ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION OF SEAFOOD: Guidelines for Wild Catch Fisheries

Transcription

1 PAUL TOOGOOD / MISSION BEACH ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION OF SEAFOOD: Guidelines for Wild Catch Fisheries Version 2.0 Background WWF-Australia (WWF) developed the Ecological Sustainability Evaluation of Seafood (ESES) methodology to assess the ecological sustainability of seafood commercially produced throughout the world and sold in Australia. The ESES was developed to assess products manufactured, sourced or sold by seafood retailers, brands, producers and other companies working with WWF. The ESES is a desk-based assessment tool that supports WWF s work on responsible production. 1 It is intended to encourage responsible seafood procurement practices and was initially developed for the Australian market, but is applicable more widely. Importantly, the ESES provides a basis for reducing ecological risk and securing conservation gains across a broad range of seafood products, by identifying high priority fisheries for environmental improvements. WWF supports the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification program and expects the companies it works with to promote and preferentially source MSC certified seafood products, where available. However, given that exclusive sourcing of certified products is not yet feasible in many markets, the ESES tool can help seafood buyers and retailers to assess and reduce the risk of 1 See:

2 products in their supply chains that are not certified. The ESES does not seek to duplicate the MSC but is designed to be complementary. Separate ESES methodologies have been developed for wild caught and aquaculture seafood products. This document presents Version of the wild caught ESES methodology. Note that other WWF offices have developed risk assessment tools for seafood that differ in varying degrees from the ESES. In time, a single unified methodology may be developed for the entire WWF network. Fundamental features of the ESES: Scientific basis the reviews of individual products or fisheries are based on the best available data, while the criteria reflect current knowledge in relation to sustainable seafood harvesting. Multiple dimensions of ecological risk the ESES methodology covers all aspects of ecological risk, including impacts on target stocks, interactions with other species, and impacts on habitats and other elements of marine ecosystems. The ESES does not assess social risks. Equal treatment of imported and domestic products the ESES can be used to assess seafood products from any source and applies the same criteria regardless of origin, which is important given the growing international trade in seafood. Species, gear and fishery specific the ESES wild-caught method assesses each product at the level of its unique management unit, i.e. the species, caught by a specific gear, in a particular fishery. This provides a source-specific assessment of ecological risk and allows for informed comparison of products caught in various fisheries or regions, using different gear types. Independence ESES assessments are undertaken by independent experts, who are selected for their significant experience in marine and fisheries science and management. Peer reviewed a peer review layer sits over the ESES assessment process. Peer reviews are undertaken by experts with more extensive experience in fisheries science and management. Target and other retained species seafood products used or sold by processors, brands and retailers typically include not only the key target species of a fishery but a number of other species caught in the process (sometimes called byproduct ). The ESES can assess the ecological risk of harvesting a product whether it is the key target species or a byproduct. Complementary, not an alternative to MSC The ESES is not a certification tool and is applied only in the absence of MSC certification. Products classified as low need for improvement under the ESES are considered potential candidates for MSC certification and the associated fisheries are usually encouraged by WWF to enter the pre-assessment phase of the MSC certification process. Any seafood product that is already MSC certified will be automatically classified as low need for improvement. The ESES methodology is currently aligned with the original MSC standard hence a future priority is to align the ESES with MSC version The original wild caught ESES methodology was used to assess over 400 products between 2011 and Version 2.0 has been improved based on lessons learnt during those assessments, as well as following expert peer review.

3 Not an eco-label ESES assessments provide a basis for business-to-business advice by WWF to seafood producers and corporate seafood buyers. There is no logo or other communication device associated with the ESES, nor should any consumer facing information be based only on the ESES. WWF strongly discourages businesses from developing eco-labels based on ESES assessments alone. Where companies create their own product-specific messages based on the ESES, these will not be endorsed by WWF. Outline of the ESES Principles Like the MSC standard, the wild capture ESES methodology is based on three principles under the following broad headings: (1) Sustainable fish stocks; (2) Environmental impacts of fishing; and (3) Effective fisheries management. Each principle includes multiple criteria (Figure 1) to evaluate the ecological sustainability of individual seafood products. The ESES principles are outlined below and described at length in the following pages. Principle 1. The stock under assessment should be maintained at a level capable of ensuring long-term fishery productivity, and remain above a point where recruitment would be impaired. Principle 1 criteria assess the current status of the assessed species, availability of appropriate stock assessments, sufficiency of biological and catch data to support the assessment, and associated harvest strategies. Principle 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids significant adverse impacts on the environment, including other retained species, discarded species, other species which interact with fishing gears, habitats, threatened and endangered species and ecosystem processes. Principle 2 criteria assess the impact of a fishery s interactions with the surrounding environment, including impacts on retained species; discarded species; threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) species; habitats and ecosystem processes. Principle 3. The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects national and international agreements, and is supported by appropriate research and compliance activities. Principle 3 criteria assess the effectiveness of the nominated fishery s governance and policy mechanisms, including the status of legislation and regulatory bodies, management arrangements, research planning, and compliance arrangements.

4 Figure 1. Overview of the ESES for wild-catch fisheries

5 ESES assessment methodology (1) Report format The ESES Wild Caught Product Review Report Template is provided at Attachment 1. (2) Minimum source information Minimum information requirements concerning the source of a product must be met in order for a product to be accurately assessed. The minimum source information includes: Species scientific name and common name; Details of the nominated fishery including: - Specific fishery name and location or other details to describe the fishing area and jurisdiction; - Gear type (which in some cases may be multiple) which must be based on the nomenclature provided in Attachment 2; and Management authority (i.e. the regulatory authority with fishing management responsibility, noting that there may be multiple authorities with joint jurisdiction in some cases). As noted above, the species assessed may be a target species or a byproduct species. (3) Research, review & documentation Once the minimum source information is provided, a comprehensive search is performed for publically available information about the species, ecosystem, fishery and management to complete the full assessment report (Attachment 1). Potential sources of information include: scientific journals, fishery related reports from government agencies, universities and other research institutions, regional and international fisheries related organisations, and fishing industry reports, among others. The skilled assessors are expected to use their judgement to determine the relative credibility of different information sources. A risk rating is selected for each criterion listed in the full assessment report. The independent assessor shall document relevant information and data relating to each criterion. All literature used to support the risk rating must be cited with a full reference list at the end of the report. The discussion provided in the ESES document must be sufficient to allow a general reader to understand the available information as it relates to the criteria, and not simply refer to a published source. For example, the supporting text under criterion 1.1, relating to the availability of information on the stock being assessed, should provide a brief summary of the known biological and ecological characteristics of the species and include comments on the sufficiency of this information. (4) Analysis, scoring & documentation Each criterion poses a question with three possible answers. Each answer corresponds to a rating of low, medium or high risk. Each criterion is weighted evenly (i.e. no one criterion is considered more important than another). Using the information available for each criterion, the assessor shall determine the appropriate risk rating to be applied and document the rationale for this rating. Advice to Assessors is provided for all ESES criteria. In addition, underlined words or terms are defined in the Glossary (Attachment 3). The assessor should be guided by these elements when interpreting each criterion and in their scoring, to help ensure consistency across assessors and coherence among different assessments. A numerical score of 5 points (pts) is assigned for a low risk and 2.5 pts for a medium risk. There is no numerical score for a criterion that receives a high-risk rating. Upon completing their assessment,

6 assessors shall fill out a summary scoring chart, which provides an overview of the results (see Table 1). Table 1. Scoring chart for each assessment Principle 1 Assessment Stock Principle 2 Ecosystem Principle 3 Management List each criterion under corresponding rating High (0) Medium (2.5 pts) Low (5 pts) Principle score /30 /45 /15 Overall score /90 Based on the total score, the seafood product can be given an overall classification of low, medium or high need for improvement. The threshold scores and definitions of these categories are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Definition of classification levels Classification Score Definition High need for improvement Medium need for improvement Any criteria were rated as high risk or score is less than 45 pts No criteria were rated as high risk and score is less than 70 pts The harvesting of the product is or has the potential to have detrimental impacts on the species population and/or ecosystem; or an absence of information results in a high level of uncertainty in the face of significant risk. There are some concerns/issues about the impact of harvesting of the product on the species population and/or ecosystem; or the ecological sustainability of the species population or the environment may be uncertain. Low need for improvement No criteria were rated as high risk and score is equal to or greater than 70 pts The harvesting of this product is assessed as having negligible or low risk to ecological sustainability of the species populations and the environment. (5) Instant classifications The ESES methodology incorporates the following instant classifications: MSC certified fishery products will be listed as low need for improvement as they have already been assessed by an independent auditor and have satisfied the criteria for a high standard of fisheries sustainability; A species shall be assessed as low risk for all criteria under Principle 1 if it is an introduced species, as the sustainability of the population of an introduced species is considered irrelevant. The product must however be assessed under the other two principles, regarding the impact of the fishing operation on the environment, and the effectiveness of the management regime. (6) Peer review of ESES assessments A subset of ESES assessments may be subjected to additional peer review. One peer reviewer is assigned each for ESES selected. The peer reviewer s comments are provided to the initial reviewer for consideration and amendment of the product review report, if necessary. The identity of the peer reviewer is known to the initial reviewer and both are able to seek clarification where required. To date, WWF has also reviewed all ESES assessments. This is to ensure sufficient information and rationale is presented to justify each score and that criteria are applied consistently across assessors and products. In the future, if the ESES is used by other parties, WWF may not be able to review all assessments. page 6

7 Using ESES assessment results The ESES Product Review Report provides a summary and categorisation of ecological risk of products based on publicly available information. In principle, the report may be used by any buyer of the assessed product to inform their purchasing decision. The results can also guide producers and harvesters to identify areas of the fishery needing environmental improvements. The ESES tool does not require stakeholder consultation during the assessment stage, and the use of publically available information may not provide a comprehensive picture of the fishery or the specific product. Wherever possible, therefore, initial risk scores and justifications given by the assessor should be discussed with industry, government or other relevant organisations to validate their initial assessment and to identify additional sources of information that may be relevant to the final ESES assessment. WWF aims to be as transparent as possible. At the same time, we recognize the commercial sensitivity of ESES assessments, as well as their limitations. For this reason, WWF will only release the detailed results of ESES assessments undertaken on behalf of WWF to industry and involved regulators and/or researchers who are directly affected, and only on a confidential basis. WWF will not share the results of an assessment with parties that are not directly associated with the relevant fishery, unless authorised by an appropriate industry representative or if required by law. Should stakeholders disagree with the results of an ESES assessment, their concerns should ideally be resolved through dialogue with the assessor, for example by supplying more up-to-date information on a fishery. Where the disagreement cannot be resolved, WWF recommends that concerned stakeholders contact a qualified Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) to undertake a formal pre-assessment, in line with MSC processes. Continuous improvement of the ESES Where gaps in criteria or areas for improvement are identified through specific product reviews, assessors are encouraged to inform WWF. Such information will be incorporated into WWF s ongoing feedback and improvement process for the ESES methodology. In addition, WWF will organise external peer review of the ESES methodology from time to time and amended the method as needed. Maintaining ESES product scores All aspects of a fishery are subject to change over time in response to changes in the environment, available information, fishing industry practices and management or governance arrangements. Within the space of a few years, some fish stocks may move from being overfished to "recovering" to fully fished (or vice versa). ESES product reviews must therefore be updated regularly to ensure that ratings are accurate. WWF has developed a Maintenance Policy for guidance on the frequency and scope of updates (see Attachment 4). page 7

8 THE ESES WILD CAUGHT METHODOLOGY PRINCIPLE 1 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK The stock under assessment should be maintained at a level capable of ensuring longterm fishery productivity, and remain above a point where recruitment would be impaired. The six criteria under Principle 1 assess the sufficiency of biological, ecological and catch data to support the assessment and associated harvest strategies, current status of the stock and rate of fishing, the availability of appropriate stock assessments and presence of an appropriate harvest strategy. 1.1 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK INFORMATION Is information on the biology and ecology of the stock under assessment sufficient to determine the risk posed to the stock by exploitation and to support an appropriate harvest strategy? Biology and ecology of the stock under assessment is unknown or knowledge is not sufficient to determine risk posed by exploitation, or to support appropriate harvest control rules and stock assessment processes. Some information on the biology and ecology of the stock under assessment is available (or relies on surrogate information) to determine risk posed by exploitation and to support appropriate harvest control rules and stock assessment processes, however, there is uncertainty regarding the sufficiency of that information. Knowledge of the biology and ecology of the stock under assessment is sufficient to determine risk posed by exploitation and to support appropriate harvest control rules and stock assessment processes. Medium risk Advice to assessors: In determining the sufficiency of information, the assessor shall consider the current state of knowledge of the following parameters for the species under assessment: - Population structure; - Age at maturity and length at maturity; - Growth, natural mortality and longevity; - Fecundity and productivity; - Trophic level of the species; The assessor should consider whether lack of baseline biological information has impeded the ability for a stock assessment to determine stock status; or impeded the development or implementation of actions needed to manage a stock, for example, implement a minimum size limit based on known length at maturity. Note that the method of stock assessment and presence and appropriateness of harvest control rules is considered at Criteria 1.5 and 1.6 respectively. The assessor should not attempt within this criterion to determine whether the current stock assessment procedures or harvest control rules are appropriate. Rather the assessment should be based on whether the information is sufficient to support appropriate processes for both. page 8

9 When considering whether the information is sufficient, the absence of some information relating to one or more of the parameters should not guarantee a higher risk rating, unless the absence of that information impacts significantly on the delivery of the stock assessment or harvest control rules. 1.2 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK MONITORING Are fishing mortality levels monitored at the frequency, accuracy and consistency required of the management framework? There is not sufficient monitoring of the fishing mortality of the stock under assessment to support a stock assessment and harvest control rules. There is sufficient monitoring of fishing mortality of the stock under assessment to support a stock assessment and harvest control rules, however there are uncertainties regarding the accuracy or currency of the information. There is sufficient monitoring of fishing mortality of the stock under assessment to support a stock assessment and harvest control rules, AND records are considered accurate and current. Medium risk Advice to assessors: In determining the sufficiency of information, assessors should consider: The commercial fisheries logbook arrangements and data (where available); Knowledge of harvest in other commercial fishing operations; Knowledge of recreational, charter and indigenous catch and effort; Knowledge of illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing levels; Existence of mechanisms to validate the commercial data and other extractive use data such as an observer program, electronic monitoring, or port monitoring; Existence of fishery independent monitoring programs. 1.3 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK STATUS What is the status of the stock under assessment? The stock biomass is below the limit reference point; OR The stock status is undefined or uncertain and likely to not be within biologically based limits; OR The species has been listed as threatened (which includes the categories of critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable) in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the harvested stock is within the geographic scope of that determination. The stock biomass is less than the target reference point but greater than the limit reference point and a recovery plan has been developed and is being effectively implemented; OR The stock is growth overfished; OR The stock status is undefined or uncertain and likely to be within biologically based limit. The stock biomass is fluctuating at or above the target reference point ; OR The stock biomass is highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Medium risk page 9

10 Advice to assessors: The target reference point shall be either B MSY or B MEY. B MSY shall be considered to be the proxy B 40 (i.e. biomass has been reduced to 40% of the pre-fishing level) or the level set by the local regulatory authority, if that is the greater amount. The exception to this is where sound and peer reviewed scientific advice supports a case for B MSY being less than B 40. The limit reference point shall be the proxy B 20 (i.e. biomass has been reduced to 20% of the prefishing biomass) or the level set by the local regulatory authority if that is the greater amount. The exception to this is where sound peer reviewed scientific advice supports a case for the biomass limit reference point being less than B 20. For low trophic level species the assessor shall consider whether the target and limit reference points take into account the important ecological role of these populations. In determining whether a stock is likely to be within biologically based limits, or highly likely to be outside biologically based limits, assessors should consider the inherent vulnerability of the species (as drawn from parameters examined in 1.1), the level of exploitation of the species and other relevant factors. The explicit use of indicator species by regulatory authorities may be acknowledged and considered acceptable within this criterion, on condition that the assessor is able to demonstrate independently that the chosen indicator species is biologically representative. This determination and associated reasoning should be documented in the assessment report. A low risk score shall only be awarded where, in addition to monitoring of an indicator species, the assessed species is also monitored at some level, albeit less frequently and/or in less detail. See the definition of recovery plan in the Glossary (Attachment 3) for an explanation of the acceptable scope and timeframes of such plans. 1.4 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK RATE OF FISHING To what extent is overfishing occurring? Fishing mortality exceeds the limit reference point, without the evidence of a managed fish down or similar strategy; OR Fishing mortality exceeds that required to recover a stock which is below the biomass limit reference point within a reasonable timeframe (as defined by the recovery plan); OR Fishing mortality is uncertain or undefined and likely to be greater than the limit reference point. Fishing mortality exceeds the target reference point and is less than the limit reference point; OR Where fishing mortality reference points are not used, current level of fishing is likely to reduce the current biomass to below the biomass target reference point but greater than biomass limit reference point, OR Fishing mortality is undefined or uncertain and likely to be less than fishing limit reference point. Fishing mortality is less than or fluctuating around target reference point ; OR The current level of fishing is highly likely to maintain biomass at or fluctuating around biomass target reference point; OR Fishing mortality is in excess of the limit reference point and the stock remains above biomass target reference point and arrangements are in place to reduce the rate of fishing as the biomass target reference point is reached as part of a managed fish down or similar strategy. Medium risk Assessors should consider advice provided under Criterion 1.3. page 10

11 1.5 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT Has an appropriate stock assessment been performed relative to the species vulnerability, level of exploitation and level of risk allowed by management arrangements? There has been no attempt to undertake a stock assessment appropriate to exploitation rates, vulnerability and management arrangements. A stock assessment is available however: - there is concern that it is not appropriate in relation to the stock vulnerability, exploitation rates and management arrangements (identified by the assessor or by others); OR - there is concern regarding the accuracy of its application (identified by the assessor or by others); OR - the assessment is no longer current; OR - the method of assessment is inconsistent with or undermining the effectiveness of the harvest strategy; OR - the assessment is not peer-reviewed; OR The assessment species is taken in a new/developing fishery and a stock assessment is in progress. A stock assessment is available that is current and appropriate for the stock vulnerability, exploitation levels and for the management arrangements; AND the assessment of the stock has been peer reviewed; OR The assessment species is a minor species and there has been no attempt to define the stock status but a peer reviewed ecological risk assessment has determined that these products are at negligible risk from the fishery under the current management arrangements which must include continued monitoring of catch levels. Medium risk Advice to Assessors: The current validity of a stock assessment should be considered by the assessor, noting that few stocks can be assessed every year. The assessor should determine if the timeframe is appropriate given the vulnerability of the stock, level of uncertainty and extent and variability in catch and effort. Other monitoring activities that occur between core stock assessments should also be considered. The assessor should consider whether the stock assessment approach is appropriate given the rate of exploitation, level of uncertainty and inherent vulnerability of the species harvested. In some cases, with highly productive stocks, and/or very low levels of exploitation, a risk assessment may be considered as appropriate as a formal or model based stock assessment approach, so long as the management system can recognize and respond to changes occurring through risk monitoring. The assessor should consider the availability of fisheries dependent and fisheries independent data in determining the robustness of the stock assessment. page 11

12 1.6 SUSTAINABLE FISH STOCK HARVEST STRATEGY Is an appropriate harvest strategy in place for the assessment stock? There is no harvest strategy; OR Harvest control rules are in place but they are not capable of reducing exploitation as limit reference points are approached; OR Harvest control rules are developed but there is evidence that the rules are not being implemented. A harvest strategy is in place that includes harvest control rules that aim to reduce fishing mortality as limit reference points are approached, but - The control rules do not fully or effectively contain harvest OR - The effectiveness of current mechanisms has yet to be demonstrated (i.e. mechanisms are new and untested). A harvest strategy is in place which includes harvest control rules that ensures that exploitation is reduced as limit reference points are approached; AND where tested the rules have been implemented and have demonstrated effectiveness. Medium risk Advice to assessors: The assessor should consider whether other factors are limiting the effectiveness of the harvest control rules i.e. cases where a harvest strategy may be developed by an authority other than the one managing the "nominated fishery" (e.g. State/Territory managed fisheries may take a species subject to a harvest strategy set by the Australian Commonwealth, which also considers State/Territory catches). This may be particularly relevant in cases where species/stocks are highly migratory, and managed on a local level, as well as a regional one through a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) or similar multilateral management structure. The assessor should consider whether the harvest control rules are being effectively and consistently implemented (e.g. are control rules being implemented when performance indicators are triggered?) and whether they are effective at containing harvest (e.g. are quotas being exceeded?). The assessor should consider whether size or area-based harvest strategies exist in the absence of abundance-based reference points. For example, a successful harvest strategy might include size limits to maintain the reproductive capacity of the stock (e.g. crab species), or areas closed to fishing (e.g. sedentary or semi-sedentary species), rather than measures of biomass. page 12

13 PRINCIPLE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids significant adverse impacts on the environment, including other retained species, discarded species, other species which interact with fishing gears, habitats, threatened and endangered species and ecosystem processes. The nine criteria of Principle 2 assess the impact of fishery interactions with the surrounding ecosystem, including: other retained species; discarded species; threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) species; habitats and ecosystem processes. Note that relatively few fisheries would have the information needed to address ecosystem issues quantitatively, and usually they will be assessed using surrogates, analogy, general observations, qualitative assessment and expert judgement. 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, INFORMATION - OTHER 3 RETAINED AND DISCARDED SPECIES Is the available information on the biology, ecology and exploitation of other main species (retained and discarded) sufficient to determine the risk posed to those stocks by exploitation and to support appropriate harvest strategies and stock status determination processes? There is not sufficient information on the biology, ecology and/or exploitation levels of main (retained and discarded) species to determine the risk posed by the fishery under assessment. There is some information on biology, ecology and exploitation levels of the main (retained and discarded) species relevant to determining risk posed by exploitation and to support appropriate management and stock assessment processes however there are uncertainties regarding the sufficiency of that information. There is sufficient information on the biology, ecology and exploitation levels of main (retained and discarded) species within the region of the nominated fishery to determine risk posed by exploitation and to support appropriate management and stock assessment processes. Medium risk Advice to assessors: The status of these other species and the presence and appropriateness of management measures are considered at 2.4 and 2.7. The assessor should not attempt, within this criterion, to determine whether the current management measures are appropriate but whether the information is sufficient to support assessment and management. In relation to biology and ecology, assessors should consider the current state of knowledge of the following parameters for the main retained and discarded species within the region of the assessment fishery: - Stock structure; - Age at maturity and length at maturity; - Growth, natural mortality and longevity; - Fecundity and productivity; and - Trophic level of the species. When determining the sufficiency of knowledge of exploitation levels the assessor should consider: - Commercial fisheries logbook arrangements and data (where available); 3 Other means species other than that assessed under Principle 1. page 13

14 - Knowledge of harvest in other commercial fishing operations; - Knowledge of recreational, charter and indigenous catch and effort; - Knowledge of illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing levels; - Existence of mechanisms to validate the commercial data and other extractive use data such as an observer program, electronic monitoring, or port monitoring; - Existence of fishery independent monitoring programs. The assessor should consider whether lack of baseline biological and harvest level information has impeded the ability for a stock assessment process to determine stock status; or impeded the implementation of actions needed to manage a stock, for example, implement a minimum size limit based on known length at maturity. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, INFORMATION TEPS Is there information on the presence of populations of Threatened, Endangered or Protected (TEP) species within the fishing area, and are interactions sufficient to determine the risk posed and to support appropriate management measures? The information available on the presence of TEP species within the region of the fishery; and potential or actual interactions is not sufficient to determine the risk posed by the fishing operation. There is information available on the presence of TEP species within the region of the fishery although the potential or actual interactions with TEP species are only partially understood (i.e. incomplete/anecdotal information only). There is information available on the presence of TEP species with the region of the fishery AND information on the potential or actual interactions with TEP species, sufficient to allow the determination of risk posed by the nominated fishery. Medium risk Advice to Assessors: For the actual interactions to be known, there must be a mandatory requirement in place for fishers to report interactions to an appropriate authority; in addition to some level of validation of that data (see below). In relation to reporting interactions with TEP species, the appropriate agency/organisation is one that has responsibility for controlling the legal framework to protect and manage TEP species and interactions. In considering the validation of TEP interaction levels, the assessor should consider the availability of independent observer data (or video data from an electronic monitoring system) and also whether or not observer data supports logbook data reports. Reporting systems that are not validated should not be rated low risk. A medium risk score may be awarded in the case where there is some level of validation, including observer data, anecdotal evidence or surrogate data. In fisheries where the capture methods are known to be very selective such as hand gathering, or harpooning, where adverse interactions with TEP species are inherently unlikely, the assessor may assign a low risk for this indicator even when data on actual interactions or independent validation is not available. page 14

15 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, INFORMATION - HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION Is there sufficient information to determine the impact of the fishery on habitat types and ecosystem elements? Knowledge of habitat types and distribution, ecosystem elements, or the spatial extent and intensity of the fishery, is unknown or not sufficient to determine risk posed by fishery interactions. There is some knowledge of habitat types and distribution and ecosystem elements from which the nature and scale of impacts can be inferred or predicted however data is limited in scope, accuracy or currency. Knowledge of habitats types and distribution and ecosystem elements is sufficient to allow the nature and scale of the impacts of the fishery. Medium risk Advice to assessors: Habitat type and distribution can be considered as a combination of substratum, geomorphology, and biota. An attempt should be made to understand the spatial extent of each habitat type. The type of substratum, geomorphology, and biota that comprise a particular habitat type will provide a basis for assessors to understand the nature of fisheries impacts on these habitats. For example, a habitat with a rocky substrate, high relief (outcrops), and large erect biota such as branching corals, is likely to be more susceptible to long-term damage from fishing gear than a muddy, wave rippled habitat with no epifauna present. The table below provides a basis for classification of habitat types: Substratum Geomorphology Biota Fine (mud, sand) Flat Large erect Medium (e.g. gravel) Low relief Small erect/encrusting Large (cobble, bounder) Outcrop Infauna Solid (reef) High relief Other flora The assessor should consider the sufficiency of information available relevant to the following ecosystem elements: trophic structure and function (key predators, prey and competitors), community composition, productivity patterns (e.g. upwelling or bloom, abyssal) and characteristics of biodiversity. The nature and spatial extent of fishing can be considered as a combination of the type of gear used (see damaging fishing gear in the glossary), and the spatial overlap of fishing activity with different habitat types (i.e. fishing footprint). For example, assessors may consider the degree of overlap between fishing activity and various habitat types identified, as well as whether the gear used is likely to be damaging to the habitat. 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, STATUS - OTHER RETAINED AND DISCARDED SPECIES What is the status of other main (retained or discarded) species caught in this fishery? One or more main (retained or discarded) species that would be rated high risk under Criteria 1.3 and 1.4 are caught in this fishery; OR Main (retained or discarded) species are not likely to be within biologically based limits; OR The level of bycatch is unknown. All other main species (retained or discarded) in this fishery would be rated medium risk under either Criteria 1.3 or 1.4 (and neither criteria are rated high page 15 Medium risk

16 risk); OR One or more other main (retained or discarded) species would be rated as high risk under Criterion 1.3 and the current level of fishing does not hinder the recovery of those stocks; OR One or more main (retained or discarded) species which would be rated as high risk under Criterion 1.4 and low under Criterion 1.3. All other main (retained or discarded) species in this fishery would be rated low risk under both Criteria 1.3 and 1.4; OR There is no other species affected by this fishery. 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, STATUS - TEP IMPACTS What is the likely impact of the fishery on TEP species? The fishery is likely to have a severe impact on TEP species. The fishery is unlikely to have more than a moderate impact on TEP species. The fishery is unlikely to have more than a minor impact on TEP species and its effects are within national and international requirements. Note: severe, moderate and minor are defined in the glossary under impact on TEP species. Medium risk Advice to Assessors: Where there is no information available on TEP interactions, assessors should identify TEPs that occur in the geographical boundary of the nominated fishery and attempt to determine from surrogate information the level of impact on the identified species. TEP species are those that are classified as such by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g. CITES Appendix I) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party. 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, STATUS - HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Does the nominated fishery cause significant adverse impacts on habitat and ecosystem elements? The fishery uses moderately or highly damaging fishing gear AND the fishery is likely to have a severe or greater impact on habitats or impact on ecosystem elements; OR The fishery uses highly damaging fishing gear AND the geographical extent and scale of impact is unknown. The fishery uses moderately or highly damaging fishing gear; AND the fishery is unlikely to have more than a moderate impact on habitats or impact on ecosystem elements; OR The fishery uses moderately damaging fishing gear AND the geographical extent and scale of impact is unknown. Minimally damaging fishing gear is used; OR The fishery uses moderately damaging fishing gear AND the fishery is unlikely to have more than a minor impact on habitats or impact on ecosystem elements. Medium risk Note: negligible, minor, moderate and severe impacts on habitats and ecosystems elements are defined in the glossary under the definition for impact on habitats and impact on ecosystem elements. Note: minimally, moderately and highly damaging fishing gear are defined in the glossary under the definition for damaging fish gear. page 16

17 Advice to assessors: The assessor should not include direct impacts to TEP species, other retained and discarded species in this criterion. Instead, the assessor should consider: - Direct impact of fishing on habitats (e.g. through gear interactions); - Indirect impacts on the ecosystem for example through gear loss, discarding of fish/fish processing wastes, and impact of predator/prey relationship by removing components of the fish population. Where information on habitat types is not available, assessors should use the table under criterion 2.3 to define impacted habitats for the purposes of this assessment. The assessor should consider the extent of natural disturbance that is likely to occur in these habitats in the absence of fishing, in order to make a judgement as to the nature and magnitude of impact caused to such habitats by fishing. 2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, MANAGEMENT - OTHER RETAINED AND DISCARDED SPECIES Are measures in place to address negative impacts of the fishery on other retained species and discarded species? Management measures involving impact-reduction measures for habitat and ecosystem function have not been considered; OR Management mechanisms are not capable of making significant progress towards conservative goals. Management measures are in place with regard to retained and discarded species but improvements are required to ensure swifter or more certain progress towards achieving conservation goals Management measures are in place that take into account available information, are based on best management practices and are capable of reaching conservation goals for other species; OR Sufficient information is available indicating other species are not caught or directly impacted by the fishery and additional management strategies are therefore considered unnecessary. Medium risk Advice to assessors: Assessors should take into account that management measures may be unnecessary e.g. if bycatch level is negligible. 2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, MANAGEMENT - TEP SPECIES Are measures in place to address the adverse impacts of the fishery on TEP species? Management measures involving impact-reduction measures for TEP species have not been considered or implemented; OR Management mechanisms are not capable of making significant progress towards conservative goals. Management measures are in place with regard to TEP species but improvements are required to ensure swifter or more certain progress towards the achievement of conservation goals. Medium risk page 17

18 Management measures are in place that take account of available information, are based on best management practices and are capable of reaching conservation goals for TEP species; OR There is sufficient information available indicating that the opportunity for TEP interactions is zero or negligible and additional management strategies are therefore considered unnecessary. Advice to assessors: Assessors should consider advice provided under Criterion 1.3 in relation to the term likely. Assessors should consider that management measures may be unnecessary e.g. TEP species interactions are negligible or zero. In situations where there is an overarching policy regarding listed species but no formal management measures are in place to implement this policy, assessors should consider whether there are measures in place to monitor and/or mitigate interactions with TEPs, e.g. through industry agreements or codes of conduct, even if this is not required under the governing TEP policy. 2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FISHING, MANAGEMENT - HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Are measures in place to address significant adverse impacts of the fishery on habitats and ecosystem structure and function? Management measures involving impact-reduction measures for habitat and ecosystem function have not been considered or implemented; OR Management mechanisms are not capable of making significant progress towards conservative goals. There are management measures in place to mitigate adverse habitat and ecosystem impact but improvements are required to ensure swifter or more certain progress towards the achievement of conservation goals. Management measures are in place that take into account available information, are based on best management practices and are capable of reaching conservation goals for ecosystems and habitats; OR There is sufficient information available indicating that the opportunity for impact to habitats and ecosystem elements is negligible (if established under Criterion 2.6) and additional management strategies are therefore considered unnecessary. Medium risk Advice to assessors: Assessors should consider that management measures may be unnecessary, e.g. habitat interactions are negligible due to the nature of the fishing activity (i.e. type of gear used). page 18

19 PRINCIPLE 3 EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects national and international agreements, and is supported by appropriate research and compliance activities. 3.1 EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Is there fisheries legislation in place that is consistent with relevant international agreements and national regulatory requirements, and recognises the principles of ecological sustainability? There is no fisheries legislation in place; OR Implementation of the legislation is not administered by a regulatory body or body with equivalent authority. Fisheries legislation is implemented which is consistent with some international agreements and national regulatory requirements; and administered by a regulatory body; AND - Ecological sustainability principles are not incorporated in the legal framework; AND/OR - The legislation limits the ability of issues identified in Principle 1 and 2 of this ESES to be regulated effectively. Fisheries legislation is in place which is consistent with international agreements and national regulatory requirements; AND The legislation includes ecological sustainability as an objective and includes appropriate regulations to operationalise those objectives; AND Contains necessary provisions for the management of issues identified in Principle 1 and 2 of this ESES; AND The legislation is administered by an effective regulatory body. Medium risk 3.2 EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT - RESEARCH PLANNING Is research conducted that supports the management needs of the fishery? Insufficient research effort is directed towards the information needed for the effective management of the fishery. Research is undertaken only as required. A strategic approach to research is in place, with a developed research plan that is delivering necessary information to the management system. Medium risk Advice to assessors: Assessors should consider the scale and likely impact of the fishery in determining the sufficiency of the research planning to meet the information needs for effective management of the fishery. In some cases, where exploitation levels are very low, it is possible for a simple research and data collection plan to be sufficient for this purpose. In large fisheries, however, a more complex and comprehensive research plan may be required. Research 'as required' can be defined as when an issue has been discovered that warrants attention and research. page 19

20 3.3 EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE Is there an enforcement system in place that encourages and delivers compliance with the fishery management arrangements? An enforcement system has not been implemented; OR An enforcement system has been implemented, however consistent and significant non-compliance is detected; OR Penalties and/or other forms of corrective actions are not acting as effective deterrents to non-compliance. A compliance system has been implemented, and penalties or other corrective actions are established. A enforcement system is established which has demonstrated compliance with management measures, strategies and/or rules; AND There is confidence that fishers comply with the management system in place (i.e. there is negligible reporting of consistent or significant non-compliance); AND Penalties have been established that act as a effective deterrent to non-compliance. Medium risk Advice to assessors: There should be evidence that the compliance and enforcement mechanisms within a fishery are able to detect instances of non-compliance and respond accordingly. Assessors can also consider whether there is an effective preventative and educative function within the compliance and enforcement system, such that operators within the fishery are unlikely to be ignorant of regulations or how to abide by them. Effective compliance and enforcement mechanisms may be industry or community led, and assessors should consider such mechanisms when determining the appropriateness of government or regulatory measures. For example, public notices (naming and shaming) of non-complying vessels or individuals in certain circumstances can serve as an effective deterrent, even where there are no financial or other penalties. page 20