Sri Lankan Blue Swimming Crab Fishery Assessment

Final Report by

Dr. Steve Creech

Submitted to

Co-financed by

National Fisheries Institute Crab Council

on 25th November 2013 revised on 28th May 2014

List of Abbreviations

BSC Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus pelagicus) CAB Conformity Assessment Body (MSC) CASS Conservation Alliance for Sustainable Seafood CEPA Centre for Poverty Analysis CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CSO Civil Society Organisation CW Carapace Width DCD Department of Cooperative Development DFAR Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DFF District Fishermen’s Federation DFO District Fisheries Office EPF Employees’ Provident Fund ETF Employees’ Trust Fund ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected FAO UN Food & Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations FCS Fishermen’s Cooperative Society FCSU Fishermen’s Cooperative Society Union FI Fisheries Inspector FIP Fishery Improvement Project g grams GOI Government of India GOSL Government of Sri Lanka GPS Geographic Positioning System HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points ILO UN International Labour Organization of the United Nations IMBL International Maritime Boundary Line IOM International Organisation for Migration IUU Illegal Unregulated Unreported JAF Jaffna District KIL Kilinochchi District l litre lb Imperial Pound LEED Local Economic Empowerment through Enterprise Development LKR Sri Lankan Rupee LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam MAN Mannar District MFAR Ministry of Fisheries & Aquatic Resource MSC Marine Stewardship Council N North NAFSO National Fisheries Solidarity Organisation NAQDA National Aquaculture Development Authority NARA National Aquatic Resources Research Agency NEM North East Monsoon NFI CC National Fisheries Institute Crab Council NP Northern Province OSH Occupational Safety & Health PUT Puttalam District RFO Rural Fishermen’s Organisation SC Steering Committee (FIP) SEASL Seafood Exporters’ Association of Sri Lanka SFP Sustainable Fisheries Partnership SLBSC Sri Lankan Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus pelagicus) SRL Sri Lanka SWM South West Monsoon

t Metric Tonne TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Programme UOJ University of Jaffna US$ American Dollar W Weight WU Wyamba University

List of Tables

Table 1 Evaluation matrix for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery Table 2 Summary of interviews conducted with participants during the fishery assessment

Table 3 The type and estimated number of fishing craft engaged in the SLBSC Fishery, by district Table 4 Summary of the Relationship between Mesh Size, Crab Size and Markets Table 5 Key Seafood Companies Purchasing, Processing and Exporting SLBSC Table 6 Grading Systems, Weight and Prices Paid for SLBSC in Operation during the Survey Table 7 Export Destinations for Sri Lankan Crab Products January 2011 to March 2012 Table 8 Marine fauna and flora observed or reportedly caught in bottom-set gill nets, together with

observations on endangered, threatened and protected species. Table 9 Estimated incremental losses incurred by catching smaller and smaller sized crabs Table 10 Summary of the MSC Guidepost Scores for the SLBSC Fishery

List of Figures

Figure 1 Size and weight relationship for SLBSC in Pallikuda (Kalpitiya) and Mandaitivu (Jaffna) Figure 2 Annual Sri Lankan crab production for all crab varieties Figure 3 Comparative increases in crab production in four districts since 2009 Figure 4 Export destinations and value (LKRs) of crab exports 1990 to 2011 Figure 5 Sri Lanka marine fisheries value chain map (USAID 2008) Figure 5 Schematic representations of supply chains for SLBSCs Figure 6 Relative Contributions of Crab Products to Exports, by Weight (kg) and Value (LKR) Figure 7 Relative Contributions of Crab Export Products, by Weight (kg) and Value (LKR) Figure 8 Estimated Increase in Fishery Income by Catching Larger and Large Sized Crabs

List of Annexes

Anne A Comparative analysis of the current status of FIP for four swimming crab fisheries in Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico and Russia

Annex B Consultant’s Terms of Reference Annex C Main assessment criteria and sub criteria used during the field survey Annex D List of the scientific papers, technical reports and guidelines reviewed during the assignment Annex E Consultant’s completed work schedule for the assessment of the SLBSC Fishery Annex F List of the agencies, organisations and individuals who generously contributed information,

comments and suggestions to improve the SLBSC Fishery Annex G Schematic representation of the FIP Steering Committee to improve the SLBSC fishery

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 1

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

II. Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................................... 6

III. Fishery Assessment Methodology & Criteria ................................................................................................ 7

IV. Implementation & Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 8

V. Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 10

a. Biology of the Fishery .............................................................................................................................. 10 b. Physical Profile ......................................................................................................................................... 12 c. Social Profile 21 d. Economic Profile ...................................................................................................................................... 24 e. The Ecology of the SLBSC Fishery ............................................................................................................ 33 f. Management of the Fishery ..................................................................................................................... 36

VI. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 43

Principle 1: Biological Status of the Fishery ................................................................................................. 44 1.1 SLBSC Resource ............................................................................................................................... 44 1.2 SLBSC Management ........................................................................................................................ 46 Principle 2: Ecological Impacts of the Fishery .............................................................................................. 49 2.1 Retained Bycatch Species ............................................................................................................... 49 2.2 Discarded Bycatch Species .............................................................................................................. 50 2.3 ETP Bycatch Species ........................................................................................................................ 52 2.4 Marine Habitats .............................................................................................................................. 53 2.5 Marine Ecosystems ......................................................................................................................... 55 Principle 3: Management of Fishery ............................................................................................................ 57 3.1 Governance & Policy ....................................................................................................................... 57 3.2 Fishery Specific Management System ............................................................................................ 60

VI. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 62

Recommendations to improve the biological status of the fishery ............................................................. 62 Recommendations to improve / reduce the ecological impacts of the fishery ........................................... 63 Recommendations to improve management of fishery .............................................................................. 63

1

Executive Summary 1) The Seafood Exporters’ Association of Sri Lanka (SEASL) represents and promotes the interests of Sri

Lankan companies engaged in the export of seafood products from Sri Lanka. The SEASL provides a common platform for Sri Lankan seafood companies to discuss challenges and concerns affecting seafood exports, as well as issues affecting the fisheries industry as a whole in Sri Lanka.

2) In May 2013, the SEASL convened a meeting of participants engaged in the Sri Lankan blue swimming crab (SLBSC) fishery in Negombo, so explore ways to improve the fishery. The Negombo meeting was convened with the support of the National Fisheries Institute Crab Council (NFI CC). At the end of the meeting the SEASL took a decision to initiate a Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP) for the SLBSC fishery, to improve the fishery in accordance with the principles set out by the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP).

3) The aim of a FIP is to bring together all those associated to a fishery i.e., fishing communities, traders, seafood companies, regulators, scientists and civil society organisations (CSO), as well as international importers and distributors, to create and implement a local plan that will improve the economic, social and ecological sustainability of a fishery. A key step in the process of initiating a FIP is undertaking an assessment of the fishery.

4) The assessment of the SLBSC fishery was conducted between August and November 2013. The assessment commenced with a review of technical reports, scientific papers and guidelines pertaining to blue swimming crabs (BSC) in general. The processes and frameworks associated with the design and development of various FIPs, including other crab FIPs were also reviewed, along with the Marine Stewardship Council’s principles, criteria and principal indicators for sustainable fisheries.

5) A field survey of the SLBSC fishery, which is located off the north western and northern coast of Sri Lanka, was completed over a period of six weeks beginning from the 1

st August 2013. The last

interviews with participants in the fishery were conducted with a CSO in Colombo on 16th

September. A total of 36 interviews were conducted with 112 individuals associated with the SLBSC fishery in five coastal districts, as well as in the capital Colombo. 11% of the participants in the field survey were women.

6) The experiences, knowledge, opinions and comments gathered from key participants in the SLBSC fishery form the basis of the SLBSC fishery assessment report. The findings of the assessment indicate that the SLBSC fishery is likely to fail to meet the requirements necessary to pass 23 out of MSC’s 31 performance indicators for sustainable fisheries. The assessment suggests that the fishery may pass seven performance indicators, but would subsequently need to meet conditions applied by the independent MSC assessor.

7) The principal deficiencies in terms of achieving sustainable management of the fishery relate to principles 1 and 2. The fishery is likely to fail all seven performance indicators associated the biological status of the SLBSC resource. The fishery is likely to fail 13 of the 15 performance indicators associated the ecological impacts of the fishery (Principle 2). A summary of the MSC Guidepost Scores for the SLBSC fishery is given overleaf.

8) Twenty four recommendations to improve the biological status of the fishery (12 recommendations); to improve (i.e., reduce) the ecological impact of the fishery (2 recommendations) and to improve the management of the fishery are proposed.

2

Summary of the MSC Guidepost Scores for the SLBSC Fishery

MSC Fishery Assessment

Principles, Criteria & Performance Indicators

Fishery Assessment

Guidepost Score Result

Principle 1 Biological Status of the Fishery

1.1 SLBSC Resource

1.1.1 Stock Status SG <60 FAIL

1.1.2 Reference Points SG <60 FAIL

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Plan SG <60 FAIL

1.2 SLBSC Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy SG <60 FAIL

1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules & Tools SG <60 FAIL

1.2.3 Harvest Strategy: Information & Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status SG <60 FAIL

Principle 2 Ecological Impacts of the Fishery

2.1 Bycatch: Retained Species

2.1.1 Status SG <60 FAIL 2.2.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.2.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.2 Bycatch: Discarded Species

2.2.1 Status SG <60 FAIL

2.2.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.2.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.3 Bycatch: ETP Species

2.3.1 Status SG <60 FAIL

2.3.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.3.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL 2.4 Marine Habitats

2.4.1 Status SG <60 FAIL

2.4.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.4.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL 2.5 Marine Ecosystems

2.5.1 Status SG 60 PASS with conditions

2.5.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.5.3 Information / Monitoring SG 60 PASS with conditions

Principle 3Management of Fishery

3.1 Governance & Policy

3.1.1 Legal / Customary Framework SG 70 PASS with conditions

3.1.2 Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities SG 60 PASS with conditions

3.1.3 Long Term Objectives SG 60 PASS with conditions

3.1.4 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing SG <60 FAIL

3.2 Fishery Specific Management System

3.2.1 Fishery Specific Objectives SG <60 FAIL

3.2.2 Decision Making Processes SG 60 PASS with conditions

3.3.3 Compliance & Enforcement SG 70 PASS with conditions

3.3.4 Research Plans SG <60 FAIL

3.3.5 Management Performance Evaluation SG <60 FAIL

Recommendations to improve the biological status of the fishery

I. Regular monthly monitoring of CW and W should commence from two or more locations by a recognised government agency / institution. Field data should be analysed together with ‘production data’ gathered by seafood exporters purchasing & processing SLBSC.

II. Discussions should be held with the Department of Customs to explore the possibility of disaggregating crab export data for SLBSC.

III. A research project should be commissioned to investigate the population biology of the SLBSC IV. A study should be commissioned to investigate the effectiveness of measures promoted to

mitigate the impact of harvesting ovigerous females

3

V. A study should be commissioned to investigate the selectivity of bottom-set gill nylon gill nets, with a view to establishing a minimum mesh size for the SLBSC fishery

VI. The GOSL should be lobbied and there should be advocacy among fishing communities, against the use of illegal monofilament nets.

VII. There should be continued support for and promotion of measures to mitigation or reduce the harvesting of ovigerous females

VIII. A regulation should be introduced for the SLBSC fishery IX. The GOSL should continue to be lobbied and there should be continued advocacy with SLBSC

fishermen to stop illegal trawling by IND and SRL trawlers X. Technical and financial assistance should be provided to DFAR / MFAR to improve the collection

and analysis of field data and information to monitor the exploitation of Sri Lankan marine resources.

XI. The assessment report and recommendations should be validated by an MSC approved independent conformity assessment body (CAB)

XII. Preparations should be made to undertake or commission an assessment of the status of the SLBSC stock after the improvements to the SLBSC fishery outlined in the assessment report have been satisfactorily achieved

Recommendations to improve / reduce the ecological impacts of the fishery

XIII. A study should be commissioned to further investigate the nature and quantity of the bycatch (retained, discarded and ETP species) from the SLBSC fishery, with emphasis on the role of mesh size on bycatch composition

XIV. A study should be commissioned to further investigate the interaction between the SLBSC fishery and key marine habitats in the vicinity of the fishery.

Recommendations to improve management of fishery

XV. A Steering Committee (SC) for the SLBSC FIP (see Annex G) should be established comprising representatives of the fishing communities, seafood companies and government authorities, to facilitate dialogue and decision making between participants in the SLBSC fishery. The roles and responsibilities of participants should be clearly defined.

XVI. Long term objectives - resource, ecological, social and economic and management - for the SLBSC fishery should be reviewed, discussed and agreed.

XVII. Key incentives for sustainable exploitation of the SLBSC resource should be formulated, discussed, agreed and promoted

XVIII. Specific policy objectives for the SLBSC fishery Committee should be formulated, discussed, agreed and promoted

XIX. The GOSL should continue to be lobbied and there should be further advocacy to ensure better compliance with the regulations that that govern the exploitation and management of the SLBSC fishery, including stronger enforcement of regulations pertaining to the use of illegal monofilament nets and trawling by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers

XX. Financial support should be provided through local universities and to the NARA to conduct research into key aspects of the SLBSC fishery

XXI. A mechanism to monitor and evaluate the performance of the SLBSC fishery management system should be developed

XXII. A study should be undertaken to assess the extent of seafood companies’ compliance with internationally recognised Decent Work Standards.

XXIII. A study should be undertaken to assess the feasibility and constraints pertaining to promoting producer organisation engagement in marketing / processing of SLBSC.

XXIV. A study should be undertaken to assess the equity of trading relations between producers, traders and seafood companies purchasing and exporting SLBSC

4

I. Introduction

The Sri Lanka Seafood Exporters’ Association of Sri Lanka

9) The Seafood Exporters’ Association of Sri Lanka (SEASL) was established to represent and promote the

interests of Sri Lankan companies engaged in the export of seafood products from Sri Lanka. The SEASL provides a common platform for Sri Lankan seafood companies to discuss challenges and concerns affecting seafood exports, as well as issues affecting the fisheries industry as a whole in Sri Lanka.

10) The SEASL acts as an important focal point for engagement between seafood companies and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL). The SEASL lobbies and advises the government on policy and practices related to seafood exports, including inspection, licensing and certification of seafood products. The SEASL is also a forum for dialogue within the seafood community in Sri Lankan and between the Sri Lankan seafood sector and the international seafood community.

11) The SEASL’s goal is to ensure the long term economic, social and environmental sustainability of the seafood sector in Sri Lanka. To achieve this goal, the SEASL and its member organisations work in close collaboration with producers and suppliers, as well as with the agencies and authorities of the GOSL. The SEASL promotes and seeks to improve the sustainable exploitation and management of Sri Lanka’s marine resources.

Fishery Improvement Projects

12) The aim of a fishery improvement project (FIP) is to bring together all those associated to a particular

fishery i.e., fishing communities, traders, seafood companies, regulators, scientists, civil society organisations (CSO) and foreign importers and distributors, to create and implement a local plan that will improve the economic, social and ecological sustainability of a fishery.

13) The driving force behind the desire to improve local, national and international fisheries is the increasing global concern about the long term future of fish stocks. Over 80% of the world’s fish stock are either fully or over exploited. When fish stock crash, everyone associated with the fishery is affected. The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP

1), a seafood business orientated non government

organisation based in the United States of America, is at the forefront of encouraging FIPs.

14) The SFP brings together representatives of fishing communities, national and international seafood companies, government authorities and researchers to generate and share information that can be used to improve local, national and international fisheries.

15) There are now more than 40 FIPs in operation around the world, four of which, in Russia, Mexico, Philippines and Indonesia, are for swimming crab fisheries. A comparative analysis of these four swimming crab FIPs, is presented in Annex A.

16) A single FIP is under implementation in Sri Lanka, for Sri Lankan yellowfin (Thunus albacare) and bigeye (T. obesus) tuna (see http://www.seasl.lk/index.php/sustainablefisheries/sltfip), which is managed by the SEASL.

1 www.sustainablefish.org

5

A FIP for the Sri Lankan Blue Swimming Crab

17) The decision to initiate a FIP for the Sri Lankan blue swimming crab (SLBSC) was made by the SEASL after

receiving requests from representatives of Sri Lankan seafood companies, government authorities, researchers and civil society organisations associated with the SLBSC fishery in the north of Sri Lanka. A meeting of seafood companies, agencies and individuals associated with the SLBSC fishery was convened by the SEASL in Negombo, in May 2013, with the support of the National Fisheries Institute Crab Council (NFI CC).

18) The NFI CC is an American CSO that comprises representatives from the leading importers and distributors of blue swimming crab in the USA. The NFI CC is dedicated to improving standards and practices that will enhance the seafood industry’s management of blue swimming crab fisheries around the world: based on sound ecological and economic principles. About Blue Swimming Crabs

19) The blue swimming crab (BSC) Portunus pelagicus (see image below) is a tropical marine crustacean

that occurs in large shoals in shallow coastal water overlying sandy or muddy substrates. It is common throughout the Indo-pacific region, from the eastern coast of Africa, throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia and Australia, to the western coast of North and South America. Populations of BSC are also found in the Mediterranean Sea.

20) The lifecycle of the BSC is short: crabs typically live for only three to four years (Dineshababu et al., 2008). Adults reach a maximum size of around 190mm (carapace width) and a maximum weight of around 550g (Sukumaran & Neelakantan 1996). Female crabs become sexually mature towards the end of their first year, at sizes ranging from 33mm to 177mm (body weight ≈ 65g to 150g) (Kamrani et al., 2010). Female crabs produce between 0.10 million to 1.1 million eggs at a single spawning, depending on their size (REF). Larger female crabs produce proportionally more eggs than smaller female crabs (Kumar et al., 1999)). Females spawn once a year. Female crabs brood their eggs, incubating the eggs for five to seven days before the larvae hatch.

21) BSC populations typically have a distinct, peak spawning season. In warmer climates a small number of individual spawn throughout the year. After hatching and joining the plankton, BSC larvae drift with the wind and tides. BSC larvae undergo a series of morphological changes over a period of 21 to 25 days before they become juvenile crabs, measuring 15 mm – 35 mm (Anand & Soundarapandian, 2011). SLBSC are voracious hunters and scavengers. BSC eat small shrimps and other crabs (including other BSC), finfish, cuttlefish, shellfish, squid and worms, as well as seaweed and dead and decaying matter (Menon, 1952).

22) The growth of BSC is closely determined by water temperature. In warmer climates BSC grow quickly reaching close to their maximum size and weight by the end of their second year. A variety of pelagic and benthic fish species including jacks and bream are known to prey on BSC populations.

A male Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus pelagicus)

6

II. Scope of Work 23) The Scope of Work for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery off the northwest and northern coast of Sri

Lanka, was set out in a contractual agreement signed between the between the Consultant and the SEASL on 1

st August 2013 (see Annex B). The sub activities proposed in respect of the assessment

included, but were not restricted to;

a) A review of other comparable FIPs worldwide b) A review of secondary data pertaining the BSC fishery in Sri Lanka c) The identification and collection of primary data from relevant stakeholders d) Drafting and finalising the fishery assessment report

24) The Scope of Work for the assessment was informed by the procedures and methods promoted by the

SFP for the formulation of FIP2 and guided by the criteria endorsed by the Marine Stewardship Council

(MSC) vis-a-vis the certification of sustainable fisheries3. The conclusions and recommendation set out

in the first draft of the final report were therefore presented in accordance with the SFP’s two principal components for fishery improvement i.e., FIP 4: measurable and positive social and economic changes and FIP 5: measurable and positive biological and ecological change. The sub activities identified by SFP under FIP 3.0 were assigned to the relevant FIP principal component.

25) Following a review of the first draft of the final fishery assessment report and changes in the NFI CC’s perspective on fishery assessment reporting, the NFI CC requested the SEASL and the Consultant to submit the final report in accordance with the MSC’s Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The conclusions and recommendations presented below are thus made in accordance with MSC’s three core principles (i.e., biological status of the fishery; ecological impact of the fishery and management of the fishery), rather than in accordance with the SFP’s two principal components for fishery improvement impact on the environment and fishery as originally agreed.

26) This report represents the first of a series of deliverables agreed in the aforementioned contract. Other

deliverables that have been achieved during the course of the fishery assessment include:

a) A web page for the SLBSC FIP (http://www.seasl.lk/index.php/sustainablefisheries/slbscfip) b) A Scoping Document for the SLBSC FIP c) A FIP Development Plan (2013 – 2014) d) A FIP Implementation Plan and budget for the SLBSC FIP (2013 – 2016) e) A Logic Model for the SLBSC FIP, based on the Development Plan and Implementation Plan

2 www.sustainablefish.org

3 www.msc.org

7

III. Fishery Assessment Methodology & Criteria 27) The methodology adopted for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery was based on the collection and

analysis of both quantitative data and qualitative information. The methodology sought to gather quantitative data from secondary sources (i.e., published and unpublished reports and studies), while the sources of qualitative information were gathered from participants in the SLBSC fishery. Qualitative information was collected by means of semi structured interviews (see images below), the duration of which was designed not to last more than 45 minutes.

28) Four main groups of participants were identified as forming the basis for the assessment, as follows:

a. producers (i.e., fishermen and women) b. traders and seafood companies (i.e.,

local buyers and processors / exporters) c. regulators (i.e., government ministries,

departments, agencies and authorities) d. civil society (both national and

international organisations)

29) Four main criteria – biological, socio-economic, ecological and management - were delineated by the Consultant, following the guidelines set out by the SFP’s FIP process and the MSC’s Fishery Standard. These criteria were used as the basis for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery. Each criterion describes an aspect of the SLBSC fishery.

30) The biological aspects of the fishery evaluated included data and information pertaining to geographic range, population biology and reproductive biology. Socio-economic aspects of the fishery included location and seasonality of the fishery and landing centres; types of boats and gear; productivity; history, culture and social organisation, supply and value chain economic and the relative social and economic importance of the fishery. The assessment of ecological aspects of the fishery focused on the bycatch from the fishery (i.e., commercial / non commercial; retained / discarded and endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species), as well as the habitat and ecosystem impacts of the fishery.

31) The last of the four evaluation criteria - fishery management - was designed to assess the nature, level and effectiveness of the management of the SLBSC fishery. The management of the fishery was assessed based on formal and informal data collection procedures; estimates of abundance; formal and informal (traditional) fishery management legislation, regulations and conventions; stock enhancement programmes; local compliance and effective of any such controls and the prevalence (if any) of illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) catch. A detailed description of sub questions explored during the course of the evaluation, for each of the four main assessment criteria, is presented in Annex C.

32) An evaluation matrix was developed by the Consultant to minimise the duplication of data collection and information gathered from secondary and primary sources. Table 1 provides a summary of the evaluation matrix developed for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery.

8

Table 1 Evaluation matrix for the assessment of the SLBSC fishery

Assessment Criteria Sri Lankan Blue Swimming Crab Fishery

I. Biological II. Socio-economic III. Ecological IV. Management Assessment Tools 2° Data Sources XXX XXX XXX XXX 1° Data Sources a. Producers XXX XXX XXX XXX Kalpitiya, Mannar, Kilinochchi, Jaffna b. Trade/Processors/Export XXX XXX SEASL, TSF, Phillipsfoods, Alpex Marine,

Western Lanka, PN Fernando, Ceylon Foods, Prawn Ceylon

c. Regulators XXX XXX XXX XXX MFAR, DFAR, NAQDA, NARA d. Researchers XXX XXX Universities (Wyamba, Jaffna, others) e. Civil Society XXX XXX CEPA, FAO UN, NAFSO, ILO UN, IOM,

UNDP

IV. Implementation & Data Analysis

33) A number of scientific papers, technical reports and studies and guidelines pertaining to either BSC or

FIPs and fishery management reviewed during the course of the assessment (see Annex D).

34) The field survey assessment of the SLBSC fishery off the north western and northern coast of Sri Lanka was completed by the Consultant over a period of six (6) weeks beginning on the 1

st August 2013. The

last interviews were conducted with CSO in Colombo on 16th

September. The completed schedule of interviews in five districts and in Colombo with producers, processors, regulators and CSO is set out in Annex E. A list of the agencies, organisations, and individuals met by the Consultant during the course of the assessment is provided in Annex F.

35) A total of 36 interviews were conducted with 112 individuals associated with the SLBSC fishery during the course of the assessment (see Table 2). Twelve of the participants in the field survey were women (11%). Participants in the SLBSC fishery shared their experiences and knowledge of the fishery with the Consultant during the course of the field survey. Their opinions on the key initiatives necessary to improve the SLBSC fishery were also sought during the assessment.

36) Qualitative data collected during the course of the field survey was analysed by coding each observation and opinion. 47 sub codes were used by the Consultant to disaggregate the qualitative data, under each of the four principal assessment criteria. In addition to the four main assessment criteria, qualitative data describing respondents’ suggestions to ‘improve the SLBSC fishery’ was also analysed by coding the suggestions. A summary of the sub codes used by the Consultant to analyse and interpret the qualitative data collected during the course of the field assessment is present in Table 3.

37) Once all the information collected had been coded, the information was sorted by sub code. The key findings presented in the following section, are based on the Consultant’s analysis of the coded and sorted data.

38) A copy of the first draft of the SLBSC fishery assessment report was submitted to the SEASL for comments on 10

th October 2013. As noted above, the NFI CC requested structural changes to the

presentation of the conclusions and recommendations in the first draft of the SLBSC fishery assessment

9

report. The final assessment report on the SLBSC fishery off the north western and northern coast of Sri Lanka was submitted to and approved by the SEASL on 23

rd November 2013

4.

Table 2 Summary of interviews conducted with participants during the assessment

Interviews

Target Achieved

Fishing Communities in 4 districts 7 8

Crab traders in 4 districts 4 3

Seafood Companies 3 7

DoFAR in 4 districts 4 4

NARA (Colombo / Kalpitiya) 1 1

Civil Society Organisations (CS) 2 3

Universities 2 1

Fishermen’s Cooperative Society Unions 0 4

District Fisheries Federations 0 4

Other 0 1

Totals 23 36 Table 3 Codes used to disaggregate qualitative data collected from producers, processors,

regulators and CSO with regard to each of the four main assessment criteria

Principal Fishery Assessment Criteria

Biology

Ecology

The Fishery

Management & Regulation

Co

de

s u

sed

to

dis

aggr

ega

te q

ual

itat

ive

dat

a (A

lph

ab

etic

al)

Life Cycle Bycatch Physical Profile Fishery: DFARD

Spawning Environment Fishery Area Fishery: Regulation

No. Eggs Fishing Season Fishery: Data

Fishing Craft Fishery Management

Fishing Gear Management Concerns

Fishing Gear: Mesh Size Small Crabs

Fishing Gear: Monofilament

Females with Eggs

History of the Fishery Fishing Pressure

External Issues Political Pressure

Social Profile

Fishing Community

Women in the Fishery

PH Processing

Social Issues

Fishing Community

Women in the Fishery

PH Processing

Social Issues

Economic Profile

SLBSC Catch

Fishing Expenditure

Supply Chain

Supply Chain: Traders

Supply Chain: Exporters

Supply Chain: FCS

Supply Chain: Demand

Grading

PH Processing

4 The Final Report was revised and updated in May 2014

10

V. Key Findings

a. Biology of the Fishery 39) Chitravadivelu’s paper describing aspects of the

fishery and species composition of edible crabs in Jaffna Lagoon (1993) is the only published record of the BSC in Sri Lanka. Two others Sri Lankan research papers (Sivanathnan, S., & de Croos M. D. S. T.; Nadaraja, T.) were in preparation at the time of the assessment. Neither paper was in available in draft form. None of these papers deal with aspects of the biology of the SLBSC. As noted by Jayamana very little scientific research has been undertaken on this species (Portunus Pelagicus – see right) in Sri Lanka (2011).

40) In contrast a number of papers have been published describing the biology of the BSC in South India. These include Prasad, R. R. & Tampi, P R S (1952) in the Palk Bay; P. T. Sarda off the coast of Calicut (1998); Dineshababu, A. P., et al (2008) off the southern Karnataka coast and Anand, T. & Soundarapandian, P. (2011) in the Palk Bay.

41) Aspects of the biology of the BSC off the south coast of India reported in these papers are consistent with the global research on the BSC described in the Introduction above. Accordingly, the lifecycle of the BSC in India is short: crabs typically live for three years. Adults reach a maximum size of around 170 mm for female carapace width (Dineshababu et al., 2008). Female crabs become sexually mature towards the end of their first year. Size at 50% maturity is 96 mm - carapace width (CW) - according to Dineshababu et al., (2008), while the majority of ovigerous females caught are between CW 115 mm and CW 159 mm (Prasad & Tampi 1952). Female crabs produce between 0.10 million to 0.90 million eggs at a single spawning (Anand & Soundarapandian 2011), depending on their size. Larger female crabs produce proportionally more eggs than smaller female crabs. Females spawn once a year. Larval duration is around 25 days (Anand & Soundarapandian 2011).

42) In Kalpitiya (Puttalam District), field evidence was advanced by fishing communities to suggest that two populations of SLBSC may be present, one located in the main body of Puttalam Lagoon and Dutch Bay and the other in the adjacent open sea (see map below). It was suggested that the two populations were separated due to environmental conditions including high salinities and temperatures experienced by SLBSC caught from Puttalam Lagoon and Dutch Bay. This argument was advanced to explain the relatively smaller size of SLBSC caught from the southern end of the lagoon, compared to the open sea.

43) No indications were observed or suggestions made to suggest the existence of more than a single population of BSC on the Sri Lanka side of the Palk Bay, through to the Gulf of Mannar (see map below). The peak spawning season for SLBSC caught in Puttalam, Mannar, Kilinochchi and Jaffna districts was similar. Peak spawning takes place in April and May and continues through to June. Females with eggs becoming more common in the fishery from February onwards each year in all four locations. At the same time, all four locations reported the presence of females with eggs throughout the year. A small sample (N = 33) of CW width versus total weight measurements of SLBSC collected from Palakuda (Kalpitiya / Puttalam District) and Mandaitivu (Jaffna District) indicated a similar width / weight relationship for the crab populations in the two locations (see Figure 1).

11

Figure 1: Size and weight relationship for SLBSC in Pallikuda (Kalpitiya) and Mandaitivu (Jaffna) 44) SLBSC mature and begin to reproduce during

their first year, commencing at around six months of age. Females as small as 68g were observed with eggs (see image right). Preliminary field observations indicated that the majority of females BSC commence spawning at slightly large size ≈ 120g – 150g.

45) Field observations indicated that the weight of eggs carried by a female crab

5 is highly

dependent on the weight of the female crab. Very large SLBSC (i.e., > 250 g see image below right of a 460 g male crab on the same scale right) were noted to bear as much as 50 g of eggs. Females weighing 200 g to 250 g were considered to be normal sized ‘adults’ by local fishermen.

46) A note was made of an observation by one participant, who alleged that the SLBSC fishery off the eastern coast of Trincomalee District comprises mainly male SLBSC. No field evidence was gathered to corroborate this claim.

47) No evidence of specific nursery grounds for SLBSC was observed during the field survey. Jayamana notes that juvenile crabs are commonly associated with mangrove roots and sea grass beds (2011), which are found extensive in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay.

48) Considerable stands of fringing mangrove are found in Dutch Bay (>250 ha) and Puttalam Lagoon (>750 ha), together with extensive sea grass beds. Fringing mangroves and sea grass beds are also present throughout the Sri Lanka side of the Palk Bay and in Jaffna Lagoon.

5 Also referred to as ovigerous crabs

12

b. Physical Profile 49) The physical profile of the SLBSC fishery described in this report encompasses the geographic scope for

the fishery and the fishing season. The physical profile also includes a description of the fishing craft and gear used by Sri Lankan fishermen

6 to harvest SLBSC. Reference is also made to legal and illegal fishing

gears use to harvest SLBSC, including mesh sizes. The history of the SLBSC fishery is also examined as recounted by older fishermen (oral history), as well as from the records of crab fish catch data collected by the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources’ (DFAR) extension staff. The physical profile of the SLBSC fishery concludes with an examination of external issues that are perceived as having a negative impact on the SLBSC fishery and a brief description of fisheries other than the SLBSC that fishermen engage in.

50) Geographic Scope: The SLBSC fishery extends from Negombo on the southwest coast, 40 km north of the capital Colombo, to an unidentified location off the coast of Trincomalee District (possibly Pulmoodai) on the northeast coast, a distance of approximately 600 km (see map right). The core area of the SLBSC fishery is located on the Sri Lankan side of the Palk Bay. A smaller fishery for BSC operates in Portugal Bay, while SLBSC are also caught as part of a multi species ‘lagoon fishery’ in Puttalam Lagoon. The SLBSC fishery in all these locations operates in shallow seas of between 3 – 7 fathoms (18 ft – 42 ft / 6 m – 14 m). Fishing for SLBSC takes place in coastal waters up to a distance of 2 km to 10 km from the shoreline and in two large ‘lagoons’ - Puttalam Lagoon in Puttalam District and Jaffna Lagoon in Jaffna district.

51) Puttalam Lagoon, which comprises Puttalam Lagoon and Portugal Bay and covers an area of 32,680 ha is

technical not a lagoon, but a bar built estuary. Jaffna Lagoon is low lying area of land submerged by a combination of the diurnal rise and fall of the sea (average tidal amplitude is around 0.7 m) and seasonal run off of rainwater from the surrounding land during the northeast monsoon. Puttalam Lagoon and Jaffna Lagoon undergo marked changes in salinity during the course of the year, from brackish to hypersaline.

52) SLBSC are most common within the geographic range of the fishery over soft substrates i.e., and or mud. SLBSC are less commonly found over hard substrates such as coral and sandstone reefs as found off the coast of Puttalam District and the north coast of the Jaffna Peninsula. Three spot swimming crabs (P. sanguinolentus), for which there is little commercial demand, are more common over coral and sandstone reefs. SLBSC caught in Jaffna Lagoon mainly form part of the bycatch of the prawn stake net fishery (see external issues below) and the bottom-set baited trap fishery. The small size of the SLBSC caught in these fisheries (<80g) ensures that they do not enter the main – export orientated - supply chain for SLBSC (see supply chain below). As such, BSC caught in stake nets and baited traps are considered part of the SLBSC fishery, for the purpose of the assessment.

53) Each fishing village along the northwest and northern coast has its own ‘fishing area’. The range of each local ‘fishing area’ is likely to be determined primarily by fuel cost incurred in reaching and returning from the fishing grounds (for mechanised fishing craft), as well as the boundaries of local ‘fishing grounds’ claimed by neighbouring villages or villages in adjacent districts. Local ‘fishing areas’ are located 2 km to 10 km from an individual fishing community’s landing centre. It was evident that these local ‘fishing areas’, although informal were recognised and adhered to by SLBSC fishing communities. The traditional right to SLBSC from the fishery is thus shared among fishing communities, by means of smaller ‘local fishing areas’ in the Palk Bay, Portugal Bay and Puttalam Lagoon.

6 Almost without exception individuals catching SLBSC are men, hence the use of the term fishermen throughout. Woman may occasionally be boat owners, for example when husband has died during the conflict.

Core Area

Negombo

Pulmoodai

Puttalam

Jaffna

13

54) Fishing Season: SLBSC are present in the fishing area throughout the year in all four of the districts. The duration of the ‘fishing season’ for SLBSC in any one area depends on the location of the individual fishing community, the weather, the type of fishing gear used and economic returns from alternative fisheries (see Alternative Fisheries below). The main fishing season for SLBSC starts as early as August in Portugal Bay, the sheltered, northern tip of Puttalam Lagoon. In Jaffna District the fishing season starts in September each year, while in Mannar and Kilinochchi districts October is the month when fishermen focus their fishing effort on harvesting SLBSC. The peak fishing season occurs over a period of three to four months in each location. March to June in Kalpitiya; January to April in Jaffna and November to February in Mannar. The ‘fishing season’ ends in April, May or June, depending on the location. July, August and September forms the core of the ‘offseason’ for the SLBSC fishery in all four districts.

55) The BSC fishing season is closely aligned with the strongly season weather patterns along the northwest and coast of Sri Lanka. There are two main monsoons - the northeast monsoon (NEM) and the southwest monsoon (SWM) – as well as two distinct two inter monsoon seasons associated with convectional and depressional weather systems. The SLBSC fishery commences with the onset of the second to the two inter monsoonal rains in October, which are caused by cyclonic depressional meteorological processes in the Bay of Bengal. The SLBSC fishery continues throughout the NEM, which begins in December and continues through to February every year. The peak fishing season is associated with the end of the NEM and the commencement of the second inter monsoonal rains, which begin in March each. The second inter monsoonal rains are the result of convectional meteorological processes. The offseason is associated with the SWM rains in June, July and August. The SWM begins in the southwest of the country and gradually travels up the western coast, but does not reach the core area of the SLBSC fishery, off the north western coast.

56) The ‘offseason’ is likely to be a consequence of the calm weather systems off the northwest coast and the fishermen’s use of nylon net to harvest SLBSC. As the turbidity of the water gradually declines after the end of the second inter-monsoons, nylon nets becomes increasingly more visible to the SLBSC. As a result the crabs are better able to avoid becoming entangled in the nets. The converse is true for the start of the fishing season, as the turbidity of the sea increases with the onset of the second inter-monsoon in October each year. Strong winds during the NEM hinder but to not prevent fishing activities in December through to February. The relatively weaker weather systems associated with the second inter monsoon enable fishermen to fish more frequently. The increased turbidity prevents SLBSC from avoiding the fishermen’s nylon nets. One of several advantages of fishing with illegal monofilament gill nets is that these nets are invisible to SLBSC when water turbidity is low. This greatly increases the efficiency of illegal monofilament gears (see below).

57) Fishing Craft: The SLBSC is conducted from traditional Sri Lankan outrigger canoes (oruwa), log rafts (theppam

7), canoes

(vallams) and fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) boats (17½ and 23ft). The larger vallams and all of the FRP fishing craft (see right) are powered by small, kerosene fuelled, outboard motors (8.8 hp and 9 hp).

58) Data describing the total number of fishing craft registered in the four districts was used to estimate the total number of fishing craft engaged in the SLBSC fishery (see Table 3). The analysis suggests as many as 7,000 fishing craft may be involved in the SLBSC fishery. As much as 80% to 90% of fishermen in SLBSC fishing villages engage in the fishery during the peak fishing season. An analysis of landing site specific boat registration details and fishing licences issued for crab fishing by the respective district level offices of the DFAR, was not possible during the course of the assessment.

7 Oru and theppams are found in Portugal Bay and Puttalam Lagoon only

14

Table 3: The type and estimated number of fishing craft engaged in the SLBSC Fishery, by district

Type of Fishing Craft

Non Mechanised Traditional Craft

Mechanised Traditional Craft

FRP Craft Estimated No. of SLBSC

Fishing Craft

Puttalam District 1,380 216 432 2,028

Mannar District 410 195 ,687 2,292

Kilinochchi District 162 117 324 603

Jaffna District 810 410 858 2078

2,762 938 3,301 7,001

59) Fishing Gear: Bottom-set gill nets (crab nets), made of nylon twine or monofilament plastic, are the main fishing gear used by fishermen to catch SLBSC (see right). Since 2006 the use of monofilament nets has been illegal in Sri Lanka

8. The mesh size of both nylon and monofilament

crab nets ranges from 2½” to 7”. The smaller mesh sizes are used in lagoons and shallow area by fishermen fishing from non mechanised traditional craft. The larger mesh sizes are used in deeper coastal waters by the mechanised FRP fishing craft. The commonest mesh sizes are 3½, 4½” and 5”. The thickness of nylon nets ranges from 1ply to 21ply twine. Three ply is commonly used during the NEM, while 6ply and higher is used after the monsoon due to the increase in debris in the water.

60) A single nylon crab net set comprises between 10 and 25

pieces (rolls) of nylon net. Depending on the size of the fishing craft a fishermen may set two to five crab nets per fishing trip, equal to around 50 net pieces. Crab nets are set on the seabed, by the use of weighted poles (see below right) in the early evening. Crab nets are hauled by fishermen after eight to ten hours. Many fishermen now use geographic positioning systems (GPS) to record the location of their crab nets. The use of GPS enables fishermen to dispense with the need to use surface buoys to identify the location of their nets.

61) There appears to be a strong positive correlation between mesh size – both nylon and monofilament crab nets - and the minimum size of crabs that are caught in the nets. As mesh sizes increase, the minimum size of the SLBSC caught in the crab nets decreases (see Table 4).

62) A small number of fishermen harvest SLBSC using baited traps. Two varieties of baited traps: bottom set ‘box traps and suspended ‘lift net’ traps are used. A new type of fishing net, known locally as neela valai (blue net), has recently come into use in Jaffna District.

8 1454/33 – 2006 Monofilament Nets Prohibition Regulations Prohibiting the use, possession, import, transport, purchase

and sale of Monofilaments nets.

15

Table 4 Summary of the relationship between mesh size, crab size and markets

Size of SLBSC Caught Market Other Species Caught

Mesh Size

2½” SLBSC is bycatch Local Target Lagoon Finfish

3½” Small crabs 100g – 150g. <200g Local & Export Finfish

4” Small crabs 100g – 150g. <200g Local & Export Bycatch

4½” Broad range 100g – 500g;

Not many 120g - 150g

Export Market

Bycatch

5” 300 g – 400 g Export Market Bycatch

6” 300 g – 400 g Export Market Bycatch

63) Illegal Fishing Gear: Although monofilament nets are prohibited under the Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Act in Sri Lanka, monofilament crab nets are used to harvest SLBSC, most notably in Puttalam Lagoon and in Jaffna District (see right). In Jaffna District is possible that as much as 75% of the catch is landed using monofilament nets. Monofilament nets are preferred by fishermen because of their higher catching efficiency, which in turn is a result of the invisibility of monofilament nets in the water. As noted above, SLBSC are unable to avoid the nets, even when the visibility is good (i.e., when turbidity is low) in contrast to nylon nets which are more visible.

64) Monofilaments nets are a little less durable than nylon nets – two to three months compared to three to four months for nylon nets – and have to be replaced more often. However, monofilament nets are less expensive than nylon nets. According to fishermen less bycatch is caught using monofilament nets compared to fishing with nylon nets and monofilament nets are also easier to clean. The higher incidence of monofilament crab nets in Jaffna District can be partly explained by the fishing restrictions that were in place during most of the recently concluded conflict. For long periods during the past 30 years, Jaffna fishermen were only permitted to fish between 6 am and 6 pm each day. The use of monofilament nets during this period was the only means by which fishermen were able to harvest fish during the daytime.

65) Political patronage also plays a part in the continued use of illegal monofilament nets in both Jaffna and Puttalam districts. The assessment was conducted while provincial council elections were being held in the Northern and North Western provinces. The DFAR was subjected to political pressure in both districts, not to take action against fishermen using monofilament nets during the election period. When free to dos so, newspaper reports over the past year highlight the actions taken by the DFAR office in Puttalam, against the use of illegal monofilament nets. The DFAR office in Jaffna District has also taken action prior to the provincial council election, to confiscate monofilament nets and arrest the owners of illegal fishing gears.

16

66) SLBSC Production: The production data collected by the DFAR’s extension officers from the SLBSC fishery does not discriminate between commercial crab species. Thus the annual crab production data presented in Figure 2 below, includes not only SLBSC, but also the landings of other commercial crab species in Sri Lanka, principally the mangrove crab (Scylla serrata) and the three spot swimming crab (P. sanguinolentus). Despite these limitations, it is clear from DFAR’s data that the production of crabs in Sri Lanka - including SLBSC - has increased considerably since 2008. The increase in crab production coincides with the end of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka and the resurgence of the fishery sector in the coastal districts that comprise the Northern Province (i.e., Mannar, Kilinochchi, Jaffna and Mullaitivu). As SLBSC is the main crab species caught by fishermen in the Northern Province, there are reasonable grounds to infer that the overall increase in national crab production is a consequence of increasing catches of SLBSC.

Figure 2 Annual Sri Lankan crab production for all crab varieties

67) Production data from the four coastal districts that constitute the core geographical area of the SLBSC fishery (i.e., Puttalam, Mannar, Kilinochchi and Jaffna), further underlines the growth of the SLBSC in the northern districts (see Figure 3). Here too it should be noted that this data includes ‘all varieties of crab’. The data collected by DFAR extension staff indicates that crab production has increased in all four districts, with the largest increase taking place in Jaffna District. In 2009 crab production in Jaffna District was 240t. In 2012 crab production increased to 4,630t: an increase of 1,829%. The corresponding increases for Kilinochchi, Mannar and Puttalam were 146%

9, 162,000% and 198%

respectively.

68) The accuracy of the monthly statistical reports compiled by the DFAR’s extension staff, in the north and nationwide, is a concern. Despite these concerns, the production data is at least indicative of a considerable increase in crab production in off the northwest coast following the end of the civil conflict in 2009.

9 2011 – 2012. No data was collected by DFAR from Kilinochchi in 2009 due to the security situation.

17

Figure 3 Comparative increases in crab production in four districts since 2009

69) Corroboration of the substantial increase in crab production can be found in the data compiled independently by the Customs Department for export crab products (see Figure 4). According to export destination data compiled by the Customs Department the crab fishery in Sri Lanka has increased by 165% in the three years following the end of the civil conflict. The value of crabs exported from Sri Lanka increased from around LKR 1,000 million (US$ 7.75 million) in 2009 to LKR 1,560 million (US$ 12.09 million) in 2011. The increase in value of crabs exported from Sri Lankan (56%) is widely attributed to the increased catch and export of SLBSC

10.

Figure 4 Export destinations and value (LKRs) of crab exports 1990 to 2011

70) Oral testimonies of senior representatives of the fishing communities further substantiate the crab fishery production data collected by the DFAR. In Kalpitiya (Puttalam District), the number of seafood companies purchasing SLBSC was observed to have increased considerably over the past 25 years. Earlier only one collecting centre was present in Kalpitiya and only one or two seafood companies were directly buying SLBSC. Now there are more than eight collecting centres and a dozen or more seafood companies are directly involved purchasing SLBSC.

10 The monthly Customs Reports compiled by the Department of Customs make no distinction between crab species. The mud crab Scylla serrata and the three spot swimming crab P. sanguinolentus are the other two main crab species caught / exported in Sri Lanka.

18

71) Over the last ten years the number of fishermen and fishing effort was perceived to have increased in Puttalam District. Although the total production is perceived to have increased, fishing communities expressed concern that the catch per boat has declined. There is also a perception of a downward shift in the size of SLBSC caught. According to local fishermen and traders, ten years ago most SLBSC caught were large crab (>200g). Now the majority of SLBSC caught are medium crabs (150 g – 199g).

72) Changes in the SLBSC fishery in Mannar District have happened more recently. Only five years ago fishermen regularly used a stick to break the legs and claws of SLBSC entangled in their nets. At the time there was no dedicated fishery for SLBSC, which were part of the bycatch from various coastal finfish fisheries. As recently as 2008 there was no commercial demand for SLBSC. SLBSC were and are still viewed as “poor peoples’ food”. SLBSC are eaten locally, with only weak demand from regional or national markets. SLBSC are not a popular seafood product in Sri Lanka.

73) The national market for SLBSC is limited to hotels, targeting foreigners and middle class Sri Lankans. In Mannar District fishermen have switched to SLBSC fishing due to strong export demand for SLBSC from seafood companies. Before the arrival of the seafood companies, a kilo of very large SLBSC (>400g) was LKR200.00 kg

1 (US$1.52). Now the wholesale prices is above LKR500.00 kg

1 (US$3.81) for large SLBSC

(>200g). Very large SLBSC (>400g) are still regularly caught in by fishermen in Mannar District, although there is no premium price for very large crabs.

74) The rapid increase and continuing strong demand from seafood companies is a key factor driving the expansion of the SLBSC fishery in Kilinochchi District and in Jaffna District. Elder fishermen in both districts related how as little as four years ago they would curse the sight of shoals of SLBSC. Nets would be hauled and reset elsewhere and crabs would be beaten from the nets at sea because there was no market for SLBSC in either district. As was the case in Mannar District, there was no dedicated fishery for SLBSC in either district prior to the end of the conflict (2009). In contrast to less than five years ago, now when fishermen sight a shoal of SLBSC they are pleased. When the net are hauled fishermen are careful when removing the crabs and are mindful to keep them alive.

75) The purchasing price offered by seafood companies is the driving factor behind the change in fishermen’s attitude and behaviour towards SLBSC. Before the arrival of the seafood companies the local wholesale prices for a kilo of large SLBSC was LKR30.00 (US$0.23) in Jaffna and LKR5.00 (US$0.04) per crab in Kilinochchi. The same crabs are now sold for LKR500 to LKR600 kg

1 (US$3.81 – US$4.57).

76) Elder fishermen did not report any changes in the size of SLBSC that are currently being caught in Jaffna

District. Very large crabs (>400g) are still regularly harvested from the fishery. In Kilinochchi District some concerns were raised regarding the prospect of declining catches, now and in the future, if action is not taken to improve certain aspects of the fishery such as harvesting small crabs (<100g) and female crabs with eggs.

77) Externalities: The lagoon and near shore stake net fishery for prawns (Puthi Velai / Kattu Del); illegal trawling by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers and irregular migration by fishermen from coastal communities are the key external issues affecting the SLBSC fishery, in the four districts covered by the assessment.

78) Stake Net Fishing: The prawn stake net fishery is the dominant fishery in Jaffna Lagoon and is common in shallow waters around along the entire length of the Sri Lankan shoreline of the Palk Bay. It is a concern to the SLBSC fishery because of the retained bycatch of very small SLBSC (< 80g) from the stake net fishery. Very small SLBSC are sold by stake net fishermen to local vendors for LKR50.00 kg

1

(US$0.38). Local traders retail the very small SLBSC for around LKR 150 kg1 (US$1.14) to poor consumers

in the surrounding villages. Although stake net fishing has been banned by the local authorities in Puttalam Lagoon and Portugal Bay (Puttalam District), it is the dominant fishery in shallow, inshore areas in Mannar, Kilinochchi or Jaffna. The catch and bycatch of the stake net fishery is landed live, thus inviting the opportunity for ‘voluntary return’. However, the economic costs incurred by stake net fishery are highly likely to militate against this option.

19

79) Indian Trawlers: The maritime agreement signed between GOSL and the Government of India (GOI) in 1974, demarcates the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) between the two countries in the Palk Bay (see right). The agreement states that each country shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the islands, the continental shelf and sub soil thereof, falling on its own side of the aforesaid boundary (Article 4). Acknowledging the historic use of the Palk Bay and Islands, notably Kachchativu, by fishermen from south India and northern Sri Lanka, the agreement ensures that Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Kachchativu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visas for these purposes (Article 5). The agreement goes on to stipulate that the vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein (Article 6).

80) Illegal fishing by Indian fishermen, in the Sri Lankan half of the Palk Bay has been an issue between the two countries since the Palk Bay were officially partitioned in 1974. South Indian trawlers owners, of which there are more than 2,000 harboured in Nagapatinam, Kodikarai, Thondi, Rameshwaram and Pampan, continue to claim that they have a right to fish on the Sri Lankan side of the IMBL. Throughout the civil conflict, control of the Sri Lankan side of the Palk Bay was highly contested by the government’s security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Indian trawlers took advantage of the inability of the GOSL to effective patrol the area and the restrictions placed on Sri Lankan fishermen during the civil conflict. Sri Lankan fishermen were confined to fishing between 6 am and 6 pm.

81) An agreement reached between small scale Indian fishermen and Indian trawler owners, currently restricts Indian trawlers to operating for only three nights per week on both sides of the IMBL: Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. When they cross over into Sri Lankan waters, the much larger Indian trawlers, towing heavy bottom trawls, destroy northern Sri Lankan fishermen’s much lighter fishing gears. The Indian trawlers also represent a very real threat to the safety Sri Lankan fishing boats.

82) Following the end of the conflict, northern Sri Lankan fishermen have become more vocal in disputing the legal right of Indian trawlers to fish on the Sri Lanka side of the Palk Bay. Recently a number of articles have appeared in the Sri Lankan press, advocating for the right of northern Sri Lankan to fish freely in Sri Lankan waters of the Palk Bay The GOSL has also stepped up direct action against Indian trawlers caught fishing in Sri Lankan waters in the Palk Bay. Since 2009, hundreds of Indian fishermen have been arrested and their boats impounded by the GOSL.

83) Illegal fishing by Indian trawlers, which target mainly prawns and sea cucumbers, is the most serious external issue affecting the SLBSC fishery. Bottom trawling causes widespread damage and destruction to the marine ecosystem and generates enormous amounts of bycatch, the majority of which is discarded by Indian fishermen. SLBSC are also harvested by Indian trawlers and landed in south India. Concerns about the extent of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) (Pramod, G., 2010) are beginning to be associated with the fishing activities of Indian trawlers in Sri Lankan waters of the Palk Bay.

20

84) Sri Lankan Trawlers: Bottom trawling in Sri Lanka is prohibited by the MFAR, in accordance with paragraphs 31 and Paragraph 32 of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act of 1997. The Act entitles the Minister to ban or limit any fishing activity that is deemed to be detrimental to the marine ecosystem or the livelihoods of fishing communities, on the advice of the Advisory Committee to the Minister

11.

85) Ttrawling for resource that are then exported is also prohibited under Regulation No. 4. of the Fishing

(Import & Export Regulations (2010 1665/16). The Act states that “no person shall engage in any dredging at the sea bed or undertake trawling operations within Sri Lankan Waters in relation to any activities specified in this regulation for which a fishing operating licence has been issued”.

86) In accordance with the directive of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and the regulation cited above, the DFAR does not issue boat or fishing licences for bottom trawling in Sri Lanka. The operation of Sri Lankan trawlers and the use of bottom trawls is thus illegal.

87) Despite the ban on trawling, around 300 or so trawlers (see right) continue to operate from harbours and anchorages in Kalpitiya (Puttalam District), Pesalai (Mannar) and Kurunagar (Jaffna District). Political patronage is believed to be the reason for the trawlers continued ability to operate. The Kalpitiya trawlers fish mainly for prawns, but also harvest cuttlefish and SLBSC from Portugal Bay. Jaffna trawlers also target prawns, cuttlefish, SLBSC and squid. Jaffna trawlers fish off the coast of Mannar and Kilinochchi, as well as the Jaffna coastline.

88) Although smaller than their Indian counterparts, Sri Lanka trawlers cause damage to the marine ecosystem: through the action of bottom trawling and as a result of the bycatch landed or discarded by the trawlers. Sri Lankan trawlers are also implicated in the damage and destruction of crab nets and are a threat to the safety of smaller Sri Lankan fishing craft. Sri Lankan trawlers operate on the same nights as the Indian trawlers, taking advantage of their larger counterpart’s greater threat to the lives and livelihoods of small scale fishermen.

89) Migration: Migration by fishermen and women from coastal communities along the northwest coast, is also an external factor affected the SLBSC fishery. Regular and irregular migration from the north, by people seeking political asylum, has been a persistent feature throughout the 30 year long civil conflict in Sri Lanka. There are now large expatriate Sri Lankan communities, both Sinhalese and Tamil, in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway and Switzerland. Since the end of the conflict there has been a rise in irregular migration to Australia, on aboard Sri Lankan multiday fishing boats. In 2011 over 5,000 people were arrested by Sri Lankan Navy, onboard multiday boats heading for Australia. More 1,300 Sri Lankans, Sinhalese and Tamils, had reached Australia and claimed asylum, as of July 2013.

90) 40 fishermen from Jaffna had been arrested off the southern coast of Galle, in the week prior to the field survey in Jaffna District. Representatives of fishing communities and reports in the press suggest that the motivation for undertaking irregular migration is primarily economic, regardless of the risks involved. Despite the economic recovery associated with the end of the civil conflict, fishing communities are well positioned to engage with agents in the fishery sector, who continue to promote irregular migration as viable way out of social and financial hardships faced by fishing households in the north west of Sri Lanka.

11

pers., com. Nuwan Gunewardena, Assistant Director, Fishing Industries Division, DFAR

21

91) Alternative Fisheries: Fishermen in all four districts are not solely dependent on the SLBSC fishery for their livelihoods. Other economically important fisheries include jacks and trevallies (carangids), Indian Mackerel (scombroids), prawns and cuttlefish, needlefish (Belondae), silverbiddies (Gerres spp.,) rabbitfish (Signathus spp.,) emperor fish (Letherinds), mullet, sardinellas and trenched sardines. SLBSC fishermen switch gears and fisheries throughout the year, depending on the availability and wholesale value of different fisheries.

c. Social Profile

92) The social profile of the SLBSC fishery includes an overview of the fishing communities engaged in the exploitation of the SLBCs and the organisation of fishermen and women at the village, divisional, district and national level. The social profile also examines the role of women in the SLBSC fishery and draws attention to the key issue of indebtedness faced by fishing communities and the role played by investment made by traders and seafood companies in individual SLBSC fishery operations.

93) Fishing Communities: Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim fishing communities are engaged in the exploitation

of SLBSC off the northwest coast of Sri Lanka. Fishermen representing all three communities are present in Kalpitiya and Wannathawiluwa (Puttalam District). Tamil and Muslim communities are found in Mannar and Kilinochchi districts. In Jaffna District the fishing community is exclusively of Tamil origin, as a result of the LTTE’s forced expulsion of almost 30,000 Muslims from Jaffna District on 15

th October

1993. Following the end of the conflict, Muslim households have begun to return to their villages on peninsular.

94) An analysis of the consolidated data provided by the Statistical Unit of the MFAR suggests that as many as 20,000 fishing household may be dependent on the SLBSC fishery in the four the districts. Detailed district and divisional data are available with the DFAR offices at the district level and with the MFAR in Colombo. The Consultant was unable to obtain and analyse these data due to administrative procedures and the timeframe of the assessment.

95) Organisation: There are two parallel organisational structures representing the interests of fishermen and women in Sri Lanka: Fishermen’s Cooperative Societies (FCS) and Rural Fisheries Organisations (RFO). FCS fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Cooperative Development (DCD). The DFAR’s support and input to FCS is restricted to technical assistance and registration related to fishing and includes social welfare.

96) The subject of cooperative development falls under the Concurrent List of the 13

th Amendment

to the Constitution and thus is shared subject between the central government and provincial administration’s DCD. FCSs represent fishermen and women at the village level. In Mannar, Kilinochchi and Jaffna districts, divisional level federations of FCS represent the interests of fishermen and women at the divisional administrative level.

97) District level Fishermen Cooperative Society Unions (FCSU) represent the interests of fishermen and women at the district level. FCSU are present in Mannar, Kilinochchi and Jaffna districts.

22

98) RFOs fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the MFAR. RFO were established by the MFAR in 2008, however a legislative framework, gazette notification and regulation under the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act has yet to be formulated regularising RFO. District Fishermen’s Federations (DFF) represent the interests of fishermen and women who are members of RFO at the district level. RFO were present in all fishing villages in the four districts visited during the assessment. DFF have been formed and presidents appointed in the four districts.

99) Often fishermen and women are members of both the village FCS and the RFO. The relationship between the FCSU and DFF was cordial in Mannar District and Kilinochchi District, but less so in Jaffna District.

100) Women & the SLBSC Fishery: Women feature prominently on two areas of the SLBSC fishery: post harvest processing and net cleaning. Women’s main role in the SLBSC fishery is as daily or permanent employees with seafood companies processing SLBSC and other seafood products. Around 80% of the daily and permanent employees in seafood companies are women. Women are involved in the more pricewise food handling aspects of processing seafood products. Male employees are more likely to be involved in heavy lifting, packing, freezing and loading activities. Management and administrative staff make up around 5% of seafood company employees. Men and women are equally represented in management and administrative positions.

101) The number and type (i.e., daily or permanent) of staff employed by seafood companies varies considerably depending on the portfolio of seafood products processed by the company. Seafood companies that process a more diverse range of products are likely to employ more permanent staff, compared to seafood companies focusing on only two or three products. 30% to 60% of women employed in seafood companies processing a variety of seafood products are likely to be permanent staff, compared to 10% to 20% in seafood companies specialising in two or three products.

102) The five leading SLBSC seafood processing companies (see Section d. Economic Profile below) employ between 100 – 500 staff

12. Another ten to fifteen companies buy and process SLBSC intermittently.

Only one of the five leading SLBSC seafood processing companies has processing facilities located in the Northern Province. This company employs up to 450 daily or permanent employees, from coastal village in the proximity of the SLBSC resource.

103) All permanent staff employed by seafood companies are enrolled in the GOSL’s main social security scheme, the Employees’ Trust Fund (ETF) and Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF). Several seafood companies have also enrolled daily workers in the EPF and the ETF scheme. However, not all daily workers engaged in processing SLBSC receive these benefits.

104) The relatively high prevalence of daily workers in the seafood industry reflects the uncertainty of the raw material. The strong seasonality associated with the SLBSC fishery and the fishery sector per se; the unpredictability of the weather and competition for SLBSC raw material means that the amount of SLBSC purchased can change quickly, during a short period of time. This unpredictability of raw materials necessitates a certain measure of flexibility on the part of the workforce engaged in processing SLBSC.

105) Permanent employees are paid a fixed month salary, often with various production and time bonuses. Daily workers are paid either a fixed daily rate or per piece. The piece rate is usually based on the amount of SLBSC processed per day. Salaries of both permanent and daily employees are paid monthly.

106) Working hours are either set (8 to 9 hours per day) or flexible, depending on the seafood company concerned. All working hours include breaks for tea and lunch. Free transport is often provided for daily and permanent workers, to bring them from their villages to the processing factory. No indication of overtime payments being paid was observed. Contracts for employees were also not observed in some instances, even for management and administrative staff.

12 Staff are eengaged in processing other types of seafood products, not only SLBSC.

23

107) Regulation and food safety issues associated with the seafood sector in Sri Lanka is undertaken by Fishery Product Quality and Control Division of the DFAR, under the MFAR. Regulations and safety issues are implemented in accordance with the directives set out in the Fisheries & Aquatic Resource Act (1996) and subsequent amendments thereof (Box A)

108) Staff from the Fishery Product Quality and Control Division of the DFAR inspect seafood processing

facilities every four months. The Fishery Product Quality and Control Division is the primary regulatory authority for ensuring compliance with European Union Standards. The Sri Lankan Standards Institute is the secondary regulatory authority for all seafood quality control parameters including CODEX Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) for food safety. HACCP must also comply with the Sri Lankan Food & Drink Administration compliance standards. At the local level, mini processing factories are checked and certified by Public Health Inspectors of the Divisional Secretariat and or Pradeshya Sabha and the Environmental Division of the District Secretary.

109) In view of the stringent food safety standards applied to all seafood processing facilities in Sri Lanka, daily and permanent employees engaged in processing SLBSC receive both intensive and extensive training on personal health and hygiene. These include company medical checks, sanitation, handing dipping, chlorination and the use of sanitizers. Several seafood companies provide daily and permanent employees with uniforms, boots and hair nets and separate changing facilities for male and female staff.

Box A: Regulations regarding Food Safety Issues Associated with the Seafood Sector in Sri Lanka

Regulation / Amendment Year / No. Description

Fish Processing

Establishment Regulations. 1998

1036/13 Requiring a license for those who wish to operate fish processing establishments

Fish Products (Export) Regulations

1998 1045/1

Ensuring proper hygienic standards are maintained of all fish products intended for export

Fish Product (Export) Regulation

2000 An amendment to the Fish Product (export) Regulation of 1998

Fish Product (Export) Regulations (Amendment)

2002 Amendment to the Fish Product (Export) Regulations of 1998

Fish Processing Establishment Regulations No. 1

2003 1320/17

Making it compulsory for those who operate fish processing establishments to acquire a license from the DG of fisheries and aquatic resources.

Fish Products (Export) Regulations (Amendment)

2007 1528/7

An amendment to the Fish Products (Export) Regulations of 1998 and 2002.

The Fishing (Import & Export) Regulations

2010 1665/16

Requiring a license for persons who wish to collect, harvest, take, fish products or aquatic resources for import or export purposes.

110) Indebtedness: High levels of indebtedness incurred by fishing communities and the consequences of

investments made by traders and seafood companies in individual SLBSC fishery operations, was a recurrent social issue in all four districts. According to ongoing research by a the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA), 75% of fishing households in the north have some form of debt, of which 50% was derived from informal lenders, their employer or other family members. Concerns about the absence of savings and or the reluctance of fishermen to regularly save a portion of their income were common in all four districts.

24

111) Allied to this observation, fishermen and fishing households were often held to blame for their

dependency on informal credit obtained from fish traders and seafood companies. Informal loans form fish traders or seafood companies are used to pre-finance the purchase of fishing gear at the commencement of a new fishing season. Informal loans are also used to meet expenses such as religious ceremonies and social celebrations and to meet unexpected situations such as illness and bereavement.

112) The positive aspects of readily available informal credit and investments in fishing operations by fish traders and seafood companies were broadly appreciated, the resulting bond between fishermen and fish trader, often going back generations, was often perceived as being detrimental to the long term financial interests of the fishermen. In Jaffna for instance, it was estimated that less than 10% of fishermen were ‘independent’ operators: free of any financial obligations or bonds with fish traders or seafood companies. Only independent fishermen are free to sell their catch to the buyer offering the highest price each day.

d. Economic Profile

113) The economic profile of the SLBSC fishery is derived from qualitative and semi quantitative data describing the daily catch of SLBSC; fishermen’s expense related to SLBSC fishing operations; the structure and function of the supply chain for SLBSC; the grading systems used by traders and seafood companies and data describing crab products exported by Sri Lankan seafood companies.

114) Daily Catch: An average day’s crab fishing, during the six to eight months of the crab fishing season yields around 20 kg to 40 kg of SLBSC per boat per day, for an FRP fishing craft operating five sets of crab nets, with each set containing 10 net pieces. During the peak fishing season, the average daily catch increases to 50 kg to 70 kg per boat per day, with catches of over 100 kg not uncommon among fishermen targeting SLBSC in deeper waters closer to the IMBL. Catches of around 150 kg to 180 kg per boat per day are considered exceptional. During the offseason the daily catch falls below 20 kg per boat per day, to around 5kg to 15kg per boat per day and can be as low as 2 kg to 5 kg in some locations. SLBSC are present in the fishery area throughout the year, but fishermen are unable to catch SLBSC when the sea is calm and the water clears, most likely because the crabs are able to avoid the nylon nets.

115) Daily Income: No attempt was made to collect information on fishermen’s daily income during the field survey, because it is notoriously difficult to collect accurate information about individual incomes by directly asking anyone what they earn. Daily income was calculated indirectly by assuming that the average price paid per kg of SLBSC is LKR 300.00 (see Grading Systems below). According to this assumption fishermen’s daily income range from LKR 6,000.00 to LKR 12,000.00 during the fishing season, increasing to LKR 15,000.00 to LKR21,000.00 during the peak fishing season. Daily incomes of LKR 30,000.00 are not uncommon. An exceptional day’s fishing would net a boat owner in excess of LKR 45,000.00 for a night’s fishing. During the offseason daily income from SLBSC fishing falls to as little as LKR 600.00 to LKR 4,500.00 per boat per day.

116) Fishing Expenditure: The cost of a single fishing trip depends on the type of craft used and the distance travelled to the fishing grounds. No expenditure is incurred by non mechanised traditional craft (i.e., oru, theppam, vallams) fishing 2 km to 3 km from the shore. Expenditure on fuel by mechanised traditional and FRP fishing craft ranges from LKR 2,000.00 to LKR 5,400.00 per fishing trip, with each fishing trip consuming 15 l to 40 l of kerosene and oil, at LKR 130 to LKR 135 per litre to reach fishing ground 6 km to 20 km from the landing centre.

25

117) Boat owners incur the additional daily cost of hiring fishworkers, at the rate of LKR 1,000.00 per day, which increases the cost of the fishing operation by LKR 2,000.00, if the boat owner does not engage in fishing. SLBSC fishing craft are operated by a fishermen and fishworker or by two fishworkers. The average cost of a single fishing trip, for mechanised SLBSC fishing craft, is thus in the region of LKR 3,000.00 to LKR 7,500.00 per day.

118) The cost of a set of 4½” nylon crab nets (i.e., 50 pieces of net, stitched into two or more ‘sub sets’) is around LKR 80,000.00. A further LKR 20,000.00 is required to purchase poles, flags, weights and anchors. The life time of a nylon crab net set is around two to three months. Fishermen and boat owners expect to purchase a minimum of two crab net sets per season. A new FRP fishing craft retails for about LKR 150,000.00 and a similar amount or slightly more is required to purchase a new 8.8 hp or 9 hp outboard motor. The total investment required to commence SLBSC fishing, using a mechanised FRP craft is around LKR 450,000.00.

119) The Supply Chain: A summary of the overall analysis of the value chain for the marine fisheries supply sector in Sri Lanka, conducted by USAID in 2008 is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Sri Lanka Marine Fisheries Value Chain Map (USAID 2008)

26

120) The structure of the local, national and international supply chain for SLBSC is shown schematically in

Figure 6. The supply chain is initially dependent on a discrimination based on crab size. All crabs weighing less than 80 g and some crabs weighting less than 100g are sold to wholesale traders and retailers (motorcycle or bicycle vendors) who supply the local (i.e., district level) and regional markets for small sized SLBSC. These markets are mainly Tamil populations in hill country towns, as well as in Vavuniya, Batticaloa, Trincomalee and in Colombo. Bycatch from the stake net fishery and Sri Lankan bottom trawlers are important sources of very small crabs for the local market. SLBSC weighing more than 80g enter the national (i.e., Colombo) and international market (see Figure 6a).

121) The structure of the national and international supply chain for SLBSC for small, medium and large crabs

comprises direct and indirect supply chains. Direct supply chains link fishermen with seafood companies, through collecting centres established by the seafood companies at the district level. Indirectly SLBSC caught by fishermen are sold to seafood companies through local traders. Local traders may in turn use mini collectors to aggregated catches, before selling these on to seafood companies. Traders may have either single or multiple trading relationships with seafood companies. Fishermen may also sell their catch to fishermen’s organisations, which in turn sell the catch to seafood companies. The supply chains for SLBSC are different in each district, with the relative importance of the direct and indirect supply chains varying according to district.

122) The demand for SLBSC from seafood companies is driven entirely by international demand for SLBSC products. The national market for SLBSC is extremely small. It is restricted to a small number of top class hotels and restaurants and a very small number of Sri Lankan consumers. As a consequence, the national market supply chain – from local traders to hotels, restaurants and Sri Lankan consumers - is not consider further in this report.

123) The largest number of seafood company owned collecting centres - 8 to 10 – was present in Kalpitiya. Each collecting centre purchasing SLBSC directly from fishermen and boat owners. In Mannar, two or three seafood companies operate collecting centres for seafood, including SLBSC. No collecting centres have been established by seafood companies in Kilinochchi District and only one company was observed to have set up a collecting centre in Jaffna District.

124) Two local traders are responsible for the bulk of SLBSC purchasing in Jaffna District. The two traders supply raw material to several seafood companies. The two main local traders in Jaffna District also purchase SLBSC from fishermen and boat owners in Kilinochchi District. In Mannar District, two local traders are responsible for purchasing for the bulk of SLBSC purchasing in the district. The two traders in Mannar District supply raw material to several seafood companies. In Kalpitiya five or six local traders, together with as many as 20 mini suppliers purchase SLBSC from fishermen and boat owners. In Kilinochchi District, the FCS in Irainamadanagar purchases SLBSC from its members and supplies crab to a single seafood company

125) The Supply Chain – Local Traders: Local traders operating in all four districts establish their trading

relationship with individual fishermen and boat owners by means of a financial bond. The bond is a form of advance given to the fishermen or boat owner. It can also be seen as an investment made by the local trader into the fishing operation of the fishermen or boat owner concerned. At another level the payment of a bond between a fisherman or boat owner and a local trader may be viewed as financial obligation on the part of the local trader, in order to secure the right to purchase fish from the fishermen or boat owner concerned.

27

Figure 6 Schematic representation of supply chains for small, very small and very very small SLBSCs

a. Small, Very Small and Very Very Small Crabs13

Producers Traders Local Distributors

Crab Catch SLBSC Fishermen

Local

Trader

Regional Trader Local Vendors

Regional Trader Local Vendors

Local Vendors

Bycatch Stake Net & SL Trawler Fishermen

a

Local Trader

Regional Trader Local Vendors

Local Vendors

Regional Trader Local Vendors

Local Vendors

Local Vendors

b Local

Vendors

b. Very Large, Large, Medium, Small and Very Small Crabs14

Producers Traders Seafood Company Importer

SLBSC Fishermen Company A Importer X

SLBSC Fishermen Company B Importer Y

SLBSC Fishermen Company C Importer Z

Indirect Supply I SLBSC Fishermen

a

Local Trader

Company A Importer X

Company B Importer Y

Company C Importer Z

Company D Importer U

b

Mini Trader Local

Trader

Company A Importer X

Mini Trader Company B Importer Y

Mini Trader Company C Importer Z

Indirect Supply II SLBSC Fishermen

a

Local

Trader Company D

Importer U

b

Mini Trader Local

Trader

Company E

Importer V Mini Trader

Mini Trader

Indirect Supply III SLBSC Fishermen

FCS Company F

Importer W

13 See Table 7 for definitions of small, very small and very very small SLBSC. 14 See Table 7 for definitions of very large, large, medium, small and very small SLBSC

28

126) A typical bond would is likely to be in the region of LKR 100,000.00 to LKR 150,000.00. Due to the bond, the fisherman or boat owner undertakes to sell the catch to the trader. The bond between fisherman / boat owner and a local trader is life-long and may be generational. Fishermen who had been displaced due to the conflict and then returned to recommence fishing were still ‘bonded’ to their local trader, despite having lost all their assets during displacement.

127) No interest accrues on the bond paid by traders to fishermen / boat owners. In order for a fisherman / boat owner to sell his catch to another trader, the original bond must first be repaid. It was estimated that as many as 80% to 90% of fishermen are bonded to local traders in Jaffna District.

128) The personal bond between fisherman or boat owner and trader is different from seasonal loans taken by fishermen or boat owners from fish traders. Seasonal loans taken at the start of the fishing season to buy fishing gear or during the fishing season to purchase new nets (or replace fishing gear damaged, lost or stolen) vary from LKR 100,000.00 to up to LKR 1,000,000.00.

129) Seasonal loans are repaid by the fishermen / boat owners by means of deductions made by the local trader when purchasing the day’s catch. LKR 20.00 to LKR 30.00 per kilo may be deducted daily from the day’s catch, depending on the amount of seasonal debt outstanding. Interest is paid by fishermen and boat owners on seasonal loans taken from local traders to purchase fishing gear and other inputs.

130) The daily price per kilo for SLBSC (see Grading System below) is determined by the seafood companies purchasing SLBSC from the local traders. Local traders deduct between LK 10.00 to LKR 20.00 per kilo from the price set by the seafood companies as their commission, when setting the wholesale purchasing price for SLBSC from fishermen and boat owners. The commission taken by local traders is between 3% and 7% per kilo, depending on the size of the crab and the amount deducted.

131) No data or information was available describing the basis of the relationship between fishermen and boat owners who sell their catch directly to collecting centres operated by seafood companies how these companies are able to guarantee their supply of SLBSC, from the fishermen and boat owners who sell to them? Possible options include the payment of a bond between the fisherman or boat owner and the seafood company concerned and or the provision of seasonal loans. A further financial incentive may be the higher prices paid to fishermen and boat owners who sell their catch directly to seafood company collecting centres, as no deductions are made by local traders. The advantage for seafood companies of dealing directly with fishermen and boat owners is that the companies are better able to ensure the quality of the SLBSC purchased by fishermen and boat owners

132) The Supply Chain - Seafood Companies: Aplex Marine, Ceylon Foods, North Western, P N Fernando, Prawn Ceylon and Taprobane Seafood are the five principal seafood companies engaged in purchasing SLBSC, either directly from fishermen and boat owners or indirectly through local traders (See Table 5)

15. Another four or five smaller companies, together with perhaps 10 to 20 individual small scale

exporters, also purchase SLBSC for export, from the four districts covered by the assessment.

15 Phillips Foods Lanka was briefly part of the SLBSC supply chain, but the company ceased operations and withdrew from Sri Lanka prior to commencement of the Assessment

29

Table 5 Key Seafood Companies Purchasing, Processing and Exporting SLBSC

District Supply Chain Crab Product

KAL MAN KIL JAF

Seafood Company

Alpex Marine X X X X Local Traders Fresh & Frozen

Ceylon Foods X X X Local Traders Fresh & Frozen

North Western X X X Local Traders Fresh & Frozen

P N Fernando X X Direct Fresh & Frozen

Prawn Ceylon X X X X Direct Fresh & Frozen

Tabrobane Seafood X X X X Local Traders Fresh, Frozen & Canned

Lotex Marine Resources X Direct? Fresh & Frozen?

Nikasa X X X Local Traders? Fresh & Frozen?

CAK Lanka X Local Traders? Fresh & Frozen?

Kalpak X Local Traders? Fresh & Frozen?

Pearl Island X Local Traders? Fresh & Frozen?

133) Out of the five leading SLBSC exporting seafood companies, only one has established processing centres in the Northern Province. Taprobane Seafood operates two processing centres, one in Mannar District and on in Jaffna District. Taprobane Seafood is also currently the private sector partner of crab processing centre owned by Irainamadanagar FCS in Kilinochchi District. All four of the other leading SLBSC exporting seafood companies transport SLBSC from the north to processing centre in Puttalam (North Western Province) or Gampaha District (Western Province).

134) Crab Products: SLBSC are exported by seafood companies as fresh, frozen and canned products. Fresh crab is either exported as ‘head on’ or ‘cut crab’ products. Cut crabs are processed by removing the top shell, guts and gills. The cut crab is then brushed clean and cut into two sections. The majority of fresh crabs exported are male, because only the male SLBSC is blue. Fresh crabs are exported on ice at temperatures ranging from 0°C to 5°C. Fresh crab has a shelf life of a few days. All exported frozen crab is cut crab. Frozen crabs are frozen to – 40°C and packed in 1 lb boxes and 12 lb cartons

16.

135) Canned crab is a pasteurised product that involves

picking the meat from boiled crabs. In contrast to both fresh and frozen crab products, only live SLBSC – both male and female - are purchased the single seafood company exporting canned crab products. Live crabs are the boiled in village level ‘cooking stations’ (see right) and allow to cool, before being transported to processing factories. Crab meat is graded according to type and size. Grades include colossal, jumbo, B jumbo, flower, lump, special, claw, B claw and finger. Canned crab products include ‘fancy’, ‘special’, ‘jumbo lump’, ‘back fin’ ‘lump’ ‘white’ and ‘claw’.

136) Wholesale Price: The purchasing price paid to fishermen and boat owners by seafood companies, either directly through seafood company owned collecting centres or indirectly through local traders, varies throughout the season and from company to company. The wholesale purchasing price offered to fishermen and boat owners on any given day, is the result of a series calculations and assumptions, available only to the directors and senior managers of the respective seafood companies.

16 For the USA only?

30

137) The wholesale buying price set by each seafood company undergoes a series of mini adjustments as it passes through one or more local trader, before it becomes the wholesale price offered to the fisherman or boat owner. The final wholesale prices paid to the fishermen or boat owner dependent on the bond and seasonal loans owed by the fishermen or boat owner to the local fish trader.

138) As a general rule, seafood companies exporting fresh crab products offer a higher price for SLBSC than do seafood companies purchasing crabs for frozen crab products. Although seafood companies exporting canned crab products are unable to compete with fresh and frozen crab exporters on price, particularly during the offseason, canned crab product exports have an advantage in terms of handling large volumes of crab

17. Canned crab exporters are thus able to offer to purchase large volumes of crab

at higher prices during the peak season, when demand for fresh and or frozen crab is less than the supply of raw material.

139) Two more ‘general rules’ for setting the wholesale price of SLBSC are as follows: the price paid for large crabs is higher than that for small crabs and that the purchasing price for large males is higher than that for large females

18. To complicate matters further, each of the leading SLBSC exporting seafood

companies has its own wholesale pricing index and grading system. A summary of the wholesale price indices and grading systems used by different seafood companies and local traders to purchase SLBSC from fishermen, boat owners and local traders is given in Table 6. Table 6 Grading systems, weight and prices paid for SLBSC in during the field survey

Weight Range (g) Price Range (LKR / kg) Price Range (US$ / kg)

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Grade

Very Large >250 g 700.00 700.00 5.38 5.38

Large Male 200g 249g 500.00 690.00 3.85 5.31

Medium 150 g 199g 300.00 420.00 2.31 3.23

Small 100 g 149g 150.00 200.00 1.15 1.54

Very Small 80g 99g 100.00 100.00 0.77 0.77

Very Very Small 50g 79g 50.00 80.00 0.38 0.62

140) Demand: Demand from seafood companies is driven by the international demand for SLBSC products. As was noted above, the SLBSC is a new fishery in Sri Lanka. Until very recently fishermen in the north did not fish directly for SLBSC, which were considered a nuisance or a menace if they became entangled in fishermen’s nets. The growth of the SLBSC fishery is a consequence of the end of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka - and with it the lifting of fishing restrictions and increased access for seafood companies to northern seafood resources - coupled with the strong international demand for SLBSC product (see export destinations in the next section).

141) Different SLBSC products demand different grades of SLBSC. In general only very large, large and medium crabs are exported by seafood companies as ‘head on’’ and ‘cut’ fresh crab products. Large, medium and small sized crabs are purchased by seafood companies exporting both frozen ‘cut’ crabs and canned crab products. The demand for small sized ‘cut’ frozen crabs is much less than for large and medium ‘cut’ frozen crabs.

142) Seafood companies exporting canned crab will purchase all sizes crab, including small and very small crabs. However, as crab size decreases, the operating efficiency of workers picking crab meat for canned crab products declines. So, while the lack of competition to purchase small and very small crabs may be a bonus for seafood companies exporting canned products, additional labour costs are incurred in processing compared to the same weight of medium, large or very large crabs.

17 because of the shelf life of their product 18 due to the presence of eggs and ovaries

31

143) Export Destinations: As noted elsewhere in this assessment report, the data collected by the Department of Customs for Sri Lankan crab exports does not discriminate between the three main export species (i.e., P. pelagicus, S. Serrata and P. sanguinolentus). According to representatives of seafood companies exporting crab products, the main species exported is the SLBSC. Between January 2011 and March 2012 seafood companies exported 2,842. 21 t of crab, with a value of LKR 2,220 million (US$ 17.35 million) to 31 countries (see Table 07).

144) According to the Department of Customs the average export price of a kilo of crab was LKR 865.58 (US$6.65) for fresh crabs; LKR 751.61 (US$5.78) for frozen crab and LKR 568.08 (US$4.36) for crab neither fresh nor frozen. The overall average exported export price for a kilo of crab was LKR 781.42 (US$ 6.10), between January 2011 and March 2012.

Table 7 Export destinations for SLBSC products January 2011 to March 2012

Export Destination

Sri Lankan Crab Products (kg)

Frozen Live or Chilled

Not Live, Chilled or Frozen

Grand Total

1 Singapore 482,914.40 560,712.71 16,500.50 1,060,127.61 37.30%

2 United States 789,454.19 1,100.00

790,554.19 27.81%

3 Canada 224,362.09 1,233.60 488.00 226,083.69 7.95%

4 United Kingdom 110,055.70 15,796.00 28,972.00 154,823.70 5.45%

5 Korea 115,011.00

115,011.00 4.05%

6 Taiwan 81,763.35 28,569.00

110,332.35 3.88%

7 Switzerland 28,741.30 42,765.80 5,597.00 77,104.10 2.71%

8 Netherlands 72,987.00

72,987.00 2.57%

9 Hong Kong 3,848.50 56,553.50

60,402.00 2.13%

10 Japan 52,473.86 155.31

52,629.17 1.85%

11 China 43,788.00 3,198.50

46,986.50 1.65%

12 Maldives 21,638.54 5,507.38 72.00 27,217.92 0.96%

13 India 17,348.00

50.00 17,398.00 0.61%

14 Thailand 4,480.00 1,363.00

5,843.00 0.21%

15 Philippines 5,460.00

5,460.00 0.19%

16 United Arab Emirates 1,950.00 2,691.40 120.00 4,761.40 0.17%

17 Viet Nam 3,090.00

3,090.00 0.11%

18 Kuwait

2,758.00

2,758.00 0.10%

19 Cyprus 2,700.00

2,700.00 0.09%

20 Qatar 937.00 1,124.00

2,061.00 0.07%

21 Germany 506.70 904.00 90.00 1,500.70 0.05%

22 Antigua & Barbuda 255.00 428.30 683.30 0.03%

23 Syrian Arab Republic 450.00

450.00 0.02%

24 Jordan 360.00

360.00 0.01%

25 France 175.00 180.00

355.00 0.01%

26 Saudi Arabia 210.00

210.00 0.01%

27 Denmark 132.00

132.00 0.00%

28 Malaysia 106.00

106.00 0.00%

29 Zaire 41.00

41.00 0.00%

30 Norway 35.00

5.00 0.00%

31 Belgium 4.30

4.30 0.00%

Totals 2,064,788.93 725,529.50 51,889.50 2,842,207.93

32

145) The leading market for Sri Lankan crabs was Singapore (37.20%), which imported roughly equal amounts of frozen (452.81 t) and live or chilled crabs (519.05 t). The USA was the second largest export destination for Sri Lankan crab products, importing 730.33 t, equivalent to 27.58% of the total crab exported during the period. Ten other countries accounted for a further 28.67% of Sri Lankan crab exports: Canada (8.34%), United Kingdom (5.31%), Taiwan (3.79%), Korea (3.83%), Netherlands (2.76%), Switzerland (2.70%), Hong Kong (2.20%), Japan (1.77%) and China (1.77%). According to data complied by the Customs Department, frozen crab is the main Sri Lankan export crab product, accounting for over two thirds of the export volume by weight and value (see Figure 7). Figure 7 Relative contributions of crab products to total exports by weight (kg) and value (LKR)

146) Figure 8 shows the monthly export data for crab products between January 2011 and March 2012. The

data suggests that the peak season for crab exports during this period, for both frozen crab and live and chilled crab products, was November 2011. Exports of frozen crabs were relatively higher in May, June and July of the same year.

Figure 8 Relative Contributions of Crab Export Products, by Weight (kg) and Value (LKR)

Crab Products by Weight (kg) Crab Products by Value (LKR)

33

e. The Ecology of the SLBSC Fishery 147) No data or information, either published or unpublished, is available describing the retained or

discarded bycatch from the bottom-set gill net fishery for SLBSC. Chitravadivelu’s 1993 paper describes the traditional box trap fishery (Parik Koodu) in Jaffna Lagoon. Unpublished papers by Sivanathnan, S., & de Croos M. D. S. T. (2013) and Nadaraja, T. describe the bottom-set gill net fishery, but neither study addresses the issue of fishery bycatch.

148) On the Indian side of the IMBL, bottom trawling is the principal fishing method used to harvest BSC. Thus, no comparable data is available from the studies of the Indian BSC fishery, which could be used to assess the ecology of the SLBSC fishery.

149) Direct observations and interviews with fishermen and traders were used to generate a list of common plants and animals landed as bycatch from the SLBSC fishery (see Table 8 below and right). Finfish species, representing in the region of 20 fish families were identified, either by direct observation or from the Tamil and Sinhalese names commonly used by fishermen in each district. Molluscs, particularly the woodcock murex (Murex scolopax) and the spider conch (Lambis chiragra) were commonly observed among the bycatch in Kalpitiya (Puttalam District).

150) Semi quantitative data collected during the field survey suggests that the average weight of bycatch landed by fishermen in the four districts ranges from one to three kilos for finfish and crabs and five to seven kilos of assorted molluscs, depending on the location. The majority of the finfish in the bycatch are retained: either sold or consumed by the fishermen. In Kalpitiya and in Jaffna districts, molluscs are broken open or boiled and the meat is extracted and sold.

151) According to fishermen, nylon nets generated more bycatch than monofilament nets. A negative correlation between mesh (of any type of net) and bycatch was also suggested. As the mesh size of the bottom-set gill nets increases, the amount of bycatch is alleged to decrease.

152) A number of ETP species are known to be present in the vicinity of the SLBSC fishery in Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar (Dayaratne P., et al). These include the dugong, the indo-pacific humpbacked dolphin and several species of turtle, sea snakes and shark. According to fishermen turtles are very rarely caught in bottom-set gill nets. The mesh size of bottom-set gill nets used to harvest SLBSC is fairly small and turtles generally feed in mid and surface water feeds (Lalith Ekanayake pers. com.,). Small sharks are occasionally appear in the by catch.

34

Table 8 Marine fauna and flora observed or reportedly caught in bottom-set gill nets, together with observations on endangered, threatened and protected species

Common Name Latin Tamil Sinhala Notes Vertebrates

Finfish

Sardinellas Amblygaster sirm Sardinella albella

Sudai Salaya Retained

Jacks & Trevallys Caranx spp., Para Katta Paraw Retained

Sting Rays Dasyatidae Thirrukai Maduwa Retained

Emperor Fish Letherinus Vella / Vellai Meevetiya Rare. Retained

Poochel - -

Spiny Flatheads Platycephalidae Aerial - Common. Discarded

Illishas Ilish spp. Vellel poovelle Puvalaya As bokka

Discarded

- Vellal - -

Rabbit Fish Signanthus Othi Ora Nava Retained Needlefish Belonidae Mural Habarali Retained Milk fish Chanos chanos Palmeen - Retained Barramundi Lates calcarifer Goduwa Motha Retained Barracuda Sphyraena spp., Seela - Retained Silverbiddies Gerres spp., Thirali - Retained Bloch’s gizzard shad Nematalosa nasus Koimeen Suthara Sudaya Retained Catfish Arius spp., Keliru; Angulouwa - Discarded Moonies Monodactylidae - - Retained Grouper Serranidae Kossa Kallawah Rare - Juveniles only

Seahorse Sygnathidae - - Very Rare. Discarded

Sprats Thryssa spp., Poruva Lagaa Retained Mullet Mullidae Manalai Godaya Retained

Invertebrates

Mulluscs

Woodcock Murex Murex scolopax - - Common – Kalpitiya Retained or Discarded

Spider Conch Lambis chiragra - - Common – Kalpitiya Discarded

Spiral Melongena Pugilina cochidium - - Discarded

Chank Turbinella pyrum Kalanda - Common Retained

Other Bivalves - - -

Cockles Gafrarium tumidum

Andra antiquate - - Retained

Windowpane oyster Placina placenta - - Common – Kalpitiya Discarded

Crustaceans

Other Crab Species - - Common

Slipper lobster Scyllaridae - - -

Crab with a Cross On - - Common

Echinoderms

Starfish - - - Rare

Sea Urchin - - - Rare

Corals & Plants

Coral Fragments - - - Rare. Discarded

Coraline Algae - - - Rare. Discarded

Sea grass - - - Rare. Discarded

35

Common Name Latin Tamil Sinhala Notes

ETP Species

Sea Cows Dugong dugon - Mudu Ura Kalpitiya Only. Not caught in bycatch

Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin

Sousa chineusis Kadal Puni -

Kalpitiya Only Not caught in bycatch

Spinner Dolphin Stennella longirostris

Green Turtle Chelanis mydas

- Kesbewa

Very Rare. Released Alive Turtles are protected species. Regulation is enforced. Hawksbill turtles have been known to feed on BSC

Hawksbill Turtle Eretriochelys imbricota

Olive Ridley Turtle Ledidochelys olivacea

Sea Snakes 4 species

Hydrophidae

Potai pambu Kadal sarai

Nalla waliki pam

Valaikkadia; Badakaha

Mudhu Naya

Rare - Small mesh nets only

Sharks Elasmobranchs Sura Mora Rare. Retained Small Sharks Only

153) A high diversity of critical marine habitats are located the vicinity of the SLBSC fishery, off the northwest coast of Sri Lanka. Critical marine habitats include islands, fringing mangroves, sea grass beds (see right: sea grass washed up along the shore by rough weather), coral reefs, sandstone reefs, sand banks and shifting shoals.

154) The bottom-set gill net for SLBSC was not observed to cause nor was it associated with any damage or destruction of critical marine habitats in the Puttalam Lagoon, Dutch Bay and Portugal Bay in the Gulf of Mannar or in the Palk Bay.

36

f. Management of the Fishery 155) The final section of this report describes the major findings from the field survey with regard to the

management authority and regulations pertaining to the SLBSC fishery. This section includes a description of the field data collected to describe the procedures and measure that are in place to manage the fishery. The description of the major findings of the field survey concludes with look at the concerns about the SLBSC raised during the field survey, in the context of improving the existing management of the fishery.

156) Management Authority: The MFAR, in the person of the Honourable Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource, is the principal authority for the regulation and management of all coastal and offshore fisheries in Sri Lanka. The legislative framework for the regulation and management of Sri Lanka’s marine resources is embodied in the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act of 1996

19, to which a large

number of new regulations and amendments have been added over the past decade and a half. The legislative framework for the regulation and management of Sri Lanka’s fisheries and aquatic resources is acknowledged to be comprehensive in terms of its scope and detail, as well as consistent with international norms aimed at achieving the sustainable exploitation and management marine resources.

157) The task of implementing the regulations and managing the exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources in Sri Lanka resides with the Director General and staff of the DFAR. The DFAR comprises six divisions, each tasked with implementing or enforcing the directives of the MFAR, under the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act. The divisions of the DFAR are as follows:

I. Fisheries Management Division

II. Fisheries Industries Division III. Monitoring, Controlling and Surveillance Division IV. Fishery product Quality Control Division V. Finance Division

VI. Administration Division 158) In addition to head office of DFAR in Colombo, there are 15 District Fisheries Offices (DFO) located

around the island: one for each of the fourteen coastal districts and two for Puttalam District (i.e., Chilaw Fisheries District Office and Puttalam Fisheries District Office). Each DFO is headed by an Assistant Director and comprises a number of Fisheries Inspectorate Divisions. There are a total of 148 Fisheries Inspectorate Divisions under the 15 DFO, covering all of the fishing villages in the country. Fisheries Inspectors (FI) are responsible for the enforcement of fishery regulations and the implementation of the government’s policies for the management and development of the sector.

159) The core responsibility of the DFO is the registration of fishing craft and issuance of fishing operation

licences in accordance with the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Act. Each fishermen and fishing craft is issued with a Certification of Registration of Fishing Craft and Fishing Operations Licence Book by the DFAR (see overleaf). This booklet includes details of all Operating Licences issues as well the details of the Registration of the Fishing Craft and Fishing Method(s) permitted. Documentary evidence is thus available describing each fisherman, fishing craft and each of the fishing gears used to harvest fish and other aquatic resources in Sri Lanka.

160) Regulations for SLBSC: There are no specific provisions or regulations pertaining to the exploitation of SLBSC resources in Sri Lanka. The general regulations that apply to the SLBSC fishery, including the registration of boats, engines and nets, are common to all fisheries in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the prohibition of monofilament gill nets, applies to all fisheries in Sri Lanka. The prohibition of mechanised trawling in Sri Lanka waters is pertinent to the SLBSC fishery, as it provides a legal basis for SLBSC fishermen’s opposition to trawling by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers in Sri Lankan waters

20.

19 http://www.fisheriesdept.gov.lk/fisheries_beta/index.php/download-fisheries-act-and-other-regulations 20 Trawling is banned in Sri Lanka under a directive from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, while Clause 4 of the Fishing (Import and Export) Regulations 2010 (1665/16) prohibits dredging and mechanised trawling operations in Sri Lankan waters

37

161) Other gears and fishing methods that are prohibited in Sri Lanka, such as mechanised beach seine, use of ‘mosquito nets’, ‘disco nets’ (trammel net purse seines), ‘light course’ (purse seine with lights) are not directly relevant to the SLBSC fishery.

162) The Fishing Operating Licence issued by the DFO (see right), is based on the mesh size of the gear, rather than on the fishery in which the gear is intended to be used. So, although the Fishing Operating Licence is comprehensive in terms of the details pertaining to each licence issued, it is not specifically aimed at regulating or managing fishing effort in a particular fishery. A fishing operating licence entitles a fisherman to harvest a number of different species, including SLBSC, using the licensed gear.

Details of the Fishing Operating Licence Type of Gear Amount of Gear permitted Specification of gear Fishing Area for permit Landing site Fishing season – can include closed season Fishing time – all day / half day Fishing groups permitted to be taken.

163) A number of new regulations have been introduced by

the MFAR since 1996, to improve the exploitation and management of Sri Lanka’s marine resources (see Box B overleaf).

164) During field survey it was observed that fishing for the Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus) has recently been prohibited in Sri Lanka (see right). The new regulation makes it illegal to catch, carrying, land, store, transport, selling, advertise the sale of or retail sell thresher shark. The regulations states that if a fishermen catches a Thresher Sharks it must be released. Fishermen caught landing Thresher Sharks will have their boats impounded and will receive a fine.

165) The DFO actively engaged in the enforcement of fishery regulations. Since 2011 the DFO in Jaffna has taken legal action against fishermen using monofilament, fishing with dynamite and catching and landing turtles, as well as taking action against illegal trawling activities by Sri Lankan and Indian trawlers. A total of 40 cases have been filed by the DFO and legal proceedings are ongoing.

166) The DFO in Puttalam District has been particularly active against the use of monofilament net in Puttalam Lagoon. However, despite these successes, the effectiveness of the DFAR’s enforcement of fishery regulations is constrained due to limited human and physical resources and often undermined by political influence and pressure (see External Issues below).

38

Box B Examples of Fishery Regulations Specific to the Improvement of Sri Lankan Fisheries

Regulation / Amendment Year /

No. Description

Lobster Fisheries Management

Regulations 2000 Law to regulate catching, purchasing, selling,

transporting spiny lobsters. Only those with a specific license are entitled to do so.

Sea Shells Fisheries Management and Export Regulations

2001 1188/3

Prohibiting the possession, purchase, sale, transport and export of ‘sea shells’ (sea shells – marine bivalves and gastropods, both dead and alive)

Chank Fisheries Management and Export Regulations

2003 1298/1

Requiring a license for those who wish to engage in any fishing operations (fishing, storing, selling etc.) which involves Chank fish. And requiring a special export license for those who wish to export Chank fish.

Declaration of Prohibited Time Period For Lobster Fishing Operation

2009 1601/36

Prohibiting fishermen from catching lobsters in the Sri Lankan sea during February, September and October

Regulations for the Fishing of Cuttlefish (Fishing Operations) in Sea

Areas of Udappuwa and Semuthu Thoduwa in the Puttalam Districts

2011 1733/23

Setting out standards for the aggregating device used when catching cuttlefish in the said areas. (What it can be made of, height, where it can be placed etc.)

167) Fishery Data: Another key task of the DFAR’s DFO is the collection of fish catch data. Data describing the fishery sector in Sri Lanka is published each year by the Statistical Unit of the MFAR. The statistical year book is compiled based on monthly statistical reports submitted by each DFAR DFO. District level monthly statistical reports are submitted by Fisheries Inspectors for fish catch data corresponding to 11 categories of commercial fish species, commonly caught by fishermen in Sri Lanka fish (see Box C).

168) Although ‘crabs’ are included as one of the 11 categories, the monthly statistical reports does not disaggregate the ‘crab catch’ by species. Thus, the crab catch data used throughout this report is an amalgamation of all crabs landed, including S. serrata, Charybdis annulata (banded legged swimming crab) and P. sanguinolentus (the three spot swimming crab) and S. serrata (the mud crab).

169) Given the absence of a Frame Survey for the fishery sector in Sri Lanka or another independently verifiable methodology for the collection of fish catch data, the monthly fish catch data submitted by FI are at best ‘local estimates’ of fish production. Insufficient human resources (staff) at the district and divisional level

21; a lack of physical resources including motorcycles, vehicles and insufficient financial

support and allowances to undertake field data collection, further undermine the accuracy of the monthly fish catch data submitted by FI. For these reasons the data describing the crab fishery in each of the four districts visited during the assessment, used extensively throughout this report, must be viewed with considerable caution.

21 only one Fisheries Inspector, together with a Fisheries Management Assistant are responsible for collecting fish catch data for the entire Mannar District

39

Box C Main categories of commercial fish species used to collect fishery catch data

Main Categories of Commercial Fish Species Sinahalae Tamil

Large Pelagic 1. Seerfish Thora Akuhlah Demersal 2. Trevally Parawa Parah

Large Pelagic 3. Skipjack Tuna Balaya Choorai Large Pelagic 4. Yellowfin Tuna Kelawalla Kila Valai

Small & Large Pelagic

5. Other Blood Fish (frigate tuna, bullet tuna, marlin, sailfish, sword fish)

Alagoduwa Ragodu Koppara Sappara Thalapath

Choorai Kutteli Kopparan Mail meen Thalapathu

Large Pelagic & Demersal

6. Sharks / Skates / Rays Mora Maduwa

Sura Thirukai

Demersal 7. Rock Fish (Mullet) Gal Malu Gola Godaya Meewitiya Kossa

Sevalai Avelemeen Vella meen Kalawah

Small Pelagic & Demersal

8. Shore Seine Varieties (anchovy, sardinellas, sardines, mackerels, scads, pony fish, silver biddies, jobfish)

Hal Massa Salaya Hurrulla Kumbalawa Lagga

Nethili Chalai Keerimeen Kumbala Lomia

Demersal 9. Prawns Issa Raal Demersal 10. Lobsters Pokkir Issa Singi

Small Pelagic & Demersal

11. Crabs Kakuluwa Nandu

12. Others

170) The National Aquatic Resources and Research Agency (NARA) is also responsible for collecting and analysing fish catch data. NARA is responsible for conducting monthly monitoring programme for large pelagics, including 16 finfish species and sharks. NARA’s monthly monitoring programme provides reports for Sri Lankan’s submissions to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. The large pelagic monitoring programme covers all the main harbours in the country (15 sites) and the data is used to estimate production of large pelagics by the MFAR’s Statistical Unit.

171) NARA is also involved in sampling small pelagic species, but this data is not used to estimate production. NARA’s small pelagic monitoring programme is used for research and catch monitoring purposes only. This is due to the much larger number of species and landing centres associated with the small pelagic fishery. NARA’s small pelagic catch monitoring programme includes an assessment of fishing effort; the number of boats and gear operating in each small pelagic fishery and the collection of length measurements for each target species.

172) Fishery Management: There are currently no formal, legally binding, specific procedures, measures or regulations in place to manage the SLBSC fishery off the northwest coast of Sri Lanka. No restrictions have been placed on the number of fishermen that can enter the fishery; the fishing gears that can be used to harvest SLBSC (with the exception of monofilament nets); the duration of the fishing season or the areas in which fishing for SLBSC can take place.

40

173) The nationwide ban on the use of monofilament nets, limits fishing pressure in the SLBSC by reducing fishing efficiency (i.e., increasing ‘escapability’) during three to four months of the year when the sea is calm and turbidity decreases. The prohibition of monofilaments in the SLBSC fishery is a key factor in the creation of the ‘offseason’, when SLBSC are able to avoid nylon crab nets. However, the regulation prohibiting the use of monofilament nets in the SLBSC is on incompletely enforced. The degree of enforcement varies from district to district.

174) Traditional fishing grounds are informally acknowledged by fishing communities, within which individual fishing communities operate. In the Palk Bay traditional fishing grounds appear to be loosely based district boundaries and straight line distances from the shore up to a certain point, beyond which the fishing ground is common to SLBSC fishermen from any coastal village.

175) Fishery management measures that currently regulate the SLBSC fishery are informal or indirect, as a result of external issues. For example, fishing effort by SLBSC fishermen is restricted to only three days per week, due to the illegal fishing activities of Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers in SLBSC fishing grounds.

176) The fishing effort of SLBSC fishermen is further limited by the availability of alternative employment activities, as a result of the post conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction project that are being implemented throughout the Northern Province. High demand for unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labour has encouraged many fishworkers and fishermen to suspend their engagement in the fishery sector, in favour of a regular income in the construction and rehabilitation sector. The impact of alternative employment opportunities is particularly apparent in Kilinochchi District, where a self build housing construction financed by the Government of India is currently in progress.

177) Regular, irregular and internal migration is another factor that has had the effect of reducing fishing effort, particularly in Jaffna District and Mannar District. In Jaffna District opportunities to take up foreign employment and the lure of political asylum in Australia have both been responsible for recent departures of young men from fishing communities in Jaffna District. Irregular migration to Australia has also been observed from Puttalam District. In Mannar District, employment opportunities in other districts, including Vavuniya, Mullaitivu and Batticaloa is considered to a key factor leading to fishworkers and fishermen leaving the SLBSC fishery and thereby reducing fishing effort.

178) In terms of formal, direct fishery management measures, the MFAR has considerable experience in the introduction of regulations and measures to improve fishery management in Sri Lanka. As noted above the MFAR has introduced a regulation for Lobster Fishery Management in 2010. The NARA has recently concluded stock assessment programmes for five key benthic marine species (i.e., sea cucumber, lobster, chank, shrimp and ornamental fish) under the Capacity Enhancement of NARA programme

22.

The Capacity Enhancement of NARA programme was implemented with technical assistance from the FAO UN and co-financed by the Canadian International Development Agency.

179) Furthermore NARA is currently engaged in the implementation of five fishery management sub project with the assistance of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project. These include:

improving the Log Book System introduced by DFAR; a technical study of the management of the Bar Reef Marine Sanctuary; fish catch monitoring programme for Indian Mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta); a study of sharks caught in Sri Lankan waters and strengthening the data collection protocols for large pelagic species caught by Sri Lanka’s

offshore fishing fleet.

22

http://www.nara.ac.lk/cenara/aboutUs.html

41

180) Fishery Management Concerns: A distinction is made in this sub section of the assessment report between internal and external concerns affecting the management of the SLBSC fishery. External concerns affecting the management of the fishery including the stake net fishery, illegal fishing by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers and various forms of migration have already been discussed earlier in this report. The fishery management concerns raised during the field survey, which are discussed in this sub section of the assessment report, are those that are internal to the SLBSC fishery. The key concerns include catching, landing and purchasing small crabs; catching, landing and purchasing females crabs with eggs (i.e., berried crabs); increasing fishing pressure (in Kalpitiya only) and the impact of political patronage on measures taken to improve the management of the SLBSC fishery.

181) Concerns about harvesting small and crabs: Small crabs are defined as crabs weighing equal to or less than 149g (see Table 6 above). Catching, landing and purchasing small crabs are a management concern for two reasons. Firstly there is the concern that by catching, landing and purchasing small crabs, mature crabs are being removed from the fishery before they have had the opportunity to spawn. As noted in the introduction, BSC mature during their first year at weights ranging from 33 g to 170 g. By catching, landing and purchasing small crabs, it is likely that a percentage of these crabs will not have had the opportunity to reproduce. Removing individual crabs from the fishery before they have had an opportunity to spawn may have an impact on future recruitment to the SLBSC fishery.

182) A further cause for concern that arises from catching, landing and purchasing small crabs is the economic losses associated with harvesting small crabs. Figure 9 estimates the minimum and maximum income from the SLBSC fishery, based on harvesting 1 tonne of 50 g (i.e., 20,000 individuals) at the wholesale prices available during the field assessment. The minimum income generated from harvesting 1 tonne of very, very small crabs is LKR 50,000.00, while the maximum income is LKR 126,400.00. Figure 9 shows the steady increase in the income from the SLBSC fishery that would accrue if the same 20,000 SLBSC were caught at progressively larger and larger sizes. The maximum estimated income from the fishery is LKR 6.3 million (6 tonnes @ 300g) for the same 20,000 individuals harvested once they reach a very large size.

183) The estimates of minimum and maximum theoretical incomes from the fishery do not account for annual mortality rates; the intention is simply to highlight the overall economic impact of catching, landing and purchasing small crabs. Or alternatively, to highlight the financial losses incurred by fishermen from catching progressively smaller and smaller sized crabs. Figure 9 Estimated increases in SLBSC fishery income from harvesting larger crabs

42

184) Data presented in Table 9 suggests is that the economic losses incurred by fishermen from catching small (100g – 149g), as opposed to medium (150g – 199g) crabs is around LKR 1.0 million rupees (for every 20,000 small crabs caught) This is equivalent to a financial loss to fishermen of LKR 53.78 for every small crab caught or LKR 430,240 per tonne of small crabs. Table 9 Estimated incremental losses incurred by catching smaller and smaller sized crabs

VL L M S VS VVS

>250g 200g - 249g 150g - 199g 100g - 149g 80g - 99g 50g - 79g

Very Large >250 g 2,863,800 4,628,400 5,704,000 6,102,000 6,173,600

Large 200g - 249 g 1,764,600 2,840,200 3,238,200 3,309,800

Medium 150g - 199g 1,075,600 1,473,600 1,545,200

Small 100g - 149 g 398,000 469,600

Very Small 80g - 99g

71,600

Very Very Small 50g - 79g

185) Concerns about harvesting berried crabs: Catching, landing and purchasing of female crabs with eggs was widely believed to have a negative impact on crab recruitment to future populations of the SLBSC, by all participants in the SLSBC including fishermen, traders and representatives of seafood companies. Despite widespread concerns, the practice of catching, landing and buying female SLBSC with eggs continues throughout the year. Outside of the peak SLBSC breeding season, a small number of female SLBSC spawn throughout the year. Bottom-set crab nets are not selective and catch equal numbers of male and female crabs, including female crabs with eggs.

186) Only one fishing community was observed to voluntarily return females with eggs, with as many as 40% of fishermen claiming to voluntarily return berried females caught in their nets to sea. This village was the exception, rather than the rule. The economic constraints faced by fishermen; the time necessary to untangle and release berried females from nets; dead female crabs in the nets and the willingness of traders and seafood companies to buy berried females, all combine to ensure that females with eggs are a regular feature of the daily catch from the SLBSC fishery.

187) Concerns about increasing fishing pressure: Participants in the SLBSC fishery in Puttalam District (i.e., Kalpitiya) raised concerns about increasing levels of fishing pressure. Since the end of the conflict it was alleged that an increasing number of fishermen (and boats) were engaged in the fishery. Although the overall landings were perceived to have stayed the same, the catch per boat per fishing trip was widely viewed as having decreased over the past three to four years. No evidence of increasing fishing pressure was observed in the other three districts visited during the course of the field survey. In part this is most likely to be due to the involuntary restrictions placed on fishing effort in these areas, by illegal fishing by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers (see above).

188) Concerns about political patronage: The influence of provisional and central politicians the final was also a concern in the context of the current and future management of the SLBSC fishery. Political influence was widely believed to be the cause of the continuing use of monofilament nets by a minority of SLBSC fishermen in Kalpitiya (Puttalam District) and a large percentage of SLBSC fishermen in Jaffna District

23. Political patronage was also alleged to be main force behind the illegal operation of Sri Lankan

bottom trawlers in Kalpitiya and Jaffna (Kurunagar) and Mannar (Pesalai).

189) Provisional and central politicians’ involvement in fishery management issues prevent DFO staff from carrying out their duties in accordance with the regulations and directives set out under the Fisheries Act. Damaging fishing activities that are prohibited continue, due to political influence. The introduction of measures to improve the management of the SLBSC fishery may face opposition from provisional and central politicians, if they are deemed to detrimental to their supporters at the local level.

23 In Jaffna District, fishermen are also more accustomed to using monofilament nets, as these were the only effective fishing gears possible through much of the conflict period

43

VI. Conclusions 190) The conclusions based on the findings of the fishery assessment are presented in accordance with the

MSC’s Fishery Standard: Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (2010). 191) The conclusions reached in respect of each of MSC’s 30 performance indicators are set out below, for

the nine MSC criteria under each of the three core principles of the MSC’s Fishery Standard and Fishery assessment Methodology. Each performance indicator has been assessed according to the MSC’s Score Guideposts i.e., SG60, SG80 and SG100 (see below), based on the findings of the assessment.

Scoring Categories Category 192) The findings of the assessment indicate that the SLBSC fishery is likely to fail to meet the requirements

necessary to pass 23 out of MSC’s 31 performance indicators for sustainable fisheries. The assessment suggests that the fishery may pass seven performance indicators, but would subsequently need to meet conditions applied by the independent MSC assessor.

193) The principal deficiencies in terms of achieving sustainable management of the fishery relate to principles 1 and 2. The fishery is likely to fail all seven performance indicators associated the biological status of the SLBSC resource. The fishery is likely to fail 13 of the 15 performance indicators associated the ecological impacts of the fishery (Principle 2).

194) An assessment of the SLBSC fishery in the context of each of the MSC’s 31 performance indicators, as well the four performance indicators proposed by the Consultant, is presented below.

Table 10 Summary of the MSC Guidepost Scores for the SLBSC Fishery

MSC Fishery Assessment

Principles, Criteria & Performance Indicators

Fishery Assessment

Guidepost Score Result

Principle 1 Biological Status of the Fishery

1.1 SLBSC Resource

1.1.1 Stock Status SG <60 FAIL

1.1.2 Reference Points SG <60 FAIL

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Plan SG <60 FAIL

1.2 SLBSC Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy SG <60 FAIL

1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules & Tools SG <60 FAIL

1.2.3 Harvest Strategy: Information & Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status SG <60 FAIL

Principle 2 Ecological Impacts of the Fishery

2.1 Bycatch: Retained Species

2.1.1 Status SG <60 FAIL 2.2.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.2.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.2 Bycatch: Discarded Species

2.2.1 Status SG <60 FAIL 2.2.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.2.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.3 Bycatch: ETP Species

2.3.1 Status SG <60 FAIL 2.3.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.3.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.4 Marine Habitats

2.4.1 Status SG <60 FAIL

2.4.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.4.3 Information / Monitoring SG <60 FAIL

2.5 Marine Ecosystems

2.5.1 Status SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

44

MSC Fishery Assessment Principles, Criteria & Performance Indicators

Fishery Assessment

2.5.2 Management Strategy SG <60 FAIL

2.5.3 Information / Monitoring SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

Principle 3Management of Fishery

3.1 Governance & Policy

3.1.1 Legal / Customary Framework SG 70 CONDITIONAL PASS

3.1.2 Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

3.1.3 Long Term Objectives SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

3.1.4 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing SG <60 FAIL

3.2 Fishery Specific Management System

3.2.1 Fishery Specific Objectives SG <60 FAIL

3.2.2 Decision Making Processes SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

3.3.3 Compliance & Enforcement SG 70 CONDITIONAL PASS

3.3.4 Research Plans SG <60 FAIL

3.3.5 Management Performance Evaluation SG <60 FAIL

Principle 1: Biological Status of the Fishery 1.1 SLBSC Resource 195) 1.1.1 Stock Status: The catch data available describing the SLBSC fishery is inadequate to enable the

status of the SLBSC stock to be independently verified. Insufficient time series data and concerns about the accuracy of this data; incomplete descriptions of the fishery in each location and the aggregated nature of the monthly export data compiled by the Department of Customs for ‘crab exports’ are the principal barriers that prevent an independently verifiable SLBSC stock assessment at the present time. The data and information that is available suggests that the status of the SLBSC stock is likely to be considerable higher than comparable stocks of BSC in neighbouring India or in the Philippines, Indonesia, China or Vietnam. In these BSC fisheries, small crabs (100g – 149g) and very small crabs (80g – 99g) dominant the catch

24. In Sri Lanka, medium and large crabs are still prevalent.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

It is 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 recruitment

would be impaired.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating

around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference

point, over recent years.

The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point (TRP).

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There are no current or time series data describing the stock status of SLBSC. The status of the stock in relation to recruitment is unknown. No TRP have been proposed / agreed / implemented for the fishery. Commercial purchasing records are available with the main seafood companies / collectors. The data has not been made available to the SEASL. The data has not been analysed. Target Dependent and independent data describing the stock are available and have been analysed. DFAR staff and fishing communities can analyse and interpret independent data and draw appropriate conclusions

regarding the stock status. Data Sources

Commercial Catch Data (Seafood Companies / UNI)

Population Biology Study (NARA)

Annual Stock Assessments using SPR (DFAR / FC )

24 The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Report for BSC recommends consumers ‘avoid’ all BSC products originating from Indonesia, Thailand, India, Vietnam and China fisheries, on account of unsustainable fishing practices.

45

196) 1.1.2 Reference Points: No reference points have yet been established to enable an independently verifiable assessment of the status of the SLBSC stock to be undertaken. Data is required to ascertain any or all of the following potential reference points: carapace width (length) relationships for both sexes; size at first maturity and size at 50% maturity; mortality coefficients (total instantaneous mortality coefficient Z; instantaneous natural mortality coefficient M and instantaneous fishing mortality F); estimates of the maximum sustainable yield; yield mass curves and the optimum age of exploitation (ty); the spawning potential ratio (SPR).

197) Furthermore other key parameters describing the fishery have yet to be established using relevant using

appropriate statistical method and models. Data is required to ascertain any or all of the following

parameters: total length L∞(total length, mm); the weight asymptote (W∞); K (year1); growth

performance index; the number and timing of recruitment peaks and the natural mortality, M (year1);

the monthly sex ratio, gonadalsomal development indices for females including maturity stages and the Gonad Somatic Index (GSI); estimates of the spawning season and fecundity; the size at recruitment to the fishery (lr); yield per recruit (Y/R), the annual exploitation ratio; the catchability coefficient (q); the annual fishing effort and optimum fishing effort (fMSY)

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Generic limit (LRP) and target reference

points (TRP) are based on justifiable and

reasonable practice appropriate for the species category.

Reference Points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which

there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant

precautionary issues. The limit reference point is set above the level at

which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.

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.

For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the

stock.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: No LRP or TRP have been established for the fishery. The DFAR is unlikely to have the resources to regularly collect and analyse data for a formal stock assessment e.g., total catch, fishing effort, CPUE, recruitment, growth and mortality. Appropriate, cost effective measures need to be introduced with the involvement of the DFAR and the fishing community, such as the use of spawning potential ratio (SPR). Target Introduction of generic LRP and TRP based on SPR Adopting a precautionary approach to setting limits and targets e.g., SPRlimit = 30% and TRPtarget = 50% Revised LRP and TRP based on annual assessments, other data and research. Data Sources

SPR @ Size calculated based on Mortality (M), growth coefficient (k), Length of maturity (Lm) and Maximum Length (L∞) and size composition data from population biology assessment (NARA/SEASL)

Annual SPR Assessment (DFAR / FC / UNI / SEASL)

46

198) 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Plan: The status of the SLBSC crab stock is unknown and thus the need to rebuild the stock cannot be assessed. Many participants in the fishery are however concerned about the potential impact of harvesting ovigerous crabs (i.e., females with eggs). Two small crab hatcheries are currently in operation and more are planned. The installation of ‘crab cages’ for female crabs with eggs has also been proposed.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success

are in place.

Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies 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 shortest

practicable timeframe.

Monitoring is in place to determine whether they 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

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 Fail

Rationale: The stock status of SLBSC – healthy or depleted - is unknown. No stock assessment has been undertaken. It not possible to assess if this Performance Indicator is relevant or not. Target Precautionary, generic LRP and TRP based on SPR have been set e.g., SPRlimit = 30% and TRPtarget = 50% Dependent and independent data describing the stock, against LRP and TRP, are available and have been analysed. Data Sources

SPR @ Size calculated based on Mortality (M), growth coefficient (k), Length of maturity (Lm) and Maximum Length (L∞) and size composition data from population biology assessment (NARA/SEASL)

Annual SPR Assessment (DFAR / FC / UNI / SEASL)

1.2 SLBSC Management 199) 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy: There is no formal harvest strategy for the SLBSC fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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 limit reference points.

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.

The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or

plausible argument.

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.

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the

harvest strategy is working

The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives.

The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There is no formal harvest strategy for the SLBSC fishery. DFAR is not engaged in a stock monitoring programme and no stock assessments have been conducted by either DFAR or NARA. Fishery dependent data is available, but not analysed. There are no harvest control rules for the fishery, nor any associated actions (i.e., harvest control tools) to be implemented by DFAR or the fishing community when these are breached. There is no overall management plan for the SLBSC fishery, which encapsulates the harvest strategy, HCR and HCT nor is there any independent scientific programme associated with the SLBSC fishery conducted by NARA. Target A harvest strategy that sets out and justifies the harvest control rules for the fishery based on LRP and

TRP; the management decision associated with each reference point that will ensure that the harvest strategy is responsive to the stock status and a description of the data that will be used to monitor (dependent) and assess (independent) the stock

Data Sources

Harvest Control Strategy (DFAR) A fishery management plan that sets out the rationale, timeframe, responsibilities and cost of

implementing the harvest strategy.

47

200) 1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules and Tools: No harvest control rules have been formulated for the fishery

based on LRP and TRP and no tools have been devised to ensure that as the LRP is approached appropriate action is taken to restore the fishery to the TRP. All fishing craft, engines and fishing gear engaged in the harvest of SLBSC are licensed annually by the DFAR. Damaging and or destructive forms of harvesting BSC, including monofilament nets, trawling by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers and stake net fishing (in Kalpitiya only) are prohibited by law. The relevant laws are enforced by the DFAR. The nationwide ban on the use of monofilament nets controls the harvesting of SLBSC during periods when the sea is calm and visibility is high in the coastal waters off the North West coast of Sri Lanka.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Generally understood harvest control 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.

The design of the harvest control rules take into account a wide range

of uncertainties.

The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Evidence clearly shows that the tools

in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the

harvest control rules.

There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control

rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.

Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation

levels required under the harvest control rules.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: No harvest control rules have been formulated for the fishery based on LRP and TRP and no tools have been devised to ensure that as the LRP is approached appropriate action is taken to restore the fishery to the TRP. Target Introduction of harvest control rules based on SPR based LRP and TRP Introduction of harvest control tools (e.g., licences, minimum size / weight limits, minimum mesh size,

gear regulations, restricted fishing areas, spawning closed season) which would be appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation of the stock

Data Sources

Harvest Control Rules (DFAR / FC)

Harvest Control Tools (DFAR)

201) 1.2.3 Harvest Strategy - Information and Monitoring: Data and information exist describing the number

of fishermen, fishing craft and fishing gear engaged in the SLBSC. However, no systems are currently in place to use this information for monitoring the SLBSC fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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 relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.

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.

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.

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

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 the

inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this

uncertainty.

Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and

other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There is no relevant information related to stock structure and stock productivity. Dependent data

48

is available on fleet composition and fishing gears (DFAR) and production (seafood companies), but has not been analysed. There is no regular monitoring of information that would be relevant to a harvest strategy. Target Regular collection and analysis of dependent and independent data relevant to stock status and

productivity Data Sources

Monthly production data (Seafood Companies)

Annual stock assessment using SPR (DFAR / FC)

DFAR licensing data (DFAR)

Independent research (NARA / UNI)

202) 1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status: An assessment of the SLBSC fishery has been completed by the

SEASL, with the support of the NFI CC. Recommendations to improve the SLBSC fishery have been made in accordance with the principles, criteria and performance indicators encapsulated in the MSC’s Fishery Standard, with reference to the SFP’s framework for the design, development and implementation of a FIP, but no assessment of the stock has been undertaken.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

The assessment estimates stock

status relative to reference points.

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rules, and is evaluating stock status

relative to reference points.

The assessment is appropriate for the stock and 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.

The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to Reference Points in a probabilistic way.

The major sources of uncertainty are

identified.

The assessment takes uncertainty into account.

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

The stock assessment is subject to peer review.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: No assessment of the stock has been made relative to reference points. Target A stock assessment is completed relative to LRP and TRP and the harvest control rules, which takes into

consideration the major sources of uncertainty. Data Sources

Annual stock assessments (DFAR / FC)

49

Principle 2: Ecological Impacts of the Fishery 2.1 Retained Bycatch Species 203) 2.1.1 Status: The number of species and the quantity of the retained bycatch from the SLBSC fishery

appears to be moderate to low, compared to other methods of harvesting BSC (i.e., bottom trawling and trammel nets). Common benthic finfish and several molluscs’ species are retained by fishermen. Most of the retained finfish species are juveniles.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits or if 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.

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the

limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective

management measures in place such that the fishery does not

hinder recovery and rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that retained species

are within biologically based limits.

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the

fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Target Reference Points are defined and retained species are at or fluctuating around

their Target Reference Points.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There is insufficient information available to assess whether there are any main retained species in the SLBSC fishery. To qualify as a main retained species, the species must comprise 5% of more of the commercial catch. The fishery assessment conducted by SEASL in 2013 is the only report that identifies species retained by SLBSC fishermen. This report identified around 15 finfish species and four species of molluscs that are retained by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery. The assessment does not contain sufficient information to estimate the percentage contribution of retained species to the overall landings of SLBSC in the fishery. Target Identification and quantification of all species retained by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery Identification of main any retained species (i.e., > 5% of the total catch) Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

204) 2.1.2 Management Strategy: The status of the retained bycatch from the SLBSC is unknown. No strategy is currently in place to manage either the variety or quantity of the retained bycatch from the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

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.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species

involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

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 evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and

intended changes are occurring.

There is some evidence that the strategy is

achieving its overall objective.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: Insufficient information is available to assess whether this criterion needs to be applied to the SLBSC fishery i.e., whether there are any main retained species associated with the fishery (see above and below). There are currently no measures in place regarding bycatch of any kind (i.e., retained, discarded or ETP).

50

Target Appropriate measures introduced and operational, for each main retained species (if any) identified Data Sources

SLBSC Fishery Management Plan (DFAR)

205) 2.1.3 Information & Monitoring: The status of the retained bycatch from the SLBSC fishery is unknown.

An indication of the bycatch likely to be retained from the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery was gathered during the field assessment. No monitoring systems are currently in place.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

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.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main

retained species.

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of

certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained

species.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect 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 strategy).

Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all

retained species

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: Insufficient qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is inadequate to qualitatively assess the outcome status with respect to biologically based limit or support measures to manage main retained species. No bycatch monitoring system is in place Target Identification and quantification of all species retained by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery, including any

main retained species (i.e., > 5% of the total catch) Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

Ecological Impact Monitoring

2.2 Discarded Bycatch Species 206) 2.2.1 Status: The number of species and the quantity of the discarded bycatch from the SLBSC fishery

appears to be moderate to low compared to other methods of harvesting BSC (i.e., bottom trawling and trammel nets). Common benthic finfish and several molluscs species are discarded by SLBSC fishermen.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Main discarded bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in

place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Main discarded bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits

there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation

measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and

rebuilding.

There is a high degree of certainty that

discarded bycatch species are within biologically based

limits.

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the discarded bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering

recovery.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There is insufficient information available to ascertain whether there are any main discarded species in the SLBSC fishery. To qualify as a main discarded species, the species must comprise 5% of more of the commercial catch. The fishery assessment conducted by SEASL in 2013 is the only report that identifies species discarded by SLBSC fishermen. This report identified around four finfish species, four species of

51

molluscs, three species of crab and two species of echinoderms that are discarded by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery. The assessment does not contain sufficient information to estimate the percentage contribution of discarded species to the overall landings of SLBSC in the fishery. Target Identification and quantification of all species discarded by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery, including

any main discarded species (i.e., > 5% of the total catch) Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

207) 2.2.2 Management Strategy: The status of the discarded bycatch from the SLBSC is unknown. No

strategy is currently in place to manage either the variety or quantity of the discarded bycatch from the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main discarded bycatch

species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or

to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing discarded bycatch

that is expected to maintain main discarded bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery

does not hinder their recovery.

There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising discarded bycatch.

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 the species

involved.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species

involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented

successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended

changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: Insufficient information is available to assess whether this criterion needs to be applied to the SLBSC i.e., whether there are any main discarded species (> 5% of the SLBSC catch by weight) associated with the fishery (see above and below). There are currently no measures in place regarding bycatch of any kind (i.e., retained, discarded or ETP). Target Appropriate measures introduced and operational, for each main discarded species (if any) identified Data Sources

SLBSC Fishery Management Plan (DFAR)

208) 2.2.3 Information & Monitoring: The status of the discarded bycatch from the SLBSC fishery is

unknown. An indication of the bycatch discarded from the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery was gathered during the field assessment. No monitoring systems are currently in place.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Qualitative information is available on the amount of main discarded bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations.

Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty

Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

52

Rationale: Insufficient qualitative information is available on the amount of main discarded species (if present) taken by the fishery. Information is inadequate to qualitatively assess the outcome status with respect to biologically based limit or support measures to manage main discarded species. No bycatch monitoring system is in place Target Identification and quantification of all species retained by fishermen from the SLBSC fishery, including any

main retained species (i.e., > 5% of the total catch) Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

Ecological Impact Monitoring

2.3 ETP Bycatch Species 209) 2.3.1 Status: The SLBSC fishery is located in an area of high biodiversity, including a large number of ETP

species, such as the dugong (Dugong dugon), indo-pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chineusis), as well as a number of other cetaceans and marine reptiles including four species of marine turtle. The presence of ETP species in the SLBSC fishery bycatch appears to be uncommon. Turtles and small sharks are rarely caught in the bycatch of the bottom-set gill nets. Catching, landing and or selling turtles is illegal in Sri Lanka. The law is partially enforced.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of

national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP

species.

Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. There is a high degree of confidence that

there are no significant detrimental effects (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP

species.

Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: Insufficient information is available to adequately judge the effects of the SLBSC fishery on ETP species. The fishery assessment conducted by SEASL in 2013 identify three species of mammal, several species of reptiles (i.e., sea snakes and turtles), as well as sharks that are may interact with the fishery. No other data or information is available describing the effects (if any) of the fishery on ETP species. Target Identification and quantification of all ETP species interaction with the SLBSC fishery. Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

210) 2.3.2 Management Strategy: The status of the ETP bycatch from the SLBSC fishery is unknown. No

strategy is necessary to management (i.e., reduce) the variety or quantity of the ETP bycatch associated with the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There are measures in place that minimize mortality, 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 minimize mortality that 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 minimize mortality that is designed to achieve above national and

international requirements for the protection of ETP species.

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g.

general experience, theory or

There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some

information directly about the fishery 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.

53

comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is evidence that the strategy is being

implemented successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy

is achieving its objective

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There are no measures in place to minimise the interaction / mortality of ETP species from the SLBSC fishery. Insufficient data is available to assess whether such measures are necessary and if so for which ETP species. Target Appropriate measures to minimise interactions / mortality (if any) of ETP species in the SLBSC fishery

introduced and operational Data Sources

SLBSC Fishery Management Plan (DFAR)

211) 2.3.3 Information & Monitoring: The status of the ETP bycatch associated with the SLBSC fishery is

unknown. An indication of the possible ETP bycatch associated with the SLBSC bottom-set gill net fishery was gathered during the field assessment. No monitoring systems are currently in place.

212)

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery

on ETP species.

Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to

protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and

support a full strategy to manage impacts.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of

certainty.

Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on

ETP species

Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for

ETP species.

Information is adequate to support 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.

Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species.

Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of

ETP species

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: The information that is available describing the interaction of ETP species with the SLBSC fishery is inadequate to broadly understand the impact (if any) of the fishery on ETP species; to support measures to manage the impacts (if any) on ETP species or to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Target Identification and quantification of all ETP species interacting with the SLBSC fishery. Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

Ecological Impact Monitoring

2.4 Marine Habitats

213) 2.4.1 Habitat Status: The SLBSC fishery is located in an area of high biodiversity, including a number of

critical marine habitats, such as fringing mangroves, sea grass beds, sandstone and coral reefs and sand banks and shoals. The assessment found no evidence or reports to indicate that critical marine habitats are threatened, damaged or destroyed by the operation of small scale fishing craft using bottom-set nylon gill nets in the SLBSC fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: Insufficient information is available describing the SLBSC fishery’s interactions with marine habitats.

54

The SLBSC fishery uses medium sized, bottom set nylon gill nets to harvest BSC. A variety of marine habitats including mangroves, coral and limestone reefs, sea grass beds, sand banks and mud banks are found in the vicinity of the SLBSC fishery. Of these, the SLBSC is likely to interact with sea grass beds and may interact with corals. The small scale and seasonal nature of the fishery; the passive nature of the gill nets and the largely inshore location of the sea grass beds suggests that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The SLBSC fishery’s interaction with coral reefs is unknown. The impact of ghost fishing by discarded or lost fishing gear is unknown. Target A comprehensive understanding of the interactions between the SLBSC and marine habitats in the vicinity

of the fishery. Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

214) 2.4.2 Habitat Management Strategy: The status of marine habitats and their interaction with the SLBSC

fishery is insufficiently understood.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve

the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

There is a partial strategy 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.

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or

comparison with similar fisheries/habitats).

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will

work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats

involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented

successfully.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes

are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: No measures are in place to reduce or prevent the fishery’s interaction with marine habitats. Insufficient evidence is available to assess whether such measures are necessary to achieve Habitat Outcome SG 80 level i.e., it is highly unlikely that the fishery reduces habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Target A partial strategy is in place (if necessary) that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level and of

performance or above, which is considered likely to be effective and which is being implemented. Data Sources

SLBSC Fishery Management Plan (DFAR)

215) 2.4.3 Habitat Information / Monitoring: A considerable body of research and technical reports is

available describing marine habitats in Sri Lanka. A number of comprehensive field surveys have been undertaken in Puttalam Lagoon. Data and information describing marine habitats in Mannar, Kilinochchi and Jaffna are less extensive, but contemporary research is underway through national and regional agencies.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There is a 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 area 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.

Information is adequate to broadly understand the main

impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial extent

of interaction.

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, timing

and location of use of the fishing gear.

Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the

outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery

The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been

quantified fully.

55

or the effectiveness of the measures).

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery from a variety of project reports and research surveys (e.g., IUCN, FAO UN) and surveys are ongoing (NARA / IUCN) to map marine habitats in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. This information has not been integrated into the context and spatial extent of the SLBSC fishery, which is unknown. Target Integration and analysis of types and distribution of main habitats in the Palk Bay in the context of the

spatial extent of the SLBSC fishery. Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

Ecological Impact Monitoring

2.5 Marine Ecosystems 216) 2.5.1 Ecosystem Status: The SLBSC fishery is situated in south western corner of the Bay of Bengal Large

Marine Ecosystem and the eastern most extent of the Indian Ocean Large Marine Ecosystem. The SLBSC fishery is unlikely to have any measurable impacts or threaten the broader ecosystem level processes and functions in either of these large marine ecosystems. BSC are both predator and prey for a number of other marine species. The size of the fishery and the relative abundance of BSC do not suggest that BSC play a crucial function in broader ecosystem level processes and functions in the Bay of Bengal or the Indian Ocean.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: The SLBSC fishery is small scale coastal fishery, using gill nets restricted to the near shore Sri Lankan waters in the Bay of Bengal (2,173,000 sq km), Palk Bay (17,000 sq km) and Gulf of Mannar (10,500 sq km), off the north-western and northern coast of the island. The small scale and seasonal nature of the fishery, combined with the low trophic status and short life history of BSC suggest that the fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying of the structure and function of each of the large marine ecosystems, to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Target Sufficient information and data are available to substantiate claims that fishery does not disrupt the key

elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

56

217) 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management Strategy: No specific strategies are necessary to manage the SLBSC fishery’s impact on the broader ecosystem dynamics in the Palk Bay, Gulf of Mannar or Bay of Bengal.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There are measures in place, if necessary, that

take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements

of the ecosystem.

There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that 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.

There is a strategy that consists of a plan , containing 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.

The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg,

general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems)

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.

The measures are considered likely to work,

based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or

comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems).

There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being

implemented successfully

The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly

from the fishery/ecosystems involved.

There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG < 60 FAIL

Rationale: No assessment or investigation has been conducted to assess whether measures are necessary to take into account the potential impact of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystems in the Bay of Bengal, Palk Bay or the Gulf of Mannar. Target A partial strategy is in place (if necessary) that is expected to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level and

of performance or above, which is considered likely to be effective and which is being implemented. Data Sources

SLBSC Fishery Management Plan (DFAR)

218) 2.5.3 Ecosystem Information / Monitoring: A considerable body of research and technical reports exist

describing the broader ecosystem dynamics in the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the

ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function,

community composition, productivity pattern and

biodiversity).

Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the

ecosystem.

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated

in detail.

Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from

existing information, and have been investigated.

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing

information, but have not been investigated in detail.

The main functions of the Components (i.e., target and bycatch and Habitats) in the ecosystem are

known.

The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats are identified and the main functions of these

Components in the ecosystem are understood.

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.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect 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

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: Information from published reports and research papers are adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystems in the Gulf of Mannar, Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar, but the main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements have not been investigated in detail. Target The main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements are broadly understood; the main impacts (if

any) can be inferred or are known and sufficient data has been compiled to assess environmental risk.

57

Data Sources

Ecological Impact Assessment (UNI / Other)

Ecosystem monitoring data

Principle 3: Management of Fishery 3.1 Governance & Policy 219) 3.1.1 Legal / Customary Framework: The Fisheries & Aquatic Resource Act (1996) and subsequent

amendments to the Act provide a comprehensive legal framework for statutory regulation of marine fisheries in Sri Lanka. The existence of a supportive legal framework provides the basis through which the SEASL and other members of a FIP Steering Committee can work towards establishing a regulation specific to the SLBSC fishery. Regulations governing the exploitation and management of other Sri Lankan fishery resources demonstrate the GOSL’s commitment to improving and sustaining Sri Lankan fisheries. The existence of ‘traditional fishing grounds’, informally associated with fishing communities each district, is likely to further assist the implementation of a regulation formulated for the SLBS fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC

Principles 1 and 2.

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.

The management system incorporates or is 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.

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 or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with

binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges.

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.

The management system 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.

The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.

The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the

legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people

dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and

2.

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.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 70 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: The Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Act (No.2 of 1996), Part IV sets out a transparent mechanism for the settlement of fishing disputes. The right to fish is embodied in Article 14, section g of the Sri Lankan Constitution (1978), which entitles every citizen to the freedom to engage by him or herself or in association with others in any lawful occupation, profession, trade, business or enterprise. There is inadequate information about the legal challenges to the system and compliance with binding judicial decisions arising from such challenges

Target Consolidation and analysis of legal provisions and challenges (if any) to the system and compliance with

binding judicial decisions arising from such challenges

Data Sources

Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Act (No.2 of 1996)

Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978)

Legal records of cases filed (if any) under the Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Act

58

220) 3.2.1 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities: Fishing communities are organised at the village, divisional and district level. Seafood companies are represented by the SEASL. The DFAR is represented at the national, district, divisional and village level and the MFAR has extensive research and development capability in the form of NARA and NAQDA. Functions, roles and responsibilities of each of these participants in the fishery are generally understood.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.

Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally

understood

Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.

Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of

responsibility and interaction.

Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified.

Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of

responsibility and interaction.

The management system includes consultation processes that obtain

relevant information from the main affected parties,

including local knowledge, to inform the management

system.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept

relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates

consideration of the information obtained.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly 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.

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.

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: Fishing communities engaged in the SLSBC fishery are organised at the village and district level and represented at the national level. The DFAR is represented at the village, divisional and district level and at the national level. The MFAR, the agency with overall responsibility for management of the SLBSC fishery, includes the National Aquatic Resource Research and Development Agency. An Advisory Committee advises the Minster on fishery policy and management. Seafood companies engaged in purchasing SLBSC are members of the Seafood Exporters’ Association of Sri Lanka. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood and consultation processes are take place that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties (e.g., the recent Sri Lanka / Indian Fishermen’s Dialogue in Colombo). Target Key areas of responsibility and interaction for the management of the SLBSC fishery are indentified and

operational through the SLBSC FIP Steering Committee. Regular meetings of the SLBSC FIP Steering Committee are arranged / formalised between all participants

in the SLBSC fishery and the management system responds to information generated through these interactions

The consultation process is open to representatives in the fishery, decisions and justifications are made available to the public.

Data Sources

MFAR Fishery Ten Year Policy (2009 – 2016 / 2016 -2015)

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

59

221) 3.1.4 Long Term Policy Objectives: The Government of Sri Lanka has formulated long-term objectives for the national fishery development in the ten year fishery development plan. The national fishery policy is consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. A precautionary approach is explicit in fishery management policy, statements and actions from the MFAR and DFAR.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles

and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within

management policy

Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management

policy

Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the

precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 60 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: The government of Sri Lanka’s commitment to a precautionary approach to fishery management are stated within the national policy for fishery management. Long term objectives, short term developments and actual practices are not always consistent with the pre cautionary approach. Target Long term objectives of the management policy for the SLBSC fishery are consistent with a pre cautionary

approach. Further development and actual fishing practices are consistent with a precautionary approach. Data Sources

MFAR Fishery Ten Year Policy (2009 – 2016 / 2016 -2015)

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

222) 3.1.5 Incentives for Sustainable Fishing: No incentives for sustainable fishing have been formulated,

discussed, agreed or are being promoted by participants in the SLBSC fishery. The rapid development of the SLBSC fishery, following the end of the civil conflict in 2009, is itself a key incentive to further improve and subsequently sustain the fishery. Following the end of the conflict, seafood companies were swift to establish collecting centres, linkages with local traders and processing facilities in previously conflict affected districts of the Northern Province. These interventions linked the SLBSC resource in the northwest to international markets. The price of a kilo of SLBSC quintupled and the SLBSC was established. The principal incentive for sustaining the fishery is likely to be financial, with benefits accruing to all participants in the fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC

Principles 1 and 2.

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with

achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to

ensure that negative incentives do not arise

The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to

ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices

SLBSC Fishery Score = < SG 60 FAIL

Rationale: The management system does not currently provide any social or economic incentives for sustainable fishing. Government fuel subsidies (if any) may contribute to unsustainable fishing.

Target Identification and introduction of economic and social incentives that promote sustainable fishing Discontinuation of subsidies (if any) that contribute to unsustainable fishing Data Sources

MFAR Fishery Ten Year Policy (2009 – 2016 / 2016 -2015)

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

60

3.2 Fishery Specific Management System 223) 3.2.1 Fishery Specific Policy Objectives: No policy objectives specific to the SLBSC fishery have been

formulated, discussed, agreed or are promoted by participants in the SLBSC fishery. Representatives of key participants in the fishery have clear and strongly held views on a number of policy objectives for future policy decisions or regulations. These include the need to reduce the harvest of small crabs; a reduction in the harvest of female crabs with eggs; introduction of measures to mitigate the impact of harvesting females with eggs; stronger enforcement of the ban on monofilament nets and the implementation on the ban on trawling.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s

Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery 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 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

management system.

SLBSC Fishery Score = < SG 60 FAIL

Rationale: There are no specific objectives associated with the SLBSC fishery. Target Formulation and agreement by participants on short term and long term objectives for the SLBSC

fishery. Data Sources

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

DFAR SLBSC Fishery Management Plan

224) 3.2.2 Decision Making Processes: No mechanism currently exists to facilitate fishery specific

management decision making processes within and between participants in the SLBSC fishery.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

There are informal decision-making processes 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.

Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation

and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and

take 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 transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of

decisions.

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 use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Formal reporting to all interested

stakeholders describes how the management system responded to

findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation

and review activity.

Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

SLBSC Fishery Score = < SG 60 FAIL

Rationale: No decision making processes are in place to indentify measures or strategies to achieve fishery specific objectives, because fishery specific objectives have yet to be formulated, agreed and implemented. Target Formulation and agreement by participants on the short term and long term objectives of the SLBSC

fishery. Decision making processes that result in measures or strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives;

respond to serious and other important issues; utilise a precautionary approach and or justify reasons for not responding to new findings or recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity

Data Sources

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

61

SEASL SLBSC Steering Committee

DFAR SLBSC Fishery Management Plan

225) 3.2.3 Compliance and Enforcement: The majority of fishermen participating in the SLBSC fishery comply

with the regulations that govern the exploitation and management of the SLBSC fishery. The DFAR’s enforcement of the regulations that govern the exploitation and management of all fishery resources in Sri Lanka is satisfactory. Issues of non compliance or lack of enforcement occur, allegedly associated with local and national political influence.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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, strategies and/or rules.

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.

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 effective management of the fishery.

There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including,

providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery

SLBSC Fishery Score = SG 70 CONDITIONAL PASS

Rationale: Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms for vessel and gear licences and the prohibition of illegal fishing gears (e.g., monofilament nets and trawlers) are implemented systematic across the entire fishery. The monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms are not comprehensive or consistently applied across the fishery (i.e., temporally or spatially). Target A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system for the fishery, based on the harvest

control tools, the harvest control rule and the harvest control strategy for the fishery. Sanctions for non compliance are consistently applied, temporally and spatially across the fishery Data Sources

DFAR SLBSC Fishery Management Plan

DFAR SLBSC Fishery Regulation

226) 3.3.4 Research Plans: No research plans have been proposed, developed or implemented to improve

the fishery management system. No research in support of policy and regulations has been undertaken on the SLBSC fishery in Sri Lanka. Significant improvements in the security situation in the north and increased access to the participants in the fishery have now created a viable platform for research.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

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.

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.

SLBSC Fishery Score = < SG 60 FAIL

Rationale: Only two research studies have been undertaken on the SLBSC fishery by undergraduate students, neither of which focused on objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 or 2. The research findings have yet to be published. No research on the SLBSC fishery has been undertaken by the NARA, nor is there any plan to do so. Target

62

A research plan encompassing local universities and the NARA, which provides the SLBSC fishery 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.

The dissemination of research findings to all interested parties in a timely fashion in formats and languages that facilitate broad understanding

Data Sources

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

University Research Programmes

NARA Research Programmes

Sri Lankan Journal of Aquatic Sciences

227) 3.3.5 Monitoring and Management Performance Evaluation: No mechanisms are in place to monitor or

evaluate the management performance of the SLBSC fishery management system. Individual and institutional capacity is available at the village, divisional, district and national level, which could be used to monitor the progress of new or modified fishing practices introduced to improve the SLBSC fishery. Adequate external resources - individual and organisational - necessary to evaluate the management performance of fishery improvement practices, are available in Sri Lanka and internationally.

Performance Indicators SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management

system and is subject to occasional internal review.

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management

system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review

The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management

system and is subject to regular internal and external review

SLBSC Fishery Score = < SG 60 FAIL

Rationale: No mechanisms are in place to evaluate some parts of the management system nor has the management system been reviewed. Target A mechanism is in place that will allow key parts of the management system to be evaluated and which

includes provision for regular internal and occasional external review Data Sources

SEASL SLBSC Fishery Improvement Project reports and web site

DFAR SLBSC Fishery Management Plan

VI. Recommendations 228) Twenty four recommendations to improve the biological status of the fishery (12 recommendations); to

improve (i.e., reduce) the ecological impact of the fishery (2 recommendations) and to improve the management of the fishery are proposed.

Recommendations to improve the biological status of the fishery I. Regular monthly monitoring of CW and W should commence from two or more locations by a

recognised government agency / institution. Field data should be analysed together with ‘production data’ gathered by seafood exporters purchasing & processing SLBSC.

II. Discussions should be held with the Department of Customs to explore the possibility of disaggregating crab export data for SLBSC.

III. A research project should be commissioned to investigate the population biology of the SLBSC IV. A study should be commissioned to investigate the effectiveness of measures promoted to

mitigate the impact of harvesting ovigerous females V. A study should be commissioned to investigate the selectivity of bottom-set gill nylon gill nets,

with a view to establishing a minimum mesh size for the SLBSC fishery VI. The GOSL should be lobbied and there should be advocacy among fishing communities, against

the use of illegal monofilament nets. VII. There should be continued support for and promotion of measures to mitigation or reduce the

harvesting of ovigerous females VIII. A regulation should be introduced for the SLBSC fishery

63

IX. The GOSL should continue to be lobbied and there should be continued advocacy with SLBSC fishermen to stop illegal trawling by IND and SRL trawlers

X. Technical and financial assistance should be provided to DFAR / MFAR to improve the collection and analysis of field data and information to monitor the exploitation of Sri Lankan marine resources.

XI. The assessment report and recommendations should be validated by an MSC approved independent conformity body (CAB)

XII. Preparations should be made to undertake or commission an assessment of the status of the SLBSC stock after the improvements to the SLBSC fishery outlined in the assessment report have been satisfactorily achieved

Recommendations to improve / reduce the ecological impacts of the fishery

XIII. A study should be commissioned to further investigate the nature and quantity of the bycatch (retained, discarded and ETP species) from the SLBSC fishery, with emphasis on the role of mesh size on bycatch composition

XIV. A study should be commissioned to further investigate the interaction between the SLBSC fishery and key marine habitats in the vicinity of the fishery.

Recommendations to improve management of fishery

XV. A Steering Committee (SC) for the SLBSC FIP (see Annex G) should be established comprising representatives of the fishing communities, seafood companies and government authorities, to facilitate dialogue and decision making between participants in the SLBSC fishery. The roles and responsibilities of participants should be clearly defined.

XVI. Long term objectives - resource, ecological, social and economic and management - for the SLBSC fishery should be reviewed, discussed and agreed.

XVII. Key incentives for sustainable exploitation of the SLBSC resource should be formulated, discussed, agreed and promoted

XVIII. Specific policy objectives for the SLBSC fishery Committee should be formulated, discussed, agreed and promoted

XIX. The GOSL should continue to be lobbied and there should be further advocacy to ensure better compliance with the regulations that that govern the exploitation and management of the SLBSC fishery, including stronger enforcement of regulations pertaining to the use of illegal monofilament nets and trawling by Indian and Sri Lankan trawlers

XX. Financial support should be provided through local universities and to the NARA to conduct research into key aspects of the SLBSC fishery

XXI. A mechanism to monitor and evaluate the performance of the SLBSC fishery management system should be developed

XXII. A study should be undertaken to assess the extent of seafood companies’ compliance with internationally recognised Decent Work Standards.

XXIII. A study should be undertaken to assess the feasibility and constraints pertaining to promoting producer organisation engagement in marketing / processing of SLBSC.

XXIV. A study should be undertaken to assess the equity of trading relations between producers, traders and seafood companies purchasing and exporting SLBSC

64

Anne A A Comparative Analysis of the Current Status of FIP for four BSC Fisheries

Country Indonesia (BSC) Overview

Lead Agency South East Asia Crab Roundtable

Participants 09 All processors : There are no representatives from producers

Stakeholders 16 (US) Importers; Ministry; University; NFI CC

Inaugurated 2007

Current Stage FIP 3 – Encouraging Improvements

FIP Recommendations

Support changing fishing gears (e.g., ban destructive fishing gears; change the mesh size to avoid catching smaller crabs).

Develop a control document stating that: a) suppliers will not accept undersized crabs and berried females and b) buyers can perform audits or inspections to establish that the policy has been implemented.

Support the government in establishing harvest management policy/regulations.

Background Boats and gear type; Employment – fishing & processing; Comment on crab size; Crab Fishery Management

Crab Market Export data US, Singapore, Malayasia, Taiwan, EU, China, Japan

Establishment of FIP Publically Announced 2007

FIP Objectives

Change practices (no take of small crabs/juveniles, no take of egg-bearing females), increase the stocks, develop policies that protect and sustain crabs (including protection of nursery ground, spawning area).

Develop a management plan for Indonesian blue swimming crab that includes community resources management that protects nursery ground; produce a control document.

Implement FIP workplan that includes development of the management plan, community-based management, communication and awareness, nursery and spawning grounds protection projects, as well as a hatchery project.

Progress Update Activities by year 2010 - 2013

Details

Current Status 2013

No biological references points after 5 yrs Current status cannot be determined Unsubstantiated information indicates fishery as met or more probably exceed MSY Insufficient data to proceed to quantitative assessment No other ranking system used

Status at Commencement

Since commencement average size has decreased Economic effort / inefficient has increased

Details of Status

2009 BSC FIP MSC Assessment conducted by

MRAG / Stock Modelling Assessment Report Unpublished SFP - The fishery has not been ranked by other ranking systems. MBA Seafood Watch: BSC - Avoid

FIP Programme Updates

2008 FIP Launched (Stage 1) Sustainability evaluation is available publicly Fishery improvement recommendations 2009 FIP Formed Suppliers are organized 2009 FIP Encouraging Improvements (Stage 3) FIP members engaging regulators Responsible buyers have shifted purchasing patterns

65

Annex A continued

Country Philippines (BSC) Overview

Lead Agency South East Asia Crab Roundtable

Participants 06 – all processing companies. No participation of producer organisations

Stakeholders 19 Importers (US?), ministry, local government, NFI CC

Inaugurated 2010 – Informal. FIP not established

Current Stage FIP 4 - delivering improvement in policies or practices

FIP Recommendations

Encourage industry to follow the LG existing minimum legal size regulation in areas where such regulations exist

Development of control document - he suppliers will not accept undersized crabs and berried females; buyers can conduct audits or inspections to see how the policy has been implemented.

Support the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on the creation of Joint DA-DILG Fisheries Administrative Order defining the implementing rules and regulations

Encourage industry and the government to adopt science-based policies Extend technical and scientific support to PACPI

Background

At least two units of stocks; plan to conduct MSC Assessment in 1990, but no one prepared. Rapid growth and expansion; symptoms of overfishing, evidence of exceeding MSY; threat of collapse if no reforms are introduced; ecosystem impacts from irresponsible fishing practices including entangling gill nets (trammel nets); juveniles caught as retained by catch.

Crab Market FAO export data

Establishment of FIP

Not formally established?

FIP Objectives

Enabling conditions for the FIP, PACPI, data collection, policy Pilots projects in selected areas Advocacy for regulation and management Stock enhancement activities Working with local government to implement ban on fishing crablets and protecting nursery areas

Progress Update

2010, the SFP-PACPI joint workplan was developed, implemented for the entire duration of calendar years (CY) 2010 and 2011 2011 - release hatchery-reared crabs to the wild;, action plan to improve the sustainability of the BSC industry through supporting minimum purchased crab size sustainability policy that will restrict the purchasing of female crabs bearing eggs or "berried" females 2012 radio infomercial in the Province of Negros Occidental; a new workplan for 2012, with a focus on stock assessments, biological and ecological studies, stock enhancement through hatchery rearing, holding of berried individuals, and resource management; Blue Swimming Crab Management Plan; Provincial Ordinance 2012-093 primarily banning the trade and landings of BSC with less than 11-cm carapace width; (NFARMC) adopted the BSC Management Plan, which would serve as the national framework towards the sustainability of the BSC resources in the Philippines Drafting of the Joint DA-DILG Fisheries Administrative Order

Details

Current Status 2013

There are indications that the fishery is suffering over-exploitation. MSY drastically exceeded (no. panels) Growth over fishing from push nets High impact on ecosystem – molluscs, juvenile sharks, rays

Status at Commencement

Same as current

Details of Status SFP - No other ranking system MBA Seafood Watch: BSC - Not Listed

FIP Programme Updates

FIP Launched (Stage 1) Sustainability evaluation is available publicly FIP is formed (Stage 2) Suppliers are organized FIP Encouraging Improvements (Stage 3) FIP members engaging regulators Responsible buyers have shifted purchasing patterns FIP delivering improvements in policies and/or fishing practices (Stage 4) Improvement in government policy

66

Annex A continued

Country Mexico (Gulf of California) – Not a BSC Fishery Overview

Lead Agency SFP

Participants 02 Processor / exporters. no representatives from producers?

Stakeholders Government and universities

Launched 2008

Current Stage FIP 4 - delivering improvement in policies or practices

Current Recommendations

Request the development and implementation of a management plan Request the legal verification of fishing gear Improve the landings registry and provide information to INAPESCA for stock evaluations

Background

Mexico is one of the leading exporters to the US. 60% from the pacific coast; mostly small scale fishers; numbers of boats, three states account for 90% of catches. Regulated by the government, includes legal minimum size, restrictions on no. boats and gears, egg bearing females and type of bait. Fishery defined as at MSY. Recommendation against any increase in effort.

Crab Market US export data and value. Destination US

FIP Established 2008

FIP Objectives

Develop a new stock assessment for the three stocks to identify if the limit reference points are appropriate for the stocks’ status.

Develop a fishery management plan. Evaluate environmental impacts of the fishery, including bycatch extent and composition and

habitat impacts. Achieve MSC certification

Progress Update

2009 MSC pre-assessment conducted by MRAG-Americas and FIP members. 2010 - FIP agreed on the fishery and fishery bycatch monitoring protocol developed by

INAPESCA, COBI AC, and CEDO. 2011 - Stock assessment for the Northern Sonora region concluded; fishery and bycatch

monitoring covering all of the fishing grounds. 2012 - The fishery management plan proposal was finished; Request legal verification of

suppliers fishing gear and enforcement on minimum legal size requirements on the landing places. Evaluation of fishery impacts concluded

2013 - FIP sent letter to the new CONAPESCA commissioner to present the project, request a meeting to discuss the improvements needed and request the fishery management plan formalization FIP sent letter to Sinaloa state government to request their collaboration to implement training programs to fishermen on the regulations and capture post-harvest handling

Details

Status 2013 Same as at commencement

Status 2008 Fully exploited

Details of Status SFP - No other ranking systems used MBA Seafood Watch: Swimming Crab - Not listed

FIP Programme Updates

FIP Launched (Stage 1) Sustainability evaluation is available publicly Best practices guidance publicly available FIP Formed Suppliers are organized Suppliers are evaluating this fishery FIP Encouraging Improvements (Stage 3) Workplan with annual improvement milestones is publicly available Responsible buyers have

shifted purchasing patterns Suppliers are engaging regulators FIP delivering improvements in policies and/or fishing practices (Stage 4) Fishery is achieving agreed annual improvement milestones Fisheries policy changed Fisheries practices changed The fishery management system is more precautionary Managers are following scientific advice more closely

67

Annex A continued

Country Russia (Far East Fisheries Basin) – Not a BSC Fishery Overview

Lead Agency RFE CCA latterly supported by SFP

Participants 13 Members – fishing companies / exporters (RFE CCA) and SFP

Stakeholders ?

Launched Not launched, formal FIP not established. Pre – planning commenced 2011

Current Stage FIP Stage 0 – Pre Planning Stage?

Current Recommendations

Take measures to address IUU fishing: Enhance public availability of crab data; develop FishSource crab fisheries profiles. Seek long-term options for crab fisheries certification. Engage North Pacific and European buyers to participate in the FIP establishment and its work. Encourage more Russian suppliers to join the Russian Far East Crab Catchers Association (CCA)

and participate in the FIP establishment and its work. Develop a CCA website with a special section highlighting FIP work progress and other

developments.

Background

Fishery is focused on 8 species; two king crab species suffering from overfishing due to IUU. Fishing now prohibited. Snow crabs stable over recent years; 87 – 92% of TAC. Fishing using pots and traps. TAC’s discussed publically. Catch stats lower due to IUU; flags of convenience. Bilateral agreements underway to prevent IUU and trade in IUU caught seafood. Agreement with Korea 2012. Russia / Japan ban on poaching crabs in Russian administered waters. Measures need to prevent trading in illegally caught crab.

Crab Market Export markets to Japan, Korea, US, China, Canada

Establishment of FIP 2009 RFE Crab Catchers Association formed. 13 fishing companies. SFP contacted CCA with MOU. MOU signed 2012. Workplan for joint cooperation approved in 2012.

FIP Objectives

FIP not Established. to systematically work on improving governance of crab resources and to eradicate IUU crab fishing and export of illegally caught crabs and their products Developing FishSource crab fishery profiles and enhancing public access to crab stock

assessment and management data. long term, the FIP will consider options for protecting fisheries through certification

Progress Update

Work on supply chain engagement and fishery evaluation for improvement purposes was started in 2011

Mapping a complete network of companies taking part in trading Russian crabs in order to exclude middleman traders and identify final buyers. The latter will be approached and invited to participate in the proposed FIP.

Details

Status 2013 Same as at commencement

Status at Commencement

Two king crab species suffering from overfishing due to IUU. Fishing now prohibited. Snow crabs stable over recent years;

Other species 87 – 92% of TAC.

Details of Status Sustainability information on Fishsource MBA Seafood Watch: Red King Crab – Avoid MBA Seafood Watch: Snow Crab – Not listed

FIP Programme Updates

FIP Pre Planning (Stage 0) CCA work on its website is in progress full member of All-Russia Association of Fishery Enterprises and Exporters identified a number of fishery improvement needs - Introduction of compulsory minimum crab

catch size by crab species and vessel types; Maintenance of a list of vessels (based on fishing permits) that can legally harvest crab

publicized in media its work on crab FIP with a reference to Walmart policy on procuring seafood from sustainable sources & cooperation with SFP

A FIP roundtable meeting was hosted in Boston in March 2013

68

Annex B Consultant’s Terms of Reference 1. Description of the Assignment: The commercial fishery for the Blue Swimming Crab (Portunus

pelagicus) situated off the north western and northern coast of Sri Lanka has undergone a rapid expansion since the end of the civil conflict in Sri Lanka in 2009. Increased access to the fishery, significant reductions in marketing constraints and strong demand for Blue Swimming Crab (SLBSC) from local and international seafood processors and exporters have combined to elevate the commercial importance of the coastal fishery for SLBSC in northern Sri Lanka.

In recognition of these changes, the Seafood Exporters Association of Sri Lanka (SEASL) proposes to initiate the design, development and introduction of a Fisheries Improvement Plan (FIP) for the SLBSC fishery off the northwest and northern coast of Sri Lanka. The purpose of researching, designing and ultimately implementing a FIP for the SLBSC fishery off the northwest and northern coast of Sri Lanka is to achieve independently verifiable improvements to the ways in which the SLBSC fishery operates. In the longer term the SEASL hopes that these changes will enable the fishery to ultimately achieve the Marine Stewardship Council’s Fishery Standard for a Sustainable Fishery.

The design, development and introduction of a Fishery Improvement Plan (FIP) for the SLBSC fishery off the northwest and northern coast of Sri Lanka by the SEASL is being undertaken with financial assistance provided by the National Fisheries Institute’s Crab Council.

2. Scope of Work: The Consultant will undertake to complete the following activities in collaboration

with the members of the SEASL, in connection with the research and design of a FIP for the SLBSC fishery off northwest and northern coast of Sri Lanka:

a. The completion of an assessment of the SLBSC fishery off the northern coast of Sri Lanka,

inclusive of but not restricted to The official launch of FIP for SLBSC in Sri Lanka A review of SLBSC FIPs & 2° data to SLBSC in Sri Lanka Field collection of 1° data from all relevant stakeholders Drafting and finalising a fishery assessment report Completion of a Scoping Document for the SLBSC off the northern coast of Sri Lanka

b. The formulation of a Work Plan and Budget for the SLBSC FIP for the period 2013 to 2015, inclusive of but not restricted to The design & development of draft Work Plan The presentation of the Scoping Document & discussion of draft Work Plan with relevant

stakeholders The drafting of a budget of the revised work plan Completion of the final Work Plan and Budget for 2013 – 2015

3. Duration of the Assignment: The assignment will be completed within a period of three months,

commencing on Thursday 1st

August 2013 and terminating on or before the 31st

October 2013.

69

4. Deliverables The Consultant will complete and submit the following deliverables to the SEASL in accordance with the due date indicated.

Deliverables Due Date (2013)

1.0 A Fishery Assessment Report that examines the past and present status and knowledge about the SLBSC fishery (i.e., biological, ecological, social, economic, political and legal) in a sustainability context off the north and northwest coast of Sri Lanka

30th

September

2.0 A Scoping Document that sets out the main findings in the Fishery Assessment Report and the key challenges that will need to be addressed by the FIP for the SLBSC fishery

30th

September

3.0 A two year Work Plan and Budget to improve the SLBSC fishery off the north and northwest coast of Sri Lanka, which set out stakeholder responsibilities that will address data deficiencies and sustainability issues identified in the Fishery Assessment and Scoping Document

31st

October

In addition to the above the Consultant is required to provide short monthly reports to the SEASL documenting the progress of the assignment and highlighting any problems or constraints encountered.

70

Annex C Main assessment criteria and sub criteria used during the field survey I. The Biology of the SLBSC Fishery

a) Geographical range of target stock(s); possible for / evidence of separate populations? b) Data availability on population biology - recruitment, growth, diet (prey species), moulting rates,

age cohorts, natural mortality (including predator species), fishing mortality c) Data availability on the reproductive biology – sex ratio, spawning season, fecundity,

II. SLBSC Fishery Profile (Physical, Social & Economic)

a) The geographic location, boundary(ies) and seasonality and history of the fishery b) No. and distribution of fish landing centres c) Type(s) and number of fishing craft(s), gear(s), fishermen (and women) engaged in harvesting

SLBSC in each location d) Boat & gear combinations - Sequential or simultaneous gear use e) Social characteristics of the fishery in each location f) Structure and function of organisations representing fishermen (and women), collectors,

processors, exporters, regulatory authorities and advisory bodies (i.e., fishery research and development) in relation to the management of the SLBSC fishery.

g) Economic characteristics of the fishery in each location – capital cost, operating costs, CPUE (kg / LKR), income and profitability, including any subsidies paid to fishermen

h) Employment characteristics of the fishery in each operational level : involvement of men and women in harvesting, post harvest and processing, including regulations, terms and conditions

i) Supply chain characteristics: local, provincial, national market linkages, post harvest processing and products, export destinations

j) The SLBSC fishery in the context of other local fisheries, relative economic and social importance III. The Ecology of the SLBSC Fishery

a) Types, quantities and providence of by-catch from the SLBSC fishery (commercial / non commercial; retained / discarded)

b) Estimates or assessments of the population status of by-catch (commercial / non commercial; retained / discarded)

c) Extent of impacts of the SLBSC fishery on predator and prey populations and ecosystem consequences

d) Presence/ absence of endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) species in the fishing areas (e.g., whales, dolphins, dugong, turtles, seabirds, corals, rare fish, sea fans) and the impact of the SLBSC fishery (fishing gear): review of independent studies, reviews, recommendations on the same.

e) Presence/ absence of habitats critical to SLBSC or ETP species and or rare or uncommon habitats within fishery area(s) and the impact of the SLBSC fishery (fishing gear): review of independent studies, reviews, recommendations on the same.

f) Independent assessments of overall impacts on the ecosystem of the SLBSC fishery and other local fisheries: independent reports, reviews Independent studies of overall ecosystem effects of the fishery and any objective(s) or controls to minimise effects

71

IV. The Management of the SLBSC Fishery

a) Formal procedures through which fishing effort and catch (including by-catch) are recorded / estimated by regulatory authorities, sources of information (including fishermen).

b) Informal procedures through which fishing effort and catch (including by-catch) are recorded / estimated by other stakeholders (e.g., traders / processors), sources of information (including fishermen).

c) Current estimate of the abundance / status of the stock(s), stock size and the use of such data to calculate total allowable catch / sustainable yields i.e., the current status of the fishery

d) Formal fishery management legislation and regulations conventions pertaining to the SLBSC fishery – minimum size limits, gear restrictions, fishing areas).

e) Informal fishery management regulations / conventions (i.e., developed enforced by fishermen) pertaining to the SLBSC fishery.

f) Assessment of the scope for and extent of dialogue / consultations between organisations and institutions, including improved fishery management and dispute resolution.

g) Present of any stock enhancement programmes / impact thereof. (Jeremy’s Note: Also, be sceptical for Stock Enhancement initiatives, because although it helps people rally around a cause, the dialogue now is that we need measurable outputs that this is indeed is having a positive effect to the stock – help develop a reseeding protocol – a full proof approach would be minimum size limitations based on spawning maturity and no berried–females, as well as no fishing areas (close to coastal proximities).

h) The extent of local compliance and effective of any such controls, including the means of surveillance by relevant authorities

i) Prevalence (if any) of illegal, unreported or unregulated catch and actions taken

72

Annex D Completed interview schedule for the SLBSC fishery Assessment August 2013

Date Day Person(s) Met

14 WED 1400 - 1430: Interview: Ms Asoka, Director, Coastal Aquaculture, NAQDA 1600 - 1630: Interview: K. Romeshun, Team Leader, SLRC, CEPA

15 THUR 1400 - 1500: Interview: Dr. HSSK Haputhanthri, Head Marine Biological Resources Division, National Aquatic Resources and Research Agency (NARA)

16 FRI 0900 - 1030: Interview: Dr. Dileepa de Croos, Lecturer, Depart. of Aquaculture & Fisheries, Wyamba University

20 TUE 1400 – 1530: Interview: Beth Crawford, Country Representative FAO UN. Dr. Kuruppu (Deputy Country Representative)

21 WED Phone Interview: Phillips Foods (Pvt) Ltd

22 THUR 1200 – 1400: Interview: Taprobane Seafood 1400 – 1530: Meeting: President SEASL

23 FRI 1430 – 1500: Meeting AD Fisheries Industry. Nuwan Gunawardane 1500 – 1530: Meeting DG Fisheries, Nimal Hettiarachchi

25 SUN

Colombo to Puttalam Interview FCS 01: Janasaviyapuram, Kalpitiya (M1/F0) Interview Crab Trader 01: (Wasantha Kumar), Kalpitiya (M1/F0) Interview NARA 01: Research Station (Rifkee OIC; Farheen), Kalpitiya (M2/F0) Interview FCS 02: Palakuda, Kalpitiya (M4/F0)

26 MON

Interview DFARD Office 01: Puttalam District (FI Kalpitiya & FI Islands) (M2/F0) Interview Exporter 01: TSF Mini Plant Bangadeniya (Shiran) (M1/F0) Interview Exporter 02: PN Fernando Collecting Centre Kalpitiya (M2/F0)

27 TUE

Puttalam to Mannar Interview FCS 03: Kattapaththiri & Siruththoppu, Pesalai (M5/F2) Interview FCS 04: Vidathathativu (M17/F1)

28 WED

Interview DoFARD Office 02: Mannar District (Management Assistant) (M0/F1) Interview Exporter 03: TSF Factory & Crab Hatchery Pesalai (Julian) (M1/F1) Interview Exporter 04: Prawn Ceylon Collecting Centre, Mannar (M1/F0) Interview DFF: President, Mannar District (Justin Soyza) (M1/F0) Interview FCSU: President, Mannar District (Arlum) (M2/F0) Interview Exporter 05: P.N. Fernando, Collecting Centre, Mannar (M1/F0)

29 THUR

Mannar to Kilinochchi to Jaffna Interview FCS 04: Vidaththaltivu (M4/F0) Interview FCS 05: Irainamadanagar (M4/F0) Interview Exporter 06: TSF Factory & Crab Hatchery, Irainamadanagar (M1/F0) Interview FCSU: President, Kilinochchi District (Muhundun, by phone) (M1/F0) Interview DFF: President, Kilinochchi District (Joseph Francis) (M1/F0)

30 FRI

Interview FCS 06: Mandaitivu (M8/F0) Interview FCS 07: Velanai (M3/F0) Interview Exporter 07: TSF Processing Factory Jaffna (Thusithen) (M1/F0)

31 SAT

Colombo to Puttalam Interview FCS 01: Janasaviyapuram, Kalpitiya (M1/F0) Interview Crab Trader 01: (Wasantha Kumar), Kalpitiya (M1/F0) Interview NARA 01: Research Station (Rifkee OIC; Farheen), Kalpitiya (M2/F0) Interview FCS 02: Palakuda, Kalpitiya (M4/F0)

73

September 2013

Date Day Person(s) Met

02 MON

Interview NFF: President, Jaffna District (Ponambalam) (M1/FO) Interview DFARD Office 03: Jaffna District (AD Vignemoorthy) (M2/F0) Interview U of Jaffna 01: Department of Fisheries (Prof. S. Kuganathan) (M0/F2) Interview FCSU: President, Jaffna District (Emiliyam Pillay, by phone) (M1/F0) Interview Other 01: Fishing Gear Sales Outlet, Jaffna Town (M1/F0) Interview CSO 01: UNDP TRP Office, Jaffna (Soyen, Project Officer) (M1/F0) Interview CSO 02: PARCIC Office, Jaffna (J A Britto) (M1/F0) Interview Crab Trader 03: Annai Seafood, Jaffna (Amaladasa) (M1/F0)

03 TUE

Jaffna to Kilinochchi to Puttalam Interview CSO 03: ILO LEED Project (Joe Connelly) (M2/FO) Interview DAFRD Office 04: Kilinochchi District (Clerk) (M1/F0) Interview FCS 08: Sinnapaduwa (Jemson Fernando) (M1/F0) Interview DFF: President, Puttalam District (Camillus Perera) (M1/F0)

04 WED Puttalam to Batticaloa to Colombo

10 TUE Phone Interview UNDP TRP Programme: Sonali Dayaratne

12 THUR

Interview 1030 – 1130 Interview: Janaka Mayakaduwage, MD – Alpex Marine: Interview 1230 – 1330 Interview: Herman Kumara, National Organiser, NFASO Interview 1500 – 1545 Interview: Joe Fernando, Ceylon Foods

13 FRI

Interview 1100 – 1200: Anura Dammika Perera, MD – Prawn Ceylon Pvt Ltd Interview 1400 – 1500: Nihal Fernando, MD – P N Fernando Pvt Ltd (by email) Interview 1600 – 1700: Sunil Wanasinghe, MD Western Lanka Aquatics Pvt LTd (by email)

16 MON Phone Interview 1000 – 1015: Asitha Koddituwakku. G LED UNDP Interview 1400 – 1500: Priyantha Kulatunga. Programme Manager, IOM

74

Annex E List of the agencies, organisations and individuals who generously contributed information, comments and suggestions to improve the SLBSC Fishery

Representative Agency / Organisation Name Designation Tel. No.

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Nimal Hettiararachchi Director General 0112 973 138

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources Nuwan Gunawardane Assistant Director: Fishery Industry Division

0112 329 539

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources M. Ganeshamurthi Acting Director Jaffna District

0212 222 532

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources - Office Clerk Kilinochchi District

021-2285964

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources (Mrs) P Nageswaran Management Assistant Mannar District

023-2222173

Govt. Authority Depart. of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources - FI Kalpitiya Islands / FI Kalpitiya Puttalam District

0322 265 295

Govt. Authority National Aquaculture Development Authority

J. M. Asoka Director: Coastal Aquaculture Development

0112 786 578

Govt. Authority National Aquatic Resources & Research Agency

Dr. H S S K Haputhanthri

Head: Marine Biological Resources Division

0112 521 914

Fishing Com. Janasaviyapuram, Kalpitiya - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. Palikuda, Kalpitiya - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. DFF Kalpitiya Cammilus Perera President 0717 085 966

Fishing Com. Pesalai, Mannar - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. Vidaththaltivu, Mannar - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. DFF Mannar Justin Soyza President 0756 716 945

Fishing Com. DFCSU Mannar Arlum President 0717 622 111

Fishing Com. Irainamadanagar, Kilinochchi - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. Pallikuda, Kilinochchi - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. DFF Kilinochchi Joseph Francis President 0772 806 712

Fishing Com. DFCSU Kilinochchi P. Muhundun President 0779 599 511

Fishing Com. Mandaitivu, Jaffna - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. Venalai, Jaffna - Fishermen & Women -

Fishing Com. DFF Jaffna Ponambulam President 0779 594 813

Fishing Com. DFCSU Jaffna Emiliyam Pillay President 0779 741 182

Exporters SEASL Roshan Fernando President -

Exporters SEASL Col. (Rtd) C. Weerantunga

Secretary 0112 598 831

Exporters Alpex Marine Pvt Ltd Janaka Mayakaduwage Indika Mayakaduwage

Director Director

1122 934 75

Exporters Ceylon Foods (Pvt) Ltd Joe Fernando Director 0112 339 314

Exporters P.N. Fernando & Co (Pvt) Ltd Nihal Fernando Managing Director 0112 237 105

Exporters Phillips Foods (Pvt) Ltd Bhashini Perera Quality Assurance Manager 0176 837 473

Exporters Prawn Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd Oshini Perera Director 0322 253 876

Exporters Taprobane Seafood Pvt Ltd Tim O’Reilly Director 0234 920 649

Exporters Western Lanka Aquatic (Pvt) Ltd Sunil Wanasinghe Managing Director 0114 814 974

Fish Traders Agent Wasantha Kumar Fish Trader -

Fish Traders Agent Arul Fish Trader -

Fish Traders Agent Kingsley Fish Trader -

Fish Traders Agent Ravi Fish Trader -

Fish Traders Annai Seafoods Amaladasan Director 0777 574 481

Academics University of Jaffna Prof. (Mrs.) S.

Kuganathan Head Department of Fisheries 0212 222 307

Academics Wyamba University Dr. Dileepa de Croos Depart. Aquaculture & Fisheries

0718 129 806

CSO Centre for Poverty Analysis K. Romeshun Team Leader: SLCR Project 0112 676 955

CSO Food and Agricultural Organisation UN Beth Crawford Representative 0112 04 672

CSO International Labour Organisation UN Joe Connelly Chief Technical Adviser 0773 082 204

CSO International Organisation for Migration Priyantha Kulatunga Programme Manager: AVRP 0115 325 300

CSO National Fisheries Solidarity Organisation Herman Kumara National Organiser 0773 184 532

CSO PARC Inter Peoples Cooperation J. A. Britto Regional Director 0212 227 897

CSO UN Development Programme Asitha Koddituwakku G LED Specialist 0112 596 722

75

Annex F List of the scientific papers, technical reports and guidelines reviewed during the SLBSC fishery assessment

Author Year Title & Publication

Ameer Hansa 1971 Abnormality in the right chela of the portunid Crab, Portunus pelagicus

Anand, T. & Soundarapandian, P. 2011 Sea ranching of commercially important blue swimming crab Portunus pelagicus (linnaeus, 1758) in parangipettai coast.

Ceylon Chamber of Commerce 2012 Fisheries Sector in Sri Lanka

Chitravadivelu, K. 1993 Aspects of the fishery and species composition of edible crabs in Jaffna lagoon

Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions

A Common Vision for Environmentally Sustainable Seafood

Dayaratne, P., Linden, O. & de Silva, R.

1997 The Puttalam / Mundel Estuary System & Associated Coastal Waters

Dineshababu, A. P., Shridhara B. & Muniyappa Y. 2008.

Biology and exploitation of the blue swimmer crab, Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758), from south Karnataka coast, India

Ehsan, K., Abdul Nabi, S. & Maziar, Y.

2010 Stock assessment and reproductive biology of the blue swimming crab, Portunus pelagicus in Bandar Abbas coastal waters, northern Persian Gulf

Jayamana, S. C. 2011 Crab Resources of Sri Lanka

Kamrani, Ehsan; Sabili, Abdul Nabi; Yahyavi, Maziar

2010 Stock Assessment and Reproductive Biology of the Blue Swimming Crab, Portunus pelagicus in Bandar Abbas Coastal Waters, Northern Persian Gulf

Marine Stewardship Council 2010 MSC Fishery Standard: Principls & Criteria for Sustainable FIshing

Marine Stewardship Council Web Information requirements for the Marine Stewardship Council’s Pre-Assessment.

Menon, M. K. 1952 A note on the bionomics and fishery of the swimming crab Neptunus sanguinolentus (herbst) on the Malabar Coast

Monterrey Bay Aquarium 2013 Seafood Watch Blue and Red Swimmer Crab

National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency

2011 Fisheries Outlook. Socio-Economic and Marketing Research Division, National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA)

Pramod, G. 2010

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Marine Fish Catches in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone. FIELD REPORT. Policy and Ecosystem Restoration in Fisheries Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, BC, Vancouver, Canada

Prasad, R. R. & Tampi, P R S 1952 An account of the fishery and fishing methods for the neptunus pelagicus (linnaeus) near mandapma

Prasad, R. R. & Tampi, P R S 1952 A contribution to the biology of the blue swimming crab, neptuns pelagicus (linnaeus) with a not on the zoea of thalamita create latreille

Safie, M., Pazooki j., Kaibi B. & Shokri, M. R.

2013 Reproductive biology of blue swimming crab, Portunus segnis (forskal, 1775) in coastal waters of Persian Gulf and oman sea, Iran

Sarda, P. T. 1998 Crab fishery off the Calicut coast with some aspects of the population characteristics of the Portunus sanguinolentus, P. pelagicus and Charybdis curciata.

Sivanathnan, S., & de Croos M D S T

2013 expansion of the gillnet fishery for blue swimmer crab (Portunus pelagicus) in the coastal waters off Jaffna: the post-war context, where will we end up?

Sukumaran K K & Neelakantan B. 1996 Mortality and stock assessment of two marine portunid crabs, Portunus (Portunus) sanguinolentus (Herbst) and Portunus (Portunus) pelagicus (Linnaeus) along the southwest coast of

76

Author Year Title & Publication

India.

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Web Guidance Note: Testing the Technical Performance Equivalency of Different Wild Seafood Certification Systems Compared to the Marine Stewardship

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Web

Fisheries Improvement Plan Tool Kit (Initiation, Development Work Plan, Detailed Work Plan, White Paper, Budgeting, Agreements, Implementation, Annual Public Work Plans, Communication).

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership 2013 Overview & Details: Indonesian Blue Swimming Crab Fishery Improvement Project

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership 2013 Overview & Details: Philippine Blue Swimming Crab Fishery Improvement Project

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership 2013 Overview & Details: Gulf of California Blue Swimming Crab Fishery Improvement Project

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership 2013 Overview & Details: Russian Far East Crab Fishery Improvement Project

USAID 2008 Micro Report # 100. Analysis of the fisheries sector in Sri Lanka. Guided case studies for value chain development in conflict-affected environments.

77

Annex G Schematic representation of the FIP Steering Committee to improve the SLBSC fishery Working Definitions FIP Member: Restricted to representatives of the fishing community, seafood companies and the

government of Sri Lanka who are directly engaged in the exploitation, export and management of the SLBSC fishery. Responsible for designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the SLBSC FIP. FIP members will have access to all FIP documents and data.

Fishing Community 4 representatives – 1 per district

Seafood Companies 3 representatives – fresh, frozen, canned? Government 3 representatives – DFAR, NARA and MFAR

FIP Partner: Open to organisations that agree to support FIP members and or to implement

activities set out in the Long Term Development Plan and the Annual Implementation Plans of the SLBSC FIP. FIP Partners will be provided with access to selected FIP documents only.

Government

Fishing Communities

SEASL / Seafood

Companies

NFF CC

ILO UN LEED

FAO UN

University

IOM

SLBSC FIP

UNDP