Ashtamudi Estuary Short Necked Clam Fishery

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Ashtamudi Estuary Short Necked Clam Fishery

3rd Surveillance Audit April 2018

Certificate Code F-ACO-0055 Prepared For: WWF-India & Clam Governing Council Prepared By: Acoura Marine Authors: Jim Andrews, K.K. Appukuttan

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Assessment Data Sheet

Certified Fishery Ashtamudi Estuary Short Necked Clam Fishery Management Agency Clam Governing Council & Government of Kerala Species Short necked clams, Paphia malabarica Fishing Method Free diving (UoC1) Hand dredge (UoC2) Certificate Code F-ACO-0055 Certification Date 5th November 2014 Certification Expiration Date 4th November 2019 Certification Body Acoura Marine Ltd 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ, Scotland, UK Tel: +44(0)131335 6601 MSC Fisheries Department Email: [email protected] Web: www.Acoura.com

Surveillance Stage: 2nd Surveillance Audit Surveillance Date: 20th April 2017

Page 2 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 2 General Information ...... 6 2.1 Certificate Holder details ...... 6 3 Background ...... 7 3.1 Description of fishery ...... 7 3.2 Changes in the management system ...... 8 3.3 Changes in relevant regulations...... 9 3.4 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry...... 9 3.5 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments ...... 9 3.6 Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non- certified fish) ...... 10 3.7 TAC and catch data ...... 10 3.8 Compliance with regulations ...... 10 3.9 Summary of Assessment Conditions ...... 10 4 Assessment Process ...... 11 4.1 Details of 3rd Surveillance Audit Process ...... 11 4.2 Scope & History of the Assessment ...... 11 4.2.1 Surveillance team details ...... 11 4.2.2 Date & Location of surveillance audit ...... 11 4.2.3 Stakeholder consultation & meetings ...... 11 4.2.4 What was inspected ...... 12 4.3 Surveillance Standards ...... 12 4.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used ...... 12 4.3.2 Destructive fishing practices ...... 12 4.3.3 Controversial unilateral exemptions ...... 12 4.3.4 Harmonisation ...... 12 5 Results ...... 13 5.1 Condition 1: Retained non-target species information ...... 13 5.2 Condition 2: ETP Species Information ...... 16 6 Summary of findings ...... 20 Appendix 1 – Re-scoring evaluation tables (if necessary) ...... 21 Performance Indicator 2.1.3 ...... 21 Original scoring table ...... 21 Revised scoring table ...... 23 Performance Indicator 2.3.1 ...... 25 Original scoring ...... 25 Revised scoring ...... 26 Appendix 2 - Stakeholder submissions (if any) ...... 28

Page 3 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 3 - Surveillance audit information (if necessary) ...... 29 Appendix 4 - Additional detail on conditions/ actions/ results ...... 32 Appendix 5 - Revised Surveillance Program (if necessary) ...... 33 Appendix 6: References ...... 34

Page 4 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 1 Introduction The purpose of the annual Surveillance Report is fourfold: 1. To establish and report on whether or not there have been any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. to monitor the progress made to improve those practices that have been scored as below “good practice” (a score of 80 or above) but above “minimum acceptable practice” (a score of 60 or above) – as captured in any “conditions” raised and described in the Public Report and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. To monitor any actions taken in response to any (non-binding) “recommendations” made in the Public Report; 4. To re-score any Performance Indicators (PIs) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of any “conditions” raised. Please note: The primary focus of this surveillance audit is to assess changes made in the previous year. For a complete picture, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report for this fishery assessment.

Page 5 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 2 General Information

2.1 Certificate Holder details

Fishery name Ashtamudi Estuary Short Necked Clam

Unit(s) of assessment Ashtamudi Estuary Clams

Date certified 5th November 2014 Date of expiry 4th November 2019

Surveillance level and type Normal surveillance category – off-site audit.

Date of surveillance audit 12th February 2018

Surveillance stage (tick one) 1st Surveillance

2nd Surveillance

3rd Surveillance ✓

4th Surveillance

Other (expedited etc.)

Surveillance team Lead assessor: Jim Andrews Assessor(s):K.K. Appukuttan

CAB name Acoura Marine

CAB contact details Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ

Phone/Fax 0131 335 6662

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Billy Hynes

Client contact details Address WWF-India & Clam Governing Council c/o Pirojsha Godrej National Conservation Centre 172-B Lodi Estate New Delhi – 110 003 India

Phone/Fax +914846562760 +919447290728 (Mobile)

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Vinod Malayilethu

Page 6 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 3 Background

3.1 Description of fishery The fishery takes place in the Ashtamudi estuary (“Ashtamudi Lake”) in the Kollam District of Kerala State in south-west India (Error! Reference source not found.). The estuary covers an area of 6 ,140ha (61.4km2 / 23.7 square miles). The target species is Paphia malabarica, the short-necked clam. This is a bivalve mollusc in the sub-family Tapetinae of the family Veneridae and the super family Veneracea. It is a benthic filter feeder that is found in estuarine habitats on the east and west coasts of India. It is fast growing species, attaining maturity and a shell length of 30mm in its first year; and short lived, with a maximum lifespan of around 3 years.

Figure 1: Location of Ashtamudi estuary in the state of Kerala, India.

Commercial fishing for clams started about 30 years ago – prior to that there had been little demand for them outside the immediate local area where the clams have been eaten for generations. The growth of the commercial fishery was fueled by demand from export markets and the interest of local fish processors in cooking, freezing and exporting the clam meat to customers in Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia in the 1980s and 1990s. The export of clams started in 1981, and by 1991 the catch had reached around 10,000t pa. This declined to 5,000t in 1993. At that time the fishery was largely unregulated, and the fishermen demanded action against indiscriminate fishing practices (particularly mechanical dredging). In response a closed season was introduced from October to January every year (when young clams recruit to the shellfish beds); mesh size restrictions for nets used in fishing were introduced; a minimum export size was set (at 1,400 clam meats per kg); and mechanical clam fishing methods were prohibited. These measures showed immediate effects, and the clam fishery has sustained landings of around 10,000t pa for the past decade, with relatively stable CPUE over the same period. Two fishing methods are now used in this fishery: diving and hand-dredging. Both are manual fishing methods that use no mechanical power, and they are both practised from dug-out canoes that are paddled to the shellfish beds from nearby villages. There are presently around 600 fishermen harvesting clams by diving, and 110 licensed to fish with a hand dredge. Catches from the fishery are typically in the range 10,000-12,000t per year (Figure 2).

Page 7 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Figure 2: Time series of catches and catch per unit effort (kg/boat/day) for the Ashtamudi estuary clam fishery, 2002-2017 (CMFRI, 2017).

Since 2016 the fishery has started to market whole clams, rather than cooked meats. This change has been made in response to changes in market conditions and also to address some concerns about food safety. The change in market conditions is associated with the increased demand from clams in Karnataka owing to their reduced abundance in that state (itself linked to decreased monsoon rainfall). The change in market conditions is described by Venkatesan et al, 2016. It was reported at this third surveillance audit that the client is currently working to develop an export market of MSC-certified clams from this fishery to Japan. The main issues facing the fishery are the geomorphological changes in part of the estuary following the construction of a road bridge; as a consequence there are currently no clams in fishery zones IV & V. However, conditions in Zones I-III have improved. Environmental conditions have a considerable effect on the fishery. Anomalies in the monsoon affect the growth and spawning season of clams. After two years of a change in peak spawning season to September, the spawning season in 2017 returned to October-November. Catch rates in the fishery also improved between 2016 and 2017. The fishery is managed by the Ashtamudi Clam Governing Council which is attended by fishermen, managers and stakeholders including NGOs. The most recent meetings of the Council took place in July and November 2017. Management decisions are informed by scientists from CMFRI, who carry out clam stock surveys and catch monitoring in the fishery.

3.2 Changes in the management system There has been a change in responsibility for management of the clam fishery at the level of the Government of Kerala. The Government’s Fisheries Department is now entirely responsible for all aspects of managing the fishery; previously the Mining Department was responsible for issuing fishing licences for clams (a consequence of the commercial fishery for clam shells that were used in industrial processes during the 1980s). This change has had no material impact on the management measures in place for the fishery, and represents a rationalization of institutional arrangements.

Page 8 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 3.3 Changes in relevant regulations Since the fishery was certified, several changes were made to the fishery regulations both in order to promote sustainable fishery management and in response to changes in the stock (detailed in Appendix 3 of this report). These are summarised below, with an update on any changes during the past 12 months:- a) Minimum Legal Size (MLS) – a MLS of 20mm shell length was introduced in July 2015 (Government of Kerala, 2015). This size was selected on the basis of the stock and the catch size composition. At this size approximately 50% of clams are mature. The size is consistent with the 32mm net mesh size that has to be used for riddling the catch from the fishery. b) Delay of fishery opening – the opening of the 2018 fishery was again delayed at the request of the fishermen until 1st March 2018, to allow time for the clams to grow in the early part of the year. This delay has been implemented for several years. The Clam Governing Council is keeping this management measure under review, and has considered whether it is appropriate to formally implement a closure until this date; however the change in monsoon conditions in 2017-18 and the effectiveness of the voluntary closure suggest that a formal closure may not be necessary and the flexibility of the voluntary closure may be preferable. c) Weekend closure – the fishery is now open for 5 rather than 6 days per week. This closure was introduced in response to the change in stock distribution and decline in biomass observed during 2015. The weekend closure remains in place. d) New management area – in response to the southward movement of stock distribution, a new management area of around 1ha in size was established to the south of area III during the 2015 fishing season. This area was productive in 2016 and 2017, and has now been incorporated into area III. As a precaution only divers are being allowed to fish in this area, and hand dredges are still not presently permitted to operate within it. e) Closed area – the Clam Governing Council has implemented the recommendation made by CMFRI to establish a no take zone in Management Area I (see Figure 5). Fishermen have complied with this closure, which is now enforced by the Fisheries Department. CMFRI surveys indicate that there are clams in this area, so the objective of this serving as a broodstock in the high salinity part of the estuary seems likely to be achieved. The Clam Governing Council keeps management proposals under review. It is currently considering whether it is appropriate to issue any new licences for the fishery.

3.4 Changes to personnel involved in science, management or industry Apart from the annual change in the Chair of the Clam Governing Council (now Dr. S. Karthikeyan, District Collector, Kollam), there have been no changes to personnel involved in science, management or the industry that could impact on MSC certification.

3.5 Changes to scientific base of information including stock assessments Stock assessments are carried out by CMFRI annually in February prior to the start of the fishery. The most recent stock assessment report was from 2017, which included both the results of the stock survey in February 2017 and the catches from the fishery during 2017. In summary, the 2017 stock assessment showed an increase in the abundance of clams in the estuary. The actual biomass in February was estimated at 7,753t. The fishable biomass (which accounts for the growth of clams over the year) was estimated at 13,199t. This is the highest biomass seen since the 2014 survey. The catch rates in the fishery have correspondingly improved, with an average catch of 255kg of clams per boat per day. A more detailed summary of the stock assessment is provided in Appendix III of this report.

Page 9 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 3.6 Any developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish) There have been no changes within the fishery that could impact traceability.

3.7 TAC and catch data The TAC and catch data for the 2017 fishery are summarised in the table below. Table 1: TAC and Catch Data [Source CMFRI]

TAC Year 2017 Amount 12,000t UoA share of TAC Year 2017 Amount 100% UoC share of TAC Year 2017 Amount 100% Total green weight catch by Year (most 2017 Amount 11,215 UoC recent) Year (second 2016 Amount 9,036t most recent)

3.8 Compliance with regulations Overall, it was reported that compliance with regulations in the clam fishery is very good.

3.9 Summary of Assessment Conditions The fishery was certified in 2014 with two conditions of certification. The status of these conditions following this surveillance audit is summarised in Table 2: below. Table 2: Summary of Assessment Conditions

Condition Performance Status PI original PI revised number indicator (PI) score score 85 1 2.1.3 On target 70 90 2 2.3.3 On target 65

Page 10 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 4 Assessment Process

4.1 Details of 3rd Surveillance Audit Process As a result of the assessment, two conditions of certification were raised by the assessment team, and maintenance of the MSC certificate is contingent on the Ashtamudi Estuary Short Necked Clam fishery moving to comply with these conditions within the time-scales set at the time the certificate was issued.

4.2 Scope & History of the Assessment

4.2.1 Surveillance team details The MSC require that surveillance audits shall be carried out by a team of two or more individuals with expertise comparable to the members of the original team (that conducted the assessment of the fishery). If different from the original assessment team, the MSC also require that the selection of individuals to conduct audits shall be justified in writing and their relevant skills and/or expertise documented. This information is documented below. The original assessment team for the fishery comprised Dr Jim Andrews (Team Leader, Principle 2 & Principle 3) and Dr K.K. Appukuttan (Principle 1). This surveillance audit was carried out by this original assessment team Brief resumes of the team’s experience are set out below. Jim Andrews Jim is a marine biologist with over 20 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and environmental management. He currently works as an independent fisheries and marine environmental consultant. His previous experience includes running the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee as its Chief Executive from 2001 to 2005, and previously working as the SFC's Marine Environment Liaison Officer. During this time he was responsible for the regulation, management and assessment of inshore finfish and shellfish stocks along a 1,500km coastline. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. Jim has formal legal training & qualifications, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on more than 20 MSC certifications within the UK, in Europe and in India since 2007. In 2008 he worked with the MSC and WWF on one of the pilot assessments using the new MSC Risk Based Assessment Framework. Jim has carried out numerous MSC Chain of Custody assessments within the UK. Dr K.K. Appukuttan Joined as a Scientist in Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) under ICAR, Govt. of India from 1966 and continued till 2006. Conducted Research and Development programmes for 39 years on fishery biology, taxonomy, eco-biology, bio-diversity, aquaculture and transfer of technology of major groups of fin fishes (sharks, skipjack tuna), cephalopods, clams, mussels, edible oyster, pearl oysters and ornamental gastropods. Developed farming technology for mussel, edible oyster, pearl oysters, and pearl production and did farm trials in various parts of the country with participation of fisherfolk to determine techno-economic viability. Hatchery seed production technique for mussel, pearl oyster, clams, edible oyster and ornamental gastropods ware developed and upgraded.Popularised mussel and edible oyster farming in south west coast of India leading to large scale production of mussel and oyster by farming in Kerala during past ten years. Fishery management policies for conservation molluscs of commercial importance were suggested for implementation by Govt. of Kerala

4.2.2 Date & Location of surveillance audit This off-site surveillance audit took place on the 12th February 2018. The assessment team carried out stakeholder interviews using Skype.

4.2.3 Stakeholder consultation & meetings A total of 14 stakeholder organisations and individuals having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and notified, via e-mail, of surveillance process. This highlighted the potential process for engagement in the surveillance, if desired. In addition, the interest of others not appearing on this list

Page 11 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery was solicited through the postings on the MSC website. No stakeholders came forward requesting a meeting with members of the assessment team and no written submissions were received. Meetings were conducted with the following individuals & organisations:- 1) Vinod Malayilethu, WWF India, Kochi, (Skype Conference Call) 12th February 2018. 2) Dr K. Sunil Mohamed, Principal Scientist & Head of Molluscan Fisheries Division, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), (Skype Conference Call), 12th February 2018.

4.2.4 What was inspected This audit concentrated on assessing whether and/or how the client has been addressing the conditions raised in the original assessment. In addition a review was carried out of operational and management changes in the past year. This was done by review of information provided by the client (see appendix 6 for references used), interviews and e-mail exchanges, as required.

4.3 Surveillance Standards

4.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used This surveillance audit was carried out according to the procedures set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0, and using the CRv1.3 Standard.

4.3.2 Destructive fishing practices The client confirmed that no destructive fishing practices (explosives or poisons) are used in this fishery.

4.3.3 Controversial unilateral exemptions No indication was given during the site visit that the fishery is subject to any controversial unilateral exemptions.

4.3.4 Harmonisation There are presently no other MSC certified fisheries either in the Ashtamudi estuary or for the target species, Paphia malabarica. There are therefore no harmonisation requirements to meet for this fishery at this surveillance audit.

Page 12 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 5 Results

5.1 Condition 1: Retained non-target species information

Performance 2.1.3: Information on the nature and extent of retained species is Indicator adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on Issue a the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Score 70

Rationale The scoring issue that does not attain the SG80 standard is SIa, and the rationale for this issue is:-

Qualitative information is available to confirm that the catch of non- target species in the fishery is very low. The SG60 requirements are met, but in the absence of quantitative information the SG80 and SG100 requirements are not met.

Condition Quantitative information should be gathered to determine the amount of non- target species that are retained in the fishery (whether these species are

sold commercially or retained and eaten within the fishing community).

Milestones Year 1 – a monitoring programme should be developed that will allow the quantity of non-target species retained in the fishery to be determined.

Resulting score: 70

Year 2 – the monitoring programme should be implemented. Resulting score: 70

Year 3 – results of fishery monitoring should be reported. Resulting score: 80

Client action During the first year of certification, WWF-India will work with the Central plan Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) to develop a monitoring programme that will record the quantity of non-target species that are

retained in the fishery. At the earliest opportunity, and no later than the end of the second year of certification, WWF-India will work with CMFRI and the fishing industry in the Ashtamudi estuary to implement this monitoring programme. The results of this monitoring programme will be reported by the end of the third year of certification (and ideally at an earlier opportunity).

Page 13 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Progress on The Year 1 milestone requires that a monitoring programme should be Condition developed that will allow the quantity of non-target species retained in the [Year 1] fishery to be determined. At the surveillance audit both CMFRI and WWF-India confirmed that sampling of the retained catch and landings has been carried out on a routine basis by CMFRI over the past year. Daily records of commercial landings are also submitted by fish merchants. Quantitative data for all species were not available at the site visit, but it was reported that the catch of Meretrix casta had been around 5% of total landings in the past but were now absent from the catch (probably due to the environmental changes in the estuary noted in the stock survey). The relative abundance of other minor bivalves in the catch was also found to have changed. Conclusion The evidence provided at this surveillance audit indicates that progress with this condition is on target. There is evidence that a catch monitoring programme has been developed, and some indications that it is already producing data. The scoring of this Performance Indicator should remain unchanged at 70, in accordance with the milestones. Progress on At the surveillance audit, both CMFRI and WWF-India again confirmed that Condition sampling of the retained catch and landings continues to be carried out on a [Year 2] routine basis by CMFRI. Evidence of ongoing monitoring of target species landings over time, including estimates of CPUE, have now been derived from these data and were provided at this surveillance audit (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Catch and CPUE data for Paphia malabarica derived from analysis of landings data by CMFRI (K.S. Mohamed, pers. comm.)

Quantitative data for other species have not yet been analysed. Qualitative results for the period 2016-17 indicate that the abundance of non-target species in the catch has declined. This is attributed to the growth of the P. malabarica stock in response to low monsoon rainfall which has resulted in a rise in the water salinity within the estuary.

Page 14 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Conclusion Evidence was presented at this audit by the key stakeholders (WWF & CMFRI) that catch monitoring is being carried out as required by this condition, and some evidence from this monitoring programme (for the target species, P. malabarica) was presented at the audit which demonstrates that the programme has been implemented. Progress is therefore considered to be on target. No change to the scoring of the relevant PI results from this finding. The milestone for Year 3 requires that the results of monitoring are reported, which will result in the re-scoring of this PI.

Progress on Reports of ongoing catch monitoring were provided to the assessment team Condition by CMFRI at this surveillance audit. This information was provided in the [Year 3] annual stock assessment report, and is summarised in Appendix 3 of this report. The information presented indicates that there are currently three retained non-target species in the catch: the bivalves Meretrix casta and very occasionally Marcia opima and Perna viridis. The abundance of all 3 species was monitored and reported in the 2017 stock assessment (see Table 3). Data on the catch of M. casta is also reported; catches of this species are less than 0.1% of the total catch, and catches of the other species are reported by CMFRI to be negligible (see Table 4). This evidence shows both that the catch of non-target species is very low (M. casta make up less than 0.1% of the total catch) and also that CMFRI are monitoring catches and abundance of non-target species as required by this condition.

Status of Evidence was presented at this audit by the key stakeholders (WWF & condition CMFRI) that catch monitoring is being carried out as required by this condition, and evidence from this monitoring programme was presented at the audit which demonstrates that the programme has been implemented and that the catch of non-target species is very low. The information presented meets the Year 3 milestone, enabling re-scoring of the relevant Performance Indicator, which is presented in Appendix I of this report. Following re-scoring, the Assessment Team has concluded that this condition can be closed, on target.

Page 15 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 5.2 Condition 2: ETP Species Information 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management Performance of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: Indicator • 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 a Sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Scoring Issue b Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Score 65

Rationale The fishery does not attain the SG80 standard for scoring issues SIa and SIc. This is because:

SIa: The available information is that there fishery has no impact at all on ETP species in the estuary. This information is, however, qualitative and the impacts have not been quantified. The SG60 requirements are therefore met, but not the SG80 requirements.

SIc: There is sufficient information available (from monitoring of the fishery) to manage any impact it might have on ETP species; but there is insufficient information available to measure trends. The SG60 requirements are met, but not the SG80 requirements.

Condition Quantitative information should be gathered to determine the impact of the fishery on ETP species within the Unit of Certification area.

Milestones Year 1 – a monitoring programme should be developed that will allow the impact of the fishery on ETP species to be determined.

Resulting score: 70

Year 2 – the monitoring programme should be implemented. Resulting score: 70

Year 3 – results of fishery monitoring should be reported. Resulting score: 80

Client action During the first year of certification, WWF-India will work with the Central plan Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) to develop a monitoring

Page 16 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

programme that will record any interactions between ETP species and

the clam fishery.

At the earliest opportunity, and no later than the end of the second year of certification, WWF-India will work with CMFRI and the fishing industry in the Ashtamudi estuary to implement this monitoring programme.

The results of this monitoring programme will be reported by the end of the third year of certification (and ideally at an earlier opportunity).

Progress on Some information on ETP species in the estuary has been gathered by Condition [Year CMFRI as part of project funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft fur 1] Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. (CMFRI, 2015). In this study it is reported that WWF-Kerala carried out its annual survey of birds in the Ashtamudi estuary in June 2014. This survey found a total of 32 species, including 6 migratory species. The results of this survey are presented below:-

Figure 4: Proxy densities (average number of bird sightings per day) for marine / brackish water birds in the Ashtamudi estuary. [Source: CMFRI, 2015].

Although the role of these birds in the ecosystem and their diets are not fully understood, it is clear that none of these are species that depend on bivalves for their nutrition. Most are fish or plant-eating birds (although the lesser whistling duck is known to eat bivalves as well as plant material). Both CMFRI and the local fishery inspectors have confirmed that there are no records of (nor any likely risk of) interactions between the clam fishery and ETP species in the area. This observation has been formally confirmed by Dr K. Sunil Mohamed, the Principal Scientist at the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) in Kochi.

Conclusion

Page 17 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Evidence has been presented at this audit to show that CMFRI have been inspecting the catch from the fishery and have found no evidence of direct capture of ETP species, and that WWF-Kerala are monitoring the bird species in the estuary on an annual basis. Together these monitoring activities would be capable of detecting any direct interactions between the fishery and ETP species, and also any changes in the abundance of ETP species that might cause indirect effects. Progress with this condition is therefore considered to be on target at this surveillance audit. At the Year 2 surveillance audit, the assessment team will be looking for evidence that a monitoring programme for ETP species has been developed and implemented.

Progress on Evidence was presented at this surveillance audit by WWF-India that a Condition [Year further water fowl census was conducted in January 2017. The results 2] of this census are very similar to those reported at the first surveillance audit, with fish eating birds (cormorant and egret species) being the most abundant in the area. Both WWF-India and CMFRI indicated that there continue to be no reports of any interactions between ETP species and the clam fishery. Both the participants in the bird census and fishery scientists who have surveyed the clam fishery and monitored catches have reported no evidence of any interactions. Conclusion Evidence has been presented at this audit to demonstrate that the monitoring of ETP interactions continues to be carried out. All evidence suggests that no interactions are taking place. Progress is therefore considered to be on target. No change to the scoring of the relevant PI results from this finding. The milestone for Year 3 requires that the results of monitoring are reported, which will result in the re-scoring of this PI.

Progress on A report was presented at this surveillance audit by WWF-India showing Condition [Year that a further water fowl census was conducted in January 2018. The 3] results of this census are very similar to those reported at the first and second surveillance audits, with fish eating birds (cormorant and egret species) being the most abundant in the area. Catch monitoring by CMFRI (reported for Condition 1 above and summarised in Appendix 3) is carried out at a level of precision that would detect the presence of any ETP species in the catch. CMFRI have reported in their 2017 stock assessment that there is no evidence of any interactions between the fishery and ETP species. The information from WWF-India and CMFRI indicate that there continues to be no evidence of any interactions between ETP species and the clam fishery.

Page 18 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Status of Evidence has been presented at this audit to demonstrate that the condition monitoring of ETP interactions continues to be carried out, and reports of monitoring have been provided to the assessment team. The information presented meets the Year 3 milestone, enabling re- scoring of the relevant Performance Indicator, which is presented in Appendix I of this report. Following re-scoring, the Assessment Team has concluded that this condition can be closed, on target.

Page 19 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery 6 Summary of findings 1) The client has presented evidence of ongoing stock assessment and active management of the fishery. 2) It is reported that the stock of short-necked clams in the Ashtamudi estuary has become more abundant during the past year. The 2017 stock assessment reported the highest biomass seen since 2014. The distribution of the stock has been unchanged for several years 3) There have been no changes in fishing practice. Catch per unit effort in the fishery was higher in 2017 than in 2016, a reflection of the increased abundance of clams. 4) The Clam Governing Council and the fishermen working in the fishery have again implemented a voluntary extension of the closed season to allow the clams to attain a larger size before fishing commences. 5) Two conditions of certification were set for the fishery when it was certified. The status of these conditions following this surveillance audit can be summarised as:- a. Condition 1 (non-target species information): information has been presented at this surveillance audit to allow this condition to be closed, on target. b. Condition 2 (ETP species information): information has been presented at this surveillance audit to allow this condition to be closed, on target. 6) Having reviewed all of the evidence presented at this audit, the surveillance team found no changes in the status or management of this fishery that would require re-scoring of any Performance Indicators. 7) We conclude that the fishery continues to meet the MSC Certification Requirements, and that MSC Certification should continue with annual surveillance audits.

Page 20 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 1 – Re-scoring evaluation tables (if necessary)

Performance Indicator 2.1.3

Original scoring table Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all retained species and retained species taken available on the amount the consequences for the status by the fishery. of main retained of affected populations. species taken by the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Y N N

Qualitative information is available to confirm that the catch of non-target species in the fishery is very low. The SG60 requirements are met, but in the absence of

quantitative information the SG80 and SG100 requirements are not met. Justification b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess status with respect to status with a high degree of outcome status with biologically based certainty. respect to biologically limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? NA NA NA

Scoring issue need not be scored when RBF used to score PI 2.1.1 Justification c Information is Information is adequate Information is adequate to adequate to support to support a partial support a strategy to manage measures to manage strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate main retained species. main retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

The partial strategy in place is based upon the practices of the fishers and the management measures in place for the clam fishery. The information about the fishery (in terms of compliance with management measures and changes in the practices of the fishers) is sufficient to support the partial strategy and confirm that it continues to be implemented. The SG80 requirement is therefore met, but the SG100 requirements are not currently met.

Justification

Page 21 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk assess ongoing mortalities to all level (e.g. due to retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of

Guidepost the strategy) Met? Y N

Although there is no monitoring of landings of the non-target species, the operation of the fishery is closely monitored and would be capable of detecting a change in the

risk level for the species concerned. The SG80 requirements are therefore met. Justification

RBF workshop; site visit observations (see Error! Reference source not found.); M References SC Certification Requirements v1.3; Mohamed et al, 2013.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Page 22 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Revised scoring table Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main information are catch of all retained species and retained species taken available on the amount the consequences for the status by the fishery. of main retained of affected populations. species taken by the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y N

Since the fishery was certified the composition of catches have been regularly monitored by CMFRI scientists. The most recent monitoring data shows that one non-target species may be routinely caught by clam fishermen: the backwater hard clam, Meretrix casta; with occasional catches of the clam Marcia opima and green mussels (Perna viridis). Monitoring by CMFRI shows that M. casta makes up less than 0.1% of the catch (see Table 4). Catches are monitored throughout the year and reported in the most recent stock survey month-by-month. This quantitative information on the amount of retained species taken by the fishery meets the SG80 requirements. The most recent stock assessment for the Ashtamudi clam fishery includes data showing the abundance of M. casta, M. opima, and P. viridis (see Table 3). This is the first report of this information. Once a time series of information for this species is available, it may be possible to determine the consequences of catches of non- target species for the affected populations; for the time being SG100 is not yet met.

Justification b Information is Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to adequate to to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome qualitatively assess status with respect to status with a high degree of outcome status with biologically based certainty. respect to biologically limits.

Guidepost based limits. Met? NA NA NA

Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

Page 23 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species

Justification d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk assess ongoing mortalities to all level (e.g. due to retained species. changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of

Guidepost the strategy) Met? Y Y

There is monitoring of landings of the non-target species, and the operation of the fishery is closely monitored. This level of monitoring is capable of detecting a change in the risk level for the species concerned, meeting the SG80 requirements. Catch monitoring provides a record of the ongoing mortalities to all retained species,

meeting the SG100 requirements. Justification

RBF workshop; site visit observations (see Error! Reference source not found.); M References SC Certification Requirements v1.3; Mohamed et al, 2013. CMFRI, 2017. Assessment of short-neck clam (Paphia malabarica) biomass in Ashtamudi Lake during 2017. CMFRI, 5pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 24 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Performance Indicator 2.3.1

Original scoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • 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 is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome estimate the fishery fishery related mortality status of ETP species with a related mortality of ETP and the impact of high degree of certainty. species. fishing to be quantitatively estimated

Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y N N

The available information is that there fishery has no impact at all on ETP species in the estuary. This information is, however, qualitative and the impacts have not been quantified. The SG60 requirements are therefore met, but not the SG80

requirements. Justification b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Y Y N

There is sufficient information available from the fishery (about the areas fished and the methods used) to determine whether or not it may impact ETP species or be a threat to their protection and recovery. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore

met. Justification c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy to strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y N N

Page 25 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • 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.

There is sufficient information available (from monitoring of the fishery) to manage any impact it might have on ETP species; but there is insufficient information available to measure trends. The SG60 requirements are met, but not the SG80 requirements.

Justification

References Site visit; SICA workshop feedback.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

Revised scoring Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • 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 is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to to qualitatively available to allow quantitatively estimate outcome estimate the fishery fishery related mortality status of ETP species with a related mortality of ETP and the impact of high degree of certainty. species. fishing to be quantitatively estimated

Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y Y

Since the fishery has been certified the catch monitoring work carried out by CMFRI shows that no ETP species are caught in the fishery. Annual monitoring of bird species in the estuary by WWF-Kerala shows that there are no ETP bird species in

the area that are dependent on bivalves and which might thus be indirectly affected by the fishery. The consistent record of no direct or indirect interaction with ETP species in this fishery meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI.

Justification b Information is Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly to determine whether information is available on the understand the impact the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the species. recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost species. ETP species.

Page 26 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Accurate and verifiable information is available from the fishery (about the catch, the areas fished and the methods used) to determine whether or not it may impact ETP species or be a threat to their protection and recovery. Annual surveys of birds in the estuary carried out by WWF-Kerala and would detect whether the fishery was a thread to the protection and recovery of ETP bird species The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met. SG100 is not considered to be met, because there is no evidence of monitoring of ongoing monitoring of the fishery (for instance by on-board observers) that would provide accurate and verifiable information on “the magnitude of all impacts,

Justification mortalities and injuries”, however unlikely this may be in a fishery of this nature. c Information is Information is sufficient Information is adequate to adequate to support to measure trends and support a comprehensive measures to manage support a full strategy to strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP manage impacts on minimize mortality and injury of species. ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N

The information available from CMFRI catch monitoring and WWF-Kerala bird observations is sufficient to detect either direct or indirect interactions with ETP species and to measure trends in the abundance of ETP species both in the catch and in the estuary. This information is adequate to support a full strategy to manage impacts, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. There is sufficient information available (from monitoring of the fishery) to manage any impact it might have on ETP species; but there is insufficient information available to measure trends. The SG60 requirements are met, but not the SG100 requirements.

Justification

Site visit; SICA workshop feedback. WWF-India, 2017. Asian Water Fowl Census, Kollam District, 14th January 2017. References 3pp. WWF-India, 2018. Asian Water Bird Census, Kollam District. February 2018. 3pp. CMFRI, 2017. Assessment of short-neck clam (Paphia malabarica) biomass in Ashtamudi Lake during 2017. CMFRI, 5pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Page 27 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 2 - Stakeholder submissions (if any) None received.

Page 28 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 3 - Surveillance audit information (if necessary) Stock Survey Information: 2017 A stock survey was carried out in February 2017, prior to the planned opening of the 2017 fishery on 1st March. The 2017 survey found that the fishable stock biomass had increased to the highest level seen since 2014. The fishable biomass in 2017 was estimated at 13,199t, compared to an estimate of less than 5,000t in 2016. The survey found that clams were abundant in Zones I-III and absent in Zones IV & V (see Figure 5 for location of zones). The actual biomass of the standing stock was estimated in February 2017 at 7,753t; the fishable biomass was projected from this survey using information about growth rates of the clams in the estuary.

Figure 5: Map of the management areas in the Ashtamudi estuary clam fishery. [Source: CMFRI, 2017.]

The highest density and biomass of clams was seen in Zone II, which also had the highest total biomass of clams (see Table 3). Spat were most abundant in Zone I, which has been established as a closed area to encourage recruitment of clams. As well as reporting on the abundance of clams, the 2017 stock assessment also reports on the abundance of non-target bivalve species in the estuary (Marcia opima, Meretrix casta, and Perna viridis). The density and abundance of these species is very low compared to the abundance of P. malabarica. The catch of P. malabarica and non-target species over the year is reported (see Table 4). The peak catches and catch rates of P. malabarica were seen in the first 3 months of the fishery (March-May). Catches of M. casta made up less than 0.1% of the total catch. Catches of other non-target species were monitored and were reported to be negligible. CMFRI report that there were no interactions between the fishery and ETP species.

Page 29 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Table 3: Results from the 2017 stock survey of the Ashtamudi estuary clam fishery.

Page 30 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery

Table 4: Fishery & Catch Information (target & non-target species), Ashtamudi estuary, 2017 [Source: CMFRI, 2017].

Page 31 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 4 - Additional detail on conditions/ actions/ results Not applicable.

Page 32 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 5 - Revised Surveillance Program (if necessary) When this fishery was certified, a Normal surveillance program was proposed (under CRv1.3), requiring annual on-site surveillance audits. The assessment team considers that it would be appropriate to assign a Level 5 surveillance score to this fishery under the CR v2.0 requirements. This conclusion is based on the good progress that has been made with conditions in Year 1 and the fact that the conditions of certification relate to information rather than outcome Performance Indicators. The surveillance program that complies with the new CRv2.0 requirements is set out below.

Table A5-1: Surveillance program

Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table 5 Category

On-site surveillance Default On-site surveillance Off-site surveillance Off-site surveillance 5 audit. Surveillance audit. audit. audit. Reassessment

Page 33 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1

Acoura Marine Surveillance Report Ashtamudi Estuary Clam Fishery Appendix 6: References CMFRI, 2015.Assessment of eco-labelling as tool for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Ashtamudi Lake, Kerala (Southwest coast of India). Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, Kerala. August 2015. Submitted to GIZ, India. 38pp. CMFRI, 2017. Assessment of short-neck clam (Paphia malabarica) biomass in Ashtamudi Lake during 2017. CMFRI, 5pp. Government of Kerala, 2015.Fisheries and Ports (B) Department Notification G.O. No. 40/15/F&PD. Kerala Gazette, 24th July 2015. Venkatesan, V., G. Sasikumar, R. Vidya, P. S. Alloycious, K. K. Saji Kumar, K. M. Jestin Joy, P. P. Sheela, and K. S. Mohamed. 2016. Shift in market channels for short neck clam of Ashtamudi and Kayamkulam Lakes. Marine Fisheries Information Service; Technical and Extension Series, 229, 11– 13. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/11617/. Venkatesan, V., Vidya, R, Alloycious, P.S., Jenni, B., Sajikumar, K.K., Jestin Joy, K.M., Sheela, P.P.,Abhilash, K.S., Gishnu Mohan and Mohamed, K. S. (2015). An assessment of the short-neck clam biomass in Ashtamudi Lake. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E Ser., No. 223 & 224, pp 9-14. WWF-India, 2017.Asian Water Fowl Census 2017 – Kollam District. Conducted by WWF-India, 14th January 2017. 3pp. WWF-India, 2018. Asian Water Bird Census, Kollam District. February 2018. 3pp.

Page 34 of 34 PK (16/12/15) – Ref FCR 2.0/GCR/2.1