phase 1, 5-year east china sea and yellow sea squid fip ...€¦ · project timeline year 1:...

Phase 1, 5-Year East China Sea and Yellow Sea Squid FIP Work Plan (by MSC PI)

Project Timeline Year 1: 2019/01 - 2020/12 Year 2: 2020/01 - 2021/12 Year 3: 2021/01 - 2021/12 Year 4: 2022/01 - 2022/12 Year 5: 2023/01 - 2023/12

NOTE: FIP and work plan are expected to continue after Year 5 in Phase 2 with full implementation of government management system reforms. Actions specified in a detailed Phase 2 work plan, to be completed within a second 5-year timeframe, will be developed during Year 4.

Budget Year 1: $136,900 Year 2: $143,000 Year 3: $150,000 Year 4: $150,000 Year 5: $150,000

FIP Partners Seafood Industry Partners (SIP) (Sea Farms, PanaPesca, Quirch, Seachill, others (TBI)); China Aquatic Products Processing and Marketing Association (CAPPMA); Ocean Outcomes (O2)

FIP Implementation Collaborators (existing and additional targets) Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute of the China Academy of Fisheries Science (YSFRI-CAFS); Shandong Marine Resource and Environment Research Institute (SMRERI); ShengYang and other catcher associations (TBI); Shandong Province Oceanic and Fishery Bureau (SOFB) FIP Supporters Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, WWF-UK; Genho, Zhejiang Industrial Group (ZIG) and other processors (TBI): others TBI

East China Sea and Yellow Sea Japanese Flying Squid FIP Work Plan

Version 1.1 October 26, 2018

Principle 1: Sustainability of the Stock (see Appendix A for performance indicator scoring summary and improvement needs)

Issue/ Performance

indicators

Year 1: Performance Goal




Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 1: Update of stock status incorporating stakeholder information, PI 1.1.1 (1.1.2) – Stock status uncertain; pre-assessment suggests medium risk (highly productive but susceptible to fishing). Stock status needs to be assessed. (NOTE: also see related Action Items 2, 3 and 4)

See Action Item 4. Risk based stock status assessment method is selected or developed (see Action Item 4).

Risk based stock status assessment is completed to evaluate whether stock is likely fluctuating around a level consistent w/ MSY. If not evaluate potential for existing mgmt. measures to support rebuilding.

Any necessary refinements of existing mgmt. measures are implemented as an interim step to support the potential need to support stock rebuilding (if indicated in Year 3).

First empirical assessment of stock status is completed. Acceptable stock status is verified or, if not, a formal rebuilding plan is developed.

Year 1: Action Plan Year 2: Action Plan Year 3: Action Plan Year 4: Action Plan Year 5: Action Plan

Responsible: O2 facilitates in coordination with SMRERI, CAFS, SOFB, and consultants. Consult w/ provincial managers/scientists for their consideration and selection of design/approach for conducting precautionary risk based assessment to include stakeholder engagement.

Responsible: Consultant leads in coordination w/ partners/stakeholders. Conduct risk based assessment. If stock not likely fluctuating around MSY, use Action Item 2 to evaluate mgmt. measure consistency with rebuilding.

Responsible: SOFB managers lead with assistance of SMRERI/CAFS scientists. The response, if refined mgmt. measures appear to be needed, will be undertaken through Action Item 2 as an interim step.

Responsible: SOFB leads with assistance of SMRERI/CAFS scientists. Evaluate initial estimates of stock abundance and population biological metrics against relevant reference points (MSY or surrogate measures, e.g., F%SPR). If rebuilding need is identified/confirmed, plan will be developed to include effective measures, appropriate rebuilding timeframes and monitoring/evaluation.

2 oceanoutcomes.org



Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 2: Development of a robust and precautionary harvest strategy, PIs 1.2.1, 1.2.2 – No harvest strategy or population status based harvest control rules (HCR) exist for the fishery; limited harvest measures have been in place in form of summer fishing moratorium.

Initial basic fishery monitoring measures are trialed (see PI 1.2.3) that could form the future basis to support the evaluation of mgmt. measure effectiveness (e.g., approach to estimate catch, effort and biological data). Management strategy options analysis/paper completed that would be adaptable to this fishery and JFS population dynamics and associated assessment approaches.

Monitoring efforts continued and including their feasibility to evaluate specific mgmt. strategy options analyzed in Year 1. Discussions on management strategy options completed with provincial management, science and industry representatives as capacity building and substantive management engagement step.

Elements of a draft plan developed to outline an integrated approach (with associated monitoring and stock assessment actions/options) that could be further developed and evaluated to test management feasibility within provincial fisheries management system.

One or more management measures developed/adopted by SOFB to support eventual adoption of an overall harvest strategy. Results of management measure(s) evaluated. Associated monitoring and stock assessment actions implemented (PIs 1.2.3 and 1.2.4) that would support concepts in draft plan (from Year 3).

Management measure evaluation continued. A draft plan is developed that will result in design, adoption and implementation of a comprehensive harvest strategy (HS) with harvest control rules (HCRs) (subsequent implementation of HS-HCR to occur during Phase 2).

Year 1: Action Plan Year 2: Action Plan Year 3: Action Plan Year 4: Action Plan Year 5: Action Plan

Responsible: YSFRI- CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 leads management options analysis w/ expert inputs. For monitoring actions

Responsible: YSFRI- CAFS researchers lead, assistance from O2 and CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 and CAPPMA lead engagement with provincial management, science and industry representatives.

Responsible: SOFB leads with assist of YSFRI- CAFS and w/ support from O2 and CAPPMA.

Responsible: SOFB leads with assist of YSFRI-CAFS.

Responsible: SOFB leads with assist of YSFRI-CAFS.

3 oceanoutcomes.org



see PI 1.2.3. For management options analysis, a review will be conducted of key sustainable squid management strategies that exist globally, including their potential adaptation to China JFS and associated management system. Support will be enlisted from relevant science/management experts. Review may include development of simple demonstration tools or scenarios that can be used for communication purposes.

Communications materials and/or tools will be developed and used in a series of up to three meetings or workshops key Shandong fishery representatives to discuss sustainable management strategies and options for the fishery that also will frame the balance between conservation and access, in lights of JFS seasonal distribution in Chinese waters. One key output will be commitment to developing draft plan in Year 3.

O2 and CAPPMA will continue discussions with assigned leads in management and research organizations to support their development of the potential elements of an overall management strategy and how the component elements of monitoring, stock assessment, management approach could be further developed in a stepwise fashion.

Provincial fishery representatives, as a result of Year 4 planning, will implement potential management measures, such as a mix of time, area and gear regulations, which would allow testing elements of an overall management strategy. Initial evaluation will include use of fishery monitoring and compliance data. For monitoring and stock assessment see PIs 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 below.

Continued evaluation of regulatory management measures based on fishery monitoring and compliance data. A management strategy evaluation (MSE) is designed/planned to evaluate alternative and identify optimal harvest strategy approaches for meeting competing management objectives. (MSE and HS-HCR analyses would occur during Phase 2 of the FIP to be completed within the second 5 yrs.).

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 3: Improved biological monitoring and community engagement PI 1.2.3 – No catch, effort and biological monitoring data collection systems exist nor are regular fishery

Some relevant, key fishery & biological information is collected (for both P1 and P2 species) w/ catch estimation design approach is tested.

Some relevant, key fishery & biological information continues to be collected (for both P1 and P2 species) w/ catch estimation design recommended for mgmt. system. Design for stock abundance surveys is developed.

Mgmt. system design for sufficient collection of relevant, key fishery & biological information for P1 and P2 species is tested, and stock abundance survey design is tested.

Evaluation and refinement of system design for sufficient collection of relevant, key fishery & biological information for P1 and P2 species is completed. Stock abundance surveys are implemented.

Sufficient relevant information is collected from the fishery, including regular stock abundance monitoring and fishery removals, adequate to support a robust harvest strategy.

Year 1: Action Plan Year 2: Action Plan Year 3: Action Plan Year 4: Action Plan Year 5: Outcome

4 oceanoutcomes.org



independent surveys conducted to estimate population abundance, abundance indices and/or %SPR.

Responsible: YSFRI-CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 plays key assist role. Design and implement initial catch, effort, biological data collection from dockside landings; evaluate approaches for future mgmt. system application. Develop/implement fishermen education, training and outreach program elements to enlist strong support of fishery monitoring and mgmt. measures.

Responsible: YSFRI-CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 plays key assist role. Continue collecting catch, effort, & biological data from dockside landings & evaluate/ recommend future mgmt. system approaches to catch estimation. Continue fishermen education, training and outreach

Responsible: YSFRI-CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 plays key assist role. Trial a catch and effort estimation system on fleet wide basis for Shandong province jurisdiction, combined with essential biological data collection. Compare logbook information with landing based catch & effort data.

Responsible: YSFRI-CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 plays key assist role. Refine and expand test of catch and effort estimation system on fleet wide basis for Shandong province jurisdiction, combined with essential biological data collection. Compare logbook information with landing based catch & effort data.

Responsible: YSFRI-CAFS researchers lead monitoring efforts, with assistance from O2 & CAPPMA, cooperation from local processing-catcher sectors. O2 plays key assist role. Fully develop & implement monitoring and data system capacities for catch and effort estimation system on fleet wide basis for Shandong province licensed vessels, combined with essential biological data collection.

Fishery independent stock abundance monitoring Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead. Field surveys completed to support initial test of best fit method for stock abundance estimates/indicators (see Action Item 4, Yr. 2).

Fishery independent stock abundance monitoring Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead. Initial stock assessment survey approach evaluated and refined; stock assessment surveys implemented to support stock assessment

Fishery independent stock abundance monitoring Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead. Stock assessment surveys implemented on periodic schedule consistent w/ supporting harvest strategy-HCR evaluation and stock

5 oceanoutcomes.org



analyses (Action Item 4). assessment analyses and (Action Items 2 & 4).

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 4: Regular and appropriate assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 – No stock assessments are conducted for the fishery and capacity to do so limited by current lack of catch, effort, and biological data as well as independent abundance and/or biological surveys.

Potential options for stock assessment approach identified.

‘Best fit’ stock assessment design is developed.

Initial stock assessment approach is evaluated & refined.

Stock assessment design/approach is refined & stock assessment conducted.

Regular stock assessments are being conducted & evaluated as appropriate to evaluate stock status and harvest strategy.


Responsible: O2 facilitates in coordination with selected global experts. In conjunction with management strategy analysis under Action Item 2, prepare analysis of stock assessment options for JFS that are consistent with life history and migration characteristics.

Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead in coordination with SOFB, assistance from O2. Complete evaluation of existing fishery and resource studies/data Including Year 1 catch, effort and biological monitoring data Action Item 3); design stock assessment approach to be field tested in Yr. 3

Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead in coordination with SOFB. Evaluate trial test of stock assessment methodology (based on field survey conduct and related data collected under Action Item 3, Year 3) and any appropriate design refinements made - NOTE: design and planned frequency tailored to management strategy and stock status.

Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead, in coordination with SOFB. Researchers analyze collected fishery and survey data to produce stock assessment report based on actual abundance or abundance/stock status indicators. Initial reference points (MSY or surrogates) developed/ proposed.

Responsible: SMRERI and/or CAFS researchers lead, in coordination with SOFB. Researchers analyze collected fishery and survey data to produce stock assessment report based on actual abundance or abundance/stock status indicators. Reference points (MSY or surrogates such as F%SPR) refined to support stock status determinations (Action 1, Yr. 5).

6 oceanoutcomes.org



Principle 2: Ecosystem Impacts

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 5: Data collection and evaluation for other species caught, PIs 2.2.1-2.2.3 – No catch, effort and biological monitoring data collection systems or data exist; main and minor species identification needs verification; a partial mgmt. strategy is needed for main secondary species; and verification may be needed that the fishery is not hindering possible recovery of stock if below biological limits.

Key P2 species fishery catch and biological information is collected to verify main and minor secondary species in the catch and support evaluation of management for main species (See Action Item 3).

Key P2 species fishery catch and biological information collected is continued to verify main and minor secondary species in the catch and support evaluation of management for main species (See Action Item 3).

Some quantitative information is being collected to assess the fishery’s impact on main secondary species. An updated risk based status assessment is completed for relevant P2 species (in conjunction w/ Action Item 1). The need to establish any new or refined mgmt. measures for main secondary species is evaluated (including compliance).

Any new or refined mgmt. measures for main secondary species are implemented and evaluated as to their efficacy at maintaining status above potential recruitment impairment (PRI) or not hindering recovery to that level.

Management measure evaluation is continued. A plan is developed that will result in the design, adoption and implementation of an effective partial mgmt. strategy for secondary species.


See Action Item 3 - Catch and biological data collection actions (for PI 2.2.3).

See Action Item 3 - Catch and biological data collection actions.

See Action Item 1 – Risk based stock status assessment is completed that includes relevant secondary species. See Action Item 3 - Catch and biological data collection actions. See Action Item 4 Responsible: SOFB and YSFRI-CAFS lead.

See Action Item 3 - Catch and biological data collection continues. See Action Item 4 Responsible: SOFB and YSFRI-CAFS lead.

See Action Item 3 - Catch and biological data collection continues. See Action Item 4 Responsible: SOFB and YSFRI-CAFS lead.

7 oceanoutcomes.org



Reevaluate main secondary species in the fishery based on Year 1 and 2 data, as well as Year 3 on-water observations (Action Item 6). Develop any new or refined measures based on the analysis (for PI 2.2.2).

Continue analysis of catch and biological data, and any on-water monitoring, and regulatory compliance, to evaluate efficacy of new or refined mgmt. measures for main secondary species (for PI 2.2.2).

Based on continued evaluation, a plan is developed outlining management objectives, monitoring, a harvest strategy and evaluation that will have a high likelihood of maintaining main secondary species above PRI.

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 6: Evidence-based evaluation of fishery risk to ETP species, PIs 2.3.1-2.4.3 – ETP species as defined by MSC are not believed to be an issue in the fishery; however, there is virtually no evidence to verify the conclusion and some presence of ETP species exist in the fishing area.

Qualitative information is collected about encounters of ETP species in the fishery by gear.

Qualitative information collection is continued about encounters of ETP species in the fishery by gear.

Some quantitative information is collected about encounters of ETP species in the fishery by gear.

Some quantitative data collection is continued about encounters of ETP species in the fishery by gear. A productivity-susceptibility risk assessment for ETP species is designed.

A productivity-susceptibility risk assessment for ETP species is completed, with any necessary mgmt. measures identified for subsequent implementation.


See Action Item 3: Interviews with fishermen, compliance officers and dockside inspection are conducted.

See Action Item 3: Interviews with fishermen, compliance officers and dockside inspection are continued. Responsible: YSFRI-CFAS and SOFB, O2 supports.

See Action Item 3: Interviews with fishermen, compliance officers and dockside inspection are continued. Responsible: YSFRI-CFAS and SOFB, O2 supports.

See Action Item 3: Interviews with fishermen, compliance officers and dockside inspection are continued. An on-water fishery monitoring/ observation design is expanded. Responsible: YSFRI-CFAS and SOFB, O2 supports.

Responsible: YSFRI-CFAS and SOFB, O2 supports. Consultant

8 oceanoutcomes.org



Action Item 6a: Design on-water fishery observation/monitoring plan to evaluate/verify encounters w/ ETP species. Note: also supports PIs 2.4.1-2.4.3 re: verifying any potential habitat interactions to observe any habitat interactions).

Action Item 6a: Implement initial on-water fishery observation/monitoring to evaluate/ verify encounters w/ ETP species. Note: also supports PIs 2.4.1-2.4.3 re: verifying any potential habitat interactions to observe any habitat interactions).

Action Item 6a: Continue/expand on-water fishery observation to evaluate ETP, Habitat and evaluation of new management measure(s) if previous years’ results indicate warranted. Action Item 6b: Consult w/ provincial managers/scientists & create design for precautionary risk based assessment to include stakeholder engagement. Analyze ETP encounter and regulatory compliance information collected under Action Items 3 and 6 to inform risk assessment, in addition to addressing PIs 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 performance gaps.

leads risk Action Item 6b. risk assessment. Action Item 6a: Evaluate continuing need for on-water monitoring requirements (e.g., for catch & regulatory compliance). Action Item 6b: Conduct risk assessment & develop management measures and approach if warranted.

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 7: Verification of habitat impacts, PIs 2.4.1-2.4.3 – The interaction of the fishery with bottom

On-water observation designed to examine potential gear interaction with benthic habitat.

On water observations verify whether or not gear interaction with benthic habitat appear to be occurring.

Distribution of vulnerable marine ecosystem habitats (VMEs) within potential target fishing areas is understood.

A determination is made of whether trawl fishery is unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats. If the fishery is likely to have this impact, additional mgmt. and compliance

9 oceanoutcomes.org



habitats is not believed to be an issue but demersal species are encountered in the catch. No supporting evidence exists to verify low impact.

actions are developed to ensure acceptable habitat outcome.


See Action Item 6a. See Action Item 6a. Responsible: SMRERI/CAFS lead, in coordination with SOFB. Available survey and research data on location of VME habitats are reviewed, documented and mapped, including areas currently closed.

Responsible: SOFB and SMRERI/CAFS lead. Analyze intersect of trawl fleet fishing tracks with distribution of VME habitats using existing VMS capacity and/or on-water observation and compliance efforts.

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 8: Evaluation and management of fishery impact on ecosystem function, PIs 2.5.1-2.5.3 – Pre-assessment had insufficient information available to score current ecosystem status. Full risk assessment identified as a need.

Design and preparation for scale intensity consequence analysis (SICA) for ecosystem impacts is completed.

A determination is made whether 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. If the fishery is likely to have these impacts, a plan is developed to avoid this adverse outcome.


10 oceanoutcomes.org



Responsible: SMRERI/CAFS lead in coordination w/ SOFB.

Collate information on fishery species composition and catch volume and distribution data based on catch monitoring and fishermen interviews. Design structure, content and stakeholder approach for SICA.

Responsible: Consultant leads, SICA. SOFB & SMRERI participate and lead response.

Expert and stakeholder workshop conducted to complete SICA and results used to structure ongoing information collection and mgmt. strategy to ensure high probability that fishery operates consistent with maintaining ecosystem function.

Principle 3: Management System

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 9: Alignment of fishery management objectives, capacities and processes with sustainability principles, PIs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 & 3.2.1-3.2.4 – The various

Key elements of a functioning mgmt. system are in place for some portion of the fishery.

Comprehensive process plans exist that will result in the development of key management system features, such as fishery specific management objectives/plans, precautionary decision making processes, research plans and effective compliance.





components of the fishery management system are poorly formed in being able to ensure durable P1 and P2 outcomes. Fishery-specific management plans are lacking, mgmt. controls are general, and Decision-making processes do not respond to issues identified in the fishery in a timely or adaptive way. Research does not effectively inform management and little evidence of effective monitoring, control and surveillance exists.

Responsible: SOFB and CAFS/SMRERI lead. The FIP’s implementation, especially in Year’s 3 and 4 once SOFB is fully engaged, is expected to demonstrate elements of consultation, management planning, decision-making and research priority planning to support sustainable management outcomes for the fishery. This expectation will be verified through annual audits and engagement of O2 and CAPPMA, assisted by other FIP partners.

Responsible: SOFB and CAFS/SMRERI lead. The provincial government, based on results of the FIP through Year 4, outlines and schedules a process with specific intent and timelines for developing and implementing management system plans and processes over a 3-year period.

Additional Improvement Needs: Traceability and FIP Quality Assurance Traceability doesn’t align with specific MSC performance indicators, and is not routinely addressed in pre-assessments. MSC fishery certification requirements and guidance for sustainability assurance are limited to verifying likelihood of UoA origin catches being landed at point of first sale. Related traceability needs/actions are included below as an additional improvement action category to help ensure they will be adequately addressed in the fishery improvement process.




In addition, FIP quality assurance isn’t an improvement need per se but essential component of the FIP to ensure its accountability, credibility and success, and is included as an action item category to outline specific intent and recognize there are associated costs for sound project management.

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome

Action Item 10: Traceability – There are significant current catch verification uncertainties as to whether landings being attributed to the FIP’s Chinese domestic Yellow Sea fisheries may instead be originating from international areas or potentially from closed times and areas.

The various elements of catch area verification and potential IUU risks are comprehensively diagnosed, and some tools are tested to address, according to SIP priorities.

Concrete area fished verification steps are taken.

Provincial government cooperates with VMS verification of vessels landing into SIP supply chain.

Provincial government uses VMS data to test a system of accounting for JFS catch by fishing area by VMS verification of catch and biological landing data developed under Action Item 3.

Catch data system established under Action Item 3 includes catch area verification as standard approach.


Responsible: O2 facilitates with key assistance/ leadership from CAPPMA and in coordination with SIP, processors, and catcher sector. Fishery harvest to point of landing: Best available information & intelligence on catch area verification and traceability of Chinese JFS vessels fishing legally and illegally in Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan waters is accessed and strategy/ recommendations for specific improvement priorities and steps is

Responsible: O2 facilitates with key assistance/ leadership from CAPPMA and in coordination with SIP, processors, and catcher sector. Fishery harvest to point of landing: Year 2 activities planned based on Year 1 analysis, to include implementation of highest priority actions and engagement with government via CAPPMA geared toward catch area verification.

Responsible: SOBD/ YSFRI-CAFS leads in collaboration w/ FIP partners, processors and catcher sector. Fishery harvest to point of landing: FIP partners work with provincial officials to develop and implement a cross verification of VMS, voluntary tracking and logbook information. VMS analysis also to include vessels not supplying SIP’s supply chains for comparison.

Responsible: SOBD/ YSFRI-CAFS leads in collaboration w/ FIP partners, processors and catcher sector. Fishery harvest to point of landing: Year 4 continues by testing an integrated catch accounting approach that includes areas fished for a portion of the JFS fleet.

Responsible: SOBD/ YSFRI-CAFS leads in collaboration w/ FIP partners, processors and catcher sector. Fishery harvest to point of landing: Catch data system approach including area verification initiated for entire fleet, in coordination with Action Item 3.




developed. The potential for cooperating vessels to carry GPS-mobile phone based vessel location devices (e.g., Pelagic Data Systems Vessel Tracking System or Navama’s smartTrack) and transmit fishing positions is assessed and tested in limited manner if consistent w/ strategy recommendations and feasible (i.e., wouldn’t create espionage concerns). Point of landing to export: As required by individual partners, vessels selling into supply chain are tagged/verified by product tracking from point of landing to cold storage where SIPs take ownership. Imports of squid to SIP’s processors/suppliers are investigated to determine locations processed, species composition, volumes and product mixing risk into SIP’s JFS supply chain.

Issue/ Performance

indicators





Year 5: Outcome




Action Item 11: FIP quality assurance

Appropriate FIP monitoring, accountability and adaptive management measures are in place to help ensure effective implementation and outcomes.






Responsible: O2 leads in close coordination with FIP partners. Regular tracking and reporting updates are completed. Annual workshop is held with key stakeholders, providing review and adaptive modifications to 5-year FIP work plan, including approving work plan and budget for following year’s implementation.

Responsible: O2 leads in close coordination with FIP partners. Regular tracking and reporting updates are completed. Annual workshop is held with key stakeholders, providing review and adaptive modifications to the FIP work plan.

Responsible: O2 leads in close coordination with FIP partners. Regular tracking and reporting updates are completed. Annual workshop is held with key stakeholders, providing review and adaptive modifications to the FIP work plan.

Responsible: O2 leads in close coordination with FIP partners. Regular tracking and reporting updates are completed. Annual workshop is held with key stakeholders, providing review and adaptive modifications to the FIP work plan. FIP progress to date and updates of previous pre-assessments verified via an independent audit.

Responsible: O2 leads in close coordination with FIP partners. Regular tracking and reporting updates are completed. Annual workshop is held with key stakeholders, providing review and adaptive modifications to the FIP work plan. A Phase 2 work plan will be developed that is expected to enable the fishery to completely meet performance requirements of an unconditional pass of the MSC standard within another five years or less.




Appendix A. Fishery improvement needs for Chinese trawl fisheries on Japanese flying squid, based primarily on O2’s 2016 pre-assessment of the fishery (from Chinese JFS Fishery Improvement Scoping Analysis: September 2018, Table 17).

MSC Performance Indicator Scoring Legend

< 60

Fail

60-79

Conditional Pass

> 80

Unconditional Pass

MSC Principle/ Performance Indicator

Fishery improvement need & other comments

Expected timeframe for improvement 1

Principle 1 – Target Species PI 1.1.1 Ecosystem - Stock status 2

There is considerable uncertainty about stock status of JFS in the East China and Yellow Seas, in large part because the fisheries management system does not regularly monitor or assess stocks. To obtain a passing score for this PI, some abundance estimates or indices of JFS will be needed. Alternatively, a surrogate assessment and management approach for this short-lived species will be needed to ensure maximum sustainable yield (MSY) objectives can and are being met. Additionally, PI 1.1.1 scores can be affected by management approach and results of other national jurisdictions, which can affect overall status of this transboundary stock.

Short to long

PI 1.2.1 - Harvest strategy

Lack of a well-defined, precautionary harvest strategy is a clear risk in this fishery, although the current summer moratorium period has limited harvest access by Chinese vessels to JFS in the Chinese EEZ due to seasonal migration characteristics. The fishery requires a harvest strategy that is responsive to stock status and will help maintain stock abundances around MSY, though as a species with a 1-yr life history, this strategy may be tailored to surrogate MSY approaches. The FIP effort will need to work with the fishery management system to develop such a strategy. Because the Chinese fishery managers will ultimately be responsible for implementing this strategy and there is no structured management system currently in place, including catch and biological data collection from the fishery, this is likely to be a long-term activity with need for interim milestones.

Long

PI 1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools

No specific harvest control rules (HCR) or tools exist for Chinese JFS fisheries that adjust exploitation levels or rates in response to stock status indicators. These ultimately need to be developed in concert with the Chinese fishery management system. Again these could be developed in the context of surrogate MSY approaches consistent with the species’ short-lived life history and productivity.

Long

PI 1.2.3 - Information and monitoring

Some information is available on stock structure and fleet composition, but to fully support the harvest strategy, better monitoring of stock abundance and harvests (from all sources of fishing mortality) is needed. Regular monitoring of appropriate abundance indicators, or indicators of reproductive success (e.g., proportion of the stock escaping the fishery to spawn) will be needed to support implementation of HCRs and assess population status

Short to long

PI 1.2.4 - Assessment of

This PI automatically scored as an unconditional pass as instructed by MSC’s risk based assessment methodology, which was used in the pre-assessment, when PI 1.1.1 receives a conditional pass or higher. From a Short to long

1 Short = 0-3 yrs; Medium = 3-6 yrs; Long = > 6 yrs 2 Green = > 80; Yellow = 60-79; Red = < 60 (MSC scoring system)



Version 1.1 October 26, 2018 stock status management perspective, however, given the sheer data deficiencies in the system, some stock assessment

estimates or indices related to stock size will ultimately be needed to provide an evaluation reference for the management system. This is especially true with respect to detecting low population thresholds. While immediate work on this is possible, establishment of methods will require several years of data.

Principle 2 - Ecosystem PI 2.2.1 - Secondary species outcomes

The pre-assessment identified three secondary species that may be encountered with some frequency and medium risk: largehead hairtail, spiny-head croaker, and chub mackerel, based on limited data. Additional information from the trawl fishery off Shandong Province suggests that other species such as Japanese Spanish mackerel and yellow croaker may also be commonly encountered. The priority need will be to verify the species encountered and their proportion in the catch to see if any exceed a threshold level that would require demonstrating a high likelihood that they are above biologically based limits. Should purse seine vessels be included within the FIP, additional pelagic species encounters may occur, in which case a determination of whether they are main (MSC Criteria 2.1) or secondary species, and related improvement needs.

Medium

PI 2.2.2 - Secondary species management

A partial harvest strategy does not exist beyond the general summer fishing moratorium. A specific partial strategy will be needed depending on clarification of any main and/or secondary performance issues based on catch and biological data collected.

Medium

PI 2.2.3 - Secondary species information

Catch and biological monitoring of the fishery does not occur and as noted above establishing such data collection will be a very high priority for initial FIP work plan activities. This information will lead to a better understanding of specific improvement needs that may exist for outcome and management PIs for primary (purse seine) and secondary species (trawl, purse seine, other) if any.

Short to medium

PI 2.3.1 - ETP outcomes

Trawls reportedly have minimal impacts on ETP species due to their slow operating speed, but impacts should be investigated further to verify whether this is the case. Purse seine fisheries could have additional issues in this regard. An encounter with a smooth hammerhead shark was documented in recent trawl landing observations. Documenting ETP encounters and further risk assessment are recommended needs.

Medium

PI 2.3.2 - ETP management

According to Article 37 of China’s Fishery Law, “Killing and injuring of important aquatic wild animals protected by the State is prohibited. However, the 2016 pre-assessment didn’t reveal evidence of more specific management measures aimed at reducing fishery impacts on ETP species. Management measures will need to be developed to minimize impacts of ETP species if they are demonstrated to be an issue.

Short to medium

PI 2.3.3 - ETP information

Catch and biological data collection will be needed to better evaluate potential ETP issues and can be integrated with addressing similar needs for target, main and secondary species catches. Medium

PI 2.4.1 - Habitat outcomes

The fishery reportedly uses midwater trawls, which should have minimal habitat impacts. However, the limited catch information available suggests that the trawls are used near the seafloor, where they would be more likely to physically interact with and harm seafloor habitats. This could be more if a potential issue during daytime trawling when JFS are oriented deeper in the water column. A better evaluation of habitat types and interaction will be needed to verify an acceptable outcome for habitat. Potential habitat impacts of purse seine gear would depend on water depths in which they are fishing, which will need to be documented.

Short to medium

PI 2.4.2 - Habitat management To obtain a passing score for this PI, the fishery needs to develop a partial strategy for minimizing harm to

habitats. This will be a greater challenge if the gear contacts the seafloor. The information obtained under 2.4.3 and better assessment of 2.4.1 will be importantly linked to information collected under 2.4.3.

Short to medium



Version 1.1 October 26, 2018 PI 2.4.3 - Habitat information Information for determining habitat risks from the UoA is lacking. To obtain a passing score for this PI, we suggest

collecting quantitative information on main habitat types in fished areas, ideally including information on distribution and vulnerability of these habitats. Information on interactions between fishing gear and habitat will also be needed.

Short- to medium

PI 2.5.1 - Ecosystem outcomes

Insufficient information to assign score without full risk assessment; although the impact of China’s harvest is probably unlikely to disrupt ecosystem structure and function, initial analysis to assess possible issues might involve comparing harvest to likely stock size and whether JFS has any key prey interrelationships with other species. Ideally this might be evaluated in the context of a structured risk assessment.

Short

PI 2.5.2 - Ecosystem management

While some evidence suggests the summer fishery moratorium has a positive impact on population densities, a partial strategy for restraining the fisheries impacts on the ecosystem within the Unit of Assessment (potential FIP fishery area) is lacking. Such a strategy should be developed, which may include measures such as protection of vulnerable habitats or populations.

Medium

PI 2.5.3 - Ecosystem information A broad understanding of key elements of the ecosystem and JFS’ role exist, but information regarding UoA

ecosystem impacts has not been summarized or studied in detail. We suggest that monitoring catches of all target and non-target species area fished in the JFS fisheries will support a better understanding of the fishery’s potential impacts on local ecosystems within the UoA. A risk assessment related to PI 2.5.1 also would help indicate whether any specific or unique ecosystem data collection needs exist for this fishery.

Medium

Principle 3 – Management System PI 3.1.1 - Legal and customary framework

The management system and associated local and national laws aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries appear limited in scope and insufficient for delivering outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There is a dispute resolution framework, but it may not be transparent and effective. There is a need to work with relevant management authorities to better clarify the management and dispute resolution framework, and establish approaches for improving cooperation between management, fishers, and other stakeholders.

Long 3

PI 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Roles of organizations and individuals involved in the management process are generally understood, although MCS-related roles are currently in the process of being reformed and better defined. Input from stakeholders is solicited and taken into consideration. However, scientific recommendations are often ignored. Maintaining and acting on communications with fishery scientists is needed to develop practical measures for improving sustainability of fishing practices, including fishermen in the dialogue.

Long

PI 3.1.3 - Long term objectives

There is limited evidence of a precautionary approach for fishery management. While the current, all-species summer fishing moratorium is certainly restrictive for JFS, that is an artifact of the closure being coincident with the timeframe JFS have prime availability within the Chinese EEZ. A more rational and specific precautionary approach will ultimately be needed for JFS (that provides reasonable fishing access to JFS), which a FIP could help motivate and inform. First clarifying long-term management objectives would be logical, and then considering how best to integrate precautionary management within the long-term plan framework.

Long

PI 3.2.1 - Fishery Species-specific management is lacking, as are fishery-specific objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and Long

3 There is a general assumption in assigning long timeframes to all the management PIs that since no structured fisheries management system currently exists in China and that it will be a long-term prospect to fully establish one. At the same time given the top down nature of government authority in China, once decisions are made to reform, changes could occur relatively quickly. All future improvement efforts should make efforts to engage government fishery managers at provincial and central levels as fully as possible.



Version 1.1 October 26, 2018 specific objectives 2. There is a need to work with relevant management authorities to establish and better understand management

objectives, toward an outcome of develop and/or strengthen objectives. PI 3.2.2 - Decision making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in research, but not in a timely, adaptive, and

precautionary manner, as shown by the failure to implement greater restrictions on use of stow nets. A process is needed to provide fishery-specific information to stakeholders, and for considering and implementing scientific recommendations for the fishery.

Long

PI 3.2.3 - Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) mechanisms appear to exist to a limited extent but are not completely effective. Fishermen comply with some regulations and are subject to sanctions when they violate regulations. However, evidence of compliance is needed. In addition, catch verification is limited. There is a need to develop and implement efforts that support increased compliance and catch verification, including obtaining better information on levels of compliance.

Long

PI 3.2.4 - Management performance evaluation

There is some internal review of the management system, and research institutes may evaluate management policies. However, comprehensive external review is lacking. Regular, transparent internal and external review processes are needed. Long

Traceability Scoping work suggests a current risk that IUU JFS could be entering the supply chain from catch taken during the summer closure or from other IUU outside China entering the supply chain via transshipment. Further some buyers have an objective to preclude from their supply chains Chinese vessel catch of JFS taken in North Korean waters under bilateral agreement or JFS landed in China through transshipments. Independent fishing vessel catch area verification and in plant traceability systems will be needed to address these issues with JFS supply chain traceability. Further a risk assessment would be suggested to evaluate the likelihood that imports of squid from South Korea may be mixed with Chinese domestic supplies of JFS, and to what extent such mixing might involve both JFS and arrow squid caught by South Korean vessels through bilateral agreement in New Zealand waters.

Short to long


phase 1, 5-year east china sea and yellow sea squid fip ...€¦ · project timeline year 1:...

Documents