Fisheries Program Revisions: Endangered, threatened and protected species

Proposed change

A new method of categorising species under Principle 2 has been developed, which intends to establish a more balanced and scientifically defensible framework for how species are categorised.  It also aims to ensure that requirements better reflect the availability of data on ETP and mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles (out-of-scope species). 

The new approach will require species to be categorised into two groups according to whether they are 1) Fish and Invertebrates, or 2) Birds, Mammals, Amphibians or reptiles. Within each group, assessors will be required to determine whether the species should be classed as ETP. This will be based on conservation status and relevant national or international listings such as IUCN Red List, CITES and CMS. 

The proposals would replace the ‘In-scope’ and ‘ETP/Out-of-scope’ species categorisations introduced in Version 3. The modification mechanism - which allowed fish and invertebrate species to be classified as ETP if specific criteria were met - has also been removed.  However, the precautionary approach for depleted shark populations introduced in Version 3 remains. This means sharks will continue to be treated as ETP if they feature on IUCN endangered and critically endangered lists.

Rationale

The proposed categorisation method reduces complexity and ensures species are only classified as ETP where appropriate. It will also ensure fish or invertebrates species of conservation concern receive appropriate consideration under Principle 2.  

Proposed change

Fisheries will be required to demonstrate their direct impacts 'do not hinder the recovery' of ETP species. This replaces the requirement introduced in v3 to demonstrate that ETP species can recover 'Favourable Conservation Status' – defined as a threshold of a minimum of 50% of unimpacted levels within three generations or 100 years, whichever is shorter.

For non-ETP birds, mammals, reptiles or amphibians, fisheries must also demonstrate that the level of reproduction for these species is above the point of being 'seriously threatened'.

Rationale

The introduction of 'Favourable Conservation Status' as an explicit threshold for evaluating impacts on ETP species prevented many well-managed fisheries from meeting the Standard. It became apparent that this threshold is not widely used by fishery management bodies or reflected in the scientific literature. As a result, there is limited data available to determine a fishery’s impact using this threshold.   

The proposed revisions, which focus on 'not hindering recovery', provide a more feasible approach and allow fisheries to demonstrate how direct impacts on ETP species are minimised using a wider range of reference points, conservation objectives and management approaches.

Proposed change

Removal of the requirement that allowed assessors to classify interactions with bycatch species as ‘negligible’ if they were demonstrably low.

All species forming part of the catch profile must now be categorised and assessed.

Rationale

The proposed revisions ensure a more precautionary approach is taken to assessing a fishery’s impacts.

Under Version 3, interactions with fish and invertebrates could be classed as 'negligible' when the species made up less than 2% of the total catch. For birds, marine mammals, amphibians and reptiles, this also applied if fewer than 10 individuals were caught per year and the breeding population was sufficiently large. In practice, this did not always provide sufficient precaution for species that are slow to mature and reproduce as even low levels of bycatch can have a significant impact.

Proposed changes

Assessors are still required to explicitly consider both observed and unobserved mortality, however clarifications have been made to how unobserved mortality should be assessed.

Assessors will be required to build a species list at the start of the assessment process. This includes defining whether a species is part of the catch profile, wild-caught bait, or bycatch species that are susceptible to injury or mortality as a direct effect of fishing operations but not necessarily caught.

A new definition of 'direct effects' has also been developed to clarify the type of interaction that should be considered. This includes injuries and mortalities due to interaction with fishing operations, including gear, vessels, and associated equipment.

Rationale

Under Version 3, assessors were required to quantify unobserved mortality (e.g. stress-related deaths from gear interactions) of ETP and out-of-scope species. However, in practice, assessors experienced challenges obtaining the required data on unobserved mortality.

The proposed requirements provide a more feasible approach, while still ensuring that assessments are precautionary. The requirements to build a species list and new definition of 'direct effects' intend to make sure all relevant species are considered as part of an assessment, and provides a clearer and more explicit approach.

Proposed changes

Requirements for assessing how a fishery manages interactions with species under Principle 2 have been revised to provide a more consistent approach. This includes a greater focus on whether a management strategy is effective, and a removal of the term 'minimise mortality'. The requirements include measures to prevent impacts that hinder the recovery of an ETP species, and to ensure non-ETP species remain at levels consistent with the outcome requirements for the relevant species.

To achieve SG80 (a score considered 'best practice'), a fishery must now have a strategy in place for managing impacts on ETP species. This will require fisheries to reach a higher level of performance than before: under Version 3 fisheries were only required to have a partial-strategy in place to achieve SG80.

Rationale

These revisions intend to improve the rigour of assessments and ensure greater scrutiny of a fishery’s impacts on ETP species.

Under Version 3, assessors reported difficulties interpreting what 'minimised' meant in practice, and as such the requirements were being applied inconsistently. This was particularly apparent when assessing impacts on species of low conservation concern, where the data required to meet the Standard was less likely to be available. Conflicts were also identified between the Standard and regulations set by management bodies that allow retention of such species.

Proposed change

The MSC is revising the performance levels required of fisheries for monitoring, including the thresholds originally set for independent observation. This will ensure that performance expectations for fisheries are set appropriately in line with practices that are widely accepted and adopted by fisheries management agencies.

The proposals require fisheries operating on the high seas to have a management policy objective for independent observation of at least 20% of fishing events in order to achieve a ‘best practice’ score of SG80. This would not apply to fisheries using pole and line, troll or hand-line gears. 

Fisheries with 100% independent observation policies would be able to achieve a 'state-of-the-art' score of SG100, providing recognition for fisheries with more comprehensive monitoring systems.

The monitoring requirements have also been moved from the Evidence Requirements Framework in the Fisheries Standard Toolbox to the Management Performance Indicators under Principle 2 of the Standard. The requirements will be applied to the management on in-scope species (fish and invertebrates) and out-of-scope species (birds, marine mammals, amphibians and reptiles). The revised Evidence Requirements Framework will continue to be used to guide the assessment of the accuracy of any monitoring in place.

Rationale

The revisions intend to make sure that requirements for at-sea monitoring and independent observation coverage align with widely adopted best practice widely adopted. Concerns were raised following publication of Version 3 that the thresholds for monitoring did not consider the diversity of fisheries in the MSC program and capacities for implementing those programmes. Notably, these requirements were considered a particular challenge for highly selective fisheries (e.g., hand-gathering) or those using alternative monitoring approaches.

The new thresholds consider the risks posed by different types of fisheries. Fisheries operating on the high seas are considered higher risk in terms of their potential impacts on the marine environment. Conversely highly selective fisheries, such as those using pole and line or handline gears, are perceived to be lower risk.

The MSC is committed to creating an incentive to increase independent observer coverage in all fisheries, however it is important our requirements can be applied in practice and are proportionate to the risks presented by different fisheries.

To support the development of this proposal, the MSC commissioned an independent review of current practices in independent verification and observer coverage. The report identified that while there is a wide range of approaches and levels for monitoring, RFMOs typically had a target of 20% independent monitoring, serving as a credible baseline for high seas fisheries to meet.