Intertek Fisheries Certification - SADSTIA · Public Comment Draft Report Authors ... 5.7.3 Survey...

Intertek Fisheries Certification (IFC)

10A Victory Park

Victory Road

Derby

DE24 8ZF

UK

www.intertek.com/food/msc-certification

INTERTEK FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

February 2015

Ref: 82007

South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Public Comment Draft Report

Authors

J. Andrews, J. Groeneveld, M. Pawson

Client name and address

Johann Augustyn

South African Deep Sea Trawling Industry Association - SADSTIA

Pearl House

Heerengracht

PO Box 2066

Cape Town 8000

South Africa

Tel: +27 (0) 21 425 2727

Fax: +27 (0) 21 419 0785

http://www.intertek.com/food/msc-certification


Intertek Fisheries Certification – South African Hake Trawl Fishery

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v1.3

Page 1

Contents 1 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10

3 Authors and peer reviewers........................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Assessment team ................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Peer Reviewers ...................................................................................................................... 15

4 Description of the Fishery ............................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ..................................................... 16

4.1.1 Scope of Assessment with respect to MSC Standard .................................................... 19

5 Overview of the fishery................................................................................................................. 20

5.1 Principle One: Target Species Background .......................................................................... 20

5.2 History of the Fishery ........................................................................................................... 22

5.2.1 Fishing capacity control ................................................................................................ 25

5.3 Fleet and Gear Description ................................................................................................... 25

5.4 Management Unit .................................................................................................................. 26

5.5 Monitoring of stock status..................................................................................................... 27

5.5.1 Abundance indices ........................................................................................................ 29

5.5.2 Assessment Modelling .................................................................................................. 31

5.6 Management advice .............................................................................................................. 33

5.7 Assessment of current stock status ........................................................................................ 34

5.7.1 The assessment model ................................................................................................... 35

5.7.2 Population Dynamics .................................................................................................... 35

5.7.3 Survey biomass indices ................................................................................................. 36

5.7.4 Stock–recruitment function ........................................................................................... 36

5.7.5 Model parameters .......................................................................................................... 39

5.7.6 Survey fishing selectivity at length: .............................................................................. 39

5.7.7 Commercial fishing selectivity at length: ..................................................................... 39

5.7.8 Input parameters and other choice for application to hake ........................................... 39

5.7.9 Results of the 2013 assessment ..................................................................................... 40

5.7.10 Stock status in relation to reference points ................................................................... 40

5.8 Other fishery removals .......................................................................................................... 43

6 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ........................................................................................ 44




Page 2

6.1 Interactions with non-target fish species ............................................................................... 44

6.1.1 A note on terminology .................................................................................................. 44

6.2 Catch composition ................................................................................................................ 45

6.2.1 Pilot Observer Programme: 1995-2000 ........................................................................ 45

6.2.2 Government Observer Programme, OROP: 2002–06 .................................................. 45

6.2.3 Management of non-target species................................................................................ 56

6.2.4 Status of the observer programme................................................................................. 61

6.2.5 Status of “Main” non-target catch species .................................................................... 62

6.2.6 Retained catch ............................................................................................................... 75

6.2.7 Discarded catch ............................................................................................................. 76

6.3 ETP Species .......................................................................................................................... 78

6.3.1 Trends in bird population status .................................................................................... 83

6.4 Habitat Interactions ............................................................................................................... 85

6.5 Ecosystem Interactions ......................................................................................................... 94

7 Principle Three: Management System Background ...................................................................... 95

7.1 Management framework ....................................................................................................... 95

7.2 Management and research institutions .................................................................................. 95

7.3 Recognized interest groups ................................................................................................... 96

7.4 Management objectives......................................................................................................... 97

7.5 Decision-making process ...................................................................................................... 98

7.6 Incentives to fish sustainably ................................................................................................ 98

7.7 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) ........................................................................ 99

7.8 Illegal, Unreported Unlicensed (IUU) fishing ...................................................................... 99

7.9 Research Planning ............................................................................................................... 100

7.10 Monitoring and evaluation of management performance ................................................... 100

8 Evaluation Procedure .................................................................................................................. 101

8.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ........................................................................................ 101

8.2 Previous assessments .......................................................................................................... 101

8.3 Assessment Methodologies ................................................................................................. 101

8.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ................................................................................. 112

8.4.1 Site Visits .................................................................................................................... 112

8.4.2 Consultations ............................................................................................................... 112

8.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ................................................................................................ 114

8.4.4 Scoring components and elements .............................................................................. 115




Page 3

8.4.5 Risk Based Framework ............................................................................................... 115

8.5 Assessment of the Units of Certification ............................................................................ 117

9 Traceability ................................................................................................................................. 119

9.1 Eligibility Date .................................................................................................................... 119

9.2 Traceability within the Fishery ........................................................................................... 119

9.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ................................................................... 120

9.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of

Custody ........................................................................................................................................... 120

10 Evaluation Results .................................................................................................................. 122

10.1 Principle Level Scores ........................................................................................................ 122

10.2 Summary of Scores ............................................................................................................. 122

10.3 Summary of Conditions ...................................................................................................... 122

10.3.1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 125

10.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ........................................................... 127

10.5 Changes in the Fishery Prior to and Since Pre-Assessment ................................................ 127

11 References ............................................................................................................................... 128

11.1 Publications cited ................................................................................................................ 128

11.2 Legislation cited .................................................................................................................. 133

12 Scoring and Rationales............................................................................................................ 134

12.1 Principle 1 Evaluation Tables ............................................................................................. 134

12.2 Principle 2 Evaluation Tables (Both Units of Certification) ............................................... 152

12.3 Principle 3 Evaluation Tables ............................................................................................. 184

13 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs .................................................................................. 205

14 Conditions of Certification...................................................................................................... 206

14.1 Conditions for UoC1, M. paradoxus ................................................................................... 206

14.1.1 Condition 1: stock status ............................................................................................. 206

14.1.2 Condition 2: ETP species information ........................................................................ 207

14.1.3 Condition 3: Habitat impact management................................................................... 209

14.2 Conditions for UoC2, M. capensis. ..................................................................................... 211

14.2.1 Condition 4: ETP species information ........................................................................ 211

14.2.2 Condition 5: Habitat impact management................................................................... 213

15 Client Action Plan ................................................................................................................... 215

16 Peer Review Reports ............................................................................................................... 228

16.1 Peer Review Reports ........................................................................................................... 228




Page 4

16.1.1 Peer Reviewer A ......................................................................................................... 228

16.1.2 Peer Reviewer B.......................................................................................................... 252

17 Stakeholder submissions ......................................................................................................... 272

17.1 Stakeholder interviews conducted during the site visit ....................................................... 272

17.1.1 Bird Life South Africa ................................................................................................ 272

17.1.2 CapFish ....................................................................................................................... 276

17.1.3 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ..................................................... 280

17.1.4 Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, MARAM ............................ 285

17.1.5 OLRAC ....................................................................................................................... 289

17.1.6 South African Deep Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA) and South East

Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA) ............................................................................ 293

17.1.7 South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) ................................. 298

17.1.8 South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) ............................................. 300

17.1.9 University of Cape Town ............................................................................................ 304

17.1.10 WWF-South Africa ................................................................................................. 307

18 Surveillance Frequency ........................................................................................................... 311

19 Client Agreement .................................................................................................................... 313

20 Objections Process .................................................................................................................. 314




Page 5

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the unit of certification area showing distribution of the two hake species, M.

paradoxus (deep water cape hake) and M. capensis (shallow water cape hake). ............. 17

Figure 2: Generalised distribution of the two Cape hake species, Merluccius capensis and M.

paradoxus (after M. Smith, CapFish). .............................................................................. 21

Figure 3. Distribution of trawling effort for hake around the RSA coast for the period 2002–2007

(Figure. S. Wilkinson, CapFish) ....................................................................................... 23

Figure 4: (a): Total catches (thousand tonnes) of Cape hakes split by species over the period 1917 –

2013 and the TAC set each year since the implementation of the OMP approach in 1991.

Prior to 1978, where the data required to split the catch by species are not available, the

split is calculated using an algorithm that assumes 1958 as the centre year for the shift

from a primarily M. capensis to a primarily M. paradoxus offshore trawl catch. (b):

Catches of Cape hakes per fishing sector for the period 1960 – 2013. Prior to 1960, all

catches are attributed to the deep-sea trawl sector. ........................................................... 24

Figure 5: Recent trends in the GLM-standardised commercial CPUE and abundance indices for M.

paradoxus (open circles) and M. capensis (black diamonds) from trawl surveys that are

used in the TAC computation. The survey abundance estimates shown incorporates the

calibration factors specified in the OMP for the years in which the new gear was used on

the RV Africana. ............................................................................................................... 30

Figure 6: Estimated stock–recruitment curves for each of the 15 OMs of the revised set for M.

paradoxus and M. capensis, grouped by level of natural mortality. In each plot, the "data"

are plotted for a single OM, corresponding to the modified Ricker stock-recruitment

curve and 1958 centre-year. .............................................................................................. 38

Figure 7: Trajectories of female SSB for South African hake (in terms of pre-exploitation level) for

the five assessments. The horizontal lines represent BMSY (i.e. Maximum Sustainable

Yield Level, MSYL). ........................................................................................................ 41

Figure 8: Output from 11 assessment models showing the ratio of female spawning stock biomass

(Bsp

) relative to MSYLsp

(~ BMSY) for M. paradoxus. The solid line shows the median

estimate. Colours denote 80, 90 and 95% confidence levels. [Source: OLRAC, pers

comm, 2014]. .................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 9 Map of the distribution of offshore hake trawl activity (shaded cells) compared with

observer coverage over the period 2002-2006 [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013]. ........ 50

Figure 10: Map of the South African hake offshore trawl grounds showing grid cells coloured

according to similarity “clusters” identified from analysis of catch composition. [Source:

Daneel & Attwood, 2013]. ................................................................................................ 50

Figure 11: Patterns in species composition among grid squares as indicated by cluster analysis of

observer catch data for the period 2008-13. Each group indicates 50% Bray-Curtis

similarity. Axes indicate latitude and longitude of each grid square. [Source: Attwood,

2014]. ................................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 12: Existing and proposed spatial management measures that contribute to bycatch

management in the inshore demersal trawl fishery in South Africa, including proposed

Fishery Management Areas (FMAs). [Source: Sink et al, 2013]. .................................... 59

Figure 13: Kingklip closed area established off Cape St Francis (shaded red) to protect spawning

aggregations from trawling between September and November each year. [Source: Smith

et al, 2013]. ....................................................................................................................... 60




Page 6

Figure 14: Spatial distribution of average annual monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) catch per year over

the period 2004-10. [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ............................................................. 63

Figure 15: Total catch (tonnes) and catch rate (kg/hr) for monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) on the west

and south coast of South Africa over the period 2000-2010. [Source: Smith et al, 2014].

63

Figure 16: Fishery-independent survey abundance estimates for monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) off

the west and south coasts of South Africa, 1984-2012 (note that the different symbols

indicate surveys carried out using different methods). [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ....... 64

Figure 17: Median annual estimates of abundance and associated 90% probability intervals for the

biomass of monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) off the west coast and south coast of South

Africa for the period 2009-13. [Source: Glazer, 2013]. ................................................... 65

Figure 18: Coast specific catches of monkfish over the period 1991-2012. The current aggregate

Precautionary Upper Catch Limit (PUCL) of 7,000t for both coasts is shown as a

horizontal line. [Source: Glazer, 2013]. ........................................................................... 66

Figure 19: Bayesian posterior medians of abundance over the last five years for the West coast

kingklip resource off South Africa. 90% probability interval envelopes are shown as

dashed lines. [Source: Brandão & Butterworth, 2013]. ................................................... 67

Figure 20: Survey abundance estimates for silver kob, Argyrosomus inodorus on the South Coast of

South Africa [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ......................................................................... 68

Figure 21: Spatial distribution of silver kob annual catch (kg) per fishing grid block for the period

2004-10. [Source: Smith et al, 2010]. .............................................................................. 69

Figure 22: Distribution of fishing effort and fisheries targeting horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus,

in South African Waters. [Source: Japp & Smith, 2013]. ................................................ 71

Figure 23: Catch of horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus in the demersal and midwater trawl

fisheries for 2000-2013 (note that 2013 data were incomplete). The PUCL for this

species is set at 44,000t. [Source: Singh et al, 2013]. ...................................................... 72

Figure 24: Survey abundance estimates for snoek, Thyrsites atun on the West and South Coast of

South Africa [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ......................................................................... 73

Figure 25: Trends in catch (t) and CPUE (kg/hr) for snoek, Thyrsites atun, on the west and south

coasts of South Africa. [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ........................................................ 74

Figure 26: Spatial distribution of snoek (Thyrsites atun) annual average catch per grid block for the

period 2004-2010 [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ................................................................. 74

Figure 27: Diagram showing the relative species composition of the discards from the South African

trawl fishery from observer records and landings data for the period 2005-2012 (total

discards estimated to be 150t pa). [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. ....................................... 77

Figure 28: Spatial distribution of discarding activity, showing total weight discarded per grid block

from observer data for the period 2005-2012. [Source: Smith et al, 2013]. .................... 77

Figure 29: Specification of the tori lines taken from a copy of the trawl fishery licences issued to

both offshore and inshore trawlers in South Africa [Source: DAFF, 2014]. .................... 79

Figure 30: The distribution of SADSTIA-funded bird observer trips carried out from June 2012-July

2013 superimposed on the distribution of commercial trawling effort. [Source: Smith,

2013]. ................................................................................................................................ 81

Figure 31: Boundary of “ring fenced” hake trawl footprint (mapped by Wilkinson & Japp, 2008;

figure reproduced from Sink et al, 2012). ......................................................................... 88

Figure 32: The habitat composition within the 70,160km² South African hake trawl footprint. (Note




Page 7

that the percentages indicate the relative proportion of each habitat type within the

footprint, but not how much of the total extent each habitat type is trawled). [Source:

Sink et al, 2012]. ............................................................................................................... 89

Figure 33: Priority habitats (based on extent & vulnerability of habitats and intensity of fishing) on

the west coast within the trawl footprint area. [Source: Sink et al, 2012]. ....................... 90

Figure 34: Priority habitats (based on extent & vulnerability of habitats and intensity of fishing) on

the south coast within the trawl footprint area. [Source: Sink et al, 2012]. ..................... 91

Figure 35: Map showing current Marine Protected areas in South Africa. [Source: SANBI, 2014]. 92

Figure 36: Map showing the location of the experimental trawl exclusion area on the west coast.

[Source: SADSTIA, 2012]. ............................................................................................... 93

List of Tables

Table 1: List of eligible vessels. ...................................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Fleet-disaggregated catches (in thousand tonnes) of hake M. paradoxus and M. capensis

from the south and west RSA coasts for the period 1966–2013. (source Butterworth, pers

comm.). ............................................................................................................................. 28

Table 3: Summary of offshore trawl fishery observer programme (OROP) coverage over the

period 2002-06. [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013]. ....................................................... 49

Table 4: Summary of bycatch composition (including both retained and discarded individuals) for

the most abundant non-target species from 13,030 offshore trawl hauls monitored

between 2002 and 2006 [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013]. .......................................... 49

Table 5: Annual average catch for the inshore trawl fleet, 2003-06, based on unsorted samples

taken by independent observers. [Source: Attwood et al, 2011]. ..................................... 51

Table 6: Catch of non-target species (“bycatch rate”) as a proportion of the catch of the two hake

species, and ranking of the top 5 non-target (i.e. non-hake) species for the period 2008-

13. [Source: Attwood, 2014]. ............................................................................................ 52

Table 7: The ten species that made up 99% of unsorted catch of hake-directed trawlers over the

period 2008-13 (in descending order). [Source: Attwood, 2014]. ................................... 53

Table 8: Contribution of non-target species to the total trawl catch for the areas illustrated in

Figure 11. [Source: Attwood, 2014]. ............................................................................... 54

Table 9: Average annual catch estimates and the percentage of each non-target species in the catch

for the period 2000-2010. [Source: Smith et al, 2013]..................................................... 55

Table 10: Total observed heavy interactions and mortalities of bird species in the South African

deep-water hake trawl wet-fish fishery, 2006-10 [Source: Maree et al, 2014]. ................ 80

Table 11: Total numbers of interactions between seabirds and trawl warps during the setting and

trawling period from SADSTIA observer records between June 2012 and July 2013. A

high level of interaction is almost certain to cause mortality; medium interactions are not

assumed to cause significant injury; and a low level of interaction is considered harmless.

[Source: Smith, 2013]. ...................................................................................................... 82

Table 12: Summary of Assessment methodology used. .................................................................. 101

Table 13: Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions for the South African Hake Trawl fishery.

......................................................................................................................................... 102

Table 14: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance. .... 113

Table 15: Scoring components and elements considered in this assessment. Decisions on whether




Page 8

or not a particular PI is data deficient have been taken using the guidance set out in Table

AC2 of the MSC Certification Requirements v 1.3. ....................................................... 116

Table 16: Proposal for progressing Units of Certification (UoC) at Full Assessment against the

MSC standard. ................................................................................................................. 118

Table 17 Summary of MSC Principle level scores for the South African Hake Trawl fishery UoC 1

(M. paradoxus) and UoC2 (M. capensis) ........................................................................ 122

Table 18: Scores for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Scores shaded green attain the

unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass, and red shading

would indicate a fail. ....................................................................................................... 123

Table 19 Summary of Conditions for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery. ............................. 124

Table 20: Surveillance Score for the Fishery .................................................................................. 311

Table 21: MSC Fishery Surveillance levels .................................................................................... 311

Table 22: Fishery Surveillance Plan ................................................................................................ 312




Page 9

1 GLOSSARY

BLSA Birdlife South Africa

Client South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The research and management

function of MCM is now integrated and have been absorbed into the general structure

of DEAT. Similarly, the compliance function (referred to as the ‘inspectorate’) has

also being absorbed in the overall structure of MCM with specific subdivisions such as

Offshore and Inshore.

DWG Demersal Working Group

ICSEAF International Commission for South East Atlantic Fisheries

IFC Intertek Fisheries Certification

MARAM Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town

MCM Marine and Coastal Management which was formerly called the Sea Fisheries Branch

(the research component was formerly known as the Sea Fisheries Research Institute).

MCM has separate directorates responsible for example for Research, Resource

Management, Coastal Management, Compliance and Administration. The primary

directorates responsible for hake are Research and Resource Management (offshore sub

directorates), compliance and administration.

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

MSYLsp

Spawning biomass at which the resource, if fished on a sustainable basis, delivers MSY

(i.e. BMSY)

OMP Operational Management Procedures

OROP

RMWG Resource Management Working Group

RSA Republic of South Africa

SADSTIA South African DeepSea Trawling Industry Association

SAEON South African Environmental Observation Network

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SECIFA South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association

UCT University of Cape Town

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature




Page 10

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report sets out the results of the assessment of the South African Hake Trawl Fishery against

the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The

assessment started in January 2014.

2. The assessment was carried out by a team of three assessors: Jim Andrews, Johan Groeneveld and

Mike Pawson. A full account of the assessment team members’ relevant experience is set out in

section 3.1 of this report.

3. The evaluation process for this assessment involved gathering information relevant to the fishery

during a site visit in March 2014; discussions with experts and stakeholders; and reviewing

relevant literature. The assessment team then compiled a draft report, and met to ‘score’ the

performance of the fishery. The draft report that was produced by the team has been considered

by the client, subject to peer review, and then published for stakeholder comment in February

2015 before being published as a Final Report on the MSC website.

4. The main strengths of this fishery are that the hake stocks are well monitored and managed, with a

well-developed management regime that provides opportunities for participation by a wide range

of stakeholders. The fishery is managed under South African legislation, which meets the

requirements of international conventions. Hake are caught by a fleet that is limited in size by a

restrictive licensing scheme; hake trawling is limited to a self-imposed “trawl footprint” (this is in

the process of becoming a formal permit condition, so that right-holders can be penalized in the

event of contravention); and all vessels are subject to a quota and limitations on days at sea.

Under this management regime some historical concerns about the fishery (notably impacts of the

fishery on bird species) have been successfully addressed by management measures that have

been developed through partnership between the fishing industry, government and environmental

NGOs.

5. The team identified very few weaknesses in the fishery. This is a reflection of the work that the

client and fishery managers have carried out in response to the conditions raised when the hake

fishery was certified in 2005 and re-certified in 2010. Some areas where performance could be

improved were identified. These related to the need for rebuilding of the M. paradoxus stock

(which is already being managed under rebuilding strategy); a requirement for more information

about the impacts of the inshore fishery on bird species; and action to address the management of

potential impacts of trawling on benthic habitats. Conditions of certification have been drawn up

in response to these findings, and the client has produced an action plan to ensure that progress is

made to address these weaknesses.

6. MSC certification requires that each of the three MSC Principles have aggregated scores of 80 or

higher; that no individual performance indicator score less than 60; and that the client provides a

“client action plan” to improve the performance of indicators with scores less than 80 for which

conditions have been prescribed. The fishery has met these three requirements. The assessment

team has therefore recommended that this fishery should be certified according to the Marine

Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria. The MSC Principle scores were calculated

according to the procedures set out in the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 and are set out in

the table below.




Page 11

7. Some scores of less than 80 and more than 60 were awarded for individual Performance

Indicators. Conditions of certification were identified by the assessment team that would lead to

an improvement in performance to a level consistent with or better than a score of 80 for these

Performance Indicators. The client has produced an Action Plan that should lead to these scores

being attained within the 5 year period of certification for this fishery. The full conditions and

Action Plan are listed in section 14 of this report. The conditions of certification are summarised

in the table below

Number Condition Performance

Indicator

Unit of Certification 1 – M. paradoxus

1 Stock status

The M. paradoxus stock is below its target reference

point; evidence of ongoing implementation of the

established rebuilding strategy is required.

1.1.1

2 ETP Species - information

Information should be gathered to allow fishery related

mortality of bird species and the impact of fishing on these

species to be quantitatively estimated for the hake trawl

fishery in inshore areas (waters shallower than 110m).

This could be achieved by continued implementation of the

recently established bird observer programme for inshore

areas and analysis of observer data so that bird mortality and

trends in mortality can be quantified.

2.3.3

3 Benthic habitats - management

There should be further investigation of the options for

protecting benthic habitats from hake trawl fishery impacts.

This investigation could consider, inter alia, the relative

merits of both statutory measures and self regulation and also

the areas that may require or might benefit from such

measures (for instance the South Benguela Canyon). It is

noted that much of the groundwork for this aspect of the

condition has been done.

Having identified appropriate measures and areas for action,

evidence of progress with the implementation of the favoured

2.4.2

UoC 1 UoC 2

M. paradoxus M. capensis

Principle 1 - Target species PI 1.1.3 Not scored NA 98.8

PI 1.1.3 Scored 92.1 NA

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 84.0 84.0

Principle 3 - Management 92.5 92.5

Overall weighted Principle-level scores




Page 12


Indicator

management measures would be required.

It is anticipated that the information derived from the trawl

experiment will provide information from the hake trawl

fishery on the type of management measures that may be

appropriate.

Unit of Certification 2 – M. capensis










2.3.3
















appropriate.

2.4.2




Page 13

3 AUTHORS AND PEER REVIEWERS

3.1 Assessment team

A brief biography of the assessment team members is given below. Full CVs of the team members

can be downloaded from the MSC website or obtained on request from Intertek Moody Marine.

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 assessments 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, and has subsequently used the

Risk Based Framework in three fishery assessments. Jim has carried out numerous MSC Chain of

Custody assessments within the UK.

Johan Groeneveld

Johan is a Senior Scientist at the Oceanographic Research Institute in Durban, South Africa. He has

detailed professional experience of South African fisheries and their management gained over 18

years of employment as a research scientist and fisheries manager by 2 governments and in the private

sector. He has worked extensively on collaborative fisheries development projects and has a strong

publication record in a range of peer-reviewed journals. He has participated as an assessor in the MSC

Certified Tristan da Cunha spiny lobster fishery, a peer reviewer for the Normandy and Jersey Lobster

fishery, and also in several MSC Pre-Assessment projects in southern and eastern Africa. Johan has

also attended and given presentations at MSC training workshops in South Africa.

Dr Michael Pawson.

Mike Pawson retired as senior fisheries advisor at Cefas, Lowestoft, after 39 years carrying out

biological research and providing scientific advice to Defra, the EC and other national and

international organisations on fish stock abundance (marine teleosts, elasmobranches, salmonids and

eels), technical conservation measures and fisheries management regulations, and on related

monitoring, sampling, survey and research programmes. Between 1974 and 1980, he initiated and

led acoustic surveys for blue whiting and mackerel and trawl surveys in the North Sea (1975-1979),

and then spent 1 year working as an UNESCO Expert in Ichthyology in Tripoli, Libya. From 1980 to

1990, Mike designed and managed MAFF's coastal fisheries programme, implementing biological

sampling, trawl surveys, a fishermen’s logbook scheme and socio-economic evaluation of sea bass

fisheries, and between 1990 and 2000 he led the Cefas Western demersal team, providing analytical

assessments and management advice for 12 finfish stocks, including hake. During this time he was

co-ordinator of the Anglo-French English Channel Fisheries Study Group (1989-1997) and chairman




Page 14

of the ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment Working Group (1996-98), the ICES Seabass

Study Group (2000-04) and Elasmobranch Study Group (2001-02), and he led the scientific input to

development of the European hake recovery plan on behalf of the Commission (1999-2000) . He has

initiated and managed EU-funded multi-national projects on methods for egg-production stock

biomass estimation, bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish stocks, bio-economic

modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for elasmobranchs, marine

recreational fishing in Europe etc.

Mike has provided scientific evaluation, quality assurance and advice to several national and EC-

funded projects on fisheries biology, monitoring and assessment, and one of his major roles over the

last 15 years has been peer-reviewing papers, reports and manuscripts in preparation. Since 2002,

Mike directed and managed the assessment of salmon and eel stocks in England and Wales and

provided scientific advice on their conservation. All of Mike's work has been published in refereed

Journals, in ICES and EC working group reports, and in contract reports.




Page 15

3.2 Peer Reviewers

Stephen Lockwood

Stephen Lockwood is an independent marine environment consultant with over 40 years’

experience of marine fishery and environmental research, and fishery management. From 1967 to

1999 he was a government fishery scientist at the Fishery Laboratory (now Cefas) Lowestoft and

then Conwy, North Wales. His research covered fishery coastal ecology, stock assessment and

management, and fishery interests in coastal zone management. For ten years (2001–2011) he

served on the UK inshore fisheries management body for the eastern Irish Sea). From 2001 to

2007 he was a non-executive director of the Sea Fish Industry authority (Seafish). As an

independent consultant he has prepared fishery environmental assessments for a variety of coastal

and offshore developments and contributed as an P1, P2 and P3 assessor, peer reviewer and

annual auditor for numerous UK, European and North American fisheries seeking MSC

certification.

Andrew Payne

Dr Andrew I.L. Payne is an honours graduate of the University of London and completed post-

graduate degrees at the Universities of Stellenbosch and Port Elizabeth in South Africa. He worked in

Namibia for five years, South Africa for 25 years (eventually leaving in 2000 as Director of the Sea

Fisheries Research Institute), and retired in 2013 from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and

Aquaculture Science (Cefas), UK, where he was initially Science Area Head for Fisheries and then

"roving" international fisheries consultant in which role he managed a large commercial contract

evaluating sites for future nuclear power stations to be built in the UK, and the Fisheries Science

Partnership, an initiative bringing scientists and fishers together in a common aim to produce

information of use to those charged with managing Europe's fish stocks. Most of his research was

conducted in South Africa, and he has published widely in the scientific literature, mainly about

fisheries management and demersal fish in particular. He was an active player in the Benguela

Ecology Programme, was involved in drafting South Africa's first democratic fisheries policy (which

later became enshrined as the Marine Living Resources Act), and was a leading player in the

establishment of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem project and the BENguela

Environment, Fisheries, Interaction, and Training (BENEFIT) project, the latter two concentrating on

three countries, Angola, Namibia and South Africa. From 2003 to 2011, he was Editor-in-Chief (and

from 2000 to 2003 editor) of the ICES Journal of Marine Science, was the founding editor/editor-in-

chief (and now international panel member) of the (South) African Journal of Marine Science, and is

Series editor of the Springer book series Humanity and the Sea. He has also conducted peer expert

review of fisheries in Argentina, South Africa and the USA, and was involved in the EU's TACIS

project on Sustainable Management of Caspian Fisheries, among other EU projects. He has conducted

several accreditation reviews for the Marine Stewardship Council, the full ones being the first

certification exercise for Antarctic krill and another for Russian pollock, has acted as expert reviewer

of the report on US Limited Entry Groundfish Trawl fishery recertification, and has twice acted as

condition-meeting evaluator for the South Africa deep-sea trawl fishery for hake.




Page 16

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

4.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought

This assessment considers two units of certification. The difference between the two units of

certification lies in the target species of hake. A description of the two species and their distribution is

given in section 5.1 of this report.

The units of certification are:-

Unit of Certification 1: Deep water cape hake

Species: Deep water cape hake, Merluccius paradoxus

Geographical Area: South Atlantic

Method of Capture*: Demersal otter trawl

Stock Deep water cape hake stock

Management: South African Government Department of

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Eligible Fishers Members of SADSTIA and SECIFA

Unit of Certification 2: Shallow water cape hake

Species: Shallow water cape hake, Merluccius capensis

Geographical Area: South Atlantic

Method of Capture*: Demersal otter trawl

Stock Shallow water cape hake stock

Management: South African Government Department of

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Eligible Fishers Members of SADSTIA and SECIFA




Page 17

Figure 1: Map of the unit of certification area showing distribution of the two hake species, M.

paradoxus (deep water cape hake) and M. capensis (shallow water cape hake).




Page 18

Table 1: List of eligible vessels.

SADSTIA Member Vessels

African Queen Harvest Miriam Makeba

Allin Harvest Nandi

Andromeda Harvest Saldanha

Armana Harvest Selina

Avro Warrier Harvest Veronica

Basani Isabella Marine

Beatrice Marine Khulisa Eyethu

Bluebell Laverne

Boetie Bert Lee Anne

Boronia Lepanto

Codesa 1 Lezandi

Compass Challenger Lincoln

Echalar Lobelia

Esra Cruz Lucerne

Flame Thorn Maria Marine

Forest lily Marretje

Foxglove Monie Marine

Freesia Nerine

Fuchsia Portunity

Harvest Atlantic Leader Realeka

Harvest Florita Sandile

Harvest Gardenia Sistro

Harvest Gavina Stevia

Harvest Georgina Svein Jonsson

Harvest Kirstina Toralla

Harvest Krotoa Vuna Elita

Harvest Lindiwe

SECIFA Member Vessels

Amsteldiep Locqueran

Cape Cross Mary Ann

Cape Maclear Oupa Joewie

Cape Vidal Santa Isobel

Christelle Sisters

Elke M St Blaize

Leeukop St Croix

Leonora Vuna Imbongi

Lindiwe Vuna Liesa




Page 19

4.1.1 Scope of Assessment with respect to MSC Standard

IFC considers that the fishery is within the scope set out in the MSC Certification Requirements v.1.3

at §27.4.4.

Specifically:-

• Controversial unilateral exemptions §27.4.4.1 - there are currently no controversial

unilateral exemptions.

• Destructive fishing practices §27.4.4.2 – no destructive fishing practices are used in this unit

of certification.

• Controversial disputes §27.4.5 – there are understood to be mechanisms in place for

resolving disputes between the fishery and the management system.

• Previous failed assessments / certificate withdrawals §27.4.7 – the hake fishery has

successfully been assessed against the MSC Standard before.

• Inseparable or practically inseparable catches §27.4.9 – The two hake species under

assessment have an overlapping distribution (see Figure 1), and although the two species are

readily distinguished by trained operators, it is not commercially feasible to separate them

when they are caught together due to the practical operation of the fishery. IFC have

therefore considered whether it is appropriate to implement the procedures set out in the CR

(v1.3) at 27.4.9 concerning IPI species.

The most recent analysis for the fishery indicates that the overall species split is 79% M.

paradoxus and 21% M. capensis (Rademeyer, 2012). The MSC Certification Requirements’

stipulate that there is a limit of 15% of the total catch for any species to be eligible for

assessment as an “IPI” stock. It is therefore inappropriate to assess the M.capensis catch in

this way (CR at 27.4.9.1c).

The stock assessment for the fisheries takes full account of their overlapping distribution and

the mixed catch. Observer data from fishing vessels, biological information about the catch,

and mathematical models are used to assess the status of the stocks independently.

IFC conclude that the IPI procedures cannot be applied to the fishery, and that the information

about catch composition is adequate to allow the assessment of each UoC independently.

• Enhanced fishery §27.4.12 – these are not enhanced fisheries.




Page 20

5 OVERVIEW OF THE FISHERY

5.1 Principle One: Target Species Background

The Cape hakes are the most commercially valuable species in South Africa’s fisheries, and much

research effort has been directed at understanding the biology of both the deep-water (Merluccius

paradoxus) and the shallow-water (M. capensis) Cape hake (Botha, 1970; Payne, 1986; Payne et. al

1987, Punt et. at 1992, Punt and Leslie, 1991).

The shallow-water hake (M. capensis) is found predominantly on the South African south coast from

30m to about 400m and the deep-water hake (M. paradoxus) from about 250m to about 800m. The

two species overlap in their distribution in the depth range 250-400m and both species are found

around the entire South African coast, extending northwards into Namibian waters. Large M. capensis

are found seasonally on the central Agulhas Bank and inshore (shallower than 100m), particularly in

autumn. M. paradoxus is the mainstay of the offshore (or deepwater) trawl fishery, whilst M.

capensis is targeted by the inshore trawl and longline fisheries.

The general biology of the two Cape hake species is very similar to that of other hake species.

Growth in both species is relatively slow, with the oldest fish reaching about 14 years and about

115cm total length. Generally, females of both species are the largest and most frequently found at

the extremes of their depth range. There are no obvious morphometric differences between males and

females, and the two species are difficult to separate in commercial landings. Because of the overlap

in depth distribution between the two species, which coincides with distinct size differences, predation

between species and intra-specific predation (cannibalism) occurs. These inter- and intra-specific

predation effects have been modelled, although the outcome is not presently used in assessments. The

assessment methodology separates the two hake species based on their known depth distribution -

research in this area is ongoing, particularly relating to the spatial-depth and seasonal variability on

the distribution of the two species. These characteristics can have a profound influence on the

modelling and interpretation of the status of the respective stocks.

The Cape hakes are reported to be serial spawners, aggregating to spawn predominantly in early

summer, with a second spawning period in autumn (Osbourne et al. 1999). A relationship between

fecundity at size/age has been established, though research in this area is ongoing and has been

identified as an important factor in the resource assessment (Field et. al. 2008). Spawning is known to

occur on the shelf edge on the West and South coasts, with M. capensis spawning in shallower water

than M. paradoxus. Hake eggs are bouyant after fertilisation and the larvae quickly develop and

become free swimming during a short pelagic period, when currents play an important role with

passive egg and larval drift. Juveniles of both hake species migrate to the sea bed in shallow waters,

and recruit to nursery areas around the South African coast, mostly in bay areas, moving offshore into

deeper waters as they grow. Fish under 25 cm total length (used throughout) in their second year of

growth (1+) are found mostly in water shallower than 200m, and fully recruited hake (2+) in water

deeper than 200m. First spawning is believed to occur in their third year at a length of about 25-30

cm. A generalised picture of Cape hake life history is shown in Figure 2, below.




Page 21

AGULHAS CURRENT 75 – 250cm/sea

BE

NG

UE

LA

CU

RR

EN

T

Shallow water Merluccius capensis

Deep water M. paradoxus

Migration routes

Hake nursery areas

Juvenile (+1 yrs) and Adult (+2 yrs)

migration into deeper water with age

and recruitment to the fishery

Northward drift - Egg and Larval Transport –

settlement in bays (nursery) 0+ yrs

Spawning Offshore 3+ yrs

Figure 2: Generalised distribution of the two Cape hake species, Merluccius capensis and M.

paradoxus (after M. Smith, CapFish).

Both hake species are thought to undertake horizontal migrations, moving with changes in

environmental conditions and availability of prey. During daylight hours hake aggregate and remain

close to the bottom (hence trawlers target them at this time). At night hake disperse, moving higher in

the water column where both species feed on zooplankton when juveniles and becoming mostly

piscivorous in their adult stages. They are the dominant predator in the demersal niche (Mann et al.,

2013).

It is assumed that the stocks of both species are found in the waters of the Benguela and southern

Agulhas systems. There is no strong evidence for extensive migrations of Cape hake along the West

and South Coasts, though limited movements occur driven by environmentally-induced conditions

such as wind stress and turbidity. The management implications of incomplete information on

transboundary movements are addressed to some extent by joint programmes (e.g. ECOFISH, run by

the Benguela Current Commission and the EU) in which comparable assessment methods are used

and similar management benchmarks are employed.




Page 22

5.2 History of the Fishery

The offshore and inshore trawl sectors that are directed at hake and take an associated by-catch

contribute just over 40% of the total value of all fisheries in the Republic of South Africa (RSA).

RSA's most commercially-valuable fishery is the deepwater demersal trawling sector that targets M.

paradoxus. M. capensis are largely caught by the inshore trawl, longline and handline hake sectors.

The hake-directed trawl fishery developed at the start of the 20th century and grew rapidly after World

War II to peak in the early 1970s at more than 300,000 tonnes (t), less than half of which was

accounted for by the domestic RSA fleet. Historically, this fishery targeted M. paradoxus using stern

trawlers and factory vessels on the West Coast (about 60 vessels). The fishery then went into decline,

which prompted the implementation of a larger minimum mesh size (110mm) in 1975 and declaration

of a 200 nautical mile exclusive fishing zone in November 1977. A few foreign vessels still operated

in RSA waters until 1992, but by 1993 the only foreign quota was 1,000t of hake awarded for a joint

venture with Mozambique through a bilateral fishing agreement.

The exclusion of foreign vessels and a conservative management strategy with effect from 1983 led to

a gradual recovery in catch rates. At that time, the RSA hake fishery was split between two trawl

sectors, ‘deep-sea’ and ‘inshore’; the essential difference being that the inshore fleet also enjoyed

rights to sole (Austroglossus pectoralis), whilst the deep-sea fleet is prohibited from trawling

shallower than 110m water depth (the “inshore” fleet often fishes in deeper water). The deep-sea trawl

sector operates primarily on the shelf edge in waters deeper than 300m, from the Namibian border

southwards to the South Coast, including the whole Agulhas Bank and up to Algoa Bay, the eastern-

most limit of the hake fishery (Figure 3). Greater proportions have been taken on the West than on the

South Coasts (split at 20ºE). Products are mostly frozen and landed both wet (on ice) and frozen.




Page 23

.k.

Figure 3. Distribution of trawling effort for hake around the RSA coast for the period 2002–2007

(Figure. S. Wilkinson, CapFish)

Since the late 1970s the hake fishery has been controlled largely by means of company-allocated

quotas within a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), limits on the number of vessels, and closed areas. The

hake TAC peaked at 165,000t in 2001 and has since been reduced and was set at 155,280 t in 2014.

Catches (Figure 4) were close to the TAC between 1991 and 2011, and below the TAC in the last two

full years..




Page 24

Figure 4: (a): Total catches (thousand tonnes) of Cape hakes split by species over the period 1917

– 2013 and the TAC set each year since the implementation of the OMP approach in

1991. Prior to 1978, where the data required to split the catch by species are not

available, the split is calculated using an algorithm that assumes 1958 as the centre year

for the shift from a primarily M. capensis to a primarily M. paradoxus offshore trawl

catch. (b): Catches of Cape hakes per fishing sector for the period 1960 – 2013. Prior to

1960, all catches are attributed to the deep-sea trawl sector.

(a)

(b)




Page 25

Allocations in the deep-sea sector have formed the backbone of the hake fishery and were originally

dominated by a few large operators. Since 1994, however, this sector has undergone considerable

change with the inclusion of many new entrants, from 6 in 1979 to 57 in 2001 after the

Transformation Council was introduced. With the allocation of long-term fishing rights in 2005, the

deep-sea trawl sector was reduced to 52 rights holders.

The inshore trawl fishery1 (17 rights holders with long-term rights) operates along the RSA South

Coast and comprises mostly of small side-trawlers from the ports of Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth

working in waters shallower than 110m on the Agulhas Bank. Historically, this fishery has been

directed at both sole and M. capensis, and hake and sole rights are always linked in this sector, in

which regard it differs from the larger offshore deep-sea fishery. The inshore fishery landed only

2.3% of the national hake catch in 2013, and was also allocated a sole TAC of 872t.

The inshore sector has undergone rationalisation of both the number of rights holders and strict effort

control in terms of vessel size and capacity. The allocation of rights in the hake sector has, however,

become increasingly complex with the recent increase in exploitation of the shallow-water hake by

longlining.

5.2.1 Fishing capacity control

The inshore trawl fishery has historically controlled both capacity and fishing effort by “boat

limitation” restricting vessels by size and power and length. Since the introduction of long-term

fishing rights in 2008, the two trawling industry bodies, collectively working with Marine and Coastal

Management (MCM), introduced supplementary input controls in the form of vessel effort limitation

in addition to TACs. Vessel operators are now allocated trawling days on the basis of TAC allocation

and vessel configuration (size and power). This input control mechanism (sea days) is combined with

output control (TAC) such that there is an adjustment of vessel power annually or whenever a permit

is renewed. In this way effort-creep is accommodated and continually monitored without additional

potential impacts on the resources exploited.

5.3 Fleet and Gear Description

There are two fleets of vessels that trawl for hake in South African waters. The deep-sea trawl fleet

comprises both wet-fish vessels that vary from 25–40m and factory freezers up to 70m. There is also

a fleet of inshore wet-fish trawlers up to 30m in length. Vessels larger than 30m overall length are not

permitted to fish in waters shallower than 110m.

1 Note that the Unit of Certification for MSC includes both the Inshore and Deepsea trawl sectors which are served by the

Industrial Bodies SADSTIA (Deepsea) and SECIFA (Inshore)




Page 26

Most vessels use demersal trawl gear with a considerable variation in size and shape of otter boards as

well as warp thickness. Cod-end mesh size is controlled; 110mm stretched mesh for the deep-sea

fishery (set by the Hake Deep Seat Trawl Permit Conditions), and 90mm for hake-directed (75mm for

sole directed) inshore vessels (set by the Hake Inshore Trawl (Hake & Sole) Permit Conditions). The

industry and observers report that the inshore vessels all use 110mm mesh cod-ends when fishing for

hake, and that the inshore fleet use 75mm mesh when fishing for sole.

Since 1991 there have been restrictions on the construction of trawl fishery footropes. These

restrictions are set out in licence conditions for both inshore and offshore trawlers. The licence

condition applying to the inshore fleet (working in waters shallower than 110m) is: “No bobbins,

nylon rollers or other devices whatsoever, with a diameter in excess of 375 mm or a weight in excess

of 200kgs may be deployed with, or as part of, the trawl gear, except for floats and the single pair of

trawl doors.”. The equivalent requirement for the offshore fleet (working in waters deeper than

110m) is: “No bobbins, nylon rollers or other devices whatsoever, with a diameter in excess of 750

mm or a weight in excess of 200kgs may be deployed with, or as part of, the trawl gear, except for

floats and the single pair of trawl doors and the device separating trawls in the case of twin

trawling.”

5.4 Management Unit

At the time of the original MSC assessment in 2004, two “stocks’ of hake were defined for both

assessment and management purposes: the RSA West Coast and South Coast stocks. Both “stocks”

comprised both deep-water hake M. paradoxus and shallow-water hake M. capensis, although M.

paradoxus is the dominant species on the West Coast, whilst the South coast has a larger proportion

of M. capensis. Because separation of the shallow and deep-water species in commercial hake catches

was not possible at that time, the stocks within these two areas were assessed as if they were a single

species.

The above implicitly assumes that there are no important differences in the life history parameters of

growth, reproduction, mortality and movements between the two species within a stock, which is

clearly a weakness. Data on the proportions of the two hake species within the research vessel survey

catches, available on a spatial scale since 1978, were used to form the basis of a “species splitting”

model that has been used to partition the commercial catch into separate species (Rademeyer et al.,

2008; OLRAC, 2013), which has allowed separate assessments to be developed for M. paradoxus and

M. capensis. The SADSTIA observer programme also gathers data on the ratio of species in

commercial catches, and informs the implementation of this management approach.

The along-shore distribution of shallow-water hake M. capensis (in terms of its occurrence both in

surveys and in the commercial catch) shows a hiatus in the density near the Namibia–RSA border.

The deep-water hake M. paradoxus shows a less pronounced decline in density near the Namibia–

RSA border. The International Commission for South East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF) used these

characteristics to originally define hake stocks in the 1970s, which have been slightly modified since

that time. For the purposes of recent stock assessments, the stock boundaries of the RSA West Coast

stock is taken as the Namibia–RSA border (Orange River), and in the Indian Ocean east of the

distribution of the hake (ICSEAF Areas 2.1 and 2.2).




Page 27

The possible sharing of the hake stocks between RSA and Namibia has recently been under review

(BENEFIT), and workshops will be held during 2014 to further clarify this. However, the outcome of

these workshops and associated studies was not felt to be likely to affect the RSA stock assessment to

a great extent. The most likely scenario is that the Namibian catch of M. paradoxus could be

producing some effect on the RSA M. paradoxus resource that is currently not taken into account in

the assessment.

The two UoC target species stocks in this MSC assessment are defined as being the two hake species

(M. paradoxus and M. capensis) throughout their range in RSA.

5.5 Monitoring of stock status

The stocks are monitored using a suite of fisheries-dependent, fisheries-independent and biological

data integrated into various standardization and assessment models (discussed in the next section).

The basic data include landings by size category (within important strata) for the commercial fisheries

sectors, catch per haul from research surveys and growth rate information.

Landings of M. paradoxus increased considerably from the 1950s, peaking in the early 1970s at about

200,000t and decreasing substantially in the next decade to a low of about 80,000t. Decreased foreign

activity accounted for most of this drop as RSA declared its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in 1977,

assumed control from ICSEAF, and phased out foreign fisheries. Subsequently, catches have been

relatively stable through the 1990s and early 2000s at about 115,000t, falling to around 105,000t

between 2008 and 2012, with a rise to 130,500t in 2013 (Table 2). Landings of M. capensis show a

similar pattern, peaking at about 90,000t in the early 1970s, then gradually falling (after the phasing

out of foreign fisheries and introducing the OMP) to a relatively stable 25,000t since 2005 .




Page 28

Table 2: Fleet-disaggregated catches (in thousand tonnes) of hake M. paradoxus and M. capensis

from the south and west RSA coasts for the period 1966–2013. (source Butterworth, pers

comm.).




Page 29

5.5.1 Abundance indices

A mesh size limit was imposed on the trawl fishery in 1975 as the fishery had been taking large

catches of small fish. Even then, approximately 80% of M. paradoxus individuals in the catch were

less than three years old in 1978 (Rademeyer et al. 2007b), possibly because some in the industry

subverted the mesh size limit by implementing “liners” within the trawls. There was undoubtedly

some misreporting, which caused difficulty in interpreting landings reports and catch-per-unit effort

(CPUE) during that period. However, it is generally acknowledged that the practice ceased in the

early 1980s. The market, and adoption of responsible industry practices, have evolved such that small

fish are no longer targeted. Catch-at-age data for the South Coast (predominately M. capensis) are

only available after 1988, subsequent to the phasing-out of “liners.”

CPUE data have been recorded since the 1950s for the West coast and since the late 1960s for the

South coast. Detailed effort data were not available prior to the late 1970s, and nominal CPUE was in

tonnes per day (with some gross adjustments for vessel power). Additionally, these early CPUE data

are aggregated over species and there is no way to disaggregate them. Subsequently, data were

recorded by day and by spatial grid and currently the trawl CPUE is standardised using General

Linear Modelling (GLM) approaches (discussed under the Modelling section, 5.5.2).

Historical species-aggregated CPUE for the West coast (predominately M. paradoxus) declined by

about 75% from 1955 to the late 1970s, whilst South coast species-aggregated CPUE (predominately

M. capensis) declined by about 65% during the same period. Since then, the M. paradoxus

standardized CPUE varied without trend for twenty years and appears to have been lower but stable

(West coast) or increasing (South coast) in the last decade (Figure 5.). M. capensis standardized

CPUE increased somewhat from 1977, was stable throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and has been

increasing since at least 2007 on both coasts.




Page 30

Figure 5: Recent trends in the GLM-standardised commercial CPUE and abundance indices for M.

paradoxus (open circles) and M. capensis (black diamonds) from trawl surveys that are

used in the TAC computation. The survey abundance estimates shown incorporates the

calibration factors specified in the OMP for the years in which the new gear was used on

the RV Africana.

Fishery-independent surveys on the West coast and on the South coast are also used to monitor stock

status. West coast surveys were completed bi-annually (summer and winter) from 1983 to 1990, and

in summer only from 1991 onwards. During the summer survey of 1989, the research vessel (RV)

Africana broke down after only 25 stations were completed and the survey was aborted. Surveys

subsequent to this were successfully completed with the exception of 1993 (where portions of the

inshore strata were not adequately surveyed) and 1998 (when no surveys were completed as the RV

Africana was undergoing a complete re-fit). In 2000 and 2001 the RV Dr Fridtjof Nansen was used to

conduct the surveys due to further technical problems with the RV Africana.

The first of the south coast surveys was completed in spring (September) 1986 and the first autumn

(April/May) survey was completed in 1988. The following two autumn surveys were only completed

within the 200m depth contour, as were the spring surveys from 1990 to 1995. With the exception of

2001 and 2002, surveys of the entire south coast shelf up to 500m have been completed every autumn

since 1999 (although the Dr Fridtjof Nansen was used in 2000).

In 2002 the Africana resumed operations, completing all surveys until April 2012, subsequent to

which the vessel has not been operational. The “new” gear has been used on all surveys since 2004,

with the exception of 2006 and 2010 when the “old” gear was used for calibration purposes. The

commercial fishing vessel Andromeda, considered equivalent to the Africana in terms of trawling

efficiency, was used in 2013 (summer west coast) and 2014 (summer west coast and autumn south




Page 31

coast surveys).

The research vessel surveys use standardized net tows in specified area strata to compute “swept area”

estimates of total hake biomass present. Detailed data on the catch samples include catch-at-size

(which is converted to sample catch-at-age and selectivity for the surveys) and proportion of each

species in the catch (which is used for proportioning the commercial catch into the two species).

Swept area methods in fisheries surveys are seldom considered to be absolute measures of total

biomass, and survey cpue is more usually interpreted as an index of biomass. This is the case in the

RSA hake stock assessments, which include examination of efficiencies relative to swept area

methods. The surveys show considerable annual variability, to the extent that it is not possible to

distinguish trends between the survey indices and the commercial CPUE on a purely statistical basis.

It can be seen for Figure 5 above that recent M. paradoxus survey indices showed no trend (as did

commercial cpue) on the West Coast, but decreased slightly on the South Coast, where commercial

cpue increased, whilst survey indices for M. capensis varied but with no trend on both coasts, in

contrast to commercial cpue which increased in both areas. Note that the commercial cpue carries

more weight in the stock assessments.

5.5.2 Assessment Modelling

The assessment of the two RSA hake stocks involves multiple levels of modelling, including:

1. GLM models constructed for the standardisation of CPUE;

2. population models constructed to represent hypotheses on how the stocks are growing and

reproducing (to compare to the empirical data);

3. Maximum likelihood model fitting procedures to estimate parameters that provide the best

match between the population model and the empirical data;

4. Projections of stock status using alternative future management approaches

5. The development of Operational Management Procedures (OMPs) to examine uncertainties

and to structure the management advice.

A detailed account of the historical development of the RSA hake stock assessment approach is

provided in the first MSC re-assessment report (MM, 2004), and will not be repeated here. As

mentioned above, at the time of the original MSC certification management and assessments were

conducted for West and South coast hake “stocks” in which the two species were aggregated. The

assessment model used was an Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM). This is a common

modelling approach used when the data series of catch is relatively long compared to the catch-at-age

data series , and is usually measured with error. An ASPM generates an annual series of population

data based upon estimates of:

a) stock size in the initial year of the analysis

b) annual catch that is removed by the relevant fisheries; the selectivity (vulnerability at each

age) of the fish to each fishing gear

c) weight-at-age of fish in the catch

d) stock–recruitment relationship

e) natural mortality rate (M) at age.




Page 32

The ASPM “reconstructs” an annual time series of a population’s biomass, catch-at-age and other

population parameters. Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) methods are then used to estimate

the most appropriate set of population parameters that will maximise the match between the observed

(empirical: indices of abundance, catch at age) and the predicted reconstructed population (ASPM-

generated) data. The estimated values of the parameters are used to compute management quantities,

such as the level of depletion relative to initial population biomass and relative to Maximum

Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels.

The basic modelling approach continues to be the ASPM, but with the improvement in species-

specific data the assessments are now separate for M. paradoxus and M. capensis, rather than separate

for West Coast versus South Coast with species combined. However, the assessments are integrated

through the same modelling procedure, which allows species–disaggregated data to be utilized where

they are available and species-aggregated data to be used when they cannot be apportioned by species.

In the hake assessments, the empirical data are the annual catches; the catch-at-age for selected years

both from the trawl fleet and from the fishery-independent surveys; GLM standardised CPUE

estimates of indices of abundance; and fishery-independent survey indices of abundance. The

parameters estimated are the unexploited stock size; selectivity-at-age models for the commercial and

fishery-independent indices; natural mortality rate at age; and the stock–recruitment relationship and

residuals. While the baseline assessment is now species-specific, a species–combined assessment is

done for purposes of historical comparison.

Rademeyer (2013) states that the models fit the index data reasonably well, whereas the fits to catch at

age data were less well defined. Anomalies in the assessment results, which do not limit the

immediate management use of the assessment, include estimated mortality rates at age, recruitment

productivity and the annual recruitment variability. The assessment indicated uncertainties in several

factors which were evaluated through sensitivity analysis and more formally through management

strategy evaluation in the context of development of the OMP discussed below.

The assessments models developed and implemented by MCM and its contractors are subjected to

various reviews through MCM’s Demersal Working Group. Industry, through their consultants,

participate in the debates of the Working Group and have been influential in guiding the research.

Additionally, external reviews have been obtained through the BENEFIT stock assessment

workshops, which facilitates the development of Angolan, Namibian and South African capacity for

quantitative assessment of their fish stocks through this programme.




Page 33

5.6 Management advice

Management advice and the associated TAC’s for South African hake have been developed through

OMPs, which are designed to develop robust management based upon projections of management

alternatives under the range of uncertainties in the assessment. Various management objectives, risks

and constraints are agreed upon, tested in the simulations, and then form the basis of management

actions. An OMP is built on the premise that major changes are unlikely to occur in an assessment

from one year to the next; that full assessments conducted annually, accompanied by debates and

management negotiations, may be counter-productive to long-term management strategies; and that

human resources (government managers, scientists and industry) are limited.

The South African hake OMP specifies a set of data to be used in the OMP, the formulae and models

that use those data to determine the TAC, and the associated process of selection. This includes

extensive simulation testing of the consequences of alternative assumptions about population

dynamics and how management quantities react to those alternatives. The simplified formulae are

updated annually in order to determine the TAC. By so doing, the need for a full assessment every

year is avoided, but there is a requirement that the formulae do not deviate greatly from the

assessment projections.

Originally, the OMP focused on West Coast hake where the “stock” was determined to be in need of

recovery. In 1998, the broad guidelines for the OMP were that there be a high probability of the

biomass recovering to the MSY level within 10 years, and that there be a low probability of any

decline in biomass or of a reduction in TAC during the initial years of recovery. These objectives

were evaluated with alternative assumptions about different hake dynamics. The alternatives included

levels of recruitment variability, bias in the CPUE indices as indicators of abundance trends; different

discarding levels; absence of future surveys; different natural mortality rates at age; and regime shifts

(changes in overall productive capacity of stock). Currently, the species-specific stock assessments

indicate that the chief concern for the West coast is that M. paradoxus is below MSY levels. M.

capensis has been above MSY level since about 1980.

The objectives that were identified for this fishery are essentially three-fold:

improve catch rates quickly in the short-to-medium term: catch rates for offshore trawlers

have decreased appreciably since the turn of the century. Given an increasing fuel price, it

would become increasingly difficult for this fishery to operate profitably unless catch rates

improve substantially;

increase the M. paradoxus biomass level to close to the MSY level over 20 years; and

after likely large initial cuts to achieve improvements in catch rates, maintain TAC stability

over time.

Given these objectives, the OMP de facto became a formal recovery plan for the M. paradoxus

resource, and was constrained to assure not only the recovery of M. paradoxus within the required

time frame, but also that there is a small probability that the resource declines any time within that

time frame. The OMP selected in 2010 placed a limitation on the maximum allowed inter-annual




Page 34

TAC change of 10% after a fixed three-year phase down of 7.5% per annum in the TAC.

The recommended TAC for 2014 was 155,280t (156,075t in 2013), of which 119,549t relates to. M.

paradoxus and 35,730t to M. capensis (Rademeyer, 2013). Note that, currently, regulation of the hake

fishery cannot practically be done separately by species, and catch allocations by species are

integrated into a single TAC.

The stock assessment analyses and the OMP development have attempted to develop appropriate

recovery strategies for M. paradoxus, as reflected in the management advice outlined above. As in

many recovery plans, however, the recovery period is lengthy. It is, therefore imperative that the

recovery process be closely monitored through periodic assessments and, perhaps more importantly,

through monitoring the fishery and survey cpue (a key design feature of the OMP).

5.7 Assessment of current stock status

The OMP used in RSA hake management and assessments is philosophically different from the usual

stock assessment procedures, in which the assessors choose a “base case” that reflects some

perception of median or mean tendency of the status of the stock. The OMP process avoids this by

focusing on a large set of possible biological scenarios (a “reference set”) without assigning them

some arbitrary probability. The OMP evaluation objectives are to develop the management actions

which most robustly address the uncertainties identified in the reference set and in further robustness

tests.

The Reference Case assessment of the RSA hake resource was updated in 2013, using the same

methodology as that used in developing the existing OMP (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2010), but

with revised and updated data sets. Compared with the 2012 assessment (Rademeyer, 2012), the 2013

assessment included new commercial data (catches, length distribution and CPUE), but no new survey

data are available (see 5.7.3). The main change is the inclusion of new long-line catch-at-length data

subsequent to 2000.

The methodology (details are provided in Appendix B of Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2013) involves

comparing 6 assessments that incorporate the updated data. These are:

1. RS1-2012: the 2012 routine update (Rademeyer, 2012);

2. RS1-2013a: a comparable assessment to RS1-2012 with updated catches and CPUE data to

2012;

3. RS1-2013b: as RS1-2013a, with updated maturity-at-length (Singh et al. 2011) and length–

weight parameters (Singh 2013);

4. RS1-2013c: as RS1-2013b, with further commercial offshore trawl catch-at-length data

(details in Appendix 1 of Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2013);

5. RS1-2013d: as RS1-2013c, with further commercial longline catch-at-length data (details in

Appendix 1 of Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2013);

6. RS1-2013e: as RS1-2013d, with different selectivity curves estimated for the longline fleet on

the West and South Coasts for M. capensis.




Page 35

The last assessment (6) is termed the “new Reference Case” (new RC) and was used for estimating

stock status in 2013 and the 2014 TAC.

Because the assessment methodology used for the RSA hake fishery is unique [it is not a simple

virtual population analysis, and its output reflects the objectives of balancing resource sustainability –

risk - with fishing opportunities – reward], we have presented a synopsis of the model below. Readers

wishing to skip this technical section should move forward to section 5.7.9.

5.7.1 The assessment model

The model used is a sex-disaggregated Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM), which is fitted

directly to age-length keys (ALKs) and length frequency distributions. The model assesses the two

hake species as two independent stocks and is fitted to species-disaggregated data as well as species-

combined data. The general specifications of the overall model are set out below, together with some

key choices in the implementation of the methodology. Details of data and parameterisation can be

found in Appendix B of Rademeyer and Butterworth (2013).

5.7.2 Population Dynamics

The resource dynamics of the two RSA hake populations (M. capensis and M. paradoxus) are

modelled using information on the number of hake by sex and age caught in each year by fleet; the

recruitment (of 0-year-old fish) of fish by sex at the start of each year; a maximum age considered

(taken to be a plus-group); natural mortality rate by sex and age; and fishing mortality.

Two species-aggregated commercial CPUE indices are available: the ICSEAF West Coast and the

ICSEAF South Coast series. Catchability (q) for each species (and zone) are forced to be in the same

proportion. Commercial proportions at length cannot be disaggregated by species and gender. The

model is therefore fit to the proportions at length as determined for both species and sex combined.

The number of recruits is assumed to be related to the corresponding female spawning stock biomass

(SSB), on the assumption that there are always sufficient males to provide adequate fertilisation. The

recruitment and corresponding female SSB are related by means of the Beverton–Holt (Beverton and

Holt 1957) or a modified (generalised) form of the Ricker stock–recruitment relationship.

The model estimate of the mid-year exploitable biomass for each hake species and fleet is calculated

by converting the estimated numbers-at-age into mid-year biomass-at-age and applying natural and

fishing mortality for half the year.

The model estimates the survey biomass at the start of the year (summer) on the basis that both the

spring and autumn surveys are taken to correspond to winter (mid-year). It is assumed that the

resource is at the deterministic equilibrium that corresponds to an absence of harvesting at the start of

the initial year considered, i.e., 1917 when catches commence.

To estimate model parameters, the model is fit to CPUE and survey biomass indices, commercial and

survey length frequencies and survey ALKs, as well as to the stock-recruitment curve.




Page 36

5.7.3 Survey biomass indices

Data from the surveys are treated as biomass indices in a similar manner to the species-disaggregated

commercial CPUE series, with survey selectivity function replacing the commercial selectivity.

Though an estimate of sampling variance is available for most surveys, these estimates probably fail

to include all sources of variability, and unrealistically high precision (low variance and hence high

weight) could hence be accorded to these indices.

In June 2003, the trawl gear on the RV Africana was changed and a different value for q is taken to

apply to the surveys conducted with the new gear. Calibration experiments have been conducted

between the RV Africana with the old gear (hereafter referred to as the “old Africana”) and the RV Dr

Fridtjof Nansen, and between the RV Africana with the new gear (“new Africana”) and the RV Dr

Fridtjof Nansen. A large decrease in catch efficiency for M. capensis was estimated for the new

research survey trawl net, for which no plausible explanation has yet been found. It was recommended

(BENEFIT 2004) that the ratio of the catchability of the new to the old Africana net is taken as 0.8.

The survey’s coefficients of catchability (for the survey with the old Africana gear) are constrained to

values below 1 (i.e. it is assumed that the nets do not herd the hake).

The survey proportions at length are disaggregated by species and, for some years, further

disaggregated by gender.

ALKs are derived under the assumption that fish are sampled randomly with respect to age within

each length-class. Note that only one trained otolith reader is available at present.

5.7.4 Stock–recruitment function

The stock–recruitment residuals are assumed to be log-normally distributed and are estimated for

years 1985 to 2006, with recruitment for other years being set deterministically (i.e. exactly as given

by the estimated stock–recruitment curve) as there is insufficient catch-at-age information to allow

reliable residual estimation for earlier years. A limit on the recent recruitment fluctuations is set by

progressively forcing recruitment over the more recent years to lie closer to the stock–recruitment

relationship curve. Stock–recruitment residuals are estimated separately for each species from 1985 to

the present, and set to zero pre-1985 because there are no catch-at-length data for that period to

provide the information necessary to inform estimation. The results for the reference set of operating

models (OM) for testing the 2014 OMP revision for the South African hake resource (Rademeyer and

Butterworth, May 2014) are shown in Figure 6.

The design for this proposed reference set covered three major areas of uncertainty: 3 centre-years for

the change in the preponderance from M. capensis to M. paradoxus in the catch (1950, 1958 and

1965); 3 natural mortality vectors ("Mmed": M2-=0.75 and M5+=0.375, "Mlow": M2-=0.6 and

M5+=0.25 and "Mhigh": M2-=0.9 and M5+=0.5); and 3 stock–recruitment relationship models (Ricker:

modified Ricker and Beverton–Holt) (see Rademeyer 2014).

Testing showed that when the BH stock–recruitment function is assumed, if spawning biomass drops

below the lowest levels that occurred in the past (Bmin) under catch limits set unduly high, there is

hardly any consequent penalty to future resource prospects as a result of “recruitment overfishing”. To




Page 37

allow for this possibility, a less optimistic relationship of recruitment to spawning biomass is assumed

when this biomass falls below its lowest previous level. This makes no difference in terms of the fit of

the assessment model, but if for the original fit Bmsy/K fell below Bmin, MSY decreases although Bmsy

and Fmsy remain unchanged.

Secondly, it was decided to reduce the number of OMs (27) in the initial reference set (there were 10

OMs used in 2010) by including only combinations where both the natural mortality vector and the

year of the reversal in species dominance are changed from their central choices. This leads to a

revised set of 15 OMs.

Figure 6 shows the estimated stock-recruitment curves for each of the 15 OMs of the revised set for

M. paradoxus and M. capensis, grouped by level of natural mortality (R&B 2014). Whichever

scenario is chosen, it is apparent that recruitment levels of both M. paradoxus and M. capensis are

sustained even at the lowest SSB levels recorded, and that this level (in 2007) could taken as a proxy

for Blim. The actual SSB value depends on the reference set of OMs used.




Page 38

Figure 6: Estimated stock–recruitment curves for each of the 15 OMs of the revised set for M.

paradoxus and M. capensis, grouped by level of natural mortality. In each plot, the "data"

are plotted for a single OM, corresponding to the modified Ricker stock-recruitment

curve and 1958 centre-year.




Page 39

5.7.5 Model parameters

The primary parameters estimated in the model are the species-specific female virgin SSB (B0) and

“steepness” of the stock-recruitment relationship.

The species- and gender-specific von Bertalanffy growth curve parameters (l∞, and t0) are estimated

directly in the model fitting process, as well as B0 and values used to compute the standard deviation

of the length-at-age.

5.7.6 Survey fishing selectivity at length:

The survey selectivities are estimated directly for seven pre-determined lengths for M. paradoxus and

M. capensis and are survey specific (at constant intervals between the minus and plus groups).

Between these lengths, selectivity is assumed to change linearly.

For the South Coast spring and autumn surveys, gender-specific selectivities are estimated for M.

paradoxus. Furthermore, the female selectivities are scaled down by a parameter estimated for each of

these two surveys to allow for the male predominance in the survey catch.

5.7.7 Commercial fishing selectivity at length:

The fishing selectivity-at-length (sex-independent) for each species and fleet is estimated in terms of a

logistic curve, and may be modified to include a decrease in selectivity at larger lengths. Periods of

fixed and changing selectivity have been assumed for the offshore trawl fleet catches to take account

of the change in the selectivity at low ages over time, due (probably) to the phasing out of the (illegal)

use of net liners.

On the South Coast, the female M. paradoxus offshore trawl selectivity (only the trawl fleet is

assumed to catch M. paradoxus on the South Coast) is scaled down by a factor taken as the average of

those estimated for the South Coast spring and autumn surveys. Although there is no gender

information for the commercial catches, the South Coast spring and autumn surveys catch a much

higher proportion of male M. paradoxus than female (ratios of about 7:1 and 3.5:1 for spring and

autumn respectively). This is assumed to reflect a difference in distribution of the two sexes that

would therefore affect the commercial fleet similarly.

5.7.8 Input parameters and other choice for application to hake

The proportion of fish by hake species, sex and length that are mature is assumed to follow a logistic

curve with the parameter values l50 41.53 cm and delta = 2.98 for female M. paradoxus , and l50 53.83

and delta = 10.14 for M. capensis (from Singh et al. 2011).

The RC assumes natural mortality is fixed at 0.75 for ages 0 and 1 and at 0.375 for ages 6 and above,

with a linear trend between these two values for ages 2 to 5.

The weight at length for each species and gender is calculated from the functions published by

Fairweather (2008), averaged for the West and South coasts.




Page 40

Finally, the OMP was developed based upon the Beverton-Holt rather than a Ricker function. The net

effect is that the estimated status relative to carrying capacity (K=B0) and relative to BMSY are smaller

than would have been if those modeling modifications had been made. These actions were

implemented with a precautionary intent in the OMP evaluation.

5.7.9 Results of the 2013 assessment

Rademeyer and Butterworth (2013) report that the fits to the CPUE and survey abundance indices for

RS1-2012 and the 2013 new Reference Case (RC) are reasonable for all series. The estimated

commercial selectivity curves for the new RC show a decrease for large fish, apart for the South Coast

offshore trawl fleet for M. paradoxus. For M. capensis, this decrease is estimated for all fleets apart

from the offshore trawl and South Coast handline fleets. The fits to the survey sex–aggregated and

gender-disaggregated catch-at-length data, and to the commercial catch-at-length data, averaged over

all the years for which data are available, are “reasonable”.

Although results do change with the inclusion of the updated catches, CPUE (RS1-2013a), with the

change in the maturity-at-length and length weight relationships (RS1-2013b) and with the inclusion

of the new offshore trawl catches (RS1-2013c), the changes is small. The current status of the

resources appears to be broadly unchanged, with M. paradoxus close to the MSY level and M.

capensis well above it (see Figure 7).

The picture is rather different for M. paradoxus when the new longline catch-at-length data are

included (RS1-2013d and RS1-2013e), when it is evident that a change in selectivity over time is

necessary for the model to fit to the data. Two changes have been made to the manner in which

longline selectivities are modelled compared to preceding analyses. With the availability of species-

disaggregated longline data for the West Coast, a selectivity curve can be estimated directly for M.

capensis, rather than assuming the same selectivity curve as on the South Coast. Also, three periods of

differing selectivities have been assumed to better reflect the patterns in these catch-at-length data,

namely pre-2000, 2000–2005 and 2006 onwards, which are taken to apply to both M. paradoxus and

M. capensis. These changes are justified in that the patterns in the residuals are much reduced in the

new RC compared with RS1-2013d, and that over time this fishery has shifted its focus to include

more of the smaller hake.

It is not clear why including new longline catch-at-length data results in a rather different perception

of the current status of M. paradoxus. In changing from the survey abundance indices to the

commercial catch-at-length data, the fits improve for both the commercial trawl (slightly) and the

longline data, and the net weight accorded to these data increases relative to the abundance index data,

leading to the change in results.

5.7.10 Stock status in relation to reference points

The 2013 assessment estimates that current M. paradoxus female SSB is about 21% of the initial

(unexploited) SSB (B0) and about 98% of the SSB at MSY. The current estimate of MSY is about

111,000t.




Page 41

The 2013 assessment estimates that current M. capensis female SSB is about 68% of B0 and 3.17

times the SSB at MSY. The current estimate of MSY is about 62,000t.

Figure 7: Trajectories of female SSB for South African hake (in terms of pre-exploitation level) for

the five assessments. The horizontal lines represent BMSY (i.e. Maximum Sustainable

Yield Level, MSYL).

Subsequent to the assessment results submitted to the International Workshop (IWS) held in 2013 to

review the management of the hake fishery, SADSTIA provided a revised assessment in May 2014

(the site visit was in March 2014). The estimate of M. paradoxus SSB at 68% of the MSYL, rather

than the estimate of 98% produced during a routine update of the assessments earlier in 2013, was due

to the inclusion of catch-at-length (CAL) data for the longline fishery. However these longline CAL

data were included in their sex aggregated form, and the IWS panel of international peer reviewers

recommended that these data be treated in sex disaggregated form (among other recommendations,

including accommodation of the change in survey catchability associated with the use of a new gear

by RV Africana (see Table 1, Model 1 of Smith et al., 2013)). The new assessment reflected work

carried out in response to the panel’s recommendations, as part of the redevelopment of the OMP

scheduled in September 2014, and the following summarises the results of a number of papers

submitted to the DWG during 2014 which address this.




Page 42

OLRAC-SPS (2014) repeated the assessments submitted to the IWS in 2013, but used sex

disaggregated longline CAL data and changed the logistic/exponential longline fishing selectivity

function to double normal functions. Their “best estimate” was that the M. paradoxus SSB is 3%

above the MSYL.

Rademeyer (2014) implemented a number of changes to the assessment model in a sequential fashion,

incorporating the IWS panel recommendations about calibration factors; sex disaggregated longline

CAL data, with sex specific double–normal selectivity functions; extending the use of the double–

normal selectivity function to all commercial fleets; and utilising more recent estimates of longline

catches by species and coast (West or South). The modifications used either improved the LLF or

were deemed to be more scientifically defensible. The estimate of M. paradoxus SSB was at 93% of

MSYL (-LLF = -180.2), and this was approved by all parties as the reference case for the future

redevelopment of the OMP.

Finally, following input from a specially appointed task team, Rademeyer and Butterworth (2014)

produced a proposed reference set that had a slightly better fit to the reference case (-LLF = -181.3),

and which changed the estimate of the 2013 spawning biomass relative to MSYL from 93% to 98%.

The estimated M. paradoxus female SSB in 2013 is 147,000t (Bsp MSY = 153,000t) and MSY is

estimated at 111,000t.

For M. capensis, the estimated female SSB in 2013 is 188,000t (Bsp MSY = 68,000t) and MSY is

estimated at 62,000t.

Figure 7 shows the median and range (minimum and maximum) SSB trajectories for three sets of

operating models (full initial set; the revised set = reference case assessment; and for the equivalent to

the 2010 RSa) for M. paradoxus and M. capensis. It is apparent that there has been a recovery of M.

paradoxus since the low point in 2007, whilst M. capensis continues to fluctuate at a relatively high

level.

The assessment team note that as this assessment report was being completed, a revised OMP was in

development, and that the outputs from this show that under certain assumptions the female M.

paradoxus SSB may have attained BMSY (i.e. MSYLsp

) in 2012/13. The projections also indicate that

having attained a level at or just below BMSY, the stock biomass is likely to fall, reaching a low point

in 2017 before making a sustained recovery in the longer term (see Figure 8).




Page 43

Figure 8: Output from 11 assessment models showing the ratio of female spawning stock biomass

(Bsp

) relative to MSYLsp

(~ BMSY) for M. paradoxus. The solid line shows the median

estimate. Colours denote 80, 90 and 95% confidence levels. [Source: OLRAC, pers

comm, 2014].

5.8 Other fishery removals

As noted above, some hake are taken by longlines, and this is addressed in the stock assessment. A

small quantity of hake are also caught in the midwater trawl fishery for horse mackerel (Trachurus

trachurus). A catch allocation is made to the midwater trawl sector to allow for this catch to be

landed (this was set at 560t in 2010).

There are no other commercial fishery removals from the hake stocks in South African waters.




Page 44

6 PRINCIPLE TWO: ECOSYSTEM BACKGROUND

6.1 Interactions with non-target fish species

Fisheries can interact with non-target species in two main ways: one is through these species

becoming caught and retained by fishing vessels (“Retained catch”) and the other is through non-

target species becoming trapped in fishing gear and then later discarded (“Discarded catch”). These

retained and discarded catches have the potential to adversely affect the stocks of the non-target

species concerned.

There is a considerable amount of information available on the catch of non-target species in South

African trawl fisheries and their management. Much of this information has been generated by the

client during the current (second) period of MSC certification to a condition of certification that

required an improved understanding of the quantity of non-target species caught in the fishery, their

status, and the introduction of appropriate management measures. The client’s actions over the past 5

years have included the funding of an independent fishery observer programme; research into both the

character of the non-target catch; assessments of stock status; and the development of management

proposals.

The text below summarises the key findings of the wealth of work that has been carried out in the past

few years.

6.1.1 A note on terminology

There is some potential for confusion to arise in the discussion of the interaction between this fishery

and non-target species because of the differences in the use of terminology between the MSC

Certification Requirements and workers in South Africa.

Most of the South African workers use the term “bycatch” to denote the catch of non-target species in

a fishery prior to any sorting of the catch. By contrast, the MSC use the term “bycatch” to denote the

species discarded from the fishery (excluding the discards of undersized target species).

To avoid confusion in this document, we have used the terminology below:-

Non-target species – this describes the catch of non-target species. It is equivalent to the

South African usage of the term “bycatch”.

Retained species – these are the non-target species that are retained aboard fishing vessels

and subsequently landed by them.

Discarded species – these are the non-target species that are thrown back into the sea after

capture, and which are not landed. This term is equivalent to the MSC CR usage of the term

“bycatch”.




Page 45

6.2 Catch composition

The catch composition of South African trawl fisheries has been examined through several different

observer programmes over the past 19 years, starting with a pilot programme in 1995. With the

exception of 2007 there is now a continuous record of the catch of non-target species for the hake-

directed trawl fishery since 2003, with a minimum of 1,000 observed trawls per annum. These data

show that the overall catch of non-target species in the hake trawl fishery varies between 12 and 27%.

The bulk of trawling occurs on the outer continental shelf, where the catch is dominated by the

deepwater hake M. paradoxus and catches of non-target species are generally low. Inshore areas

where M. capensis predominates typically have a higher catch rate of non-target species.

The findings of each programme have been analysed and published in reports and in peer-reviewed

scientific papers. A brief summary of the relevant findings of these observer programmes is presented

below.

6.2.1 Pilot Observer Programme: 1995-2000

During the period 1995-2000 fishery observers collected data on the total catch composition of over

1,000 trawl hauls in the South African EEZ (614 hauls off the south coast and 479 off the west coast).

The findings of this programme are reported in Walmsley et al, 2007 and summarised here.

This observer programme recorded 70 species from trawl samples, including the target species (M.

capensis and M. paradoxus and also the Agulhas sole (Austroglossus pectoralis) which is targetted by

the trawl fleet in inshore areas. The hake directed trawl fishery in inshore areas (using 110mm mesh

cod-ends) was found to catch 54% M. capensis, and the sole-directed fishery (using 70mm mesh cod-

ends) caught 61% M. capensis and 17% A. pectoralis.

Catch composition was found to vary considerably between areas. Off the south coast, in inshore

waters, species other than hake made up between 12% and 47% of the catch, but further offshore in

deeper waters and along the west coast the catch was dominated by hake.

Discarding rates were monitored in this observer programme. Discards of all species (including the

target species) were estimated to be 5.4% in the inshore hake trawl fishery and 19.2% in the sole-

directed fishery time.

The findings of this pilot observer programme were used to inform a more extensive and improved

observer programme which was established in 2002, and which is considered next.

6.2.2 Government Observer Programme, OROP: 2002–06

In mid-2002 the South African Government’s Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries

(DAFF) established an observer programme for the trawl fishery. This Offshore Resource Observer

Programme (OROP) ran from 2002–2011 and gathered data on the catch of non-target species from

2002–06.

OROP examined the species composition of trawl catches (100kg samples of the catch taken direct




Page 46

from the cod-end before sorting). The programme therefore provided information about the catch of

target and non-target species.

The data gathered by the OROP observer programme has recently been analysed to provide details of

catch composition in the inshore trawl fishery (analysis set out in Attwood et al, 2011) and the

offshore trawl fishery (analysed in Daneel & Attwood, 2013). The key findings of these two studies

are summarised below.

6.2.2.1 Offshore trawl area: 2002-06

Over the period 2002-2006 the OROP observer programme resulted in over 700 observer trips aboard

80 offshore trawlers, and monitored over 13,000 trawls on the main hake trawl grounds in the South

African EEZ (see Table 3 and Figure 9). The data gathered by these observers has been examined in

detail by Daneel & Attwood (2013) and some of the key findings of this analysis are summarised

briefly below.

The OROP observers examined catch composition from the trawls, and recorded a total of 170

different species in trawl catches, of which hake comprised over 73% of the total catch overall. Most

of the catch in the offshore trawl fishery comprised hake and a few other species. The average annual

catch composition from the observations make over this period is shown in Table 4. None of the non-

target species observed during this period made up more than 5% of the catch. The catch was

examined for spatial and temporal patterns.

The spatial analysis of catch data found that there were five distinct “clusters”, where the catch

composition was significantly different from other areas. Most of the offshore zone catch

composition belonged to “Cluster C” (see Figure 10). In most of the offshore trawl zone the catch is

dominated by the hake species. The only area that is an exception to this trend is “Cluster D”, an area

off Saldanha Bay in the Western Cape, where the catch composition is reversed (due to high catches

of snoek and other non-target species), and hake make up just over 17% of the catch here.

6.2.2.2 Offshore trawl area: 2007-12

Over the period 2002-2011 the OROP observer programme resulted in over 1150 observer trips

aboard 101 offshore trawlers, and monitored over 26,000 trawls on the main hake trawl grounds in the

South African EEZ (see Table 3 and Figure 9). The data gathered by these observers has been

examined in detail by Daneel & Attwood (2013) and some of the key findings of this analysis are

summarised briefly below.

The OROP observers examined catch composition from the trawls, and recorded a total of 170

different species in trawl catches, of which hake comprised over 73% of the total catch overall. Most

of the catch in the offshore trawl fishery comprised of hake and a few other species. The average

annual catch composition from the observations make over this period is shown in Table 4. None of

the non-target species observed during this period made up more than 5% of the catch. The catch was

examined for spatial and temporal patterns.

The spatial analysis of catch data found that there were five distinct “clusters”, where the catch




Page 47

composition was significantly different from other areas. Most of the offshore zone catch

composition belonged to “Cluster C” (see Figure 10). In most of the offshore trawl zone the catch is

dominated by the hake species. The only area that is an exception to this trend is “Cluster D”, an area

off Saldanha Bay in the Western Cape, where the catch composition is reversed (due to high catches

of snoek and other non-target species), and hake make up just over 17% of the catch here.




Page 48

Table 3. Summary of offshore trawl fishery observer programme (OROP) coverage over the period November 2002- October 2011. [Source: Daneel &

Attwood, 2013 and updated by Smith 2014].

OROP data Nov

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Oct

2011

Over all

years

Over all years

(excluding 2002

and 2011)

Number of trawl

monitored 686 4501 3858 3820 4472 946 2888 3394 1847 208 26620 25726

% of the years total

trawls monitored 1.6 9.9 7.6 7.1 9.1 2.2 8.3 14.2 8.0 0.8 6.3 7.3

Number of vessels

monitored 22 61 58 60 56 25 46 48 32 9 101 101

% of total vessels

monitored 22.7 58.1 56.3 56.1 56.0 25.5 54.1 72.7 47.1 14.1 75.9 79.5

Number of trips with an

observer 30 191 179 167 190 36 126 139 77 15 1150 1105

% of trips with an

observer 1.2 7.2 6.6 6.1 7.5 1.6 6.7 9.4 5.2 0.9 4.9 5.7




Page 49

Table 3: Summary of offshore trawl fishery observer programme (OROP) coverage over the

period 2002-06. [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013].

Table 4: Summary of bycatch composition (including both retained and discarded individuals) for

the most abundant non-target species from 13,030 offshore trawl hauls monitored

between 2002 and 2006 [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013].

Scientific Name Common Name Estimated annual catch,

2002-2006 (kg)

Percentage of catch*

Merluccius paradoxus Deep water hake 71,553,353.98 65.0% 80%

Merluccius capensis Cape hake 14,623,479.44 13.3%

Merluccius spp. Unidentifed hake 2,261,651.03 2.1%

Lophius vomerinus Monkfish 4,308,903.86 3.9% 3.9%

Genupterus capensis Kingklip 3,904,501.70 3.5% 3.5%

Lepidopus caudatus Ribbonfish 3,449,887.71 3.1% 3.1%

Thyrsites atun Snoek 2,695,564.03 2.4% 2.4%

Helicolenus dactylopterus Jacopever 1,710,662.00 1.6% 1.6%

Trachurus trachurus Horse mackerel /

Maasbanker

1,272,562.21 1.2% 1.2%

Zeus capensis Cape Dory 1,071,335.77 1.0% 1.0%

Squalus spp. Dogfish 755,777.01 0.7% 0.7%

Brama brama Atlantic pomfret /

Angelfish

743,366.46 0.7% 0.7%

Coelorinchus simorhynchus Rough rattail 741,649.84 0.7% 0.7%

Malacocephalus laevis Softhead grenadier 573,413.82 0.5% 0.5%

Toderopsis spp. Red squid 393,252.40 0.4% 0.4%

* Note that this percentage has been calculated from the estimated annual catch of the top 15 catch

components, and not all 170 species recorded; all percentages given here are therefore slightly higher

than those in the source publication.




Page 50

Figure 9 Map of the distribution of offshore hake trawl activity (shaded cells) compared with

observer coverage over the period 2002-2006 [Source: Daneel & Attwood, 2013].

Figure 10: Map of the South African hake offshore trawl grounds showing grid cells coloured

according to similarity “clusters” identified from analysis of catch composition. [Source:

Daneel & Attwood, 2013].




Page 51

6.2.2.3 Inshore trawl area: 2002-06

A study of the catch composition from OROP observer trips aboard inshore trawlers over the period

2002-06 has been published (Attwood et al, 2011). The key findings of this study are summarised

here.

The inshore trawl vessels target both hake (M. capensis) and Agulhas sole (Austroglossus pectoralis).

Most of the trawling activity is for hake; only 3% of the inshore catch is of sole. A total of 137

species (including hake and sole) were recorded by observers on inshore trawl vessels targeting both

hake and sole during the period 2002-06. The catch of non-target species was examined independent

of the target species (i.e. the sole fishery data could not be separated from the hake fishery data; the

authors considered that this gave a more precautionary view of the catch composition in that the sole

fishery caught more non-target species than the hake fishery).

Thirteen of the species caught by inshore trawlers made up 1% or more of the total catch (see Table

5). These species also comprised 95% of the total catch, and included M. capensis (55.37%) and M.

paradoxus (2.45%). Two non-target species made up more than 5% of the catch in the inshore

fishery: horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) and Panga (Pterogymnus laniarius).

Table 5: Annual average catch for the inshore trawl fleet, 2003-06, based on unsorted samples

taken by independent observers. [Source: Attwood et al, 2011].

LCI = Lower Confidence Interval

UCI = Upper Confidence Interval

Discarding practices were examined by Attwood et al (2011) by examining the composition of the

species discarded (which were mostly small hake) and from comparisons of the observers’ catch

estimates and the reported landings. Although it was not possible to compute the total discards or the

discard rate, it was reported that discarding rates were low. This is because most of the fish caught in

the inshore trawl fishery are marketable. The retained catch of non-target species is locally termed

“joint product” and can comprise between 15-36% of the value of total landings.

It is noted in the discussion of the findings of this paper that in the period of time since these data

were gathered a number of new management measures have been introduced to manage the catch of

the more abundant non-target species in the hake trawl fishery.




Page 52

6.2.2.4 Industry funded observer programme: 2006-13

Over the period 2006-13 the fishing industry sponsored an observer programme, established initially

to determine the split of M. capensis and M. paradoxus in catches from different areas, and then

extended in 2008 to cover the whole trawl catch (in lieu of the OROP observations, which ceased to

examine the catch of non-target species in 2006).

This observer programme examined the species composition of a 100kg sample of the catch from

each haul observed. A total of 6,064 trawl catches were sampled. The results from this programme

have been analysed by Attwood (2014), for the period 2008-2013, and the key conclusions of this

report are summarised below.

This observer programme included data from inshore and offshore areas, and from both the directed

hake trawl fishery and the Agulhas Sole trawl fishery (prosecuted using 70mm cod-end mesh nets and

in shallower waters than the hake trawl fishery). The sole catch is fixed by a quota at around 500t per

year (Attwood et al, 2011). This equates to around 3% of the total trawl catch in inshore waters (see

Table 5), and is around 0.5% of the total trawl landings from the South African hake and sole

fisheries. Attwood (2014) has not removed data gathered from the sole fishery from the catch

analysis and considers that this provides a more precautionary view of the trawl catch composition,

since the sole fishery is conducted in inshore waters and catches a greater range of non-target species.

A total of 92 species of fish were reported to be caught in trawls during the period of this observer

programme (this is a lower number than the OROP programme reported above and a higher number

than the pilot project, the differences being thought to be a reflection of the sample size of each

programme). Non-target species made up an average of 14% of the hake catch with a range of 12-

16% (see Table 6). Ninety nine percent of the unsorted catch was made up of 10 species of fish, all of

which are landed and marketed (listed in Table 7). The top-ranking non-target species are reported to

have been consistent over the past 18 years.

Table 6: Catch of non-target species (“bycatch rate”) as a proportion of the catch of the two hake

species, and ranking of the top 5 non-target (i.e. non-hake) species for the period 2008-

13. [Source: Attwood, 2014].




Page 53

Table 7: The ten species that made up 99% of unsorted catch of hake-directed trawlers over the

period 2008-13 (in descending order). [Source: Attwood, 2014].

Spatial analysis of the data from this observer programme showed a similar pattern to the earlier

OROP observer data. Including the inshore grounds, there were 6 distinct spatial “clusters” based on

catch composition (see Figure 11). The proportion of non-target species in the catch varied

considerably between these areas, as did their contribution to the total catch from the trawl fishery.

Over 96% of the catch falls into the “cluster c”, where the average catch of non-target species is 16%

(by weight). The highest percentage of non-target species observed was 44% in “cluster f”, which

contributed less than 0.0001% of the total catch (see Table 8).

The more recent data suggest that the catch of non-target species is lower than in the earlier period. It

is considered that this may be due to an increase in hake abundance, a decrease in the abundance of

the other species, or the shift in effort from shallow to deeper fishing grounds.




Page 54

Figure 11: Patterns in species composition among grid squares as indicated by cluster analysis of

observer catch data for the period 2008-13. Each group indicates 50% Bray-Curtis

similarity. Axes indicate latitude and longitude of each grid square. [Source: Attwood,

2014].

Table 8: Contribution of non-target species to the total trawl catch for the areas illustrated in

Figure 11. [Source: Attwood, 2014].

Cluster Estimated contribution to total trawl

catch (%)

Proportion of non-target

species (%)

a 0.8 7

b 0.3 61

c 96.2 16

d 0.4 8

e 2.0 30

f <0.0001 44




Page 55

6.2.2.5 Analysis of catch data: 2000-2010

A review of the catch of non-target species in the RSA hake trawl fishery has been set out in Smith et

al (2013). This review draws together data from fish landings and from observer trips in both the

inshore and offshore hake trawl areas and from both the government and industry-funded observer

programmes. It also examines the status of the main non-target species in the catch.

This review found that hake make up just over 79% of the overall catch. The non-target species that

make up more than 1% of the catch are monkfish, horse mackerel, ribbonfish, kingklip and snoek.

Only one species (monkfish, Lophius vomerinus) made up more than 5% of the catch (see Table 9).

Table 9: Average annual catch estimates and the percentage of each non-target species in the

catch for the period 2000-2010. [Source: Smith et al, 2013].




Page 56

6.2.3 Management of non-target species

The only species caught in the trawl fishery that are managed through a TAC and quotas for

individual operators are two hake species (combined TAC, see section 5.6 above) and Agulhas sole.

There has been no system in place for managing the catch of non-target species until recently. These

management measures are described below.

6.2.3.1 Precautionary Upper Catch Limits (PUCLs)

“Precautionary Upper Catch Limits” (PUCLs) have been introduced for three non-target species

(kingklip, monkfish and horse mackerel) as part of fishing licence conditions for both the offshore and

inshore trawl fleets. These PUCLs set a ceiling on fleet removals of these species for each fishing

year and also require each fishing vessel to reduce the catch of kingklip and monkfish to a level not

exceeding its average catch over the period 1998-2002 (with an additional requirement that the

inshore fleet should reduce its catch of kob to 80% of the average catch for that period).

If either the PUCL or the average catch is exceeded, DAFF may prevent the permit holder(s) in the

offshore fleet from fishing for hake. For the inshore fleet, there is a requirement to take a scientific

observer on board for the remainder of the fishing trips authorised by the permit.

The inshore trawl bycatch task team have recently reported on current management measures and

proposals for future management of the catch of non-target species (DAFF 2014). Options for

implementing limits are being considered for other species. “Experimental thresholds” have been

proposed for 7 more species / species groups (panga, silver kob, carpenter, chokka squid, St Joseph

sharks, skates, and gurnards). This pilot programme has been developed to determine the level at

which the PUCL could be set for each species. This programme would also trial an administrative

system for monitoring and managing PUCL uptake across the fleet (see DAFF, 2013). It has been

proposed that this system should be tested during 2014-15 with a view to formal implementation of a

wider PUCL system in 2016 if appropriate.

During the site visit it was reported that during the 2013 the PUCL uptake for kingklip was higher

than anticipated. After a review of stock status (Brandão & Butterworth, 2013) an upwards revision

of the PUCL limit was made. Some concerns were raised by WWF that this ad-hoc reassessment of

the kingklip stock in 2013 may have lacked rigour and that this event may also have revealed

shortcomings in the management system underpinning the PUCL approach. The status of the kingklip

stock is considered further in section 6.2.5.2.1 of this report.

6.2.3.1.1 Industry-imposed measures

It is noted that SECIFA has imposed its own “PUCL” for the silver kob fishery, limiting the catch to

200t pa.

6.2.3.2 Landing composition

Fishing licence conditions require that offshore trawl permit holders must not direct fishing at any

non-target species. The total amount of hake harvested is required to account for a minimum of 50%

of each landing in terms of landed (processed weight).




Page 57

For the inshore fleet there is a similar but less onerous condition in place:

5.2 The Department intends instituting a per trip limit on by-catch. It is suggested that

the authorised target species (hake, horse mackerel and Agulhas sole) must account

for a minimum of 50% (by weight) of each landing for hake-directed fishing

calculated over the period of validity of this permit.

[Hake Inshore Trawl (Hake & Sole) Permit Conditions]

6.2.3.3 Move–on rules

There are “move on” rules in place for snoek (for offshore trawlers) and silver kob (for inshore

trawlers). These have been implemented as fishing licence conditions for each fleet.

For the offshore fleet, there is a requirement that if the snoek catch exceeds 20% (processed weight)

of the catch of any trawl haul, the fishing vessel should move to a location with a depth at least 50m

different from the fishing position where that catch was taken.

For the inshore fleet, the requirement is that if the catch of cob in any one trawl haul is more than 20%

of the sole catch (when fishing for sole) or 2% of the hake catch (when fishing for hake) then the

vessel must move to an area at least 5 nautical miles from the position where that catch was taken.

6.2.3.4 Restricted areas

The fishing licences issued to the trawl fleet specify certain areas where trawling is not permitted.

There are extensive trawl restrictions along the coast, preventing the offshore fleet from operating in

waters shallower than 110m or within 20 nautical miles of the RSA coast, and also preventing the

inshore trawl fleet from operating in many nearshore areas to protect nursery grounds, areas of high

diversity, and areas fished using lines (these areas are illustrated in Figure 31).

Four areas were proposed as “Fishery Management Areas” (FMAs) in 2013, where restrictions would

help to protect non-target species, particularly silver kob Argyrosomus inodorus, geelbek Atractoscion

aequidens, panga Pterogymnus laniarius, gurnards Chelidonichthys spp, skates Raja spp., carpenter

Argyrozona argyrozona and white stumpnose Rhabdosargus globiceps. (Sink et al, 2013). The FMAs

were proposed at De Hoop, Tsitsikamma, Algoa Bay and Stilbaai, and were identified on the basis of

multiple criteria, primarily minimising the closure of existing fishing grounds while maximising the

representation of by-catch species in protected areas and addressing the protection of benthic habitats.

The De Hoop and Tsitsikamma FMA areas have been established as no-trawl areas through licence

conditions for the inshore and offshore trawl fleet (these are in place to protect both fish and marine

habitats; both areas are Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)). Another no-trawl area has been established

off Cape St Francis to protect spawning kingklip between September and November (see Figure 13).

Trawling is also prohibited within the Bird Island MPA.

The Tsitsikamma MPA was formally established in 2013 and has now been formally established and

extended as an FMA through its designation as a no-trawl area in the 2014 fishing permits. This area




Page 58

covers over 1,357km² of sea, over 1,000km² of which are within the trawl footprint area.

The proposal for the Stillbaai FMA is reported to have been deferred while further work is carried out;

and the Algoa Bay FMA area proposal has been dropped as this area is due to form part of the Addo

Elephant Park Marine Protected Area.




Page 59

Figure 12: Existing and proposed spatial management measures that contribute to bycatch management in the inshore demersal trawl fishery in South

Africa, including proposed Fishery Management Areas (FMAs). [Source: Sink et al, 2013].




Page 60

Figure 13: Kingklip closed area established off Cape St Francis (shaded red) to protect spawning

aggregations from trawling between September and November each year. [Source:

Smith et al, 2013].




Page 61

6.2.3.5 Effort limitation

The number of vessels operating in the trawl fishery is limited by the rights allocation; there is no

prospect of the number of vessels in the trawl fleet increasing.

A sea-day limit is now imposed on all trawlers. This is calculated for each vessel on the basis of its

fishing capacity (calculated from its power) and its quota allocation. The sea-day limit is intended to

prevent the use of excess fishing effort to catch non-target species if the hake quota is fully utilised.

6.2.3.6 Other proposals

A range of other measures for managing the catch of non-target species have been proposed,

including the possibility of establishing a system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs)

(Greenston, 2013). These proposals are being kept under review by a By-catch Task Team (Attwood,

2012; DAFF, 2014).

6.2.4 Status of the observer programme

The observer programmes for the hake trawl fishery have provided a valuable source of information

that enables the catch of both target and non-target species to be assessed with confidence.

During the past few years there have been some problems with the government observer programme.

At the 2013 surveillance audit it was noted that the government observer programme had lapsed and

was due to be reinstated. In 2014 it was found that the contract for the observer programme had not

yet been filled, due to problems with government procurement procedures.

In response, SADSTIA extended its own independently funded observer programme, and has

continued to invest in a higher level of observer coverage in the trawl fishery in lieu of the

government programme.

Information from the SADSTIA-funded programme has been presented during annual surveillance

audits for the fishery over the past few years. Evidence of the SADSTIA programme has been

presented from recent observer trips and from the ongoing analysis of historical data from both the

SADSTIA and government observer trips (see Attwood, 2014; Smith, 2013).

Attwood (2014) reports that

“With the exception of 2007, we now have continuous record of bycatch estimates for the

hake-directed trawl fishery since 2003, with minimum of 1000 observed trawls per annum.

The rate of bycatch lies between 12 and 27%.”

This level of observer coverage under the SADSTIA programme is reported to be higher than that

previously achieved under the government programme, and the SADSTIA observers have also

recorded all species from the catch since 2008.

The information available also shows that SADSTIA observer coverage extends to the inshore fleet as

well as offshore vessels. It is clear that the level of observer coverage and range of information




Page 62

provided under the SADSTIA scheme is capable of detecting any change in the risk status of both

target and non-target species in the trawl fishery.

6.2.5 Status of “Main” non-target catch species

The MSC considers that in general only species that make up 5% or more of the total catch should be

considered “main” non-target species (either as retained or discarded species).

The only species that emerges from the analyses of catch composition (presented in Daneel &

Attwood, 2013; Attwood, 2014; and Smith et al 2013) as contributing more than 5% of the total

(inshore and offshore) catch composition of the South African trawl fishery is the monkfish, Lophius

vomerinus.

6.2.5.1 Monkfish, Lophius vomerinus

Monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) occur from northern Namibia (south of 21°S latitude), around the

southern coast of South Africa, up to Durban (Walmsley et al 2005). They are found mostly on muddy

and sandy substrata across the continental shelf and shelf edge (to about 800m). They are a long-

lived, slow-growing species with a life span of at least 17 years.

The general distribution of the monkfish catch in the hake trawl fishery is shown in Figure 14. The

main catch of monkfish is in waters deeper than 500m and mainly off the western coast. The catch

and catch rate (kg caught per hour of fishing) of monkfish from the commercial fleet are shown in

Figure 15.

There is no directed monkfish survey in South African waters. Stock status can, however, be inferred

from commercial fishery data and also from the annual fishery-independent scientific hake trawl

surveys carried out by DAFF. These data are illustrated in Figure 16.

An assessment of the stock status of monkfish has been carried out (Glazer, 2008; 2011; 2013). This

assessment addressed the limitations in the data available by using a replacement yield model. The

most recent replacement yields for monkfish have been estimated at 7,900t for the west coast and 417t

for the south coast (note that the relative proportion of the catch was adjusted with the boundary

between “west” and “south” coast areas was altered (Glazer et al, 2013). The most recent catch data

indicate that 6,452t of monkfish were caught off the west coast and 301t off the south coast in 2012.

An aggregate Precautionary Upper Catch Limit (PUCL) of 7,000t has been set for the trawl fishery.

The relationship between the PUCL and recent catches is shown in Figure 18.

Trends in the biomass of monkfish off the west and south coasts of South Africa have been most

recently examined by Glazer (2013). The available information suggests that biomass is stable on the

south coast and probably increasing on the west coast (Figure 18).




Page 63

Figure 14: Spatial distribution of average annual monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) catch per year over

the period 2004-10. [Source: Smith et al, 2013].

Figure 15: Total catch (tonnes) and catch rate (kg/hr) for monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) on the west

and south coast of South Africa over the period 2000-2010. [Source: Smith et al, 2014].




Page 64

Figure 16: Fishery-independent survey abundance estimates for monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) off

the west and south coasts of South Africa, 1984-2012 (note that the different symbols

indicate surveys carried out using different methods). [Source: Smith et al, 2013].




Page 65

Figure 17: Median annual estimates of abundance and associated 90% probability intervals for the

biomass of monkfish (Lophius vomerinus) off the west coast and south coast of South

Africa for the period 2009-13. [Source: Glazer, 2013].

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Bio

mas

s (t

)

a) West Coast

p05 median p95

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Bio

mas

s (t

)

b) South Coast

p05 median p95




Page 66

Figure 18: Coast specific catches of monkfish over the period 1991-2012. The current aggregate

Precautionary Upper Catch Limit (PUCL) of 7,000t for both coasts is shown as a

horizontal line. [Source: Glazer, 2013].

6.2.5.2 Other non-target species of interest

Although the threshold set by the MSC for “main” non-target species are those making up more than

5% of the catch, there are some other non-target species that are caught in lower quantities than this in

the hake fishery that are of interest. This is either because they are of interest to other fishers, or

because they form a high proportion of the catch in certain areas.

6.2.5.2.1 Kingklip, Genypterus capensis

During 2013 the PUCL uptake for kingklip was higher than anticipated. During 2013 a review of

kingklip stock status was prepared (Brandão & Butterworth, 2013) which resulted in an upwards

revision of the PUCL limit.

During the site visit some concerns were raised by WWF that the ad-hoc reassessment of the kingklip

stock in 2013 may have lacked rigour and that this event may also have revealed shortcomings in the

management system underpinning the PUCL approach. The assessment team has reviewed the

revised assessment (Brandão & Butterworth, 2013) and the previous assessment (Brandão &

Butterworth, 2008).

The initial assessment in 2008 used an age-structured production model. It found that the south coast

stock biomass was declining, but that the west coast stock biomass was increasing after having

reached a low point in the late 1980s. Combining the stocks suggested a stable or slightly increasing

trajectory.

The 2013 assessment used examined total annual catches and survey abundance indices for the two

kingklip stocks off the south and west coasts over the period 1986 to 2012 using a replacement yield

model. This suggested a steady upward trend in biomass for both the south and west coast stocks

(Figure 19), and resulted in a proposal to set the PUCL at 1,408t for the south coast and 3,856t for the

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Cat

ch (

ton

s)

WC SC PUCL




Page 67

west coast.

Figure 19: Bayesian posterior medians of abundance over the last five years for the West coast

kingklip resource off South Africa. 90% probability interval envelopes are shown as

dashed lines. [Source: Brandão & Butterworth, 2013].

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bio

ma

ss

(t)

Year

West coast

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Bio

ma

ss

(t)

Year

South coast




Page 68

6.2.5.2.2 Silver Kob, Argyrosomus inodorus

Silver kob are retained by trawlers working on inshore grounds. This species is mainly targeted by

the commercial linefish sector, and there have been concerns about the overall rate of exploitation of

this species since the 1980s. The estimated abundance from DAFF surveys is shown in Figure 20.

The stock was estimated at 447t in 2010.

Figure 20: Survey abundance estimates for silver kob, Argyrosomus inodorus on the South Coast of

South Africa [Source: Smith et al, 2013].




Page 69

Figure 21: Spatial distribution of silver kob annual catch (kg) per fishing grid block for the period

2004-10. [Source: Smith et al, 2010].

A more detailed assessment of the status of the silver kob stocks is presented in Winker et al (2012).

This assessment found that normalised CPUE for silver kob has increased steadily since 2000, in

response to effort controls. This study estimated that the biomass of the south and south-east silver

kob stock was just over 7,500t in 2010.

In response to concerns about the status of this species, SECIFA has implemented a PUCL for silver

kob per year for the trawl vessels working on inshore hake grounds (in 2014 this was 146t, which was

not attained); and a “move–on” rule has also been introduced for the trawl fishery that requires vessels

to move away from areas where they catch more than 2% by weight of silver kob in a single haul.

Most of the silver kob catch is reported to be associated with fishing for Agulhas sole on grounds

shallower than 100m. No silver kob are caught in the west coast hake fishery. On the south coast,

catches of silver kob made up less than 0.2% of the hake catch (Smith et al, 2013). The higher value

shown in Table 5 is a result of the aggregation of the sole trawl catch with the hake trawl catch.

6.2.5.2.3 Panga, Pterogymnus laniarius

Catch data for the inshore fleet over the period 2003-06 indicated that panga represented just over 6%

of the unsorted catch (Table 5). More recent data indicated that panga represent less than 0.2% of the

combined (M. capensis and M. paradoxus) trawl fishery catch.

Panga are an important target species in the inshore commercial line fishery, and there has been some




Page 70

concern about stock status. This species is also proposed for inclusion in the proposed extension to

the PUCL system for managing catch of non-target species (see section 6.2.3.1). It is therefore

appropriate to consider the status of this species in South African waters.

A brief summary of history of commercial fishing for panga and current stock status of is presented in

Mann (2013), drawing on recent catch data and also earlier work by Booth & Punt (1998), Booth et al

(1999) and Donovan (2007). This information is summarised here.

Between 1964 and 1991 there was a directed foreign trawl fishery for panga in South African waters,

with landings of up to 18,000t pa. Between 1992 and 1995 (after closure of South African waters to

foreign trawlers), panga made up 63% of the South African demersal inshore trawl fishery catch and

11% of the offshore catch. The proportion of panga in the catch has fallen in subsequent years.

In the SE cape panga made up an average of 16.5% of linefish landings between 1985-2007. This

value peaked at around 26% in the late 1980s, falling to around 16% in the late 1990s and more

recently has been observed at around 5% in 2007.

The current assessment of stock status is that the panga stock has been steadily recovering from the

historically high fishing effort prior to 1991. Increased catches of panga are considered to be

sustainable. The decline in catches and landings in recent years is attributed to changes in fishing

behaviour and economics, rather than a decline in stock abundance.

Panga are one of the species that have been proposed for inclusion in the PUCL management system

(see section 6.2.3.1 of this report).

6.2.5.2.4 Horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus

Although recent data indicate that horse mackerel contribute only 3.1% of the total catch (Table 9),

over the period 2002-06 this species comprised 7.7% of the catch from the inshore fleet (Table 5).

Horse mackerel are caught in South African waters in a targeted mid-water trawl fishery (prosecuted

in by just one dedicated trawler, the MFV Dessert Diamond). They are caught as a non-target species

in the small pelagic purse-seine fishery targeting anchovies and sardines and also in the demersal hake

trawl fishery (see Figure 22).




Page 71

Figure 22: Distribution of fishing effort and fisheries targeting horse mackerel, Trachurus

trachurus, in South African Waters. [Source: Japp & Smith, 2013].

The current PUCL for horse mackerel adults is set at 44 000t, of which 31 500 is allocated to the

midwater trawl fishery while the remaining 12 500t forms the demersal trawl bycatch reserve. The

catch of horse mackerel over recent years has consistently been less than the PUCL




Page 72

Figure 23: Catch of horse mackerel, Trachurus trachurus in the demersal and midwater trawl

fisheries for 2000-2013 (note that 2013 data were incomplete). The PUCL for this

species is set at 44,000t. [Source: Singh et al, 2013].

6.2.5.2.5 Snoek, Thyrsites atun

Snoek make up a relatively small proportion of the overall hake catch, but are notably very abundant

in catches off Saldanha Bay in the Western Cape (see Figure 10). It is therefore appropriate to

consider the status of this species.

Although DAFF survey data show considerable inter-annual variation (Figure 24) the trend in both

catch and CPUE is be positive (Figure 25). The distribution of snoek catch for the period 2004-10

shows that most of the catch came from waters between 2-500m deep.




Page 73

Figure 24: Survey abundance estimates for snoek, Thyrsites atun on the West and South Coast of

South Africa [Source: Smith et al, 2013].




Page 74

Figure 25: Trends in catch (t) and CPUE (kg/hr) for snoek, Thyrsites atun, on the west and south

coasts of South Africa. [Source: Smith et al, 2013].

Figure 26: Spatial distribution of snoek (Thyrsites atun) annual average catch per grid block for the

period 2004-2010 [Source: Smith et al, 2013].




Page 75

6.2.6 Retained catch

Information on the retained catch is available from catch declarations, landings records, and also from

the reports of fishery observers on both the larger (offshore) vessels and the inshore vessels. These

sources of information indicate that nearly all of the catch is retained, with very little discarding (see

below). The catch data presented above (under section 6.2) are therefore considered representative of

the retained catch from the fishery.

6.2.6.1 Factors influencing catch composition

The studies of catch composition have examined the influence of season and location on catch

composition. The most important factor determining the composition of the catch appears to be the

location of fishing activity. The offshore catch is typically “cleaner” than the inshore catch, which

contains a greater diversity of non-target species and a relatively lower proportion of the target

species.

There are two units of certification under assessment: the fishery for the shallow-water hake, M.

capensis; and the fishery for the deep-water hake, M. paradoxus. It has already been noted that the

distributions of these species overlap (see Figure 2). Broadly speaking, M. capensis is caught in

shallower inshore areas than M. paradoxus. However it is also clear that the overlap between the two

species means that M. capensis are caught in offshore areas (making up around 13% of the offshore

trawl catch (see Table 4)); and some M. paradoxus are caught in inshore waters (making up around

2.4% of the total catch and 4% of the inshore hake catch (Table 5)). In terms of weight, more M.

capensis are caught in the offshore areas (an average of 14,600t pa) than in inshore areas (an average

of 9,653t pa).

Another potential influence on catch composition is the type of trawl gear that is used. Attwood et al

(2011) note that the inshore trawl catch data includes catches taken when vessels are fishing for

Agulhas sole (Austroglossus pectoralis). The data for the sole fishery could not be separated from the

hake trawl data, and the authors considered that this gave a more precautionary view of the trawl

catch composition from inshore areas.

It is noted that trawlers targetting sole are permitted to use a cod end mesh size of 70mm. These

vessels fish for sole at night. Small trawlers licensed to fish for hake in inshore areas are permitted to

use a cod end mesh size of 90mm in waters shallower than 110m. All trawlers are required to use a

110mm cod-end mesh waters deeper than 110m. The established practice of the smaller vessels is to

only use 110mm cod-ends when fishing for hake irrespective of water depth, even though the smaller

mesh is permissible. This means that there is essentially only one type of gear and one mesh size used

in the hake trawl fishery.

The information presented to the assessment team therefore indicates that the key factor determining

catch composition is not the hake species targeted, nor any difference in fishing gear between

different sized fishing vessels..




Page 76

6.2.7 Discarded catch

Discarding rates in the hake trawl fishery reported by all observer trips have consistently been very

low (Walmlsey et al, 2007; Attwood et al, 2011; Daneel & Attwood, 2013; Attwood, 2014). The

explanation for this is that the catch from the offshore areas is very clean, comprising mostly hake

with a small quantity of marketable non-target fish (notably monkfish and kingklip). Although the

catch from inshore areas contains many more species, it is still composed almost entirely of

marketable fish. Trawlers from both the offshore and inshore areas tend to retain and land most of the

non-target species caught as “joint product”.

Smith et al (2013) have examined the quantity of fish discarded from the trawl fishery and the species

that are discarded, using observer and landings data for the period 2005-12. Annual discards were

estimated to be around 150t per year (equivalent to 1% of the total hake catch, and less than 1% of

total landings).

The relative proportions of different species in the discarded catch is shown in Figure 27. Rat tails

(Coelorinchus braueri, C. simorhynchus & Malacocephalus laevis) were the dominant discard species

comprising 32% of the total discarded catch. Dory (Zenopsis conchifer & Neocyttus rhomboidalis)

made up 28% followed by dogshark (Deania spp, Centroscymus crepidater, Squalus megalops & S.

mitsukurii) at 19% and catshark (Holohalaelurus regini, Poroderma panterinum & Scyliorhinus

capensis) at 7%.

The spatial distribution of discarding activity has been determined from observer data; it is

predominantly along the shelf edge in the offshore fishery (Figure 28).

Smith (2013) notes that monitoring of discard composition was most thorough over the period 2002-

06 and has declined in recent years (particularly on inshore fishing grounds). Nevertheless, the

monitoring of catch composition in subsequent years provides a measure of the quantity of the species

that are typically discarded from the fishery.




Page 77

Figure 27: Diagram showing the relative species composition of the discards from the South African

trawl fishery from observer records and landings data for the period 2005-2012 (total

discards estimated to be 150t pa). [Source: Smith et al, 2013].2

Figure 28: Spatial distribution of discarding activity, showing total weight discarded per grid block

from observer data for the period 2005-2012. [Source: Smith et al, 2013].

2 Horse fish are Congiopodus torvus




Page 78

6.3 ETP Species

The MSC define Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species as those that are recognised by

national ETP legislation and those species that are listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)3.

There is no evidence from observations of the hake trawl catch that any ETP species are caught within

trawl nets. However there is evidence that in the past the fishery had an adverse interaction with

seabird species, notably large albatrosses, such as the black-browed albatross, Thalassarche

melanophris and Shy-type albatrosses Thalassarche cauta. Observations carried out during 2004 and

2005 aboard SADSTIA trawlers suggested that around 18,000 birds were killed annually in the South

African hake trawl fishery (Watkins et al, 2008).

Observations of interactions between birds and the trawl gear found that fatal injuries arose when the

trawl warp struck the birds, or when birds became stuck to bitumen-lubricated trawl warps (so-called

“sticky warps”) and dragged underwater. These interactions were most prevalent at times when the

trawl gear was being shot or recovered, and particularly when offal from fish processing was being

discharged into the water.

In response to these findings the fishing industry adopted the use of bird-scaring lines (BSLs or tori

lines) in 2006. These lines are deployed from the stern of the fishing vessel to the outside of the trawl

warps. A drogue at the end of the line (typically a road–traffic cone) keeps the line under tension,

while the vessel is towing, and streamers hung from the line deter seabirds from coming close to the

trawl warps. The use of these BSLs is required by trawl fishing licences (the pattern specified in the

licences is illustrated in Figure 29).

Observations of interactions between trawl vessels and seabirds have been monitored aboard

SADSTIA trawlers over the period between April 2006 and May 2011 by observers from BirdLife

South Africa’s Albatross Task Force (ATF). The findings of this work have recently been published

(Maree et al, 2014). Observations were made on 64 trips aboard 19 different trawlers and 782 trawl

hauls (around 0.3-1.3% of annual wet-fish trawl effort). The key finding over this period was that

bird mortality fell from the estimate of 18,000 birds pa in 2004 to around 990 birds pa in 2010 as a

result of the use of BSLs. Albatross mortality in the South African hake trawl fishery is now

considered to be negligible (83 birds in 2010) (Maree et al, 2014).

BirdLife South Africa have encouraged the adoption of BSLs in the trawl fleet by setting up a project

with Total South Africa to provide funding for the production of BSLs by people from the Ocean

View Association for Persons with Disabilities. This project provides a benefit to the community

while at the same time producing BSLs that reduce the impact of the trawl (and longline) fisheries on

seabirds.

3 MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 at §CB3.11.1.




Page 79

Although the concerns about albatross mortality due to warp strikes now appear to have been

addressed, there are still some concerns about interactions between the hake trawl fishery and

seabirds. The first concern is that the success at scaring albatrosses away from trawl warps may have

resulted in an increased impact on smaller birds species, notably pintado petrels (Daption capense),

White-chinned Petrels (Procellaria aequinoctialis) and Cape Gannets (Morus capensis) (Maree et al,

2014). The second concern is that there is a limited understanding of the level of interaction between

seabirds and hake trawl vessels operating on the inshore fishing grounds.

Figure 29: Specification of the tori lines taken from a copy of the trawl fishery licences issued to

both offshore and inshore trawlers in South Africa [Source: DAFF, 2014].




Page 80

Table 10: Total observed heavy interactions and mortalities of bird species in the South African

deep-water hake trawl wet-fish fishery, 2006-10 [Source: Maree et al, 2014].

Key:

EN = Endangered

VU = Vulnerable

NT = Near Threatened

(IUCN Classifications of species status)

In response to concerns about the limited bird observer coverage in both the inshore and offshore

trawl fishery, the fishing industry commissioned two dedicated seabird observers in 2012 to work on

commercial trawlers in the main fishing areas. One of these observers is based at Saldanha and the

other in Cape Town, and both have been trained by BirdLife South Africa to detect seabird

interactions. The observer coverage during this period of observation is shown in Figure 30 below.

The frequency and nature of interactions with different bird species over this period is shown in Table

11.




Page 81

Figure 30: The distribution of SADSTIA-funded bird observer trips carried out from June 2012-July

2013 superimposed on the distribution of commercial trawling effort. [Source: Smith,

2013].

A feature of both these recent SADSTIA data and the BirdLife SA ATF data is that bird interactions

fall to virtually zero when there is no discharge of offal from fish processing aboard the fishing

vessels (Maree et al, 2014; Smith, 2013).




Page 82

Table 11: Total numbers of interactions between seabirds and trawl warps during the setting and

trawling period from SADSTIA observer records between June 2012 and July 2013. A

high level of interaction is almost certain to cause mortality; medium interactions are not

assumed to cause significant injury; and a low level of interaction is considered harmless.

[Source: Smith, 2013].

Species SETTING TRAWLING

High Medium Low High Medium Low

Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross 0 1 75 0 2 35

Black-browed Albatross (adult) 0 0 16 0 2 4

Cape Gannet (adult) 0 36 517 0 7 210

Cory’s Shearwater 0 0 21 0 3 28

Giant petrel (southern or northern) 0 0 31 0 0 25

Great Shearwater 0 2 23 0 2 22

Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross 0 0 115 0 0 94

Kelp Gull (Adult) 0 0 141 0 0 116

Pintado Petrel 0 0 38 0 0 11

Shy Albatross (adult) 0 3 67 1 0 15

Shy Albatross (juvenile) 0 3 110 0 0 2

Sub-Antarctic Skua 0 0 2 0 7 53

White-chinned Petrel 0 78 365 0 62 350

TOTAL 0 123 1521 1 85 965

In 2010 the Responsible Fisheries Alliance (RFA), which is an alliance between BirdLife South

Africa, WWF South Africa and the main trawl fishing companies, started work on a project to

improve seabird mitigation measures. Its recommendations were submitted in 2011 and included

changes to enhance tori lines; a proposal to prohibit the use of bitumen in trawl warp lubricants; and a

prohibition on offal discharge until tori lines are deployed (RFA, 2011). The RFA recommended that

these measures should become licence conditions. This recommendation was adopted by DAFF and

now forms part of the trawl licence conditions for both inshore and offshore trawlers.

Each vessel operating in the offshore hake trawl grounds is subject to a Bird Mitigation Plan (BMP)

which sets out the risks to birds from trawling, the mitigation measures that can address these risks,

and the responsibilities of different crew members for implementing mitigation measures. The BMP

also includes a bird identification guide and advice on dealing with entanglement of birds. BMPs are

based on an initial assessment of the vessel and biennial reassessments.

There are no indications that indirect impacts (such as competition for prey) may arise from the

fishery. The bird species that are known to interact with the fishery cannot dive to the depths that the

fishing gear operates, so the catch cannot form part of their natural diet. In such circumstances, the

offal and discards from fishing vessels may have a beneficial effect on birds (Bourne, 1983).




Page 83

6.3.1 Trends in bird population status

Information about trends in bird population status and threats to bird species is available from the

BirdLife International website. The status of the bird species that could be impacted by the hake trawl

fishery has been considered (we have considered these to be the species that observers have identified

as being subject to a “High” or “Medium” impact in Table 11 above and/or reported as mortalities by

Maree et al, 2014). The BirdLife view of each species is summarised below.

6.3.1.1 Black Browed Albatross, Thalassarche melanophris

This species has been downlisted by IUCN to Near Threatened as it is no longer estimated to be

undergoing very rapid population declines. Survey data from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

holding over 70% of the global population, showed population increases during the 2000s and

possibly since the 1980s, and the data suggest reclassification as Least Concern, however there

remains a considerable degree of uncertainty over population trends for a significant part of the global

population, and trend estimates are heavily influenced by the extrapolation over 65 years of data from

a ten-year period. In addition, high levels of mortality of this species are reported from longline and

trawl fisheries in the South Atlantic. For these reasons, moderately rapid ongoing declines over three

generations since 1980 are precautionarily suspected until further data are forthcoming.

Evidence from the South African trawl fishery (Maree et al, 2014) have concluded that the impacts of

the UoCs under assessment on this species were once significant but are now negligible.

6.3.1.2 Indian Yellow nosed albatross, Thalassarche carteri

This species is listed as Endangered on the basis of an estimated very rapid ongoing decline over three

generations (71 years), based on data from the population stronghold on Amsterdam Island. This

decline is the result of adult mortality and poor recruitment owing to interactions with longline

fisheries and disease.

Evidence from the hake trawl fishery indicates that interactions with this species are now rare (see

Table 10).

6.3.1.3 Atlantic Yellow nosed Albatross, Thallassarche chlororhynchos

This species is listed by IUCN as Endangered as it has a very small breeding range and is estimated to

be undergoing a very rapid ongoing decline projected over three generations (72 years) owing to

incidental mortality in longline fisheries. There is no indication that it is adversely affected by the

trawl fishery (see Table 10).

6.3.1.4 White-chinned petrel, Procellaria aequinoctialis

This species is classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN because of suspected rapid declines, although

almost no reliable estimates of historical populations exist. Very high rates of incidental mortality in

longline fisheries have been recorded in recent years; the probability that these circumstances will

continue and its susceptibility to predation and the degradation of breeding habitat indicate that a

rapid and on-going population decline is likely.

The earlier studies of the hake trawl fishery found that 10% of the birds killed in the hake trawl

fishery were white-chinned petrels (Watkins et al, 2007). The more recent study by Maree et al




Page 84

(2014) recorded just 3 white-chinned petrel deaths (though nocturnal interactions were not studied).

6.3.1.5 Cape gannet, Morus capensis

This species is listed as Vulnerable by BirdLife International since it has a very small breeding range

on just six islands, and over-exploitation of its prey (epipelagic fish) by human fisheries -

compounded by pollution - is causing a continuous decline in the quality of surrounding waters for

foraging. Other threats include guano collection, displacement by Cape fur seals, predation by great

white pelicans, bycatch in longline fisheries, exploitation of gannets for food in Angola, and flooding

of nests in storms.

The hake fishery is not listed as a threat to this species.

6.3.1.6 Shy albatross, Thalassarche cauta

This species breeds on just three islands. It may be susceptible to stochastic events and human

activities, although one nesting site is moderately widely separated from the other two. For this reason

it is treated as Near Threatened by the IUCN.

Evidence from the South African trawl fishery (Maree et al, 2014) has concluded that the impacts of

the UoCs under assessment on this species were once significant but are now negligible.

6.3.1.7 Pintado petrel, Daption capense

This species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable

under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000km2 combined with a declining or

fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or

severe fragmentation). The population trend appears to be stable, and hence the species does not

approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten

years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the

thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a

continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified

population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern by IUCN.

Maree et al (2014) record 21 mortalities and 612 heavy interactions with pintado petrels. This is the

highest level of interaction recorded with any bird species. The information about population status

provides reassurance that this level of interaction is not adversely affecting this species.

6.3.1.8 Great shearwater, Ardenna gravis


under the range–size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000km2 combined with a declining or




years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the

thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a

continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified




Page 85

population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern by the IUCN.

6.3.1.9 Sub-Antarctic skua, Catharacta antarctica






years or three generations). The population size may be moderately small to large, but it is not

believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000

mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations,

or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern

by the IUCN.

6.3.1.10 Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus

This species is classified as Near Threatened because although it has a very large global population it

is thought by BirdLife to have undergone a moderately rapid decline owing to the impact of longline

fisheries, the harvesting of its young (unconnected with the fishery under assessment) and possibly

climate change.

The global population of this species is estimated at around 20,000,000 individuals. Observations of

the hake trawl fishery suggest that the level of interaction is now very low (Maree et al, 2014).

6.3.1.11 Cory’s shearwater, Calonectris borealis




severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline

is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population

trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is very large,

and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion

(<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three

generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as

Least Concern by the IUCN.

6.4 Habitat Interactions

A detailed review of the interactions between the South African trawl fishery and marine habitats is

set out in Sink et al (2012). This document also set out spatial analyses of the interactions and

proposes potential management actions. The main findings of this comprehensive review are briefly

summarised below.

The area of seabed in South African waters that has been trawled has increased from the start of the

inshore trawl fishery in the late 1880s to the current extent of the fishery. Over this time the trawl




Page 86

footprint has increased in size in both the inshore and offshore areas. In 2007 the fishing industry

developed a map of the trawl footprint and made a commitment that no further expansion of the

fishing grounds would take place. This footprint covers an area of around 70,160km² (see Figure 31).

All trawl fishing vessels are required, as a statutory fishing licence condition, to fish only within this

trawl footprint. Compliance with the trawl footprint is monitored by DAFF using vessel VMS data.

South Africa recently classified and mapped 136 marine and coastal habitats as part of the National

Biodiversity Assessment 2011. Benthic habitat types were characterised on the basis of the seabed

substratum (such as mud, sand, gravel and rock); depth; topography (such as shelf, canyon, or mound)

and information on marine benthos (such as cold water corals, gorgonians, sponges and soft corals)

where this was available.

Sink et al (2012) examined information from a wide range of sources to identify the spatial extent of

the interaction between the trawl fishery and benthic habitat types. A total of 27 different habitat

types occur within the trawl footprint area (see Figure 32). The dominant habitat types are the

Southern Benguela Sandy Outer Shelf (21% of the footprint) and the Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf

Edge (14%).

Information about the location of these habitats and their vulnerability (based on the structural

complexity of the benthos and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) indicator species) was related by

Sink et al (2012) to data describing trawling intensity to allow “habitats of concern” to be identified

(these being those that are vulnerable to trawling; occur largely within the trawl footprint; and that are

subject to significant trawling activity).

Following this analysis a total of 17 habitat types of concern were identified based on one criterion,

and 9 habitat types based on multiple selection criteria. Only one habitat type met all of the criteria

(the Southern Benguela Canyon).The location of these “priority habitats” is shown in Figure 33 &

Figure 34, and they are listed below:-

Southern Benguela Canyon

Southern Benguela Muddy Shelf Edge

Southern Benguela Hard Shelf Edge

Agulhas Canyon

Southern Benguela Gravel Shelf Edge

Agulhas Gravel Outer Shelf

Southern Benguela Gravel Outer Shelf

Southern Benguela Submarine Bank

Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf Edge

These habitats of concern were recommended for management actions: proposals for mitigation

included the review and strengthening of trawl licence conditions; spatial management measures

including experimental closures; seabed protection zones and offshore Marine Protected Areas.

Research recommendations have also been identified to improve the understanding of trawl impacts

on hard grounds and muds; assess recovery of the dominant habitat types on the trawl grounds; and to

identify and protect examples of sensitive habitats that have not been trawled.




Page 87

In February 2014 work began on a benthic trawl experiment near to Childs Bank on the outer shelf of

the west coast where the Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf Edge habitat is prevalent (over 70% of this

habitat type is within the trawl footprint, and it also makes up around 14% of the total trawl footprint

area). This work was a response to a condition of certification raised at the last assessment of this

fishery in 2010. It has taken several years to agree a research programme that would address this

condition, and to secure the funding, equipment and staff resources required. This experiment is

being conducted with industry (SADSTIA) funding, and all of their member vessels (i.e. all of the

hake trawl fleet operating in this area) have been directed by SADSTIA to comply with the

experimental restrictions (on a non-statutory basis).

In 2014 a towed camera and van Veen grab were deployed from the research vessel Ellen Khuzwayo

and used to take samples from a 6 x 15km experimental area within the trawl footprint. This area has

been divided into “lanes” and fishing vessels operating in the area are now trawling in some lanes

while leaving others unfished, in order to observe how the seabed recovers after a period of trawling.

The location of the experimental area and the trawl lanes is shown in Figure 36.

From a management perspective, marine habitats in South Africa can be protected by Marine

Protected Areas established under the Marine and Living Resources Act (1998). There are currently

20 MPAs in the South African EEZ (see Figure 35). Inshore trawl licences prohibit trawling within

these MPAs. The South African National Biodiversity Act (2004) and the Protected Areas

Amendment Act (2004) call for the creation of a “representative” network of protected areas in the

sea. Proposals for developing this network of MPAs have been set out in several reports and papers

(such as Sink & Attwood, 2008; Solano-Fernandez et al, 2012).




Page 88

Figure 31: Boundary of “ring fenced” hake trawl footprint (mapped by Wilkinson & Japp, 2008; figure reproduced from Sink et al, 2012).




Page 89

Figure 32: The habitat composition within the 70,160km² South African hake trawl footprint. (Note

that the percentages indicate the relative proportion of each habitat type within the

footprint, but not how much of the total extent each habitat type is trawled). [Source:

Sink et al, 2012].




Page 90

Figure 33: Priority habitats (based on extent & vulnerability of habitats and intensity of fishing) on the west coast within the trawl footprint area. [Source:

Sink et al, 2012].




Page 91

Figure 34: Priority habitats (based on extent & vulnerability of habitats and intensity of fishing) on the south coast within the trawl footprint area. [Source:

Sink et al, 2012].




Page 92

Figure 35: Map showing current Marine Protected areas in South Africa. [Source: SANBI, 2014].




Page 93

Figure 36: Map showing the location of the experimental trawl exclusion area on the west coast.

[Source: SADSTIA, 2012].




Page 94

6.5 Ecosystem Interactions

The key feature of the ecosystem in which the hake fishery takes place in is the influence of the cold

Benguela current that flows from the south. The upwelling of this cold, nutrient rich water fuels

phytoplankton growth which in turn nourishes a highly productive ecosystem. The Benguela current

is driven by the South Atlantic gyre.

The role of hake in the Benguela ecosystem and the effects of fishery removals on this ecosystem

have been modelled, including the potential combined effects of climate change and fishing activity

(Gasche et al, 2012; Shannon et al, 2000; Travers-Trolet et al, 2014). The outcome of this work

demonstrates that there is a good understanding of the main components and elements of the Benguela

current ecosystem, as well as an understanding of how these different components and elements may

interact with one another.

The study of the potential effects of increased hake trawling on the ecosystem suggested that the

effect of heavy fishing for hake (for example, a four-fold increase in fishing mortality for a period of 5

years) would reduce hake biomass and increase the abundance of hake prey species (mesopelagic fish

and cephalopods). Such a change was considered likely to adversely affect horse mackerel, which

compete with the hake prey species for food. The model also suggested that within a period of 10-20

years after such a period of intense fishing, all groups are likely to return to their original levels

(Shannon et al, 2000).




Page 95

7 PRINCIPLE THREE: MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BACKGROUND

7.1 Management framework

South Africa’s natural environment is governed by a wide range of national legislative acts, including

the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), National Environmental Management Act

(No. 107 of 1998), the Environmental Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989) and the Marine Living

Resources Act (MLRA; No. 18 of 1998). All fisheries in South Africa are managed in terms of the

MLRA and the regulations promulgated in terms of this Act. The regulations are amended on a

regular basis to facilitate the incorporation of updated management measures, or implement

management strategies based on best scientific advice. These amendments are published in the

Government Gazette.

The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is the Management Authority

responsible for implementing the MLRA, and it is committed to international law (UNCLOS; UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea;) and a precautionary approach is prescribed when uncertainty

prevails. The Republic of South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity, MARPOL

(International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), the London Convention

(regulating the dumping of waste at sea), Bonn Convention (conservation of migratory species, incl.

seabirds), CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), SEAFO (SE

Atlantic Fisheries Organization) and is member of ICCAT. The management framework is

demonstrably compliant with all relevant international conventions and agreements. National

legislation and the systems that support it are binding, both within the Management Authority and

relative to the fisheries that they manage.

The management framework incorporates a transparent mechanism for legal dispute resolution, which

has been tested and proven to be effective. Disputes within the system are first discussed directly with

DAFF resource managers but can proceed to ministerial level. Beyond ministerial level, disputes may

be resolved in court, within the national judicial system. In recent years, major disputes have regularly

been resolved through legal challenges – for instance disputes regarding the allocations of fishing

rights. The opportunity to mount a legal challenge to the system is seen as a positive aspect,

demonstrating a well-developed and fully tested process of dispute resolution, the outcomes of which

reflects legislative compliance.

7.2 Management and research institutions

The DAFF houses Chief Directorates for:

a) Monitoring Control and Compliance - to ensure that fish resources are protected through

effective and efficient utilisation of the Fisheries Protection Vessels and other relevant

equipment and systems; and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Marine Living

Resources Act of 1998.

b) Marine Resources Management - to ensure the sustainable utilization and equitable and

orderly access to nearshore, offshore and High Seas fisheries resources through improved

management and regulation.

c) Fisheries Research and Development - to provide scientific research and advice on fisheries

resources.




Page 96

The DAFF structure is supplemented by other national organs. Monitoring Control and Compliance

is assisted by customs, police/navy and provincial authorities, but the process is coordinated by

DAFF. Fisheries Research and Development is likewise supplemented by the Department of

Environmental Affairs (DEA), which undertakes research on ecosystems and environmental impacts

of fisheries.

At least two formally constituted working groups within DAFF deal with all aspects of the hake trawl

fishery, namely a Scientific Working Group, and a Resource Management Working Group. These

working groups guide the science underlying management strategies (i.e. research direction and data

production; development of mathematical models; Operational Management Procedures) and

implement management strategy through official interaction between DAFF fisheries managers and

representatives of the fishing industry. The functions, roles and responsibilities of the scientific and

management working groups are clearly defined.

7.3 Recognized interest groups

Several interest groups that may influence decisions through direct or indirect means have developed

over the 10 years of MSC certification. The primary interest groups are the two industry associations,

SADSTIA and SECIFA, which represent all rights holders (fishing units) in the deep-sea hake trawl

fishery. Eligible vessels of SADSTIA and SECIFA members are listed in Table 1. SADSTIA and

SECIFA are active in the DAFF Scientific and Resource Management Working Groups, as members

or observers, where they participate by imparting up-to-date operational information, assist with

decision-making by explaining economic and logistical matters affecting fleets, operations, and

markets, and also contribute to the development of mathematical models and the OMP through

retaining the services of consultants at OLRAC. SADSTIA and SECIFA manage the operational

aspects of the fishing fleet, including a supporting role to DAFF in ensuring that permit conditions are

adhered to. The associations fund an independent fisheries observer programme, and additional

research projects on recovery of environmental impacts of the trawl fishery, and bycatch mitigation.

Other recognized interest groups are as follows:

a) World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWFSA) – an environmental NGO; pressure

group with influence on perceptions of stock status, environmental impacts and management

of the fishery;

b) Birdlife South Africa (BLSA) - an environmental NGO and the largest bird conservation

organization in South Africa. BLSA is the local partner of BirdLife International and a

member of the Responsible Fisheries Alliance. BLSA initiated an Albatross Task Force team

in 2006, and is responsible for drawing up the Bird Mitigation Plans required by fishing

vessels in South Africa, in collaboration with the fishing industry;

c) South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) - responsible for implementing the

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. SANBI coordinates

research, and monitors the state of biodiversity in South Africa. It provides planning and

policy advice and pilots best-practice management models in partnership with stakeholders, in

the present case, SADSTIA. SANBI engages in ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation.

d) The South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) - a business unit of the




Page 97

National Research Foundation, and accountable to the Department of Science and

Technology. SAEON is mandated to detect, predict and react to environmental change within

South Africa through long-term observation. SAEONs vision is to deliver long term, reliable

data for scientific research and to inform decision making.

e) Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town (MARAM)

– mathematical modelling unit that developed the resource assessment models and the OMP

for the management of the deep-sea hake trawl fishery. Funded by DAFF.

f) University of Cape Town, Zoology Department – Dr Colin Attwood provides scientific

advice to SADSTIA on bycatch species and its management, and on a benthic trawl

experiment to assess recovery / rehabilitation potential.

g) CapFish – Independent provider of fisheries observers to SADSTIA, to collect information on

hake species and size composition and biology, and of bycatch of the hake trawl fishery.

Provides data capture and reporting services, and ad hoc consulting.

h) The Responsible Fisheries Alliance (RFA), which provides a forum for environmental NGOs

and responsible fishing companies to work together to secure the health of the ecosystems

which underpin the business purpose of both sectors.

7.4 Management objectives

Clear long-term management objectives guide decision-making, and are consistent with MSC

Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. These include objectives relative to Principle

1 (the hake stocks under reassessment), Principle 2 (important bycatch species and the environment)

and Principle 3 (the management system). Some objectives have performance indicators (limit and

target reference points), notably those applied to the target species (TAC) and some bycatch species

(i.e. PUCLs).

Management objectives relative to the hake stocks are to increase the weaker M. paradoxus biomass

level to close to the MSY level over 20 years; to improve catch rates in the short to medium term; and

to maintain a stable TAC over time. These objectives are implicit in the OMP, which responds to

measures of stock changes on an annual basis, and is geared to achieve stock rebuilding to a pre-

agreed level over the long-term. A specific OMP formulation is revisited every 4 years, when

improvements are made. The OMP incorporates the precautionary principle, in that it will output a

more conservative TAC in the event of higher risk scenarios.

Long-term objectives are also in place for important by-catch species (i.e. monkfish; kingklip; sole),

and where these are identified as being depleted, appropriate management strategies are being

developed and implemented to promote/assist rebuilding of affected populations to specified levels

within specified timeframes. These include bycatch management areas and PUCLs.

Long-term environmental objectives relative to the hake fishery include the establishment of Marine

Protected Areas, where the objective is to protect and preserve examples of representative habitat

types. The policy basis for the MPA programme lies in the Convention of Biological Diversity, which

aims for the protection of 10% of representative and vulnerable habitats, and the draft South African

Ocean Policy which refers to representative MPAs. Biodiversity targets are being developed based on

species-area relationships. A major objective is maintenance of the trawl footprint, which restricts

trawl operations to a limited depth range and area – thus spatially limiting impacts on benthic habitats.




Page 98

Only 2 habitats (southern Benguela gravel habitat and southern Benguela muddy shelf) are not also

present elsewhere, outside of the footprint or in existing MPA’s.

Another objective, the reduction of seabird mortalities caused by fishing operations, has been

achieved to a large degree by successful introduction of tori lines. Although none of the affected

seabirds are ETP species, some of them are listed on the IUCN red list. A trawl recovery experiment

has been initiated to assess whether, and how fast historically trawled areas can recover – the

completion of this experiment is considered to be a short to medium term objective, and potentially its

outcome can be incorporated into fishery management over a longer term.

Social and economic objectives include equitable redistribution of fishing rights. Theoretically, a

system of long-term fishing rights will provide participants in the fishery with a sense of “ownership”

of the resource. Maintaining Marine Stewardship Council certification is an important economic

objective related to marketing strategy.

7.5 Decision-making process

In most cases decision-making processes respond to important issues identified in relevant research,

monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent and adaptive manner. A formal Scientific

Working Group, constituted by DAFF and comprising scientists from DAFF, MARAM and those

retained by SADSTIA, decide on a TAC level for the fishery after interpreting the outcome of an

OMP. The OMP is an agreed formulation set for a 4-year period, and cannot be over-ridden unless in

“exceptional circumstances” (under Section 61 of the MLRA). The decision-making process uses the

precautionary approach; this is demonstrated by the long-term stock rebuilding strategy implicit in the

OMP calculations, where the TAC is set to protect the weaker of the two stocks (presently M.

paradoxus). The best available information is used, including logbook information, survey data, and

data collected by fisheries observers at sea.

The TAC recommendation is considered by the DAFF Chief Directorate: Marine Resource

Management, taking into account factors such as legislation, socio-economics, the ecosystem

approach to fisheries management (EAF), and stock advice. It is then submitted to the decision maker

(normally the Minister) in line with Departmental protocols. After signature by the Minister, the TAC

is allocated to rights holders, proportionally, according to their share of the rights allocated. A DAFF

fisheries manager dedicated to the hake fishery then meets with industry to prepare annual fishing

plans, and prepare permit conditions.

7.6 Incentives to fish sustainably

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under

assessment, and this is supported by very few transgressions observed over the past year. All of these

were minor administrative issues. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, and are effective in

the fishery being assessed. The reason for this is that non-compliance can potentially result in the

suspension or loss of fishing rights under Section 28 of the MLRA. An example of a successful

Section 28 ruling, followed by the closure and prosecution of a major fishing company, is the case of

Hout Bay Fishing. Although not for hake, it was a similar industrial scale fishery targeting deep-water

lobsters. Whereas a Section 28 sanction is a major deterrent for capital-intensive industrial fisheries




Page 99

with good long-term prospects (such as the hake fishery), it is less so for small scale (subsistence)

fishers preying on nearshore resources such as abalone and rock lobsters in South Africa.

7.7 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)

Monitoring, control and surveillance is the responsibility of DAFF, supplemented by the police, navy

and customs offices. All catches are inspected and weighed at off-loading points by monitors and/or

fisheries inspectors, to ensure that rights-holders remain within their hake quotas, that bycatch species

do not exceed PUCLs, and that no gear or other restrictions had been exceeded. All fishing vessels

are tracked in real time through a VMS system, operated from an operations room at the DAFF

offices. Fishing vessel tracks showed that vessels have been fishing exclusively within the trawl

footprint. Four ocean-going patrol vessels do inspections of vessels at sea – these patrols are logged,

together with records of inspections, infractions and boarding data.

DAFF has a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The hake sector is one of

the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Over the course of the past year they aimed to audit 8 of

the deep sea trawl fishery rights holders (SADSTIA), and 16 of the inshore trawl fishery rights

holders (SECIFA). As well as remote surveillance (VMS) and monitoring at sea by patrol vessels,

DAFF inspects landings when catches are discharged, and audits the catch, landings and processing

records for the fishery to ensure compliance with effort (TAC) controls. DAFF enforcement activity

directed at the hake fishery detected only 7 minor administrative errors over the past year, which had

been well documented. The vessels were fined for these transgressions.

Mobile scanners are used to inspect the contents of containers. Fisheries observers accompany fishing

vessels to sea at request (permit condition), although the task of observers is data collection (catch of

target and non-target species, and interactions with ETP species) instead of compliance monitoring.

Skippers return logbooks of each trip, detailing fishing effort and catches. They also report the

numbers of sea-bird fatalities.

About 70% of cases brought by DAFF are successful; as part of its work, DAFF officials provide

training to the judiciary and prosecuting counsel about fisheries legislation and regulation.

Some weak points in MCS enforcement do still exist, and these include too few staff and that one of

the four fishery patrol vessels is presently out of action. The conclusion is that the MCS system is well

established, and works well for the fishery under assessment (a large commercial fishery that offloads

in ports in major centres), especially in a co-management setup with SADSTIA, but that some

attention should be given to its consistency (i.e. all vessels active, etc.).

7.8 Illegal, Unreported Unlicensed (IUU) fishing

DAFF has recently had significant enforcement successes (all outside of the hake fishery) including

detecting, apprehending and seizure of 10 IUU vessels, and intercepting, seizing and repatriating

consignments of illegally shipped fish products (no hake involved). No IUU fishing activities have

been reported for the deep-sea hake trawl fishery.




Page 100

7.9 Research Planning

A research plan is in place for the fishery which identifies priorities so that resources can be targeted

appropriately. Research priorities are reviewed by DAFF scientists annually. The research plan

includes aspects that relate to P1 (i.e. biomass surveys; ageing; length composition; diet of hake;

genetic population structure of M. capensis and M. paradoxus), P2 (status and biology of retained

non-target species; composition of discarded non-target species; benthic habitat surveys; seabird /

gear interactions) and P3 (OMP development; development and testing of the PUCL system; species-

splitting algorithms).

Whereas the research plan itself is coherent, strategic and well-conceived, it is sometimes affected by

logistical or administrative holdups. For instance, there have been ongoing difficulties with the RV

Africana (the main DAFF survey vessel), so that some surveys were cancelled and another vessel, the

FV Andromeda, had to be leased to carry out trawl surveys. The inter-calibration issues associated

with this have been considered in detail and addressed in the stock assessment. Continuity in the

DAFF fisheries observer programme has been affected by administrative issues, and to compensate

for this, SADSTIA funds its own observer programme, through an independent service provider. A

survey to assess the recovery of benthic habitats was postponed several times, but it has now started,

and a further survey is planned for March 2015.

7.10 Monitoring and evaluation of management performance

Both internal and external review mechanisms exist, which measure progress of the management

system against its objectives. The mechanisms include formal Resource Management and Scientific

Working Group meetings, auditing of fisheries sectors by the Compliance section, and international

stock assessment workshops. The OMP is integral in evaluating stock status and provides the primary

mechanism for generating consistent management advice for longer term management and a stock

rebuilding strategy: the OMP is reviewed each 4 years. Management of bycatch is still a grey area, but

being addressed presently.




Page 101

8 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

This assessment report has been presented in format set out in the MSC’s reporting template v1.3,

subject to minor (and permissible) changes in the formatting and numbering of sections that have been

made to incorporate the IFC report style and improve the accessibility of information to the reader.

8.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

There are no overlapping MSC-certified fisheries and thus no need to apply the harmonisation

procedure to this fishery.

8.2 Previous assessments

This fishery was awarded an MSC certificate in March 2005 and re-certified in March 2010.

Certification in 2010 was subject to 7 conditions and 4 further conditions were added in subsequent

surveillance audits. A summary of the conditions and progress with them is presented in Table 8

below. All but one of these conditions were closed by the end of the fourth surveillance audit.

The only condition that remains open from the previous period of certification concerns the impact of

the fishery on benthic habitats (condition 2). A new condition of certification has been proposed that

relates to this aspect of the fishery after scoring against the assessment tree set out in the MSC

Certification Requirements v1.3.

8.3 Assessment Methodologies

The MSC Certification Requirements (v1.3 at §27.8.11-27.8.13) specify that the assessment

methodology shall be stated in the assessment report. This information is set out in the table below.

Table 12: Summary of Assessment methodology used.

Item Detail

Version of MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, 14th January 2013

Version of Full Assessment Reporting Template Version 1.3

Default Assessment Tree Used Yes

Adjustments made to Assessment Tree Not applicable.

Risk Based Framework Not used




Page 102

Table 13: Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions for the South African Hake Trawl fishery.

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

Condition 1. Rebuilding of M. paradoxus stock

Action required: A rebuilding plan has been implemented

for M. paradoxus within the OMP.

Indications of species-specific improvements in stock status

should show trends of recovery in line with the overall

rebuilding scenario within the current assessment.

Candidate methods for demonstrating improvement might

be through revised biomass estimates resulting from

periodic assessments within the certification period and/or

monitoring of catch per unit effort in the fishery and

surveys relative to the OMP projections, or other methods.

Additionally, this progress should be reported in relation to

OMP targets (implicit target reference points of recovery)

and implicit limit reference points (the probability that

recovery trajectories are outside the original OMP design

features).

Timescale: Indices for rebuilding should show

improvement of M. paradoxus stock status within the

bounds of the current rebuilding projection as identified

during annual and bi-annual reviews of the stock status.

Overall rebuilding should progress in line with the overall

Y There is clear evidence that stock rebuilding measures for M. paradoxus

continue to be implemented, and that abundance indices show that rebuilding

has continued since the low point in 2007. The client has taken actions with

respect to all elements of the action plan. Indications of species-specific

stock status do show trends of recovery in line with the overall rebuilding

scenario within the current assessment, which has been used to provide

periodic biomass estimates within the certification period using catch per unit

effort in the fishery and surveys relative to the OMP projections. This

progress has been reported in relation to OMP targets (implicit target

reference points of recovery) and implicit limit reference points (the historic

low SSB in 2007).

Overall improvement of M. paradoxus stock status has been demonstrated

within the bounds of the current rebuilding projection and in line with the

overall timeframe for stock recovery. Note that achieving SSB>BMSY for M.

paradoxus was not the target of this condition, which is that a rebuilding plan

has been implemented for M. paradoxus within the OMP.

Recent TAC and catch data demonstrate that the TAC is set in line with the

OMP requirements, and that catches are consistent with the TAC.

The team therefore conclude that progress with this condition has achieved

the target, and that this condition as it stands should be closed. It will be

necessary to continue to demonstrate stock recovery in M. paradoxus if

certification is renewed in 2015.




Page 103

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

timeframe for stock recovery as currently defined.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.6.1, (1.2.1 also applies)

Condition 2. Benthic habitat

Action required: Significant progress has been achieved in

determining and managing impacts of the fishery on

benthic habitat. The current MSC re-assessment process

has, however, identified remaining gaps in knowledge,

particularly in relation to the longer-term significance of

impacts (e.g. the ability of habitats to recover from

disturbance) within existing and any future trawl areas.

These need to be addressed as detailed below. The SG

requirements for the SG 80 scoring are:

2.1.3.1 SG 80 scoring is: All impacts of gear use on the

habitat are adequately identified including extent, timing

and location of use.

2.1.5.3 SG 80 scoring is: Information is available on the

effects of the fishery on habitat within major fishing areas.

This does not indicate any unacceptable impacts.

2.1.5.4 SG 80 scoring is: Information is available on the

effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community

structure and productivity. This does not indicate any

unacceptable impacts.

Timescale: Within 1 year of certification, remaining gaps

in knowledge of benthic impacts should be reviewed and

N The 4th year milestone was reached, with the start of the experimental work

off the west coast of South Africa.

It is not possible or appropriate to close this condition at this surveillance

audit, as the final milestone for progress is in year 5.

The team concludes that during the process of re-assessing this fishery it will

be necessary to re-evaluate this condition in accordance with the procedures

set out in the MSC Certification Requirements. These procedures will

determine whether or not an equivalent new condition will be required if the

fishery should be re-certified.




Page 104

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

appropriate actions implemented (through further research

and/or management) to address these, with specific annual

milestones for delivery.

Within 4 years of certification, appropriate research should

be implemented and underway.

Appropriate management actions should be developed and

implemented in line with the precautionary approach and

ecosystem approach to fishery management. Appropriate

management should be in place within 5 years of

certification.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.3.1, 2.1.5.3, 2.1.5.4

Condition 3. By-catches (retained and non-retained

species)

Action required: A comprehensive review of significant

by-catch (retained and non-retained) species within the

fishery should be undertaken (including research as

specified in Condition 6). Significant by-catch would be

those species caught in large numbers or those species with

uncertain, depleted or declining population status

(including but not limited to sharks, linefish and retained

species). The review should include the conservation status

of affected species.

Where by-catch species are identified as being depleted,

appropriate management strategies should be developed

Y The information presented at the fourth surveillance audit enabled re-scoring

of the Performance Indicators that are associated with this condition.

The score for three of the four Performance Indicators has been increased to

80. The score of the fourth PI (2.1.5.4) remains less than 80, but this is due to

uncertainties about habitat recovery rather than the status of non-target

species.

On the basis of the information presented it was considered appropriate to

close this condition.




Page 105

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

and implemented to promote/assist the rebuilding of

affected populations to specified levels within specified

timeframes.

[Note that this condition should build upon the information

gained from a similar condition, on specific bycatch

species, raised in the initial MSC assessment. The current

condition asks for a review of bycatch species and

development of appropriate management strategies].

Timescale: Terms of reference for a by-catch review

should be developed within 6 months of certification.

The review should be completed within 2 years of

certification.

Appropriate management actions should be implemented

within 3 years of certification, including monitoring of the

effectiveness of management actions.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.1.5.2, 2.1.5.4, 2.3.1.2,

2.3.1.3

Condition 4. External Review

Action required: Action required: Mechanisms exist

allowing for external reviews of the management system to

be commissioned. A review was conducted in 2006, but has

not been repeated to date. An external review programme

(independent of the current management authorities,

contractors etc) of the management system should be

Y Regular internal and external reviews of the stock assessment and

management procedure are carried out; the OMP that is used as the basis for

managing stocks of both hake species is adjusted accordingly; and the

recovery of M. paradoxus continues.

This condition was closed at the second annual surveillance audit.




Page 106

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

commissioned, to include the wider range of management

areas, e.g. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance and stock

rebuilding. The external review should monitor the

management responses and actions in relation to previous

reviews.

The timescale for ongoing reviews should be established;

this should be conducted on a periodic basis appropriate to

the development of the management system.

Timescale: A plan for the content and timing of a review

programme should be developed within 1 year of

certification. The first external review should be

commissioned within 2 years of certification and completed

within 3 years of certification.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 3A.1.4

Condition 5. Precautionary Management

Action required: Current management and harvesting

strategy combines both species of hake as a single

management entity, which permits risks to one or both

stocks and so could be inconsistent with the precautionary

approach.

Also, Condition 6 requires ongoing research, principally in

relation to the stock evaluations. Any significant

uncertainties identified should be encompassed by a

precautionary management approach.

Y There is good evidence that the hake OMP provides a precautionary approach

to the management of the two hake stocks as separate entities within an

aggregated TAC, which is set against the needs of the weakest stock (M.

paradoxus at present).

This condition was closed after rescoring at the third annual surveillance

audit.




Page 107

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

Timescale: A management strategy to address separate

management for each of the two species should be

developed within 2 years of certification. The strategy for

separate management of the two species should be fully

implemented within the period of this certification.

Additional issues should be addressed within the

management strategy as and when identified.


Condition 6. Research

Action required: There are some areas of weakness

identified in relation to meeting the most significant

information needs of the fishery. Principal amongst these is

continued improvement of ageing of hake stocks, but also

including other biological aspects related to

migration/mixing of stocks, fecundity and recruitment of

the target species. Research directed at understanding the

basic life-history and biology of the most vulnerable

bycatch species should also be prioritised.

Timescale: Research requirements should be reviewed

within 2 years of certification, particularly in relation to

(but not restricted to) the need to develop and improve the

stock assessments.

Y There is evidence of good progress with the development and implementation

of a research plan for the fishery.

It was concluded that a score of more than 80 could be awarded for the

relevant Performance Indicator at the fourth surveillance audit, closing this

condition.




Page 108

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

A research plan, with associated resource/capacity

commitments, should be developed and implemented

within 4 years of certification.


Condition 7. Appropriate limit and target reference

points for M. paradoxus based on stock biomass and/or

fishing mortality

Action required: The limit reference point is the lower

95% confidence interval of the recovery trajectory in the

2006 OMP meaning the limit reference point is not a

constant, but a level that will vary over time. At its lowest

point, a M. paradoxus spawning biomass might not be low

enough to trigger management override of the default OMP

response, risking recruitment failure.

SG 80 states: ‘Limit and target/precautionary reference

points should be justified based on stock biology (e.g. a

stock-recruitment relationship) and measurable given data

and assessment limitations. Reference points may be

probability based’.

It is anticipated that the OMP will undergo revision during

2010. This condition could be addressed within this

planning process and thereby formally linked to the harvest

Y This conditon was closed at surveillance audit 1 when evidence was

presented that appropriate reference points had been identified and

implemented through the development of the OMP for both hake species.




Page 109

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

control rules (OMP) that will be used to set TACs for the

period of certification. The OMP revision process in 2010

should explicitly consider limit control rules with that

planning evaluation.

Timescale: Appropriate limit and target reference points

enacted within one year of certification.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.3.1

Condition 8: Operational Procedures

Evidence should be provided of an appropriately detailed

plan of delivery and where necessary the reimplementation

of effective procedures to support the fishery management

objectives.

These procedures should include, at least, appropriate ways

of collecting and subsequently handling the scientific and

non-scientific data required to effectively manage the

fishery, including, for example, the target species, fish by-

catch (by-product) species and interactions with ETP

species as well as elements of MCS.

Timescale: Evidence of the development of a viable plan

to deliver the appropriate operational procedures should be

provided within 6 months, and will be reviewed prior to the

next surveillance audit.

Evidence of the effective implementation and functioning

of the planned operational procedures should be provided

within 12 months, and will be reviewed at the next

Y This condition was raised at the second surveillance audit and closed at the

third surveillance audit when evidence was presented that there are

appropriate monitoring procedures in place.




Page 110

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

surveillance audit.

Relevant Scoring Indicator: 3A.3.2

Condition 9: Monitoring Programme

Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the

arrangements for monitoring and recording key aspects of

the fishery and its effects have been re-established.

This should include measures to address the key

components of fishery management pertinent to this

fishery, including information representative of the fishery

to apportion catch to the two hake species, length- and age-

frequencies of target and by-catch species, incidental

interaction with an implementation of mitigation measures

to protect ETP species (including seabirds). The developed

monitoring programme may require both on-shore and off-

shore elements.

Timescale: Evidence of the development of a viable plan to

deliver an appropriate monitoring programme for the

fishery should be provided within 6 months, and will be

reviewed prior to the next surveillance audit.

Evidence of the effective implementation and functioning

of the planned monitoring programme should be provided

within 12 months, and will be reviewed at the next

surveillance audit.



third surveillance audit when evidence was presented that there is an

appropriate monitoring programme in place.




Page 111

Condition Closed?

(Y/N)

Justification

Condition 10: Enforcement system

Evidence of the implementation of an effective

enforcement system that provides an appropriate degree of

control and compliance should be provided. This system

should include measures to control IUU fishing and

misreporting.

Timescale: Evidence of the implementation of an

appropriate enforcement system should be provided within

12 months, and will be reviewed at the next surveillance

audit.




appropriate enforcement system in place.

Condition 11: Enforcement Monitoring

Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the

arrangements for providing rigorous monitoring of

enforcement measures have been re-established.

Evidence should also be provided that, where necessary,

effective actions have been taken in response to any

breaches in regulations that have been detected.

Timescale: Evidence of the implementation of an

appropriate enforcement system should be provided within

12 months, and will be reviewed at the next surveillance

audit.



appropriate enforcement monitoring programme in place.



Page 112

8.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

8.4.1 Site Visits

A site visit was carried out in Cape Town, South Africa during the week commencing 17th

March

2014. Attendance at the meetings carried out during the site is detailed in Table 14.

8.4.2 Consultations

A record of meetings held is included in Appendix 4. All aspects of the fishery and its management

were discussed in these meetings.




Page 113

Table 14: List of meetings carried out during the site visit, with date, activity and attendance.

Date Activity Attendance

17th & 21

st

March 2014

Meeting with client group

(SADSTIA)

Tim Reddell, SADSTIA

Roy Bross, SADSTIA

Irvin Esan, Sea Harvest

Jole Gourcia, Echalar

Mr Myawuli, Sea Harvest

Johan Botha, Irvin & Johnson

Colin Attwood, UCT – Scientist

Kobus Maritz, Sea Vana / SECIFA

Craig Bacon, Viking / Secifa.

Rory Williams, SADSTIA

Chris Schooman, SADSTIA

J. Janrough, SADSTIA

Rui Ventura, SADSTIA

Arthur Shipalana, SADSTIA

Felix Ratheb, SADSTIA

Madeda Khumalu, SADSTIA

17th March

2014

Meeting with Birdlife South

Africa*

Bronwyn Maree, Birdlife South Africa

18th March

2014

Meeting with Marine Resource

Assessment and Management

Group (MARAM)

Doug Butterworth, MARAM Scientist

18th March

2014

Meeting with OLRAC*† Mike Bergh, Technical Director,

OLRAC

Philippe Lallemand, Senior Fisheries

Economist, OLRAC.

19th March

2014

Meeting with Department of

Agriculture, Forestry &

Fisheries (DAFF)†

Mortimer Mannya, Deputy Director

General, Fisheries Management

Kim Prochazka, Director, Resource

Research

Deon Durholtz, Scientist, Hake Research

Saasa Pheeha Director, Fisheries

Management

Nambulelo Magqira, Communications

Dennis Frederiks, ACD, MRM

Ceba Mtoba, CD, MCS

Belamane Semole, ACD, CRD

Bernard Liedemann, Acting Director,

Fisheries Patrol Vessels

Nkosinathe Dana, Director, Monitoring

& Surveillance




Page 114

Date Activity Attendance

Xolela Wellem, Control & compliance

Andile Mosheni, ADD – FPV

Thabiso Maratsane, ADD – FPV

20th March

2014

Meeting with South African

National Biodiversity Institute

(SANBI)*

Kerry Sink, SANBI Scientist

20th March

2014

Meeting with South African

Environmental Observation

Network (SAEON)*

Lara Atkinson, SAEON

20th March

2014

World Wide Fund for Nature,

South Africa (WWF-SA)*†

John Duncan

Jessica Greenston

Junaid Francis

20th March

2014

University of Cape Town* Colin Attwood, Scientist.

21st March

2014

Capfish Melanie Smith

Victor Ngcongo

Sarah Wilkinson

Notes

* Meeting attended by Melanie Smith, Capfish, Observer.

† Meeting attended by Martin Purves, MSC South Africa Program Manager, Observer.

8.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

This assessment was announced through direct email sent by Intertek Moody Marine to stakeholders,

notification on the MSC website, Fishery Updates sent by the MSC to interested parties globally, and

an advertisement placed in Fishing News International.

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. The certification

methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into

specific Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts against which the performance of Fishery

can be measured. In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these

identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each

Indicator.

This assessment used the Standard Assessment Tree set out in MSC Certification Requirements v1.3.

Use of this assessment tree has been the subject of stakeholder consultation (direct e-mail from IFC;

notification on the MSC website; and notification via the MSC Fishery Updates). No comments were

received from any stakeholders on the use of this assessment tree.

For each Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for

the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three




Page 115

Principles, 100 represent ideal best practice and 60 a measurable shortfall. A fishery cannot be

certified if a score below 60 is recorded. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a

scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations. Scores are allocated based on the consensus

opinion of the assessment team.

8.4.4 Scoring components and elements

The MSC CR requires that all of the scoring components and elements considered in this assessment

are listed. These are shown in Table 15 overleaf.

8.4.5 Risk Based Framework

The Risk Based Framework has not been used in this assessment.




Page 116

Table 15: Scoring components and elements considered in this assessment. Decisions on whether

or not a particular PI is data deficient have been taken using the guidance set out in Table

AC2 of the MSC Certification Requirements v 1.3.

Component

Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient

or not

UoC 1

1.1.1 - Stock Status Merluccius paradoxus Main No

UoC 2

1.1.1 - Stock Status Merluccius capensis Main No

Both UoCs

2.1.1 M. capensis (for the M. paradoxus

UoC)

Main No

M. paradoxus (for the M. capensis

UoC)

Main No

Lophius vomerinus Main No

Trachurus Trachurus Main No

Pterogymnus laniarius Main No

Argyrosomus inodorus Not main No

Thyrsites atun Not main No

2.2.1 As for 2.1.1

As for 2.1.1 As for 2.1.1

2.3.1 Black Browed Albatross, Thalassarche

melanophris

NA No

Indian Yellow nosed albatross,

Thalassarche carteri

Atlantic Yellow nosed Albatross,

Thallassarche chlororhynchos

White-chinned petrel, Procellaria

aequinoctialis

Cape gannet, Morus capensis

Shy albatross, Thalassarche cauta

Pintado petrel, Daption capense

Great shearwater, Ardenna gravis

Sub-Antarctic skua, Catharacta

antarctica

Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus

Cory’s shearwater, Calonectris

borealis




Page 117

Component

Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient

or not

2.4.1 Southern Benguela Canyon NA No

Southern Benguela Submarine Bank

Southern Benguela Gravel Outer shelf

Southern Benguela Gravel shelf edge

Southern Benguela Hard shelf edge

Southern Benguela Muddy shelf edge

Agulhas Canyon

Agulhas Gravel Outer shelf

2.5.1 Trophic interactions NA NA

8.5 Assessment of the Units of Certification

When the South African Hake trawl fishery was first certified against the MSC Standard, and at its

recertification in 2010, the fishery was regarded as a single unit of certification. The impacts of

fishing for M. paradoxus and M. capensis on the target stocks and all non-target (Principle 2)

components were assessed as if there was just a single hake species.

Over the past 5 years the understanding of the status of the two hake species has improved, and it is

now possible to evaluate the status of each hake species separately against the Principle 1 scoring

guideposts. This approach is used for this fishery for the first time in this second re-assessment.

The assessment team has considered whether it is appropriate to extend the separate assessment of the

two UoCs to Principle 2 and Principle 3, or whether the characteristics of the fishery for M. capensis

and M. paradoxus are sufficiently similar to warrant their continuing assessment together.

We have noted that there is a considerable overlap between the two hake stocks. Although M.

capensis is dominant in inshore catches, some M. paradoxus are also caught on inshore trawl grounds;

and the main catch of both M. paradoxus and M. capensis is taken offshore. Environmental impacts

of the hake trawl fishery in South Africa on non-target species, ETP species, marine habitats and

ecosystems have been examined by observers and scientists in South Africa without specific

consideration of the species being targeted, and it is thus impossible to separate impacts arising from

each UoC independently. Likewise, the management regime is not species-specific.

We have concluded that while it is appropriate to assess the two species against the Principle 1

Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts separately, the overlap between fishing grounds and

management practices makes it inappropriate to assess the two species separately for Principles 2 and

3. The assessment approach is summarised in the table below.




Page 118

Table 16: Proposal for progressing Units of Certification (UoC) at Full Assessment against the

MSC standard.

Principle UoC1: M. capensis UoC2: M. paradoxus

Principle 1: Target Stock Stock status can be determined

for this species and should be

assessed independently.

Stock status can be determined

for this species and should be

assessed independently.

Principle 2: Environmental

Impacts

The overlap of species distribution across all fishing grounds

makes separate assessment of each UoC inappropriate. The UoCs

are assessed together.

Principle 3: Management Both UoCs are managed under the same overall management

regime, with minor differences for inshore and offshore fishing

grounds, where both species are caught. The UoCs are therefore

assessed together.




Page 119

9 TRACEABILITY

9.1 Eligibility Date

This fishery was already certified. With the publication of this PCR the continuity of certified fishery

products is achieved

9.2 Traceability within the Fishery

IFC have evaluated the key elements of traceability within the fishery as required by MSC

Certification Requirements at §27.12.1, below.

a) Tracking & tracing systems

The vessels operating in the Unit of Certification are tracked at all times by satellite VMS systems.

The vessels are also required to report the fishing location, the type of fishing gear used, and the

quantity of fish caught daily using a paper-based logbook system. These reports are reconciled with

landings records. There is therefore a high degree of confidence that the fishing activity carried out

by the vessels under assessment is tracked and recorded by independently verifiable mechanisms.

b) Catch segregation and labelling

In the offshore fleet, the catch is sorted, headed and gutted at sea, then frozen and stored in fish boxes

that are labelled with the date of capture and fishing location.

In the inshore fleet, the catch is sorted, headed and gutted at sea, then stored on ice in fish boxes

before landing.

c) Risk of vessels fishing outside the UoC

The location of all catches and their origin has to be recorded by each fishing vessel. Vessel activity

is monitored using VMS equipment. The risk of a vessel fishing undetected outside the UoC area is

therefore very low.

d) On-board processing

Fish are headed and gutted at sea and landed whole. There is no processing of the fish at sea.

e) Trans-shipment and first point of landing

There is no trans-shipment of fish at sea. All of the catch is landed, mainly to Cape Town and Mossel

Bay in South Arica..

f) Risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish prior to and at the point of

landing.

The offshore fleet target hake all year round, and only use the trawl gear specified in this UoC

(120mm cod end mesh size). All hake caught by the offshore fleet are therefore eligible for

certification. The risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish and comingling of MSC

and non-MSC product is therefore considered to be very low for the offshore fleet.




Page 120

At certain times of year some of the vessels in the inshore fleet may fish for other species of fish and

in other areas using other types of fishing gear (trawls with a mesh size of smaller than 120mm and as

small as 75mm). Skippers are required to report the type of gear that they have used during a fishing

trip, so it is possible to separate MSC and non-MSC product at the point of landing to avoid the

substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish and the risk of co-mingling of MSC and non-MSC

product is therefore considered to be very low.

9.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

IFC has evaluated the eligibility of fish from this fishery to enter into further chains of custody as

required by MSC Certification Requirements at §27.12.2, below.

a) Eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody

Tracking and traceability information for this fishery is considered sufficient for product to be eligible

to enter further chains of custody.

b) Parties eligible to use the fishery certificates

The only company eligible to use the fishery certificate is the South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry

Association (SADSTIA). The only vessels eligible to operate within the fishery are those specified in

this report or listed in the current MSC Certificate for the fishery.

c) Eligible points of landing

The eligible points of landing are Cape Town, Saldanha and Mossel Bay in South Africa.

d) Point of change of ownership from which Chain of Custody certification is required

The point of change of ownership for product from the fishery will be acceptance of fish by customers

into their own storage and processing facilities. All merchants and processors wishing to sell MSC

certified fish that has been purchased from this fishery will therefore require their own Chain of

Custody certification.

9.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further

Chains of Custody

The two hake species under assessment have an overlapping distribution (see Figure 1), and when

they are caught together it is not commercially feasible to separate them due to the practical operation

of the fishery. IFC have therefore considered whether it is appropriate to implement the procedures

set out in the CR (v1.3) at 27.4.9 concerning IPI species.

The most recent analysis for the fishery indicates that the overall species split is 79% M. paradoxus

and 21% M. capensis (Rademeyer, 2012). The CR limit for applying the IPI procedures is that there

is a limit of 15% of the total catch for any species to be eligible for assessment this way (CR at

27.4.9.1c).

The stock assessment for the fisheries takes full account of their overlapping distribution and the




Page 121

mixed catch. Observer data and mathematical models are used to assess the status of the stocks

independently.

IFC conclude that the IPI procedures cannot be applied to the fishery, and that the information about

catch composition is adequate to allow the assessment of each UoC independently.




Page 122

10 EVALUATION RESULTS

10.1 Principle Level Scores

The performance of this fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2, and 3 is summarised in the table

below.

Table 17 Summary of MSC Principle level scores for the South African Hake Trawl fishery UoC

1 (M. paradoxus) and UoC2 (M. capensis)

10.2 Summary of Scores

The scores assigned to each Performance Indicator for this fishery are shown inTable 18.

10.3 Summary of Conditions

A score of less than 80 was awarded for 5 Performance Indicators. The assessment team has

therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client for certification is required to

address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set

by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.

As a standard condition of certification, the client has developed an 'Action Plan for Meeting the

Conditions for Continued Certification', which has been approved by IFC.

As a standard requirement of the MSC certification methodology, the fishery shall be subject to (as a

minimum) annual surveillance audits. Progress towards the milestones set out in the conditions shall

be reviewed at these annual audits. The annual surveillance audits shall be publicised and reports

made publicly available.

The Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Scoring Indicator are summarised in Table 19

below, and set out in detail in section 14 of this report.

UoC 1 UoC 2


Principle 1 - Target species PI 1.1.3 Not scored NA 98.8

PI 1.1.3 Scored 92.1 NA

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 84.0 84.0

Principle 3 - Management 92.5 92.5

Overall weighted Principle-level scores




Page 123

Table 18: Scores for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Scores shaded green attain the

unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass, and red shading

would indicate a fail.

UoC 1 UoC 2


1.1.1 Stock status 70 100

1.1.2 Reference points 100 100

1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 90 NA

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 95 95

1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 100 100

1.2.3 Information & monitoring 100 100

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95

2.1.1 Outcome 80 80

2.1.2 Management 95 95

2.1.3 Information 85 85

2.2.1 Outcome 80 80



2.3.1 Outcome 80 80



2.4.1 Outcome 80 80



2.5.1 Outcome 100 100



3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 100 100

3.1.2 Consultation, roles &

responsibilities100 100

3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100

3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80

3.2.2 Decision making processes 95 95

3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 95 95

3.2.4 Research plan 90 90

3.2.5 Management performance

evaluation

90 90

Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI)

Habitats

Trophic function

Governance and policy

Fishery specific management

system

One

Two

Three

Outcome

Management

Retained species

Bycatch

ETP species




Page 124

Table 19 Summary of Conditions for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery.


Indicator

Unit of Certification 1 – M. paradoxus

1 Stock status

The M. paradoxus stock is below its target reference

point; evidence of ongoing implementation of the

established rebuilding strategy is required.

1.1.1










2.3.3
















appropriate.

2.4.2




Page 125


Indicator

Unit of Certification 2 – M. capensis










2.3.3
















appropriate.

2.4.2

10.3.1 Recommendations

Recommendations are not mandatory requirements of certification, but address any areas where the

performance of the fishery against the MSC standard could be improved. The assessment team has

made one recommendation for this fishery:-

1. Monitoring, control & surveillance (MCS): while the current level of performance of the fishery

meets the SG80 requirements, the team notes that there have been problems with MCS

implementation in recent years. Evidence of effective and ongoing implementation of the MCS




Page 126

measures will be sought at annual surveillance audits. (This recommendation relates to the

scoring of PI 3.2.3).




Page 127

10.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less

than 60 against any Indicators.

The assessment team has concluded that the South African Hake Trawl Fishery (as defined in this

report) should therefore be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and

Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

10.5 Changes in the Fishery Prior to and Since Pre-Assessment

This section is not applicable to this fishery. There has been no pre-assessment prior to this

assessment.




Page 128

11 REFERENCES

11.1 Publications cited

Atkinson, L., Attwood, C., Sink, K., & Lindholm, J., 2012. Trawl closure experimental design report.

Unpublished report. 28pp.

Atkinson, L.J. (2009) Effects of demersal trawling on marine infaunal, epifaunal and fish

assemblages: studies in the southern Benguela and Oslofjord. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town.

141pp.

Atkinson, L.J., Field, J.G. and Hutchings, L. (in press). Effects of demersal trawling along the west

coast of southern Africa: I. Multivariate analysis of benthic assemblages.

Atkinson, L.J., Leslie, R.W., Field, J.G. and Jarre, A. (in press). Changes in demersal fish

assemblages on the west coast of South Africa, 1986–2009.

Attwood, C., 2012. Revised bycatch management strategy for South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery.

Discussion document prepared for the Bycatch Task Team. March 2012. 25pp.

Attwood, C. 2014a. Preliminary investigation into patterns of bycatch in the Hake-trawl fishery as

determined from observer records: 2008 to 2013 Report presented to Marine Stewardship Council

Surveillance Team, March 2014

Attwood, C. 2014b. Voyage 111 of the Ellen Khuzwayo 2 to 9 February 2014 Chief scientist’s report

Attwood, C., 2014c. Preliminary Report of the First Survey of the Benthic Trawl Experiment

Attwood, 2014.

Attwood, C., Petersen, S., and Kerwath, S. 2011. Bycatch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery as

determined from observer records. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2011), 68(10), 2163–2174.

Attwood, Petersen & Kerwath (2011). Bycatch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery as determined

from observer records. ICES J Mar Sci, 68, 2163-2174

Booth, A.J., & Punt, A.E., 1998. Evidence for rebuilding in the panga stock on the Agulhas Bank,

South Africa. Fisheries Research 34, 403-421

Booth, A.J., Brouwer, S.L., & Hecht, T., 1999. Consideration on the feasibility of a directed fishery

for panga Pterogymnus laniarius (Pisces: Sparidae). S. Afr. J. Mar. Sci., 21, 77-88.

Bourne, W.R.P., 1983. Birds, fish and offal in the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 14, 294-

296.

Brandão, A., & Butterworth, D.S., 2008. Updated assessment of the South African Kingklip resource

including an initial attempt at including catch at length data. MCM/2008/NOV/SWG-DEM: 75.

30pp.

Brandão, A., & Butterworth, D.S., 2013. A “Replacement Yield” Model Fit to Catch and Survey

Data for the South and West Coasts Kingklip Resource of South Africa.

FISHERIES/2013/SEP/SWG-DEM/51(rev). 12pp.

Butterworth, D.S. & Geromont, H.F., 2011. Issues that need to be addressed in revision of estimates

of bird kills in trawling operation. FISHERIES/2011/MAY/SWG-DEM/11 1pp.




Page 129

Capfish, 2008. Technical Report Ring-fencing of Trawl Grounds within the R.S.A. EEZ Produced for

: The South African Deep-sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA)

Capfish, 2011. Description and evaluation of the hake directed trawling intensity on benthic habitat in

South Africa. Prepared for the South African Deepsea Trawling Industry Association in fulfilment of

the Marine Stewardship Council certification of the South African Hake-Directed Trawl Fishery :

Condition 4

Capfish, 2013. Review of Significant Bycatch and “Joint Product” Species in the South African Hake-

Directed Trawl Fishery. Prepared for the South African Deep Sea Trawling Industry Association,

SADSTIA

DAFF, 2011. Demersal Research Strategy, 2011-2014. FISHERIES/2011/MAR/SWG-DEM/04

DAFF. 104pp

DAFF, 2014. Report from the Inshore Trawl By-catch Task Team. March 2014.

FISHERIES/2014/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 6pp.

Daneel, C., & Attwood, C., 2013. Bycatch in South Africa’s Offshore Trawl Fishery as Determined

from Observer Records. Draft DEG report, January 2013. 45pp.

Donovan, B., 2010. A retrospective assessment of the Port Alfred linefishery with respect to changes

in the South African fisheries management environment. MSc thesis. Rhodes University,

Grahamstown, South Africa, 147pp.

Fairweather, T., Booth, A., Sauer, W. and Leslie, R. 2006. Spatial description of hake-directed

fishing activity off the west coast of South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science, 28(1): 13–24.

Field, J. Attwood, C., and Jarre, A. 2013. Cooperation between scientists, NGOs and industry in

support of sustainable fisheries: the South African hake Merluccius spp. trawl fishery experience.

Journal of Fish Biology (2013)doi:10.1111/jfb.12118, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com

FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59. The 2010 Operational Management Procedure for the

South African Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis Resources. Rademeyer, Fairweather, Glazer,

Leslie and Butterworth

Fisheries_2013_NOV_SWG-DEM_68. Use of commercial vessels for hake surveys, calibration

versus gear replication for achieving short term continuity. OLRAC,

Gasche, L., Gascuel, D., Shannon, L., & Shin Y.-J., 2012. Global assessment of the fishing impacts

on the Southern Benguela ecosystem using an EcoTroph modelling approach. J. Mar. Sci. 90, 1-12.

Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796311001709

Glazer, J., 2013. An updated assessment of the South African Monkfish resource, Lophius

vomerinus. FISHERIES/2013/SEPT/SWG-DEM/42. 9pp.

Glazer, J.P., Fairweather, T.P., & Cooper, R., 2013. Summary of monkfish catches from different

sources. FISHERIES/2013/SEPT/SWG-DEM/41. 7pp.

Greenston, J.D., 2013. Assessing the suitability of an Individual Transferable Quota System to

address unregulated by-catch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery. M. Phil. Thesis, University of

Cape Town. 69pp.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924796311001709




Page 130

Groeneveld JC (2003) - Under-reporting of catch of South Coast rock lobster (Palinurus gilchristi)

with implications for the assessment and management of the fishery. Afr. J. Mar Sci. 25: 407-411.

Japp, D.W., Smith, M. and Wilkinson, S. (2009). An Overview of Marine Protected Areas in South

Africa and Alternatives for the Application to Offshore Fisheries Management Areas Report to

SADSTIA. 23pp

Jennings, S. & Kaiser M.J., 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Marine Biology 34,

201-352.

Leslie, R., & Glazer, J., 2012. Trends in swept-area abundance indices for various commercial and

non-commercial species from trawl surveys on the west and south coasts. Unpublished DAFF report.

Leslie, R., & Glazer, J., 2013. Trends in abundance indices from West and South Coast trawl

surveys. FISHERIES/2013/FEB/SWG-DEM/72. 12pp.

Lombard. M., Attwood, C., Sink, K. & Grantham, H. (2010). Use of Marxan to identify potential

closed areas to reduce bycatch in the South African inshore trawl fishery. Report to WWF South

Africa and the Responsible Fishery Alliance. 11 pages.

Mann, B.Q., 2013. Southern African Marine Linefish Species Profiles. Oceanographic Research

Institute, Durban. Special Publication No. 9, September 2013. 357pp.

MARAM IWS/DEC13/General/4. International review report for the 2013 international stock

assessment workshop. UCT. Smith, Cox, Parma and Punt

MARAM IWS/DEC13/General/3 Document list for the International Stock Assessment Workshop.

Butterworth

Maree, B.A., & Wanless, R.M., 2011a. Seabird bycatch rates and an extrapolated estimate of the total

annual mortality of albatrosses and other seabirds in the South African deep-water hake trawl fishery.

FISHERIES/2011/MAY/SWG-DEM/19. 13pp.

Maree, B.A., & Wanless, R.M., 2011b. Response to Butterworth and Geromont (2011): “Issues that

need to be addressed in revision of estimates of bird kills in trawling operations

(FISHERIES/2011/MAY/SWG-DEM/11)”. FISHERIES/2011/MAY/SWG-DEM/19. 3pp.

Maree, B. A., Wanless, R. M., Fairweather, T. P., Sullivan, B. J. and Yates, O. (2014), Significant

reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation.

doi: 10.1111/acv.12126

MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; Gazette No. 18930, Notice No. 747.

Commencement date: 1 September 1998 [Proc. No. 80, Gazette No. 19148)

OLRAC (undated). Principles and imperatives for modifying effort limitations in the offshore trawl

sector of the South African hake fishery. Report to SADSTIA. 2pp.

OLRAC, 2012. Re-appraising the CPUE database for the South African hake. Unpublished report,

11pp.

Parma, A., Punt, A.E. & Stefansson, G., 2010. International review panel report for the 2010

international fisheries stock assessment workshop. 29 November – 3 December 2010, UCT. Unpubl

report. 14pp. MARAM IWS DEC10 Rep 1




Page 131

Payne, A.I.L, 2011. External report of the management system for the South African Hake trawl

fishery. Unpublished report prepared for SADSTIA by Cefas. 39pp.

R.A. Rademeyer, T. Fairweather, J.P. Glazer, R.L. Leslie and D.S. Butterworth, 2010. The 2010

Operational Management Procedure for the South African Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis

Resources. 36pp. FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59

Rademeyer, R.A & Butterworth, D.S., 2010a. Proposed Reference Set for the South African hake

resource to be used in OMP-2010 testing. 68pp. MCM/2010/FEB/SWG-DEM/05.

Rademeyer, R.A & Butterworth, D.S., 2010b. A Note on the Sensitivity of Hake Assessments to the

Choice of the Central Year for the Shift from a Primarily M. capensis to Primarily M. paradoxus

Fishery. 4pp. MCM/2010/FEB/SWG-DEM/10.

Rademeyer, R.A., 2011a. 2011 Routine Update of the South African Hake Base Reference Case

Assessment. FISHERIES/2011/AUGUST/SWG-DEM/39.

Rademeyer, R.A., 2011b. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2010 for the 2012 TAC

recommendation. FISHERIES/2011/AUGUST/SWG-DEM/40.

Rademeyer, R.A., 2012a. 2012 Routine Update of the South African Hake Base Reference Case

Assessment. FISHERIES/2012/OCT/SWG-DEM/22.

Rademeyer, R.A., 2012b. Output from the South African Hake OMP-2010 for the 2013 TAC

recommendation. FISHERIES/2012/SEPT/SWG-DEM/21.

RFA, 2011. Recommended amendments to Hake Deep-Sea Trawl Permit Conditions prepared by

SADSTIA re: seabird mitigation. FISHERIES/2011/JUL/SWG-DEM/32. 5pp.

Shannon, L.J., Curry, P.M. & Jarre, A., 2000. Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela

ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 720-722. Available from:

http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/literature/shannon_et_al_00.pdf

Singh, L., Cooper, R., & van der Westhuizen, J., 2013. Update on commercial catches and length

frequencies for 2013 horse mackerel assessments. FISHERIES/2013/AUG/SWG-DEM/24. 4pp.

Sink, K. & Attwood, C.G. (2008) Guidelines for offshore marine protected areas in South Africa.

SANBI Biodiversity Series 9. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa:

18 pp.

Sink, K., Attwood, C. and Malebu, S. (2012). Spatial management to support by-catch management in

the inshore component of the South African demersal trawl fishery. Unpublished DAFF Scientific

Working Group document FISHERIES/2013/APR/SWG-DEM/ITBTT/04 Proposed FMAs.

Sink K.J, Wilkinson S., Atkinson L.J, Sims P.F, Leslie R.W. and Attwood C.G. 2012. The potential

impacts of South Africa’s demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: historical perspectives,

spatial analyses, current review and potential management actions. Unpublished report, South African

National Biodiversity Institute, 84pp. Available from:

http://www.sanbi.org/sites/default/files/documents/documents/benthic-report-sadstia-sink-et-al-2012-

draft.pdf

Sink K.J., Attwood C. and Malebu T. 2013. Spatial management to support bycatch management in

the South African demersal hake fishery. Unpublished Report. March 2013. 7pp.

http://iod.ucsd.edu/courses/sio278/literature/shannon_et_al_00.pdf




Page 132

Sink KJ, Attwood CG, Lombard AT, Grantham H, Leslie R, Samaai T, Kerwath S, Majiedt P,

Fairweather T, Hutchings L, van der Lingen C, Atkinson LJ, Wilkinson S, Holness S, Wolf T. 2011.

Spatial planning to identify focus areas for offshore biodiversity protection in South Africa. Final

Report for the Offshore Marine Protected Area Project. Cape Town: South African National

Biodiversity Institute. 79pp.

Sink, K., Wilkinson, S., Atkinson, L., Sims, P., and Leslie, R. 2012. The potential impacts of South

Africa’s demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: Historical perspectives, spatial analyses,

current review and potential management actions.

Sink, Lombard, Grantham, Attwood, Leslie, Samaai, Kerwath, Fairweather, van der Lingen,

Atkinson, Wolf, & Majiedt. (2010). Systematic Biodiversity Planning to identify a potential offshore

Marine Protected Area network for South Africa. Unpublished Draft Report, SANBI, 34 pp.

Smith M., 2010. Using the observer data to calculate the Catch-At-Length estimates for the South

African hake stock assessments. Report to SADSTIA 9pp.

Smith, M., 2013. Progress report of the SADSTIA observer seabird data. Capfish, July 2013. 5pp.

Smith, A.D.M., Fernandez, C., Parma, A., & Punt, A.E., 2011. International review panel report for

the 2011 international fisheries stock assessment workshop. 28 November – 2 December 2011, UCT.

Unpubl report. 18pp. MARAM IWS DEC11 Rep 1

Smith, A.D.M., Fernandez, C., Parma, A., & Punt, A.E., 2012. International review panel report for

the 2011 international fisheries stock assessment workshop. 26-30 November 2012, UCT. Unpubl

report. 12pp. MARAM IWS DEC11 Rep 1

Smith, M. & Japp, D. (2009). A review of the life history of Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis

with emphasis on spawning, recruitment and migration. Report to SADSTIA 29pp.

Smith, M., & Japp, D., 2013. Namibian and South African Horse mackerel resource: September 2013

update. Available from:

http://oceana.co.za/sites/default/files/South_African_Namibian_Horse_mackerel_2013.pdf

Smith, M., 2012. SADSTIA Observer Program: Progress Report. Report for the Deep Sea Trawling

Association (SADSTIA).

Smith, M., Cochrane, K., & Japp, D, 2013. Review of significant bycatch and “joint product” species

in the South African Hake-Directed trawl fishery. Prepared for the South African Deep Sea Trawling

Industry Association by Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring. 69pp.

Sofía Solano-Fernández, Colin G. Attwood, Russell Chalmers, Barry M. Clark, Paul D. Cowley,

Tracey Fairweather, Sean T. Fennessy, Albrecht Götz, Trevor D. Harrison, Sven E. Kerwath, Stephen

J. Lamberth, Bruce Q. Mann, Malcolm J. Smale And Lieze Swart (2012). Assessment of the

effectiveness of South Africa's marine protected areas at representing ichthyofaunal communities.

Environmental Conservation, 39, pp 259-270. doi:10.1017/S0376892912000070.

South Africa Environment Outlook: A Report on the State of the Environment (2006). Chapter 7:

Marine and Coastal Resources. Department of Environment and Tourism. Pp 169-198.

Travers-Trolet, M., Shin Y.-J., Shannon, L.J., Moloney, C.L., & Field, J.G., 2014. Combined fishing

and climate forcing in the Southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling

http://oceana.co.za/sites/default/files/South_African_Namibian_Horse_mackerel_2013.pdf




Page 133

approach reveals dampened effects. Plose One 9 1-9. Available from:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.009

4286&representation=PDF

Watkins, B.P, Petersen, S.L., & Ryan, P.G., 2008. Interactions between seabirds and deep water hake

trawl gear: an assessment of impacts in South African waters. Animal Conservation 11, 247-254.

Winker, H., Kerwath, S.E. & Attwood, C.G., 2012. Report on stock assessments of important South

African linefish resources. LSWG – February 2012 #3. Unpubl report. 65pp.

WWF and Ventura, 2013. Responsible Fisheries Training Programme RFA Rationale for Responsible

Fisheries Training.

Yemane, D., Field, J.G. and Leslie, R.W. (2010). Spatio-temporal patterns in the diversity of demersal

fish communities off the south coast of South Africa. Mar. Biol. 157:269-281.

11.2 Legislation cited

MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; Gazette No. 18930, Notice No. 747.

Commencement date: 1 September 1998 [Proc. No. 80, Gazette No. 19148)

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. (No. 10 of 2004). Available from:

http://www.speciesstatus.sanbi.org/pdf/a10-04.pdf

REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF THE MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT, 1998. Published

under Government Notice R1111 in Government Gazette 19205, dated 2 September 1998.

Commencement date: 2 September 1998.

Threatened or protected species Regulations 2007 (R152 of 2007). Available from

http://www.speciesstatus.sanbi.org/pdf/regs_23feb07.pdf

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0094286&representation=PDF

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0094286&representation=PDF

http://www.speciesstatus.sanbi.org/pdf/a10-04.pdf

http://www.speciesstatus.sanbi.org/pdf/regs_23feb07.pdf




Page 134

12 SCORING AND RATIONALES

12.1 Principle 1 Evaluation Tables

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 M. paradoxus

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low

probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Guidepost It is likely that the stock

is above the point where

recruitment would be

impaired.

It is highly likely that the

stock is above the point

where recruitment would

be impaired.

There is a high degree of

certainty that the stock is

above the point where


impaired.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The best estimates of the current (2013) M. paradoxus SSB is 147 kt, which is

about 21% of the initial (unexploited) SSB and represents a recovery from a low

point in 2007 (= Blim). Because there is no sign of recruitment failure at the lowest

SSB observed in the stock-recruitment relationship, there is a high degree of

certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

This meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements..

b Guidepost The stock is at or

fluctuating around its

target reference point.


certainty that the stock

has been fluctuating

around its target reference

point, or has been above

its target reference point,

over recent years.

Met? N N

Justification The best estimates of the current (2013) M. paradoxus SSB is 147 kt, which is

about about 98% of the spawning biomass at MSY (153 kt). Whilst it is apparent

that there has been a recovery of M. paradoxus since the low point in 2007, and the

reference set of operating models indicate that the stock was close to its target

reference point in 2013 (SG80), the stock has not been fluctuating around its target

reference point (the SG80 requirement), nor has it been above its target reference

point, over recent years (SG100 not met).

References Rademeyer and Butterworth (2014)

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference point Value of reference point

Current stock status

relative to reference

point

Target reference point Bmsy 153,000t female

spawning stock biomass

(fSSB)

147,000/Bmsy=0.98

Limit reference point Blim Value varies depending

on OMs used in reference

Above fSSB 2007




Page 135

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low

probability of recruitment overfishing

set, but fSSB in 2007

represents proxy Blim

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1




Page 136

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 M capensis

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of

recruitment overfishing


a Guidepost It is likely that the stock is



impaired.

It is highly likely that the

stock is above the point

where recruitment would be

impaired.


certainty that the stock is



impaired.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The best estimates of the current (2013) M. capensis female SSB is 188,000t, which is

about 62% of the initial (unexploited) SSB. Because there is no sign of recruitment failure

at the lowest SSB observed in the stock-recruitment relationship, there is a high degree of

certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The SG60.

80 and 100 requirements are therefore fully met.

b Guidepost The stock is at or fluctuating

around its target reference

point.


certainty that the stock has

been fluctuating around its

target reference point, or has

been above its target

reference point, over recent

years.

Met? Y Y

Justification The best estimate of the current (2013) SSB for M. capensis is 188 kt, which is 3.17 x the

spawning biomass at MSY (68,000t). The current estimate of MSY is about 62,000t

(landings in 2013 were 12,604t). It is apparent that M. capensis continues to fluctuate at a

level well above its target reference point over recent years. The SG80 and 100

requirements are therefore fully met.

References Rademeyer and Butterworth (2014)

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status

relative to reference point

Target reference

point

Bmsy 68,000t female spawning

stock biomass (fSSB)

188,000/Bmsy=3.17

Limit reference

point

Blim Value varies depending on

OMs used in reference set,

but fSSB in 2007 represents

proxy Blim

Well above fSSB 2007


CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA




Page 137

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 both M. paradoxus and M. capensis

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock


a Guidepost Generic limit and target

reference points are based

on justifiable and reasonable

practice appropriate for the

species category.

Reference points are

appropriate for the stock and

can be estimated.

Met? Y Y

Justification The assessment estimates stock status (female SSB) in relation to MSY, current biomass

relative to initial unexploited biomass (B0,1917) and to biomass at MSY, exploitation rates

and time trends in recruitment. Additionally, estimates of uncertainty (variance) are

determined for most of these quantities.

Targets and limits have de facto been established through development of the OMP, and

proxies for limit (lowest observed fSSB, in 2007) and long-term target (SSB at MSY)

reference points are justified based on stock biology, some elements of uncertainty and

variability and data limitations and statistical simulations of these factors. These reference

points meet the SG80 and 100 requirements.

b Guidepost The limit reference point is

set above the level at which

there is an appreciable risk

of impairing reproductive

capacity.

The limit reference point is

set above the level at which

there is an appreciable risk

of impairing reproductive

capacity following

consideration of

precautionary issues.

Met? Y Y

Justification The stock-recruitment model used in the assessment is estimated separately for each species

from 1985 to the present, and the reference set of operating models (OM) for testing the

2014 OMP revision for the South African hake resource covers three major areas of

uncertainty: 3 centre-years for the change in the preponderance from M. capensis to M.

paradoxus in the catch (1950, 1958 and 1965); 3 natural mortality vectors; and 3 stock-

recruitment relationship models (Ricker: modified Ricker and Beverton-Holt). Whichever

scenario is chosen, it is apparent that recruitment levels of both M. paradoxus and M.

capensis are sustained even at the lowest SSB levels recorded, and that this level (in 2007)

could be taken as a proxy for Blim. The limit reference point is defined as the lower 95%

confidence interval of the recovery trajectory included in the 2010 OMP (see section 5.7.1).

This means that the limit reference point is not a constant, but a level that will vary over

time depending on the reference set of OMs used.

In the case of M. paradoxus, the biomass of the stock has been determined to be below BMSY

until 2013 (when it is estimated to be close to BMSY), and a recovery plan was established

through the OMP that uses interim targets (trajectories of biomass as the stock recovers

toward BMSY) and interim limit reference points (conditions and actions to be taken should

trajectories perform below the probability interval of the OMP projections).




Page 138

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Information from the fishery therefore demonstrates that the limit reference point for each

species is set above the level which would impair recruitment, and takes account of

precautionary issues, meeting the SG80 and 100 requirements.

c Guidepost The target reference point is

such that the stock is

maintained at a level

consistent with BMSY or

some measure or surrogate

with similar intent or

outcome.

The target reference point is

such that the stock is

maintained at a level

consistent with BMSY or

some measure or surrogate

with similar intent or

outcome, or a higher level,

and takes into account

relevant precautionary issues

such as the ecological role of

the stock with a high degree

of certainty.

Met? Y Y

Justification The target reference point is the female SSB in relation to MSY (fBMSY), against which the

current estimate of biomass can be compared.

The target has de facto been established through development of the OMP, and the long-

term target (SSB at MSY) reference point is justified based on stock biology, some elements

of uncertainty and variability and data limitations and statistical simulations of these factors.

The SG80 and 100 requirements are therefore fully met.

d Guidepost For key low trophic level

stocks, the target reference

point takes into account the

ecological role of the stock.

Met? Not relevant

Justification Cape hakes are not a key LTL species

References Rademeyer 2014

Rademeyer and Butterworth, May 2014






Page 139

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 M. paradoxus

PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified

timeframe


a Guidepost Where stocks are depleted

rebuilding strategies, which

have a reasonable

expectation of success, are

in place.

Where stocks are depleted,

strategies are demonstrated

to be rebuilding stocks

continuously and there is

strong evidence that

rebuilding will be complete

within the specified

timeframe.

Met? Y Y

Justification M paradoxus biomass has been below its long-term target since the early 1970s and a

recovery plan was established through the 2010 OMP. The recovery plan established

recovery trajectories which are in effect interim targets, as well as implicit limit reference

points. The 2010 OMP indicated a high probability of increases in biomass from 2007-2012

and beyond, based on probabilistic projections, and defined the actions required if those

trajectories are not realized, including both target and limit reference points during recovery.

The most recent assessments have shown that the OMP’s spawning biomass recovery

trajectory, indicating a high probability that the SSB of M. paradoxus will increase from

2007 to 2012, has been vindicated, and fSSB is currently – 2013 - at around 98% of the

biomass at MSY.

Appropriate rebuilding strategies are being implemented and there is good evidence that

rebuilding will be complete within the specified time frame (10 years from 2010). This will,

however, be subject to careful scrutiny at ensuing annual surveillance audits. The

rebuilding strategy therefore meets both the SG60 and SG100 requirements.

b Guidepost A rebuilding timeframe is

specified for the depleted

stock that is the shorter of 30

years or 3 times its

generation time. For cases

where 3 generations is less

than 5 years, the rebuilding

timeframe is up to 5 years.

A rebuilding timeframe is

specified for the depleted

stock that is the shorter of 20

years or 2 times its

generation time. For cases

where 2 generations is less

than 5 years, the rebuilding

timeframe is up to 5 years.

The shortest practicable

rebuilding timeframe is

specified which does not

exceed one generation time

for the depleted stock.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The projected recovery for M. paradoxus under the OMP recognised that it was unrealistic

for socio-economic reasons to get M. paradoxus biomass to BMSY within a ten year period

(approx. 2 x the generation time for M. paradoxus), with the expectation that the OMP

would be periodically redesigned to achieve BMSY shortly thereafter. This, coupled with

the precautionary design (Ricker S/R model not used, species conversion of the fishery later

than the 1950’s and earlier maturity) has been suggested by the assessment scientists as

features that will result in recovery that is in effect more rapid than currently projected in

the OMP.

The rebuilding timeframe is 10 years, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. It is not the




Page 140

PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified

timeframe

shortest rebuilding timeframe possible, so the SG100 requirements are not met.

c Guidepost Monitoring is in place to

determine whether the

rebuilding strategies are

effective in rebuilding the

stock within a specified

timeframe.

There is evidence that they

are rebuilding stocks, or it is

highly likely based on

simulation modelling or

previous performance that

they will be able to rebuild

the stock within a specified

timeframe.

Met? Y Y

Justification Rebuilding of the M. paradoxus stock is progressing through implementation of the OMP,

which has requirements that assist with monitoring and re-evaluation. These include an

annual review of population and fishery indicators, and any other relevant data or

information on the population, fishery and ecosystem, with which to conduct a routine

updated assessment (likely to be core reference set models, used in the OMP testing, refitted

to take a further year’s data into account).

Every two years an in-depth stock assessment (more intensive than the annual process

above) is conducted, and in particular including the conduct of a range of sensitivity tests.

Also, a full re-evaluation of the OMP will be conducted in September 2014.

The most recent assessments have shown that the OMP’s spawning biomass recovery

trajectory, indicating a high probability that the SSB of M. paradoxus will increase from

2007 to 2012, has been vindicated, and fSSB is currently (2013) at around 98% of the

biomass at MSY). This information provides evidence that the strategy is likely to rebuild

stocks within a specified timeframe, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements.

References

Rademeyer, 2010

Rademeyer 2014

Rademeyer and Butterworth, May 2014






Page 141

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 (both species)

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place


a Guidepost The harvest strategy is

expected to achieve stock

management objectives

reflected in the target and

limit reference points.

The harvest strategy is

responsive to the state of the

stock and the elements of the

harvest strategy work

together towards achieving

management objectives

reflected in the target and


The harvest strategy is

responsive to the state of the

stock and is designed to

achieve stock management

objectives reflected in the

target and limit reference

points.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification A harvest strategy has been established based upon the stock assessment as integrated

through the OMP. This aims to balance the returns to the fishery (catch) against the

perceived risks to the stock (of fishing). The rules for specifying the TAC are fully specified

and are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to

hake productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments. Appropriate mechanisms are

utilised to contain harvest as and when required to maintain, or allow the hake stocks to be

maintained at, or return to, target levels. Essentially, the OMP is the decision rule used to

establish the TAC, and its objectives of the OMP include reference points and management

targets within the design of the rules. Thus, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of

the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and


b Guidepost The harvest strategy is likely

to work based on prior

experience or plausible

argument.

The harvest strategy may not

have been fully tested but

evidence exists that it is

achieving its objectives.

The performance of the

harvest strategy has been

fully evaluated and evidence

exists to show that it is

achieving its objectives

including being clearly able

to maintain stocks at target

levels.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated. The OMP has been

thoroughly tested for robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and

management process, both at the time of revision of the OMP (every 4 years) and annually

or more frequently as is considered necessary in light of new information. The rules for

specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations under various

hypotheses relating to hake productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments.

The results of the stock assessments show that the harvest strategy it is achieving its

objectives, including being clearly able to maintain the M. capensis stock at the target level

(>MSY, though the fishery itself aims to maximise CPUE and minimise fishing time), and

to promote recovery of the M. paradoxus stock. The latest assessment suggests that this is

was probably achieved in 2013, but it is not yet clear that the strategy will be able to

maintain this stock at target levels.




Page 142

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

c Guidepost Monitoring is in place that is

expected to determine

whether the harvest strategy

is working.

Met? Y

Justification The OMP requires that monitoring and re-evaluation are in place to determine whether the

harvest strategy is working. These include an annual review of population and fishery

indicators, and any other relevant data or information on the population, fishery and

ecosystem, with which a routine updated assessment is conducted (the core reference set

models, used in the OMP testing, refitted to take a further year’s data into account). Every

two years an in-depth stock assessment (more intensive than the annual process above) is

conducted, with a range of sensitivity tests.

In this sense, the OMP development process is an ex ante test of the strategy relative to

uncertainties. However, retrospective testing in the context of how well previous renditions

of the OMP performed in the context of actual results are less well defined.

d Guidepost The harvest strategy is

periodically reviewed and

improved as necessary.

Met? Y

Justification The harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably

managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly. The most recent review was

conducted at the International Workshop (IWS) held in 2013, from which the panel of

international peer reviewers recommended a number of improvements (e.g. longline data be

treated in sex disaggregated form; accommodation of the change in survey catchability

associated with the use of a new gear by Africana). New assessment reflected work has

already been carried out in response to the panel’s recommendations, as part of the

redevelopment of the OMP scheduled in September 2014.

e Guidepost It is likely that shark finning

is not taking place.

It is highly likely that shark

finning is not taking place.


certainty that shark finning


Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification Sharks are not a target species and this scoring issue has not been scored.

References Smith et al., 2013






Page 143

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place


a Guidepost Generally understood

harvest rules are in place

that are consistent with the

harvest strategy and which

act to reduce the

exploitation rate as limit

reference points are

approached.

Well defined harvest

control rules are in place

that are consistent with the

harvest strategy and ensure

that the exploitation rate is

reduced as limit reference

points are approached.

Met? Y Y

Justification Well defined harvest control rules are established within the OMP, and these are

understood and agreed by scientists, the industry and managers. Essentially, the OMP

is the decision rule used to establish a TAC against the objectives that include

reference points and management targets. These rules have been thoroughly tested for

robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and management

process. Appropriate mechanisms are utilised to contain harvest as and when required

to maintain, or allow the target stocks to return to, productive levels.

As explained in 1.1.3 above, a recovery plan for M paradoxus was established through

the 2010 OMP, established recovery trajectories which are in effect interim targets, as

well as implicit limit reference points. The TACs set following the 2010 OMP aimed to

restrict exploitation to give a high probability of increases in biomass from 2007-2012,

and the most recent assessments have shown that the OMP’s spawning biomass

recovery trajectory has been achieved: M. paradoxus fSSB is currently – 2013 - at

around 98% of the biomass at MSY.

Whilst the 2010 OMP lacked formal rules to define actions to be taken if the

population were to have fallen below the limit reference point, the 2010 OMP is

currently (2014) being revised and this revision should formally consider those limit

control rules, conditions under which those rules would be invoked and actions to be

taken when they are invoked.

b Guidepost The selection of the

harvest control rules takes

into account the main

uncertainties.

The design of the harvest

control rules takes into

account a wide range of

uncertainties.

Met? Y Y

Justification The rules for specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations

under various hypotheses relating to hake productivity, uncertainty in current and

future data and uncertainty in controlling exploitation appropriately for the two hake

species though use of a TAC that is aggregated for both species. However, though a

single TAC might give rise to a mismatch in its effect on the two species, the OMP

evaluates the impact of that possibility and uncertainty of management implementation

on the individual hake species.

c Guidepost There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows




Page 144

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

that tools used to

implement harvest control

rules are appropriate and

effective in controlling

exploitation.

indicates that the tools in

use are appropriate and

effective in achieving the

exploitation levels required

under the harvest control

rules.

that the tools in use are

effective in achieving the

exploitation levels required

under the harvest control

rules.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification

Management tools have been specified to implement decisions of input and/or output

controls, which are generic for the two species although these are addressed within the

OMP. The primary management tool is the output control of a single TAC. Input

controls in the form of sea day limits linked to expected catch rates and the TAC have

been applied (one objective is to maximise CPUE) and are functioning as an effective

effort control. Evidence exists to show clearly that these tools are likely to be effective

in achieving relevant management objectives through continuing monitoring against

the OMP objectives.

Note that practicalities limit management’s ability to establish separate TAC’s for the

two hake species and, thus, the TAC is aggregated for both species. Using a single

TAC might give rise to a mismatch between its effect on the two species. However, the

OMP evaluates the impact of that and uncertainty of management implementation on

the individual hake species.

References

FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59.; Rademeyer & Butterworth, 2010;

Rademeyer & Butterworth, 2013.






Page 145


PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy


a Guidepost Some relevant information

related to stock structure,

stock productivity and

fleet composition is

available to support the

harvest strategy.

Sufficient relevant

information related to

stock structure, stock

productivity, fleet

composition and other

data is available to support

the harvest strategy.

A comprehensive range of

information (on stock

structure, stock

productivity, fleet

composition, stock

abundance, fishery

removals and other

information such as

environmental

information), including

some that may not be

directly related to the

current harvest strategy, is

available.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Catch and stock structure: cape hake are unlikely to be confused with other

species, but the two species are not easily discriminated at sea, and the logistics of

recording catch data have resulted in historical landings data that are aggregated over

the two species, i.e. the individual species have not been recorded separately. More

recently, the two species are recorded separately by observers (examination of gill

and otolith morphology and fin ray and vertebrae counts) and in surveys, and

extrapolated to total commercial catches classified by depth distribution. This has

provided a basis for separating historically aggregated catches into the two species,

which has allowed single-species assessments to be conducted with a reasonable

degree of robustness.

The distribution of both species is well established, though there is still some

uncertainty about transboundary migrations between M. paradoxus populations in

South African and Namibian waters. Stock assessment and management units are

consistent with the majority distribution of the respective species’ stocks. The

management implications of incomplete information on transboundary movements

are addressed to some extent by joint programs (BENEFIT) in which comparable

assessment methods are used and similar management benchmarks are employed.

Productivity: The life history of cape hake is relatively well known and is clearly

documented and understood including key behaviour and ecological interactions. All

the basic population parameters are known and reported, including spawning areas,

age and growth, mortality, fecundity, early development and larval distributions.

Information on fecundity is used in the assessments, which assume that individual

fecundity at age is proportional to weight at age after the age of maturity. This is a

standard assumption in assessments. Accordingly, estimates of reproductive capacity

are based on growth rates, which have been estimated and are re-evaluated from time

to time. Important uncertainties still exist in terms of temporal changes and sex-

specific growth, and the reliance of ageing on a single trained otolith reader who is

not consistent throughout the time-series (lack of validation), but the impacts of these




Page 146


uncertainties on the assessments are relatively well known. Hake behaviour is

relatively well understood and ecological interactions of hake have been modelled.

Fleet composition: Fishing methods, gear types and size and composition of fleet are

recorded and regulated through licensing procedures. Observers carry out in situ

reports on gear type deployed, and all fishing methods and gear types employed in

the fishery are therefore known. Selectivity at size by gear (“partial F’s”: the fishing

mortality rate at age relative to the maximum fishing mortality rate for an age) is

estimated within the assessment. For M. paradoxus as the MSC target species, the

main fisheries are identified and significant catches are either recorded or reliably

estimated, though this has an element of uncertainty given potential mixing of stock

in South African and Namibian waters. For M. capensis, all catches are recorded and

used in the stock assessment. Levels of IUU fishing are estimated to be negligible,

but with an element of uncertainty given the increase of rights holders in the fishery.

Other fisheries in the area include the hake-directed handline and longline fisheries

which collectively account for around 10% of the TAC. A sole-directed fishery in

the inshore sector operates with a joint quota (sole/hake) system, whilst hake may be

taken in the mid-water trawl fishery in which hake bycatch is severely limited (<2%

bycatch allowed) and all boats carry permanent observers.

We conclude that a comprehensive range of information, including some that may

not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. This information

meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

b Guidepost Stock abundance and

fishery removals are

monitored and at least one

indicator is available and

monitored with sufficient

frequency to support the

harvest control rule.

Stock abundance and

fishery removals are

regularly monitored at a

level of accuracy and

coverage consistent with

the harvest control rule,

and one or more indicators

are available and

monitored with sufficient

frequency to support the

harvest control rule.

All information required

by the harvest control rule

is monitored with high

frequency and a high

degree of certainty, and

there is a good

understanding of inherent

uncertainties in the

information [data] and the

robustness of assessment

and management to this

uncertainty.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Recruitment indices and female spawning stock biomass (fSSB) time series are

estimated within the stock assessment models for both Cape hake species, and

sufficient years of data are available to establish a general relationship between stock

and recruitment. Though there is lack of understanding on causes and extent of the

variability in recruitment, parameter estimates are adequate for developing biological

reference points.

Nevertheless, estimates of recruitment obtained from assessments are unstable until

information on the cohort is accumulated over time. As a consequence, good and bad

year classes are not detected until they have already been exploited for several years,

which imposes the need for precautionary strategies.




Page 147


Both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance are available.

The fishery-dependent index is generated from CPUE data that undergoes extensive

standardisation encompassing area, season, vessel power factors, by-catch factors and

the incidence and prevalence of trawl “liners” used to avoid mesh size restrictions in

the late 1970s to early 1980s. The mechanisms by which these are incorporated into

the standardisation are well debated with industry. Note that CPUE data prior to 1988

is aggregated over species, whereas, and dis-aggregated by species subsequently.

Fishery-independent indices of abundance are obtained from “swept area” surveys

and are used in the assessments. This allows one to compute the relative efficiency

(q) of the surveys, which varies considerably especially in view of changes in trawl

(old vs new Africana) and vessel (e.g. Africana vs Fridtjof Nansen, e.g.).

Though the fishery-independent and fishery-dependent indices do not show

consistent patterns and trends (the variability limits discrimination), the indices are

proportionally related to abundance/density of the stock with sufficient time series to

allow trends in abundance to be understood clearly. Where fishery independent

surveys are used (for juveniles and/or adults) the design of the survey(s) is

statistically rigorous and robust, indices are not inconsistent and there is evidence that

they are proportional to the stock size.

There is knowledge of biological and physical factors affecting distribution, survival

and year class strength (including natural mortality). Most information is sufficiently

robust for use in the stock assessment process, in that the structure of the assessment

models used and the OMP has been developed based upon relevant

biological/ecological distributions and uncertainties.

The information available for the fishery and the monitoring of fishery removals

meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI.

c Guidepost There is good information

on all other fishery

removals from the stock.

Met? Y

Justification

Landings and catches are accurately recorded in logbooks and as part of effort

management regime. Hake discards and other mortality (including juveniles) are

monitored through the observer programme and reliably estimated in the stock

assessment. While observer coverage is partial (~15-20%), discarding and incidental

mortality of hake is quite limited. All hake, taken by targeted fisheries or in bycatch

are set against the TAC. No other significant sources of human-induced mortality are

identified (IUU fishing is reliably estimated to be negligible). Therefore, the

estimates of overall hake fishing related mortality are reasonably good, meeting the

SG80 requirements.




Page 148


References

FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59.; Rademeyer, 2013; Butterworth, pers

comm; OLRAC, 2012; Smith, 2010.






Page 149


PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status


a Guidepost The assessment is


for the harvest control rule.

The assessment is


for the harvest control rule

and takes into account the

major features relevant to

the biology of the species

and the nature of the fishery.

Met? Y Y

Justification The assessment model used is a sex-disaggregated Age-Structured Production Model

(ASPM), which is fitted directly to age-length keys (ALKs) and length frequency

distributions. The model assesses the two hake species as two independent stocks and is

fitted to species-disaggregated data as well as species-combined data. The general

specifications of the overall model are set out together details of data and parameterisation

in Appendix B of Rademeyer and Butterworth (2013). The ASPM model has been

extensively reviewed both in the context of this hake application and in stocks around the

world. While all models are approximations, the ASPM /OMP evaluation approach appears

to capture all significant features of the Cape hake species’ biology, the nature of the fishery

and the data at hand.

b Guidepost The assessment estimates

stock status relative to

reference points.

Met? Y

Justification Stock status is expressed relative to both limit and target reference points and with

associated CVs (measures of precision).

Forecasts (for setting TACs) are made for each species separately based upon the OMP (the

harvest rule). These are done in terms of future biomass levels relative to targets and limits

and future catches relative to MSY and relative to harvest stability objectives.

The assessment includes the consequences of current harvest strategies, forecasts future

consequences of these and evaluates stock trajectories under decision rules.

c Guidepost The assessment identifies

major sources of

uncertainty.

The assessment takes

uncertainty into account.

The assessment takes into

account uncertainty and is

evaluating stock status

relative to reference points

in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification

The assessment models have been evaluated for significant uncertainties and functional

relationships by examining likelihood, sensitivity analyses (relative to output management

quantities), assumptions of basic model structure and the significance of timing of fishery




Page 150


events. While some of these uncertainties are not yet fully understood, in particular the

quality of data and methods used to perform the apportioning of catch and CPUE into

species, growth rates and lack of recruitment variability and the stock-recruitment steepness

(stock productivity), in many cases the direction of the bias, the range of the variance and

the significance to management are reasonably well-known.

The modelling approaches (likelihood fits, sensitivity analyses, Bayesian approaches,

multiple population models and OMP development through simulation) are all mechanisms

to estimate and evaluate uncertainty. Additionally, the OMP specifically addresses

uncertainties and their effect on the management controls (TACs). Major uncertainties and

assumptions are addressed in the management advice and through the appropriate decision

rules to address those limitations.

The hake assessment process clearly documents the steps taken in these evaluations which

are part of the formal record leading to the management advice to the governmental

decision-makers.

Whilst scientific debate continues about the best way to estimate the probability

distributions, the methods employed for hake are well-known and are considered to be

reliable. More structural uncertainties do not lend themselves easily to the construction of

probability distributions and were evaluated through sensitivity analyses and (more

recently) through Bayesian approaches.

The assessment makes a probabilistic evaluation of the stock status relative to the reference

points (MSY) and projects these into the future over appropriate timescales. Harvest

strategy rules are stochastically evaluated.

d Guidepost The assessment has been

tested and shown to be

robust. Alternative

hypotheses and assessment

approaches have been

rigorously explored.

Met? N

Justification The harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably

managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly, with a view to ensuring that the most

robust basis for the OMP is being used. New work reflecting improvements to the

assessment has already been carried out as part of the redevelopment of the OMP scheduled

in September 2014. It is not clear, however, whether other assessment approaches (for

example, a simple VPA that estimates stock status and provides catch forecasts) would not

be equally suited to an OMP that provided the required management guidance.

It is also not clear whether all existing uncertainties that might affect the estimation of stock

status are adequately accounted for. For example, the recent inclusion of longline data has

led to a change in perception of the stock status for M. paradoxus, varying from 68% to

103% of BMSY depending on the level of dis-aggregation of the catch-at length data. These




Page 151


revisions to the assessment have yet to be peer reviewed (presumably that will happen by

the time the OMP is revised in Oct. 2014), and there remains some uncertainty about the

stock status of deep-water hake.

e Guidepost The assessment of stock

status is subject to peer

review.

The assessment has been

internally and externally

peer reviewed.

Met? Y Y

Justification The assessment models have been extensively reviewed both in the context of this hake

application and in stocks around the world. While all models are approximations, the ASPM

/OMP evaluation approach appears to capture significant features of the species biology, the

nature of the fishery and the data at hand. The harvest strategy, its information and

modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed

regularly. The most recent review was conducted at the International Workshop (IWS) held

in 2013, from which the panel of international peer reviewers recommended a number of

improvements on which new assessment work has already been carried out in as part of the

redevelopment of the OMP scheduled in September 2014.

References Rademeyer and Butterworth (2013).






Page 152

12.2 Principle 2 Evaluation Tables (Both Units of Certification)


PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species

and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species


a Guidepost Main retained species are

likely to be within

biologically based limits

(if not, go to scoring

issue c below).

Main retained species are

highly likely to be within


(if not, go to scoring issue

c below).

There is a high degree of certainty

that retained species are within

biologically based limits and

fluctuating around their target

reference points.

Met? Y Y N

Justification For the purposes of an MSC assessment, “retained” species are those that are caught in the

fishery and are landed by fishing vessels, even if these species have no commercial value.

The MSC define “main” retained species as those that make up 5% or more of the total

catch (unless the retained species have a high value, are vulnerable, or the fishery is large

(MSC GCR at §GCB3.5.2).

For each UoC it is appropriate to consider the target species of the other UoC as a “retained

non-target species” (i.e. M. capensis is considered as a retained species for the M.

paradoxus UoC (and vice-versa)). The stock status of both hake species is well understood

(see section 5.7 of this report). Both species are within biological limits.

There is a considerable amount of information available about the catch of both target and

non-target species in the South African hake trawl fishery. This information is summarised

in section 6.1 of this report. A key finding of this work is that discarding rates are very low

(around 1%), and that the catch data are therefore representative of the retained catch.

Because of the overlap between the M. capensis and M. paradoxus stocks, it is not possible

or appropriate to consider the catch of non-target species for each unit of certification

independently. It is more appropriate to consider all of the species caught in the hake trawl

fishery for both target species, paying due regard to the spatial difference in catch

composition that are apparent from the observer records.

The only species that has been found to make up more than 5% of the total catch of the hake

trawl fishery in the combined offshore and inshore trawl areas (i.e. for all of the area of both

UoCs) is the monkfish, Lophius vomerinus. The status of this species has been assessed

recently (Glazer, 2013), and stock biomass is considered to be stable or slightly increasing

(see section 6.2.5.1 of this report).

Looking at the offshore trawl areas alone (where M. paradoxus is the dominant target

species), it is clear that there are no individual species that make up 5% or more of the

catch.

In the inshore trawl areas (where M. capensis is the dominant target species), there are two

species that made up 5% or more of the catch in the period 2002-06. These are horse

mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) and panga (Pterogymnus laniarius). Information about the

South African horse mackerel stock indicates that this is within biological limits (Japp &

Smith, 2013; Singh et al, 2013). Information about panga indicates that the stock of this

species is recovering (Mann, 2013) after historically high levels of trawling (landings of up

to 18,000t pa) prior to 1991. Current catches in the hake trawl fishery are around 220t pa.

The status of silver kob and snoek have been reviewed in this assessment. These species

both make up less than 5% of the catch but are considered because there may be some

concern about the potential impact of the trawl fishery on their stock status.

a) Silver kob (Argyrosomus inodorus) are understood to appear in the trawl catch

statistics because they are caught in association with the Agulhas sole trawl fishery

(which cannot be removed from the dataset of non-target species). The catch in the

inshore trawl fisheries are reported to be very low indeed (less than 200t and




Page 153



0.15% of the overall catch). Most of the silver kob catch is taken on grounds that

are both inshore and to the east of the hake trawl grounds (Figure 21). The stock of

silver kob in the vicinity of the fishery is estimated at over 7,500t. The inshore

trawl fleet have set a PUCL (146t for all trawling (i.e. hake and sole) in 2014),

which was not attained. This species is therefore highly unlikely to be affected by

the hake trawl fishery and is considered no further.

b) Snoek (Thyrsites atun) are abundant in trawl catches off Saldhanha Bay, where

hake make up just 17% of the catch. The trend in both catch data and CPUE data

from trawl surveys are both positive. Snoek make up around 1.5% of the catch in

the hake fishery overall. The species is therefore considered to fall below the

“main retained species” threshold, and stock status appears to be improving, so it is

considered no further.

The assessment team has applied a cautious approach to the assessment of this SI. We have

considered the status of the species that may make up more than 5% of the catch in either

inshore or offshore areas and for each UoC. These are the non-target hake species for each

UoC (i.e. M. capensis in the M. paradoxus UoC and vice-versa), monkfish (L. vomerinus);

the horse mackerel (T. trachurus) and panga (P. laniarius). The available information for

each scoring element indicates that they are all highly likely to be within biologically based

limits. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are therefore met.

The SG100 requirement is not met because the status of the other retained non-target

species (i.e. those making up less than 5% of the catch) with respect to biologically based

limits has not been determined.

b Guidepost Target reference points are defined

for retained species.

Met? N

Justification Under the MSC Certification Requirements, “Target Reference Points” should be set at a

level compatible with MSY (such as 40% of the unfished biomass or an appropriate proxy).

Although catch limits (PUCLs) have been set for some of the retained non-target species,

there is no evidence that TRPs compatible with MSY have been set for any of them. The

SG100 requirement is therefore not met.

c Guidepost If main retained species

are outside the limits

there are measures in

place that are expected to

ensure that the fishery

does not hinder recovery

and rebuilding of the

depleted species.

If main retained species

are outside the limits

there is a partial strategy

of demonstrably effective

management measures in

place such that the fishery


and rebuilding.

Met? NA NA

Justification Scoring of this issue is conditional on the scoring of SI(a) above. The main retained species

are not considered to be outside biological limits. It is not, therefore, necessary to score this

SI.

d Guidepost If the status is poorly

known there are




Page 154



measures or practices in


result in the fishery not

causing the retained

species to be outside


or hindering recovery.

Met? NA

Justification The status of the main non-target species is known. It is not, therefore, necessary to score

this SI.

References Mann, 2013; Smith et al, 2013; Brandão & Butterworth 2008 & 2013; Glazer, 2013; Japp &

Smith, 2013; Singh et al, 2013; Attwood et al, 2011; Daneel & Attwood, 2013; Winker et al,

2012. Section 6.1 of this report.






Page 155


PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure

the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species


A Guidepost There are measures in place,

if necessary, that are

expected to maintain the

main retained species at

levels which are highly

likely to be within

biologically based limits, or

to ensure the fishery does

not hinder their recovery and

rebuilding.

There is a partial strategy in

place, if necessary, that is

expected to maintain the

main retained species at

levels which are highly

likely to be within

biologically based limits, or

to ensure the fishery does

not hinder their recovery and

rebuilding.

There is a strategy in place

for managing retained

species.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Under the MSC CR, the terms “measures”, “partial strategy” and “strategy” have a

particular meaning:-

Measures – are individual actions that are in place either to manage an impact

directly or coincidentally;

Partial strategy – represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or

more measures and an understanding of how they work but which may not have

been designed to manage the specific impact; and

Strategy – this is a cohesive and strategic arrangement of measures that are

designed to manage an impact of the fishery.

Summarising MSC Guidance on CRv1.3, §GCB3.3

There are management measures in place for the key retained non-target species currently

caught in the hake trawl fishery (monkfish, kingklip and horse mackerel), and also measures

that are designed to manage the overall catch of non-target species. These measures have

emerged after discussions between scientists, managers, the fishing industry and

stakeholders at the “By-catch Task Team” meetings, and form part of a deliberate strategy

to manage the impact of the hake trawl fishery on non-target species.

Throughout the hake trawl grounds, Precautionary Upper Catch Limits (PUCLs) have been

determined for monkfish, kingklip and horse mackerel. These PUCLs have been based

upon independent assessments of stock status based on the best available information and

are intended to deliver a sustainable yield of each non-target species. The PUCLs are

statutory, and are implemented through fishing licence conditions.

During 2014 proposals have been put forward to trial the possible extension of the PUCL

strategy to a further 7 species (panga, silver kob, carpenter, chokka squid, St Joseph sharks,

skates, and gurnards).

In addition to these species-specific management actions, there are also controls on fishing

effort and spatial restrictions on trawling activity that are intended to limit the catch of non-

target species. Examples of these management measures include the restriction of trawling

in coastal waters along much of the South African coast; the creation of fishery management

areas (FMAs); the kingklip closed area off Cape St Francis; and fishing effort limitation (to

match days at sea to target species quota, and thus discourage fishing for non-target

species).

The assessment team also note that SECIFA has imposed a PUCL on its member vessels for

silver kob, a voluntary measure introduced to address concerns about the trawl catch of this

species, which is also important for the inshore line fishery.




Page 156



These management actions represent a strategy for managing impacts on the main retained

non-target species caught when trawling for both M. capensis and M. paradoxus, as well as

some other species that form less than 5% of the catch. The strategy does not applies to all

main non-target species, and also to some species that make up less than 5% of the hake

catch but which are non-trivial components of the catch. This strategy meets the SG60, 80

and 100 requirements.

b Guidepost The measures are considered

likely to work, based on

plausible argument (e.g.,

general experience, theory

or comparison with similar

fisheries/species).

There is some objective

basis for confidence that the

partial strategy will work,

based on some information

directly about the fishery

and/or species involved.

Testing supports high

confidence that the strategy

will work, based on

information directly about

the fishery and/or species

involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The recent assessments of stock status for horse mackerel, kingklip and monkfish indicate

that the strategy for managing these species is working. Stock status is evaluated using both

fishery-dependent data (catch composition) as well as fishery-independent data from the

DAFF trawl surveys.

Although this management strategy has been tested for the non-target species currently

managed using PUCLs, it is clear that the implementation of this part of the management

strategy is not yet complete and has not been tested for all of the species for which PUCLs

are proposed.

Other elements of the management strategy have been implemented (such as limits on sea-

days and the introduction of fishery management areas). Again, there is an objective basis

for confidence that these measures will work, but it there is no evidence of testing to

demonstrate that they are working (partly because these measures have only been

introduced recently).

There is therefore an objective basis for confidence that the management strategy will work,

meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. The limited testing of the strategy does not satisfy

the SG100 requirements. Scoring against this SI may improve as the management strategy

is extended and as its effect become apparent over time.

c Guidepost There is some evidence that

the partial strategy is being

implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that

the strategy is being

implemented successfully.

Met? Y Y

Justification The management strategy (for PUCLs, closed areas and days at sea) are being implemented

through fishing licence condition, which all licence holders are required to comply with.

DAFF enforcement staff have reported no breaches of either inshore or offshore trawl

licence conditions.

Evidence that the management strategy is being implemented successfully is provided by

the reports that the catch of kingklip, monkfish and horse mackerel have remained below the

PUCL levels. The assessment team note that the PUCL for kingklip was revised upwards

during 2013 as the PUCL was approached, which raised concerns that the management

strategy may not have been working properly. We can find no evidence of anything

untoward in the revised stock assessment that resulted in the PUCL being increased during

2013; it appears to be an appropriate and objective assessment of stock status. The 2013

catch of kingklip was within the PUCL limit.

The available evidence suggests that the strategy is being implemented successfully,

meeting the SG80 and 100 requirements.




Page 157



d Guidepost There is some evidence that

the strategy is achieving its

overall objective.

Met? Y

Justification Recent stock assessments for the non-target species managed through the PUCLs are

favourable, and there is evidence of good compliance with the PUCLs over several years.

Ongoing observer trips in both inshore and offshore fishing grounds provide confirmation

that the overall catch of non-target species in the hake trawl fishery is relatively low.

Locations where higher catches of non-target species are taken have been identified, and

management measures are being introduced to protect stocks in these areas.

The information available provides some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall

objectives.

e Guidepost It is likely that shark finning


It is highly likely that shark

finning is not taking place.


certainty that shark finning


Met? Y Y Y

Justification There is no shark finning in this fishery.

References DAFF, 2013; DAFF, 2014; Smith et al, 2013; Brandão & Butterworth 2008 & 2013; Glazer,

2013; Japp & Smith, 2013; Singh et al, 2013; Attwood et al, 2011; Daneel & Attwood,

2013; Section 6.2.3 of this report.






Page 158


PI 2.1.3

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the

risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained

species


a Guidepost Qualitative information

is available on the

amount of main retained

species taken by the

fishery.

Qualitative information

and some quantitative

information are available

on the amount of main

retained species taken by

the fishery.

Accurate and verifiable

information is available on the

catch of all retained species and

the consequences for the status of

affected populations.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Observer trips aboard hake trawl vessels over the past 19 years have provided a dataset of

the actual catch of both target and non-target species on all of the hake trawl grounds. This

dataset contains information from thousands of trawl hauls. The observer data has been

analysed to provide information about changes in the catch of non-target species between

different fishing areas and over time.

Fishery-independent information on the status of retained catch species is also available

from the DAFF trawl survey data. These trawls are carried out on the hake fishing grounds,

and the relative abundance of both the target and non-target species is monitored from the

data collected.

These data provide accurate and verifiable information about the catch of all retained

species. The consequence of these catches is known for some, but not all of the affected

species.

The information available meets all of the SG60 and 80 requirements. The information

from observer trips meets the first part of the SG100 requirement, but this SG is not

completely met because the status of many of the populations of non-target species is not

known. A score of 80 is therefore appropriate.

b Guidepost Information is adequate

to qualitatively assess

outcome status with

respect to biologically

based limits.

Information is sufficient

to estimate outcome

status with respect to

biologically based limits.

Information is sufficient to

quantitatively estimate outcome

status with a high degree of

certainty.

Met? Y Y N

Justification For the main retained species in the hake trawl fishery it is possible to determine outcome

status with respect to biologically based limits (i.e. that the stock is above the level at which

recruitment would be impaired). Assessments have been published for monkfish, kingklip

and horse mackerel which demonstrate this.

Information from the observer programme extending back to 2003 (and earlier) provides an

indication about the catch rates for non-target species.

The SG60 and 80 requirements are met by the quality of the information and stock

assessments presented as evidence. The SG100 requirements are not considered to be met

because the level of understanding is limited to a few of the retained species, and the

outcome status of most of the retained species is not known with certainty.

c Guidepost Information is adequate

to support measures to

manage main retained

species.

Information is adequate to

support a partial strategy

to manage main retained

species.

Information is adequate to support

a strategy to manage retained

species, and evaluate with a high

degree of certainty whether the

strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N




Page 159

PI 2.1.3

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the

risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained

species

Justification The information available about the catch of non-target species in the hake trawl fishery has

formed the basis of the strategy being developed for managing impacts on these species.

The ongoing commitment to continuing to gather this information (either from a reinstated

government scheme of from the continuation of the industry-funded observer programme)

will provide information that will be able to evaluate whether this strategy achieves its

objectives.

The SG60 and SG80 requirements are presently met because the information from the

fishery is supporting the current management strategy (which although more than a “partial

strategy” is nevertheless still in development). The SG100 requirement is not yet met

because it is not yet possible to determine whether this strategy is achieving its objective for

more than a few of the retained species.

d Guidepost Sufficient data continue

to be collected to detect

any increase in risk level

(e.g. due to changes in the

outcome indicator score

or the operation of the

fishery or the

effectiveness of the

strategy)

Monitoring of retained species is

conducted in sufficient detail to

assess ongoing mortalities to all

retained species.

Met? Y Y

Justification The hake trawl fishery continues to be monitored by the industry-funded observer

programme (and there are indications that the government observer programme will also be

reinstated). Both observer programmes are proven to provide information in sufficient

detail to allow changes in risk level and ongoing mortalities of all non-target species to be

assessed. Fishery-independent data (the DAFF trawl surveys) provide a means of

independently verifying trends apparent in the observer data.

The level of fishery monitoring in place meets the SG80 and 100 requirements.

References Attwood et al, 2011; Daneel & Attwood, 2013; DAFF, 2013; DAFF, 2014; Smith et al,

2013; Brandão & Butterworth 2008 & 2013; Glazer, 2013; Japp & Smith, 2013; Singh et al,

2013






Page 160


PI 2.2.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species

or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species

groups


a Guidepost Main bycatch species are

likely to be within


(if not, go to scoring

issue b below).

Main bycatch species are



(if not, go to scoring issue

b below).


that bycatch species are within


Met? Y Y N

Justification For the purposes of MSC assessment, the term “bycatch” means those fish that are discarded

from the catch and are not landed (this distinction is particularly important to make in South

African fisheries, where the term “bycatch” is used to denote all of the non-target species,

including those that are landed). To avoid confusion in the scoring comments, we have used

the descriptive term “discarded species” in describing this element of the catch.

The MSC define “main” discarded species as those that make up 5% or more of the total

catch (unless the discarded species, are vulnerable, or the fishery is large (MSC GCR at

§GCB3.5.2).

All of the observations of the hake trawl fishery from 1995 to the present day indicate that

the discarding rate from the fishery is very low. There are reported to be two reasons for

this. The first is that the catch taken on the offshore grounds is very clean, comprising

mostly hake and a few other marketable species (such as monkfish and kingklip). On the

inshore trawl grounds the catch contains more species and a lower proportion of hake, but

the non-target species are all marketable as “joint product”. There are no quota limits on

any of the non-target species, and hence no requirement to discard them.

The level of discarding from the hake trawl fishery has been estimated by Smith et al

(2013). This study found that around 150t of the catch is discarded per year, equivalent to

around 1% of the total hake catch and less than 1% of total landings. Several species of rat-

tail made up around a third of the discarded catch, followed by Dory, dogsharks and

catsharks.

The available information indicates that there are no “main” discarded species in the hake

trawl fisheries. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are thus met. The SG100 requirements

are not met because this applies to all discarded species, and there is not a high degree of

certainty that all within biological limits.

b Guidepost If main bycatch species

are outside biologically

based limits there are

mitigation measures in


ensure that the fishery


and rebuilding.

If main bycatch species

are outside biologically

based limits there is a

partial strategy of

demonstrably effective

mitigation measures in

place such that the fishery


and rebuilding.

Met? NA NA

Justification There are no “main” bycatch (discarded) species in this fishery. This SI is not scored.

c Guidepost If the status is poorly

known there are

measures or practices in




Page 161

PI 2.2.1

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species

or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species

groups


result in the fishery not

causing the bycatch

species to be outside


or hindering recovery.

Met? Y

Justification The status of the discarded species is poorly known; however the quantities discarded are

low (a few tens of tonnes per year), so the fishery is very unlikely to be causing these

species to be outside biologically based limits or to hinder their recovery.

References

Smith et al, 2013; Attwood et al, 2013; Daneel & Attwood, 2013; Walmsley et al, 2007;

section 6.1.






Page 162


PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery

does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations


a Guidepost There are measures in

place, if necessary, that

are expected to maintain

the main bycatch species

at levels which are


biologically based limits,

or to ensure the fishery

does not hinder their

recovery and rebuilding.

There is a partial strategy

in place, if necessary, that

is expected to maintain

the main bycatch species

at levels which are highly

likely to be within

biologically based limits,

or to ensure the fishery

does not hinder their

recovery and rebuilding.

There is a strategy in place for

managing and minimizing bycatch.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Under the MSC CR, the terms “measures”, “partial strategy” and “strategy” have a

particular meaning:-

Measures – are individual actions that are in place either to manage an impact

directly or coincidentally;

Partial strategy – represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or

more measures and an understanding of how they work but which may not have

been designed to manage the specific impact; and

Strategy – this is a cohesive and strategic arrangement of measures that are

designed to manage an impact of the fishery.

Summarising MSC Guidance on CRv1.3, §GCB3.3

Discarding of quota species (hake and Agulhas sole) in South Africa is illegal.

A strategy is being developed to manage the bycatch (meaning the catch of all non-target

species) for the hake trawl fishery. This strategy is mainly being delivered through

measures that are designed to manage impacts on retained non-target species. Whilst some

of these measures are species-specific (such as the PUCLs that have been set for monkfish,

kingklip and horse mackerel) and thus limited in their effect to the species concerned, other

measures are likely to benefit both retained and discarded non-target species. Such

measures include effort limitation (matching days at sea to hake quota); spatial restrictions

on trawling (in many coastal areas, and also in specific Fishery Management Areas).

The key measure in place for minimising discarding is the industry practice of retaining all

of the marketable catch as “joint product”. This has resulted in a very low level of

discarding, such that there are no “main” discarded species.

The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met because there is a partial strategy in place that

clearly and consistently results in very low levels of discarding.

b Guidepost The measures are

considered likely to

work, based on plausible

argument (e.g. general

experience, theory or

comparison with similar

fisheries/species).


basis for confidence that

the partial strategy will

work, based on some


the fishery and/or species

involved.

Testing supports high confidence

that the strategy will work, based

on information directly about the

fishery and/or species involved.

Met? Y Y N




Page 163

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery

does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations

Justification Information directly from fishery observers indicates that discarding from the hake trawl

fisheries are at a very low level (less than 1% of total catch). This low level of discarding

has been seen in all observer trips over the past 19 years. The information provides an

objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy in place (a combination of formal

management measures and industry practices) work effectively to sustain a low level of

discarding. The SG60 and 80 requirements are met, but the SG100 requirements are not

met because there is no evidence that there is a strategy in place for managing discarding, or

any testing.

c Guidepost There is some evidence

that the partial strategy is

being implemented

successfully.

There is clear evidence that the

strategy is being implemented

successfully.

Met? Y N

Justification Evidence from observer trips confirm that the partial strategy (comprising of formal

management measures and industry practices) is being implemented successfully, meeting

the SG80 requirements. There is no formal strategy for discard management in place, so the

SG100 requirements are not met.

d Guidepost There is some evidence that the

strategy is achieving its overall

objective.

Met? N

Justification Although there is a very low level of discarding from the hake trawl fisheries, there is no

evidence of a strategy with clear objectives in place for managing discarding. The SG100

requirement is not met.

References


section 6.1.






Page 164


PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk

posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch


a Guidepost Qualitative information

is available on the

amount of main bycatch

species taken by the

fishery.

Qualitative information

and some quantitative

information are available

on the amount of main

bycatch species taken by

the fishery.



catch of all bycatch species and the

consequences for the status of

affected populations.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Information is available from observer records gathered over several years to describe the

species that are discarded from the hake trawl fisheries, and also the quantities discarded.

This information meets the SG60 and 80 requirements. The consequences of this discarding

for the species concerned have not been formally determined, so the SG100 requirements

are not met.


to broadly understand

outcome status with

respect to biologically

based limits


to estimate outcome

status with respect to




status with respect to biologically

based limits with a high degree of

certainty.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The quantitative information available indicates that the combined weight of all discards

from the hake trawl fisheries is under 150t per year. The total weight of the three species of

rat-tail that are discarded is just under 48t. These species have a wide distribution. The

information available about the quantity of each species discarded and the distribution of the

more abundant discarded species is sufficient to estimate that discarding of non-target

species from the hake trawl fisheries is very unlikely to affect the status of the species

concerns. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met. No information has been

presented (for instance about the stock status of the discarded species) to meet the SG100

requirements, even though it seems very likely that it would be met. A score of 80 is

awarded on a precautionary basis.



manage bycatch.


support a partial strategy

to manage main bycatch

species.


a strategy to manage bycatch

bycatch, and evaluate with a high

degree of certainty whether the


Met? Y Y N

Justification The information available from observer trips on trawl vessels is adequate to inform the

partial strategy in place, meeting the SG60 and 80 requirements. In the absence of a formal

strategy for discard management, in particular for any rare species whose populations may

be threatened by the trawl fishery the SG100 requirements are not met.

d Guidepost Sufficient data continue


any increase in risk to

main bycatch species

(e.g., due to changes in

the outcome indicator

scores or the operation of

Monitoring of bycatch data is

conducted in sufficient detail to

assess ongoing mortalities to all

bycatch species.




Page 165

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk

posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch

the fishery or the

effectively of the

strategy).

Met? Y Y

Justification The catch in the hake trawl fishery continues to be monitored by the industry-funded

observer programme (and there are indications that the government observer programme

will also be reinstated). Both observer programmes are proven to provide information in

sufficient detail to allow changes in risk level and ongoing mortalities of all non-target

species to be assessed, whether they are retained or discarded. Fishery-independent data

(the DAFF trawl surveys) provide a means of independently verifying trends apparent in the

observer data.

It is noted that monitoring of discard composition has been limited over the past few years.

Despite this, the fact that the composition of the unsorted catch is monitored means that the

SG80 and 100 requirements are met for this SI.

References


section 6.1.






Page 166


PI 2.3.1

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP

species

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and

does not hinder recovery of ETP species


a Guidepost Known effects of the

fishery are likely to be

within limits of national

and international

requirements for

protection of ETP

species.

The effects of the fishery

are known and are highly

likely to be within limits

of national and

international requirements

for protection of ETP

species.


that the effects of the fishery are

within limits of national and

international requirements for

protection of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The MSC define Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species as those that are

recognised by national ETP legislation and those species that are listed in Appendix 1 of the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)4. The South African

legislation that lists ETP species is the Threatened or protected species Regulations 2007 (as

amended).

Potential ETP species in a demersal trawl fishery could include cetaceans and pinnipeds,

and also ETP elasmobranchs. Such species are vulnerable to capture in trawl nets, and

would be recorded by fishery observers. The other ETP species that can be affected by

trawl fisheries are birds, which may interact with the fishing gear both during fishing, and as

it is deployed and recovered from the vessel.

Observations of the hake trawl fishery indicate no evidence of the capture of potential ETP

species in trawl nets; however the fishery has been observed to have adverse impacts on bird

species in the past.

Appendix 1 of CITES has been accessed at the CITES website (CITES, 2014). There are no

species listed in this Appendix that are known to be affected by the fishery under assessment

or the fishing gear used in this fishery.

National legislation (the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004) and

its daughter legislation (The Threatened or Protected Species Regulations 2007 and their

subsequent amendments) have listed species that are considered to be critically endangered,

endangered, vulnerable and protected in South Africa. The bird species that have been

reported to be adversely affected by the trawl industry and of concern to the NGOs are not

listed in this legislation.

The assessment team notes that a strict application of the MSC CR would result in a

conclusion at this point that there are no ETP species interactions in this fishery. The team

also notes that there has been a concerted effort by the fishing industry and environmental

NGOs in South Africa to address interactions with bird species (particularly albatrosses)

that are considered by the IUCN to be at risk over the past 10 years of MSC certification.

These bird species have to all intents and purposes been regarded as ETP species since the

fishery was first certified.

Because of the long history of concern and concerted action to address impacts of the trawl

fishery on bird species, the assessment team has concluded that it would be appropriate to

continue to regard them as if they met the MSC CR requirements for ETP species (i.e. that

they are listed in CITES Appendix 1 and in relevant national legislation). We conclude that

if we did not consider these as ETP species, we would in any case need to assess impacts on

4 MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 at §CB3.11.1.




Page 167

PI 2.3.1


species



bird species under PI 2.5.1 et seq.

As a consequence of NGO concern, the effects of the fishery on the ETP birds species found

on the offshore fishing grounds have been studied in partnership with the fishing industry.

High levels of bird mortality (up to 18,000 birds pa) were recorded in the past. Research

carried out by BirdLife South Africa more recently indicates that the current level of bird

mortality in these offshore areas is no longer considered likely to be having a significant

adverse effect on birds.

This information provides a high degree of certainty (the SG100 requirement) about the

impacts of the hake trawl fishery on birds in offshore areas. There is less certainty about the

impacts of the hake fishery on the bird species (such as cape gannets), but the information

gathered by SADSTIA in 2012-13 indicate that these impacts are relatively minor in nature.

The available information suggests that the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met in all

areas of the hake trawl fishery. Although there is a high degree of uncertainty about impacts

of the hake trawl fishery on birds in offshore areas, there is rather less certainty about the

inshore areas, so it is appropriate to score this SI at a level of 80.

b Guidepost Known direct effects are

unlikely to create

unacceptable impacts to

ETP species.

Direct effects are highly

unlikely to create

unacceptable impacts to

ETP species.


confidence that there are no

significant detrimental direct

effects of the fishery on ETP

species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The only mechanism available for the hake trawl fishery to adversely impact ETP bird

species is through direct physical contact with the fishing gear.

The effects of the hake trawl fishery on the birds found in offshore grounds has been well

studied, and there is a high degree of confidence that direct impacts are not likely to have a

detrimental effect on the bird species in this area.

Again, there is less certainty about the interactions with bird species in the inshore hake

trawl fishery. The available evidence from observer trips in 2012-13 suggests that impacts

are likely to be minor and thus highly unlikely to have unacceptable impacts.

The available information suggests that the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met in all

areas of the hake trawl fishery. Although there is a high degree of uncertainty about impacts

of the hake trawl fishery on birds in offshore areas, there is rather less certainty about the

inshore areas, so it is appropriate to score this SI at a level of 80.

c Guidepost Indirect effects have been

considered and are

thought to be unlikely to

create unacceptable

impacts.


confidence that there are no

significant detrimental indirect

effects of the fishery on ETP

species.

Met? Y N

Justification The hake fishery targets fish species that are not otherwise accessible to these bird species,

which are incapable of diving to the depths where fishing takes place. Studies carried out

elsewhere suggest that offal discharged from fishing vessels can be beneficial to seabirds.

Also mention the ecosystem effect of increased pelagic fish & squid.

The nature of the fishery and available information suggests that it is unlikely that the




Page 168

PI 2.3.1


species



fishery will have adverse indirect impacts on ETP bird species.

References Section 6.3; Bourne, 1983; Maree et al, 2014; Smith, 2013; Watkins et al, 2008; National

Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004; The Threatened or Protected Species

Regulations 2007 (as amended).






Page 169


PI 2.3.2

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:

Meet national and international requirements;

Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;

Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

Minimise mortality of ETP species.



place that minimise

mortality of ETP species,

and are expected to be

highly likely to achieve

national and international

requirements for the

protection of ETP

species.

There is a strategy in

place for managing the

fishery’s impact on ETP

species, including

measures to minimise

mortality, which is

designed to be highly

likely to achieve national

and international

requirements for the

protection of ETP

species.

There is a comprehensive strategy

in place for managing the fishery’s

impact on ETP species, including

measures to minimise mortality,

which is designed to achieve

above national and international

requirements for the protection of

ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification All hake trawl vessels are required to use bird scaring lines (BSLs or tori lines) as part of

their licence conditions. These BSLs are proven to have a significant effect on reducing

bird mortality. All vessels are also prohibited from using “sticky” warps as part of their

licence conditions, again with the express purpose of minimising bird mortality. These

measures have been developed by regulators in collaboration with the Responsible Fisheries

Alliance (RFA), a partnership between environmental NGOs and the fishing industry.

The vessels working on offshore grounds are required to manage the discharge of offal from

the vessels to further reduce impacts on birds; again this is proven to significantly reduce

bird mortality. The offshore vessels also carry Bird Mitigation Plans that are based on a

review of each vessel. There are no such similar requirements for the vessels working on

inshore fishing grounds.

It is evident that for all hake trawlers (those working both inshore and offshore) there is a

strategy in place that is designed to reduce impacts on ETP bird species, and which is based

upon observations and knowledge of the fishery and the birds involved. The measures

within this strategy are proven to be effective. The SG60 and 80 requirements are fully

satisfied.

The assessment team notes that the bird mitigation measures adopted by vessels working

offshore areas represent part of a more comprehensive strategy that approaches the SG100

requirements. However, because both inshore and offshore trawlers prosecute both UoCs

an overall score of 80 is appropriate for the hake trawl fishery.




argument (e.g., general



fisheries/species).

There is an objective


the strategy will work,

based on information


and/or the species

involved.

The strategy is mainly based on

information directly about the

fishery and/or species involved,

and a quantitative analysis

supports high confidence that the

strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N




Page 170

PI 2.3.2






Justification The strategy in place for managing interactions between the trawl fishery and birds is based

on a thorough understanding of both the risks posed by the fishery, the vulnerability of the

birds themselves, and observations of the effectiveness of the management measures within

the strategy.

Observations of the impact of the fishery in offshore areas have been published in peer-

reviewed journals and quantify the impacts of the fishery without mitigation measures,

when around 18,000 birds were reported to be killed per year (Watkins et al, 2008); and

subsequently after the implementation of mitigation measures, when impacts on birds

overall were far less (around 990 per year) and impacts on albatrosses were found to be

negligible (83 birds per year) (Maree et al, 2014).

Observations of the fishery in inshore areas show that the management strategy is working.

There is some quantitative information describing impacts on birds in inshore areas, but

these data have not yet been analysed thoroughly.

Overall it is clear that the strategy in place meets the SG60 and SG80 standards for the

whole South African hake trawl fishery. The information available about the success of the

strategy in offshore areas would meet the SG100 requirements, but there is less known

about inshore areas. An overall score of 80 is therefore appropriate.

c Guidepost There is evidence that the

strategy is being

implemented

successfully.



successfully.

Met? Y N

Justification Evidence has been provided by both BirdLife South Africa observers and SADSTIA

observers to confirm that vessels implement the measures required by the strategy in place

for minimising bird mortality.

The BirdLife South Africa observer trips have taken place in offshore areas, and provide

very clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully there. The evidence

for inshore areas is less robust, but SADSTIA-funded bird observers have provided

evidence of implementation in this area as well.

The evidence of implementation of the bird impact mitigation strategy meets the SG60 and

SG80 standards for the whole South African hake trawl fishery. The evidence available

about the success of the strategy in offshore areas would meet the SG100 requirements, but

the evidence of implementation in inshore areas is less robust. An overall score of 80 is

therefore appropriate.

d Guidepost There is evidence that the strategy

is achieving its objective.

Met? Y

Justification The evidence from observations of bird mortality in both the inshore and offshore areas

indicates that the strategy is achieving its objectives. Inshore observations indicate that

there is a very low level of interaction with birds. Offshore observations provide very clear

evidence that bird mortalities were very high in the past and are now considered to be

negligible.

This evidence meets the SG100 requirements for both the inshore and offshore areas.

References Section 6.3; Maree et al, 2014; Smith, 2013; Watkins et al, 2008.




Page 171

PI 2.3.2











Page 172


PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on

ETP species, including:

Information for the development of the management strategy;

Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.


a Guidepost Information is sufficient

to qualitatively estimate

the fishery related

mortality of ETP species.

Sufficient information is

available to allow fishery

related mortality and the

impact of fishing to be

quantitatively estimated

for ETP species.



status of ETP species with a high

degree of certainty.

Met? Y N N

Justification The information available for impacts on ETP bird species in offshore areas is sufficient to

estimate the overall impact of the fishery on these species to be estimated quantitatively,

which would meet the SG100 requirements. For the inshore areas there is much less

information available. This is sufficient to allow a qualitative estimate of fishery-related

mortality on these species, but not to quantify impacts.

Overall, the SG60 requirements are met for the hake trawl fishery, and this score is

appropriate. With better information about the mortality of birds in inshore areas, the SG80

requirements could be met. A condition has been generated to address this issue.


to broadly understand the

impact of the fishery on

ETP species.


to determine whether the

fishery may be a threat to

protection and recovery

of the ETP species.



magnitude of all impacts,

mortalities and injuries and the

consequences for the status of ETP

species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification There is sufficient information available from both the inshore and offshore areas to identify

whether the trawl fishery is likely to be a threat to the protection and recovery of ETP bird

species. The quantitative information for the offshore areas provides accurate and verifiable

information on the magnitude of all impacts. The information available for inshore areas is

not of the same quality, but is nevertheless adequate to determine the bird interactions are

generally of a very minor nature and bird mortality is infrequent.

Information is available on the population status of all of the bird species that are known to

interact with the fishery (see section 6.3.1 of this report). This information identifies the

main threats to each species.

Overall, the information available is adequate to meet the SG60 and 80 requirements for the

hake trawl fishery, and a score of 80 is indicated for this SI.



manage the impacts on

ETP species.


to measure trends and

support a full strategy to

manage impacts on ETP

species.


a comprehensive strategy to

manage impacts, minimize

mortality and injury of ETP

species, and evaluate with a high

degree of certainty whether a

strategy is achieving its objectives.




Page 173

PI 2.3.3

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on

ETP species, including:

Information for the development of the management strategy;

Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The information available on the interactions between birds and hake trawlers has been used

to design a management strategy that is applied in both inshore and offshore areas and that

demonstrably maintains interactions with ETP birds species at a low level in all areas. The

SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore met.

Information is available on the population status of all of the bird species that are known to

interact with the fishery (see section 6.3.1 of this report). This information identifies global

population trends and the main threats to each species.

The assessment team notes that the information available for offshore areas meets the

SG100 requirements; however an overall score of 80 for both inshore and offshore areas

seems more appropriate because the information available for the inshore fishery does not

meet the SG 100 requirements.

References Section 6.3; Maree et al, 2014; Smith, 2013; Watkins et al, 2008.


CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2 & 4




Page 174


PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure,

considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function


a Guidepost The fishery is unlikely to

reduce habitat structure

and function to a point

where there would be

serious or irreversible

harm.

The fishery is highly

unlikely to reduce habitat

structure and function to a

point where there would

be serious or irreversible

harm.

There is evidence that the fishery

is highly unlikely to reduce habitat

structure and function to a point

where there would be serious or

irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justification There is a good understanding of both the distribution and sensitivity of marine habitats

(classified on the basis of seabed substratum, topography, depth, and information about

marine benthos) in South African waters, and also the distribution and intensity of fishing

effort. This information has been used to identify those habitats that are particularly

affected by, or vulnerable to, trawling activity.

The result of this analysis is that one habitat type, the Southern Benguela Canyon, that

meets all of the selection criteria for determining vulnerability to trawling (95% of this

habitat type in the region is found within the trawl footprint area, and habitat types (notably

cold water corals) within the canyon are sensitive to trawl impacts). There is, however,

evidence that trawling in this area over the past 40 years has been confined to the edges of

the canyon, and not the canyon itself, where the key habitat features (cold water corals) are

found.

In response to concerns about the expansion of the trawl area, the trawl “footprint” was

frozen in 2007. This action was taken to ensure that untrawled areas in South African

waters remained untrawled. This trawl footprint applies to all trawl vessels (both inshore

and offshore), and compliance is required by the statutory provisions of fishing vessel

licences.

Since 1991 there have been technical measures in place that control the type of ground gear

that can be used in the trawl fishery. There is also information to confirm that some of the

more sensitive habitat areas have been fished using this gear for several decades.

There is thus a great deal of information available about both the fishery and marine habitats

in South African waters. The information indicates that the fishery in its current form is

highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the benthic habitats that are currently

found in the trawl footprint area, which meets the SG60 and 80 requirements for this SI.

However there is not yet sufficient evidence available to demonstrate this with the certainty

required at SG100. A project to investigate the recovery of some trawl grounds after the

cessation of trawling has commenced off the west coast of South Africa, and this may

provide the evidence required at SG100 in the future.

The assessment team has noted concern among stakeholders that the MPA network may not

adequately protect habitats from future impacts. This issue is addressed in the scoring of the

next Performance Indicator.

References Section 6.4 of this report. Sink et al, 2012; Wilkinson & Japp, 2008.






Page 175


PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of

serious or irreversible harm to habitat types



place, if necessary, that

are expected to achieve

the Habitat Outcome 80

level of performance.


in place, if necessary, that

is expected to achieve the

Habitat Outcome 80 level

of performance or above.

There is a strategy in place for

managing the impact of the fishery

on habitat types.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The principal management measures in place for managing the impacts of the trawl fishery

on marine habitats is the frozen “trawl footprint” that has been developed by the trawl

industry. This management measure is self-imposed (i.e. it is not an enforceable licence

condition); however independent monitoring by DAFF indicates that compliance by the

trawl fleet with the footprint is very good.

The type and weight of the ground gear that can be used on trawls is specified in licence

conditions, and acts to prevent an increase in the size and weight of trawl bobbins and trawl

doors that could increase the potential impact of trawls on marine habitats.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been declared for parts of the trawl footprint area, and

fishing in these areas is prohibited by the licence conditions that apply to the trawl fleet.

These measures provide a partial strategy that is expected to limit the impacts of the fishery

on marine habitats and thus maintain their quality and extent, which meets the SG60 and

SG80 requirements for the fishery.

There is no evidence of a formal strategy in place (including, for instance, the

implementation of MPAs to protect identified vulnerable offshore habitats within the trawl

footprint), which is what would be required at the SG100 level of performance;

consequently this standard is not attained. A score of 80 is appropriate for this SI.







fisheries/habitats).




work, based on


the fishery and/or habitats

involved.

Testing supports high confidence

that the strategy will work, based

on information directly about the

fishery and/or habitats involved.

Met? Y N N

Justification Information about the fishery shows that the type of fishing gear that can be used is

constrained by fishing licence conditions; fishing effort is limited by quotas and days at sea;

and the areas that can be fished are fixed (by the fishing industry) to the boundary of the

trawl footprint established in 2007. Thus there is a partial strategy in place that constrains

potential fishery impacts on marine habitats.

Information is available about the extent, distribution and sensitivities of marine habitats.

This information from the fishery shows that there has been fishing activity in and around

these habitat types for several decades. Independent information has also been presented by

DAFF to confirm that compliance with both the statutory controls (gear type and effort) and

also the trawl footprint by the trawl fishery has been very good. There is thus a plausible

argument that these management measures will work (based on past experience and the

“freezing” of habitat impacts). This meets the requirements of SG60.

Although there is some objective basis for confidence that these measures will constrain

fishing impacts, there are concerns that the extent of the existing MPA network is not

adequate to provide targeted protection to specific offshore habitats that are within the

existing trawl footprint area. The limitations in the management regime in this respect




Page 176

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of

serious or irreversible harm to habitat types

means that the SG80 requirements for this SI are not presently met.

This shortcoming in the management regime could be addressed by investigating and

confirming the need for establishing further measures to manage trawl fishery impacts on

benthic marine habitats within the existing trawl footprint area (and indeed whether there is

evidence that these would be effective – which will be demonstrated by the trawl impact

study already underway). A condition has been generated to address this issue.

c Guidepost There is some evidence

that the partial strategy is

being implemented

successfully.



successfully.

Met? Y N

Justification Although it is considered that the partial strategy may not yet be sufficient to work, the

available information indicates that all of the measures that make up this partial strategy

(constraint on gear type and effort and the trawl footprint) are being implemented

successfully. DAFF have confirmed that compliance with these management measures and

also the restrictions on fishing in existing MPAs is good. This evidence demonstrates that

the partial strategy is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 requirements.

SG100 is not met because there is no evidence of a strategy in place to manage habitat

impacts.

d Guidepost There is some evidence that the


Met? N

Justification There is no evidence of a strategy in place for managing habitat impacts, so the SG100

requirements cannot be met.



CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3 & 5




Page 177


PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and

the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types


a Guidepost There is basic

understanding of the

types and distribution of

main habitats in the area

of the fishery.

The nature, distribution

and vulnerability of all

main habitat types in the

fishery are known at a

level of detail relevant to

the scale and intensity of

the fishery.

The distribution of habitat types is

known over their range, with

particular attention to the

occurrence of vulnerable habitat

types.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The report by Sink et al (2012) provides information about the distribution of habitat types

over their range in the South African EEZ, and also considers their vulnerability to trawling

activity. This information fully meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for the fishery.


to broadly understand the

nature of the main

impacts of gear use on

the main habitats,

including spatial overlap

of habitat with fishing

gear.

Sufficient data are

available to allow the

nature of the impacts of

the fishery on habitat

types to be identified and

there is reliable

information on the spatial

extent of interaction, and

the timing and location of

use of the fishing gear.

The physical impacts of the gear

on the habitat types have been

quantified fully.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The information presented by Sink et al (2012) demonstrates that the nature of the impacts

of the fishery on habitat types can be identified. Reliable information about the timing and

location of the use of the fishing gear is available from VMS and plotter data, and this has

been used to identify the trawl “footprint”. Compliance with the trawl footprint and patterns

of fishing activity are monitored on an ongoing basis by DAFF.

Although there is limited information available about the impacts of the trawl fishery on the

specific habitats found in the South African EEZ, there is generic information available

from studies of trawl impact on similar habitat types elsewhere in the world that enables

likely impacts to be identified (such as, for instance, Jennings & Kaiser 1998)

The SG60 and SG80 requirements are fully met by the information available. The

assessment team note that a pioneering trawl recovery experiment is being carried out on the

west coast of South Africa, and that the data from this work may enable the SG100

requirements to be largely met in future.

c Guidepost Sufficient data continue


any increase in risk to

habitat (e.g. due to

changes in the outcome

indicator scores or the

operation of the fishery or

the effectiveness of the

measures).

Changes in habitat distributions

over time are measured.




Page 178

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and

the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types

Met? Y N

Justification The ongoing monitoring of the distribution of trawl activity by DAFF and compliance with

the trawl footprint area (monitored by DAFF and reported to SADSTIA) is sufficient to

determine if there is any change in the risk of trawling adversely affecting benthic habitats.

This meets the SG80 requirements.

Although evidence has been presented that indicates a clear understanding of the extent of

marine habitats, no information has been presented to demonstrate that changes in habitat

distributions over time are being measured. SG100 is not therefore met.







Page 179


PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of

ecosystem structure and function


a Guidepost The fishery is unlikely to

disrupt the key elements

underlying ecosystem

structure and function to

a point where there

would be a serious or

irreversible harm.

The fishery is highly

unlikely to disrupt the key

elements underlying

ecosystem structure and

function to a point where

there would be a serious

or irreversible harm.

There is evidence that the fishery

is highly unlikely to disrupt the

key elements underlying

ecosystem structure and function

to a point where there would be a

serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The MSC Certification Requirements stipulate that this PI should consider the impacts of

the fishery on the key characteristics of ecosystem structure and function rather than the

sum total of impacts on the other components of the assessment (i.e. target species, retained

and discarded species, ETP species and habitats). The assessment should consider whether

the fishery has any serious or irreversible effect on the capacity of the ecosystem to deliver

ecosystem services.

The key characteristic of the ecosystem supporting the fishery is the Benguela current that

flows northwards from the Antarctic. This current causes an upwelling of cold, nutrient rich

water that supports the highly productive Benguela ecosystem. Although the hake

distribution extends eastwards and beneath the Agulhas current that flows at the surface

down the eastern coast of South Africa, the two hake species under assessment are

principally dependent upon the deep, cold water of the Benguela current.

The physical activity of trawling for hake cannot prevent the Benguela current from flowing

and providing these ecosystem services.

The effects of fishery removals on the hake stock and subsequently on the function of the

ecosystem have been modelled. This suggests that even after a sustained period of high

fishing pressure (for example 5 years of fishing at 4 times current levels of fishing

mortality), the resulting ecosystem impacts (an increase in abundance of prey species, with

potential beneficial effects on their predators and adverse effects on competitors such as

horse mackerel) would be corrected within a period of 10-20 years.

The information available provides evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt

ecosystem structure and function to the point at which there would be serious or irreversible

harm, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

References Section 6.5; Gasche et al, 2012; Shannon et al, 2000; Travers-Trolet et al, 2014






Page 180


PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or

irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function



place, if necessary.


in place, if necessary.

There is a strategy that consists of

a plan, in place.

Met? Y Y N

Justification It is evident from modelling of the ecosystem effects of fishing for hake that impacts may

arise if fishing mortality rises and the hake stock becomes depleted. This will result in an

increase in the abundance of prey species (small pelagic fish and squid) and a likely decline

in the abundance of the species (horse mackerel) that compete with these prey species for

food.

The strategy and supporting measures in place for rebuilding and sustaining the hake stock

biomass will ensure that such ecosystem effects are appropriately managed. This strategy is

focused on sustaining the hake stock rather than addressing ecosystem impacts, so in this

context it can only be regarded as a “partial strategy” (because the consequences are a happy

coincidence rather than deliberately intended). The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met

by this partial strategy, but SG100 is not met.

b Guidepost The measures take into

account potential impacts

of the fishery on key

elements of the

ecosystem.

The partial strategy takes

into account available

information and is

expected to restrain

impacts of the fishery on

the ecosystem so as to

achieve the Ecosystem

Outcome 80 level of

performance.

The strategy, which consists of a

plan, contains measures to address

all main impacts of the fishery on

the ecosystem, and at least some of

these measures are in place. The

plan and measures are based on

well-understood functional

relationships between the fishery

and the Components and elements

of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for

development of a full strategy that

restrains impacts on the ecosystem

to ensure the fishery does not

cause serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The partial strategy, achieved by managing the hake stock biomass, takes account of all

available information relating to the hake stock. There is evidence that it is successfully

sustaining and rebuilding hake stocks, and is thus restraining the main impact that the

fishery is likely to have on the ecosystem. This management approach meets the SG60 and

80 requirements for this PI. SG100 is note met in the absence of a formal strategy or plan

for addressing ecosystem impacts specifically.

c Guidepost The measures are






fisheries/ecosystems).

The partial strategy is

considered likely to work,

based on plausible




fisheries/ecosystems).

The measures are considered likely

to work based on prior experience,

plausible argument or information

directly from the

fishery/ecosystems involved.

Met? Y Y Y




Page 181

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or

irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Justification Information from ecosystem modelling indicates that the maintenance of the hake stock

biomass is likely to prevent the fishery from causing serious or irreversible harm to the

ecosystem. Evidence from the fishery and stock assessment demonstrates that the

management strategy in place for both hake species is likely to work successfully.

The evidence from the fishery and ecosystem modelling is sufficient to meet the SG60, 80

and 100 requirements.

d Guidepost There is some evidence

that the measures

comprising the partial

strategy are being

implemented

successfully.

There is evidence that the

measures are being implemented

successfully.

Met? Y Y

Justification There is evidence from monitoring of quota and TAC uptake, and also monitoring of the

state of the hake stock (where currently M. paradoxus stocks are close to Bmsy and M.

capensis stocks are well above Bmsy), that the measures in place to manage fishery removals

from the hake stock (and hence to restrain the ecosystem impacts of the fishery) are being

implemented successfully. This evidence meets the SG80SG80 and 100100 requirements.







Page 182


PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem


a Guidepost Information is adequate

to identify the key

elements of the

ecosystem (e.g., trophic

structure and function,

community composition,

productivity pattern and

biodiversity).


broadly understand the

key elements of the

ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justification There is a good understanding of the key elements of the Benquela ecosystem which has

been incorporated into ecosystem models. The information available meets the SG60 and

80 requirements.

b Guidepost Main impacts of the

fishery on these key

ecosystem elements can

be inferred from existing

information, and have

not been investigated in

detail.

Main impacts of the

fishery on these key

ecosystem elements can

be inferred from existing

information and some

have been investigated in

detail.

Main interactions between the

fishery and these ecosystem

elements can be inferred from

existing information, and have

been investigated.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The interactions between the fishery and other elements of the ecosystem have been

investigated using ecosystem models (Ecosim and Ecotroph). These investigations meet the

SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

c Guidepost The main functions of the

Components (i.e., target,

Bycatch, Retained and

ETP species and Habitats)

in the ecosystem are

known.

The impacts of the fishery on

target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP

species are identified and the main

functions of these Components in

the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y Y

Justification Knowledge of the main functions of the components of the ecosystem has enabled models

to be produced which have enable the impacts of the fishery on these components to be

understood. The key impact of the fishery is on the abundance of hake and subsequently the

abundance of prey species, which may in turn adversely affect the abundance of competitor

species (horse mackerel).

As noted earlier in this assessment, there is good information available from this fishery

about impact on target, non-target, ETP species and marine habitats that enables the impacts

of the fishery to be identified and understood.

The level of understanding of the impacts of the fishery on these other ecosystem

components through these trophic interactions meets the SG80 and 100 requirements.




Page 183

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

d Guidepost Sufficient information is

available on the impacts

of the fishery on these

Components to allow

some of the main

consequences for the

ecosystem to be inferred.

Sufficient information is available

on the impacts of the fishery on

the Components and elements to

allow the main consequences for

the ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? Y Y

Justification The information available from ecosystem models indicates that the main effect of the hake

fishery is to affect the abundance of hake, which in turn affects the abundance of prey

species and their competitors. This modelling enables the main consequences of the hake

fishery on the components and elements of the ecosystem to be inferred, meeting the

SG80and 100 requirements.

e Guidepost Sufficient data continue


any increase in risk level

(e.g., due to changes in

the outcome indicator

scores or the operation of

the fishery or the

effectiveness of the

measures).

Information is sufficient to support

the development of strategies to

manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? Y N

Justification The main risk to the ecosystem that emerges from modelling the impacts of the hake fishery

is that the depletion of the hake stock will alter the abundance of prey species and in turn the

abundance of species that compete with those prey species for food. An increase in the

level of risk to the ecosystem would be detected by changes in the abundance of hake,

which is monitored carefully. The fishery therefore meets the SG80 requirements.

The SG100 requirement is not met because although there is a strategy in place to manage

the hake stock, its purpose is to sustain the stock biomass rather than deliberately address

ecosystem impacts – so it is, from an ecosystem perspective, just a “partial strategy”.







Page 184

12.3 Principle 3 Evaluation Tables


PI 3.1.1

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary

framework which ensures that it:

Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC

Principles 1 and 2; and

Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of

people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.


a Guidepost There is an effective

national legal system and

a framework for

cooperation with other

parties, where necessary,

to deliver management

outcomes consistent with

MSC Principles 1 and 2

There is an effective


organised and effective

cooperation with other

parties, where necessary,

to deliver management


MSC Principles 1 and 2.

There is an effective


binding procedures

governing cooperation

with other parties which

delivers management


MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification South Africa’s natural environment is governed by a wide range of national

legislative acts, including the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996),

National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), the Environmental

Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989) and the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA;

No. 18 of 1998). All fisheries in South Africa are managed in terms of the MLRA

and the regulations promulgated in terms of this Act.

The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is the authority

responsible for implementing the MLRA, and it is committed to international law

(UNCLOS; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and a precautionary approach is

prescribed when uncertainty prevails. South Africa is a signatory to the Convention

on Biodiversity, MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships), the London Convention (regulating the dumping of waste at

sea), Bonn Convention (conservation of migratory species, incl. seabirds), SEAFO

(SE Atlantic Fisheries Organization) and is member of ICCAT. The Management

Authority is well aware of relevant conventions and there are no specific

conventions relevant to the hake fishery.

Access to commercial fishing is restricted to rights holders, and fishing rights are

only allocated after applicants have gone through a sophisticated legal application

and screening process. Fishing rights are allocated to applicants that can

demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria (i.e. civil obedience; the means to

involve in fishing; historical participation).

Fisheries regulations are incorporated into a set of permit conditions that are geared

towards delivering sustainable fisheries and conserving habitats / ecosystems that

support biological resources, in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The

regulations are regularly amended to update management measures, or implement

management strategies based on best scientific advice. Amendments are published

in the Government Gazette.

It is therefore clear that the national legal system is well organized, and that it

complies with relevant international conventions and agreements.

The SG60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are all met because the national legal

system is effective, with clear and binding procedures that govern cooperation with




Page 185

PI 3.1.1








other parties, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1

and 2.

b Guidepost The management system

incorporates or is subject

by law to a mechanism

for the resolution of legal

disputes arising within

the system.

The management system

incorporates or is subject

by law to a transparent

mechanism for the

resolution of legal

disputes which is

considered to be effective

in dealing with most

issues and that is

appropriate to the context

of the fishery.


incorporates or subject by

law to a transparent

mechanism for the

resolution of legal

disputes that is

appropriate to the context

of the fishery and has

been tested and proven to

be effective.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Disputes within the system are first discussed directly with DAFF resource

managers but can proceed to ministerial level. Beyond ministerial level, disputes

may be resolved in court, within the national judicial system. In recent years, major

disputes have regularly been resolved through legal challenges – for instance

disputes regarding the allocations of fishing rights.

The opportunity to mount a legal challenge to the system is seen as a positive

aspect, demonstrating a well-developed and fully tested process of dispute

resolution, the outcomes of which reflects legislative compliance. DAFF has access

to a strong legal team, the purpose of which is to review legislative issues and deal

with challenges. The dispute resolution process (both internally and through the

courts) is appropriate to the context of the fishery.

The above shows that the management system incorporates a transparent

mechanism for legal dispute resolution, which has been tested and proven to be

effective. Therefore the SG60, SG80 and SG100 are all met.

d Guidepost The management system

has a mechanism to

generally respect the legal

rights created explicitly

or established by custom

of people dependent on

fishing for food or

livelihood in a manner

consistent with the

objectives of MSC

Principles 1 and 2.


has a mechanism to

observe the legal rights

created explicitly or

established by custom of

people dependent on

fishing for food or

livelihood in a manner

consistent with the

objectives of MSC

Principles 1 and 2.


has a mechanism to

formally commit to the

legal rights created

explicitly or established

by custom of people

dependent on fishing for

food and livelihood in a

manner consistent with

the objectives of MSC

Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Customary rights or traditional dependence on the fishery for food or livelihood

cannot be demonstrated for the hake fishery, which has only been prosecuted since

the advent of mechanical trawling in the early 20th

century.




Page 186

PI 3.1.1








Nevertheless, there is a policy to redress historical disadvantage in the fisheries

sector, within an appropriate legal framework. The mechanism to commit to legal

rights is well-developed, as illustrated by an open and transparent process of rights

allocations, which takes place within the legal and political framework.

Legal rights to commercial fishing are explicitly vested in so-called “Fishing

Rights”. These are only allocated by the Management Authority after applicants

have gone through a sophisticated legal application and screening process. Fishing

rights are allocated to applicants that can demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria

(i.e. civil obedience; the means to involve in fishing; historical participation).

Rights holders are aware of management legal requirements through a clearly

documented and communicated mechanism. The granting of fishing rights formally

commits the rights holder and the Management Authority to a consistent system of

fisheries management, guided by the MLRA, regulations and permit conditions.

The management system formally commits to legal rights, created explicitly, and

consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles. The SG60, SG 80 and SG100

guidelines are therefore all met.

References MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; REGULATIONS IN TERMS

OF THE MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT, 1998; South Africa Environment

Outlook: A Report on the State of the Environment (2006); Field et al, 2013.






Page 187


PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to

interested and affected parties.

The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are

involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant

parties


a Guidepost Organisations and

individuals involved in

the management process

have been identified.

Functions, roles and

responsibilities are

generally understood.

Organisations and






explicitly defined and

well understood for key

areas of responsibility

and interaction.

Organisations and






explicitly defined and

well understood for all

areas of responsibility

and interaction.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification DAFF is the relevant Management Authority, and within this organization, the

relevant Chief Directorates are for:

(a) Monitoring Control and Compliance - to ensure that fish

resources are protected through effective and efficient

utilisation of the Fisheries Protection Vessels and other

relevant equipment and systems; and to ensure compliance

with the provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act of

1998.

(b) Marine Resources Management - to ensure the sustainable

utilization and equitable and orderly access to nearshore,

offshore and High Seas fisheries resources through improved

management and regulation.

(c) Fisheries Research and Development - to provide scientific

research and advice on fisheries resources.

The DAFF structure is supplemented by other national organs, e.g. Monitoring

Control and Surveillance are assisted by customs, police/navy and provincial

authorities, but the process is coordinated by DAFF.

At least two formally constituted working groups within DAFF deal with all

aspects of the hake trawl fishery, namely a Scientific Working Group, and a

Resource Management Working Group. These working groups are appropriate for

guiding the science underlying management strategies (i.e. development of

mathematical models; Operational Management Procedures) and for implementing

management through official interaction between DAFF fisheries managers and

representatives of the fishing industry. The functions, roles and responsibilities of

the scientific and management working groups are clearly defined.

Organisations and individuals involved in the formal management process have

been clearly identified and functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly

defined for all areas of responsibility and interaction, thus achieving the SG100

requirement.

b Guidepost The management system

includes consultation

processes that obtain



processes that regularly



processes that regularly




Page 188

PI 3.1.2





parties

relevant information from

the main affected parties,

including local

knowledge, to inform the

management system.

seek and accept relevant

information, including

local knowledge. The

management system

demonstrates

consideration of the

information obtained.

seek and accept relevant

information, including

local knowledge. The

management system

demonstrates

consideration of the

information and explains

how it is used or not used.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Consultation takes place at various levels, including the Scientific and Resource

Management working groups mentioned in 3.1.2(a). The main role players in the

consultation process are DAFF, SADSTIA and SECIFA – the industry associations

are active in the DAFF Scientific and Resource Management Working Groups, as

members or observers. At these meetings, they participate by imparting up-to-date

operational information, assist with decision-making by explaining economic and

logistical matters affecting fleets, operations, and markets, and also contribute to

the development of mathematical models and the OMP through retaining the

services of consultants at OLRAC. Decisions and recommendations made at

working groups are based on best available information and long-term policy, and

are debated within these fora, where industry associations are represented; thus it

demonstrates consideration of information provided and explains how it is used or

not used.

Over the 10 years of MSC certification of the fishery, the consultation process has

expanded greatly, and interested and affected parties that may influence decisions

through direct or indirect consultations (i.e. through SADSTIA), or provide

information, or act as pressure groups to bring about change in fishing methods (for

instance the introduction of tori, or bird-scaring lines on trawl warps) include

WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON and retained scientists (UCT) or fisheries observers

(CapFish).

The management system includes wide consultation processes that regularly seek

and accept relevant information, and demonstrates how it is used, or not, at various

levels, including at formal working groups. The SG100 requirements are therefore

met.

c Guidepost The consultation process

provides opportunity for

all interested and affected

parties to be involved.

The consultation process

provides opportunity and

encouragement for all

interested and affected

parties to be involved,

and facilitates their

effective engagement.

Met? Y Y

Justification Examples of outcomes resulting from effective consultations include the reduction

in bird mortalities, benthic habitat experiments, trawl footprint, and PUCLs for

main bycatch species. The consultation process provides opportunity and

encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, often through

NGOs (WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON), or as observers at working groups. The

SG100 requirement is therefore met.




Page 189

PI 3.1.2





parties

References

MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; Field et al, 2013.

http://www.daff.gov.za/daffweb3/About-Us/Structure-and-Functions



http://www.daff.gov.za/daffweb3/About-Us/Structure-and-Functions




Page 190


PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-

making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and

incorporates the precautionary approach


a Guidepost Long-term objectives to

guide decision-making,

consistent with the MSC

Principles and Criteria

and the precautionary

approach, are implicit

within management

policy

Clear long-term

objectives that guide

decision-making,

consistent with MSC



approach are explicit

within management

policy.

Clear long-term

objectives that guide

decision-making,

consistent with MSC



approach, are explicit

within and required by

management policy.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The long-term management policy for South African fisheries rests on two main

objectives: optimization of long-term social and economic benefits to the nation;

and promotion of sustainable utilization and the replenishment of living marine

resources. The latter includes objectives that are consistent with the Principles and

Criteria of the MSC.

At policy level, the allocation of long-term fishing rights provides an incentive to

successful applicants to view the resource as a long-term asset – thus a strong

motivation to ensure its sustainability.

Relative to Principle 1, the long-term objective is stock recovery to a pre-defined

level. To achieve this, decision making is based on the outputs of an appropriate

OMP, that responds to measures of stock changes on an annual basis, and is geared

to achieve the above stock rebuilding. The OMP incorporates the precautionary

approach, in that it will output a more conservative TAC in the event of higher risk

scenarios.

For Principle 2, long-term objectives are in place for important by-catch species

(i.e. monkfish; kingklip; sole), and where these species are identified as being

depleted, appropriate management strategies are being developed and implemented

to promote/assist rebuilding of affected populations to specified levels within

specified timeframes.

Long-term environmental objectives include the establishment of Marine Protected

Areas, to protect and preserve examples of representative habitat types from

trawling. The policy basis for the MPA programme lies in the Convention of

Biological Diversity, which aims for the protection of 10% of representative and

vulnerable habitats, and the draft South African Ocean Policy which refers to

representative MPAs. Biodiversity targets are being developed based on species-

area relationships.

Decision-making is therefore guided and required by clear and explicit long-term

objectives, which are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the

precautionary approach: the SG100 is achieved.

References Attwood et al, 2011; Attwood, 2014; MARAM IWS/DEC13/Hake/P7; Capfish,

2013. FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59.






Page 191




Page 192


PI 3.1.4

The management system provides economic and social incentives for

sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to

unsustainable fishing


a Guidepost The management system

provides for incentives

that are consistent with

achieving the outcomes

expressed by MSC

Principles 1 and 2.





expressed by MSC

Principles 1 and 2, and

seeks to ensure that

perverse incentives do not

arise.





expressed by MSC

Principles 1 and 2, and

explicitly considers

incentives in a regular

review of management

policy or procedures to

ensure they do not

contribute to

unsustainable fishing

practices.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Fishing rights are seen as a long-term asset by SADSTIA, and hence there is a

strong incentive to protect their “investment”. Transgressions of a serious nature

can lead to a Section 28 notice, which could result in the loss of a fishing right, or

removal of a non-compliant fishing company from the fishery, as demonstrated in a

landmark case in the South Coast Rock lobster fishery. This risk is a powerful,

albeit negative, incentive for compliance with the management system.

The achievement and maintenance of MSC certification over the past 10 years is

considered to be a major incentive, to SADSTIA and DAFF, to realize the

outcomes expressed in MSC Principles 1 and 2.

No subsidies exist in the system that would contribute directly or indirectly to

unsustainable fishing (e.g. through creating overcapacity in the trawl fleet).

Incentives (such as MSC certification) are explicitly considered during regular

review of management policy or procedure.

On the down side, the policy regarding redistribution of fishing rights can create

instability in the fishing sector, by making rights holders unsure of their long-term

prospects – and hence eroding their motivation for “taking care of a long-term

investment”.

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving

the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and they are regularly

reviewed, but the redistribution of fishing rights process can contribute to

unsustainable fishing practices. For this reason, the SG60 and SG80 guideposts are

achieved, but not all the aspects of SG100 are met.

References Groeneveld (2003)







Page 193

PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes

expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2


a Guidepost Objectives, which are

broadly consistent with


expressed by MSC’s

Principles 1 and 2, are

implicit within the

fishery’s management

system

Short and long-term

objectives, which are

consistent with achieving

the outcomes expressed

by MSC’s Principles 1

and 2, are explicit within

the fishery’s management

system.

Well defined and

measurable short and

long-term objectives,

which are demonstrably

consistent with achieving

the outcomes expressed

by MSC’s Principles 1

and 2, are explicit within

the fishery’s management

system.

Met? Y Y Partial

Justification For Principle 1, short and long-term objectives are to achieve stock recovery to a

pre-determined level, to ensure long-term sustainability of the hake resource, and to

facilitate operational stability within the fishing sector. Stock rebuilding has

progressed significantly since a low-point in 2007. Stock changes are measurable

through a set of abundance indices, and these form the input to an OMP, which is

used to recommend annual adjustments in the TAC, aiming towards a specified

rebuilding goal. The SG100 guidepost is achieved, as it can be explicitly

demonstrated that outcomes expressed in Principle 1 are being achieved. .

In relation to P2, objectives are contained in the MLRA, and several other national

acts and policy documents. They deal with retained and discarded bycatches of the

trawl fishery, seabird mortalities, protection and preservation of examples of

representative habitats, and recovery of areas that have historically been affected by

trawling. The Principle 2 objectives are not always clear in management systems,

for instance, there is no time-scale or stated goal regarding the recovery of habitat

impacts. A trawl recovery experiment has been initiated by SADSTIA to assess

whether, and how fast historically trawled areas can recover – but how would the

outcome be incorporated into management? Some of the objectives (i.e. reducing

seabird mortalities) are generic, or not well defined. Whereas the trawl footprint, to

restrict trawling to a limited area is adhered to by SADSTIA, it has not yet been

formally embraced by DAFF.

The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are fully met with respect to MSC Principle 1.

For Principle 2, the SG60 and 80 requirements are fully met by the explicit short

and long term objectives in place. The fact that some of the Principle 2 objectives

are generic, and that aims are not always well defined or set against time scales,

prevents all SG100 of being achieved. SG100 is therefore partially met (Principle 1

meets SG100; Principle 2 does not). A score of 90 is therefore appropriate.

References Field, et al 2013; Capfish, 2008, 2011; Attwood, 2012, 2014






Page 194




Page 195


PI 3.2.2

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making

processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and

has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under

assessment.


a Guidepost There are some decision-

making processes in place

that result in measures

and strategies to achieve

the fishery-specific

objectives.

There are established

decision-making

processes that result in

measures and strategies to

achieve the fishery-

specific objectives.

Met? Y Y

Justification A formal Scientific Working Group, comprising scientists from DAFF, MARAM

and those retained by SADSTIA provide annual management recommendations,

based on the output of an OMP. This recommendation is considered by the

Resource Management Group, taking into account factors such as legislation,

socio-economics, EAF, and stock advice. It is then submitted to the decision maker

(normally the Minister) in line with Departmental protocols. The OMP (which

already contains consideration of socio-economic factors) cannot be over-ridden

unless in “exceptional circumstances” (under Section 61 of the MLRA). The OMP

is agreed and set for a 4 year period. After signature by the Minister, the TAC is

allocated to rights holders, proportionally, according to their share of the rights

allocated.

A DAFF fisheries manager dedicated to the hake fishery then meets with industry

to prepare annual fishing plans, and prepare permit conditions.

The decision making processes for the fishery are well-established, and result in

measures and strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives – therefore it meets

the SG80 requirements.

b Guidepost Decision-making

processes respond to

serious issues identified

in relevant research,

monitoring, evaluation

and consultation, in a

transparent, timely and

adaptive manner and take

some account of the

wider implications of

decisions.

Decision-making

processes respond to

serious and other

important issues

identified in relevant

research, monitoring,

evaluation and

consultation, in a



account of the wider

implications of decisions.

Decision-making

processes respond to all

issues identified in

relevant research,


and consultation, in a



account of the wider

implications of decisions.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Decision-making processes has responded to the main issues affecting the fishery,

such as provision of scientific information for assessment processes, assessment

structure, rights allocations, stock rebuilding, bird mortalities, and monitoring and

enforcement. Responses have taken account of wider implications (i.e. impact of

stock depletion on economics and ecosystems), and have been transparent (through

working groups and publishing outcomes), adaptive (new technologies

implemented, i.e. tori lines) and timely (TAC schedule; research surveys). These

factors satisfy the SG60 and SG80 requirements. There have been hiccups in the

government decision-making process, such as the lapse of the government funded




Page 196

PI 3.2.2




assessment.

observer programme, and the prolonged absence of the RV Africana – this vessel is

the mainstay of the annual biomass surveys. Fortunately, SADSTIA provided

acceptable replacements in both the mentioned cases (i.e. SADSTIA Observer

programme; and the use of the FV Andromeda to replace Africana), thus indicating

a robust fishery-specific management system, when supported by industry. The

lapse in the observer programme and absence of the RV Africana indicates that the

government could not respond adequately to ALL issues, and therefore SG100 was

not fully justified.

c Guidepost Decision-making

processes use the

precautionary approach

and are based on best

available information.

Met? Y

Justification The long-term stock rebuilding strategy is implicit in the OMP calculations, where

the TAC is set to protect the weaker of the two stocks (presently M. paradoxus).

This demonstrates the precautionary approach with respect to Principle 1. In

Principle 2, SADSTIA dealt with bird mortalities and habitat issues in a

precautionary way – ahead of government regulations, and in a response to NGO

alerts. Logbook information, survey data, observer data and VMS data are all used

for decision-making. The SG80 is achieved in terms of precautionary approach and

use of best available information.

d Guidepost Some information on

fishery performance and

management action is

generally available on

request to stakeholders.

Information on fishery

performance and

management action is

available on request, and

explanations are provided

for any actions or lack of

action associated with

findings and relevant

recommendations

emerging from research,


and review activity.

Formal reporting to all

interested stakeholders

provides comprehensive

information on fishery

performance and

management actions and

describes how the

management system

responded to findings and

relevant

recommendations

emerging from research,


and review activity.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification There are several channels through which formal reporting of fisheries performance

take place, namely the Scientific Working Group, the Resource Management

Working Group, and Industry–Government meetings. Regulations and permit

conditions are available on government websites. During the recent site visit, it was

clear that SADSTIA and other stakeholders, such as WWF, SANBI, SAEON,

BLSA, CapFish etc. were all very well informed of what is happening in the

fishery, and how management responded to recommendations. At a less formal

level, the SADSTIA website provides up-to-date information on the fishery,




Page 197

PI 3.2.2




assessment.

including information on stock status, environmental impacts and management

regime.

SADSTIA advertises the fact that the fishery is MSC certified very well, including

through sharing of information with stakeholders. The formal reporting system is

successful in disseminating information on fishery performance and management

action, and SG100 is achieved.

e Guidepost Although the

management authority or

fishery may be subject to

continuing court

challenges, it is not

indicating a disrespect or

defiance of the law by

repeatedly violating the

same law or regulation

necessary for the

sustainability for the

fishery.


or fishery is attempting to

comply in a timely

fashion with judicial

decisions arising from

any legal challenges.


or fishery acts proactively

to avoid legal disputes or

rapidly implements

judicial decisions arising

from legal challenges.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification There have been no legal disputes or judicial decisions arising from legal

challenges in recent times. DAFF enforcement activity directed at the hake fishery

detected only 7 minor administrative errors over the past year (i.e. the correct

papers not on board, etc.). These vessels were fined for the transgressions.

SADSTIA polices its members very stringently – an example is the monitoring of

the trawl footprint. All vessels have a fully operational VMS system on board,

which is continuously monitored from the DAFF operations room. Any straying out

of the footprint is reported to SADSTIA, for immediate action. Based on VMS

information, no trawling outside the footprint has taken place in the past year. The

fact that the footprint is not yet enshrined in the Act, or its regulations, but that it is

stoically observed and patrolled by SADSTIA and DAFF, is an excellent example

of proactive management.

The severity of a Section 28 ruling (potential loss of long-term fishing rights) acts

as a major deterrent to non-compliance, especially in an industrial scale fishery.

There is ample evidence that the fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes,

and that it implements management directives soundly and rapidly. It therefore

achieves SG100.

References

MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; Field, et al 2013. SADSTIA

website http://www.sadstia.co.za/






Page 198


PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s

management measures are enforced and complied with


a Guidepost Monitoring, control and

surveillance mechanisms

exist, are implemented in

the fishery under

assessment and there is a

reasonable expectation

that they are effective.

A monitoring, control and

surveillance system has

been implemented in the

fishery under assessment

and has demonstrated an

ability to enforce relevant

management measures,

strategies and/or rules.

A comprehensive

monitoring, control and

surveillance system has

been implemented in the

fishery under assessment

and has demonstrated a

consistent ability to

enforce relevant

management measures,


Met? Y Y N

Justification The assessment team was shown around the DAFF VMS suite, visited the fisheries

patrol vessel (FPV) Sarah Baartman, and also inspected voluminous enforcement

records for the past year at the DAFF offices. At sea inspections have been resumed

now that the FPVs have re-entered service (3 of the 4 FPVs are now operational). A

file of all patrols at sea was provided, together with records of inspections,

infractions and boarding data.

The VMS suite was fully operational and soon to be upgraded – it was clear from

the fishing vessel tracks on the screens in the ops room that vessels have been

fishing exclusively within the trawl footprint.

DAFF has a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The

hake sector is one of the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Over the course

of the past year they aimed to audit 8 of the deep sea trawl fishery rights holders,

and 16 of the inshore trawl fishery rights holders. As well as remote surveillance

and monitoring at sea, DAFF inspect landing and audit the catch, landings and

processing records for the fishery to ensure compliance with effort (TAC) controls.

During the past year, DAFF enforcement activity directed at the hake fishery had

detected only 7 minor administrative errors, which had been well documented. The

vessels were fined for these transgressions.

DAFF has recently had significant enforcement successes (outside of the hake

fishery) including detecting, apprehending and seizure of 10 IUU vessels, and

intercepting, seizing and repatriating consignments of illegally shipped fish

products (again not hake).

Mobile scanners are used to inspect the contents of frozen containers.

About 70% of cases brought by DAFF are successful; as part of its work, DAFF

officials provide training to the judiciary and prosecuting counsel about fisheries

legislation and regulation.

In combination, the above supports a SG80 score, as it demonstrates that a

monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery

under assessment, with the ability to enforce relevant management measures,


Some weak points do still exist, relative to the operation of the system as a whole.

These include too few staff and that some of the FPVs are still out of action (1 out

of four). The conclusion is that the MCS system is well established, and works well

for the fishery under assessment (a large commercial fishery that offloads in ports




Page 199



in major centres), especially in a co-management setup with SADSTIA, but that

some attention should be given to its consistency (i.e. all vessels active, etc.). A

SG100 was therefore not fully justified.

While the assessment team considers that the SG80 requirements are presently met,

it is evident that there have been difficulties with compliance monitoring over

recent years. The performance of the fishery with respect to this particular issue

will be kept under careful review. The team has made a recommendation that

evidence of the implementation of, and compliance with, the monitoring, control

and surveillance measures in place should be made available for scrutiny at future

surveillance audits.

b Guidepost Sanctions to deal with

non-compliance exist and

there is some evidence

that they are applied.

Sanctions to deal with

non-compliance exist, are

consistently applied and

thought to provide

effective deterrence.

Sanctions to deal with

non-compliance exist, are

consistently applied and

demonstrably provide

effective deterrence.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Non-compliance can potentially result in the suspension or loss of fishing rights

under Section 28 of the MLRA. An example of a successful Section 28 ruling,

followed by the closure and prosecution of a major fishing company, is the case of

Hout Bay Fishing. Although not for hake, it was a similar industrial scale fishery

targeting deep-water lobsters. Whereas a Section 28 sanction is a major deterrent

for capital-intensive industrial fisheries with good long-term prospects (such as the

hake fishery), it is less so for small scale (subsistence) fishers preying on nearshore

resources such as abalone and rock lobsters in South Africa. Sanctions to deal with

non-compliance exist, and are highly effective in the fishery being assessed – thus

justifying a SG100.

c Guidepost Fishers are generally

thought to comply with

the management system

for the fishery under

assessment, including,

when required, providing

information of

importance to the

effective management of

the fishery.

Some evidence exists to

demonstrate fishers

comply with the

management system

under assessment,

including, when required,

providing information of

importance to the


the fishery.


confidence that fishers

comply with the

management system

under assessment,

including, providing

information of

importance to the


the fishery.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The movements of the entire hake fishing fleet are under continual observation in

the VMS operations room at DAFF, confirming that the trawl footprint is strictly

complied with. A high degree of cooperation has been achieved among SADSTIA,

DAFF and the scientific community – this is clearly based on a shared desire for a

responsibly managed fishery, adhering to MSC Principles.

Fishers (and the infrastructure set up to manage the fishery; i.e. VMS system)

provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery on a

daily or trip-by-trip basis. The observer programme provides data on catch

composition, length composition, bycatch quantities and seabird interactions.

Discards are sampled to determine their composition and quantities. Vessels

provide logbook data of fishing effort and catches after each trip, including the

position and depth of trawling. Seabird interactions are reported through both the

government and the industry-funded observer programmes. DAFF inspectors

monitoring landings at offloading points and factories, to reconcile with logbook




Page 200



estimates of catches and with quota allocations.

In combination, these streams of information instil a high degree of confidence that

the management system is complied with, leading to a SG100 score.

d Guidepost There is no evidence of

systematic non-

compliance.

Met? Y

Justification See above. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

References Field, et al 2013; Marine Living Resources act, 1998; WWF and Ventura, 2013.






Page 201


PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of

management


a Guidepost Research is undertaken,

as required, to achieve the

objectives consistent with

MSC’s Principles 1 and

2.

A research plan provides

the management system

with a strategic approach

to research and reliable

and timely information

sufficient to achieve the

objectives consistent with

MSC’s Principles 1 and

2.

A comprehensive

research plan provides the

management system with

a coherent and strategic

approach to research

across P1, P2 and P3, and

reliable and timely

information sufficient to

achieve the objectives

consistent with MSC’s

Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N

Justification A research plan is in place for the fishery that identifies priorities so that resources

can be targeted appropriately. Research priorities are reviewed by DAFF scientists

annually. The research plan includes aspects that relate to P1 (i.e. biomass surveys;

ageing; length composition; diet of hake; genetic population structure of M.

capensis and M. paradoxus), P2 (status and biology of retained non-target species;

composition of discarded non-target species; benthic habitat surveys; seabird / gear

interactions) and P3 (OMP development; development and testing of the PUCL

system; species-splitting algorithms).

Whereas the research plan itself is coherent, strategic and well-conceived, it is

sometimes affected by logistical or administrative holdups. For instance, there have

been ongoing difficulties with the RV Africana (the main DAFF survey vessel), so

that some surveys were cancelled. Continuity in the DAFF fisheries observer

programme has further been affected by administrative issues.

In both the above cases, SADSTIA provided back-up assistance, by leasing another

vessel (FV Andromeda) to undertake the surveys, and by developing the

SADSTIA-funded observer programme. It is therefore clear that the research plan

is supported by robust contingency measures that ensure reliable and timely

information sufficient to achieve MSc objectives.

Nevertheless, the slow response of DAFF with regard to the RV Africana and the

lapse of the government sponsored offshore observer programme places the

reliability of DAFF to provide timely information in doubt, and therefore SG100 is

not fully justified.

b Guidepost Research results are

available to interested

parties.

Research results are

disseminated to all

interested parties in a

timely fashion.

Research plan and results

are disseminated to all

interested parties in a

timely fashion and are

widely and publicly

available.

Met? Y Y Y




Page 202

PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of

management

Justification The research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely

fashion and are widely and publicly available – this is elaborated on in section

3.2.2d. A SG100 score is appropriate. .

References FISHERIES_2013_NOV_SWG-DEM_68; Capfish, 2011, 2013; Sink et al, 2013;

Fairweather et al, 2006; Atwood, 2014. http://www.sadstia.co.za/



http://www.sadstia.co.za/




Page 203


PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-

specific management system against its objectives

There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system


a Guidepost The fishery has in place

mechanisms to evaluate

some parts of the

management system.

The fishery has in place


key parts of the

management system

The fishery has in place


all parts of the

management system.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Both internal and external review mechanisms exist, which measure progress of the

management system against its objectives. The mechanisms include formal

Resource Management and Scientific Working Group meetings, and auditing of

fisheries sectors by the Compliance section. An international stock assessment

workshop is held regularly, when experts are invited to review the assessment

process, from data requirements, through all steps, up to OMP development and

recommendations. The OMP is integral in evaluating stock status and provides the

primary mechanism for generating consistent management advice for longer term

management and a stock rebuilding strategy: it is reviewed each 4 years.

The evaluation of the management system extends to the effectiveness of

monitoring, compliance and surveillance activity (kept under review by the

Resource Management and Scientific Working Group). There are also mechanisms

in place to evaluate ecosystem impacts – for instance, the DAFF Bycatch Task

Team; through liaison between industry, government and stakeholders to

successfully address bird impacts; and through the ongoing evaluation of habitat

impacts in the SADSTIA-funded research carried out by SANBI.

The review mechanisms are in place to evaluate all parts of the management

system, and therefore SG100 is achieved.

b Guidepost The fishery-specific

management system is

subject to occasional

internal review.

The fishery-specific


subject to regular internal

and occasional external

review.

The fishery-specific


subject to regular internal

and external review.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The procedures in place for internal and external review of the management system

are considered in turn below.

Internal Review: The management system is subject to regular and frequent

internal review. This includes an evaluation of the assessment methodology (OMP),

and that any recommended changes have been considered and actioned as

appropriate. The OMP review process is undertaken in consultation with

international expert panels, industry and other stakeholders.

A formal Resource Management Working group structure is in place to allow

reviews of performance within sectors, involving participation of relevant

stakeholders (Interested and Affected Parties (IAAPs) including NGOs, Industry,

consultants etc). Meetings are held as required, but minimally twice per annum.

The Scientific Working Groups meet several times per year with a varying agenda

notably including the stock assessment but also other issues which may arise in the

hake fishery. Specific task groups may also be convened.

DAFF has a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The

hake sector is one of the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Over the course




Page 204

PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-

specific management system against its objectives

There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

of the past year they aimed to audit 8 of the deep sea trawl fishery rights holders,

and 16 of the inshore trawl fishery rights holders. Monitoring and evaluation are

ongoing and improvements implemented, although on varying timescales.

External Review: An international stock assessment workshop of invited experts

is held regularly to review fishery specific assessments and management methods.

There is evidence of external review of management measures directed at

ecosystem (Principle 2) impacts of the fishery, such as the DAFF Bycatch Task

Team, the independent work on benthic impacts commissioned by SADSTIA; and

also the work carried out by BLSA to assess the effectiveness of management

measures to address impacts of the fishery on bird species.

The fishery-specific management system is therefore subject to regular internal and

external review, and the SG100 requirements are achieved.

References MARAM IWS/DEC13/General/4; MARAM IWS/DEC13/General/3






Page 205

13 RISK BASED FRAMEWORK (RBF) OUTPUTS

The Risk Based Framework (RBF) has not been used in this report.




Page 206

14 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

The two units of certification returned a score of less than 80 for 5 performance indicators. One of

these conditions applies to just the M. paradoxus UoC (UoC1). The other four conditions are

associated with the same scoring issues and aspects of the fishery for each UoC.

The conditions are listed below.

14.1 Conditions for UoC1, M. paradoxus

14.1.1 Condition 1: stock status

Performance

Indicator 1.1.1

Score 70

Scoring Issue(s) scoring less than 80

SIb SG60 SG80 SG100

The stock is at or

fluctuating around its target

reference point.


certainty that the stock has

been fluctuating around its

target reference point, or

has been above its target

reference point, over recent

years.

N N

Rationale

The best estimates of the current (2013) M. paradoxus SSB is 147 kt, which is about

about 98% of the spawning biomass at MSY (153 kt). Whilst it is apparent that there

has been a recovery of paradoxus since the low point in 2007, and the reference set of

operating models indicate that the stock is close to its target reference point (SG80), the

stock has not been fluctuating around its target reference point (the SG80 requirement),

nor has it been above its target reference point, over recent years (SG100 not met).

Condition

The scoring of this PI at less than 80 triggers PI 1.1.3 (stock rebuilding). Stock

rebuilding is the response required to achieve the SG80 score for PI 1.1.1.

The assessment team has found that there is a stock rebuilding strategy in place, and that

it is working (PI 1.1.3 scores 90).

The condition of certification is therefore continued implementation of the rebuilding

strategy already in place.

Relationship to

previous conditions

This condition builds on the previous condition relating to the stock status of M.

paradoxus, which required than an appropriate rebuilding programme was put in place.

Though that condition was met; the rate of stock recovery has been longer than the

duration of the previous period of certification, so it is appropriate to generate a new

condition with respect to stock status.




Page 207

Milestones

The OMP has projected the likely recovery for the M. paradoxus stock over the period

2010-2020. The recovery of the stock relative to the OMP projections is monitored

annually by MARAM and provides an independent basis for evaluating progress.

The current rate of recovery indicates that the stock will reach its target reference point

before 2020 (i.e. within the five year period of certification).

The SG80 requirement will be met when stock assessments indicate that the TRP has

been met.

14.1.2 Condition 2: ETP species information

Performance

Indicator 2.3.3

Score

70


SIa SG60 SG80 SG100


qualitatively estimate the

fishery related mortality of

ETP species.





quantitatively estimated for

ETP species.


quantitatively estimate

outcome status of ETP

species with a high degree

of certainty.

Y N N

Rationale

The information available for impacts on ETP bird species in offshore areas is sufficient

to estimate the overall impact of the fishery on these species to be estimated

quantitatively, which would meet the SG100 requirements. For the inshore areas there

is much less information available. This is sufficient to allow a qualitative estimate of

fishery-related mortality on these species, but not to quantify impacts.


appropriate. With better information about the mortality of birds in inshore areas, the

SG80 requirements could be met. A condition has been generated to address this issue.

Condition

Information should be gathered to allow fishery related mortality of bird species and the

impact of fishing on these species to be quantitatively estimated for the hake trawl


This could be achieved by continued implementation of the recently established bird

observer programme for inshore areas and analysis of observer data so that bird

mortality and trends in mortality can be quantified.

Relationship to

previous conditions

Milestones

There is already a SADSTIA-funded bird observer programme in place. Meeting this

condition will require ongoing implementation of this programme and analysis of




Page 208

findings. The anticipated milestones are set out below:-

Year 1: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and

preliminary analysis of findings.

Likely resulting SI Score: 60

Year 2: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and further

analysis of findings.


Year 3-4: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and

reporting of findings to show that bird mortality and impact on bird species can be

quantitatively estimated.





Page 209

14.1.3 Condition 3: Habitat impact management

Performance

Indicator 2.4.2

Score

70


SIb SG60 SG80 SG100

The measures are


based on plausible








work, based on information


and/or habitats involved.



will work, based on



involved.

Y N N

Rationale

Information about the fishery shows that the type of fishing gear that can be used is

constrained by fishing licence conditions; fishing effort is limited by quotas and days at

sea; and the areas that can be fished are fixed (by the fishing industry) to the boundary

of the trawl footprint established in 2007. Thus there is a partial strategy in place that

constrains potential fishery impacts on marine habitats.

Information is available about the extent, distribution and sensitivities of marine

habitats. This information from the fishery shows that there has been fishing activity in

and around these habitat types for several decades. Independent information has also

been presented by DAFF to confirm that compliance with both the statutory controls

(gear type and effort) and also the trawl footprint by the trawl fishery has been very

good. There is thus a plausible argument that these management measures will work

(based on past experience and the “freezing” of habitat impacts). This meets the

requirements of SG60.







confirming the need for establishing further measures to manage trawl fishery impacts

on benthic marine habitats within the existing trawl footprint area (and indeed whether

there is evidence that these would be effective – which will be demonstrated by the

trawl impact study already underway). A condition has been generated to address this

issue.

Condition

There should be further investigation of the options for protecting benthic habitats from

hake trawl fishery impacts. This investigation could consider, inter alia, the relative

merits of both statutory measures and self regulation and also the areas that may require

or might benefit from such measures (for instance the South Benguela Canyon). It is

noted that much of the groundwork for this aspect of the condition has been done.

Having identified appropriate measures and areas for action, evidence of progress with

the implementation of the favoured management measures would be required.




Page 210

It is anticipated that the information derived from the trawl experiment will provide

information from the hake trawl fishery on the type of management measures that may

be appropriate.

Relationship to

previous conditions

This condition builds on the previous condition of certification that required information

on trawl fishery impacts to be gathered. The information from the ongoing work on that

condition will be vital to inform work on this condition.

Milestones

A considerable amount of work has been carried out to establish a procedure to identify

“habitats of concern” based on their vulnerability to impacts from the trawl fishery (see

Sink et al, 2012).

The milestones set out below seek to build on that work to improve the performance of

the fishery against this SI.

The anticipated milestones are set out below:-

Year 1: Further evaluation of management options for “habitats of concern” within the

trawl footprint area.


Years 2-4: Evidence of implementation of appropriate management measures designed

to protect “habitats of concern” within the trawl footprint area, and evidence of fleet

compliance with the management regime.





Page 211

14.2 Conditions for UoC2, M. capensis.

14.2.1 Condition 4: ETP species information

Performance

Indicator 2.3.3

Score

70


SIa SG60 SG80 SG100


qualitatively estimate the

fishery related mortality of

ETP species.





quantitatively estimated for

ETP species.


quantitatively estimate

outcome status of ETP

species with a high degree

of certainty.

Y N N

Rationale

The information available for impacts on ETP bird species in offshore areas is sufficient

to estimate the overall impact of the fishery on these species to be estimated

quantitatively, which would meet the SG100 requirements. For the inshore areas there

is much less information available. This is sufficient to allow a qualitative estimate of

fishery-related mortality on these species, but not to quantify impacts.


appropriate. With better information about the mortality of birds in inshore areas, the

SG80 requirements could be met. A condition has been generated to address this issue.

Condition

Information should be gathered to allow fishery related mortality of bird species and the

impact of fishing on these species to be quantitatively estimated for the hake trawl


This could be achieved by continued implementation of the recently established bird

observer programme for inshore areas and analysis of observer data so that bird

mortality and trends in mortality can be quantified.

Relationship to

previous conditions

Milestones

There is already a SADSTIA-funded bird observer programme in place. Meeting this

condition will require ongoing implementation of this programme and analysis of

findings. The anticipated milestones are set out below:-

Year 1: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and

preliminary analysis of findings.








Page 212

Year 3-4: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and

reporting of findings to show that bird mortality and impact on bird species can be

quantitatively estimated.





Page 213

14.2.2 Condition 5: Habitat impact management

Performance

Indicator 2.3.2

Score

70


SIb SG60 SG80 SG100

The measures are


based on plausible








work, based on information


and/or habitats involved.



will work, based on



involved.

Y N N

Rationale

Information about the fishery shows that the type of fishing gear that can be used is

constrained by fishing licence conditions; fishing effort is limited by quotas and days at

sea; and the areas that can be fished are fixed (by the fishing industry) to the boundary

of the trawl footprint established in 2007. Thus there is a partial strategy in place that

constrains potential fishery impacts on marine habitats.

Information is available about the extent, distribution and sensitivities of marine

habitats. This information from the fishery shows that there has been fishing activity in

and around these habitat types for several decades. Independent information has also

been presented by DAFF to confirm that compliance with both the statutory controls

(gear type and effort) and also the trawl footprint by the trawl fishery has been very

good. There is thus a plausible argument that these management measures will work

(based on past experience and the “freezing” of habitat impacts). This meets the

requirements of SG60.







confirming the need for establishing further measures to manage trawl fishery impacts

on benthic marine habitats within the existing trawl footprint area (and indeed whether

there is evidence that these would be effective – which will be demonstrated by the

trawl impact study already underway). A condition has been generated to address this

issue.

Condition

There should be further investigation of the options for protecting benthic habitats from

hake trawl fishery impacts. This investigation could consider, inter alia, the relative

merits of both statutory measures and self regulation and also the areas that may require

or might benefit from such measures (for instance the South Benguela Canyon). It is

noted that much of the groundwork for this aspect of the condition has been done.

Having identified appropriate measures and areas for action, evidence of progress with

the implementation of the favoured management measures would be required.




Page 214


information from the hake trawl fishery on the type of management measures that may

be appropriate.

Relationship to

previous conditions

This condition builds on the previous condition of certification that required information

on trawl fishery impacts to be gathered. The information from the ongoing work on that

condition will be vital to inform work on this condition.

Milestones

A considerable amount of work has been carried out to establish a procedure to identify

“habitats of concern” based on their vulnerability to impacts from the trawl fishery (see

Sink et al, 2012).

The milestones set out below seek to build on that work to improve the performance of

the fishery against this SI.

The anticipated milestones are set out below:-

Year 1: Further evaluation of management options for “habitats of concern” within the

trawl footprint area.


Years 2-4: Evidence of implementation of appropriate management measures designed

to protect “habitats of concern” within the trawl footprint area, and evidence of fleet

compliance with the management regime.





Page 215

15 CLIENT ACTION PLAN

Client Action Plan

Action Plan for Meeting Conditions for Continued Certification of the South African Hake

Trawl Fisheries

The South African Demersal Trawling Industry submits this Action Plan for meeting the

Conditions for continued certification of the two Units of Certification (UoC) of the South

African Hake Trawl Fisheries, M. paradoxus (UoC1) and M. capensis (UoC2). The

Recognised Industrial Bodies involved, the South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry

Association (SADSTIA) and the South-East Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA),

undertake to implement the spirit and intent of the Conditions as set out in the Certifiers Final

Report determining that South African hake trawl fisheries are being sustainably managed

under the MSC Principles and Criteria.

SADSTIA and SECIFA accept the conditions and will work with both its partners and with

recognised stakeholders to fulfil them. Some Conditions call on SADSTIA and SECIFA to

take on responsibilities that fall outside their full control. SADSTIA and SECIFA have

sought and been given assurances of cooperation and support from their partners. The Clients

will use the resources at their command to ensure that all Actions undertaken in connection

with these Conditions are fully met. We trust that surveillance agencies will take account of

our limitations regarding actions that require a level of commitment from autonomous

partners.

Some of the Conditions and Actions are quite closely interlinked. The Actions we propose

under one heading may go some way in meeting the obligations attached to another

Condition or Action, particularly when the required actions are the same when applied across

the two species (UoC) for two of the Conditions below (i.e. Condition 2 and 4 and Condition

3 and 5 require the same actions for the two species. It should be noted also that limited

resources, both financial and human, may sometimes prevent the Trawling Industry, and/or

government, from directly addressing a Condition, thereby necessitating the parties to seek

the most appropriate alternative approach to fulfilling a requirement. We trust that both these

factors will be recognised in the course of this certification period.

Below we comment broadly on the five Conditions in order to position our proposed Actions

within a framework of our experience and the many lessons learnt during the previous

certification periods. The Trawling Industry continues to take, or has been an active co-

management party to, a number of pre-emptive measures that favourably inform the new

Conditions. We think this fact is eloquent testimony to the enlightening and galvanizing




Page 216

effect of MSC Certification. These processes have raised the client’s level of understanding

regarding the benefits of pursuing pre-emptive conservation action. They have also increased

the trawling industry’s preparedness to undertake voluntary measures to maintain the

sustainable use of fishery resources into the future.

UoC1: M. paradoxus

Condition 1. Stock Status

Action required: Evidence of ongoing implementation of the stock rebuilding strategy is

required.

Timescale: The OMP2014 has projected the likely recovery of the stock over the period

2015-2030.

Indices for rebuilding should show improvement of M paradoxus stock status within the

bounds of the current rebuilding projection as identified during annual and bi-annual reviews

of the stock status. Overall rebuilding should progress in line with the overall timeframe for

stock recovery as currently defined.

COMMENT:

The current Hake Operational Management Procedure (OMP2014) deals directly with

matters addressed in Condition 1. An OMP typically lasts for four years implying that the

expected life of the next OMP will coincide with Certification itself. The stock assessment

model for the resource comprises a reference set of 11 specific stock assessments which

reflect a range of assumptions and uncertainty about the dynamics of the resource. The figure

below is an uncertainty envelope for those 11 assessment models with respect to the target

level quantity Bsp

/ MSYLsp

for Merluccius paradoxus. The colours denote the 80, 90 and

95% confidence intervals for this quantity. The solid dark line is the median estimate. This

figure demonstrates that by 2012/2013 the resource had achieved its target level in median

terms (the mean would have reached the target), and that the 90% uncertainty envelope at

that time ranged between about 65% of the target and 164% of the target. The resource

dynamics therefore entered the definition of a resource fluctuating around its target level.

This figure shows that there are some recruitment variability effects which are predicted to

cause a downward fluctuation in the dynamics of the resource, reaching a nadir of between

51% and 106% of the target by 2017. Thereafter the resource continues to grow along a

recovery pathway and achieves a median level of 6% above the MSYL target again by 2024

with a 90% confidence range of between 64% and 196% of target. Although not shown here,

the long term strategy translates to M. paradoxus achieving a median level of 119% of

MSYL target by 2034.




Page 217

In summary therefore, the resource attained the MSYL target in median terms in 2012/2013,

thereafter it fluctuates about its target, with a long-term strategy of reaching 19% above

target by 2034.

CONDITION 1 - ACTION 1

Stock assessment modelling:

The reference case stock assessment model will be updated annually with the inclusion of the

most recent CPUE and survey data. As part of this process, the spawning biomass trend will

be updated annually using the current stock assessment model which integrates all indices of

resource abundance. Each year a check will be carried out to determine whether the most

recent CPUE and survey based abundance indices lie within the range of the October 2014

rebuilding projections. This determination will be made both for M. paradoxus and for M.

capensis. If abundance indices are outside the 95% probability range, then exceptional

circumstances will be triggered in terms of the OMP rules and the management procedure for

the resource will be reconsidered to ensure continued long-term sustainable use. If the risk is

to the resource, then in the short term management action will involve a more conservative

TAC than would have arisen from the application of the OMP formula. In the medium term

the OMP may have to be revised as recommended by the Demersal Scientific Working

Group of DAFF. Action in short and medium term is to ensure that the resource status levels

are reached on the timeframe specified in 2014 when the current OMP was adopted. This

procedure, which was Appendix D of the attached document

FISHERIES/2010/OCTOBER/SWG-DEM/59 in the context of the 2011 – 2014 OMP has

been adopted for the 2015 – 2018 OMP. (The current version will be sent to the Certifiers as

soon as it has been officially approved by DAFF.)

Safeguard Rule: A “Safeguard Rule” has been enacted for the hake resource. This allows

for more severe reductions in the TAC than are possible under “normal conditions”. Under

normal conditions, TAC reductions may not exceed 5%. However, should the composite




Page 218

index of resource abundance, J, fall below 75% of its 2011 level, then TAC reductions

greater than 5% are permissible. The permissible percentage increases on a sliding scale from

5% at the 75% J level (of the composite abundance index relative to 2011) to 25% at the 65%

J level. The maximum permissible TAC reduction that is contemplated in any one year is

25%.

TIMING – This Action will be an ongoing process under regular annual review, and the

responsibility lies with DAFF and the DSWG.


Estimating Inter- and Intra-specific Predation:

Estimation of the current level of depletion of the M. paradoxus resource remains an area of

active research. In 2012 SADSTIA submitted the results of a study attached hereto,

“Updating the baseline hake stock assessment which incorporates inter- and intra-specific

hake predation into hake stock assessments” authored by OLRAC SPS. At the time that

work was seen as closing out a client action plan related to research into the stock assessment

implications of inter- and intra-specific hake predation. A recent international review panel

(held UCT, December 2014) has recommended as follows in relation to ongoing work in this

regard by a PhD student at UCT:

“The Panel was impressed with the progress made on developing an assessment method that

can take into account both cannibalism between the two hake species and inter-specific

predation. This line of work holds as much if not even more promise than the movement

model in terms of representing hake dynamics, because its results may change perceptions of

stock trajectories for the two hake species - in particular that for M. paradoxus, which is

subject to predation by M. capensis as well as cannibalism. The Panel looks forward to

completion of this work.”

Both OLRAC SPS’s earlier work as well as that submitted to the December 2014

international review workshop by UCT indicates a more optimistic appraisal of the depletion

status of M. paradoxus. SADSTIA will therefore sponsor OLRAC SPS to carry out a further

research project aimed at verifying and improving the methodology for determining the

pristine biomass of M. paradoxus relative to K and MSYL in the context of assessment

methodologies that explicitly incorporate inter- and intra-specific hake predation into hake

stock assessments. The duration for this work will be three years, and this work should be

seen as complementary to the work done by other researchers at UCT. OLRAC SPS’s work

will focus more directly and immediately on the management implications of this new breed

of stock assessment models. This work will build on the earlier work by OLRAC, and will

incorporate new dietary and daily ration information, as well as looking into the

disaggregation of dietary characteristics between the south and west coasts.

TIMING – SADSTIA will submit three research progress reports, in November 2015 (data

and methodological summary), November 2016 (preliminary results) and November 2017

(final report). The project will be completed by November 2017.




Page 219


Species splitting for hake in demersal trawl:

The formula used to split hake catches into the two species Merluccius paradoxus and

Merluccius capensis in the commercial trawl fishery was further developed by OLRAC SPS

in 2004 using scientific survey trawl data. The methodology has undergone successive

revisions over the years and forms the backbone of the species disaggregated stock

assessment methodology employed in the management of the fishery. In 2006, SADSTIA

commissioned an observer programme with the objective of, inter alia, collecting hake

species split information. Since then OLRAC SPS has been engaged on an ongoing basis to

compare the models based on survey and observer data, and to refine and improve the species

splitting models.

TIMING - This work will continue on an annual basis and results will be reported according

to the following milestones:

2015 (November): Submission of model refinements, options and preliminary results.

2016 (November): Submission of preferred feasible models and results.

2017 (November): Submission of comprehensive results.

UoC1 – M. paradoxus

Condition 2. ETP Species information

Action required: Information should be gathered to allow fishery related mortality of bird

species and the impact of fishing on these species to be quantitatively estimated for the hake

trawl fishery in inshore areas (waters shallower than 110m). This could be achieved by

continued implementation of the recently established bird observer programme for inshore

areas and analysis of observer data so that bird mortality and trends in mortality can be

quantified.

Timescale:

Year 1: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and preliminary




Year 3-4: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and reporting

of findings to show that bird mortality and impact on bird species can be quantitatively

estimated




Page 220

.

COMMENT:

We believe that this condition primarily applies to M. capensis (UoC2) in inshore areas, since

very little M. paradoxus is caught in waters shallower than 110m. We agree that, especially

in the case of M. capensis, it is necessary to gather further information on bird mortality and

impact on bird species.

CONDITION 2 – ACTION 1

Determine the extent of bird mortality in the inshore fleet:

We will be able to determine the extent of bird mortality and impacts on birds in the inshore

sector by i) Doing a desktop study of all available data on bird mortality in the inshore fleet

and ii) implementation of an on-board observer programme on those inshore vessels

equipped to carry an observer.

TIMING – Year 1: The desktop study to be completed and on-board observer programme

commenced.

Year 2: An assessment will be made of existing bird mortality in the inshore fleet using data

collected in year 1 and ongoing observer programme if sufficient data is available; if not, the

observer programme will be continued until sufficient data has been collected to make a

proper assessment of bird mortalities.


Deployment of bird scaring devices in the inshore fleet:

We should be able to reduce bird mortality and impacts on birds in the inshore sector by

implementation of suitable bird scaring devices similar to those deployed in the offshore

sector, adapted to allow for the smaller-sized vessels

TIMING – Year 1- modifications to be made to bird scaring devices used in the offshore

sector to make them suitable for use on the smaller vessels and testing these.

Year 2-3: As soon as the assessment referred to in Action has been completed all vessels to

be equipped with bird scaring devices and inshore observer programme established on

vessels suitably equipped to carry observers in the inshore trawling sector.


Assessment of the impact of bird-scaring devices:

Analysis of observer data to quantitatively determine whether the bird-scaring devices

utilized in the inshore sector are having a mitigating impact in terms of reducing bird

mortality and to allow trends in bird mortality to be tracked and monitored.

TIMING – Year 2-4: Annual data analysis and summaries published and communicated.


Monitoring and review of impact of bird mitigation measures:

Interaction and discussion on the implementation of mitigation of impacts on birds and trends




Page 221

in bird mortality with all relevant ETP stakeholders, including Capfish and Birdlife

TIMING – Annual review meeting will be held with stakeholders to discuss issues.

Corrective measures will be applied if agreed to be necessary.

UoC1: M. paradoxus

Condition 3. Benthic Habitat impact management

Action Required: There should be further investigation of the options for protecting benthic

habitats from hake trawl fishery impacts. This investigation could consider, inter alia, the

relative merits of both statutory measures and self-regulation and also the areas that may

require or might benefit from such measures.

It is noted that much of the groundwork for this aspect of the condition has been done.

Having identified appropriate measures and areas for action, evidence of progress with the

implementation of the favoured management measures would be required.


information from the hake trawl fishery on the type of management measures that may be

appropriate.

Timescale:

Year 1: Further evaluation of management options for ‘habitats of concern’ within the trawl

footprint area, and evidence of fleet compliance with the management regime.

Year 2-4: Evidence of implementation of appropriate management measures designed to

protect “habitats of concern” within the trawl footprint area, and evidence of fleet compliance

with the management regime.

COMMENT:

We understand that notwithstanding the work conducted during the current Certification

there remain gaps in knowledge about the intensity of disturbance and potential recovery

rates to pristine level of habitually trawled bottom.

In the previous certification period, this very expensive work was sporadically and

opportunistically carried out via academic programmes, and a PhD was completed on the

subject by Lara Atkinson. A trawl experiment to determine benthic impacts, using a

sophisticated camera monitoring system is now well underway, using DAFF’s 45m research

vessel Ellen Kuzwayo in the Child’s Bank grid area designated for the experiment. In the

experimental grid there are trawled lanes and untrawled sections for comparison and

monitoring of recovery of benthic organisms over a period of 5 years. DAFF has fortunately




Page 222

committed the vessel for the full period of 5 years. One full survey was carried out during

2014 and the data from the survey has been analysed. The next survey is scheduled for March

2015. Role players in this project include DAFF, SADSTIA, SANBI, UCT and SAEON.

With previous resource limitations in mind and with the realisation that environmental

impacts need to be limited in the interests of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) the

South African Trawling Industry has since 2009 implemented a “ring fencing” initiative

which has fixed the footprint of the South African Trawling Industry for some time to come,

thus addressing the issue of future trawl areas. This has been maintained throughout the

current recertification period. The activities of all trawlers inside and outside the trawl

footprint are monitored and transgressions reported to SADSTIA for action, so that

compliance is enforced.

SADSTIA has been engaging in the process of development of a system of offshore MPAs

since its inception, since it has always been likely that some ecologically sensitive areas

would overlap with the currently designated trawl footprint. The key roleplayers and

stakeholders are DEA, DAFF, DMR, SANBI, UCT and SAEON, SADSTIA and the oil and

gas industry. A recent presidential initiative to develop South Africa’s maritime economic

potential (Operation Phakisa) has spurred the formalization of this process. Stakeholders are

expected to rapidly find consensus on the location and size of MPAs designed to protect

critical marine benthic habitats.


Benthic impacts trawl experiment:

SADSTIA will continue to participate in and support research related to the benthic impacts

trawl experiment. This includes support for UCT and other researchers to participate in the

annual RV Ellen Kuzwayo research survey and to analyse the camera data from the survey, as

well as possible direct participation in the surveys. Note that this work is dependent on

continued availability of the research vessel and of the SAEON camera sled equipment.

TIMING – Annual surveys to be continued from 2015-2018. Data to be analysed annually to

determine the nature and extent of any damage to the benthic environment caused by trawling

and any recovery thereafter, collated and summarised and outcomes to be reported by mid-

2019.


Incorporation of trawl ring-fenced trawl grounds in permit conditions:

The existing industry programme to monitor compliance with Ring Fencing will be

continued. A formal request has been made to the DAFF’s Demersal Scientific Working

Group to include in its annual TAC recommendations to the Minister that the area designated

as the trawl footprint be incorporated in the 2015 Permit Conditions. SADSTIA undertakes to

further monitor compliance with the new permit conditions via the Ring-fencing initiative.




Page 223

TIMING –

Year 1: Implementation of permit conditions to prohibit trawling outside of the designated

footprint and ring-fenced area by 1 January 2015.

Year 1-4: Monitoring of compliance with permit conditions throughout the period of

certification.


Development of management actions to address critical marine benthic habitats:

Action 3 has strong links with Actions 1 (the trawl experiment) and 2 (Ring-fencing the trawl

grounds). SADSTIA will continue to engage with all role players on the development and

implementation of a system of offshore MPAs that protects critical marine habitats. We know

that identifying such areas and agreeing on these among stakeholders present many

challenges. We will endeavour to address these challenges by engaging with all parties

constructively to find mutually acceptable solutions that satisfy the need for protection of

critical marine benthic habitats while ensuring that the trawling industry is not heavily

impacted economically. Implementation of these offshore MPAs is, however, ultimately in

the hands of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the Department of

Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

TIMING - Progress with this action depends very much on the other role players in

Operation Phakisa, and SADSTIA is therefore not in control of it. The ultimate objectives,

outcomes and impacts of oil and gas industry developments and the Department of Mineral

Resources remain uncertain. We would, however, hope that the process can proceed as

follows:

Year 1: Engagement with all role players to finalise the proposed offshore MPAs.

Year 2-4: Proclamation and implementation of offshore MPAs to protect and conserve

critical habitats (DEA and DAFF).

UoC2 – M. capensis

Condition 4: ETP species information

Action required: Information should be gathered to allow fishery related mortality of bird

species and the impact of fishing on these species to be quantitatively estimated for the hake

trawl fishery in inshore areas (waters shallower than 110m). This could be achieved by

continued implementation of the recently established bird observer programme for inshore

areas and analysis of observer data so that bird mortality and trends in mortality can be

quantified.

Timescale:




Page 224

Year 1: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and preliminary




Year 3-4: Evidence of continued implementation of bird observer programme and reporting

of findings to show that bird mortality and impact on bird species can be quantitatively

estimated

COMMENT:

We agree that it is necessary to gather further information on bird mortality and impacts on

bird species in the inshore area where mostly M. capensis is caught.


Determine the extent of bird mortality in the inshore fleet:

We will be able to determine the extent of bird mortality and impacts on birds in the inshore

sector by i) Doing a desktop study of all available data on bird mortality in the inshore fleet

and ii) implementation of an on-board observer programme on those inshore vessels

equipped to carry an observer.

TIMING – Year 1: The desktop study to be completed and on-board observer programme

commenced.

Year 2: An assessment will be made of existing bird mortality in the inshore fleet using data

collected in year 1 and ongoing observer programme if sufficient data is available; if not, the

observer programme will be continued until sufficient data has been collected to make a

proper assessment of bird mortalities.


Deployment of bird scaring devices in the inshore fleet:

We should be able to reduce bird mortality and impacts on birds in the inshore sector by

implementation of suitable bird scaring devices similar to those deployed in the offshore

sector, adapted to allow for the smaller-sized vessels.

TIMING – Year 1- modifications to be made to bird scaring devices used in the offshore

sector to make them suitable for use on the smaller vessels and testing same.

Year 2-3: As soon as the assessment referred to in Action has been completed all vessels to

be equipped with bird scaring devices and inshore observer programme established on

vessels suitably equipped to carry observers in the inshore trawling sector.


Assessment of the impact of bird-scaring devices:

Analysis of observer data to quantitatively determine whether the bird-scaring devices




Page 225

utilized in the inshore sector are having a mitigating impact in terms of reducing bird

mortality and to allow trends in bird mortality to be tracked and monitored.

TIMING – Year 2-4: Annual data analysis and summaries published and communicated.


Monitoring and review of impact of bird mitigation measures:

Interaction and discussion on the implementation of mitigation of impacts on birds and trends

in bird mortality with all relevant ETP stakeholders, including Capfish and Birdlife

TIMING – Annual review meeting will be held with stakeholders to discuss issues.

Corrective measures will be applied if agreed to be necessary.

UoC1: M. capensis

Condition 5. Benthic Habitat impact management

Action Required: There should be further investigation of the options for protecting benthic

habitats from hake trawl fishery impacts. This investigation could consider, inter alia, the

relative merits of both statutory measures and self-regulation and also the areas that may

require or might benefit from such measures (for instance the South Benguela Canyon).

It is noted that much of the groundwork for this aspect of the condition has been done.

Having identified appropriate measures and areas for action, evidence of progress with the

implementation of the favoured management measures would be required.


information from the hake trawl fishery on the type of management measures that may be

appropriate.

Timescale:

Year 1: Further evaluation of management options for ‘habitats of concern’ within the trawl

footprint area, and evidence of fleet compliance with the management regime.

Year 2-4: Evidence of implementation of appropriate management measures designed to

protect “habitats of concern” within the trawl footprint area, and evidence of fleet compliance

with the management regime.

COMMENT:

We understand that notwithstanding the work conducted during the current Certification

there remain gaps in knowledge about the intensity of disturbance and potential recovery




Page 226

rates to pristine level of habitually trawled bottom.

In the previous certification period, this very expensive work was sporadically and

opportunistically carried out via academic programmes, and a PhD was completed on the

subject by Lara Atkinson. A trawl experiment using a sophisticated camera sled monitoring

system is now well underway, using DAFF’s 45m research vessel MV Ellen Kuzwayo in the

Child’s Bank grid area designated for the experiment, which includes trawled lanes and

untrawled sections for comparison and monitoring of recovery of benthic organisms over a

period of 5 years. DAFF has fortunately committed the vessel for the full period of 5 years.

One full survey was carried out during 2014 and the data from the survey has been analysed.

The next survey is scheduled for March 2015. Role players in this project include DAFF,

SADSTIA, SANBI, UCT and SAEON.

With previous resource limitations in mind and with the realisation that environmental

impacts need to be limited in the interests of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) the

South African Trawling Industry has since 2009 implemented a “ring fencing” initiative

which has fixed the footprint of the South African Trawling Industry for some time to come,

thus addressing the issue of future trawl areas. The activities of all trawlers inside and outside

the trawl footprint are monitored and transgressions reported to SADSTIA for action, so that

compliance is enforced.

SADSTIA has been engaging in the process of development of a system of offshore MPAs

since its inception, since it has always been likely that some ecologically sensitive areas

would overlap with the currently designated trawl footprint. The key stakeholders and role

players are DEA, DAFF, DMR, SANBI, UCT and SAEON, SADSTIA and the oil and gas

industry. A recent presidential initiative to develop South Africa’s maritime economic

potential (Operation Phakisa) has spurred the formalization of this process.


Benthic impacts trawl experiment:

SADSTIA will continue to participate in and support research related to the benthic impacts

trawl experiment. This includes support for UCT and other researchers to participate in the

annual RV Ellen Kuzwayo research survey and to analyse the camera data from the survey, as

well as possible direct participation in the surveys. Note that this work is dependent on

continued availability of the research vessel and of the SAEON camera sled equipment.

TIMING – Annual surveys to be continued from 2015-2018. Data to be analysed annually to

determine the nature and extent of any damage to the benthic environment caused by trawling

and any recovery thereafter, collated and summarised and outcomes to be reported by mid-

2019.




Page 227


Incorporation of trawl ring-fenced trawl grounds in permit conditions:

The existing industry programme to monitor compliance with Ring Fencing will be

continued. A formal request has been made to the DAFF’s Demersal Scientific Working

Group to include in its annual TAC recommendations to the Minister that the area designated

as the trawl footprint be incorporated in the 2015 Permit Conditions. SADSTIA undertakes to

further monitor compliance with the new permit conditions via the Ring-fencing initiative.

TIMING –

Year 1: Implementation of permit conditions to prohibit trawling outside of the designated

footprint and ring-fenced area by 1 January 2015.

Year 1-4: Monitoring of compliance with permit conditions throughout the period of

certification.


Development of management actions to address critical marine benthic habitats:

Action 3 has strong links with Actions 1 (the trawl experiment) and 2 (Ring-fencing the trawl

grounds). SADSTIA will continue to engage with all role players on the development and

implementation of a system of offshore MPAs that protects critical marine habitats. We know

that identifying such areas and agreeing among stakeholders present many challenges. We

will endeavour to address these challenges by engaging with all parties constructively to find

mutually acceptable solutions that satisfy the need for protection of critical marine benthic

habitats while ensuring that the trawling industry is not heavily impacted economically.

Implementation of these offshore MPAs is, however, ultimately in the hands of the

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and the Department of Agriculture Forestry and

Fisheries (DAFF).

TIMING - Progress with this action depends very much on the other role players in

Operation Phakisa, and SADSTIA is therefore not in control of it. The ultimate objectives,

outcomes and impacts of oil and gas industry developments and the Department of Mineral

Resources remain uncertain. We would, however, hope that the process can proceed as

follows:

Year 1: Engagement with all role players to finalise the proposed offshore MPAs.

Year 2-4: Proclamation and implementation of offshore MPAs to protect and conserve

critical habitats (DEA and DAFF).




Page 228

16 PEER REVIEW REPORTS

16.1 Peer Review Reports

16.1.1 Peer Reviewer A

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an

appropriate conclusion based on the evidence

presented in the assessment report?

Yes Conformity Assessment Body

Response

Justification:

This is a complex fishery, consisting of two species that are

not easily distinguishable and certainly not capable of being

separated out in commercial catch data, two organizations

representing the various operators, and two geographic areas,

although the latter are no longer considered as individual

stocks in the assessment. The background material and its

evidence is presented in a fair manner, but it is still difficult for

a reviewer to get his head around the species and “stock”

differences, even though in this case I do have some (very

dated) background relating to the fishery.

The evidence is presented in voluminous and comprehensive

fashion, and there is sufficient to substantiate the scorings

given. I do have a (presentational) problem with some (not all)

of the justifications in the scoring sections, however, because

a few are presented in too much of a bullet-point fashion, just

throwing the various evidence at the reader rather than

building the justifications in a contiguous manner that leads to

a clear conclusion based on the most important and MSC-

required criteria.

We agree that this is a complex fishery;

we have presented the information in as

clear a manner as possible.

Comment noted; we have responded to

the reviewer’s comments on the scoring

of individual PIs in response to this.




Page 229

If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient

to close the conditions raised?


Response

Justification:

After ten years of being certified, this fishery and its two client

organizations are used to meeting MSC certification conditions

in an exemplary manner. The Action Plan provided is in my

opinion adequate and, although Condition 1 is aimed at

achieving targeted rebuilding of the M. paradoxus stock so

requires evidence to that end being assimilated (which will be

difficult if the UoC stock does not recover as planned), I am

confident that the will of the clients to close all five conditions

is strong. Hence, I believe that all five conditions will be closed

out within the timeframes specified.

Comment noted, no action required.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

Do you think the condition(s) raised are

appropriately written to achieve the SG80

outcome within the specified timeframe?


Response

Justification:

For such a long-certified fishery (the third time it is being

considered), it is quite surprising to this reviewer that

conditions are still being unearthed that need to be met during

the term of the certification. However, apart from the fact that

MSC criteria are being tightened all the time, it is clear from

the various documentation referred to that scientifically and

administratively, this fishery is one of the best researched and

managed in the world outside the dominant North Atlantic

fisheries, where marine research and good management

practice initially developed. It is also clear that the authorities

and the local (and international) scientists associated with the

various facets of the SA hake trawl fishery are committed to it

remaining at the forefront of good scientific and management

practice, and the assessment team this time (with some

different members from previous assessment teams and

surveillance auditors) have picked this fact up. Hence, the

conditions set now are fair and in my opinion given the

documentation in front of me, they can be met within the

timeframe set. There are actually five listed, but only

Condition 1 is unique to a single UoC (Merluccius paradoxus).

Conditions 2 and 3 are mirror images of Conditions 4 and 5,

each pairing covering one of the UoCs (M. paradoxus and M.

capensis). Therefore, there are realistically only three

conditions needing to be met; the way the two sets of paired

conditions are to be met is similar for each UoC.

Comment noted. No action required.




Page 230

I strongly urge the assessment team to give serious and dedicated attention to finally submitting a

report of high quality in terms of its continuity (within sections and obviously also within scoring

justifications) and even grammar and spelling. I tired of circling minor errors or of wondering why

comments clearly meant as reminders to the drafter(s) were still contained in this report. Everything

that needs to be in the report is there, but quality needs to be enhanced during the team response

period.

Notwithstanding the above comment, I find the report to be a good one.

IFC Response: these comments are welcomed. We have addressed grammar and spelling mistakes

in the report as part of the review process.




Page 231

Performance Indicator Review

Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft

Report.

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)

Justification Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary.

Conformity Assessment Body

Response

1.1.1 Yes Yes Maybe for UoC 1, n/a for UoC 2

For UoC 1 (M. paradoxus), the certifying team correctly point out that all scientific evidence points to a high degree of certainty that the stock is not at a point where recruitment can be impaired, but that the stock size has not in recent years been above or fluctuating around the target B reference point. Although the stock is not far beneath that reference point, the inability to score 1.1.1b at all is therefore obvious, and the overall performance score for UoC 1 is therefore correct and a condition has been raised. That condition, however, is merely to provide some evidence of the efficacy of the effectiveness of the rebuilding strategy; in my opinion, proof of the effectiveness of the strategy can only come in a longer time, perhaps even when the target reference point is reached. Perhaps this point can be emphasized?

The assessment team has found that

there is a stock rebuilding strategy in

place for M. paradoxus and that it is

effective (PI 1.1.3 scores 90).

Therefore, the condition is continued

implementation of the rebuilding

strategy within the OMP, which has

projected that the M. paradoxus stock

to will reach its target reference point

before 2020 (i.e. within the five year

period of certification). This will be

monitored annually by MARAM, and

provides an independent basis for

evaluating progress.




Page 232

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

For UoC 2, the scoring is correctly at 100.

1.1.2 Yes Yes n/a The rigour of the assessment model is tested and proven, and I am comfortable that the background information in the report and the scoring reflect correctly on the status of the stock in terms of both UoCs


1.1.3 Yes Yes n/a UoC 2 does not require any rebuilding, as shown clearly by the assessment modelling (1.1.1 above), so does not need to be scored here. UoC 1 is hampered by the decision that socio-economic reasoning makes it impracticable to rebuild the stock in the required 2 × generation time. It is notable from the text provided that some of the scientists interviewed during the site visit believe that recovery may be more rapid than predicted, but actual proof is still lacking, so the score of 80 for 1.1.3b is supported, as is the overall score.

We did not intend to imply that there

was a decision not to effect a recovery

of M. paradoxus biomass to BMSY

within a ten year period for socio-

economic reasons, but that this was a

possibility given way that the OMP is

designed to balance the returns to the

fishery (catch) against the perceived

risks to the stock (of fishing). In the

event, the current OMP is expected to

achieve this objective within the 5-

year certification period.




Page 233

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

1.2.1 Yes Yes n/a For both UoCs, evidence and moreover gutfeel is that the harvest strategy (which must be one of the most tested in fisheries assessment history!) is both precautionary and robust. It only “fails” in proving that the stocks will be maintained at the target levels. The assessment team are clearly hedging their bets, but the overall score is supported.


1.2.2 Yes Yes n/a The report (and scoring table) provides ample evidence that the harvest control rules in place are both (extremely) well-defined and effective. What is particularly gratifying here is the extent of fishery buy-in and support for those HCRs; they have clearly been fully consulted, understand the rules and what they are trying to achieve for the fishery. Scoring supported.


1.2.3 Yes Yes n/a So much is already known (and regularly checked and confirmed) about the two UoCs that it would be impossible to score this PI at anything other than 100%. Careful and robust analysis is the hallmark of this fishery

An appropriate comment has been

added to the justification for 1.2.3a in

relation to age determination.




Page 234

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

and its historical development. I only have one concern here, namely about the information used, but that does not change my perception of the accuracy of the evaluation result – age/length keys are reliant on a single trained otolith reader, who is not consistent throughout the time-series (a dangerous situation for any fishery!) and the material is aggregated over each year, not analysed spatially or temporally. A comment on why such a situation does not affect the efficacy of the harvest strategy being applied would be useful.

1.2.4 Yes Yes n/a Perhaps my inside knowledge of the development of the numerical assessment methodology makes me a bit cynical about the team’s assertion that other assessment approaches (e.g. an age-structured VPA) have not been attempted in the in the OMP. However, given the voluminous information provided in this report and perhaps the slight uncertainty about the stock status of UoC 1, the cautionary scoring is supported.





Page 235

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

FROM HERE ON, UoCs 1 AND 2 ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER

2.1.1 Yes Yes n/a I note the slightly different definitions of retained and bycaught species in South Africa from those generally accepted internationally, and applaud the assessment team for providing that background information in their report. It makes the reviewers’ job much easier. I agree with the way they have drafted their report with this in mind. Given that target reference points have not been set in South Africa for any of the retained species, and that the levels of depletion of those species are not generally known with any degree of accuracy, the scoring of this PI at a and b cannot exceed 80, a score with which I agree.


2.1.2 Yes Yes n/a Using MSC definitions for “measures”, “strategy” and “partial strategy”, the South African situation for retained species is in my opinion (and supported by the documentation produced) pretty good. The risk of serious or





Page 236

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

irreversible harm accruing to other species does not seem to be very high. However, rigorous testing of the strategy is currently missing, so the overall score of 95 for this PI is fair.

2.1.3 Yes Yes n/a From what is presented, the level of available observations and firm statistics on catches supports the conclusion of the assessment team that the information behind the score for this PI warrants a pass at 80. I do have an issue, as does the team seemingly, with the ongoing level of independent observation effort (manifest in the responsible government agency not contracting this work into the future with any degree of certainty). However, from what is available in terms of observations made to present, I am comfortable with the score assigned – it is only the level of certainty regarding the outcome in terms of retained species that is questioned. Monitoring is good (currently), but it has to be noted that factual knowledge is somewhat lacking for some stocks of

Comment noted, no action required.




Page 237

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

retained species, unsurprising given the number of them caught.

2.2.1 Yes Yes n/a Again, the South African definition of bycatch varies slightly from the international norm, but the assessment team have covered that anomaly adequately in their report. Discarding in the fishery is anyway low, although it was apparentl;y not always so, meaning that adjustments to some catches presumably were made (?), but it is impossible to state from the information and statistics available that there is a high degree of certainty that all bycatch species are within biologically based limits; many species are by-caught! Therefore the score given of 80 is the maximum possible


2.2.2 Yes Yes n/a The information provided correctly points out that at best there is a partial strategy in place designed to maintain bycatch species within biologically based limits. Therefore, no





Page 238

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

scoring above 80 can be accepted, and I agree with the score given by the assessment team.

2.2.3 Yes Yes n/a Here I must I reiterate my cautionary comment (made also by the assessment team) that commitment to ongoing independent observer programmes is not that obvious locally at the government agency. The client organization is attempting to cover that issue, to good effect, but I am not sure that such action is the right (or moral) way forward for observation programmes. However, for now, the level of monitoring and the data collected and analysed are sufficient to be able to quantify catches, to support a partial strategy for managing main bycatch species and to be able to estimate outcome status for those species. The score of 85 is hence justified.


2.3.1 Yes Yes n/a It is easy here to conclude that there are no Comment noted. No action required.




Page 239

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

ETP species related to the fishery, but seabird mortality and interaction has been notable over the years, so the team’s concentration on seabird interactions, including some species of seabird that are under threat globally (IUCN), is warranted. The team also rightly concludes that despite the amount of effort traditionally and recently being devoted to researching the interactions (South Africa has an impressive complement of seabird – and avians in general - research teams), and in mitigating any effects, one cannot with a high degree of confidence state that the fishery is having no detrimental direct or indirect effect on seabird species. A score of 80 is therefore the maximum possible, and is supported.

2.3.2 Yes Yes n/a In terms of the precautionary management strategy currently in place, there is general confidence that it is working and any effects of the fishery on seabirds are being mitigated. Also, the reducing-over-time observations of seabird strikes and





Page 240

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

mortalities (with the implementation of amended technologies) demonstrate an improvement in the situation, so a score for this PI above 80 is fair.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes The team have concluded that information on ETP seabird interactions inshore is scarce enough to warrant a score for 2.3.3a of just 60. A carefully designed programme of observations will ameliorate this situation, so the condition set is a good one (and it applies to both UoC stocks, although inshore, the UoC 1 component is less relevant). There is an error in the report here. The final line of this PI refers to conditions 2 and 3; it should be 2 and 4, I believe.

Comments on scoring noted. We have

corrected the error concerning the

relevant conditions.

2.4.1 Yes Yes n/a Habitat effects (mainly negative) of bottom trawl fisheries are common and virtually unavoidable worldwide. The client has clearly understood this and invested heavily in improving understanding of the trawl

Comments noted. No action required.




Page 241

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

“footprint” and how it may be impacting on habitat generally. This effort is laudable, but it still does not allow scoring above 80 for this PI, and the (post-site-visit) widely advertised concern of stakeholders and scientists that the South African MPA network might be under threat from operators in other fisheries wishing to gain entrance to areas currently not being exploited generates even more confidence that the maximum score for this PI at the moment can only be 80.

2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Formal operating license constraints particularly related to gear type mitigate against management totally eliminating the risk of habitat damage by trawling, so any score for this PI above 80 would be impossible for this fishery. The comment above about the recently advertised threat to the South African MPA network is also relevant here. Habitat impacts by trawl gear are virtually guaranteed, so a condition has to be raised to try to improve the situation during the period of certification. I agree with

Comments on scoring noted. We have

corrected the error concerning the

condition numbers that relate to this

PI.




Page 242

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

that requirement. Once again I think there is an error in the draft I have – I believe the final line of PI 2.4.2 should refer to Conditions 3 and 5, not just to 3.

2.4.3 Yes Yes n/a Relevant information is being and has been collected in the past, sufficient to support the score awarded of 85, but no more at this point in time.


2.5.1 Yes Yes n/a Information collection and analysis over the years has been excellent, resulting in better-than-normal understanding of structure and function within the SA ecosystem within which the fishery operates. The score of 100 is totally supported by the information provided in the report.


2.5.2 Yes Yes n/a With any trawl fishery it is impossible to guarantee that there will be absolutely no impact on ecosystem structure or function, but there are measures and a partial strategy





Page 243

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

in place to mitigate any impact; the authors of the report highlight the main ones. The score of 90 is supported.

2.5.3 Yes Yes n/a As stated above, South Africa has been privileged to have been served over the years by some outstanding proponents of ecosystem research. The UoC fishery therefore benefits from this, and the understanding of the benthic and demersal parts of the ecosystem is such that a high score of 95 can be supported.


3.1.1 Yes Yes n/a South African legislation has been produced to high international standards, many Acts being comparatively recent so having been able to be built on good international practice, and the report outlines the overall framework within which the legislation takes effect. Within South Africa, however, political questions are still being asked about the access rights of those traditionally dependent


We note the comment about access

rights of those traditionally dependent

on fishing for their livelihood. This is

addressed in our comments under SId,

where we note that the nature of the




Page 244

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

upon the fishery for their livelihood (the second bullet of 3.1.1). Such questions are political and based upon historical national decisions, however, and should not affect the scoring of the team as 100 for this PI.

hake fishery is that it has only been

prosecuted since the advent of

mechanised trawlers capable of fishing

in the deep waters inhabited by the

hake species. There was no traditional

or artisanal hake fishery in the deep

water before this.

3.1.2 Yes Yes n/a This PI is easy to score, and the assessment team found ample proof of the openness of the consultation processes. In particular I note the impressive international manner in which P1 discussions lead to suggestions and potential improvements that are then opened to broad consultation nationally. Few established fisheries enjoy such a broad and transparent airing of methodology and data so regularly.


3.1.3 Yes Yes n/a South Africa’s management policy for this fishery (and indeed all its fisheries) has clearly been developed to be consistent with





Page 245

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

the MSC’s Principles and Criteria, and the precautionary approach is subsumed in all management decision-making. Hence, with a single scoring issue, this PI scores 100.

3.1.4 Yes Yes n/a It is here that the comments made above in 3.1.1 about political questioning are manifest most strongly. The whole South African fishing rights allocation process can destabilize a fishery by undermining confidence in future access prospects. It will take many years for this problem to work its way through the client fishery, although it is in other South African fisheries that the problem is at its worst. For the client fishery, however, a score of 80 is justified.


3.2.1 Yes n/a The assessment team correctly score this PI at 80 for both of MSC Principles 1 and 2, but point out that some of the P2 objectives are too generic to allow them to be evaluated against fixed time-scales. The partial score of





Page 246

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

80 for P2 and 100 for P1 MSC principles is therefore correct (overall score 90).

3.2.2 Yes Yes n/a There is an interesting spelling of “hiccough” here! Notwithstanding, the issues raised by the assessment team, such as the inability of the government agency to guarantee the future of the observer programme and its inability to maintain its dedicated sea-based survey programme, on which the assessment is largely based (SI 3.2.2b), do mitigate against a full-house score for this PI. Hopefully, both these important issues can be addressed in the near future.

The spelling has been corrected, but

we have favoured “hiccup” over

“hiccough”.

We note the concerns raised here. Our

findings at the site visit were that AT

PRESENT the observer coverage is

adequate. During the previous period

of certification we generated new

conditions in response to concerns

about the adequacy of observer

coverage and monitoring of the

fishery. We will keep this particular

issue under scrutiny.

We note the endorsement of our

scoring and the caveats we have used




Page 247

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

in our rationale.

3.2.3 Yes Maybe Perhaps there should be one

Compliance seems to be good, and effective sanctions are available in national legislation. Like the team, however, I do have a problem here. The objective of this MSC PI is to ensure that there is an effective MCS system in place. The government agency “apparently” understands this necessity (for all its fisheries), but its investment in maintaining its system at the high level needed for this fishery (a distant-water one) is seemingly lacking. Two of the patrol vessels (50%) were out of commission during the site visit (and at-sea MCS other than VMS is crucial for this deep-sea fishery), and the trained staff component essential to supporting the whole system is very thin on the ground. Given those limitations, I question whether SG “a” can score 80 – is the system actually operative at the level required by MSC Principles. I have no problems with the other scorings for this PI, but at the very least I believe that a

We note the concerns raised here. We

found that at the time of the site visit

the MCS system was recovering from

a difficult period and that the systems

in place (just) met the SG80

requirements. We now understand

that 3 out of the 4 patrol vessels are

operational.

Whilst noting and largely agreeing

with the reviewer’s comments, we

consider that the SG80 requirements

are fully met.

We have responded to the comments

made here by making a

recommendation that effective




Page 248

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

recommendation on the compliance capacity needs to be raised by the assessment team, if the decision is still that PI3.2.3a does warrant a score of 80. It possibly does, but I need convincing that the government agency really is providing the MCS system the client fishery needs to meet international best practice.

compliance measures should be

implemented, and noting that evidence

to demonstrate progress with this

particular issue will be sought at future

surveillance audits.

3.2.4 Yes Yes n/a As above, the questionable commitment of the government agency to implementing the comprehensive research plan that is certainly in place mitigates against scoring PI3.2.4a above 80. The plan itself is good and it is reviewed internationally, so it is only in the implementation where this PI fails to score a full-house 100.


3.2.5 Yes Yes n/a The full-house score is entirely justified for this PI. The review process in place is better and more effective than for many certified fisheries, and the client and government agency (and its contractors) deserve credit for this.

Comments noted. No action required.




Page 249




Page 250

Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

I said initially that this is a complex fishery, and I stand by that statement. I have

raised a couple of issues in my narrative above, and I hope that they will be

addressed in the consideration phase that follows this. My problem with what I see is

simply that everything seems to be in place for the fishery to sail through this

recertification, but there are several areas where actual implementation, or

commitment to implementation, is lacking. This aspect really does need to be looked

at, and the MSC process offers a fantastic opportunity for that to happen.

These comments are noted. We have noted that the client (SADSTIA &

SECIFA) have been proactive in their response to management issues over

the past 10 years, and our scoring reflects this. The continued commitment

of the RSA government to the management of the fishery will be vital to

secure compliance with MSC standards throughout the next period of

certification.




Page 251

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

Performance

Indicator

Does the report

clearly explain

how the process

used to

determine risk

using the RBF

led to the stated

outcome?

Yes/No

Are the RBF risk

scores well-

referenced?

Yes/No

Justification:

Please support your answers by referring to specific

scoring issues and any relevant documentation

where possible. Please attach additional pages if

necessary.

Conformity Assessment Body Response:

1.1.1

NA NA NA The RBF has not been used for this fishery.

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.4.1

2.5.1

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries:

Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise

from enhancement activities?

Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body Response:

Justification:

NA

This is not an enhanced fishery.



Page 252

16.1.2 Peer Reviewer B

Overall Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an

appropriate conclusion based on the evidence

presented in the assessment report?


Response

Whilst numerous points for clarification and possible

shortcomings have been identified, I do not anticipate that any

of them will prove show-stoppers. Even where changes in

scores have been suggested, or might be appropriate

following revision of text, I doubt that any of them will be

sufficient to affect to overall results and conclusion. On this

basis, and subject to the report being strengthened were

necessary (principally with respect to habitats), I am happy to

support this report and its recommendation for certification.


If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient

to close the conditions raised?

Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body

Response

On balance, the proposed actions plans appear appropriate for Comment noted. No action required.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are

appropriately written to achieve the SG80

outcome within the specified timeframe?


Response

Subject to the CAB response to comments relating to 2.4.1

and 2.4.3, the condition set on 2.4.2 made need modifying to

cover 2.4 as a whole.

On balance, the conditions set seem appropriate for the

shortcomings identified but the conditions relating to habitats

and ETP species would benefit from some clarification and

possible minor additions.

1. All observers should be required to record all bird and ETP interactions (i.e. direct strikes and presence below but astern of the headline).

2. It would be helpful if all observers (and ideally skippers in the official logbook) recorded the occurrence of all macrobenthos in the trawl (e.g. coral, sponges, seapens). This would help to build a more detailed picture of the distribution of potentially sensitive and vulnerable species.

The comments relating to PI 2.4.1 have

been addressed in the scoring rationale

for the PI and the text relating to habitat

interactions.

The comments relating to observing

ETP and habitat interactions are noted.

Our understanding is that observers are

being trained to monitor and record bird

interactions, but that it is unlikely that all

observers will be trained (and

questionable whether this is actually

necessary, providing that fishing trips

are adequately sampled to provide a

sufficiently accurate overview of

impacts).




Page 253

meeting the conditions set.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)

The main text of the report is clearly written and logical in its presentation, which makes it easy to

follow despite the involvement of two species and, notionally, two fleets. Insofar as there are

significant omissions of information from the report, they concern the description of habitats.

Although a variety of habitat types has been identified and listed, the information is limited to

substrata and topography; there is no information on what biota characterise these habitats, its relative

abundance or distribution. In particular, no indication is given as to where upright fragile species,

species that are most vulnerable to trawl activity, might be found. In view of the condition that has

been set with respect to habitats, it is possible that this information is still not available, in which case

the point should be made clearly and explicitly in the appropriate section of the text report and be

reflected in the scores. Not unrelated to this point is the omission of any description of the trawl gear

used, in particular the ground gear (doors, sweeps and foot rope). This has relevance to the potential

effect that trawling may have on any particular habitat type, including whether or not it is feasible to

trawl in a particular habitat. It is essential that these shortcomings are rectified.

IFC Comment: We have provided more information in the report and scoring rationales about habitat

types and fishing gear to the report to clarify these points.

Other specific points are listed below:

PDF page no. Comment

General Numerous typographic errors and presentational inconsistencies have been drawn to the

assessment team’s attention.

IFC Comment: We have addressed all of the comments provided in an annotated

version of the report submitted by the peer reviewer.

Principle 1

S 5.1; p 23 “They are the dominant predator in the demersal niche.”

Is this an opinion or an established fact? If fact, it would be appropriate to support it with

a reference.

IFC Comment: Reference added.

Legend Fig 5 The nature of the ‘surveys’ is unclear; are they research-vessel surveys and what is the

significance of ‘Africana’? As it happens, I know that it is the principal RSA research

vessel but this should be made explicit for other reviewers who may be less familiar with

such things, not least because it receives many further references throughout the report.

IFC Comment: Caption modified accordingly.

P 32 The paragraph below Fig 5: this might be the place (or better still, earlier when research

surveys are first mentioned) to say a word or two about Africana and Nansen for readers

who are not familiar with the global research –vessel fleet. As far as I am aware, the




Page 254

Nansen is a Norwegian RV normally associated with UN/FAO projects in developing

countries. Where does she fit into the RSA scheme of things?

IFC Comment: The Nansen is indeed the Norwegian vessel. The details of how or

why this vessel was used in South African waters is not relevant to the

assessment outcome. The text simply illustrates that there have been

some challenges in the provision of adequate research vessel coverage

over recent years, but that solutions were found.

P 34 ‘While the baseline assessment is now species-species, a species combined---‘ Is this

correct, or should it be species-specific?

IFC Comment: This was a typographic error and has been corrected.

P 35 S5.6 Management plan: a key factor of any management plan that does not come across

clearly is what action, if any, will be taken if the (M. paradoxus) stock goes into (a

sustained) decline. We are told that the current OMP has an inter-year limit on variation

in TAC of 10%, but what if stock decline demands more than this?

IFC Comment: The design of the OMP at each renewal (4-5 years) takes stock status

into account, leaning towards the weaker stock (in this case paradoxus)

in terms of setting TACs that ensure that there is a small probability

that the resource declines any time within that time frame. In the event

of a stock decline, the OMP will respond to this (as it did for paradoxus

over the last 10 years), since a main aim is to ensure profitable catch

rates. Thus, stock sustainability and fishery viability act in harmony.

S 5.7, p 37 “---stock assessment procedures, in which the assessors choose a “base case” that reflects

some perception of median or mean tendency of the status of the stock---“. I confess that

I am far from certain that I understand what this means.

IFC Comment: That is why we suggest “that readers wishing to skip this technical

section should move forward to section 5.7.9”

Principle 2

P 53 What is a ‘joint product’? Is it simply unsorted catch that is landed (p 78, S6.2.7)? A clear

definition at first mention will be helpful.

IFC Comment: The text has been clarified to explain this.

Table 6 Legend: “Catch of non-target species (“bycatch rate”) as a proportion of the catch of the

two hake species, and ranking of the top 5 non-target (i.e. non-hake) species for the

period 2008-13. [Source: Attwood, 2014].” The legend and table column headings appear

to be at odds with each other. If it is the “top 5 non-target (i.e. non-hake) species”, they

should be labelled 1–5 as the hake are the target species. If the current column headings

of 3 – 7 are correct, I don’t understand the table as it implies that hake are 1st and 2

nd non-

target species.

IFC Comment: The legend make sense. The species listed are all non-target species,

and represent the 3rd

, 4th

, 5th

, 6th

and 7th

most abundant retained species after the two

(target) hake species. No change is considered necessary.

P 58 What are St Joseph sharks? The name is not recognised in FishBase.

IFC Comment: They are listed in Table 9. Callorhinchus capensis.




Page 255

P 78 “The spatial distribution of discarding activity has been determined from observer data

and is shown in Figure 28.” I think that the assessors should express some opinion or

draw some conclusion from what is shown in Fig 28 rather than leave it hanging for the

reader to drawn their own conclusions, conclusions that might be at odds with what the

authors think.

IFC Comment: Comment noted. A brief description has been added.

Fig 27 What are ‘horse fish’? They are not mentioned anywhere in the text.

IFC Comment: they are Congiopodus torvus. We have now mentioned this in the

text.

P 80 “Observations carried out during 2004 and 2005 aboard SADSTIA trawlers suggested

that around 18,000 birds were killed annually in the fishery (Watkins et al, 2008).” If ‘the

fishery’ is the trawl hake fishery, I think ‘trawl hake’ should be inserted so that there is

no misunderstanding. To many readers, albatross mortality is associated with longline

fisheries rather than trawling.

IFC Comment: We have modified the text to remove any possible ambiguity.

Similarly, does “Albatross mortality is now considered to be negligible (83 birds in 2010)

(Maree et al, 2014)” relate specifically to the trawl fishery?

IFC Comment: We have modified the text to remove any possible ambiguity.

P 82 “the fishing industry commissioned two dedicated seabird observers in 2012”. Is there

any reason why all fishery observers should not be required to record bird mortalities?

IFC Comment: It is our understanding that this task requires considerable training and

it may be impractical to train all fishery observers for this work.

P 84 “The frequency and nature of interactions with different bird species over this period is

shown in Table 11.” Some explanatory text should be added. It is far from clear what

constitutes a ‘high’ (medium or low) interaction other than the legend says that a ‘high’

interaction is more likely to result in death.

IFC Comment: The legend of Table 11 explains the different levels of interaction..

P 87 Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus

“---the harvesting of its young---“. Who by; South Africa? Whichever it is make it clear.

If it is SA, it must lead to a condition.

IFC Comment: We have modified the text to make it clear that the hake trawl fishery

is not connected with harvesting of young sooty shearwaters.

P 88 “--- inshore trawl fishery in the late 1880s to the current extent of the fishery ---” – 1880

or 1980?

IFC Comment: 1880 is correct. In fact the first record of trawling was in 1878.

P 94 Fig 35 At normal screen page size there only appears to be a single no-take MPA whereas there

are more than that; e.g. under the ‘Port’ of Port Elizabeth. It would be helpful to give

some additional indication (arrows perhaps) as to where these sites are

IFC Comment: We have replaced the map with a higher resolution version which

makes the location and name of the MPAs clearer.

S 6.4 Habitat Interactions – it would be helpful, I think if something was said about how the

authorities propose to monitor and enforce the no-trawl zones, both existing and

experimental areas. Without such an explanation one might think that the whole scheme

is dependent on good will.

IFC Comment: Compliance with the trawl footprint is a licence condition.

Numerous habitat types are identified in this section but there is no indication as to how

one or other of them is more or less vulnerable to adverse effects from trawling.

Compared with other trawl fisheries subject to MSC assessment and certification, I have




Page 256

no sense of what the vulnerable features are. Are there coral gardens or areas of other

large upright biota; are there extensive areas of sponges that provide complex habitat for

a myriad of other species? The RSA may be a long way off having a detailed map of

seabed habitats (as opposed to substrata) but there must be some idea of what sensitive

and vulnerable species might be found in the various area types named.

IFC Comment: We have amended the text to make it clear that the maps presented are

based on information about marine benthos as well as substrata; they are more like

biotope maps than habitat maps.

In this context, also, it might be helpful to give some indication of exactly what type of

trawls are used. Depending on habitat type, plain footrope, rollers, rock-hopper rig and

tickler-chain ground gear all have different effects.

IFC Comment: We have added some text to section 5.3 of the report in response to

this comment.

Principle 3

P 97 CITES is of specific relevance wrt ETP species; is RSA a signatory?

IFC Comment: Good point. Yes it is. We have now mentioned this in the text.

Monitoring, Control and Compliance - to ensure that fish resources are protected through

--- other relevant equipment and systems---“. What are these? Does it include VMS or is

it wholly dependent on happenchance surveillance by patrol boats (and aircraft)? If

necessary, cross-reference to 7.7.

IFC Comment: The text has been amended in response to this comment.

P 101 If skippers are expected to record seabird mortalities on their logbooks, why (as far as we

can tell from this text) do the fishery observers not keep a record? Without observer data

to cross reference with skippers’ logs, how can the logbook data be verified?

IFC Comment: Yes they do. The text has been amended in response to this comment.

With respect to compliance: is there any post-hoc monitoring through auditing of sales

(and export) records for comparison with logbook declared landings?

IFC Comment: Yes there is. We have amended the text to make this clear.

S 7.8 IUU: the 10 IUU vessels may not have been engaged in the hake fishery but were they

SA-registered vessels? If they were, it would suggest that the monitoring, compliance and

control still leaves something to be desired. If they were all non-SA registered vessels, it

would be as well to make this clear.

IFC Comment: We don’t agree with the reasoning. If there was no evidence of IUU

being detected this could also show that MCS implementation is not working. The flag

state of the vessels is irrelevant. What is relevant is that IUU fishing was detected and

punished, and it did not involve vessels in the UoC.

Conditions

P 105 It is noted that one condition has yet to be closed. It should be noted that this condition

relates to the final points raised above under P2.

IFC Comment: Noted.

P 126 Proposed new condition 3 & 5: Is there any reason why this could not be expanded to

include a requirement for observers (and possibly skipper) to record what non-fish biota

are retained in the trawl and brought onto the deck? Such an approach might help

improve the knowledge of what species and habitats are to be found where.

IFC Comment: Although this is a good idea, the condition is focussed on management

of habitat impacts rather than information (which scores more than SG80).




Page 257




Page 258

Performance Indicator Review

Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft

Report.

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

1.1.1 MP

Yes Yes Yes but see comment.

The information presented is relevant and clear. The condition is appropriate providing recruitment continues to hold up. In the event that poor recruitment results in a downturn in SSB it is not immediately obvious what management action will be taken to maintain stock-rebuilding conditions.

This issue was recognised by both peer

reviewers. There is a stock rebuilding

strategy in place for M. paradoxus that

it is effective (PI 1.1.3 scores 90), and

the condition is continued

implementation of the rebuilding

strategy within the OMP, which has

projected that the M. paradoxus stock

to will reach its target reference point

before 2020 (i.e. within the five year

period of certification). In the event

that there is an unexpected downturn

in recruitment (the assessment

incorporates a stock recruitment

model), the design of the OMP will




Page 259

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

respond to this (as it did for paradoxus

over the last 10 years), since a main

aim is to ensure profitable catch rates.

1.1.1 MC

Yes Yes N/A Agreed. The information presented is relevant and clear.


1.1.2 MP + MC



1.1.3 MP



1.2.1 Yes Not entirely N/A I have reservations about scoring 100 for 1.2.1a principally because it is not immediately obvious how the OMP would respond to a (sustained) decline in SSB other than limit inter-year changes in TAC to 10%. What if this is not enough?

See comments against 1.1.1

1.2.2 Yes Yes N/A Agreed. The information presented is Comment noted. No action required.




Page 260

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

relevant and clear; it even includes a comment under 1.2.2a acknowledging the concerns expressed above under 1.2.1.

1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Agreed. The information presented is relevant and clear but see comments made earlier concerning the origins of IUU catches. Under guidepost c it is stated that “IUU fishing is reliably estimated to be negligible” but nowhere in this report is the derivation of this reliable estimate explained. The information given in S7.8 hardly supports the contention that estimates are reliable. A score of 90 might be more appropriate.

Information from DAFF on IUU

vessels has shown no hake in catches.

The text has been amended to help

clarify this.

1.2.4 Yes No N/A Agreed. The information presented is relevant and clear.


2.1.1 Yes No N/A The final score is probably correct but the This is a good observation.




Page 261

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

inclusion of species that do not meet the 5% threshold (or other criteria for main retained species) is confusing – would it be clearer if the two UoC be separated? Specifically – Silver kob: it is said that an annual catch of

c. 200 t by the hake trawlers is unlikely to affect the kob stock. This seems at odds with the evidence presented earlier (Fig 20) that suggest the kob stock is little more than 200 t. Either this needs to be reflected in the scoring here or more information is needed to support this conclusion.

Our text explains that the data on non-

target catch from the inshore area has

some limitations. One of these is that

the analysis of inshore trawl catches

does not distinguish catches from the

Agulhas sole trawl fishery and the

inshore hake trawl fishery. Most of

the silver kob catch is reported to be

landed from the sole fishery.

The text states that the silver kob stock

was estimates at 447t in 2010, and not

“little more than 200t”. We have also

asked the client to confirm stock

status, and have been provided with an

additional source of information

(Winker et al, 2012), which estimates




Page 262

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

the silver kob stock at just over 7,500t.

We have cited this information in the

report and the scoring rationale.

The catch distribution (Figure 21)

clearly shows that the main catches of

silver kob are taken both inshore and

to the east of the hake fishing grounds.

We have revised the text to make it

clearer that the abundance of silver

kob in the hake trawl fishery is an

artefact of the data. The score is

considered to be appropriate.

2.1.2 No No N/A Notwithstanding the statement (2.1.1) that the authors do not wish to comment further

We have in fact made further




Page 263

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

on silver kob, see comment above re 2.1.1. If the trawl catch for silver kob is c. 200 t p.a. and the current stock abundance is ≥200 t (Fig 20), it is possible that 2.1.2a only just clears 60 rather than 80.

comments about silver kob in this

scoring rationale, and consider that the

scoring is appropriate.

2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A Agreed – subject to clarification with respect to kob stock and catch figures.


2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A Agreed. The information presented is relevant and clear.









Page 264

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response





2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes The information presented is relevant and clear. A score less than 80 is undoubtedly correct but 70 seems a little harsh. With respect to Condition and action plan: I am still unclear whether it is intended to increase just the number of bird observers or whether recording trawl interactions with birds (or, indeed, any ETP species) is to become a routine aspect of the standard observers’ role. I think it should be the latter.

2.4.1 No No Possible condition required

Despite the statement that there is “a good understanding of both the distribution and sensitivity of marine habitats,” the report is

We have added some more

background information in the report,




Page 265

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

remarkably coy about presenting any detail. Some information is presented with respect to the relative quantities of various substrata but there is no information about sensitivity to trawl action, and certainly none about the distribution of sensitive or vulnerable benthic species. Without some detail on this, and reassurance that current trawling is not (continueing to) razing all upright species, I fear the rationale does not support a score of 80.

particularly to correct the perception

that the habitat maps are based solely

on seabed substratum; they are based

upon a classification that also takes

account of marine benthos. The text

explains that the vulnerability and

sensitivity of these habitats has been

assessed (in detail in the report by Sink

et al, which is available on the

internet). We have presented a brief

summary of the key findings of this

work, and also presented figures that

support the conclusions drawn in the

report.

2.4.2 Y Y Y Comments at 2.4.1 above still apply re 2.4.2b Comments noted. Our revisions to the

report address this issue.

2.4.3 N N Possible condition The summary of Sink’s (2013) work given in We have revised the report to correct




Page 266

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

required the report work only identifies the types of substratum or topographical features. Whilst these are a fundamental part of habitats, the distribution of upright macro benthos such as corals, sea-pen communites, bivalve reefs and sponge beds all provide habitat for other species and therefore are part of the total habitat. It is this part of the overall picture that is missing from the report and scoring.

the perception that the Sink et al report

is limited to a classification based

solely on substratum and topography.

It also takes account of information

available about benthic communities.

2.5.1 No No N/A The concerns about habitat expressed above cast a slight shadow over this PI but the principal concern is with the dependence on modelling the (cold-water) Benguela system. Strictly speaking, this system is to the west of the Cape Agulhas and one might (reasonably) assume that the south-flowing, warm-water Agulhas Current system to the east of the cape might have different characteristics. Even if the (not unreasonable) assumption is made that the

These comments are noted. The hake

stocks are dependent inhabit deep,

colder water rather than the warm

surface waters of the Agulhas current.

We have added text to the report to

clarify this point.




Page 267

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

Benguela system modelling is a reliable surrogate (in broad principles at least) for the (eastern) Agulhas system, the division merits explicit mention with an appropriate moderation of scores owing to the lack of site-specific information to the east..



2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A Agreed but comments at 2.5.1 are relevant.. Comments noted, and addressed by the

clarification added to the scoring of PI

2.5.1.








Page 268

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response



3.1.4 Yes Yes N/A Agreed but it might be argued that the penalties that can be incurred for non-compliance with the management regime are an incentive, albeit a negative incentive, with respect to 3.1.4a.

We have amended the text in response

to this comment.



3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A Agreed. The information presented is relevant and clear. It might be helpful to include the SADISTIA fishery-related web page given in the references.

Comment noted. We have added the

link to the SADSTIA website in the

references.

3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Agreed – but see earlier comments about cross referencing declared (logbook) catches with sales records.

We have amended the text in response

to this comment. We have also added




Page 269

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

text concerning the performance of the

MCS regime and have generated a

recommendation about this, in

response to the earlier comments.



3.2.5 No No N/A An account has been given of how the science of stock assessment is subject to (international) review and, arguably, the relevant OMP, but are there ‘mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. For example, it is not clear how the performance of the MCS arm of management is reviewed, not least with respect the ongoing problem of out-of-action patrol vessels. What is the review procedure with respect to habitats and ecosystem? Unless it can be shown that the non-fish science and MCS parts of the management

We have amended the text to make it

clear that all of the management

system (including MCS) is subject to

review.

Sufficient evidence is presented in the

scoring rationales for the

“management” aspects of Principle 2

to demonstrate that the management of

ecosystem impacts (i.e. on non-target

fish species, ETP species and marine




Page 270

Performance

Indicator

Has all the

relevant

information

available been

used to score

this Indicator?

(Yes/No)

Does the

information

and/or rationale

used to score this

Indicator support

the given score?

(Yes/No)

Will the

condition(s)

raised improve

the fishery’s

performance to

the SG80 level?

(Yes/No/NA)



Response

regime are subject to equally rigorous internal and external review, a score of 80 would seem more appropriate.

habitats) is kept under review. We

have amended the text to make this

clear.




Page 271

Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

No comments.

No action required.




Page 272

17 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS

17.1 Stakeholder interviews conducted during the site visit

During the site visit in March 2014, the assessment team met with and interviewed the client and key

stakholders in Cape Town. A summary of each meeting was compiled by the team and sent to each

stakeholder for comment and revision. The edited versions of each interview are reproduced below.

The interview records are presented in alphabetical order.

17.1.1 Bird Life South Africa

MSC Fishery Assessment Stakeholder Interview Record

Assessment Team Names

Lead Assessor Jim Andrews

P1 Team Member Mike Pawson

P2 Team Member Jim Andrews

P3 Team Member Johan Groeneveld

Meeting Location Cape Town, South

Date 17th March 2014

Stakeholders Name Affiliation

Bronwyn Maree BirdLife South Africa

Melanie Smith Capfish (observer)

2. Status

What is the nature of the organisations interest in the fishery (e.g. client / science / management /

industry / eNGO, etc)

BirdLife South Africa (BLSA) is an environmental NGO and the largest (and only) bird conservation

organization in South Africa. BLSA is the local partner of BirdLife International and was the first to

initiate an Albatross Task Force team in 2006. Recently BLSA has also become a member of the

Responsible Fisheries Alliance.

BLSA is responsible for drawing up the Bird Mitigation Plans required by fishing vessels in South

Africa (in collaboration with the fishing industry).




Page 273




Page 274

3. Stakeholder Key Issues

What, if any, specific substantive issues or concerns are identified regarding the fishery? (P1 – P2 –

P3) and what information is available to allow us to determine the status of the fishery in relation to

each issue?

The key issues considered during the meeting are set out in the letter submitted by BLSA to the

assessment team. The discussion is summarised below.

Bird bycatch and mitigation measures

BLSA are shortly due to publish a paper which shows a reduction of overall bird mortality by

90% and albatross mortality by 96% over the period 2006-2010. This is largely due to the use

of tori lines and also the reduction of fishing effort.

BLSA is confident that Tori Lines are being used by the vast majority of the fleet.

Observer programme

BLSA were concerned that the government observer programme (OROP) had not yet been

reinstated (it was understood that the contract for this was out for tender). Although in the

past the observers collected mainly fish-related data, the new programme seeks to also collect

bird-related data.

Currently BLSA continue to collect the majority of seabird-related data within the fishery.

BLSA noted the level of coverage achieved by SADSTIA, but felt that it could be improved

by:-

o Training of more observers to monitor birds (there is currently only one trained

observer in seabird data collection in the SADSTIA programme).

SADSTIA observer data was being made available to BLSA.

BLSA have 3 observers working on trawl vessels; observer effort is focused/increased during

winter months (due to higher bird abundance) when they aim for each observer to work 21

days every two months. During summer months BLSA observers average about 6 days per

month observed.

BLSA observers had made incidental observations of occasional capture of seals (which are

returned alive) and other species such as cat sharks. Some benthic animals (such as starfish)

were observed, but no cold water corals.

Compliance at sea

BLSA were concerned about the level of at-sea and aerial compliance and enforcement

activity in the fishery.

Bird Mitigation Plans

BLSA are responsible for drawing up BMPs for fishing vessels.

BLSA were concerned that they were not being asked to inspect new trawl warps (as outlined

and agreed upon in the BMPs).

All BMPs require that sticky warps (i.e. warps with high grease & bitumen coating) should

not be used.

o Observations aboard vessels suggest that sticky warps are not being used in general,

although one vessel has been observed with sticky warps recently.




Page 275

Inshore fleet

There is no observer programme in place for the inshore fleet (considered by BLSA to be

those vessels permitted to work in water less than 110m deep as well as in deeper water).

Observer coverage for this fleet should be provided by the government OROP which has not

been operational for several years.

There are currently no BMPs in place for the inshore fleet

BLSA are not aware of the level of use of tori lines by the inshore fleet.

The main bird interaction with the inshore fleet is likely to be with Cape Gannets which

occasionally become entangled in nets but may include offshore/pelagic seabirds as well

Seabird bycatch within this fishery is unknown.

4. IMM Assessment Team Questions

Assessment team questions for stakeholders

Update on current level of interaction between the fishery and birds.

Update on observer coverage for bird interactions.

Any other issues that BLSA wish to discuss.

5. Other issues

(e.g. any other stakeholders we should contact, any written submissions to follow?)

BLSA offered to provide:-

An update on the background information on seabirds in this fishery set out in the previous

assessment report.

A copy of the publication in press concerning bird bycatch in the trawl fishery, when this is

available.

A template of a bird mitigation plan.




Page 276

17.1.2 CapFish







Meeting Location Capfish Offices, Cape Town

Date 21st March 2014


Melanie Smith Capfish

Sarah Wilkinson Capfish

Victor Ngcongo Capfish

2. Status



Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring (CapFish) is an international marine monitoring and fisheries

consulting group based in Cape town, South Africa. We train and deploy marine observers for South

African and global maritime activities. The Company works closely with our national marine

management authorities as well as with Regional and International Fisheries Management

organizations (RFMOs). Our activities also working directly with fishers, hydrocarbon exploitation

(i.e. seismic activities) phosphate mining companies and Non-Governmental Organisations such as

WWF, Birdlife and many other groups. Our goal is to provide a professional service supporting both

management and science to maintain the long-term sustainability of marine resources.




Page 277




each issue?

Observer programme

The procedures associated with the SADSTIA observer programme were explained. These

encourage representative sampling, which are summarised in a document presented to the

team.

o Capfish has 27 SADSTIA dedicated observers, which are allocated at random to

vessels leaving from their local port.

o 2 observers are trained to observe interactions with birds (monitored according to a

protocol which looks at seabird-fishing gear interactions while nets are being set,

during trawling, and whilst hauling the gear). Observations are made for the number

and nature of interactions, and the number of birds observed in the vicinity of the

vessel.

o All observers are fully trained to sample the catch according to a sampling protocol as

well as record catch and effort data, gear and equipment information and

environmental data.

o During a fishing trip, observers take a random sample from each net haul and

examine and measure the species composition of the unsorted catch.

o Most of the observer effort is directed at the offshore fleet; there is less observer

coverage for the inshore fleet.

The OROP observer programme ran from 2002-2011 and covered both the offshore and

inshore fleets.

Discard monitoring

Discard-dedicated sampling took place from 2002-06. Discard monitoring since 2006 has

been sporadic.

Some discard monitoring took place in 2013, in response to comments made by the

International Peer Review Panel. To date, 23 trawl hauls have been sampled, for discard

monitoring .

Otherwise, a comparison between observer catch data and commercial landings data has been

used to identify discarded species and estimate the quantities discarded.

Distinctions between inshore and offshore fleets

The inshore fleet fishes on the Agulhas Bank and uses lighter gear than the offshore fleet.

The inshore fleet is composed of vessels smaller than 30m LOA, which are permitted to fish

in waters shallower than 110m. These vessels are also permitted to use cod-end mesh size of

less than 90mm in these waters.

The results of observer sampling have not been split between the inshore and offshore fleets,

but this can be done.

Trawl ring-fencing

The trawling footprint is based on fishing position records from 1998-2008 and was

implemented in 2009.




Page 278

A MaxSea file showing the ring-fence boundary was issued to all vessels for use with fishing

vessel navigation equipment.

Compliance is monitored by DAFF using VMS records from the fleet: however, compliance

with the ring-fence is currently does not form part of permit conditions.

Experimental area

The benthic impact experimental area was chosen to be within an area that was heavily

trawled, contained specific seabed habitats, was in a certain depth range, and would be easily

accessed by both patrol and research vessels.

The experimental area is divided into 5 lanes

The location of the boundary of the experimental area has been distributed to all vessels as a

MaxSea file for use in vessel plotters.

The trawl track information was used to optimise the experimental area boundary.

Hake longline fishery

Capfish are working with the hake longline fishery as part of a Fishery Improvement

Programme endorsed by WWF with the aim of improving the performance of this fishery

with respect to the MSC standard.

Observer trips have taken place on 6 vessels to date, as part of a process of developing

protocols for catch monitoring and observing seabird and seal interactions in this fleet.

Information is being provided to help minimise gear conflict with trawlers (e.g. providing

coordinates of longline sets to trawl operators).

The longline fishery footprint is known and catch composition data are available.

Information on seal depredation and damage to the catch, and seabird interactions (which are

chiefly feeding on offal) has been recorded.

A code of conduct for responsible fishing practices has been developed to enforce compliance

with management recommendations and permit conditions..

Observer catch and length data have been provided for use in the hake stock assessment.



Update on observer programme and any scientific / monitoring work carried out by Capfish

which may be relevant to the MSC assessment.

5. Other issues


Capfish agreed to split the observer records for discarded fish so that fishing by the inshore

fleet and offshore fleet could be distinguished.




Page 279




Page 280

17.1.3 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries







Meeting Location DAFF offices, Cape Town, South Africa



Mortimer Mannya Deputy Director General, Fisheries Management

Kim Prochazka Director, Resource Research

Deon Durholtz Scientist, Hake Research

Saasa Pheeha Director, Fisheries Management

Nambulelo Magqira Communications

Dennis Frederiks ACD, MRM

Ceba Mtoba CD, MCS

Belamane Semole ACD, CRD

Bernard Liedemann Acting Director, Fisheries Patrol Vessels

Nkosinathe Dana Director, Monitoring & Surveillance

Xolela Wellem Control & compliance

Andile Mosheni ADD – FPV

Thabiso Maratsane ADD – FPV

Martin Purves Marine Stewardship Council (Observer).

2. Status



The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) are the government department

responsible for managing the hake fishery.




Page 281




each issue?

Government Policy

The government is working to achieve inclusive growth in all sectors of the economy as part

of its fight against poverty and illegal activity.

There is a growth and development plan to ensure that there is wide participation and benefit

from the natural resources of South Africa whilst ensuring that industry remains competitive.

The government is committed to the sustainable use of shared natural resources as part of its

commitments to international conventions.

South Africa is committed to collaboration with international partners in the fields of

enforcement and research.

It is important to strengthen governance arrangements.

DAFF are developing new plans and policies and will be implementing a rolling 5 year plan

for fisheries.

DAFF acknowledge that there have been problems with research and enforcement vessels in

recent years and have now taken steps to return them to operation.

The government has recently amended the Marine Living Resources Act to establish new

measures to encourage the development of small scale fisheries that will provide

opportunities for meaningful participation of previously excluded people.

Marine Stewardship Council Certification

There was some discussion of how more fisheries in South Africa might be put forward for

MSC assessment and certification.

It was noted that there could be opportunities for pre-assessment of fisheries if funding was

available to meet the associated costs. Pre-assessment could lead to either full assessment or

alternatively the development of a Fishery Improvement Programme for the fishery.

Operation of management systems

The operation and effectiveness of the management systems for the fishery were discussed. The main

points discussed were.

Observer programme

o The tender process for reinstating the OROP observer programme was still underway.

o Funds have been allocated for the observer programme in the budget.

CPUE data

o The process for gathering, inputting and checking data was explained and discussed.

o Log book and landings and length data are inputted to a database, and this

information was appropriately validated before use in management.

o Data are usually input and available for use in the assessment within 6 months.




Page 282

Stock surveys

o The industry vessel Andromeda is being used to carry out stock surveys in the

absence of the DAFF research vessel FRS Africana, which is currently undergoing

major refitting and repairs. It is anticipated that the Africana will be available during

the second half of 2014.

o DAFF scientists have borrowed an instrument package from the BCC for CTD

monitoring that can be attached to the headline of the trawl to gather environmental

data; DAFF now plan to modify an existing CTD for used in this manner.

o Hake ageing – the Department’s full time otolith ageing technician has been

concentrating on on hake ageing.

Decision making processes

The decision making processes for the fishery were discussed.

The annual preparation of fishing plans and permit conditions was discussed.

The DAFF fishery manager dedicated to the hake fishery works with the industry to agree and

implement these fishery plans.

The process for agreeing the TAC was explained

o A TAC recommendation is made by the Demersal Scientific Working Group

o This recommendation is considered by the Hake Resource Management Working

Group taking into account factors such as legislation, socio-economics, EAF, and

stock advice.

o The recommendation is then submitted to the decision maker (normally delegated by

the Minister to the Deputy Director General) in line with Departmental protocols.

o The OMP (which already contains consideration of socio-economic factors) cannot

be over-ridden unless in “exceptional circumstances” (under s61 of the MLRA).

o The OMP is agreed and set for a 4 year period.

It was explained that there was a problem including resource managers in the SWG, which

now includes many external stakeholders, which can lead to questions being directed at the

manager which can be a distraction from the purpose of the meeting.

Reorganisation of working group meeting composition and flow of information are being

attended to.

Enforcement & Compliance

The assessment team were shown around the DAFF VMS suite, visited the FPV Sarah Baartman, and

also inspected enforcement records at the DAFF offices.

At sea inspections have been resumed now that patrol vessels have re-entered service (2 of the

4 FPVs are now operational5.

5 Update: prior to the publication of the PCDR it was reported by SADSTIA that 3 out of the 4 FPVs are now

operational




Page 283

A file of all patrols at sea was provided, together with records of inspections, infractions and

boardings data.

The VMS suite was fully operational and soon to be upgraded.

DAFF have a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The hake

sectors is one of the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Over the course of the past year

they aimed to audit 8 of the deep sea trawl fishery rights holders, and 16 of the inshore trawl

fishery rights holders.

During the past year, DAFF enforcement activity directed at the hake fishery had detected

only 7 minor administrative errors, which had been well documented. The vessels had been

fined for these transgressions.

Fishing vessels comply very well with fishery regulations – non compliance can result in the

suspension or loss of fishing rights under s28 of the MLRA

DAFF have recently had significant enforcement successes including:-

o Detecting and apprehending 10 IUU vessels

o Intercepting, seizing and repatriating consignments of illegally shipped fish products

(not hake).

o Mobile scanners are used to inspect the contents of frozen containers.

o 70% of cases brought by DAFF are successful; as part of its work, DAFF officials

provide training to the judiciary and prosecuting counsel about fisheries legislation

and regulation.

Discarding of target species is not allowed; all of the target species have to be landed.

Research

An annotated list of research projects was made available to the team which included

priorities and timeframes.

It was confirmed that this research plan covers all priorities and uncertainties in relation to the

hake fishery.

It was noted a more continuous south coast survey might help to reveal the effects of putative

environmental changes in that area on fish stocks.

Information was provided on some specific areas of research, which were discussed. These

included:-

o The Observer programme

o Multi species modelling / predator-prey / ecosystem effects of the hake fishery

o The implications of including data from Namibia in the hake assessment

o The question of changes in day: night fishing behaviour – data for the past few years

shows no evidence in the ratio of fishing during the day or at night.

o Age validation of hake

o Stock status assessments for non-target species

o Stock identification of both the target and also non target species (using genetics,

parasites, meristics, and further analysis of CPUE data)

o Closure of areas to fishing for the purpose of fisheries management and/or benthic

protection.




Page 284



Update on enforcement activity

Update on status of observer programme

Discussion of management procedures

5. Other issues





Page 285

17.1.4 Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, MARAM







Meeting Location Cape Town, South Africa



Professor Doug Butterworth MARAM-UCT

2. Status



MARAM have developed the assessment models and undertake the OMP revision processes which

underlie the management of the hake resource.




Page 286




each issue?

Reference Points

The reference points used for the fishery were discussed

Target Reference Point

o This is biomass based; it is not fixed

o The target for the fishery is not Bmsy, but is considered to be compatible with MSC

requirements. Bmsy and Bcurrent/Bmsy estimates are relatively sensitive to

assumptions necessary in the assessment process, but for the median over a range of

assessment models in the reference set that was used to test the current (2010) OMP,

the effective targets are above Bmsy for both M capensis and M paradoxus.

o The TRP will be subject to review with the development of the new OMP later in

2014.

Limit Reference Point

o LRP is currently fixed at the 2007 biomass for M paradoxus which is the lowest in

the time series.

Commercial CPUE

The stock assessment uses both commercial CPUE and biomass survey data.

An annual 2% increase in commercial CPUE catchability will be included amongst the

robustness tests for the 2014 OMP revision to allow for the possibility of technology creep.

OMP

2014 OMP Review

o The current OMP revision in scheduled for completion in September 2014. This

regular four-year revision provide an opportunity to review alternative stock

management models and their consequences for long term management of both the

risk to the stock and outputs from the fishery.

o It was noted that the outcome of the OMP revision would be an important

consideration in the ongoing MSC certification of the fishery.

Annual operation

o The operation of the OMP to determine the TAC for each year was discussed.

o The OMP, once agreed, allows a TAC to be determined on an objective basis using

updated information about stock status from monitoring indices (survey abundance

estimates and CPUE).

o The transparency to stakeholders and stability provided by the OMP is felt to be a

central component of the sustainable management of the fishery.

o The OMP revision process includes ongoing internal reviews by the Demersal

Scientific Working Group and also reviews of aspects of the process by an

international peer review panel (which meets annually, and will typically consider

hake-related issues on an average of one year in every two.).

Longline catch




Page 287

Longline length data since 2000 have recently been included in the assessments and have led

to a decrease in estimated spawning biomass (and also this biomass in relation to Bmsy) for

M. paradoxus in the 2013 assessment.

The longline hake fishery developed in the mid 1990s when vessels that had previously been

fishing for kingklip moved to hake when the directed longline fishery for kingklip was closed.

The fishery initially operated primarily outside areas fished by trawlers, and caught larger fish

than the trawlers.

The longline fishery is understood to be operating in difficult economic conditions at present.

Survey vessel

Africana has not been available for surveys since early in 2012. There is uncertainty about

future availability.

Commercial CPUE data show less variability and consequent have greater weight and

influence in assessment than the survey estimates of abundance; the same holds for the OMP

formulae.

Survey indices are required by the model and the OMP in future, and intercalibration between

the Africana and industry trawlers used for surveys is indicated; however this is not possible

if the Africana is unavailable, and in any case such direct intercalibration tends to yield high

variance results. It has thus been decided, in lieu of intercalibration studies, to include a prior

on the calibration coefficient which centred on 1 and has a CV of 0.169, based on an analysis

of inter-vessel variation in similar surveys in the eastern North Pacific. The OMP review will

consider future scenarios both with and without the Africana available.

Stock identity

The possible sharing the hake stocks of South Africa and Namibia has been under review.

Workshops will be held during the course of 2014 to develop greater clarity on this.

The outcome of these workshop and associated studies was not felt to be likely to affect the

SA stock assessment to a great extent.

The most likely of the scenarios possible is that the the Namibian catch of M. paradoxus

could be producing some effect on the SA M. paradoxus resource that is currently not taken

into account in the assessment.

Non-target species

The status of non-target species in the hake fishery was discussed briefly.

Kingklip

o A full assessment of kingklip is planned to be carried out later in 2014 or in 2015.

o The stock has most recently been assessed using a replacement yield model.

o The model indicates that stock status is improving for both west and south coasts

components of the resource.

Monkfish

o Monkfish stock status is assessed using a replacement yield model.

o Stock status is indicated to be stable or improving.

Silver Cob

o It was suggested that the team should discuss the status of the silver cob stock with

other workers.




Page 288



Update on current stock status

The consequences of limited survey data for the stock assessment(due to the problems with

the Africana)

Discuss the procedure for review of the OMP in 2014.

5. Other issues





Page 289

17.1.5 OLRAC




Page 290




Page 291




Page 292




Page 293

17.1.6 South African Deep Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA) and South East

Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA)







Meeting Location SADSTIA Offices, Cape Town, South Africa



Tim Reddell SADSTIA

Roy Bross SADSTIA

Irvin Esau Sea Harvest

Jon de Gouveia Echalar

Zuko Mgawuli Sea Harvest

Johann Botha Irvin & Johnson

Colin Attwood UCT – Scientist

Kobus Maritz Sea Vana / SECIFA

Craig Bacon Viking / SECIFA

Melanie Smith SADSTIA Co-ordinator

2. Status



SADSTIA and SECIFA operate a representative industrial bodies for the hake trawling industry.

They are also Recognized Industrial Bodies in terms of Section 8 of South Africa’s Living Marine

Resources Act.

Regarding hake, the differentiation is historical and, in present day terms, largely an artifact of the

system of fishing rights. SECIFA derives from small boat (historically) multi-species activities

conducted within 60 fathoms of the shoreline that are now focused on hake. The deep-sea sector has

long been conducted with larger vessels, fishing almost entirely outside territorial waters. Fishing

rights in the deep-sea sector are of longer duration. There are no practical impediments to exercising

inshore hake trawling rights in the offshore sector provided such trawling is conducted under offshore

regulations. The inshore sector enjoys a nominal 7% of the combined hake trawl allocation.

However it is estimated that ±1.2% of trawled hake was caught inshore in 2013.




Page 294




each issue?

The key issues discussed during the meeting are summarised below.

Benthic survey work

Survey has been carried out using the DAFF research vessel Ellen Khuzwayo

Closed areas were established as part of the research project on 1st January 2014.

Skippers have been provided with comprehensive information about the location of the closed

areas including inputs on their MaxSea navigational systems.

DAFF have been informed of the location of the closed areas and are monitoring it with the

aid of the Department’s vessel observation facilities

Trawl ringfence

o It was confirmed that compliance with the ringfence was monitored for SADSTIA by

DAFF using its Vessel Monitoring System. There had been no transgressions of the

ringfence area since the last Surveillance. Such transgressions as occurred before

2013 have been successfully dealt with by action within SADSTIA.

o SADSTIA noted that the trawl fishery ringfenced area consisted very largely of soft

and gravelly bottom and covered a limited portion of the hake domain.

Benthic closed areas were discussed. The Benthic Task Team had looked at prospects for

establishing closed areas. The site selected for the trawl impact study had been chosen for the

dual purpose of assessing recovery from trawling and also the issues associated with

establishing protected areas. An additional MPA has been established in the inshore area in

the course of 2013.

Non target species

The management of the Precautionary Upper Catch Limits (PUCLs) for non-target species

was discussed.

o All retained species are governed by collective landing limits

o Deep-water species, such as Alfonsino, Grenadiers, Oreo Dories and Roughy are

controlled by small specific landing limits. Governing “prohibited unavoidable

species”

o Trawled Snoek is subject to a move on regulation

o Horse Mackerel, Kingklip and monkfish PUCL controls are an intrinsic part of the

permit conditions for the offshore fleet.

o Kingklip and Monk uptake is monitored on a monthly basis by external auditors

appointed by SADSTIA.

o Vessels and operators in the inshore area are engaged in an experiment to swap a




Page 295

range of “retained species” PUCLs to ensure that they remain compliant with

assessed limits.

o Kingklip PUCL uptake during 2013 was higher than expected; this contributed to a

(overdue) review of information about the stock by DAFF. The stock was found to

be in better condition than previously thought.

o SADSTIA consider there is no need to add PUCLs for other non-target species in the

offshore fishery. The PUCL for one retained species, Monkfish, falls on the 5% cusp;

all other retained species fall well below this threshold.

Inshore bycatch data are available since 1995 and research has been done to establish

temporal and spatial patterns.

PUCLs are being trialled voluntarily in the inshore fleet. As part of the trial all vessels had

signed up to a MoU to comply with the PUCL requirements voluntarily. Depending on test

outcomes, measures are planned to be introduced as licence conditions in 2016.

Patterns in bycatch from the offshore fleet for the period 2008-13 have been examined

recently. There are good landings data for the past 25 years for non-target species in the

offshore fishery.

Institutional and administrative arrangements

Scientific and compliance aspects of fishery management were working well.

Recent changes in senior personnel within DAFF were felt to have compromised progress

with decisions about resource allocation and management.

The procedure for allocating TACs in response to scientific advice was discussed. This has

been unaffected by recent changes at DAFF.

A procedure for improved synchronization of trends in assessed TAC and experiential catch

per unit effort was discussed.

The methodology for secondary controls by way of fishing effort controls (horse power sea

days) was also discussed. It was noted that existing effort controls amounted to a constant

effort regime under variable TACs.

Observer programme

SADSTIA are funding an independent observer programme, outsourced to Capfish. It is

budgeted to achieve 1,000 observer days per year. This is higher than the level of coverage

achieved previously by government. Largely thanks to focus on training the SADSTIA

observer programme gathers more information than the previous DAFF programme and it has

been more productive of scientific outputs including ongoing amendments to species splitting

algorithms.

Stock assessment

Two CPUE surveys have been carried out by the Andromeda, an industry vessel while the

designated survey vessel, “Africana”, undergoes repair..

There is an ongoing debate about the need for cross calibration of different vessels, as

opposed to a need for experimental precision in survey procedure, for the purpose of

standardising abundance indices.

SADSTIA considered ageing to be the least fulfilled priority for hake research .

The annual international review of the stock assessment had taken place in 2013, with a

positive outcome.




Page 296

Other issues

Trawl warps –

o SADSTIA confirmed that fishing permits specify that warps used in the fishery may

not be sticky i.e. they must be free of high viscosity (bituminous) protective coatings

or lubricants.

o SADSTIA would check whether Bird Mitigation Plans required inspection of new

warps by BLSA.

o SADSTIA has encouraged wire suppliers to ensure that trawl warps used in South

Africa are greased appropriately.

Genetics –

Genetic studies were being carried out by the University of Stellenbosch, but results

concerning stock separation between South Africa and Namibia were currently inconclusive.

While M. capensis exhibited some transboundary mixing in the non contiguous zone, the

genetic evidence for M. paradoxus pointed in the opposite direction.

Learning and Training –

The industry works with NGOs in a notable sustainability initiative. A formal terrestrially

based course, covering fish population dynamics, ecosystem approaches to fisheries,

regulatory philosophy and practical implementation of regulations is available to trawlermen.

The provision of educational enhancement of this kind is reported to have had a favourable

effect on the general attitude of seamen and on sustainable fishing practice and industry feels

that it should be taken into account in the MSC Certification standard

Sustainability Relations

The South African trawling industry has a history of being open to implementing the reasonable

suggestions of Environmental NGOs. Possibly for that reason it has been able to cultivate

comparatively good relations with the mainline NGOs, perhaps to a comparatively unusual degree in

an international context. It has encouraged affordable applied oceanographic research within the

academic establishment and this too seems to have impacted on its general sustainability relations.



Explain surveillance and re-assessment procedures under the updated FAM

Review progress with conditions

Discuss recent developments relevant to the fishery

Discuss the change that has been made to the criteria for units of certification for the fishery

and whether any further changes were required.




Page 297

5. Other issues


The assessment team thanked SADSTIA for the comprehensive array of information that had

been provided in advance of the site visit.




Page 298

17.1.7 South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON)







Meeting Location SANBI Offices, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town



Lara Atkinson SAEON

Kerry Sink SANBI

Melanie Smith Capfish (Observer)

2. Status



The South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) is a business unit of the National

Research Foundation, a statutory body developed in terms of the National Research Foundation Act,

accountable to the Department of Science and Technology. SAEON are mandated to detect, predict

and react to environmental change within South Africa through long-term observation. SAEONs

vision is to deliver long term, reliable data for scientific research and to inform decision making




Page 299




each issue?

There was a discussion about the start of the trawl recovery experiment that is being conducted on the

West coast. The logistics of organising the survey work that marked the start of the experiment and

the equipment used for the work were discussed. The key points arising from the discussion that are

relevant to the MSC surveillance audit and re-assessment process are summarised briefly below:-

Trawl recovery experiment

This experiment has been initiated in response to the MSC benthic habitat condition.

A survey was successfully completed between the 2nd

& 9th February 2014 using the DAFF

vessel Ellen Khuzwayo (an excellent research platform provided by DAFF at no charge). The

survey examined 15 stations where video, photographs and sediment samples were collected

within the trawl experimental area.

It was emphasised that this work has just started and needs to be continued for at least 4 to 5

years for any meaningful results to be obtained. An ongoing commitment of funding and

resources is required.

It was noted that this work was not done in response to NGO pressure but was a direct

response to the MSC condition.

The team were shown some photographs and video footage from the survey in waters of over

500m depth.

This experiment is taking place in the Southern Benguela sandy shelf edge habitat type which

is the habitat type typically fished by the hake trawl fishery.

A preliminary analysis of results of the epifaunal component is underway and a summary

thereof is due to be presented to the Southern African Marine Science Symposium in July

2014.

Other observations

It was noted that the EAF (Ecosystem Approach to Fishing) working group has not met

recently, last meeting held was May 2013.

It was noted that the trawl footprint for the fishery is not cast in stone, and that it could be

more effective if it was formalised.

Concern was expressed that the area eastwards of the trawl experimental block is likely to

now become vulnerable to increased trawl effort as a result of the closed experimental lanes.

SAEON would therefore support the closure of an area eastward of the experimental block

encapsulating the westward portion of Childs Bank, a potentially vulnerable submarine

mound.






Page 300

Update on progress with benthic recovery experiment off the west coast of South Africa.

5. Other issues


17.1.8 South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)







Meeting Location SANBI Offices, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town



Lara Atkinson SAEON

Kerry Sink SANBI


Kirsty McQuaid SANBI intern (Observer)

2. Status



The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) are responsible for monitoring and

reporting on the state of biodiversity. The Marine Programme is within the Biodiversity Research and

Information Management Division and provides science-based support for marine biodiversity

management.




Page 301




Page 302




each issue?

Kerry Sink gave the team a presentation about the work that SANBI has been doing to assist the

management of South African marine biodiversity.

SANBI have been collaborating with SADSTIA for the past 7 years. SANBI work in the marine

environment that was relevant to this assessment was discussed. The key areas discussed are

summarised below:-

Spatial Biodiversity Management and Marine Protected areas

As ecosystems are place-based, spatial management represents an appropriate approach to

understand ecosystem impacts and recovery and to protect biodiversity. One of several

objectives for MPAs in South Africa is to protect and preserve examples of representative

habitat types.

Benthic habitat report of 2012 reviewed gaps in knowledge for potential benthic impacts

associated with this fishery. The report identified research and management priorities.

Progress with understanding the recovery potential of sandy habitat types is acknowledged in

terms of initiation of the benthic experiment.

Research priorities include the need for an improvement in the knowledge base to support the

identification of VMEs (new data, museum records, observer data, survey samples, and

collaboration with other deep sea research programmes (such as those being conducted for

mineral or petroleum exploration)).

The report identified 9 priority habitat types for management consideration in the South

African demersal trawl fishery

Priorities for protection were:-

o Hard ground (including submarine canyons and Childs Bank – a submarine mound),

gravel and mud habitats. Cold water coral habitats are a priority for protection.

o An

Management priorities were

o To develop management objectives

o Avoid any trawling outside the trawl footprint

o Protect representative habitat types

o Protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems.

o Review size and mass limits for trawl gear

SANBI has identified a network of 14 potential seabed management areas that would protect

relevant habitat types exposed to trawling

Some protection for all but two of the habitat types can be achieved outside of the trawl

footprint

o Two habitat types cannot be protected outside of the trawl footprint. Spatial

management areas to protect southern Benguela gravel shelf edge habitat and

southern Benguela muddy shelf edge. These habitat types are not known to be

represented outside the trawl footprint area (based on the best available information).

It was felt that the trawl footprint approach would be made more effective if compliance with




Page 303

the area was formalised as a fishing licence condition.

The policy basis of MPAs and marine spatial management lies in:-

o The Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims for the protection of 10% of

representative & vulnerable habitats;

o The EBSA (Ecologically and Biologically Sensitive Areas) process, which links to a

CBD initiative which in turn links to the FAO criteria for VMEs.

o The draft South African Ocean Policy which refers to representative MPAs

o The Protected Area Expansion Strategy, which considers MPAs;

o Biodiversity targets, which are being developed on species-area relationships.

Bycatch Management Areas

3 bycatch management areas were identified and proposed to the DAFF Bycatch Task Team

by SANBI using historical catch data (these are described in Sink et al, 2013a where they are

referred to as the “De Hoop Extension”, “Off Still Bay” and “Within and adjacent to Addo

MPA”). These areas were debated but not taken forward to implementation at this stage.

At present, PUCLs seem to be a more favoured approach to bycatch management than BMAs.

SANBI is interested in supporting spatial management of bycatch, particularly off De Hoop

where there is scope for integrated spatial management to support benthic ecosystem

management and bycatch management for juvenile silver kob and other fish species.

Other observations

SANBI recommends that the implementation of the experimental area off Child’s Bank

should be accompanied by management action to ensure that no additional trawling effort is

displaced onto the potentially vulnerable submarine mound. Cold water corals occur in this

area. The submarine mound and its associated coral habitats should be considered for formal

protection.



Update on recent work by SANBI to identify & promote marine spatial protection /

management measures within the South African EEZ.

5. Other issues





Page 304

17.1.9 University of Cape Town







Meeting Location Zoology Department, University of Cape Town



Colin Attwood UCT - Scientist

Melanie Smith CapFish (Observer)

2. Status



UCT is…..




Page 305




each issue?

Benthic Survey

There was a detailed discussion of the benthic survey which was described in detail in

documents provided to the team.

SADSTIA have played a central role in the survey, by providing the funding for the survey,

and ensuring that the fleet comply with the experimental design (i.e. by trawling in the

designated trawl lanes and not trawling in the closed lanes in the experimental area).

A report on the results of the survey will be prepared as soon as possible.

It was considered that it may take many years for results of recovery of the seabed habitat to

be detected in the area.

It was noted that the inshore hake trawl fleet operate in shallower water and on different

habitat types than the experimental area. There is some information about the inshore trawl

grounds from surveys of mineral resources. A similar experiment on the Agulhas bank would

be informative, but would require additional resourcing.

Retained non target species

There was a discussion and some explanation of the monitoring and management of non-

target species (including the use of TACs and PUCLs).

The offshore fleet generally land all of the fish that are caught.

There is little difference in the composition of the unsorted catch and landed catch for the

inshore fleet (suggesting low discarding rates).

Historical catch composition in trawl fishing areas has been examined, and spatial

distributions investigated.

There was a brief discussion of stock trends for PUCL species. It was noted that kingklip

were recovering well throughout the fishery area.

PUCLs are used to manage the catch of retained non-target species. There are some

differences in the management procedure for the inshore and offshore fleets:-

o For the inshore fleet there is a system of catch reporting and PUCL update monitoring

involving all vessels, rights holders, and a 3rd

party organisation which acts to ensure

that PUCL allocations are not exceeded. Administrative procedures are in place to

allow PUCL quota swapping, “buy back”, closure of fishing grounds and also fines

for landings in excess of PUCL allocations.

o For the offshore fleet, the management procedures are less well defined. It was noted

that during 2013, the kingklip PUCL quota for the fleet was being utilised rapidly.

The response to this was a re-assessment of stock status which resulted in an increase

in the PUCL. There did not appear to be any other mechanism in place to address

this issue.

Discarded non-target species




Page 306

There is a discard ban for all species that have a TAC. There is no MLS for these species.

There is no evidence of dumping of catch; there seems to be a market for most of the fish

caught.

Unsorted catch data are gathered in the offshore fleet by SADSTIA observers.

Until 2011, unsorted catch data were gathered by the government under the OROP for the

inshore fleet. This programme has lapsed.

There is currently no estimate available of the level of discarding from either fleet.

Fleet characteristics

Two types of gear are used by the inshore demersal trawl fleet. Each fishery catches a

different array of non-target species. The gear used is

o Sole fishing – trawls with a 75mm cod end are used in this fishery

o Hake fishing – trawlers are required to use 90mm cod end mesh in the inshore area

and 120mm further offshore, but industry practice is to use 120mm mesh at all time.

PUCLs are used to monitor and manage the catch of non-target species both inshore and

offshore. The PUCLs in place for the inshore and offshore fleets are different:-

o Inshore – PUCLs have been set for 10 species, as a 2 year trial, after which they may

become permit conditions. There is a move on rule for silver kob.

o Offshore – PUCLs are set for 3 species (kingklip, monkfish and horse mackerel).

The PUCLs are set as permit conditions. There is a move on rule for snoek.

The inshore: offshore split is determined by rights allocations, licence conditions and vessel

size. Waters shallower than 110m can only be fished by vessels smaller than 30m.



Update on current stock status

The consequences of limited survey data for the stock assessment(due to the problems with

the Africana)

5. Other issues





Page 307

17.1.10 WWF-South Africa







Meeting Location WWF Offices, Newlands, Cape Town



Jessica Greenston WWF

John Duncan WWF


Martin Purves Marine Stewardship Council (Observer)

2. Status



WWF-South Africa are an environmental NGO.




Page 308




each issue?

The main points that WWF wished to raise with the team were set out in a letter. Before addressing

these points, WWF staff queried some aspects of the surveillance and re-assessment procedure. The

key points raised were:-

Conditions of current certification – WWF noted that the deadline for certain conditions

was in year 5 of the period of certification. The procedure for dealing with these conditions

was discussed with the team.

New assessment tree – WWF noted that the re-assessment of the fishery would be conducted

using the Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts set out in the current MSC

Certification requirements. WWF agreed to submit comments on the performance of the

fishery with respect to these PISGs.

Information – WWF suggested that it would be very helpful for stakeholders if an update on

progress with the various conditions of certification could be provided to stakeholders before

the site visit.

Achievements

WWF noted that MSC certification of the fishery had stimulated significant activity by the fishery to

address some key issues, notably:-

Impacts on birds – the progress with the implementation of Tori lines and other mitigation

measures have resulted in a major reduction of bird mortality in this fishery.

Management of non-target species – the introduction of the PUCL system for managing the

catch of 10 non-target species in the inshore sector has demonstrated how co-management of

the fishery can have positive results.

WWF feel that the lessons learned from these successes can benefit other aspects of the fishery.

Target species

WWF raised the issue of the hake longline catch data and the need for this to be fully

incorporated into the assessment model for hake, particularly the size selectivity of the

longline fishery. The longline data are understood to results in a less optimistic view of stock

status. WWF consider that it is important to demonstrate that these data have been taken into

account.

Benthic habitat

There was felt to be insufficient information available and insufficient management action

had been taken to enable this condition to be closed.

The progress made with the start of the benthic trawl recovery experimental area was

significant, and long-term funding of this work would be necessary.

More action is required with respect to:-

o Ringfencing of the trawl footprint – it is felt that the ringfence around the trawl

footprintshould be formalised as a permit condition and monitored by a validated

VMS system.




Page 309

o Benthic subarea closures – there are currently no areas closed in order to protect

benthic habitats, although these have been identified. Action is required to create

formally protected areas.

Non-target species

WWF welcomed the research that has been conducted into non-target species catch in both

the inshore and offshore trawl fisheries.

The steps to develop management measures for the inshore fleet were welcomed. It was felt

that the measures in place for the offshore fleet should be developed to cover all of the (12)

non-target species identified as “significant” in recent research.

Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the recent (2013) re-assessment of the kingklip

stock, which led to an increase in the catch limit (PUCL) for that species.

WWF feel that non-target species should be formally recognised within the OMP for the hake

fishery.

Observer programme

WWF were concerned at the lapse of the government observer programme, and praised

SADSTIA’s response in establishing its own independent programme.

Some shortcomings in observer coverage require attention, including:

o Participation from inshore vessels, where coverage is currently limited.

o Coverage of all vessels in the deep sea sector.

o Random assignment of observers to vessels should be part of the programme.

o Better data on discard quantities is required.

o Routine monitoring of total catches (including discards) of ETP species.

o Observations of seabird interactions on a routine basis in both offshore and inshore

sectors.

Management procedures

WWF were concerned about management and monitoring procedures associated with the

fishery, notably:-

o Research – there is a disconnect between research activities and management within

DAFF.

o Data technicians – contracts for the technicians that enter trawl landings data have

recently lapsed.

o Fishery surveys – the problems with the RV Africana and the use of the FV

Andromeda were noted. There is a need to standardise / calibrate the results gathered

by each vessel, and concern that the wider research programme carried out by

Africana has lapsed.

o Management capacity – WWF note that important positions at DAFF remain unfilled

and that the organisation will face new challenges with the administration of the

small-scale fisheries policy and fishing rights allocations. There are concerns about

the ability of DAFF to manage the fisheries under these circumstances: also how

PUCLs are monitored, and a lack of ring-fencing of funding for core activites.

Reassessment

WWF consider that many of the points raised here will apply to the fishery when it is

reassessed, and asked that these comments should be taken into account during reassessment.




Page 310



WWF views on stock status, environmental impacts and management of the fishery.

5. Other issues


WWF offered to submit views on the fishery with respect to the PISGs set out in the MSC

Certification Requirements v1.3.




Page 311

18 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)

1. The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.

2. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from

assessments described in CR 27.22.1

Table 20: Surveillance Score for the Fishery

Criteria Surveillance Score Insert Fishery Name

& score below

1. Default Assessment Tree

Yes 0

No 2

2. Number of Conditions

Zero Conditions 0

1-5 Conditions 1

>5 Conditions 2

3. Principle Level Scores

≥ 85 0

<85 2

4. Conditions on outcome PIs?

Yes 2

No 0

Table 21: MSC Fishery Surveillance levels

Years after certification or re-certification

Surveillance

score

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

2 or more Normal surveillance On-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit &

recertification

visit

1 Remote

surveillance

Option

1

Off-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit

Off-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit &




Page 312

recertification

visit

Option

2

On-site

surveillance

audit

Off-site

surveillance

audit

On-site

surveillance

audit

0 Reduced surveillance Review new

information

On-site

surveillance

audit

Review new

information

On-site

surveillance

audit &

recertification

visit

Table 22: Fishery Surveillance Plan

Score from

CR Table C3

Surveillance

Category

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

[e.g. 2 or

more]

[e.g Normal

Surveillance]

[e.g. On-site

surveillance

audit]

[e.g. On-site

surveillance

audit]

[e.g. On-site

surveillance

audit]

[e.g. On-site

surveillance

audit &

recertification

site visit]




Page 313

19 CLIENT AGREEMENT

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may

be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client.

(Reference: CR: 27.19.2)




Page 314

20 OBJECTIONS PROCESS

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED

AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: CR 27.19.1)

Intertek Fisheries Certification - SADSTIA · Public Comment Draft Report Authors ... 5.7.3 Survey...

Documents

Transcript of Intertek Fisheries Certification - SADSTIA · Public Comment Draft Report Authors ... 5.7.3 Survey...