2001) (Figure 26).
The benthic habitat beneath the oyster raft culture sites and surrounding area in Hiroshima Bay is mainly muddy (clay composition higher than 70%), (Figure 19) (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a), with high Nitrogen content and low redox potential (Figure 20 and Figure 21). The habitat is typical of the embayment’s of the Seto Sea particularly where large-scale land reclamation, dredging for port construction, and declining sedimentation by rivers has occurred. Hiroshima Bay receives substantial anthropogenic nutrient loading from its watersheds (Wang et al., 2019) and consequently the sediment has high levels of primary production from organic matter origin. Conversely, in the river delta area (mouth of Ohta River in Hiroshima City), organic origin mud is at the advanced decomposition phase through repetitive water mixture (Imagawa et al., 2009). The benthic fauna of Hiroshima Bay at a broad scale appears to reflect a modified and reduced level of species and abundance (Figure 22 and Figure 23) however species diversity remains relatively high (Figure 24).
Figure 19. Percentage mud content within the Seto Sea. Hiroshima Bay is shown in red square. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 50
Figure 20. Nitrogen content within the Seto Sea. Hiroshima Bay is shown in red square. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a).
Figure 21. Redox potential within the Seto Sea. Hiroshima Bay is shown in red square. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 51
Figure 22. Benthos distribution map (Macroinvertebrate population) Unit: Individual / 0.1m 2. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018b).
Figure 23. Benthos distribution map (Macroinvertebrate species number) Unit: species / 0.1m 2. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018b).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 52
Figure 24. Benthos distribution map -Macroinvertebrate species diversity index. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2018b).
6.6.4.4 VMEs in Japan and spatially relevant to the UoA.
VMEs in Japan are identified and mapped through the Ministry of the Environment3 as a result of work commenced in 2011, based on Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) criteria of the convention on Biological Diversity 2008 (UNEP, 2008). In the Japanese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 270 locatpoms were identified in the coastal area, 20 places in the offshore surface area, and 31 places in the offshore seafloor area. Each of this areas is regarded as being a highly important sea area from the viewpoint of animal diversity (Ministry of the Environment, 2012). Importnatly, whilst ESMAs are intended to be used as basic information for marine biodiversity conservation measures such as establishing protected areas, definition of an ESMA itself does not guarentee the area will become a marine protected area that is associated with restrictions on fishing. Of relevance to the fishery under assessment here are two EBSA locales 13702 and 13703 as identified in Figure 25 and described in Table 16 and Table 17 which require consideration.
3 http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/kaiiki/download.html
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 53
Figure 25. VMEs (生物多様性の保全上重要度の高い海域) - Sea areas of high importance for biodiversity conservation) as identified on Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) criteria. Of relevance to the fishery (proximity) are locations 13703 and 13702. These two areas are described in Table 16 and Table 17. Table 16. VME - Around the mouth of the Ota and Yawata rivers. Species criteria (1 and 2) I: facing extinction, Threatened species group II: Increasing risk of extinction.
Designation 13702 - Around the mouth of the Ota and Yawata rivers (Saeki Ward, Saka Town, Nishi Ward, Naka Ward, Minami Ward, Hiroshima Prefecture) Reason Selected by experts as a habitat for endangered species. The estuary of the Ota River in Hiroshima City, the estuary of the Hachiman River in Hiroshima City, and the surrounding waters. Cherry salmon habitat (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) inhabit the area (Kato, 1998). Productivity is high, such as the catch of Corbicula japonica, [Brackish water clam] at the mouth of the Ota River. It is also distributed only in a very limited area of the Seto Inland Sea and the Ariake Sea, and is also the site of the biogeographically valuable xelhaze Area 27 km2 total, Tidal flats 0.148 km2, Seaweed bed 0.3 km2 Species ヤマトシジミ – Corbicula japonica Prime, Brackish water clam criteria (1 and コアジサシ（営）- little tern 2) コチドリ（営）- little ringed Plover イカナゴ（産）- sand lance カタクチイワシ（産）- anchovy マダコ – common octopus
Source http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/kaiiki/engan/13702.html
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 54
Table 17. VME Miyajima. Species criteria (1 and 2) I: facing extinction, Threatened species group II: Increasing risk of extinction.
Designation 13703 - Miyajima Reason Selected by Marxan. It is the sea area around Miyajima. Wetlands along the southern coastline of Miyajima are inhabited by Shiroumiamenbo and Miyajima dragonfly (endemic species). The original name subspecies of the Japanese subspecies of Miyajima dragonfly is distributed in the southern part of the People's Republic of China, but it is not found in Taiwan or Okinawa, and it is a unique dragonfly that inhabits only three places on the island of Miyajima in Japan and is an endangered species.
Area 37 km2 total, Tidal flats 1.4 km2, Seaweed bed 1.4 km2 Species オキシジミ - clam criteria (1 and マテガイ – razor clam 2) クロサギ（営）- black heron ミサゴ（営）- osprey コチドリ（営）- little ringed Plover イカナゴ（産）- sand lance カタクチイワシ（産）- anchovy マダコ – common octopus
Source http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/kaiiki/engan/13703.html
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 55
Figure 26. UoA Oyster leases and VMEs in Hiroshima Bay. The dotted lines show the UoA raft areas of the Hiroshima prefecture in pink. The VMEs - Around the mouth of the Ota and Yawata rivers and Miyajima. Seagrass habitats are shown in blue highlight bordering the coastline across the Prefecture. Source: HOC 2021. Figure 26 shows there is no overlap between the 13703 – Miyajima VME described in
Table 17 and the UoA although UoA leases do border the area. Additionally, the designation of this VME is resultant of the Miyajima dragonfly which is not going to show any interaction with the marine benthic environment.
There is some spatial overlap between the grow out stage oyster leases of the UoA and VME 13702 - Around the mouth of the Ota and Yawata rivers (Figure 25 and Figure 26). This designation is for the endemic cherry salmon habitat (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae). The main habitat area of concern and protection is the river and river mouth which the oyster fishery does not operate and is required for this anadromous species. Corbicula japonica, a brackish water clam is noted as being present at the site and used in the model analysis but is not a defining component. There are seaweed beds (1.4 km2) identified in this designation, although are not the designating feature. Seagrass and macroalgal beds (Sargassum spp.) in the central Seto Inland Sea are well studied and are a known fish nursery, production and growth-survival system for local fish populations such as the black rockfish Sebastes cheni (Scorpaenidae) (Kamimura, 2013). Seagrass and macroalgal beds (Sargassum spp.) are well known (Kamimura, 2013; Yoshida Goro et al., 2001; Yoshida and
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 56
Shimabukuro, 2017) and studied throughout Hiroshima Bay. It is known that the distribution varies by area and changes yearly due to the effects of bottom characteristics and wind direction (Sonoki et al., 2016). The height and distribution of seagrass beds in Hiroshima Prefecture are at a maximum in May and at a minimum in November of each year (Sonoki et al., 2016). The main beds as shown in Figure 26 do not overlap with the UoA leases. Restoration of Sargassum beds, lost through land reclamation and pollution, have been advocated via published research. The restoration typically involves replanting and reseeding activities combined with improvement in water quality agendas and where needed joint efforts between fisheries and management bodies (Terawaki et al., 2003).
6.6.4.5 Habitat management
In Hiroshima, the Hiroshima Oyster Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP), is the common management strategy for all Hiroshima oyster fishermen. The FGIP was submitted by the Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council (HOPSC) and approved in 2013 through to 2018 initially (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOPSC, 2013), and the plan continues to be accepted to date 2021. Full details of the FGIP process and requirements are given in section 6.7.5. The key attributes under consideration for this component of the fishery from the FGIP are limits on the number of rafts permissible, monitoring requirements and advisable levels of environmental quality in bottom waters and sediments. In addition to the generalized FGIP the client group have established a secondary additional FGIP for its members (full details section 6.7.5.2) and this is referred to as the HOC FGIP (HOC, 2018). This HOC FGIP builds on the requirements of the original FGIP and prescribes additional monitoring of sediments and bottom waters.
Total raft numbers in Hiroshima Bay are set under the FGIP by an Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ), which aims to limit the aquaculture operation size, with maximum limits being below the maximum historically operated level. For Hiroshima this is set at 11,954 rafts for the total of 35 FCs in Hiroshima. Conformance to this limit has been continuously checked every year by the Division of Aquatic Resources through a flyover count survey. The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture (Table 8). Full details on how the AAAQ was set is provided in section 0. in brief it is set based on the methodology described in the 2011 “guideline for establishment of appropriate aquaculture quantity” in a notice of Minister of Fisheries Agency (https://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/syotoku_hosyo/pdf/yosyoku_suryo4.pdf ) (last updated in 2014). It is not evident how this value is related to a precautionary approach for the fishery although the AAAQ process and the development of the FGIP is a consultative process between prefecture scientists, the FCAs and prefecture policy advisors.
In addition to the total raft number the FGIP requires monitoring of sulphide values and contains an advised sulphide amount in the sediment at less than 0.4mgS/g (dry mud) of bottom habitat or visual confirmation of benthic organisms such as polychaetes. It requires FCs to maintain monitoring equipment for substrate sampling, conduct the sampling and establish a reporting system to the government and fishery technical centers to provide of the results of the monitoring. As described in section 5.2.4 and 6.7.4 the FGIP is implemented through the Fishery Right Use rules by each FC. In addition the HOC FGIP replicates the sulphide target for the client group and specifies the monitoring regime (HOC, 2018)
6.6.4.6 Site specific habitat monitoring.
The regional monitoring for sediment and fauna (Ministry of the Environment, 2018a, 2018b) discussed in section 6.6.4.3 is undertaken by the prefecture and occurs outside of the FGIP for the fishery. In addition to this government data and as required by the FGIP and implemented under the HOC FGIP sediment, water and benthos surveys around the UoA oyster leases have been undertaken by the client group in 2020. These consist of four oyster fishing grounds sites in Hiroshima Bay and two control areas (Figure 27) which to date
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 57
have been sampled twice (HOC, 2020a, 2020b). Water quality is measured for temperature, salinity, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and chlorophyll a (Ch A), sediments are measured for free sulphides and benthic invertebrates are identified and counted by unit area (0.1 m2) (Figure 28 and Figure 29).
Figure 27. Hiroshima Bay and the UoA based sampling program. Pink areas are oyster leases. Black circles sample locations. All locations are >14 m deep. Source (HOC, 2020a).
Figure 28. Grab sample collected from below Kusatsu oyster leases as part of the UoA sampling program. Source (HOC, 2020b).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 58
Figure 29. Benthic fauna sampling from the same Kusatsu oyster lease as Figure 28 as part of the UoA sampling program. A total of 97 animals recorded per 0.1 m2. Source (HOC, 2020b).
Figure 30. Benthic fauna sampling from HOC sampling program March (blue) and August (orange) 2020. Y axis - total number of animals recorded per 0.1 m2. X axis six sites with control sites postscript ‘C’. Source (HOC, 2020b).
6.6.4.7 Free Sulphide (S2-)
The MSC guidance states that total ‘free’ sulphide (S2-) in surficial sediments is an indicator of the organic enrichment effects of suspended shellfish cultivation on benthic communities (FCR2.01 - GSB3.1.3.1). MSC state that in general, there is a consistency between changes in various biological and geochemical variables and total S2- in surface sediments along organic enrichment gradients and assessment teams could apply the sulphide methodology in justifying their scores for habitat status. Free sulphide measurements in Hiroshima Bay are not routinely taken, but total sulphide measurements (and Acid-Volatile Sulphides) are known from a number of works and used as a measure of enrichment against Japan’s fishery-suitable water quality definitions where 0.2 mg/g is set as the upper limit (Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000). This threshold has no legal requirement for management action. The fishery specific sulphide limit is 0.4mg/g
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 59
(HOPSC, 2013). Estimation of S2- to total sulphides (AVS) is possible as the proportion of S2- within AVS (total sulphide is approximately 5 % - 10 % (NIES, 2013).
Information on sulphide in Hiroshima Bay are available from several sources. There have been research led programs such as Yamamoto et al., (2008) who showed that sulphide concentrations show seasonal fluctuation in Hiroshima Bay and described declining concentrations away from near shore regions (Figure 31). In addition there is long term monitoring of AVS values conducted by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) at six prefixed stations in Hiroshima Bay area since 2000 (MLIT, 2021) (Figure 32).
Figure 31. Spatial variation in Water content (WC %), ignition loss (IL, %) acid volatile sulphide (AVS mg/dry g) and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP, mV) in Hiroshima Bay early 2000’s (Yamamoto Tamiji et al., 2008).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 60
Figure 32. AVS sampling in Hiroshima Bay by different authors. (Yamamoto Tamiji et al., 2008) (X); MLIT (MLIT, 2021) (Blue square). Source: (Moriyasu et al., 2018) The MLIT data aggregated across Hiroshima Bay show annual fluctuation in AVS which peaked in 2008 and within the past three years have been below the FGIP limit of 0.4 mg/g but above the 0.2 mg/g upper limit (Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000) (Figure 33). At the point sample level there is evidence of spatial and temporal variation across the six sites (Figure 34). For the purposes of this MSC assessment and clause GSB3.1.3.1 the AVS data can be converted to S2- based on the estimate of 10 % AVS being S2- (NIES, 2013) the results of this conversion are shown in Figure 34.
Figure 33. Average Sulphide (AVS) concentrations mg/g-1 for Hiroshima Bay between 2000 – 2019. Source: (MLIT, 2021)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 61
Figure 34. Estimated S2- levels derived from AVS data from Hiroshima Bay 2015-2019 from the MLIT (MLIT, 2021) monitoring program. The AVS data is converted to S2- using three steps; 1. Conversion to ug/g. 2. Conversion to umol/g using the molecular weight (MW) sulphide (32.06). 3. Estimated S2- umol/g based on S2- comprising about 5 %-10 % of AVS value (NIES, 2013), 10% was used here as the more conservative value. The six site locations represent those shown in Figure 32. SG80 and SG60 thresholds shown (green and red dotted lines) are from the MSC FCR GSB3.1.3.1. In addition to the MLIT program and independent research there is the UoA sampling program discussed in section 6.6.4.6. Data is limited to two samples from 2020 but these show that the three stations in the north of Hiroshima Bay and at Dai kurogami island in the central part of Hiroshima Bay, were below the fishery water standard threshold (0.2 mg/g dry mud) (Figure 35). However, both stations on the east coast of Eda Island may be classified as contaminated mud that exceeded the standard threshold in August 2020 (Figure 35). Of key interest here is the significant increase at both sites (one being a control site) between March and August (Figure 35). This potentially the result of poor summer mixing in bottom waters in Hiroshima Bay as discussed previously. Importantly a comparison between the oyster fishing ground sites and the control sites revealed no obvious difference in sulphide concentration suggestive that the oyster fishery is not the principal driver of this condition in Hiroshima Bay.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 62
Figure 35. Sulphide concentrations mg/g-1 from two sampling events (March and August 2020) at four oyster leases and two (C) control sites in Hiroshima Bay. Source: (HOC, 2020b).
6.6.5 Ecosystem
The ecosystem under consideration is Hiroshima Bay in the Seto Inland Sea. The Ministry of the Environment describes the Seto inland Sea as an important sea-area which has been supporting culture and cultural exchanges through fisheries and the distribution of products. It is an area which includes both nature and human-beings, as well as an area in which both high biological productivity and biodiversity are expected (Ministry of the Environment, 2019) (Figure 36).
Figure 36. The five elements that build and constitute Satoumi (Seto Inland Sea). Source: Ministry of the Environment, 2019. Distribution of habitats and of key marine species are discussed in ETP and habitats section above. Distribution of these and other ecosystem elements can be explored through the government website https://www.msil.go.jp/msil/htm/topwindow.html and mapped (Figure 37) allowing comparison against the
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 63
UoA leases (Figure 26). This evidence together with the information provided in sections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4 provide the information base for assessment of the Ecosystem component of this fishery.
Figure 37. Map produced using functions with mapping tool on https://www.msil.go.jp/msil/htm/topwindow.html. The version here (in order of the key left-hand side) shows: tidal flats (brown), seaweed beds (lime), wetland (blue), mangrove (dark green [not present in the area]), bird habitat (bird icon), sea animal habitat (brown icon [not present in the area]), marine mammal habitat (dolphin icon [not present in the area]), and sea turtle (turtle icon – [not present in the area]). Hiroshima Bay is known as a eutrophied semi-enclosed coastal bay due to increasing anthropogenic activities such as industrialization and urbanization that have occurred since the 1960s (Kittiwanich et al., 2016). Hiroshima Bay receives substantial anthropogenic nutrient loading from its watersheds. The level of eutrophication in Hiroshima Bay especially the innermost region, is of great public concern because of its negative impact on ecosystem services (Wang et al., 2019). Thus, within Hiroshima Bay there are continuing efforts to reduce organic matter and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) loading based on Water Pollution Control Law of 1970 and the Law Concerning Special Measures for Conservation of the Environment of the Seto Inland Sea (1973) (Umehara et al., 2018). Water quality is therefore considered a key ecosystem element considered for this UoA.
Oysters are known to improve water quality as filter-feeders remove primary and secondary production particulates from the water column. They also provide additional habitat. Micro and macro seaweed species attached to the oyster raft culture systems absorb nutrients and filter the suspended organic matter, and the structure is used by many fish as nursery and feeding habitat. Thus, oyster culture can be seen as to provide many positive impacts on the ecosystem and assist in preserving the marine environment of Hiroshima Bay. However, when the density of oyster culture is high they can have detrimental impacts by reducing primary production severely and causing anoxic bottom water conditions from excess bio- deposition (as discussed above) (Ahmed and Solomon, 2016). Filtration by oyster farms has been shown to control phytoplankton growth by removing them from the water this process is referred to as “top-down” population control. When insufficient phytoplankton is available oysters also consume detritus and can thus have an impact on their abundance and composition in the water (Ahmed and Solomon, 2016; Umehara et al., 2018). Competition for phytoplankton and detritus can affect wild species as the cultured oysters, being
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 64
the most predominant, manage to filter out most of the phytoplankton and so the wild species which also depend on the same resources may suffer. Therefore, there is an importance in understanding the carrying capacity of an ecosystem with regard to oyster culture (Umehara et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) and as per GSB3.1.3.1 this is also a key ecosystem element considered for this UoA.
6.6.5.1 Water quality
Chlorophyl.a (Chl.a) concentration
Statistical models estimating the spatiotemporal distributions of Chl.a concentration and Secchi depth in the west-central Seto Inland Sea identified the definitive factors of these two water quality parameters whilst considering geographical characteristics such as salinity, water depth and distance from the coastline. The results showed that secchi depth has increased for the past 35 years. The study identified salinity and distance from the northern coastline to be the most definitive factors for Chl.a concentration and Secchi depth based on monitoring records for the period of 2006–2015. Total nitrogen loading better explained changes in mean Chl.a concentration than total phosphorus and that in the innermost Hiroshima Bay in spring, a greater decrease in Chl.a concentration was observed compared with other subareas (Wang et al., 2019). Wang et al., (2019) concluded that a government led nutrient loading reduction programme had been of limited effectiveness in improving water clarity.
Primary production and secondary production of the Hiroshima Bay ecosystem are well known and defined both spatially and temporally (Umehara et al., 2018). The area-weighted mean primary production in Hiroshima Bay north is 1.1 to 2.1 times higher than that of the offshore areas (southern reaches of Hiroshima Bay) in all four seasons (Umehara et al., 2018) (Figure 38). The interaction between primary and secondary production is discussed in section 6.6.5.2 under carrying capacity.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 65
Figure 38. Primary Production in Hiroshima Bay by taxonomic group and with spatial-temporal separation. Stn M1 is the northern area of Hiroshima Bay (relevant to the UoA. Stn M2 is to the south of the Bay away from the UoA. Source: (Umehara et al., 2018). From the UoA specific monitoring program described in section 6.6.4.6 Chl.a was found to range from 1.9 to 7.5 (average 3.5) μg/l at stations deep in Hiroshima Bay, 0.6 to 2.2 at Dai Kurogamijima Island (average 1.3) (Figure 39) (HOC, 2020b, 2020a). Overall, the amount of Chl.a was a little higher in the control areas which the report implied was resultant of the absence of intake of phytoplankton by oysters in these areas (HOC, 2020a) (Figure 39).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 66
Figure 39. Left Chlorophyll a vertical distribution map. Right DO vertical distribution map. Post script ‘C’ in legend defines control sites. Source: (HOC, 2020a). To achieve a healthy Seto Inland Sea, benthic (Section 6.6.4.3) and water monitoring of the Seto Inland Sea has been conducted in collaboration with the Association for the Environmental Conservation of the Seto Inland Sea (https://www.seto.or.jp) and the Ministry of the Environment (MoE). Large scale monitoring spanning 3-years has been conducted three times in the past, starting from 1981 and up to 2017. The comprehensive monitoring data focus on water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 41), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 42), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T-P), total sulphur (T-S). The areas within the Seto Inland Sea are assessed against a set of Environmental Standards for Conservation of Living Environment as shown in Figure 40. For COD and DO in the summer of 2017 (the time of lowest water movement and highest chance of abiotic conditions) Hiroshima Bay remained above the Environmental Protection levels and fisheries second grade level 5mg/l (Figure 40). The DO target given in FGIP is 4.3mg/l so is less stringent than the Environmental Protection level grade 2.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 67
Figure 40. Environmental standards related to water pollution (living environment items in the sea area), [Environmental Standards for Conservation of Living Environment] (Sea Area A). source: https://www.env.go.jp/water/heisa/heisa_net/setouchiNet/seto/g2/g2cat01/suishitsu/index.html
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 68
Figure 41. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 2017. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2017).
Figure 42. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration 2017. Source: (Ministry of the Environment, 2017). At a UoA level DO in water around shellfish lease sites can become reduced if there is heavy enrichment from the oyster leases above and poor water column mixing. From the HOC sampling program there is evidence that bottom waters within Hiroshima Bay were below 4.3 mg/l, which is the oxygen concentration in bottom layer, which is above the Environmental Protection levels but below the fisheries second grade level (Figure 40) (HOC, 2020a). Comparison to the control sites in the monitoring program showed that the fishing ground bottom layer DO was higher than the control site in the Hiroshima Bay inner part, and the Kusatsu fishing ground bottom layer was equivalent to the control, suggestive that the UoA impact is not a principal driver. Importantly, the low DO appear to be seasonal as DO levels were > 8 in March 2020 (Figure 43) across all
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 69
sites prior to the summer depletion. In summer, when the vertical mixing of seawater is negligible, the supply of oxygen necessary for the decomposition of sediments and carried out by seawater exchange is reduced, but there is a possibility that the seawater exchange is slow and sufficient oxygen supply is not available in Hiroshima Bay (HOC, 2020b). That the summer reduction in DO is evident across Hiroshima Bay and not- limited to the oyster plot regions suggests this is a wider Hiroshima ecosystem issue not explicitly related to the UoA. However, the limited time series (1 year) of the HOC FGIP program limits this interpretation.
Figure 43. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels from two sampling events (March and August 2020) at four oyster leases and two (C) control sites in Hiroshima Bay. Source: (HOC, 2020b).
6.6.5.2 Carrying capacity
Linked to the DO levels of the bay is eutrophication. Historically one of the casual factors linked to eutrophication of Hiroshima Bay is oyster culturing, which has been intensively conducted for a long time. The ocean rehabilitation issue was raised in 1973 when the special law to protect environment of the enclose Setouchi Sea was established to strengthen the research and rehabilitation.
Oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay is supported by high primary production due to high nutrient loads from land (Wang et al., 2019). However, high nutrient loads can induce excess eutrophication resulting in red tides (algal blooms). Section 5.2.2 of this report describes the rise and fall of oyster production in Hiroshima Bay since 1960 and its links to red tide events changing production methods and system dynamics. It is theorized that the decrease of oyster production in Hiroshima Bay since the 1990s could have been due to decrease in primary production and changes in the phytoplankton species (lower supply of diatoms), which are important food for oysters (Hirata and Akashige, 2004).
To understand drivers of eutrophication nitrogen budgeting has been undertaken in Hiroshima Bay using simple box model analysis (Tarutani, 2007) and the Northern Area of this work overlaps with the UoA (Figure 44). The modelling was able to show that oyster leases in the bay could sequester approximately 0.66 ton of nitrogen per day or > 6 % of the total dissolved inorganic nitrogen input. The work impled that oyster farms play a significant role in removing particulate nitrogen from the water column in Hiroshima Bay and therefore provide an important ecosystem service which helps mitigate the eutrophic conditions found in the bay. This conclusion was also found in an earlier study (Songsangjinda et al., 2000), which showed that the dominant nitrogen source to the waters of Hiroshima Bay was from primary production not oyster culture. According
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 70
to the nitrogen cycle of the bay developed as part of that study, a significant role was played by suspended oyster culture and it was proposed that this could be used as a tool to remove nitrogen from the system.
Figure 44. Study area for Nitrogen modelling in Hiroshima Bay. The Northern Area identified in this figure overlaps with the UoA. Source: (Tarutani, 2007). Similarly, to the nitrogen models above but this time on a numerical ecosystem model in the northern Hiroshima Bay oyster culture was found to have a beneficial effect. Mitsushio et al. (2002) found that when no oysters were cultured, the concentrations of chlorophyll-a, dissolved organic phosphorus and detritus increased in the upper layer, and the dissolved oxygen decreased in the lower layer, concluding that oyster culture plays a positive and important role for preservation of the environmental balance.
Conversely though it was also identified that oyster overcapacity on the system led to detrimental impacts such as the 1990’s outbreaks of red tide by Heterocapsa circularisquama which rapidly reduced production and shellfish poisoning events which prevented harvest (Hirata and Akashige, 2004). Hirata and Akashige (2004) advocated the need to change culture methods to decrease oyster biomass on the culture grounds and to halt what they considered a vicious spiral related to overcapacity. The most effective method proposed from their modelling was for culture oyster to use the 2-year culture method rather than combinate with the 3-year culture method (Figure 45). This reduced the overall oyster biomass on the system at any one time.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 71
Figure 45. Modelling analysis from Hiroshima Bay indicating increased shellfish poisoning events and its link to overcapacity (3 year culture period) within the system (Hirata and Akashige, 2004). Following on from the work of Hirata and Akashige (Hirata and Akashige, 2004) a single study using mass- balance modelling within the Ecopath modelling environment has been applied to estimate the carrying capacity of bivalve farming in Hiroshima Bay (Umehara et al., 2018). Planktonic micro-algae were known as the main food source of oyster when algae are abundant. When foods were scarce, the source can change to micro-zooplankton and detritus with the appropriate size specification. The carrying capacity of oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay was not evaluated directly by Umehara et al., (2018) but they made a direct comparison against a Ecopath carrying capacity model of an equitable bay in the US (Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island). The authors estimated the current soft-tissue biomass of farmed oysters in the north-eastern part of Hiroshima Bay (162 km2) at approximately 19–153 gDW m-2 (Umehara et al., 2018). The annual mean primary production in the Northern part and Southern part of Hiroshima Bay were approximately two-thirds and one-third of that in Narragansett Bay, respectively. The annual mean soft tissue biomasses of the farmed oysters in the NB and the SB were 1.2 times higher than and almost the same as the carrying capacity of Narragansett Bay, respectively. The authors therefore concluded that it is likely that oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay has reached the ecological carrying capacity of the system and that the high contribution of oysters to secondary production (34 %) indicates that oyster farming in the northern part of the bay may inhibit the production of net zooplankton (Umehara et al., 2018).
6.6.5.3 Ecosystem Health
The UoA under consideration here have active participation in two key ecosystem activities.
Coastal clean up
The Hiroshima oyster fishers including the UoA conduct a coastal clean up, using boats to clean up dropped shells and other accumulated organic waste under rafts. This clean up includes picking up any drift wood, garbage, lost gears (especially plastic pipes they use for oyster culture and which appears to get lost easily – particularly when a typhoon hits the area) etc. this is done by “sweeping” over the sea floor or sea surface – although the exact technique needs to be defined at the site visit.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 72
In Hiroshima prefecture clean-up activities are coordinated through the FCA, where the secretariat of Hiroshima West Fishery Promotion Project Committee is placed. It coordinates, citizen’s coastal clean-up and FC’s clean up the plastic pipes that are washed away from fisheries. The FCA’s promotion committee pay the citizen groups through city or town government for the expense of garbage delivery to recycle / garbage trader, and fishers pay fees to the committee for garbage collection.
In 2013, 48 FCs with total of 4,656 fishers, participated, with 213 vessels and 161 cars, and together with the citizen group’s garbage amount a total of 196.74 t was collected.
Figure 46. Government advertisement of the Hiroshima Bay clean up. Including dates and locations of the activities and types of activities undertaken (seafloor cleaning, surface waste clean-up and beach cleans). Source: HOC. There is also a sea-floor cultivation process undertaken in Hiroshima Bay where a heavy dredging device is used to aerate the mud. This work is conducted by the Hiroshima city itself and the exact nature, goals and outcome of which need to be investigated further at the site visit.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 73
Oyster shell discards
A prefecture guideline on the discarding of oyster shells and has been in existence since 1980 with a revised version in 2000. This provides the fishers with a defined process and steps for the safe processing and disposal of the empty shells and requires legal compliance on the designated area for this. The guideline also requires the FC to report any change in water quality which is also monitored by the local prefectural fisheries staff around the discards area (temp, Cl, Ph, COD, PO4-P, DO) (MAFF, 2000). The prefecture’s fisheries department, fishing port section enforce the regulation, in consultation with other departments relevant to environmental issues and citizen’s health.
6.6.6 Cumulative impacts
The MSC introduced requirements for cumulative impact assessments in Principle 2 with the release of the FCR v2.0. These requirements are to ensure that MSC certified fisheries will no longer cumulatively be at risk of generating negative impacts on Principle 2 species (and habitat).
• For primary species, cumulative impacts assess whether the collective impact of overlapping MSC fisheries are hindering the recovery of ‘main’ primary species that are below a point of recruitment impairment (PRI); i.e. ensuring that the combined impact of MSC fisheries are not harming the recovery of the stock; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.1.1 SIa SG80.
• For secondary species, the same intent applies when a species is below a biologically based limit, but only in cases where two or more MSC fisheries have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being ten per cent or more of the total catch; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.2.1 SIa SG80. • For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC fisheries on all ETP species needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species and only for those fisheries subject to the same national legislation or within the area of the same binding agreement’; if relevant this is scored at PI 2.3.1 SIa SG80.
• For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (PI 2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that the impacts of all fisheries (including non-MSC fisheries) on habitats, including vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), are managed cumulatively to ensure serious and irreversible harm does not occur; this is scored for all fisheries and habitat types at SIa SG100. If relevant, there is also consideration of the UoA’s compliance with VME management measures established by other fisheries at SId SG80.
Outcome Performance Element Cumulative impact? Rationale Indicator
2.1.1 Primary species N/A N/A Not scored (main) 2.2.1 Secondary species N/A N/A Not scored (main) 2.3.1 ETP outcome N/A N/A No elements scored by PI 2.3.1a 2.4.2 VME management N/A N/A No other MSC fisheries present in Hiroshima Prefecture.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 74
6.6.7 Scoring elements
Table 18. Principle 2 scoring elements
Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides ETP スナメリ N/A No Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta アカウミガメ
Mud main No cherry salmon (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) Habitats habitat (river and VME No estuary) habitat at the mouth of the Ota river. Seagrass minor No
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 75
6.6.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
Scoring table 1. PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome
PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable
Guide Where national and/or international Where national and/or international Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, there post effects of the UoA on the population/ stock are combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the is a high degree of certainty that the known and likely to be within these limits. population /stock are known and highly likely to combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
The identified ETP species are listed in Table 13. The Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) is classified as VU on the IUCN red list and included in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It is designated as a protected species under the Japanese Fisheries Resource Conservation Act (1951), and also as a National Natural Treasure. The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is also categorised as VU on the IUCN red list and included in Appendix 1 of CITES. However, for neither of these ETP species do specific limits exist in terms of total mortality permitted before a management response is required. Therefore, as per the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 SA3.10.1.1, since there is “no applicable national legislation or binding international agreement” that set limits with respect to the remaining ETP species, scoring issue (a) is not scored. Direct effects of the fisheries on all ETP species are scored in the following section, SI(b).
b Direct effects
Guide Known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not Direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not There is a high degree of confidence that hinder recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP species. there are no significant detrimental direct post effects of the UoA on ETP species.
Met? Yes Yes No
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 76
Rationale
Under this SI, only those effects of rope oyster cultivation that may reasonably be expected to have direct effect ETP species are considered; therefore, the Assessment Team considered the possible direct effects of the UoA on ETP species to be entanglement in structures associated with oyster culture activities. As mentioned under scoring issue a), the Pacific finless porpoise and loggerhead turtle are the two elements classified as ETP species under the MSC definition. It may be possible for the oyster culture rafts to cause some disturbance to either of these species, but no entanglement has ever been reported in this fishery. A UoA specific recording program is in existence and records of interactions are available from this including date, location , type of interact and fate (Figure 17) along with public sighting records.
The finless porpoise population was estimated have a population of ~ 10,000 individuals in 2015, and there is no decreasing trend (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). Ogawa (2017) found the population of the Seto inland Sea was high from 2000 to 2015, and that the population is recovering and expected to increase in the future. For the finless porpoise there is evidence of a population on and around the fishery grounds, near the UoA (Figure 13). However local experts from the Miyajima Aquarium consider it is very unlikely that the finless porpoise will get entangled in rafts (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). The sonar in small cetaceans is highly sensitive to the local environment and ropes laden with maturing oysters would be easily detected, oysters are not a known food source and therefore would not attract this species for that reason.
With regards to loggerhead sea turtles the principal population centres for this species are the open Pacific coast and not in the Seto Inland Sea (Figure 15). For loggerhead turtles although there have been sightings in the past, Miyajima Aquarium consider it is rare and that it is not necessary to consider the relationship with the oyster farming industry (Akagi and Miura pers comm.). The assessment team contacted Dr Hatase author of multiple Japanese research papers on loggerheads regarding the presence of nesting areas and feeding area in Hiroshima Bay. His response provided and reproduced on page 174 confirms that Hiroshima Bay is not a known nesting or feeding area. Behavioural traits (feeding regimes) indicate a mid-water gelatinous food pathway (Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020) and association with the Kuroshio Current which does not come in close proximity to the UoA.
At a global scale while entanglement in aquaculture gear is not unknown, cases are extremely rare, and where cases have occurred, they have generally occurred in mussel spat collectors or buoy lines connected to them (NOAA, 2017). Where mussel spat collectors generally consist of long lines that move with the currents, rope grown oyster cultures use heavy lines that are constantly under tension, due to the scallop shells weighing them down. The lines on a raft are located closely together, which makes it unlikely (near impossible) for porpoise or turtles to swim between the lines and get entangled.
Given the characteristics of the fishery (low disturbance, no chance of entanglement, and thus no mortality), the effect from the fishery is considered low.
The fishery appears to have no known direct effects on ETP species and given the evidence from above and other aquaculture farms globally is therefore highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG 80 are met. However, the current recording mechanism for the UoA is relatively new (<3 years) and therefore high degree of confidence is not yet apparent, so SG 100 is not met.
c Indirect effects
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 77
Guide Indirect effects have been considered for the UoA There is a high degree of confidence that and are thought to be highly likely to not create there are no significant detrimental indirect post unacceptable impacts. effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes No
Rationale
Indirect effects on ETP species might include disturbance, noise and pollution (farm waste).
The UoAs are situated in Hiroshima Bay an industrialised eutrophic semi-enclosed coastal sea due to increased anthropogenic activities such as industrialization and urbanization since the 1960s. Hiroshima Bay also has a significant port and ferry terminal meaning shipping traffic is high.
Given the scale of the UoA operations against the industrial backdrop of Hiroshima Bay, the short amount of time an oyster farmer spends on one specific site (a few hours) and the absence of direct interaction with the two ETP elements (finless porpoise and loggerhead turtles) the effects due to disturbance and noise are deemed to be limited.
With regards to waste (other than oyster shells) but including defective material from the farms, like broken lines, or sinking flotation devices, there are currently no standardized written instructions on waste management, but vessel captains and fishery co-operative members follow social norms regarding waste retrieval and disposal. Garbage and worn or broken gear is not discarded at sea; it is normally brought back to land and disposed of following standard waste handling procedures. The fishery participates in regular clean-up activities and site cleaning (see information in section 6.6.5.3). Oyster shells that remain after harvest are discarded in designated areas (MAFF, 2000).
Based on the above, indirect effects are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts. SG80 is met. However, no research or evidence has been identified to provide a high degree of certainty, so SG 100 is not met.
References
Akagi and Miura pers comm and Hatase pers. Comm (Appendix Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.
(Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020; NOAA, 2017)
Section 6.6.3 and figures within.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 78
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought on this PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 79
Scoring table 2. PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy
PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: meet national and international requirements; ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)
Guide There are measures in place that minimise the There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are UoA’s impact on ETP species, including for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP post expected to be highly likely to achieve national and measures to minimise mortality, which is species, including measures to minimise international requirements for the protection of designed to be highly likely to achieve national mortality, which is designed to achieve ETP species. and international requirements for the above national and international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA
Rationale
There are no national or international requirement for the protection of the ETP species considered in this assessment, thus SIa is not scored.
b Management strategy in place (alternative)
Guide There are measures in place that are expected to There is a strategy in place that is expected to There is a comprehensive strategy in place ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA post ETP species. ETP species. does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 80
In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):
- “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere.
- A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.
- A “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses.
ETP species identified are the finless porpoise and loggerhead sea turtle. At the national level under Article 1, Enforcement Regulations of the Fisheries Resources Protection Law 1993 (amended 2006 (FRA, 2006)), harvesting of finless porpoise or turtles is expressly forbidden. The law directs individuals to make best efforts to return to the sea an animal if accidental encountered and all encounters must be reported to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The finless porpoise are subject to the Cetacean Grounding Countermeasure Manual (FRA, 2012) and the requirements within specific the procedures required to be undertaken.
As noted under PI 2.3.1 with regards to the fishery under assessment, impacts appear to be negligible. There are no reported incidents of entanglement in the fishing gear and the gear design (a measure) of the oyster raft structure is likely to minimise risk of ETP mortality, even if not explicitly designed for this purpose. Scallop shells arranged as spat collectors and maintained on the raft lines throughout the culture process mean no exposed ropes (apart from buoy lines) are available for entanglement at any stage. Buoy lines by their nature are secured at both ends (anchor – raft) and unlikely to pose significant threat as they are large diameter ropes and not loose. SG60 is met. In addition there is a UoA monitoring programme in place for the UoA including collaboration with regulatory authorities under the HOC FGIP (described in section 6.7.5.2). A procedural guide is provided to all UoA operators should an ETP encounter take place which describes best practice for handling animals and points of contact for assistance and reporting (see section 6.6.3.8 and Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual). The monitoring program also considers the indirect effects by recording ‘event type’. These measures together can be considered a cohesive and strategic set of measures which has been recently (2019) modified via the FIP to be appropriate for the types of impacts possible (e.g. the three types of likely interaction identified in the Endangered Species Encounter Manual). The program data is reviewed internally by Kurahashijima Kaisan (client group) and externally by Seafood Legacy Ltd as the client fishery consultant. It is arranged that the program is reviewed annually for improvements (see SI e) and seeks advise and support from the local scientists and government. This meets SG80.
As the strategy has not been subject to any testing as required for a ‘comprehensive strategy’, SG100 is not met.
c Management strategy evaluation
Guide The measures are considered likely to work, based There is an objective basis for confidence that The strategy/comprehensive strategy is on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, the measures/strategy will work, based on mainly based on information directly about post the fishery and/or species involved, and a
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 81
theory or comparison with similar information directly about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis supports high fisheries/species). the species involved. confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Given that there are currently no known interactions with ETP species, due to the nature of the fishery and the species involved (Indo-Pacific Finless Porpoise and loggerhead turtle) and location of the fishery (away from breeding / nesting and feeding sites) the strategy can be considered likely to work. Evidence from fisheries external to the UoA such as those described in NOAA (2017) and other certified MSC fisheries of similar design confirm this is likely. SG60 is met. As described in PI2.3.2b the fishery monitors all encounters and encounter types with any ETP species through the UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme. This system has been in place for 18 months and no direct impacts have been observed and there is evidence that the reporting forms are being used when sightings do take place as per Figure 17. Therefore, this evidence along with that provided against SG60 mean there is an objective basis for confidence based on UoA data that the strategy will work. SG80 is met.
However, as the time series of the data from the UoA is limited to 18 months evaluation of the quality of quantitative nature of the data has not been undertaken or externally reviewed and achievement of SG100 will have to wait until a longer time series is available and quantitative analysis has been completed. SG100 not met.
d Management strategy implementation
Guide There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being post successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes No
Rationale
As described in PI2.3.2b the fishery monitors all encounters and encounter types with any ETP species through the UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme. This system has been in place for 18 months and no direct impacts have been observed but there is evidence that the reporting forms are being used when sightings take place as per Figure 17. Therefore, this evidence provides conviction that SG80 is met.
As the time series of the data is limited to 18 months evaluation of the quality of quantitative nature of the data will have to wait until a longer time series is available SG100 is not met.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 82
e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species
Guide There is a review of the potential effectiveness and There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential practicality of alternative measures to minimise effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative post UoA-related mortality of ETP species. measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA-related ETP species and they are implemented as mortality ETP species, and they are appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Review of the measures of the fishery was undertaken in response to a MSC pre-assessment in 2018 (Moriyasu et al., 2018) which resulted in the implementation of the new monitoring strategy for the UoA which has been successfully introduced Figure 17 along with the associated ETP encounter manual see section 6.6.3.8 and Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual. This is all part of the HOC FGIP (HOC, 2018) SG60 is met. An annual meeting is planned around June 2021 (e.g. after the oyster season) and is planned to review the ETP monitoring data for the season and allow comment on the current ETP management guidelines with the personnel from prefectural aquatic research center (海洋技術センター). Furthermore, there is an agreement with the aquarium specialists to receive advice for ETP management plan when needed. SG80 is met on this basis and the evidence of the agreement between stakeholders.
Within the context of this SI the SG100 score should be met by the annual meeting which is planned at the end of each season. However, as the 1st of these meetings is not planned to take place until the end of the current season, the team adjudged that SG100 should not be scored until at least this 1st meeting had actually taken place and there was evidence from this. SG100 not met.
References
Akagi and Miura pers comm and Hatase pers. Comm (Appendix Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.
(Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020; NOAA, 2017), (HOC, 2018)
Section 6.6.3 and figures within.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 83
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 84
Scoring table 3. PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information
PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA 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 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
Guide Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative information is adequate to Quantitative information is available to assess the UoA related mortality on ETP species. assess the UoA related mortality and impact with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of post and to determine whether the UoA may be a UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries OR threat to protection and recovery of the ETP and the consequences for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. species. Qualitative information is adequate to estimate OR productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Information available to score this SI:
• Interview evidence from Miyajima Aquarium who consider it is very unlikely that the finless porpoise will get entangled in rafts (Akagi and Miura pers comm.).
• PhD research highlighting potential impacts on finless porpoise (gravel extraction / pollution) did not indicate oyster farming as a potential issue.
• A volunteer network reported 596 sightings in 2020, with an estimated number at 206 (Seto-ECo-Kyo, 2021). All these sightings were found in the Southern end of Hiroshima Bay well away from the UoA leases (Figure 14).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 85
• Government sighting records show evidence of the porpoise in oyster culture areas but in low frequency ~4 events maximum per annum (Figure 13).
• Miyajima Aquarium consider it is rare and that it is not necessary to consider that there is likely any relationship (overlap) with the oyster farming industry and loggerhead turtles (Akagi and Miura pers comm.).
• Email evidence from Dr Hatase that Hiroshima Bay is not a known feeding or nesting area for loggerhead turtles.
• Research evidence that places turtle nesting and feeding areas away from the UoA (Figure 15) and research pointing to association with the Kuroshio Current and gelatinous prey which does not overlap with the UoA.
• Third party research evidence from global research which estimates that risk to ETP species from shellfish aquaculture is low (NOAA, 2017).
The information provided above supplies multiple sources of qualitative evidence which is adequate to estimate that the UoA does not impact ETP (finless porpoise and loggerhead turtle) mortality. SG60 is met.
For SG80 adequate quantitative (data) is required to determine UoA threats to the ETP elements. For both species there is 18 months of UoA reporting on ETP interactions from fishers in the UoA from the UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme. There is evidence that the forms are being completed and sightings are recorded (Figure 17). There is evidence of sightings of the finless porpoise but there are no direct contact (physical) interactions with the UoA noted which are likely to cause mortality.
At SG80 CABs are advised (GSA3.6.3) to balance the information adequacy required for the estimation of the impact of the UoA on the outcome of the species against the likely impact on that particular species. In both cases for the elements under consideration here, the populations of both species are relatively large (finless porpoise – 10,000 individuals - Ogawa (2017)), or the population’s distribution is spatially distinct from the UoA (loggerhead turtle, (Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020; Narazaki et al., 2013)) and the likelihood of interaction is low (NOAA (2017), Akagi and Miura pers comm2). According to Table GSA 5 of the FCR2.01 SG80 is achievable if a data source from column A (high verifiability,) is available and one or more from Column B (low verifiability) is available. For this UoA column A is met by independent research (Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020; Narazaki et al., 2013; NOAA, 2017; Ogawa, 2017) whilst Column B is met by the ETP recording forms (Figure 17), stakeholder interviewees (Akagi and Miura pers comm and Hatase pers. Comm (Appendix Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.), and wider community based recording (see ‘citizen science’ in 6.6.3.5)). SG80 is judged to be met.
At SG100 the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species must be known in detail. These are available to be recorded in the UoA record sheets however as the time series of the data is limited to 18 months thorough evaluation will have to wait until a longer time series is available SG100 is not met.
b Information adequacy for management strategy
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 86
Guide Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to measure trends Information is adequate to support a manage the impacts on ETP species. and support a strategy to manage impacts comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, post on ETP species. minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
As described in PI2.3.2 the strategy of the fishery for managing ETP species consists of:
1. The nature of the fishery - the gear design of the oyster raft structure is likely minimise risk of ETP mortality, even if not explicitly designed for this purpose. Scallop shells arranged as spat collectors and maintained on the raft lines throughout the culture process mean no exposed ropes (apart from buoy lines) are available for entanglement at any stage. Buoy lines are tethered at both ends and made from mooring rope (large diameter) meaning changes of entanglement are low.
2. The UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme which has collaboration with regulatory authorities and local scientists
3. The Endangered Species Encounter Manual - A procedural guide which describes best practice for handling animals and points of contact for assistance and reporting (see section 6.6.3.8 and Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual) and was developed with third party input.
4. Seto sea monitoring programs which includes citizen reporting (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013) and shipping traffic reporting (Ministry for the Environment, 2010)
Information on the effectiveness of the gear design as an effective measure is available from the lack of interaction with ETP species reported by scientists (Akagi and Miura pers comm and Hatase pers. Comm (Appendix Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.) and wider information on these aquaculture facilities globally (NOAA, 2017).
Trends (if any) can be determined from the UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme, and although this programme has only been in existence for 18 months, the information it produces will support future ETP strategy as required. This is ensured by collaboration on the program with the local authorities / experts.
SG60 and SG80 are considered met.
At SG100 a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives is required. At present it is too early for a full review of the UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme to have been undertaken and it is unknown how this will operate within the national reporting requirements. Further the effectiveness of The Endangered Species Encounter Manual has not been tested so the strategy cannot be considered ‘comprehensive’. SG100 is not met.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 87
References
Akagi and Miura pers comm and Hatase pers. Comm (Appendix Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.
(Hatase et al., 2010; Hatase and Omuta, 2020; NOAA, 2017)
Section 6.6.3 and figures within.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 88
Scoring table 4. PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome
PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Commonly encountered habitat status
Guide The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the commonly encountered function of the commonly encountered habitats to unlikely to reduce structure and function of post habitats to a point where there would be a point where there would be serious or irreversible the commonly encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
In the context of this PI, “serious or irreversible harm” for commonly-encountered habitat is to be interpreted as reductions in habitat structure and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5 – 20 years if fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely (MSC FCR v2.01; SA3.13.4).
The ‘commonly-encountered habitat’ beneath the oyster raft culture sites is mud with a clay composition higher than 70% (the characteristics are flat to low relief and burrowing infauna, with occasional epifauna) and this is considered the only ‘commonly-encountered habitat’ in this assessment (example of the sediment is shown in Figure 28, and the benthic fauna in Figure 29). This benthic habitat is present throughout Hiroshima Bay below 14 m (Figure 19) and is characterised by low redox potential and high Nitrogen content (Figure 20 and Figure 21), which is typical of the industrialised embayment’s within the Seto Inland Sea.
Physical impacts from the UoA are from the anchoring system (boat anchors) which hold the rafts in place and bio-deposition / benthic enrichment from the oyster lines.
The oyster rafts used in this fishery are kept in place by an anchor at each of the four corners of the raft. While these anchors could potentially impact the benthic habitat (mud) on which they are placed, the negative impacts as a result of smothering are likely to be extremely localised, being limited to the immediate area of the benthos on which they are placed. The anchors may even form new habitat for species associated with hard substrate (as evidenced by the fouling on the anchors and lines) but given that the rafts can be moved around during the grow-out phase of the oysters, this positive effect is only small and temporary. Overall, the spatial scale of any impacts is likely to be very limited and not constitute “serious or irreversible harm” as defined in SA3.13.4.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 89
The oysters’ lines (ropes) themselves do not touch the substrate and therefore do not directly impact habitats by scraping/disturbance etc. Growth of some epifaunal organisms other than oysters may occur through fouling (e.g. sea squirts and barnacles). Some oysters and epifauna may fall to the bottom and this may modify the substrates below the farm area though this effect is both highly localised and reversible.
The major habitat impact of oyster farms is the production of faeces and pseudo-faeces by the oysters, with potential build-up of detritus underneath the farms. As described in section 6.6.4, under GSB3.1.3.1 Principle 2 habitat PIs should focus on these benthic impacts of bio-deposition and organic enrichment. This is because the high number of organic matters (faecal and pseudo-faecal, and dead oysters) can result in the accumulation of bio-deposits leading to anoxic conditions. Anoxic conditions result in activation of sulphate reduction bacteria that produce highly toxic free S2- and can result in mass mortality of macro-benthic fauna.
For the UoA under assessment in this fishery, information on benthic conditions are known at the overall habitat level from the government based monitoring program (MLIT, 2021). There is UoA site specific information from the 2020 monitoring of the leases and control sites (HOC, 2020a, 2020b) and there has been significant independent research on the impact of oyster farms in Hiroshima Bay (Tarutani, 2007; Yamamoto Tamiji et al., 2008). Finally, several peer-reviewed review papers are available which examine the environmental impacts of bivalve mariculture, most notably Kaiser et al., (1998), Keeley et al., (2013; 2009) and Ahmed and Solomon (Ahmed and Solomon, 2016).
From the MLIT survey program it is possible to establish that Hiroshima Bay itself is eutrophic and that the whole bay has low redox potential (Figure 21) and high nitrogen loading within the sediments (Figure 20). Sulphide levels (as measured by Acid Volatile Sulphides (AVS)) are above Japan’s fishery-suitable water quality definitions where 0.2 mg/g is set as the upper limit (Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000) (Figure 33).
Hiroshima Bay receives substantial anthropogenic nutrient loading from its watersheds, the result of industrialisation (Kittiwanich et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019). Consequently the sediment has high levels of primary production from organic matter origin (Wang et al., 2019) and the highest loads are seen in the northern near shore reaches of the bay which is also where some leases are. The benthic fauna of Hiroshima Bay at a broad scale appears to reflect a modified and reduced level of species and abundance (Figure 22 and Figure 23) but species diversity remains moderate (Figure 24).
Distinguishing the impacts of the UoA against other impacts is required to score this component. MSC GSB 3.1.3.1 states that - Shellfish farming may occur where the natural benthic environment is already heavily enriched with organic matter prior to the initiation of any culture activities. In these cases, comparing measurements taken underneath farms to control sites outside of the farm can show that the culture activity is not directly responsible for the anoxic conditions.
Contrasting the impact between UoA sites and control areas of the bay is possible through the HOC monitoring program. This data is limited in respect to its temporal availability (2000 - two samples) but does indicate that there is no detectable difference between UoA sites and controls and that wider processes (seasonality and non-UoA anthropogenic activities) are a key driver in AVS values. Similarly, benthic infauna samples from the oyster leases show no significant reduction to the control sites (Figure 30).
The temporal limitations of the HOC sampling program alone does limit the assessment team’s confidence on the scale of the UoA impact. However, triangulating (GSA3.6.3) this UoA with other comparable fisheries from published research it is possible to increase confidence. Experimental evidence suggests that bivalve aquaculture impacts are difficult to detect outside of 20 m – 50 m from the site itself, any effect as a result of organic deposits are mostly local (Keeley et al., 2009). In addition the effects of bio-
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 90
deposition are also thought to be temporary (Keeley, 2013): Significant recovery is short term, occurring within the first few months of cessation of deposition. The benthos is mostly recovered in the medium to long term, within the timeframe of months to years thus suitable to meet the requirements of MSC FCR v2.01; SA3.13.4.
Scoring:
GSB3.1.3.1 suggests assessment teams should score SG60 when total ‘free’ sulphide in surficial sediment beneath farms is ≤ 3,000 μM and SG80 when ≤ 1,500 μM. As evidenced in Figure 34 with the exception of site HC 1 which is not near the UoA leases (Figure 4), estimated S2- levels are ≤ 1,500 μM suitable of meeting SG60 and SG80.
In addition, there is strong evidence as presented above that the high nitrogen, low redox sediment conditions present in Hiroshima Bay are not unilaterally the result of the oyster culture by the UoA. The entire bay is eutrophic and evidence from the initial stages of the HOC monitoring program show no difference between oyster leases and control sites, suitable to account for MSC GSB 3.1.3.1.
Finally there is the published evidence that effects of bio-deposition from these types of fisheries are temporary (Keeley, 2013) This is suitable to meet SA3.13.4.
On this basis the team finds it therefore highly unlikely that the UoA would reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats (mud) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met.
In relation to SG100, it is possible to argue that there is evidence that the UoA is highly likely not to impact the commonly encountered habitats from the HOC monitoring program, background monitoring of the bay (MLIT, 2021) and triangulated sources (Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009). However, given the infancy of the HOC monitoring program (2020 only) the team felt precaution was needed and SG100 is not met for now.
b VME habitat status
Guide The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the VME habitats to a point where function of the VME habitats to a point where there unlikely to reduce structure and function of post there would be serious or irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
In the context of this PI, “serious or irreversible harm” for VME habitats is to be interpreted as reductions in habitat structure and function below 80% of the unimpacted level (SA3.13.4.1). The unimpacted level being considered to be the status at the point of designation.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 91
The VME identified which overlaps with the UoA is locale 13702 under the Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) criteria of the convention on Biological Diversity 2008 (UNEP, 2008) and defined as an area of conservation need by the Ministry of the Environment (Ministry of the Environment, 2012). 2012 therefore becomes the point of designation and the level from which “serious or irreversible harm” must be considered. The VME is described in Table 16 as the mouth of the Ota and Yawata rivers. Side by side comparison of the EBSA designation and UoA leases below shows the overlap.
Figure 47. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) VME 13702 (left), UoA oyster leases (right upper), HOC sample sites (right lower panel black dots). Images are cropped from those shown in Figure 25, Figure 4 and Figure 27 respectfully. Ota river is the far-left river of the designated area. The VME designation is based on the presence of the endemic cherry salmon (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) habitat (river and estuary) at the mouth of the Ota river. The total area of the VME is 27 km2 with key habitats being tidal flats 0.148 km2, and seaweed /seagrass beds 0.3 km2. There are other vulnerable species which may be present in the area listed under two criteria (1: facing extinction, threatened species group 2: Increasing risk of extinction.) which are shown in Table 16, but are not the principal qualifying characteristics.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 92
The possible impacts of the UoA are those described in PI 2.4.1.a namely bio-deposition and organic enrichment and the same rationale as applied in PI2.4.1a applies here. Evidence of overlap with the key habitats tidal flats and seaweed seagrass beds and the UoA is available in the form of the HOC surveys (sediment samples) and independent research.
Two of the HOC survey sites (one a control site, one an oyster lease) sit within the VME area (as shown in Figure 47). Both sites are of depth >14 m and descriptions and imagery from the survey show no sign of seagrass or Sargassum spp. in the samples (Figure 48). The absence of Sargassum spp. and seagrasses (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) in the samples is supported by independent research which found that these species occur in mixed beds only up to 14 m in depth bordering the coastline of Hiroshima Bay (Sugimoto et al., 2017). Beyond this depth the bottom sediment is sandy-muddy bottom without any significant seagrasses (Terawaki et al., 2001). Evidently the depth of 14 m rules out overlap with the intertidal habitat and the UoA.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 93
Figure 48. HOC benthic monitoring samples from the Kusatsu control area (left) and oyster lease (right), located within the EBSA VME – 13702. Source: (HOC, 2020b) Scoring:
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 94
Given the evidence provided in SI 2.4.1a and the additional evidence in this SI the assessment team conclude that:
Locale 13702 under the Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) criteria is the only VME with overlap to the fishery. This VME through the EBSA process was defined in 2012 making this the point of designation. It is classed a VME on the basis of endemic cherry salmon (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) habitat (river and estuary) at the mouth of the Ota river. The VME key habitats are tidal flats 0.148 km2, and seaweed /seagrass beds 0.3 km2.
As evidenced in Figure 48 HOC survey sites (one a control site, one an oyster lease) within the VME area are of depth >14 m and descriptions / imagery from the survey show no sign of seagrass or Sargassum spp. in the samples (Figure 48).
Published records of seagrass indicate it is found only in the coastal shallower waters up to 6 m (Figure 26) and that beyond this depth there is not much exposed bedrock to form the base for brown seaweed such as Phaeophiceae spp. Seagrasses (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) can occur found up to 14 m in depth bordering the coastline of Hiroshima Bay (Sugimoto et al., 2017) however beyond this depth the bottom sediment is sandy-muddy bottom without any significant seagrasses (Terawaki et al., 2001).
Based on evidence from the HOC monitoring program and independent research discussed above that overlap between the UoA and VME habitats is highly unlikely.
As per 2.4.1a the assessment team must consider bio deposits in this SI.
As evidenced in Figure 34 estimated S2- levels are below the ≤ 1,500 μM suitable of meeting SG60 and SG80 under GSB3.1.3.1.
There is strong evidence as presented above that the high nitrogen, low redox sediment conditions present in Hiroshima Bay are not unilaterally the result of the oyster culture by the UoA. The entire bay is eutrophic and evidence from the initial stages of the HOC monitoring program show no difference between oyster leases and control sites (Figure 48).
Finally there is published evidence that effects of bio-deposition from these types of fisheries are temporary (Keeley, 2013): Significant recovery is short term, occurring within the first few months of cessation of deposition. The benthos is mostly recovered in the medium to long term, within the timeframe of months to years. This is suitable to meet SA3.13.4.
On this basis the team finds it therefore highly unlikely that the UoA would reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met.
In relation to SG100, it is possible to argue that there is evidence that the UoA is highly likely not to impact the VME habitats from the HOC monitoring program (HOC, 2020a, 2020b), background monitoring of the bay (MLIT, 2021) and triangulated sources (Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009). However given the infancy of the HOC monitoring program (2020 only) the team felt precaution was needed and SG100 is not met for now.
c Minor habitat status
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 95
Guide There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of post the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes
Rationale
The minor habitat identified in this assessment are seagrass beds (outside of the VME designation). Seagrasses (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) occur in mixed beds and are found up to 14 m in depth bordering the coastline of Hiroshima Bay (Sugimoto et al., 2017) and evidence from maps (Figure 26) and benthic sampling (Figure 48 and section 6.6.4.3) indicate that there is no direct overlap with this habitat type and the oyster leases. Impact therefore would therefore be from more indirect action (nutrient and bio deposition) however given the known limited footprint of this fishery type (Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009) and spatially limited impact reviewed in these work together with the continued presence of the seagrass within the Hiroshima Bay system it is highly unlikely that the UoA could reduce this habitat in any serious or irreversible way. SG100 is met.
References
(HOC, 2020a, 2020b; Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000; Kaiser et al., 1998; Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009; Kittiwanich et al., 2016; Ministry of the Environment, 2012; MLIT, 2021; Wang et al., 2019; Yamanoi, 2005) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 96
Scoring table 5. PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy
PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Management strategy in place
Guide There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for managing the that are expected to achieve the Habitat that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on post Outcome 80 level of performance. 80 level of performance or above. habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):
- “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere.
- A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.
- A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.
As per PI 2.4.1 the direct effect of the UoA on habitats is the production and associated impacts of accumulated fallen organic matter below the oyster leases. As a result management strategy to evaluate the habitat outcome at SG80 needs to focus on the measures in place to monitor and limit where necessary this impact.
At the national level the strategy is underpinned by the Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law Article 4 and Fisheries Basic Law Article 2. These laws require the fishery to have an approved Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP) as a prerequisite for acquiring a license on aquaculture leases. This FGIP is enacted through the Fishery Right Use Rules which specifies the number of rafts permissible, monitoring requirements and advisable levels of environmental quality. The sulphide levels acceptable under the FGIP is set as the maximum sustainable aquaculture quantity (based on the carrying capacity) and is calculated and reviewed by the prefectural fisheries’ technical centres. The advised sulphide amount is less than 0.4mgS/g (dry mud) of bottom habitat or visual confirmation of benthic organisms such as polychaetes. The FGIP requires FCs to maintain
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 97
monitoring equipment for substrate sampling, conduct the sampling and establish a reporting system to the government and fishery technical centers to provide of the results of the monitoring. In addition to the FGIP set for the fishery the client group established a supplementary HOC FGIP to implement the needs of the FGIP. In addition and outside of the fishery monitoring program are prefecture based measures which also measure the conditions in the benthic environment.
Overall the measures in place (applicable to impact on all habitat elements) consist of:
1. An active Fishery Grounds Improvement Plan (FGIP) which specifies that licenced oyster fishers must measure water quality (DO) and sea floor characteristics (sulphide amount and existence of benthic invertebrates). It also specifies total raft numbers through an Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ) (11,954 rafts) and the density of rafts and their dimensions. The requirements and the monitoring of raft numbers is checked by the Prefecture (Division of Aquatic Resources) through the FC submissions of their Fishery Right Use Rules and only then are fishery rights granted.
2. Raft size restrictions as described in section 5.2.3 and further detailed in section 0 include limits on the overall size of individual rafts as well as the length of lines and scallop shell numbers per line which can be used on the fishery (set by each FC as part of their Fishery Right Use Rules ). The size and number of rafts is checked and monitored by the FCA.
3. The fishery footprint in terms of oyster leases available to oyster farmers is fixed through the Fishery Right Use Rules. The boundary lines are randomly monitored by monitoring vessels (owned by the prefecture) and the office of maritime security also randomly monitors to make sure there are no rafts placed outside of the assigned boundaries. The FC peer monitoring of fishery rights can also be viewed as a compliance element here. To be granted a new lease depends on the FC being granted a new lease and requires application through the demarcated fishery rights procedures (every 5 years).
4. Demarcated fishery rights for oyster hanging operations are allocated (renewed) every 5 years by application to the prefectural governor. Therefore, effort is temporally limited into 5 year blocks as the capacity is fixed in the terms of each Fishery Right Use Rules.
5. Monitoring of the number of overall rafts within Hiroshima Bay are checked on a biannual basis firstly before the season starts in August and again when the seeds are set in October (Table 8) by the Division of Aquatic Resources.
6. The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites under the HOC FGIP. The monitoring includes sulphide measurements, DO measurements, visual inspection of substrate type and quantitative analysis of benthic fauna. The HOC FGIP is reviewed by third party authorities for conformity and modified as required.
7. MLIT monitoring program – Seto Inland Sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long-term trends in habitats and bottom water conditions (detailed in section 6.6.4.7.
Scientific evidence based on ecological modelling has suggested a need to reduce the total number of hanging rafts to below 10,000 in Hiroshima Bay (excluding Hiro and Mitsu Bays). However, no regulation has been implemented based on this suggested ecological limit. There was a separate regulatory decision to reduce the number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay by 30% in the late 1990’s, and enforcement resulted in a 10% reduction in the number of rafts. The suggested limit of 10,000 rafts was evaluated using
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 98
ecosystem modelling and site-specific information, and results showed that 10,000 rafts was an appropriate limit for Hiroshima Bay (Hashimoto et al., 2007). The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture (Table 8), suggestive that the total effort of the fishery is within the suggested 10,000 limit. The FGIP sets the limit of leases at 11,954 based on 95% of the capacity of the fishery removing the max and the minimum year from the 5 years between 2006 and 2010 and taking the 3 years average number of rafts (12,584 rafts) See section 0 for the full details.
In scoring Principle 2 the assessment team must consider the impact and management of the UoA within the context of the wider management framework. In that regard the UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5% of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay 9,877. Therefore the UoA would have to grow to 20 times its current size in order to approach the capacity limit implied by (Hashimoto et al., 2007).
Indirect effects - each raft has its own identification tag, and the ownership is very clear (if the rafts are washed away due to the strong wave etc, the owner has the responsibility to pull it back to the original position). The UoA and the Prefecture enact cleaning activities (see section 6.6.5.3) to remove farm waste and maintain the local habitats. With regards to waste (other than oyster shells) but including defective material from the farms, like broken lines, or sinking flotation devices, there are currently no standardized written instructions on waste management, but vessel captains and fishery co-operative members follow social norms regarding waste retrieval and disposal. Garbage and worn or broken gear is not discarded at sea; it is normally brought back to land and disposed of following standard waste handling procedures. The fishery participates in regular clean-up activities and site cleaning (see information in section 6.6.5.3). Oyster shells that remain after harvest are discarded in designated areas (MAFF, 2000).
In assessing this SI the team has found evidence that there are more than one measure in place within the fishery to restrict the UoA impact on main / VME habitats as detailed above so SG60 is met. In addition, there is the UoA specific and a wider ecosystem-based monitoring programs (HOC and MLIT) which measure the correct variables (sulphate, bottom water DO, benthic fauna) suitable for monitoring the UoA impact. Finally, it can be shown that UoA constitutes ~ 5 % of the total effort of the fishery on Hiroshima Bay and that at this level is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of main habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. These measures do not appear be designed as a strategy to manage the UoA impacts on habitats, but they do represent a cohesive arrangement which can achieve the desired outcome suitable to be considered a partial strategy. SG80 is met.
It cannot be said however that there is strategy which contains mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. SG100 is not met.
b Management strategy evaluation
Guide The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence that Testing supports high confidence that the partial based on plausible argument (e.g. general the measures/partial strategy will work, based on strategy/strategy will work, based on post experience, theory or comparison with similar information directly about the UoA and/or information directly about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Yes Yes No
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 99
Rationale
As per 2.4.2.a
The measures in place consist of:
• An active Fishery Grounds Improvement Plan (FGIP) which specifies that licenced oyster fishers must measure water quality (DO) and sea floor characteristics (Sulphide amount and existence of benthic invertebrates). It also specifies total raft numbers through an Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ) (11,954 rafts) and the density of rafts and their dimensions. These requirements and the monitoring of this is checked by the Prefecture through the FC submissions of their Fishery Right Use Rules and only then are fishery rights granted. • The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes sulphide measurements, DO measurements, visual inspection of substrate type and quantitative analysis of benthic fauna. The HOC FGIP is reviewed by third party authorities for conformity and modified as required. • Raft size restrictions as described in section 5.2.3 these include limits on the overall size of individual rafts as well as the length of lines and scallop shell numbers per line which can be used on the fishery • The number of overall rafts within Hiroshima Bay are checked on a biannual basis by the Division of Aquatic Resources firstly before the season starts in August and again when the seeds are set in October (Table 8). The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture and below the AAAQ value.. • MLIT monitoring program – Seto Inland sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in habitats and bottom water conditions. • Frozen footprint in terms of oyster leases available to oyster farmers. New licence areas can only be approved every 5 years through demarcated fishery rights application.…… • Demarcated fishery rights for oyster hanging operations are allocated (renewed) every 5 years by application to the Prefectural governor. Therefore effort is temporally limited into 5 year blocks. The UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5% of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay (9,877). Therefore the UoA would have to grow to 20 times its current size in order to approach the capacity limit implied by Hashimoto et al.,(2007). This is viewed a high unlikely as it would also mean the UoA would have to secure large scale changes to its Fishery Rights through the demarcated fishing rights requirements and given the overall AAAQ limit of 11,954 applied through the FGIP significantly reduce the rights of the other 30 plus FCs in the fishery.
Monitoring of the leases by the Prefecture shows that the number of leases total remain within the suggested capacity limit (10,000) and below the overall AAAQ limit of 11,954 applied through the FGIP. As described in PI2.4.1 estimated S2- levels are likely below the ≤ 1,500 μM level (Figure 34 ) described by MSC as highly unlikely to reduce
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 100
habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Furthermore, there is strong evidence as presented above that the high nitrogen, low redox sediment conditions present in Hiroshima Bay are not unilaterally the result of oyster culture fishery as a whole and of which the UoA represents only 5%.
Finally, the initial stages of the HOC monitoring program show no difference between oyster leases and control sites (Figure 48).
There is therefore plausible argument that the measures in place are working and SG60 is met. Further, the scale of the UoA against the wider fishery and data outputs from the HOC program and the wider MLIT program provide objective basis for confidence that partial strategy will work. SG80 is met.
There has not been sufficient testing of the partial strategy (the AAAQ limit) suitable to meet the SG100 requirement it is therefore not met.
c Management strategy implementation
Guide There is some quantitative evidence that the There is clear quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented partial strategy/strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No
Rationale
Quantitative evidence comes in the following forms:
• The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites as part of the HOC FGIP. The monitoring includes sulphide measurements, DO measurements, visual inspection of substrate type and quantitative analysis of benthic fauna. • Sulphide measurements and benthic fauna data do not show a significant difference between lease and control sites. • The presence of infauna and the sulphide measurements below the FGIP limit of 4mg/g show the terms of the FGIP are being met. • MLIT monitoring program – Seto Inland sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in habitats and bottom water conditions. Estimated S2- levels are likely below the ≤ 1,500 μM level (Figure 34 ). • Monitoring of the number of overall rafts within Hiroshima Bay on a biannual basis (Table 8). The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture. SG80 is met.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 101
In relation to SG100 this is not met for the following reasons. The HOC program is still in its infancy. S2- levels from the MLIT program are only estimates and there is no evidence that the management authorities could react to reduce overall fishing effort if required to do so based on monitoring data.
d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs
Guide There is qualitative evidence that the UoA There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA There is clear quantitative evidence that the complies with its management requirements to complies with both its management requirements UoA complies with both its management post protect VMEs. and with protection measures afforded to VMEs requirements and with protection measures by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- relevant. MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
The protection measure afforded to the VMEs from the UoA is the oyster lease area. The prefectural fisheries department conducts compliance monitoring (inspections by aircraft on raft placement and numbers), suitable to ensure that the UoA remain within their leases. There is also the FCA peer review system in place and an interdependency on compliance of all fishers to maintain access to the income mutual aid program (see section 6.7.4). The presence of infauna and the sulphide measurements at lease sites below the FGIP limit of 4mg/g show the terms of the FGIP are being met at least for 2020.
On the basis of the above SG60 is met and SG80 may be met with respect to there being some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and protection afforded to VMEs.
At present the assessment team are unaware of any other fishery which require the UoA to comply with its protection measures, but this will require further investigation at the site visit to confirm this. Therefore, at present SG80 not met
References
(HOC, 2020b, 2020a; Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000; Kaiser et al., 1998; Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009; Kittiwanich et al., 2016; Ministry of the Environment, 2012; MLIT, 2021; Wang et al., 2019; Yamanoi, 2005) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 102
Information gap indicator More information sought on other fisheries which may operate in the VME area and restrictions in place for those fisheries and how they may effect the UoA. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 103
Scoring table 6. PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information
PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Information quality
Guide The types and distribution of the main habitats The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the The distribution of all habitats is known over are broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level their range, with particular attention to the post of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the occurrence of vulnerable habitats. OR UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Evidence of the types and distribution of habitats comes from the following:
• The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes sulphide measurements, DO measurements, visual inspection of substrate type and quantitative analysis of benthic fauna. • Sulphide measurements and benthic fauna data do not show a significant difference between lease and control sites. • MLIT monitoring program – Seto Inland sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends (2000-2019) in habitats and bottom water conditions. These measurements include Sulphide, DO, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Benthic fauna, (see section 6.6.4.3) • Independent research into habitats within Hiroshima Bay which appear in peer reviewed journals (Imagawa et al., 2009; Kamimura, 2013; Sonoki et al., 2016; Terawaki et al., 2001; Yoshida Goro et al., 2001; Yoshida and Shimabukuro, 2017).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 104
• Fisheries statistics used by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and published in Yoshida (2012) show the overall contribution of habitats within the Aki−Nada (Hiroshima Bay) region (Table 19). Table 19. Total sea area and the areas of coastal ecological components of Aki−Nada (Hiroshima Bay) region. Source: Yoshida (Yoshida, 2012)
Sea area (km2) <10 m depth (km2) Seaweed bed (ha) Zostera spp. bed (ha) Sargassum bed (ha) Kelp (Ecklonia) (ha) Tidal flat (ha) 2,318 268 1,750 (-47) 1,116 (-39) 502 (-39) 461 (0) 592 (-17)
In relation to the VMEs there is a dedicated website (http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/kaiiki/engan/13702.html) which describes the site and its designating features and their area (Table 16).
Based on the above information the nature, distribution (via maps see figures Figure 19 - Figure 25) and vulnerabilities (sediment analysis and benthic sampling) of the main habitats are known and as samples come from below some of the UoA leases (HOC, 2020b) the scale and intensity is also known. SG60 and SG80 are met.
In relation to SG100, whilst the HOC monitoring program is considered representative because of the spread of the sites and low diversity of the habitats involved, not all UoA leases are monitored and habitat distribution cannot be verified. Furthermore, in relation to the VME the exact location of the seagrass beds although defined (Figure 26) their extent is not regularly monitored and farm infrastructure and farm activities such as boat and vehicular traffic may have a detrimental impact (Ahmed and Solomon, 2016). SG100 is not met.
b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts
Guide Information is adequate to broadly understand Information is adequate to allow for identification The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats the nature of the main impacts of gear use on of the main impacts of the UoA on the main have been quantified fully. post the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitats, and there is reliable information on the habitat with fishing gear. spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the Some quantitative information is available and is main habitats. adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 105
Rationale
The monitoring (HOC and MLIT surveys) conducted are adequate to understand the nature of the main impacts of gear on the main habitats. Spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear is known and the prefecture government maintain a list of all raft leases and their locations (Figure 4). The distribution of the main habitats in the areas where the UoA has oyster leases is known (see section 6.6.4). The impacts of the fishery on the mud habitat can be identified (see 2.4.1a) and cross referenced against similar fisheries globally (Kaiser et al., 1998; Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009). The physical impacts of the gear have been quantified to some extent through analysis of the abiotic and biotic conditions below the rafts (HOC, 2020b) and in the wider Seto inland sea monitoring program (Ministry of the Environment, 2018b, 2018a; MLIT, 2021). In relation to SA3.15.6 information on VMEs is required at SG80 to include a. maps of the UoA footprint and b. position of closed areas to protect VMEs. a. is met by virtue of Figure 26 and b. because there is no closed area is met by default. The overall VME footprint is shown also in Figure 26. Neither SA3.15.6c (closed areas established by other fisheries) or SA3.15.6d (VME indicator catches) appear to apply for this fishery.
On the basis of the information above the assessment team therefore consider SG60 and SG80 are met. Although there is not believed to be any significant overlap between seagrass (Figure 26) across its range and the UoA leases due to depth and location, there is also no evidence that this quantified fully or considered when lease areas are granted. SG100 not met c Monitoring
Guide Adequate information continues to be collected Changes in all habitat distributions over time to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. are measured. post
Met? Yes No
Rationale
The prefecture government maintain a list of all raft leases and their locations (Figure 4). Since they are responsible for the permitting process, they determine increase in risk to the fishery from overcapacity, mostly through the 5 year allocation process of fishery rights and annually by monitoring of raft numbers via biannual surveys. The overall impact of the fishery is set through the FGIP and the AAAQ and site-specific research and long-term monitoring of potential build-up of organic material under and near the farms is available via the HOC monitoring program and the MLIT program. Both of these are suitable to detect increased risk in the main impacts (benthic health). Therefore, SG80 is met but SG100 is not met. The team are not aware that regular seagrass monitoring takes place throughout the bay in sufficient detail to show changes over time. In addition, the HOC program is only 1 year old and changes over time are not yet developed sufficiently at the UoA level to show they are able to detect changes under the leases.
References
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 106
(Kaiser et al., 1998; Keeley, 2013; Keeley et al., 2009), (Ministry of the Environment, 2018b, 2018a; MLIT, 2021), (Figure 26), (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOPSC, 2013), (HOC, 2020b, 2020a)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 107
Scoring table 7. PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome
PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Ecosystem status
Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key elements The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem structure and function to elements underlying ecosystem structure and to disrupt the key elements underlying post a point where there would be a serious or function to a point where there would be a ecosystem structure and function to a point irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Table SA8 defines the requirements of ‘serious or irreversible harm’ for this component as:’…. the reduction of key features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and ensuring that ecosystem resilience and productivity is not adversely impacted. This includes, but is not limited to, permanent changes in the biological diversity of the ecological community and the ecosystem’s capacity to deliver ecosystem services.’
With regards to the fishery under assessment, the key elements for the underlying ecosystem structure and function can be considered to be water quality and ecological carrying capacity.
Water quality The evidence in section 6.6.5.1 of this report identifies that Hiroshima Bay is eutrophic and suffers from poor water quality resultant from anthropogenic activities such as industrialization and urbanization (Kittiwanich et al., 2016). Oyster culture may also play a role both negative and positive in water quality. Oysters are known to improve water quality as filter-feeders remove primary and secondary production particulates from the water column, however when productivity reaches a threshold the oxygen demand of the cultures can exceed the ecosystem’s ability to delivery oxygen. Information on water quality at the ecosystem level is available through the Ministry of Environment monitoring scheme with a focus on water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 31), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 32), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T-P), total sulphur (T-S). The latest available data from this monitoring show that the COD and DO in the summer of 2017 in Hiroshima Bay (the time of lowest water movement and highest chance of abiotic conditions) remained above the Environmental Protection levels and Fisheries second grade level (Figure 30). Independent research has shown that water clarity (secchi depth) has increased in the past 35 years, but there remains a gradient in water quality from poor conditions in the North of the bay to the south (Umehara et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 108
Water quality in the summer months is a key area of concern and evidence from the UoA HOC FGIP program (HOC, 2020b) indicates that DO reduces significantly at the oyster leases sites at this time (Figure 39). The DO at depth did drop below the FGIP benchmark of 3.0ml/l (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019). However, it is also evident from the same HOC FGIP monitoring work that the control sites in Hiroshima Bay also have similar reduced DO during this period, therefore implying the effect is not solely UoA driven and more likely a regional issue resultant of poor water exchange with the open coast in the summer months. This summer low level of DO is also identified in the Ministry of Environment monitoring scheme (Figure 32). That the water quality around the UoA sites is at acceptable DO levels outside of the summer period is a strong indication that the UoA is not disrupting DO to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
Chl.a concentration is strongly linked to nitrogen loading in Hiroshima Bay (Wang et al., 2019) with primary production in the north of Hiroshima Bay 1.1 to 2.1 times higher than that of the offshore area (southern reaches of Hiroshima Bay) in all four seasons (Umehara et al., 2018). From the UoA specific monitoring program described in section 6.6.4.4 Chl.a was found to range from 1.9 to 7.5 (average 3.5) μg/l at stations deep in Hiroshima Bay, 0.6 to 2.2 at Dai Kurogamijima Island (average 1.3) (Figure 28). Overall, the amount of Chl.a was a little higher in the control areas which the report implied was resultant of the absence of intake of phytoplankton by oysters in these areas (HOC, 2020a) (Figure 28). Despite this evidence of Chl.a reduction around the UoA leases when referenced against the requirements of ‘serious or irreversible harm’ it would be very difficult to conclude that this reduction could constitute permanent change in ecosystem service or that the difference would be aversively impact the ecosystem against the backdrop of a eutrophic bay where historic bloom events have been known (page 65).
Carrying Capacity
Oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay is supported by high primary production due to high nutrient loads from land (Wang et al., 2019). Modelling shows that oyster leases in the bay could sequester > 6 % of the total dissolved inorganic nitrogen input and that oyster farms play an important ecosystem service which helps mitigate the eutrophic conditions found in the bay (Tarutani, 2007). However, application of a Ecopath model to Hiroshima Bay via a surrogate implies that it is likely that oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay has reached the ecological carrying capacity of the system and the high contribution of oysters to secondary production (34 %) indicates that oyster farming in the northern part of the bay may inhibit the production of net zooplankton (Umehara et al., 2018). Further, it has been suggested that overcapacity in the past (pre - 2000’s) led to periodic shellfish poisoning and die off events (Hirata and Akashige, 2004).
Clearly in Hiroshima Bay there is a balancing act involving reducing eutrophic sources from the watersheds and using oyster farming a as a tool to maintain water quality whilst not increasing capacity beyond that which the ecosystem can maintain. The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture has been 9,877, this is a reduction from the number seen in previous decades (2000’s – 12,000) and is below both the AAAQ threshold of 11,954 set in the FGIP and below the recommended limit in Hashimoto et al., (2007) of 10,000 which was modelled by Umehara et al., (2018). The FGIP limit is set at 95 % of the average number of rafts between 2006 and 2010 (with removal of the max and min years) at 12,584 rafts, although there appears no precautionary or scientific justification of this limit and there remains concerns over how this value relates to a precautionary approach. It is noted by the team that the AAAQ value was arrived at in consultation between FCAs, the prefecture and local scientists though. As this SI (and all P2) are directed at the UoA impact directly the assessment team must evaluate the UoA here and not the impact of the entire fishery. As noted in the Habitats PIs of this assessment the UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5 % of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay (9,877). Therefore the UoA would have to grow to 20 times its current size in order to approach the capacity limit identified by Hashimoto et al., (2007), and essentially comprise the entire fishery. This is viewed a high unlikely as it would mean the UoA would have to secure large scale changes to its Fishery Rights through the
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 109
demarcated fishing rights requirements and given the overall AAAQ limit of 11,954 applied through the FGIP significantly reduce the rights of the other 30 plus FCs in the fishery.
Ecosystem Health
The UoA is subject to procedural requirements for the disposal of oyster shell waste which is monitored through the Prefecture and requires a plan of the disposal site which must be approved by the prefecture. Water quality at these sites is checked by local government staff. The UoA also actively participates in the Hiroshima Bay coastal clean up which is organised by the local government. This includes removal of debris and lost / broken raft materials from the seabed, surface water cleaning activities and beach cleans (Figure 46).
Scoring
As per the requirements of Principle 2 and the SGs of this Performance Indicator, the assessment team must consider the impact on the ecosystem elements identified at the UoA level not the fishery as a whole. Clearly based on that criteria and the evidence above and in the background section permanent change or adverse impact in water quality from the UoA is not highly likely and SG60 and SG80 are met. Equally the UoA currently occupies 5% of the total rafts within Hiroshima Bay a total which is reported to be at carrying capacity in relation to inhibiting net zooplankton production (Umehara et al., 2018). At this level of production the UoA alone is highly likely not to impact ecosystem service in relation to carrying capacity and SG60 and SG80 are met.
In regard to SG100 there is evidence on which to base this decision as detailed above to support the argument for the UoAs impact from research (Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Umehara et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) and monitoring (HOC, 2020a, 2020b; Ministry of the Environment, 2017) SG100 is met.
References
(Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Umehara et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) (HOC, 2020a, 2020b; Ministry of the Environment, 2017), (HOC, 2018)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 110
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 111
Scoring table 8. PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy
PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Management strategy in place
Guide There are measures in place, if necessary which There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in take into account the potential impacts of the UoA which takes into account available information place which contains measures to address all post on key elements of the ecosystem. and is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, on the ecosystem so as to achieve the and at least some of these measures are in
Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. place. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
In the context of this performance indicator (Source: MSC FCR v2.01; Table SA8):
- “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere.
- A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.
- A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.
At the national level the strategy is underpinned by the Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law Article 4 and Fisheries Basic Law Article 2. These laws require the fishery to have an approved Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP) as a prerequisite for acquiring a license on aquaculture leases. This FGIP is enacted through the Fishery Right Use Rules which specifies the number of rafts permissible, monitoring requirements and advisable levels of environmental quality. The environmental levels acceptable under the FGIP are set as the maximum sustainable aquaculture quantity (based on the carrying capacity) and is calculated and reviewed by the prefectural fisheries technical centres. The advised DO amount is more than 3.0ml/l . The FGIP requires FCs to maintain monitoring equipment for substrate sampling, conduct the sampling and establish
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 112
a reporting system to the government and fishery technical centers to provide of the results of the monitoring. In addition to the FGIP set for the fishery the client group established a supplementary HOC FGIP to implement the needs of the FGIP. In addition, and outside of the fishery monitoring program are prefecture-based measures which also measure the conditions in the environment.
The measures in place consist of:
• An active Fishery Grounds Improvement Plan (FGIP) which specifies that licenced oyster fishers must measure water quality (DO) and sea floor characteristics (sulphide amount and existence of benthic invertebrates) against advised levels. It also specifies total raft numbers through an Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ) (11,954 rafts) and the density of rafts and their dimensions. These requirements and the monitoring of this is checked by the Prefecture through the FC submissions of their Fishery Right Use Rules and only then are fishery rights granted. • The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases which forms part of the additional HOC FGIP. Submitted reports from 2020 confirm the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes DO measurements, and chl.a. The HOC FGIP is reviewed by third party scientists and authorities for conformity and modified as required. • Ministry of Environment monitoring program – Seto Inland sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in bottom water conditions including analysis of water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 31), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 32), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T-P), total sulphur (T-S). • Raft size restrictions as described in section 5.2.3 these include limits on the overall size of individual rafts as well as the length of lines and scallop shell numbers per line which can be used on the fishery. These are set in the Fishery Right Use Rules for the FCs and monitored by the FCs themselves (peer) and irregularly by the prefecture. • The number of overall rafts within Hiroshima Bay are checked on a biannual basis firstly before the season starts in August and again when the seeds are set in October (Table 8). The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture. • Demarcated fishery rights for oyster hanging operations / areas are granted (renewed) every 5 years by application to the prefectural governor to the individuals or companies (the priority is given in this order). Therefore effort is temporally and spatially limited into 5 year blocks. • Waste management – the principal waste from the fishery is oyster shells and oyster cleaning water. Each company in the UoA deals with their waste based on management guidelines (see section 6.6.5.3). Scientific evidence based on carrying capacity modelling has suggested the current production levels in Hiroshima Bay have been reached (Umehara et al., 2018) whilst other authors have suggested a need to cap/reduce the total number of hanging rafts to below 10,000 in Hiroshima Bay (excluding Hiro and Mitsu Bays) (Hashimoto et al., 2007). However, no regulations have been implemented based on this suggested limit. The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture (Table 8), suggestive that the total effort of the fishery is within the suggested 10,000 limit.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 113
In scoring Principle 2 the assessment team must consider the impact and management of the UoA within the context of the wider management framework. In that regard the UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5% of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay 9,877. Therefore, the UoA would have to grow to 20 times its current size in order to approach the capacity limits implied above.
In assessing this SI the team has found evidence that there are more than one measure in place within the fishery which take into account the impact of the UoA on the ecosystem and restrict the UoA impact (these are : the frozen footprint of the lease, raft size restrictions, 5 year demarcated fishery rights and suitable monitoring of water and sediment quality) so SG60 is met. These measures (and the others points above) are arranged cohesively under the national legislation and enacted through the prefecture which can review the arrangement to ensure they are meeting the ecosystem needs. This is suitable to be considered a partial strategy. As noted above, restraint of impact is achieved through the FGIP and Fishery Right Use Rules whilst the UoA specific and a wider ecosystem-based monitoring programs (HOC and Ministry for the Environment) measure the correct variables (bottom water DO, Chl.a) suitable for monitoring the UoA impact. Finally, it can be shown that UoA constitutes ~ 5 % of the total effort of the fishery on Hiroshima Bay and that at this level is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of main habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. These measures do not appear be designed as a strategy to manage the UoA impacts on the ecosystem, but they do represent a cohesive arrangement which can achieve the desired outcome. SG80 is met.
It cannot be said however that the strategy contains mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. There is a lack of evidence that management has considered how measures would be formally amended if monitoring showed environmental levels were above recommended values and in addition the setting of the AAAQ does not appear to be formally tied to any scientifically supported target. There is no recognised process for reduction in raft numbers against any prescribed criteria SG100 is not met.
b Management strategy evaluation
Guide The measures are considered likely to work, based There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, that the measures/ partial strategy will work, partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on post theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ based on some information directly about the information directly about the UoA and/or ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem involved. ecosystem involved.
Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5 % of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay 9,877. Therefore the UoA would have to grow to 20 times its current size in order to approach the implied carrying capacity of the system (Umehara et al., 2018). This is highly unlikely given the management structure in place for the fishery through the FCA and demarcated fishing rights process under which the fishery operates.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 114
Monitoring of the leases by the prefecture shows that the number of leases total remain within the agreed limit of the AAAQ and below suggested capacity limit (10,000). As described in PI2.5.1 DO and Chl.a reductions associated with the UoA and the North Hiroshima Bay region are not permanent or solely the result of the UoA activities and therefore are not highly unlikely to reduce ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
There is therefore plausible argument that the measures in place are working and SG60 is met. Further, the scale of the UoA against the wider fishery and data outputs from the HOC program and the wider monitoring program provide objective basis for confidence that partial strategy will work. SG80 is met.
There has been no testing of the partial strategy suitable to meet the SG100 requirement it is therefore not met.
c Management strategy implementation
Guide There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is being implemented strategy/strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No
Rationale
Evidence of measure implementation comes in the following forms:
1. The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes DO measurements, and chl.a.
2. Ministry of Environment monitoring program – Seto Inland sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in bottom water conditions including analysis of water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 31), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 32), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T- P), total sulphur (T-S).
3. Monitoring of the number of overall rafts within Hiroshima Bay on a biannual basis (Table 8). The three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture is 9,877 in Hiroshima prefecture.
SG80 is met.
In relation to SG100 this is not met for the following reasons. The HOC program is still in its infancy. and there is no evidence that the management authorities can react to reduce overall fishing effort if required to do so based on monitoring data.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 115
References
(Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Umehara et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) (HOC, 2020a, 2020b; Ministry of the Environment, 2017)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 116
Scoring table 9. PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Information quality
Guide Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the post ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
Information adequate to identify and understand the key ecosystem elements comes from the following:
1. The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes DO measurements, and chl.a.
2. Ministry of Environment monitoring program – Seto Inland Sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in bottom water conditions including analysis of water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 31), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 32), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T- P), total sulphur (T-S). The sediment measurements include Sulphide, DO, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Benthic fauna, (see section 6.6.4.3)
3. Independent research into the ecosystem within Hiroshima Bay and the effect of oyster culture appear in peer reviewed journals:
a. Carrying capacity - (Umehara et al., 2018)
b. Nitrogen cycling - (Tarutani, 2007)
c. Primary and secondary production - (Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Umehara et al., 2018)
d. Nutrient loading - (Kittiwanich et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019)
Although the relationship between the fishery and water / substrate analysis has been researched extensively through substantial environmental surveys and data accumulated (as above) to broadly understand the key elements this work continues as the exact mechanisms that allow environmental improvement without reducing
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 117
oyster production remains elusive. As such conflicting view remain within the Inland sea for example there was a request by HOPSC the claiming that the current law has made the ocean “ too clean” and they should relax the sewage discharge standard and increase nutrient availability whilst in Okayama (next prefecture) fisheries centre’s survey concluded that increase of P and N don’t mean fisheries production goes up, though it did find that fishery production is linked to the density of DIN. - https://www.pref.okayama.jp/uploaded/attachment/217387.pdf
Based on the above the information base suitable to identify and characterise the main ecosystem elements are known and monitored including samples from below some of the UoA leases (HOC, 2020b). SG60 and SG80 are met even if the correct overall management system for nutrient balance remains uncertain.
b Investigation of UoA impacts
Guide Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing post existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have been information, and have been investigated in investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The ecosystem elements are water quality and carrying capacity. The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases from 2020 reports the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes DO measurements, and chl.a. suitable to infer UoA impact on water quality.
Primary production and secondary production of the Hiroshima Bay ecosystem are well known and defined both spatially and temporally sufficient to apply a carrying capacity model to Hiroshima Bay and build recommendations on capacity (Umehara et al., 2018). UoA impact as a percentage (5%) of the total fishery impact can be inferred from this work and the monitoring of the total raft numbers annually.
On the basis of the above SG60 is met. That a carrying capacity model has been applied to the Hiroshima Bay system and specified for the gear of the UoA (the UoA being approximately 5% of the total) it can be said that this has been investigated in detail. SG80 is met.
The paucity of multiannual data in relation to the HOC monitoring program and analysis of such data prevents SG100 being achieved.
c Understanding of component functions
Guide The main functions of the components (i.e., The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, P1 target species, primary, secondary and primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats post
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 118
ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are identified and the main functions of these are known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No
Rationale
This PI can only be scored on ETP and Habitats as the other component (P1 target species, primary, secondary species) and are absent from the assessment. As detailed in Sections 6.6.3 and 6.6.4,the fishery has good information on ETP location, feeding habits and populations. Habitat information is well known and is characterised. The main habitats are mapped, and sediment quality is monitored. VMEs have been identified and any impacts from the UoA negated by positioning leases outside of the key habitat area. The main functions of the two ETP species and the habitats in relation to the ecosystem are known, as evident in government documents, monitoring and research papers (see PIs 2.3.3 and 2.4.3) SG80 is met. The impacts of the fishery, although understood and believed to be low have not been fully identified within documents directly related to the UoA and therefore SG100 is not met.
d Information relevance
Guide Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts impacts of the UoA on these components to of the UoA on the components and elements to post allow some of the main consequences for allow the main consequences for the ecosystem the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes
Rationale
Adequate information is known on the components of the ecosystem (for ETP species and habitat) to infer some of the main consequences on the components (e.g. ETP – recording sheets and handling protocol; Habitats – HOC monitoring program). This information is sufficient to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 is met For ETP the recording sheets and handling protocol are directed at the key species elements (finless porpoise and loggerhead turtle) and for the habitat / ecosystem component the main monitoring variables (sulphates, redox, Chl.a, benthic community) are measured to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Therefore, SG100 is met.
e Monitoring
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 119
Guide Adequate data continue to be collected to Information is adequate to support the detect any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem post impacts. Met? Yes No
Rationale Monitoring data consists of: 1. The HOC monitoring program of the oyster leases and reports from 2020 on the status of the leases against the control sites. The monitoring includes DO measurements, and chl.a. sulphide measurements, DO measurements, visual inspection of substrate type and quantitative analysis of benthic fauna.
2. Ministry of Environment monitoring program – Seto Inland Sea monitoring program which allows for analysis of long term trends in bottom water conditions including analysis of water quality including chemical oxygen demand (COD) (Figure 31), dissolved oxygen (DO) (Figure 32), total nitrogen (T-N), total phosphorus (T- P), total sulphur (T-S).
3. The UoA ETP encounter monitoring programme which has collaboration with regulatory authorities.
This data continues to be collected and available to detect any increase in risk. SG80 is met. It is not clear however if the data is adequate as it hasn’t been evaluated against ecosystem impacts should any new risk is identified nor is there an adequate process in place to develop strategies based on this information. SG100 is not met
References
(Umehara et al., 2018), (Tarutani, 2007), (Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Umehara et al., 2018) (Kittiwanich et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019).
(HOC, 2020a, 2020b; Ministry for the Environment, 2010; Ministry of the Environment, 2017; MLIT, 2021)
Section 6.6.3 and figures within. Appendix 11
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 120
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 121
6.7 Principle 3
6.7.1 Legal and customary framework
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) provides overarching legal management framework for fisheries in Japan, and it is administered by the Fisheries Agency (FA). Coastal fisheries management responsibility is devolved to the local prefectural government, which works together to implement regulations with local Fisheries Cooperatives (FC). Under the Fisheries Cooperative Association Law (1948, as amended), all individual fishermen with formal fishing licences in Japan are members of a FC (Fisheries Agency, 1948). The FCs are grouped together by prefecture, both regionally and nationally, to form Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs). Fishery cooperatives make requests for fishery-specific licenses / fishing rights to the governor of the prefecture. FCs work together with relevant government agencies to observe and implement management regulations set by government and also to feedback their opinions into the government policy.
The prefectural government provide the official management policies and regulations required by the national legislation, whilst the detail of implementation of the measures needs to be determined by the fishermen through the preparation of a Fisheries Resources Management Plan, or in the case of Aquaculture (for this fishery) a Fisheries Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP). The plans must be admitted by the government in exchange for the granting of a fishing right, and each FC creates a Fishery Right Use Rules for its members to ensure compliance to the plan, as well as to put into effect a monitoring system by peers. The prefecture provides consultation and guidance to the FC to create the appropriate Fishery Right Use Rules so they can implement the FGIP.
Local branches of the Fisheries Research Centers are available to provide scientific advice and monitoring support to help fishers understand water quality and resource-dynamics in response to requests and prefectural and national guidance, to help them attain sustainable and profitable harvest of the resources.
6.7.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
6.7.2.1 Hiroshima Fishery Cooperative Association (FCA)
Organisation, role and function
There are 57 Fishery Cooperatives and one Fisheries Mutual Trust Cooperative, and the 58 members comprise the Hiroshima Fisheries Cooperative Association (FCA) in Hiroshima Prefecture. In 1950, the FCs joined together to form a Federation of FCAs. The FCA, which is the federation of FCs is now the main decision-making body, but the 57 FCs remain independent organizations with the ability to develop additional regulations so long as they do not contradict those of the Federation.
Hiroshima FCA (thereafter referred as FCA) conducts various businesses and programs by organizing fishers in Hiroshima, such as 1. group purchase and distribution of fuels, mechanical machines, baits and other supplies including materials for oyster-aquaculture, 2. Marketing and sales of fishery products, branding and assessments of products quality, marketing strategy and logistics support, price control for supporting stable fishery operation, 3. Advisory for resources management including for capture fisheries, environmental preservation activity coordination, such as tree planting and beach cleaning to improve water quality through the connection among forest, river and ocean
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 122
(Fishermen’s Forestry Project 漁民の森づくり, since 1995), promotion of fish consumption to citizens, promotion of fisheries as work to the next generation.
For oyster producers, there are consultation processes both at the FCA level (where overarching management decision is made, such as total limit of licenses and distribution to FCs and establishment of unified FGIP for all Oyster-farm related FCs) and within the local FC to which they belong (e.g. Fishery Right Use Rules establishment at each FC, managing the number and exact location of rafts, daily reporting, compliance to operational regulations, disposal of shells etc. However, there is no evidence submitted and how FC’s internal management is coordinated for target fisheries remain unclear. (This is to be checked at site visit.) All operators are required to be members of a local FC, and thus are provided with opportunity for regular consultation.
FCA-level management
Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture Fisheries Cooperative, 広島県内かき養殖関係漁業協同組 合 (HOAFCA) consist of all oyster-farming FCs representatives in Hiroshima. Each cooperative’s president participates the regular meetings to represent each local FC and to discuss important matters common to all Hiroshima oyster fisheries in HOPFCA. Agreements are consensus-basis. There are 35 FCs members in HOAFCA currently.
The HOAFCA has established the Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council (HOPSC - 広島かき生 産対策協議会), to discuss important management measures and strategies for oyster fisheries in Hiroshima prefecture, such as the content and establishment of the Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP). HOPSC members are comprised of the members of the FCAs (fishers in FCs), fishery compensation cooperatives/trust fund departments, the prefectural Fishery Department, scientists at the Fisheries Research Centres and appointed academics. So far, the assessment team has received below documents as evidence of consultation at HOPSC.
• Minutes from 2010 to set the AAAQ (11 years ago) - therefore more evidence is needed to confirm the current role and functions of this council. • Hiroshima oyster safety measures implementation guideline (draft), established by HOPSC and FCA on August 29, 2008. This establishes voluntary inspection against viruses such as Noro, and measures to be taken when the virus is found. HOPSC and FCA manages the inspections scheme by creating implementation plans in August every year, in cooperation of Hiroshima Shipping Co-op (described below). HOPSC will report the inspection results to the FCA and related FCs, and they are also reported on FCA website (link is requested). HOPSC will manage and accumulate the scientific data for Noro virus.
Assessment team has informed that within the FCA, there are several other purpose-oriented producers’ groups to inform a specific FC or council; such as the Hiroshima Oyster Processing Co-op ( 広島かき加工組合, 12 corporate members), Hiroshima Oyster Shipping Co-op (広島県かき出荷組 合, 16 corporate members), and as of 2018 Hiroshima Oyster Shipping Strategy Council (広島かき出 荷対策協議会) had 21 members. Until 2018, there appears also to be an Hiroshima Oyster Council 広 島かき協議会（解散, however it does not existing anymore. These councils and FCs appear to meet
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 123
every once in a while, for collaboration on specific issues. The meetings appear to be attended by FCA representatives also.
It appears that opportunities to meet and discuss among stakeholders are rich. However clear evidence of how these organizations are organized within the FCA and what roles are played, have not yet been provided to the assessment team, therefore the detail of the role and how it functions on decision makings or consultation of oyster farmers in FCA, relationships with prefectural management, recent minutes and regular schedule will need to be checked thoroughly at the site visit.)
• A minutes of general meeting participated by Amibun Kaisan in 2020 shows that discussions are held about seedling collection training seminar, ocean floor cultivation, disposal measure of old rafts, exchange of old wires. It appears that producers are well coordinated from many aspects of aquaculture practices within FCA directly, and they seem not necessarily coordinated through the FC. The detail of FC’s role will be sought at the site visit.
License application coordination
The FCA (and prefecture) organizes a Fishery Right Management Committee (漁業権管理委員会) consisting of 35 representatives from each FC (and representatives from prefecture). If a new fisher wants to obtain a fishing right, he or she must have at least 5 years of experience working with one of the FC members depending on FC (some FCs have revised this to 2 or 3 years, in its Fishery Right Use Rule) and must be approved by the committee to inherit the license from another member who may be retiring or must request to be an additional member of FC. This limits the number of license and effectively control the total scale of the fisheries. How each FC makes decisions regarding license application prior to attending this council is not yet informed to the assessment team.
6.7.2.2 Fishery Cooperative (FC) level management
By Fisheries Cooperative law, every fisher must belong to a local fisheries cooperative, with his/her address of residence. The clients of this fishery assessment are five companies, and they belong to different FCs (except Amibun Kaisan and Yoneda Kaisan both belong to Hiroshima City FC). The name of FC and the company that belong to the FC is summarized as below, as well as the confirmation status of related evidence documents (Table 20).
Table 20. Client group relationship with the Fishery Cooperatives and documented evidence.
Committee Governor Company Fisheries Number FC meeting or council License FC Statues Name Cooperative of rafts minutes structure? (H30-35) Dairyo Kurahashi West 103 ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ Aya Suisan Oogaki 120 ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ Amibun Hiroshima city 58 ✔️ ✔️ ✔️✔️(総会) Kaisan Yoneda Hiroshima city 108 ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ Kaisan
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 124
Committee Governor Company Fisheries Number FC meeting or council License FC Statues Name Cooperative of rafts minutes structure? (H30-35) Kawasaki Jigyozen 28 ✔️ Suisan
Within the FGIP, each local FC is required to report the number of rafts used in each demarcated license area to the FCA. Also, each FC is required to monitor the aquatic habitat to meet the established environmental targets, total amount of dead oysters per cause and per each producer, and conduct daily observation monitoring (how this is reported is not provided in the evidence as yet). Participation in the fishermen’s mutual aid program is promoted to improve aquaculture habitat and sustainable production with stable fishery.
At the FC level as well, a Aquaculture Fishery Management Committee is required to be established to monitor compliance, as stipulated in the fishery right use rules. Each FC’s director has a right to stop the member’s fishery right if the members violate laws, or ignore government order, or violates FC’s fishery right use rules.
Generally, in Japanese FC system, the FC’s management is also guided and checked by regular inspection by prefectural staff at the Agriculture and Fisheries department, using the FC guidance section once every 3 years. If any issue is found, an improvement guidance document is issued to the FC. Assessment team has not yet informed of how the system works within each FCs for the client fisheries, and this will be checked at site visit.
6.7.2.3 Client group organization - HOC
Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative (HOC) has been formed by the client producer group, consisting of 5 producers belonging to 4 FCs in order to strengthen management and smooth the application for MSC certification. HOC holds periodical meetings and environmental (ETP and habitat) surveys to ensure member’s compliance to the FGIP, and have established a member’s own FGIP to strengthen original FGIP in place from the FCA. The HOC FGIP documentation and meeting minutes have been made available to the team.
6.7.2.4 Hiroshima Prefecture Management
Hiroshima Prefecture Agricultural and Fisheries Department (広島農林水産局): The prefectural fishery department issues the prefectural fisheries policy (however this does not include aquaculture). For oyster farming, the fisheries department established the oyster production shipping guideline in 2020 (R2). The department handles Governor-license issuance upon receiving applications via local FCs and HOAFCA. It is also responsible for monitoring and surveillance to ensure license regulations are complied with.
Hiroshima Prefecture also convenes some stakeholder councils with different functions:
Hiroshima Prefecture Resources Management Council: members are comprised of the prefectural Fishery Department, Hiroshima FCA, FCA’s fishery income compensation trust fund department, prefectural Fisheries Research Center scientists. The council evaluates FGIP’s implementation status on raft number restriction and confirms the compliance annually.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 125
Hiroshima Oyster Emergency Communication Meetings: Chaired by the prefectural fishery port division manager. The detail of this group has not provided yet to assessment team. It is reported that it set an objective to reduce raft numbers from 14,500 to 10,000 in 5 years, around 1999. More documents are needed to confirm this history.
Hiroshima prefecture convenes the Fishery Area Coordination Committee (漁区漁業調整委員会), to coordinate all kinds of fisheries and human activities in Hiroshima’s coastal area. Any disputes can be consulted here, before it is taken to court if necessary.
Fishing right management Committee 入漁権管理委員会 – more information required at SV.
In the environmental division of the prefecture, it sets “Hiroshima Prefecture’s Plan for Environmental Conservation of Seto Inland Sea”.
Hiroshima Prefecture Technology Research Institute, Fisheries and Ocean Technology Center: is in charge of stock assessment (not required for this fishery) and fishery / aquaculture research. Detailed function and responsibility for oyster aquaculture fishery will be checked at SV.
6.7.3 Decision making processes
6.7.3.1 Licenses
For coastal waters, there are three categories of fishing rights: common or joint fishery right (Kyodo- Gyogyoken), demarcated fishery right (Kukaku-Gyogyoken) and set-net fishery right (Teichi- Gyogyoken). It is the demarcated fishing rights (Kukaku-Gyogyoken) which are granted for aquaculture (such as for oysters, seaweeds, fish) which use designated areas demarcated with numbers. The fishing rights are issued by the prefecture to FCAs or directly to the individuals or companies (the priority is given in this order) with five-year terms. Each fishing right also comes with a maximum number of rafts allowed for each area.
Demarcated fishery rights for oyster hanging operations are allocated (renewed) every 5 years based on the application made by the FCA to the Prefectural governor, and authority to issue the rights to individual operators falls to the Federation FCA. The Federation FCA distributes rights to the local FCAs, and the allocation and distribution of the rights amongst individual operators is managed at the local FCA level.
Specific to the fishery under assessment:
• Dariyo has acquired 10 demarcated fishery areas (No. 275 through 280, No10, 11, No.147, No. 190; the total number of rafts is 115),
• Aya suisan has 5 demarcated fishery areas (No. 202 – 206)
• Amibun Kaisan has 10 demarcated fishery areas (No. 79 through 81, 83, 97, 99, 103, 104, 107, 145)
• Yoneda has 19 demarcated fishery areas of which 18 are in use (No. 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 100, 104, 107, 11, 146,147, 231, 284, 287, 288, 289, not used 231)
• Kawasaki has 9 demarcated fishery areas (No. 21 through 26; 147, 189, 190).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 126
(source: HOC FGIP)
Spat collection activities also require area rights and each company has acquired a few areas. The map showing the area allocation should be checked at site visit. All rafts can be identified by a numbered tag attached to the rafts. The total number of rafts allowed for UoA members is given in Table 8.
The prefecture is required to consult with Prefectural Fisheries Regulation Committees (resources management council 資源管理協議会) when granting the fishery rights. The renewal of these rights is usually based on the recommendation of the FCs to which the fishers belong, however if serious issues are found such as non-compliance with regional and internal rules, the renewal of these fishing rights can be denied.
Under the Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law article 4, each FC needs to create a Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP) as a prerequisite for acquiring a license on aquaculture leases. The FGIP needs to be approved by the prefectural Resources Management Policy/ Fisheries Ground Improvement Promotion Committee. All oyster farm operators or oyster farming FCs are coordinated through the Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture FCA, (HOAFCA) and the Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council (HOPSC) established the Hiroshima Oyster Fishery Ground Improvement Plan, as a common strategy for all Hiroshima Oyster fishermen. Each FC has an obligation to report to Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council (HOPSC) Committee the results of environmental data, density and disease monitoring, as specified in the FGIP, and gain approval for the planning and implementation of the plan. The Committee is made up of the members of FCAs (fishers), fishery compensation cooperatives/trust fund departments, the prefectural Fishery Department, scientists at the Fisheries Research Centres and appointed academics. The FGIP implementation is ensured through the Fishery Right Use Rules established in each FC.
The FGIP is planned to be reviewed every year for updates with any necessary changes, following the guidance of the prefecture through national guidance given from the national Fisheries Agency (FA). In theory, the measures within the FGIP are decided by agreement of all FC members and revised with the consensus of the fishers. (to be checked at site visit for the process)
In addition to the Fishery FGIP (HOC), has created their own FGIP. Regular meetings are held in spring and autumn with additional ad-hoc meetings held as necessary (to be checked at site visit for the process). The client group further set a stricter regulation including monitoring requirement for themselves with the “HOC [oyster farming management plan] カキ養殖管理計画” (HOC, 2018).
Establishment of the FGIP is also a prerequisite for joining a fishermen’s income mutual aid program administered by the government. Participation to this program is encouraged by the government and the FCA, but not mandatory. 33 out of 35 oyster farming FCs in Hiroshima in HOPSA have currently joined this mutual aid scheme.
6.7.4 Fishery Right Use Rules
Each local FC sets “Fishery Right Use Rules” for each demarcated fishery right area No. to grant its use to their members of the FC, following the agreed FGIP.
This Fishery Right Use Rule are set by the board of directors of the FC and agreed by all members by consensus and must be approved by the Prefectural Governor.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 127
In the example of JIGYOZEN Fisheries Cooperative for No.147 area, the Fishery right Use Rules include below. (地卸前漁業協同組合区第 147 号第 1 種区画)
• More than 5 years’ experience with oyster fishery, and permission of local FC. • Limit on raft numbers in each demarcated fishery area, (following the limit in FGIP) • Restriction of raft design and material specification • Measures to prevent gear loss and marking of rafts as designated • Use of exact allocated location for rafts • Number of hanging basket and shells, etc.
The sanction for breaching the total limits of rafts granted by the fishery right, allowed through HOPSC, includes withdrawal from the income mutual aid program. Therefore in theory if there is an exceedance of total limit, all Hiroshima Oyster members must return the received subsidy while continuation of the fishing right becoming problematic. Thus, it is a joint responsibility of all fishermen through the FCA and each FC to comply with the Fishing Right Use Rules and FGIP (referenced from the minutes of 2011 Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council).
Figure 49. Diagram of Prefecture and FC’s consultation mechanisms.
Management rules & measures Committees, councils MAFF, FA Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Governm Production (1999) ent Guideline for establishment of appropriate aquaculture quantity
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 128
Hiroshima Prefecture Fisheries management / licensing: Hiroshima Resources Management Council 広島 Fisheries Department 広島県農林水産局: 県資源管理協議会) is consulted when granting • Prefectural Fisheries Policy (non- the fishery rights and approving FGIP. related to oyster farming) Members are comprised of the prefectural • 2025 Hiroshima Agriculture and Fishery Department, Hiroshima FCA, FCA’s fishery Fisheries Action Program (5 year plan) income compensation trust fund department, • Hiroshima oyster production & prefectural Fisheries Research Center scientists. shipping guideline (R2) （ The council evaluates FGIP’s implementation https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/soshi status on raft number restriction and confirms ki/88/syukkasisin.html) the compliance annually. • Demarcated fishery right issuance (with Confirmation of AAAQ raft limit • Fishing Right Management Committee 入漁 compliance) through: 権管理委員会 Fisheries / stock Research • Fisheries Ground Improvement Promotion • Surveys by the prefectural Fisheries Committee (with FCs) to be checked at site Research Centre visit Surveillance and compliance • Area Fisheries Coordination Committee 漁
• Monitoring and surveillance, in 区漁業調整委員会 coordination with Coast guard and police • Hiroshima Oyster Emergency Response department. To be checked at site visit Network Meeting To be checked at site visit 広島カキ緊急対策連絡会議 （1998 年 Environmental Department: 議長 広島県漁港課 5 年間で筏数を The Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Seto Inland Sea (2016) 14500 から 10000 に削減目標設置）
JF Hiroshima (FCA) Fishery Right Management Committee consisting Hiroshima Oyster Producer Strategy Council of 35 representatives (same as government’s?)
AAAQ. For the total of 35 FCs in Hiroshima, and Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture Ground 33 FCs are participating in the Oyster Producer’s Improvement Plan (FGIP) FCA income mutual aid system.
• Oyster AAAQ for Hiroshima prefecture total: Committees/ groups 11,954 Planning and Implementation Committee Producer’s data collection / survey group
Fishery Right Use Rules set for FGIP implementation: FGIP Planning Implementation Committee? for implementation and checking of the Oyster FGIP. FC (raft number, location, gear specification, report of disease /virus outbreak, die off Any other habitat / environmental maintenance rates, oyster shells disposal and recycle) activities? (漁民の森づくり？)
Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative (HOC) (client group for this assessment) - from 5 FCs
HOC FGIP - for strengthened • ETP monitoring HOC implementation of FGIP and other MSC- • Substrate monitoring related measures • Annual meeting with gov, research institutes, stakeholders.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 129
• External advisory / consultation • 2/ year habitat surveys
6.7.5 Long term goals and fishery specific objectives
Within the Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture FCA, (HOAFCA), the HOPSC established a Hiroshima Oyster Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP), as a common strategy for all Hiroshima Oyster fishermen. The latest approval of FGIP was given in 2018 (H30) for coverage until 2023. The FGIP’s details are summarized below:
6.7.5.1 FGIP Oyster Fishery Ground Improvement Plan (広島かき漁場改善計画) for 2018- 2023
• Target fishery: Fishery within the demarcated fishing right area in Hiroshima prefecture, for the aquaculture of oyster. • Aquaculture fishing ground improvement objective set as below:
Table 21. Environmental quality indicators and benchmarks. Source: (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019)
Indicator Benchmark Water quality Dissolved Oxygen: More than 3.0ml/l (4.3mg/l) Less than 0.4mgS/g (dry mud) Sulphide amount: of bottom habitat Seafloor substrate Or Existence of benthos: Visual confirmation of benthic organisms such as polychaetes.
Measures stated here are applicable from 2018 September 1st to 2023 August 31st.
Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity (AAAQ):
o The raft number in the fishery area should not increase more than below: o Oyster AAAQ for Hiroshima prefecture total: 11,954 • Density o Specification of raft size, number of bamboo sticks, hanging ropes, shells hanged on a rope, length of the rope, length of plastic pipes are determined in each FC’s Fishery Right Use Rule. • Treatment of disease If abnormal disease or death of oysters are found, it should be reported to FC. • Introduction of healthy seeds / seeds: Perform sufficient investigation into any disease occurrence at intended seed destinations. If any disease case is seen to be developing, the FC will record daily culture environment. • Noro virus monitoring: distribution and timings of appearance should be carefully monitored for Hygiene Management of oysters. • Shellfish poisoning monitoring: work together with prefecture, neighbouring FCs, and other prefecture to collect information on shellfish poisoning, and treat appropriately under government guidance.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 130
• Disposal of dead shells: dispose dead shells according to legal requirements.
(implementation details will be checked at the site visit)
The FGIP also requires each FC to:
• Maintain monitoring equipment necessary to conduct above monitoring, such as DO, water and substrate sampling.
• For the implementation, a Planning Implementation Committee (計画推進委員会) is established for implementation and checking of the Oyster FGIP. The committee consists of the Cooperative president, member fishermen, FC staff, FC board of directors from aquaculture-related organization. • Annually implementation status will be checked by the committee, and will report the results to Hiroshima FCA. The Hiroshima FCA will then feedback necessary measures to each FC. (Evidence of this is not yet submitted). • Each FC will organize a producer group to conduct the required environmental monitoring and fishery ground surveys. Implementation evidence to be checked at the site visit.）
• Establish reporting system among government and fishery technical centers to provide results of monitoring.
6.7.5.2 Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative’s additional rules in FGIP
The Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative (HOC) was formed in order to unite the client group and apply for MSC certification. The HOC secretariat is based in Kurahashijima Kaisan Co. which buys and process products from the other five member companies. In response to applying for MSC HOC have prepared an additional document which builds on the FGIP requirements (HOPSC, 2013) and adds additional monitoring measures applicable to the UoA only –(HOC, 2018).
• In accordance with Article 4 of the Law for Ensuring Sustainable Aquaculture Production, and in order to ensure that oyster production and management in this area is environmentally friendly, preventative and sustainable, the Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative will work on the details detailed in this management plan in parallel with the attached Hiroshima Oyster Fishery Improvement Plan, and will implement this plan through a mechanism that allows third parties to check, consult and advise on the results. The plan shall be prepared and the contents of the plan shall be implemented accurately. This plan shall be revised as necessary to reflect progress. • Target water areas and companies of the Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative: o Dairyo: Ward 275, Ward 276, Ward 277, Ward 278, Ward 279, Ward 280, Ward 10, Ward 11, Ward 147, and Ward 190
o Aya Suisan: No. 202, No. 203, No. 204, No. 205 and No. 206
o Amibun Seafood: No. 79, No. 80, No. 81, No. 83, No. 97, No. 99, No. 103, No. 104, No. 107 and No. 145
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 131
o Yoneda Seafood: No. 84, No. 85, No. 87, No. 88, No. 89, No. 90, No. 91, No. 92 and No. 145 No. 91, No. 92, No. 100, No. 104, No. 107, No. 11, No. 146, No. 147, No. 284, No. 287, No. 288, and No. 289
o Kawasaki Fisheries: No. 21, No. 22, No. 23, No. 24, No. 25, No. 26, No. 147, No. 189 and No. 190
• IUCN red list species and Hiroshima Prefecture red list species protection as added measure. • Monitor compliance to DO and substrate target set by Hiroshima FGIP, and make improvements as required. • The following measures are to be implemented or complied with by each aquaculture company in order to meet the target levels for aquaculture fisheries. • These measures will be reviewed and incorporated into the Oyster Farm Management Plan [HOC FGIP] during the implementation of these measures. When the results are available, consultation with the prefectural government and other external agencies will be made, and if it is judged that the targets are not being achieved the measures will be revised and reflected into the Oyster Farm Management Plan. • In addition to Hiroshima prefecture’s monitoring measures on water quality and substrate, twice- a-year monitoring will be conducted on water quality, substrate, and an ETP survey. • More than once a year (around March and August), monitoring points under rafts and outside rafts are surveyed for above category. The results should be discussed with fishery scientists or research center for evaluation, and take counter-measures if necessary. • Indo-Pacific finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) and red sea turtle (Caretta caretta) are both protected by CITES I as vulnerable species and present in the fishery area. The fishery will record any interaction with fisheries, such as entanglement with ropes and nets, and works on conservation measures in cooperation with scientists in prefectural government or aquaria, if impact from fishery were identified. ETP handling manual will be used to release the animal safely with minimum impact (Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual). • Additionally, each company sets its own counter-measure practices which it will implement, if it is not meeting the target value in its monitoring activity. Table 22. FGIP measures by HOC member companies. Source: HOC
Use of Moving Conduct Substrate experimental Improvement rafts from ocean floor clean-up Install “Ionic Raft density ocean water Measures / inside bay cultivation (remove wire” under reduction cleaner Company during as dead rafts “TORIZEN Summer appropriate shells etc.) MOFU” Aya Suisan x Kawasaki x x x Taira x x x Yoneda x x x
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 132
Use of Moving Conduct Substrate experimental Improvement rafts from ocean floor clean-up Install “Ionic Raft density ocean water Measures / inside bay cultivation (remove wire” under reduction cleaner Company during as dead rafts “TORIZEN Summer appropriate shells etc.) MOFU” Amibun x x x x
HOC holds an annual meeting with government officers and academics to confirm the status, results, and progress of their FGIP (at least once a year, more often if needed). FC staff will engage in the monitoring activity and work in cooperation with the Fisheries Research Technical Centre of Hiroshima. The monitoring methods are monthly water, temperature and DO measurement on surface and at 1 m depth, as well as in the deepest area of fishery ground.
Ocean floor cultivation activities are conducted based on the precautionary observational results of the benthic organisms monitoring, so these activities do not highly impact other species in the ecosystem. Countermeasures should be developed if the activity is found to affect benthic organisms’ biodiversity. Macro-benthos monitoring inside and outside the culture grounds is conducted annually, on the designated observation points and control site (outside rafts).
Companies under assessment are continuing water quality and substrate monitoring against the targets in Table 21, and taking voluntary counter measures, which vary between companies (summarised in Table 22) to improve water quality and maintain production environment when water quality deteriorate. However, it is evident that Hiroshima oyster farmers are feeling the need for more fundamental solutions to maintain the water and substrate quality. In April 2020, Hiroshima FCA hand-submitted a request document to the governor of Hiroshima to come up with effective measures for improvement of water and environmental quality of Hiroshima Bay, Kure Bay, and Mitsu Bay after facing oyster die-off and declining fishery production. The content of the request has been discussed within Hiroshima Oyster production Strategy Council, and supported by the Hiroshima prefectural assembly chair, Hiroshima prefectural Agricultural and Fisheries Department chair, afterwards the FCA collected 1,765 signatures to promote this request to the prefectural government.
The request document stated that oyster production has dropped since 2018 due to mass die-offs between Summer - Autumn and increased typhoon damage. It states that fisheries production has been seriously reduced as well, affecting all fisheries-related industries in Hiroshima. Their request to government mainly focused on; 1, Review and relaxing of strict water discharge standard from sewer system to improve oyster production in Seto Inland Sea, with feasibility surveys to understand relationship between poor-nutrient in water and fisheries production, 2. Substrate survey and countermeasure establishment for the three important bays in Hiroshima, as high accumulation of sulphide and DIN in ocean substrates in Hiroshima, reflected in high oxygen consumption demands, may be causing oyster die-offs, and reduction of benthos.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 133
Figure 50. FCA and Oyster Fishermen representative, including HOPSC handing the request to the governor of Hiroshima. (From report of FCA on request to governor of Hiroshima, 2020)
6.7.5.3 Carrying capacity
Following the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (MAFF 1999 updated (2018)) and the Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (MAFF, 1999) set by MAFF, FGIPs are developed and implemented by each FCA. Under this programme, each aquaculture operation must achieve AAAQ (Appropriate Allowable Aquaculture Quantity), which aims to limit the aquaculture operation size, with maximum limits being under the maximum historically operated level. The aquaculture operation size is measured based on the number of rafts used, collected seed numbers, or number of seed collectors.
The exact methodology for setting the AAAQ is introduced by the 2011 “Guideline for establishment of appropriate aquaculture quantity” in a notice of Minister of Fisheries Agency (https://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/syotoku_hosyo/pdf/yosyoku_suryo4.pdf) (last updated in 2014) and the “application of Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law in prefectures”(last updated in 2014) , summarized as follows:
“Using the average of the three moderate years with the years 2006 - 2010 as a baseline, a reduction of [raft quantity, in this case] at least 5 % should be implemented to set the AAAQ. If the above baseline is already more than 10 % higher than the average of the three moderate years between 1996 - 2000, the AAAQ should be just below the baseline.”
There seems no scientific basis for the AAAQ setting, according to the above, rather the year 2006 - 2010’s operation is used as a threshold for any aquaculture species so effort stays below after this time period. This is a guideline that is commonly established for various species including fish, shrimp, bivalve, sea urchin, and seaweeds, although there is slight adjustment allowed for seaweeds.
In Hiroshima, removing the max and the minimum year from the 5 years between 2006 and 2010, 3 years average number of rafts was 12,584 rafts. Therefore, 12,584 x 95 % = 11,954 is currently set as the AAAQ. This is for the total of 35 FCs in Hiroshima, and 33 FCs are participating in the Oyster Producer’s income mutual aid system. Conformance to raft numbers allocated by the FC is a requirement for all license holders, but collectively, the Mutual Aid participants have another layer of
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 134
compliance requirement to meet the total limit, as any existence of a member violating this would remove all participants’ right in the aid system. (It is therefore kind of a government support measure in exchange of robust resources management.) Raft numbers are continuously checked to evaluate compliance every year by the resource management council coordinated by the prefecture through a flyover count survey. 2017-2019 average raft number is 9,877 as per Table 8.
In Hiroshima prefecture, there are scientific studies that suggest 10,000 as an appropriate raft number limit. Hirata and Akashige (2004) has suggested that overcapacity in the past (pre - 2000’s, 12,000 rafts) led to periodic shellfish poisoning and die off events (Hirata and Akashige, 2004). As discussed in Principle 2, application of a Ecopath model to Hiroshima Bay via a surrogate implied that it is likely that oyster farming in Hiroshima Bay has reached the ecological carrying capacity of the system and that the high contribution of oysters to secondary production (34 %) indicates that oyster farming in the northern part of the bay may inhibit the production of net zooplankton (Umehara et al., 2018). As stated in the Principle 2 section, the three-year average total number of rafts from 2017 -2019 as monitored by the Prefecture has been 9,877, this is a reduction from the number seen in previous decades (2000’s – a high of 12,000). As noted in the Habitats component (PI2.4.1-3) of this assessment the UoA total raft number is 488 which represents approximately 5 % of the total number of rafts in Hiroshima Bay 9,877.
The client group formed the Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative (HOC), with more rigorous objectives for habitat and ETP monitoring, however it has adopted and following the same AAAQ target set by the prefectural-wide FCA’s AAAQ with a total AAAQ of 11,954.
The national government policy on FC’s Fisheries Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP) (Figure 26) states that it is fishermen’s responsibility to keep aquaculture impacts within environment’s natural capacity to decompose, and to maintain and improve aquaculture grounds for continued sustainable production. Therefore, each FC is responsible for establishment of aquaculture grounds environmental monitoring including substrate, and appropriate aquaculture density.
6.7.5.4 Environmental indicators used in FGIP
The Fishery Basic Law Article 2 (Government of Japan, 2001) requires companies to ensure stable production of fishery products, while promoting aquaculture that does not disrupt the balance of the environment.
The FA’ announcement (revised in 2014, the Japanese year H26) “Implementation guide of Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law” (MAFF, 2018), recommends bivalve aquaculture operators should conduct monitoring on water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), nutrients, chlorophyll, total sulphide (TS), and benthic organisms. AAAQ is set as the maximum sustainable aquaculture quantity (based on the carrying capacity) and is calculated and reviewed by the prefectural fisheries technical centres. The amount of TS should be below the maximum oxygen consumption rate (JFA, 2016).
The Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Seto Inland Sea (Seto Inland Sea Environmental Conservation Association, 2021), warns that the Hiroshima Bay area is subject to low DO patterns as compared to other areas (Figure 51), and summarized the desirable target for DO, with classification of 3 levels depending on the target type of organisms which exist in the area (Figure 52). It recommends that for areas where organisms of low resilience to low oxygen substrates should be kept with more than 4.0mg/l DO level, as the highest target level. The FGIP advises a target of 4.3mg/l (3ml/l) in the inner-bay bottom water area for the summer (low DO period) and this demonstrates
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 135
that the FGIP employs a good target for DO monitoring relative to the overall Prefecture plan. Of the 23 monitoring sites within the prefecture the 2013 monitoring result showed 14 sites were above 4.0mg/l, 5 sites were above 3.0mg/l, 3 sites were above 2.0mg/l, 1 site was below 2.0mg/l. On the website of the Miyagi prefecture, it is explained that measuring of TS is an effective indicator for effects of settling organic substance accumulated on seafloor on benthic organisms. The fishery standard in Japan is: “Total sulphide measurements that is below 0.2mg/g in soft mud” as a standard for maintaining good benthic habitat (good for benthic organisms) on the ocean floors (Miyagi Prefecture fisheries department, 2019) This also justified the higher target set for the sulphide measurement in the monitoring in FGIP.
Figure 51. Dissolved oxygen conditions in the Seto Sea. Highlighting Hiroshima Bay as an area of concern. Source: https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/224103.pdf.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 136
Figure 52. DO classification of three levels depending on the target type of organisms which exist in the area for Hiroshima Bay. Source: https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/uploaded/attachment/224103.pdf.
6.7.5.5 Total Production
Hiroshima oyster production & shipping guideline (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2020) sets a goal to produce 20,000 t oyster throughout the season in 2020. Environmentally friendly, sustainable aquaculture of high-quality oyster production is promoted by the guideline. Prevention of gear loss and obtaining fisheries eco-label certifications are encouraged through the policy. Introduction of HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) is also promoted for safety and hygiene management of the oyster is encouraged as is the reducing 3-year production methods ("Nokoshi"), to avoid deterioration of aquaculture environment and habitat. The guideline states that rafts should be managed with proper marking to be monitored for compliance on the Fishery-Right Use Rule. Oyster shells should be removed, and other attachments on shells removed at the production should be treated following a guideline and encouraged to be reused as fertilizer. Consideration to the contribution to circular economy by switching to new materials and reuse of the materials, avoidance of losing plastic materials at sea and recycle materials used for aquaculture are mentioned in the guideline.
The document also refers to: Due to the aging fishermen population, a foreign trainee program is being utilized to help acquire necessary workforce on oyster shelling. Appropriate operation management under coordination with related organizations is encouraged. It also promotes tree planning to maintain and improve environment and raise awareness of environmental conservation.
6.7.5.6 Biodiversity and ecology
The Hiroshima Fishery Promotion Basic Plan 2010- 2020 (Hiroshima Prefecture Fisheries Department, 2017) (Update to be checked at SV) has set a goal of environmental conservation of the Ohta river and rehabilitation of Hiroshima Bay, by creating a logo mark and promotion committee to approach a varieties of aspects. Oyster farmers in Hiroshima City has created the Hiroshima Oyster Aquaculture Network Council and plant trees to improve water quality in the bay (広島市かき養殖連絡協議会の 植林（広島水産振興基本計画 https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/soshiki/122/18624.html .
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 137
Seafloor cultivation in the bay is promoted by the Prefecture as a rehabilitation measure to alleviate the hardening of seafloor substrate from poor nutrients circulation with reduced biodiversity due to loss of tidal flats, sludge accumulation, hardening of substrate due to the biodiversity loss and poor vertical nutrient circulation. These are considered as a result from the loss of tidal flats, sand beaches and salt marshes which function as nursery grounds for fish and other diverse species.
The Ministry of Environment has set a 7-year project with a goal of rehabilitating the Seto Inland Sea to enable a clean and rich ocean environment, supported by scientific research and benthic habitat rehabilitation that contributes to distribution of balanced nutrients and enhanced biodiversity (Figure 53).
Figure 53. Ministry of Environment, Ocean Rehabilitation project to restore the richness of the ocean. Source: Ministry of Environment, Benthos survey in Seto Inland Sea. The Ministry of Environment plans to implement the above project with a timeline up to 2020, informed by various research and monitoring activities (habitats, macro-benthos organisms, ocean district-based water quality surveys), in collaboration with the public sector. This guides the overall ecosystem-based research activities in the prefecture as well (Figure 53).
Based on the Special Law for Environmental Conservation in Setrouchi inland Sea, the prefecture has established the Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Setouchi Inland Sea (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2016a). This plan commits to water quality and coastal biodiversity improvement for conservation of a productive ocean environment. As an imbalance of nutrient levels in the ocean is affecting the fishery, research to understand the relation between nutrients and fishery production are recommended by the Plan.
Ocean pollution and plastic contaminations are also pointed as serious issues in the plan. In 2014, the Ministry of Environment conducted coastal and seafloor clean-up surveys at 26 sites of Seto Inland Sea and identified high concentrations of ocean garbage off the Ushimado and Mizushima areas. Hiroshima prefecture has some ocean clean-ups with volunteering beachgoers, such as “Miyajima Gomi-zero Daisakusen”. The department of National Land and Transportation also maintains regular cleaning boats operations throughout the Seto Inland Sea to gather floating garbage. The efforts on the fisheries will be interviewed at the SV.
6.7.5.7 Translocation and disease control management
The Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (MAFF 1999, updated (2018)) seeks to prevent the self-induced environmental deterioration around fish farms. This works to restrict aquaculture density and operations under the maximum historic level operated. FCs are tasked to create
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 138
Aquaculture Ground Improvement Plans, jointly with neighbouring FCs based on the national policy, including measures to prevent spreading animal and plant pathogens. A Prefectural Governor can issue orders to restrict transportation, incineration, disinfection of designated introduced diseases to prevent the spread of the diseases. Nationally designated foreign-introduced diseases listed for oyster species applicable for aquaculture of oysters is “oyster herpes type 1 mutations amount infections （ limited to μvar）”. This has been announced by MAFF to prefectural governors in a 2016 (H28) announcement letter.
Although legally there is a measure for disease control, there is some evidence that implementation of this is insufficient. In 2011, an official alert on oyster seed disease control was released by the FA, to all prefectures, FCAs, and fishery research centers. A survey (Takagishi, 2014) reports that the information dissemination was stopped at the FC level and that they did not sufficiently inform or alert individual operators or traders (to be checked at Site visit). It is also revealed that few prefectures or FCs keep up to date records of specific import and trade origin information of oyster spats, although in the past there were some cases of mass damage caused by imported foreign spats used in some prefectures. The researchers point out the lack of proactive risk management in spat translocation to prevent infectious disease spread. Relevant to the UoA only spat collected in Hiroshima Bay via spat collectors is included in this assessment, there is no spat translocation.
6.7.6 Compliance and enforcement
Monitoring and control rules are regulated in the above-mentioned FC’s self-regulatory system (peer- monitoring), where each fisher participates in the day-to-day checking of operations of their designated fishing/aquaculture area. Prefectural and national governments also support the monitoring activity in cooperation with various agencies. Generally, the socially interconnected traditional FC system functions well for the self-regulatory mechanism, and the coastal fisheries’ compliance rates are high in most of the aquaculture locations.
There is an internal client group member review of their local management once every year.
The inspection of raft numbers are conducted once or twice a year with government personnel visiting each cooperative. (need to be verified at site visit)
The Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law (MAFF, 2018) states that management status and environmental status at FC must be guided and checked by prefectural authorities. If an FC lacks appropriate maintenance, the prefecture needs to alert the FC to establish the FGIP and when the area is substantially degraded, or if fishers do not observe this, they can publicly make an announcement. (check with prefecture at site visit).
In 2018, 7,988 rafts were confirmed to be actually in place, below the limit of 11,954, thus the 35 FC’s compliance was proven. (needs all years’ compliance docs). The compliance to this maximum raft number is confirmed through counting in a flyover survey performed by prefectural government staff, in April and May each year.
When the Prefecture is granting the Demarcated Fishery Rights to FCs, the resources management committee is consulted and need to approve the decision. The committee’s secretariat conducts independent compliance checks, namely counting of number of rafts in areas to ensure raft numbers are within the limit. (to be checked for consistency with above)
There are a series of sanctions and penal codes established for illegal fishery operations in Japan. The sanctions are strengthened in the recently revised Fisheries Act, (Fisheries Agency, 1949) stipulates
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 139
that a penalty of up to 30,000,000 Japanese Yen or imprisonment of up to 3 years is charged for a removal of abalone, sea urchin, shellfish etc.. Further to this, Article 67 stipulates the payment of up to 500,000 Japanese Yen and up to a year imprisonment can result for violation of compliance on committee decisions. Article 74 stipulates up to a six-month imprisonment and 300,000 Japanese Yen penalty payment for refusal to allow an inspection by fishery monitoring officers. There are other sanctions for non-reporting, reporting of false information, sales and possession of illegally caught products as well.
As previous stated in section 6.7.4 there are sanctions in place for the breaching of the total raft number limit granted by the fishery right which includes the withdrawal from the income mutual aid program. Thus, it is a joint responsibility of all fishermen through FCA and each FC to comply Fishing Right Use Rules and the FGIP (minutes of 2011 Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council).
6.7.7 Management performance evaluation
An annual evaluation will be held for the monitoring resulted from FGIP, as specified in the new Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative FGIP. The results will be shared with the Prefecture and Hiroshima FCA to gain feedback and if necessary, plan will be revised, as precautionary basis. However, currently evidence of this is insufficient. This will be checked at site visit. The HOC producers will also receive advisory based on the proposal based on external advisors meeting as an opportunity to make necessary revision to the plan.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 140
6.7.8 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales
Scoring table 10. PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework
PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management
Guide There is an effective national legal system and a There is an effective national legal system and There is an effective national legal system framework for cooperation with other parties, organised and effective cooperation with other and binding procedures governing post where necessary, to deliver management parties, where necessary, to deliver cooperation with other parties which outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 management outcomes consistent with MSC delivers management outcomes consistent Principles 1 and 2. with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
Chapter 1, article 2 of the Fisheries Basic Act (2001), is the overarching framework for the management of fisheries in Japan and requires conservation and management of fisheries resources to ensure its sustainable use as a component of marine ecosystem. The Act follows the recommendations of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it also states national government responsibility to promote aquaculture and artificial propagation of fisheries resources in a sustainable fashion, with consideration to the balance with environment. Based on article 16 of the Act, the Fisheries Basic Plan (2012) sets a policy on aquaculture to establish overall improvement plan for low-impact sustainable aquaculture and requires the Fishery Cooperatives to work according to their own fisheries ground improvement plan (FGIP). The management includes numerical targets, like the Appropriate Aquaculture Allowance Quantity (AAAQ).
The prefectural government is responsible for guiding and approving the FGIP, which should be established by Fisheries Cooperative(s) or aquaculture operator(s) as decreed by the Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law. Required by the Law of Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources which aims to protect the surrounding ecosystem and habitat, the Hiroshima prefecture has revised the Hiroshima Plan for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources. These are generally in accordance with MSC Principle 2.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 141
The Hiroshima prefectural fisheries department, prefectural fisheries technology centers, the Fisheries Cooperative Association (FCA) and the Fisheries Cooperative (FC) work in collaboration to implement management measures as set in the laws named above and has a systematic management and monitoring mechanism in general.
Based on the above, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
b Resolution of disputes
Guide The management system incorporates or is subject The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal subject by law to a transparent mechanism for subject by law to a transparent post disputes arising within the system. the resolution of legal disputes which is mechanism for the resolution of legal considered to be effective in dealing with disputes that is appropriate to the context most issues and that is appropriate to the of the fishery and has been tested and context of the UoA. proven to be effective. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
Fisheries-coordination and meetings are well developed under the legal framework of MAFF, and resolution of legal disputes is dealt with in the consultation meetings, such as the Fisheries Policy Discussion Committee meetings. The committee minutes are openly available on the Fisheries Agency’s website (https://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/council/seisaku/kanri/). The agenda and minutes of the Fisheries Policy Discussion Committee include decisions or revisions of basic policy to ensure sustainable aquaculture production and the MAFF is required to consult the Coastal Fishery Promotion Committee. In general, with regards to the aquaculture management policy, the management system incorporates transparent mechanisms for the scale and context of this UoA. However, the appropriateness is not tested nor proven. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met but SG100 is not met. c Respect for rights
Guide The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or observe the legal rights created explicitly or to formally commit to the legal rights post established by custom of people dependent on established by custom of people dependent on created explicitly or established by custom fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent fishing for food or livelihood in a manner of people dependent on fishing for food with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with the objectives of MSC and livelihood in a manner consistent with Principles 1 and 2. the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 142
The provision for Common Fishery Rights with the 1949 Fisheries Law (amended in 2018) demonstrates a clear commitment to traditional fisheries. The Fisheries Cooperative (FC)Law (1948) ensures the system of support for coastal fishermen by organizing socio-economic functions to promote their rights and the development of fisheries that contribute to the national economy. All fishermen with licenses in Japan need to be a member of a FC under the law. There is a formal commitment and mechanism of support for people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood.
Since 2011, through the “Guideline for creating Resources Management Policy and Resources Management Plan” (FA 2011), the national government of Japan has required each fishery to establish a FGIP to plan implementation of resources management, followed by prefectural guidelines to manage the resources. The Hiroshima Oyster Production and Shipping Guideline are generally consistent with the objectives of MSC’s P1 and P2.
The FGIP created by fishermen (FC) needs to be annually submitted and evaluated by the Prefectural Resource Management Committee of the prefecture for approval. This mechanism ensures that the management system has the mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created by customary fishermen in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. On the basis of the above information SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
References
(Fisheries Agency, 1997, 1949, 1948; Government of Japan, 2001; Hiroshima Prefecture, 2020; MAFF, 2018)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 143
Scoring table 11. PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities
PI 3.1.2 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
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Roles and responsibilities
Guide Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. management process have been identified. management process have been identified. post Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally Functions, roles and responsibilities are Functions, roles and responsibilities are understood. explicitly defined and well understood for key explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. areas of responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
The organizational function and roles are clearly defined for all organisations: MAFF, the Hiroshima prefecture, and the Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCA) in legal or official documents, and in the statutes of the cooperatives. (to be checked thoroughly at site visit)
There are consultation processes with regular meetings at the local FCA and Federation FCA levels. All operators are required to be members of the local FCAs, thus are provided opportunity for regular consultation. In addition, the Hiroshima Oyster Council (広島カキ協議会) for processing and supplying oyster, Hiroshima Oyster Processing Co-op (広島カキ加工組合), Hiroshima Oyster Supply Co-op(広島県かき出荷組合) meet once every few months and exchange information and opinions. These meetings are attended by FCA representatives. In this fishery, it can be said that opportunities to meet and discuss among stakeholders regularly are rich. This is from the recent PA - to be checked thoroughly at site visit). SG60 is met.
Some committees function and roles, such as the Fishery Right Management Council and the Hiroshima Prefecture resources management council have not yet been clearly explained to assessment team with evidence, as well as other councils and FC noted above this will be checked further at site visit.
The newly established FGIP for HOC describes the processes of consultation amongst the HOC members producers, prefectural fisheries department and scientists, and external scientists. At these meetings, opportunities to participate are clearly provided to producers / fishers. However HOC’s function is limited to supplement management
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 144
implementation and does not influence prefectural-level decision making, such as decision upon license limitation based on the AAAQ. HOC provided meeting minutes to demonstrate how they meet together and discuss the implementation of measures within the HOC FGIP.
However, currently overall there are not sufficient evidence provided to the assessment team that these are actually active and functioning well (e.g. Fishery Right Management Council and the Hiroshima Prefecture resources management council) therefore at site visit the meeting minutes and explanation must be checked for the scoring. SG80 and SG100 are not met.
b Consultation processes
Guide The management system includes consultation The management system includes consultation The management system includes processes that obtain relevant information from processes that regularly seek and accept consultation processes that regularly seek and post the main affected parties, including local relevant information, including local knowledge. accept relevant information, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. The management system demonstrates knowledge. The management system consideration of the information obtained. demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
There is a hierarchical and collaborative consultation-mechanism and process between prefectural guidance and the fisheries management implemented by the FC’s. The FC’s FGIP states that they will be assisted regularly and seek and accept information with regards to its FGIP, environmental data (e.g. nutrient monitoring), and disease control from the prefectural government.
Hiroshima Prefecture produced a Guideline for Hiroshima Oyster Production, to provide guidance on all aspects of oyster production, and has established the Hiroshima Oyster Shipping Strategy Council to coordinate fishery producers for disease control measures and environmentally-safe oyster shell disposal protocols, etc.
Various committees such as the Fisheries’ Rights Committee and the Prefectural fisheries technical centres also appear to lend support with scientific and technical aspects and provide scientific information. Evidence and interviews at the site visit would be needed to prove the evidence of consultation within the FC and prefecture. It should be also checked whether it is clear the management system demonstrates how information is used or not used.
Three (Kurahashi-nishi, Oogaki, Hiroshima city) FCs have submitted its minutes to show evidence of the license-approval decision making meetings, however the actual process of consultation to approve the licenses appear to take outside of this committee, as no one has expressed its opinion in the meeting (rather the meeting is to demonstrating formalism).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 145
In April 2020, Hiroshima FCA has hand-submitted an request document to Governor of Hiroshima to request stronger measures for environmental improvement of Hiroshima Bay, Kure Bay, and Mitsu Bay after facing oyster die-off and declining fishery production. The content has been discussed within Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council, and supported by the Hiroshima prefectural assembly chair, Hiroshima prefectural Agricultural and Fisheries Department chair. FCA has collected 1765 signature to gain support on this request submission from prefectural government.
The process of regular consultation is not shown in the evidence so far submitted but the evidence so far shows that when important decisions are necessary the system works together to make improvements. SG60 is met.
To achieve the SG80 or higher, meeting minutes will need to be provided to demonstrate that consultation processes “regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge and the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained.” There is not sufficient information to prove this and at site visit these will be fully sought.
c Participation
Guide The consultation process provides opportunity The consultation process provides for all interested and affected parties to be opportunity and encouragement for all post involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? No No
Rationale
In general, from a marketing perspective, the FC is open for social promotion and collaboration and is generally open to stakeholder-opinions.
The client group submitted to the assessment team the “2020 Hiroshima prefecture Agriculture and Fisheries Challenge Plan”, which sets a clear policy for collaboration between prefecture, city government and citizens, with establishment of local projects that involve local markets, citizens, producers to promote all sector’s participation. This plan started in 2011, for 5 years, and finished in 2015. The plan is reviewed every 5 years and current plan is “2025 Hiroshima prefecture Agriculture and Fisheries Action Program”. Although the Challenge plan is old, it shows a level of direction and consultation the prefecture is proceeding with.
HOAFCA, HOPSC, oyster Shipping Co-op, Oyster Processing Co-op in FCA and Resources Management Council established at prefecture, as well as local FC provides opportunity for interested and affected parties to be involved. However, the current documents submitted are not sufficient to prove its structure, how they allow participation, frequency of meetings and mechanism of coordination. More documents will be sought, and questions asked at the site visit to see the extent of how open the committees are to comments / questions posed by fishers or stakeholders, or any outside stakeholders such as NGOs.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 146
It appears that the system provides good opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. However evidence of how participation opportunity is encouraged and facilitated through various committees and organization is not proven with insufficient evidence at this stage and more information is sought, thus SG80 nor SG100 are met.
References
(Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOPSC, 2013)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought • Participation of government for all areas of FGIP review (not only rafts number but to review environmental and other objectives) • Consultation mechanism within FC, with confirmation of all functional committees etc. • evidence needed to demonstrate that consultation opportunities are provided to non-industry members. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 147
Scoring table 12. PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives
PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Objectives
Guide Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard and the making, consistent with MSC Fisheries decision-making, consistent with MSC post precautionary approach, are implicit within Standard and the precautionary approach are Fisheries Standard and the precautionary management policy. explicit within management policy. approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
At national level, the Fisheries Basic Act (2001) and the recently revised Fisheries Act (1949, revised in 2018) requires conservation and management of fisheries resources to ensure its sustainable use as a component of marine ecosystem, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which Japan ratified in 1996. Long-term objectives or sustainable fisheries is explicit with the Fisheries Law and required by the management policy. Japan formally accepted the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This formally commits Japan to the precautionary principle. The Fishery Agency’s Fisheries Master Plan clearly sets policy to set measurable objectives and the precautionary approach, with implementation starting from major commercial fisheries, based on the revised fisheries law.
The Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law determines the basic policy for aquaculture, and the article 4 requires each aquaculture type to establish an Aquaculture Ground Improvement Plan (FGIP), with appropriate aquaculture quantity standards, which needs to be approved by the prefectural government.
Other long-term objectives are consistent with the MSC principle 2. Japan accepted the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This formally commits Japan to the Precautionary Principle. Most recently, Japan’s Basic Act on Biodiversity (No. 58 of June 6, 2008) clearly states the legal objective of conservation and sustainable use of its biodiversity.
For the biodiversity and habitat conservation, based on the Special Law for Environmental Conservation in Setouchi inland Sea, Hiroshima prefecture has established the Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Setouchi Inland Sea (Hiroshima Prefecture, 2016a). This plan commits the prefecture to water quality and coastal biodiversity improvement for conservation of a productive ocean environment.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 148
Responding to the serious needs to rehabilitate the Seto Inland Sea, identified from long-term government monitoring, the Ministry of Environment has started the Ocean Rehabilitation project to restore the richness of the ocean. It has set a 7-year project with a goal of rehabilitating the Seto Inland Sea to enable a clean and rich ocean environment, supported by scientific research and benthic habitat rehabilitation that contributes to distribution of balanced nutrients and enhanced biodiversity (Figure 53).
Although the basic policy appears to be in place, precautionary approach is not so explicit in the policy. Although it may be in place, without clear evidence the score only SG60 is achieved and conformance to SG80 will be further checked at the site visit.
References
(Government of Japan, 2008; Hashimoto et al., 2007; Hirata and Akashige, 2004; Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019, 2016b; HOPSC, 2013; MAFF, 2018; Umehara et al., 2018)
The Implementation Guide for sustainable Aquaculture production law (2014) (https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kokuji_tuti/tuti/t0000507.html ), Hiroshima Fishery Basic Promotion Plan 2017 Currently URL link is broken in Hiroshima City HP and not available – will be asked at site visit)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought Evidence of recent minutes of AAAQ target review at FCA, after 2011, or recent studies that justify current AAAQ level to override past studies consequence. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 149
Scoring table 13. PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives
PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Objectives
Guide Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes long-term objectives, which are post Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are demonstrably consistent with achieving the specific management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
As Principle 1 is not scored this SI focuses solely on the objectives under Principle 2. The fishery objectives are set as the AAAQ (raft numbers), DO and benthic habitat targets in the fishery.
The FGIPs of both the Hiroshima FCA and the client HOC have established clear goals to maintain rafts under AAAQ, including DO, macrobenthos, and sulphide measurements which are broadly consistent with the objective of MSC standard. The client fisheries have established their own, more rigorous FGIP than the standard FGIP set by Hiroshima FCA, in terms of ETP monitoring and habitat impact monitoring. The ETP monitoring in the HOC FGIP is explicit in identifying ETP based on MSC criteria e.g. the IUCN red list, whilst the benthic and water monitoring objectives are directed at environmental attributes (DO and Sulphides) which form part of the MSC enhanced bivalve criteria.The objectives are therefore broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by Principle 2, therefore, SG60 is met.
Hiroshima prefecture sets and review its basic policy for agriculture and fisheries every 5 years, and currently “2025 Hiroshima Agriculture and Fisheries Action Program” is in place, to be implemented between 2021-2025.
The slogan is set as “establish productive and sustainable agriculture and fisheries”. For Fisheries, it sets 2 goals: 1. Establishment of oyster production system with overseas market inclusion, and 2. Establishment of a stable fish supply from Seto Inland Sea. It includes policy to evaluate resources, increase tidal flat and seaweed habitat, and improve ocean habitat, however measurable objective is not established.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 150
Although the fishery under assessment appears to have explicit and measurable objectives in FGIP aligned with national law, by establishment of the AAAQ, water quality and habitat targets, it may not be consistent with the carrying capacity limit suggested as an appropriate limit for the area (less than 10,000 rafts.) by Hashimoto et al., 2007). Other studies also supported this e.g. Umehara et al (2018). Although this may have already considered, the process for defining such objectives, is not so clear at this point, before the site visit. The assessment team would rather be precautionary without sufficient evidence, and keep the score to not meet SG80.
References
(Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOPSC, 2013) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought / Evidence of recent minutes of AAAQ target review at FCA, after 2011, or recent studies that justify current AAAQ level to take over past studies consequence. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
Scoring table 14. PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes
PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Decision-making processes
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 151
Guide There are some decision-making processes in place There are established decision-making that result in measures and strategies to achieve processes that result in measures and post the fishery-specific objectives. strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes No
Rationale
The decision-making system that results in the measures and strategies to achieve AAAQ, water quality and habitat target will be described below. The main instrument of management is licensing, which is restricted to meet the AAAQ and environmental goals set within FGIP and issued by Hiroshima prefecture.
The prefecture is required to consult with Prefectural Fisheries Right Management Committees and Resources Management Council, when granting the fishery rights to FC members. The renewals of these rights are usually based on the recommendation of the FCs to which the fishers belong, however if serious issues are found such as non- compliance with regional and internal rules, the renewal of these fishing rights can be denied. FC’s Management Committee and Plan Implementation Committee for FGIP is responsible for the compliance check, according to the Fishery Right Use Rules.
The prefectural FCA and each member of the FCA, namely the FCs are comprised of fishermen members, with leaders of the FCAs are typically elected via voting. The decision- making processes are established in FCAs, with its organograms and statutes of corporation will be checked at site visit.
The FGIP, a prerequisite for acquiring a license for fishery is established for all Hiroshima oyster producers in the discussion within the Oyster Production Council of the FCA, and implemented through the Fishery Right Use Rules established at each FCs. Each FC has an obligation to report to Hiroshima Oyster Production Strategy Council (HOPSC) Committee the results of environmental data, density and disease monitoring, as specified in the FGIP, and gain approval for the planning and implementation of the plan.
Although implementation is not completely confirmed at this ACDR stage, policies documents and submitted meeting minutes shows that there is some established decision- making system in place for the fishery under assessment, therefore SG60 is met.
Assessment team has only received the 2011 minutes for HOPSC meeting to establish FGIP, and this will be checked with further documentation and site visit.
It is not clear, how the decision-making system is established to consider scientific advice and incorporating the required results from the FGIP implementation, to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Therefore SG80 is not met at present.
b Responsiveness of decision-making processes
Guide Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, post evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 152
timely and adaptive manner and take some consultation, in a transparent, timely and transparent, timely and adaptive manner account of the wider implications of decisions. adaptive manner and take account of the wider and take account of the wider implications of implications of decisions. decisions. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
HOPSC and FCA manages the inspections scheme against Noro virus and other diseases, in cooperation of Hiroshima Shipping Co-op. The monitoring is maintained on a daily basis to respond to the occurrence of the virus in oysters, so that safety is ensured in the products. The established Hiroshima oyster safety measures implementation guideline (draft) appears to show that there is a good decision-making processes to respond to serious health-oriented issues involving Hiroshima oysters. The result of inspections are published in the FCA website, and it is considered as a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decision to announce the outbreak of diseases. Therefore SG60 is met.
Assessment team has received recent (2019) compliance check document on raft numbers (AAAQ limit) only, however, a review of appropriateness of the AAAQ limit by prefectural FCA or prefecture department, or resources management council is not available. It is not clear how the key parts of the management, such as AAAQ targets is being periodically reviewed with the precautionary approach, such as to cross-examine with the habitat target achievement.
The consideration of Hashimoto et al., 2007, which suggested total limit of 10,000 rafts to meet the carrying capacity of the area, along with Hirata and Akashige (2004) to be reflected in the decision-making is not evident. In this way, the decision-making process appears that it does not clearly take into account best available information or use the precautionary approach. Lack of clear precautionary and science-based decision making on effort limitations provides cause for concern regarding the application of the precautionary principle. More evidence is needed to support the SG80 and SG100 score.
HOC has established more precautionary measures with regards to habitat and ETP monitoring and management. However, for AAAQ, which is ultimately affecting the licensed raft numbers of HOC members as well, are determined at Hiroshima prefectural level within council and HOPSC meetings to which HOC producers are being represented.
c Use of precautionary approach
Guide Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best post available information. Met? No
Rationale
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 153
Assessment team has received recent (2019) compliance check document on raft numbers (AAAQ limit) only, however, a review of appropriateness of the AAAQ limit by prefectural FCA or prefecture department, or resources management council is not available. It is not clear how the key parts of the management, such as AAAQ targets is determined in the decision-making system is established, to reflect best available science.
The consideration of Hashimoto et al., 2007, which suggested total limit of 10,000 rafts to meet the carrying capacity of the area, along with Hirata and Akashige (2004) to be reflected in the decision-making is not evident. In this way, the decision-making process appears that it does not clearly consider best available information or use the precautionary approach. Lack of clear precautionary and science-based decision making on effort limitations provides cause for concern regarding the application of the precautionary principle. HOC has shown more precautionary decision making with regards to habitat and ETP monitoring and management. However, for AAAQ, which is ultimately affecting the licensed raft numbers of HOC members as well, are determined at the Hiroshima prefectural level within council and HOPSC meetings to which HOC producers are being represented. More evidence is needed to support the rationale that is required for the SG80 score.
d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process
Guide Some information on the fishery’s performance Information on the fishery’s performance and Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders and management action is generally available on management action is available on request, provides comprehensive information on the post request to stakeholders. and explanations are provided for any actions fishery’s performance and management or lack of action associated with findings and actions and describes how the management relevant recommendations emerging from system responded to findings and relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and review recommendations emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
Some information, such as licensing application and approval documents, 2011 minutes of HOPSC used to set FGIP, some Fishery Right Use Rule documents, 2019 compliance check documents, etc. have been provided on request to show fisheries management decision making process. SG60 is met.
Further information is sought at site visit including minutes of management decision-making meetings within the FCA, FC and committees, recent research findings and recommendations from research institutes, monitoring review process, prefectural resources management council and documents. Information on the fishery’s performance and explanations for any actions or lack of action associated with scientific findings are not sufficiently provided, thus SG80 is not met.
e Approach to disputes
Guide Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 154
post not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by judicial decisions arising from any legal implements judicial decisions arising from repeatedly violating the same law or regulation challenges. legal challenges. necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The Hiroshima FCA and HOC have their own mechanisms to discuss issues proactively through various committees’ general meetings and ad- hoc, need-based meetings to avoid the development of issues into disputes. Based on the Area Fisheries Coordination Rule and If legal decisions are necessary the fishermen or FC can take the issue to the court, though usually internal discussions are sufficient to avoid legal disputes. The internal system is considered to work effectively within the FC, proven with a long history of fishery management which has no recent record of legal challenges. SG60 and SG80 are met. However, evidence that infer how FC and fishermen’s organization internally work is considerably lacking at this point. There is no reference to the rapid implementation of judicial decisions, thus SG100 is not met.
References
(Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOC, 2018; MAFF, 2011), 2011 minutes for HOPSC meeting, 2018 compliance evidence.
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought / • FCA Fishery Right Management Council meeting minutes, • Minutes of meetings within FCA and its committees, recent research findings and recommendations, and monitoring review process. • Explanations and evidences on prefectural resources management council for their license- approval process and functions are further requested at site visit. • evidence of the structure of fishery management-related decision making within the FCA / FC. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 155
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 156
Scoring table 15. PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement
PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a MCS implementation
Guide Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms A monitoring, control and surveillance system has A comprehensive monitoring, control post exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there been implemented in the fishery and has and surveillance system has been is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant implemented in the fishery and has management measures, strategies and/or rules. demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
The primary non-compliance area pertains to violation of Fishery Right Use Rule of each FC, which implements the FGIP and specifies raft numbers and locations according to the license. FGIP also includes rules such as density and materials used for aquaculture facility, habitat monitoring targets, and require oyster disease reporting from each FC (while FC required to conduct daily monitoring and summarize total disease occurrence per cause and producers).
Hiroshima Prefecture Resources Management Council (comprised of the prefectural Fishery Department, FCA, FCA’s fishery income compensation trust, prefectural Fisheries Research Center) is responsible for confirming compliance of the FGIP before approving FGIP and license renewal. The council staffs make visual confirmation at sites and count raft numbers allocated to each FC/district to check the compliance. According to FGIP, each local FC is required to report the number of rafts used in each demarcated license area to FCA as well.
A report produced by the council in 2019 confirmed the compliance of 35 FC’s raft numbers. Therefore, for the raft number limit (AAAQ), there seems that there is a good strategy for MCS.
FC’s Fishery Right Use Rules specify that each FC will establish an Oyster Aquaculture Fishery Management Committee comprised of selected members, and monitor the compliance to the rules.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 157
A producer is required to conduct voluntary virus inspection, in coordination with the Oyster Production and Shipping Committee, and directly report to HOPSC for disease control, based on the Hiroshima Oyster Safety Measures Procedure.
However, although the mechanism is described in rule documents, the assessment team has not received any document to demonstrate its effectiveness of enforcement in each FC, to show how other measures stated in the FGIP, such as habitat maintenance target, disease monitoring and reporting, aquaculture material specification (also specified in Fishery Right Use Rules of each FC) are reported and confirmed. There are some FC general meeting records to determine raft locations, and ocean floor cultivation activity and budgets, but it does not cover all producers and how system works is not well known.
For licensing compliance, Fishery Right Management Committee within the FCA and HOPSC is in charge of monitoring and at FC level, Aquaculture Fishery Management Committee is established to monitor compliance to fishery right use rules. The management committee needs to make an order to member fishermen when he/ she has not complied with the rules, such as using the right materials for rafts, tagging of numbers and the fisher must take necessary measures to avoid losing rafts. Each FC’s director has a right to stop the member’s fishery right if the members violate laws, or ignore government order, or violates FC’s fishery right use rules. No record about this committee or compliance by members is presented yet.
Nearshore operation of aquaculture means that non-compliance is easily noticeable and can be monitored by peer fishermen, minimizing the likelihood of non-compliance and illegal activity. The FCA system is also considered to be well organized in the long history of Hiroshima oyster aquaculture, The prefecture reported that there was no violation on oyster fishery in the past 28 years. The group-responsibility for fisher’s mutual-aid system that makes compliance to rules prerequisite may promote the compliance, too. The Fishery Right Use Rules require that each raft has its own identification tag and the ownership is very clear (if the rafts are washed away due to the strong waves etc, the owner has the responsibility to pull it back to the original position). MCS mechanism exist, and are implemented as the Fishery Right Use Rules, for which there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. SG60 is met. However, detail of how the system works for rules other than raft numbers (compliance to AAAQ) is not demonstrated and will be sought further at site visit. SG80 nor SG100 are met.
b Sanctions
Guide Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance post there is some evidence that they are applied. consistently applied and thought to provide exist, are consistently applied and effective deterrence. demonstrably provide effective deterrence. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
Sanctions are clearly prescribed in the Hiroshima fisheries coordination rules, and fishery right use rules of FCs, in accordance to the Fisheries Law (1949).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 158
The sanctions are strengthened in the recently revised Fisheries Act, (Fisheries Agency, 1949) which stipulates that a penalty of up to 30,000,000 Japanese Yen or imprisonment of up to 3 years is charged for a removal of abalone, sea urchin, shellfish etc.. Further to this, Article 67 stipulates the payment of up to 500,000 Japanese Yen and up to a year imprisonment can result for violation of compliance on committee decisions. Article 74 stipulates up to a six-month imprisonment and 300,000 Japanese Yen penalty payment for refusal to allow an inspection by fishery monitoring officers. There are other sanctions for non-reporting, reporting of false information, sales and possession of illegally caught products as well.
For oyster fisheries in Hiroshima, conformance to raft numbers is a requirement for all license holders, and collectively, the Mutual Aid participants have another layer of sanction for the raft number total limit, as any existence of violating member would remove all participants’ right in the aid system.
The prefectural resources management committee conducts raft number surveys periodically. The coordination of location and placement of the aquaculture rafts in the designated areas and in the prescribed manner are checked once a year. Raft number locations are determined by lottery at general meetings of producers (the exact name of organization requested) The FCA and government licensing system requires members to comply with FC rules to be able to continue license, and the right to continue mutual aid program.
The prefecture reported to client that there was no violation on oyster fishery in the past 28 years. The client has obtained a copy of fisheries violation records (1992-2020) from Hiroshima prefecture.
Sanctions clearly exist and considering the fisheries unique management system with the FCA, assessment team believes that they will be applied when applicable, though it has not been necessary to apply for the past 28 years, while the compliance is collectively coordinated by FCA. Thus SG60 is met. However, as the most of the rule implementation appears to be coordinated within FCA’s peer monitoring, there might be some penalty system, and team requests the information on any penalty system within FCA to see if they are consistently applied for areas of reporting and habitat monitoring, etc.
At the FC level, the Fishery Right Use Rules sets out that the FC will establish Aquaculture Fishery Management Committee to monitor compliance actions.
The management committee needs to make an order to member fishermen when he/ she has not complied with the rules, such as using right materials for rafts, tagging of numbers and take necessary measures to avoid losing of rafts. Each FC’s director has a right to stop the member’s fishery right if the members violate laws, or ignore government order, or violates FC’s fishery right use rules. In addition, the implementation guide to Sustainable Aquaculture Act instructs that FGIP sets the provision for penalty for breach of rules to promote compliance in the cases such as individual producers are participating directly to the FGIP.
The assessment team has not been informed of how FC’s Aquaculture Fishery Management Committee is functioning to issue alarm for cancelation of license for violation of rules, which is stipulated in the fishery right use rules.
As such SG80 nor SG100 are met.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 159
Where possible the assessment team will seek independent and credible information, and typically meet with the relevant compliance and enforcement agencies at site visit. Any fishery meetings, annual reports that stakeholder committee minutes which may detail compliance information and details of fishery offences will be helpful for improving the score.
c Compliance
Guide Fishers are generally thought to comply with the Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers There is a high degree of confidence post management system for the fishery under comply with the management system under that fishers comply with the assessment, including, when required, providing assessment, including, when required, providing management system under information of importance to the effective information of importance to the effective assessment, including, providing management of the fishery. management of the fishery. information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes
Rationale
There is a well-organized strategy for ensuring compliance among prefecture, FCA and FC. The prefecture reported that there was no violation in the oyster fishery in the past 28 years..
The prefectural resources management committee conducts raft number surveys periodically. The coordination of location and placement of the aquaculture rafts in the designated areas and in the prescribed manner are checked once a year. Raft number locations are determined by lottery at general meetings of producers (the exact name of organization requested) the FCA and government licensing system requires members to comply with FC rules to be able to continue license, and the right to continue mutual aid program.
Fishers are generally thought to comply with the other management system for the fishery under assessment and provide some information to comply with the other management system for the fishery under assessment and provide some information of importance such as updated license documents, habitat, water quality and ETP monitoring results. SG 60 is met.
Fishers under assessment established a special FGIP implementation group, namely HOC, to strengthen monitoring and compliance of their newly established FGIP. It has submitted monitoring records for habitat targets and updated licensing documents. There is some evidence to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including providing information of important to the effective management, such as HOC meeting records. However some documents related to other part of FGIP rules are not provide yet (such as died oyster disease reporting).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 160
Nearshore operation of aquaculture means that non-compliance is easily noticeable and can be monitored by peer fishermen, minimizing the likelihood of non-compliance and illegal activity. The prefecture reported that there was no violation on oyster fishery in the past 28 years. The group-responsibility for fisher’s mutual-aid system that makes compliance to rules prerequisite may promote the compliance as well.
Therefore, there is some evidence that fishers comply with the licensing system. SG80 is met
However, for other areas involving FC’s management committee’s checking system, such as raft specifications and markings, shell disposals, reporting, only minutes from 2020 general meeting participated by Amibun Kaisan has provided. Disease control appears (though only draft is provided as evidence) to be managed by HOPSC, though Hiroshima oyster safety measures implementation guideline (draft). The voluntary virus inspection results are published at FCA website (link is needed here). Since evidence is not provided for all producers, SG100 is not met.
d Systematic non-compliance
Guide There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. post Met? Yes
Rationale
There is a well-organized strategy for ensuring compliance among prefecture, FCA and FC. The prefecture reported that there was no violation in the oyster fishery in the past 28 years.
There is no reported systematic non-compliance for this fishery and no incentive for non-compliance is thought to exist in the current situation. Therefore, SG80 is met.
References
(HOC, 2018; HOPSC, 2013) Hiroshima Fisheries Coordination Rule,
Raft location tables in the Fishery Right Use Rules of FC, approved prefecture
Hiroshima Prefecture report on fishery violation (1998-2019).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 161
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought /
• FC’s Fishery Right Management Council meeting minutes, • How compliance with regulations is monitored
Records of enforcement activities and any sanctions applied Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 162
Scoring table 16. PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation
PI 3.2.4 There is a system of 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
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a Evaluation coverage
Guide There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all post some parts of the fishery-specific management parts of the fishery-specific management system. parts of the fishery-specific management system. system. Met? Yes No No
Rationale
The fishery-specific management system is the FGIP of FCA for AAAQ, and for the other areas such as habitat and ETP monitoring, HOC has replaced FCA FGIP to have strengthened implementation and review system.
Fishery Agency review its Fisheries Basic Plan every 5 years, and in 2011 the FA established Resources Management Policy / Plan system, which required every fishery to establish a fishery improvement plan or aquaculture ground improvement plan. The Guideline for Implementation of Sustainable Aquaculture Act has set the detail of how FGIP should be established, implemented and reviewed, and improvement target setting rules, including where use of AAAQ is explained. In 2018, Implementation Guide for resources management policy ・ plan system program was issued from the MAFF with a subsidy for implementation, and Hiroshima resources management council minutes in 2019 referred to this guideline as a basis to conduct raft number (AAAQ) compliance. Only the AAAQ has become the target of evaluation for FGIP implementation. However, the guideline for Implementation of Sustainable Aquaculture Act also sets article 3-4, to require the Council to collect the necessary data for review, evaluate and inspect and improvement of the plan, and article 3-5 requires the council that discussion should be held for evaluation, inspection and improvement of the management policy and plan.
The assessment team has only received the minutes of AAAQ setting from 2011 by resources management council, and the 2019 approval of FGIP based on AAAQ, but not the discussion record of review of AAAQ in the past 10 years.
For the target fishery, the raft number limit, AAAQ is applied commonly under the FCA, but a review system is in place with HOC FGIP to check DO and benthic habitat targets in the fishery with the FGIP and there is some evidence that these are conducted, although this review system does not appear to be in place for other producers in the FCA.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 163
On the basis of the above SG60 is met.
However, the Guideline for Implementation of Sustainable Aquaculture Act sets the FGIP approval standard to include “process to change the FGIP: After FGIP establishment, measures should be reviewed if expected improvement has not achieved. For this occasion, process of appropriate review and improvement should be prescribed in the rule”. HOC FGIP does not have prescribed measures when expected improvement does not occur, therefore this needs to be added for evaluation measure.
The evaluation and review methodology is not explicitly stated in the HOC FGIP and FCA FGIP. For the FCA FGIP, there is no evidence that there has been any review or evaluation of the plan and AAAQ, which is a key part of the management system, SG80 nor SG100 are met.
b Internal and/or external review
Guide The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is post subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external external review. review. Met? Yes Yes No
Rationale
The content of the fisheries management system, such as the management measures and its effectiveness, are regularly reviewed internally through special committee meetings within HOPSC and general meetings at FC level. The meeting minutes are provided as evidence.
SG60 is met.
The resources management council comprised of FCA, FCs, the Prefectural Fisheries Department, Prefectural Fishery Science Center, and invited academia (external) discuss the fishery licensing approval, thus this includes some external view. If any special advisory or consultation is required for fishery, the discussion agenda will be brought to the Area Fishery Coordination Committee, where citizen experts and stakeholders add external views to the fishery, in addition to FCA, FCs, government, scientific body, and academia (also external).
This system is confirmed as a rule within the documents submitted, however, actual implementation of these with demonstrated discussion records is not provided as evidence. The client body formed the HOC to receive advisory from third-party scientists and organizations occasionally. Thus, overall SG80 is met. Since it is not clear the external review can be regular and against the whole fishery-specific management system, SG100 is not met.
References
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 164
(Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019; HOPSC, 2013)
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage
Draft scoring range 60-79
Information gap indicator More information sought • The prefectural government’s performance for regular evaluations of the FC administration records (documents and reports). • evidence that there has been any review or evaluation of the plan and AAAQ • Interview with FC president and prefecture fisheries department staff Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Overall Performance Indicator score
Condition number (if relevant)
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 165
7 References
Ahmed, O.O., Solomon, O.O., 2016. Ecological Consequences of Oysters Culture. J Fish. Livest Prod 4, 198.
Fisheries Agency, 1997. The Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources.
Fisheries Agency, 1949. Fisheries Act, 1949 (Act No. 267 of 1949).
Fisheries Agency, 1948. Fisheries cooperative Association Law - Law No. 242, December 15, 1948.
FRA, 2012. Whale Grounding Countermeasure Manual(Revised version in 2012).
FRA, 2006. Amendment: March 31, 2006 17 Water Recommendation No. 1226.
Fujiya, M., 1970. Oyster farming in Japan. Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters 20, 464–479.
Government of Japan, 2008. Basic Act on Biodiversity Act No. 58 of June 6, 2008.
Government of Japan, 2001. Fisheries Basic Act No.89 of June 29, 2001.
Ha, T.T.T., Morishita, K., Murakami, T., Akashige, S., Kajihara, T., Umino, T., Nishibori, M., Nakayama, I., Takaba, M., 2006. Genetic characteristics of cultured and wild Japanese oyster Crassostrea gigas inHiroshima Bay as inferred by microsatellite DNA markers. Genet. ad Breed. Sci. 43–47.
Hashimoto, T., Aono, Y., Yamamoto, T., 2007. Conservation and management of ecosystem in Hiroshima Bay., in: Yamamoto, T., Yurutani, K. (Eds.), Regeneration of Environment in Closed Marine Area. p. 163.
Hatase, H., Kinoshita, M., Bando, T., Kamezaki, N., Sato, K., Matsuzawa, Y., Goto, K., Omuta, K., Nakashima, Y., Takeshita, H., Sakamoto, W., 2002. Population structure of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, nesting in Japan: bottlenecks on the Pacific population. Mar. Biol. 141, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-002-0819-4
Hatase, H., Omuta, K., 2020. Trophically polymorphic loggerhead sea turtles show similar interannual variability in clutch frequencies: implications for estimating population size of iteroparous animals. J. Zool. 312, 211–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12830
Hatase, H., Omuta, K., Tsukamoto, K., 2010. Oceanic residents, neritic migrants: a possible mechanism underlying foraging dichotomy in adult female loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Mar. Biol. 157, 1337–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1413-9
Hirata, Y., Akashige, S., 2004. The present situation and problems of oyster culture in Hiroshima Bay. Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. Suppl. No. 1 16, 5–12.
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2021. Hiroshima Prefecture Redlist [WWW Document]. Hiroshima Prefect. - Nat. Environ. Div. URL https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/tayousei/j-j2-reddata2- index2.html
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2020. The Hiroshima Oyster Production and Shipping Guideline.
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2019. Hiroshima oyster FGIP performance confirmation report 2019 広島かき 漁場改善計画の履行確認について.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 166
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2016a. Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Setouchi Inland Sea.
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2016b. The Hiroshima Plan for Environmental Conservation for Seto Inland Sea.
Hiroshima Prefecture, 2013. Finless porpoise [WWW Document]. Hiroshima Prefect. - Nat. Environ. Div. URL https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/soshiki/47/sunameri.html (accessed 2.9.21).
Hiroshima Prefecture Fisheries Department, 2017. Hiroshima Fishery Basic Promotion Plan 2017 - 広 島水産振興基本計画.
HOC, 2020a. 200302 Environmental Survey Report of Oyster Fishing Grounds - Hiromshima Oyster Cooperative.
HOC, 2020b. 200818 Environmental Survey Report of Oyster Fishing Grounds - Hiromshima Oyster Cooperative.
HOC, 2018. Hiroshima Oyster Cooperative Oyster Aquaculture Management Project.
HOPSC, 2013. FGIP certification application to Hiroshima Prefecture, by Hiroshima FCA. Hirshima City.
Imagawa, M., Komai, K., Hibino, T., Abe, T., Nishida, Y., 2009. Charateristics of distribution of organic mud at delta river mouth area. Mar. Eng. 53, 1447–1452.
Japan Fishery Resource Conservation Association, 2000. Standard for Fisheries Water Quality (Suisan Yosui Kijyun).
JFA, 2016. Official Announcement to local government chief. Implementation guide of Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law.
Kaiser, M.J., Laing, I., Utting, S.D., Burnell, G.M., 1998. Environmental Impacts of Bivalve Mariculture.
Kamimura, Y., 2013. Evaluation of function of vegetated habitats as fish nursery: production and growth-survival mechanisms of juvenile black rockfish Sebastes cheni in a macroalgal bed. Department of Bioresource Science Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University.
Keeley, N., 2013. Literature Review of Ecological Effects of Aquaculture - Benthic Effects.
Keeley, N., Forrest, B., Hopkins, G., Gillespie, P., Knight, B., Webb, S., Clement, D., Gardner, J., 2009. Review of the ecological effects of farming shellfish and other non-finfish species in New Zealand.
Kittiwanich, J., Yamamoto, T., Kawaguchi, O., Madinabeitia, I., 2016. Assessing responses of the Hiroshima Bay ecosystem to increasing or decreasing phosphorus and nitrogen inputs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102, 256–264. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.003
MAFF, 2018. Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law.
MAFF, 2011. Application of Sustainable Aquaculture Production Law in prefectures. (last updated in 2014).
MAFF, 2000. Processing Requirements for the disposal of Oyster shells.
MAFF, 1999. Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production.
Ministry for the Environment, 2010. 6.5 Finless porpoise network (6.5 スナメリネットワーク).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 167
Ministry of the Environment, 2018a. 4th sediment distribution map - Seto Inland Sea Environmental Information Basic Survey (2015-2017) [WWW Document]. WEB.
Ministry of the Environment, 2018b. 4th Benthos distribution map - Seto Inland Sea Environmental Information Basic Survey (2015-2017) [WWW Document]. WEB.
Ministry of the Environment, 2017. Environmental information on the Seto Inland Sea - water quality - Horizontal distribution map (Summer 2017) [WWW Document].
Ministry of the Environment, 2012. Ecologically and Biologically Significant Marine Areas identified By Japan [WWW Document]. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/kaiiki/index.html.
Mitsushio, F., Yanagi, T., Hashimoto, T., 2002. Oyster culture and marine environment in Hiroshima Bay.
MLIT, 2021. Seto Inland Sea Comprehensive Water Quality Survey - sediment data [WWW Document]. Minist. Land, Infrastruct. Transp.
Moriyasu, M., Omoto, R., Humblestone, J., 2018. Pacific Cupped Oyster (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg, 1793) Enhanced Fisheries in Hiroshima and Hiro Bays, Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.
Nakagawa, K., Hamaguchi, M., Sasaki, M., Tawaratsumida, T., Nakamura, Y., 2010. Growth characteristics and subpopulation analysis by means of microsatellite DNA markers of Pacific cupped oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Buzen Sea. Bull. Fukuoka Fish. Mar. technol. Res. Cent. 81– 86.
Narazaki, T., Sato, K., Abernathy, K.J., Marshall, G.J., Miyazaki, N., 2013. Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) Use Vision to Forage on Gelatinous Prey in Mid-Water. PLoS One 8, e66043.
NIES, 2013. Deterioration of sedimentary environment and assessment of its impact on benthic fauna in coastal sewers close to urbanized area.
Nishizawa, H., Narazaki, T., Fukuoka, T., Sato, K., Hamabata, T., Kinoshita, M., Arai, N., 2014. Genetic composition of loggerhead turtle feeding aggregations: migration patterns in the North Pacific . Endanger. Species Res. 24, 85–93.
NOAA, 2017. Protected Species and Marine Aquaculture Interactions NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 211.
Ogawa, N., 2017. Distribution and population number of finless porpoise Neophocaena asiaeorientalis along the coast of Japan. Tokyo University of Marine Science.
Sekino, M., Hamaguchi, M., Araishi, F., Okoshi, K., 2003. Development of Novel Microsatellite DNA Markers from the Pacific Oyster Crassostrea gigas. Mar. Biotechnol. 223–231.
Seto-ECo-Kyo, 2021. Finless porpoise sighting information [WWW Document].
Seto Inland Sea Environmental Conservation Association, 2021. The Association for the Environmental Conservation of The Seto Inland Sea. [WWW Document]. URL https://www.seto.or.jp/research/jisseki
Songsangjinda, P., Matsuda, O., Yamamoto, T., Rajendran, N., Maeda, H., 2000. The Role of Suspended Oyster Culture on Nitrogen Cycle in Hiroshima Bay. J. Oceanogr. 56, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011143414897
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 168
Sonoki, S., Shao, H., Morita, Y., Minami, K., Shoji, J., Hori, M., Miyashita, K., 2016. Using Acoustics to Determine Eelgrass Bed Distribution and to Assess the Seasonal Variation of Ecosystem Service. PLoS One 11, e0150890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150890
Sugimoto, K., Nakano, Y., Okuda, T., Nakai, S., Nishijima, W., Okada, M., 2017. Coexistence between Zostera marina and Zostera japonica in seagrass beds of the Seto Inland Sea, Japan. J. Ecol. Environ. 41, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-017-0026-3
Takagishi, K., 2014. Information Flow of infection with Ostreid herpesvirus 1 micro variant (OsHV- 1uVar). Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 80, 214–221.
Tarutani, K., 2007. Impacts of oyster culture on nitrogen budgets in Hiroshima Bay, the Seto Inland Sea of Japan. Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. Suppl. No. 1 19, 35–40.
Terawaki, T., Yoshikawa, K., Yoshida, G., Uchimura, M., 2001. Horizontal and vertical distribution patterns of macro-algae in Hiroshima Bay, western Seto Inland Sea [Japan]. Bull. Fish. Environ. Inl. Sea 3, 73–81.
Terawaki, T., Yoshikawa, K., Yoshida, G., Uchimura, M., Iseki, K., 2003. Ecology and restoration techniques for Sargassum beds in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47, 198–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00054-7
Umehara, A., Asaoka, S., Fujii, N., Otani, S., Yamamoto, H., Nakai, S., Okuda, T., Nishijima, W., 2018. Biological productivity evaluation at lower trophic levels with intensive Pacific oyster farming of Crassostrea gigas in Hiroshima Bay, Japan. Aquaculture 495, 311–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.05.048
UNEP, 2008. DECISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AT ITS NINTH MEETING.
Wang, F., Umehara, A., Nakai, S., Nishijima, W., 2019. Management of the west-central Seto Inland Sea, Japan: factors controlling the spatiotemporal distributions of chlorophyll a concentration and Secchi depth. Water Policy 21, 865–879. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.177
Yamamoto Tamiji, Hashimoto, T., Matsuda, O., Go, A., Nakaguchi, K., Haraguchi, K., 2008. Comparison of sediments in Hiroshima Bay and Suo Nada — especially on seasonal fluctuations and the relationship between items. J. Japanese Soc. Fish. Sci. 74, 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.2331/suisan.74.1037
Yamanoi, 2005. Effect of Oyster Shell Dispersion in Mud at the Sea Bottom of the Benthos.
Yoshida Goro, Yoshikawa, K., Terawaki, T., 2001. Growth and maturation of two populations of Sargassum horneri (Fucales, Phaeophyta) in Hiroshima Bay, the Seto Inland Sea. Fish. Sci. 67, 1023–1029. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-2906.2001.00357.x
Yoshida, G., 2012. Relationshipof Seaweed ／Seagrass Bed and Fisheries Productionof the SetoInland Sea. Fish. Eng. 49, 77–83.
Yoshida, G., Shimabukuro, H., 2017. Seasonal population dynamics of Sargassum fusiforme (Fucales, Phaeophyta), Suo-Oshima Is., Seto Inland Sea, Japan—development processes of a stand characterized by high density and productivity. J. Appl. Phycol. 29, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-016-0951-z
Yoshida, H., Yoshioka, M., Shirakihara, M., Chow, S., 2002. POPULATION STRUCTURE OF FINLESS
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 169
PORPOISES (NEOPHOCAENA PHOCAENOIDES) IN COASTAL WATERS OF JAPAN BASED ON MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SEQUENCES. J. Mammal. 82, 123–130.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 170
8 Appendices
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 171
Appendix 1 Assessment information.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 172
Appendix 1.2 Small-scale fisheries
Percentage of fishing activity Percentage of vessels with length Unit of Assessment (UoA) completed within 12 nautical <15m miles of shore 1 100% 100%
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 173
Appendix 2 Evaluation processes and techniques
Appendix 2.1 Site visits
The report shall include:
- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16
The site visit was held at XXXX, on the XXXX. The individuals met during the site visit and their roles in the fishery are listed in Table 23.
Table 23. List of attendees at the on-site meetings.
Name Position Type of consultation
Appendix 2.2 Stakeholder participation
The report shall include:
- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16
Dr Hatase – Sea Turtle author.
Contacted in relation to the presence of loggerhead turtles in Hiroshima Bay at the ACDR stage.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 174
From: Hideo HATASE
Dear Dr. Jones,
I have never heard that loggerheads nest around Hiroshima Bay and that the Bay is an important foraging area for them. Although a few loggerheads have been observed to nest at Akashi City, Hyogo Prefecture (east of Hiroshima), it does not occur annually. http://translate.google.co.jp/translate?hl=ja&sl=ja&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.city.akas hi.lg.jp%2Fdoboku%2Fkaigan_ka%2Fmachizukuri%2Fkaigan%2Fkanri%2Fumigame%2Fumigame% 2Fakaumigame_rekishi.html&sandbox=1
If you want to know more about sea turtle nesting in Seto Inland Sea, please contact S e a T urtle Association of J a pan ( [email protected] ).
Best wishes,
Hideo Hatase
Appendix 2.3 Evaluation techniques
Use of RBF is not required.
At Announcement Comment Draft report stage, if the use of the RBF is triggered for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:
- The plan for RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit. - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - The full list of activities and components to be discussed or evaluated in the assessment. At Client Draft Report stage, if the RBF was used for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:
- A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 175
The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16, FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF2.1
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 176
Appendix 3 Peer review reports
To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The report shall include unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The report shall include explicit responses of the team that include:
- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where peer reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 177
Appendix 4 Stakeholder input – delete if not applicable
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report
The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.
The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 178
Appendix 5 Conditions – delete if not applicable
Appendix 5.1 New Conditions - delete if not applicable
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6
Table 24. Condition 1
Performance Indicator Score State score for Performance Indicator Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification text here. If condition relates to a previous condition or one Justification raised and closed in the previous assessment include information required here Condition State condition Condition deadline State deadline of condition Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is Exceptional longer than the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a Circumstances ☐ justification Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable Veriication with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 entities 7.19.8. Complete the Following Rows for reassessments Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a). Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. Related condition ☐
Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP Condition rewritten ☐ v2.2 7.30.5.3).
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 179
Appendix 6 Client Action Plan
To be added from Public Comment Draft Report stage
The report shall include the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 180
Appendix 7 Surveillance
To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
The report shall include the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28
Table 25. Fishery surveillance programme
Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit
Table 26. Timing of surveillance audit
Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 June 2018, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice
Table 27. Surveillance level justification
Surveillance Number of Year Rationale activity auditors e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely e.g. 1 auditor on- in year 3. Considering that milestones site with remote indicate that most conditions will be e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit support from 1 closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to auditor have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on- site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 181
Appendix 8 Harmonised fishery assessments
The MSC requires harmonization with overlapping MSC fisheries. There can be overlap any of the three Principles between two or more fisheries, depending on the scope of the fisheries involved. As there are no other MSC certified fisheries targeting the Hiroshima population of Pacific cupped oyster, or other fisheries in Hiroshima Bay or using the same gear in a nearby area certified, Principles 1 and 2 are not considered relevant to harmonization. Under Principle 3, other MSC certified Japanese fisheries are potentially relevant. The following are certified Japanese fisheries.
• the Japan Sea Danish seine fishery for flathead flounder located offshore of Kyoto Prefecture (Suspended ) • the Japanese scallop hanging and seabed enhanced fisheries in Hokkaido prefecture. • Maruto Suisan rope grown Pacific oyster in Okayama prefecture • the Japanese Pole and Line skipjack and albacore tuna fishery • Kochi and Miyazaki Offshore Pole and Line Albacore and Skipjack fishery • Ishihara Marine Products albacore and skipjack pole and line fishery • Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery Of these, only the scallop and oyster fishery are considered similar enough in management context, as a nearshore enhanced fishery operation. Because both of these operate in a different regions / prefectures and the Japanese fishery management system places much autonomy on the local cooperative structure, scores differ even at the overarching governance level (PIs 3.1.X). The remaining PIs in P3 focus on fishery-specific management and therefore there is no harmonistaion required.
The Overall conclusion is no harmonisation is required for this UoA.
Appendix 9 Objection Procedure
To be added at Public Certification Report stage
The report shall include all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.
Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 182
Appendix 10 Endangered Species Encounter Manual
絶滅危惧種と遭遇した時の対処法マニュアル
国際協定（C I T E SとI U C N）に載っている瀬戸内海に生息する絶滅危惧種：
-スナメリ (Neophocaena phocaenoides) (CITES I, VU)
イルカと違って背ビレがないのが特徴で大体人間の大人と同じくらいのサイズ （160~180cm）です。
全体像 海面から見た場合：
-アカウミガメ (Caretta caretta) (CITES I, VU)
あまり、赤くありません。首がアオウミガメと比べて太いのが特徴です。あと、近くで確 認すると、頭の模様が違います。
アカウミガメ
首が太い
アオウミガメ
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 183
アカウミガメ
アオウミガメ
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 184
絶滅危惧種と遭遇した時の対処法
船舶運行中に遭遇 ➢ 動物に注意しつつ、スローで迂回して航行。 ➢ 威嚇や虐待行為（音を立てたり、ものを投げたり）を行わない。 ➢ 漁協に提出する絶滅危惧種遭遇記録に必要な情報（遭遇日時と場所など）を記載す る。
作業場付近で遭遇（筏上） ➢ 威嚇や虐待行為（音を立てたり、ものを投げたり）を行わない。 ➢ 漁協に提出する絶滅危惧種遭遇記録に必要な情報（遭遇日時と場所など）を記載す る。
筏や、ロープ、食害対策ネットなど漁具に絡まっている場合 ➢ 対象動物を極力傷つけないように、絡まっているものから外し、解放した後5分ほど は状態を確認する。 ➢ 漁協に提出する絶滅危惧種遭遇記録に必要な情報（遭遇日時と場所、取った対応な ど）を記載する。 ➢ また、必要であれば県の担当者に連絡する
ウミガメの時： 首回り以外の甲羅の部分を持って絡まっているものから取り外す。首まわりの甲羅に手 を置かないのは、カメが首を引き込むときに巻き込まれないようにするためです。ま た、脱臼しやすいため前肢や後肢を引っ張ることはしない。 カメをもし傷つけてしまったり、衰弱していると判断した場合は、船上の濡れている冷 暗所で回復するまで保護することを勧める。船上に保護することができない場合には， 締まらないように輪にしたロープを首や前肢にかけるなどして船べり海面に確保し，専 門家に連絡して指示を仰ぐ。船上にあげる時は、カメを安静な体勢（後肢が頭より１５ cmほど上になるような体勢）にしておくと尚良い。また、乾燥を防ぐために適度に水 をかけること。
スナメリの時： 息ができる状態（空気孔が水面から出ている状態）を確保することを優先して取り外し の作業を行う。
CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v3.3 (25th September 2020) (based on MSC Reporting Template v1.2) QA: 3577R01D 185