Fishery Status Reports Healthcheck for Australian Fisheries
Alistair Hobday, Emily Ogier, Aysha Fleming, Jason Hartog, Linda Thomas, Ilona Stobutzki, Marcus Finn May 24, 2016
FRDC Project 2014/008
© 2016 Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-4863-0689-3 Fishery Status Reports: Healthcheck for Australian Fisheries FRDC 2014-008 2016
Ownership of Intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere. This publication (and any information sourced from it) should be attributed to Hobday, A. J. et al (2015) Fishery Status Reports: Healthcheck for Australian Fisheries, FRDC Final Report 2014/008. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, May 2016. CC BY 3.0] Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to:
[email protected] Disclaimer The authors do not warrant that the information in this document is free from errors or omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this document may not relate, or be relevant, to a readers particular circumstances. Opinions expressed by the authors are the individual opinions expressed by those persons and are not necessarily those of the publisher, research provider or the FRDC. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation plans, invests in and manages fisheries research and development throughout Australia. It is a statutory authority within the portfolio of the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, jointly funded by the Australian Government and the fishing industry.
Researcher Contact Details
FRDC Contact Details
Name: Address:
Address:
Phone: Web
Dr Alistair Hobday GPO Box 1538 Hobart TAS 7001 03 6232 5222 www.csiro.au
Phone: Fax: Email: Web:
25 Geils Court Deakin ACT 2600 02 6285 0400 02 6285 0499
[email protected] www.frdc.com.au
In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to FRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. vi Keywords: ............................................................................................................................ viii Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 2 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 2 Development of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries – Objective 1 ........ 2 Review of existing sustainability assessment schemes ............................................... 2 Links between management objectives and the Healthcheck ...................................... 3 Engagement via interviews .......................................................................................... 4 The prototype Healthcheck portal – Objective 2 ................................................................ 5 Case studies – Objective 3................................................................................................. 7 Pathway for delivery – Objective 4 ..................................................................................... 9 Results and Discussion....................................................................................................... 10 Key Points ........................................................................................................................ 10 Development of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries – Objective 1 ...... 10 Review of existing sustainability assessment schemes ............................................. 10 Engagement via interviews ........................................................................................ 16 Links between management objectives and the Healthcheck .................................... 20 To score or not to score? ........................................................................................... 26 The prototype Healthcheck portal – Objective 2 .............................................................. 27 Case studies – Objective 3............................................................................................... 31 Pathway for delivery – Objective 4 ................................................................................... 32 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 33 References ............................................................................................................................ 34 Implications .......................................................................................................................... 35 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 36 Further development ........................................................................................................ 36 Extension and Adoption ...................................................................................................... 37 Project materials developed ............................................................................................... 37 Appendix 1 – Project Staff................................................................................................... 38 Appendix 2 - Project workshops ........................................................................................ 39 Appendix 3 – Descriptions of categories, sub-categories and indicators (v12-5-16) .... 40 Appendix 4 – References for Indicators ............................................................................ 50 Appendix 5 – Review of existing assessment schemes .................................................. 52 Appendix 6 – Interview questions and coding .................................................................. 59 eNGO interview questions................................................................................................ 59 Stakeholder interview questions....................................................................................... 59 Analysis hierarchy: themes, categories and codes (frequency is the number of times coded across all interviews). ............................................................................................ 60 iii
List of Tables Table 1. Selection criteria considered against the selected case study fisheries. ................... 8 Table 2. Summary of the number of unique indicators found in 25 existing assessments that were classified into each of the sub-categories used in the Healthcheck. ...................... 11 Table 3. Summary of indicators used in a range of fishery sustainability assessments, mapped to the categories used in the Healthcheck. .............................................................. 13 Table 4. Membership of in each of six clusters for 25 indicator-based assessments covered in the review. ............................................................................................................ 16 Table 5. Comparison of Healthcheck assessment categories and subcategories with the number of equivalent management objectives for Australia’s key managed fisheries in each jurisdiction. .................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6. Comparison of Healthcheck assessment categories and sub-categories with the number of equivalent performance indicators for Australia’s key managed fisheries in each jurisdiction ..................................................................................................................... 23
List of Figures Figure 1. Generalised high-level objectives for Australia’s key fisheries. ................................ 4 Figure 2. Structure of the Fishery Healthcheck ...................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Indicator summary across assessments. Upper: Number of assessments (out of 25) with indicators in the biological category. Middle: Number of assessments with indicators in each sub-category. Lower: Number of assessments with indicators in each category. ................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 4. Cluster analysis results showing the relationship between existing assessments based on the number of indicators in each sub-category. Six clusters were identified, with the Healthcheck (#25) falling within the largest cluster. ......................................................... 15 Figure 5. Summary of the number of ideas raised by eNGO interviewees. Note the slowing of new ideas after interviewee number 7, indicating satisfactory sampling by interview 10. ........................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Schematic of the link between Healthcheck assessment categories and subcategories and Australian fisheries management. ................................................................. 21 Figure 7. Sub-categories with low/moderate/high degree of overlap with Australia’s fisheries management systems.............................................................................................. 26 Figure 8. Examples of visualisations of overall scores for fishery assessments. ................... 26 Figure 9. Support for an overall assessment score was mixed according to a survey of Australian fishery managers (Project workshop 1). ................................................................ 27
iv
Acknowledgments This project has benefited from the engagement and feedback from many fisheries managers and policy makers from around Australia at workshops and by email and phone conversations. Similarly, the interest and suggestions offered by both conservation agency representatives and fishers involved in harvest and distribution of seafood helped the project team to tune the material presented here. Comments by Caleb Gardner, and an anonymous reviewer helped contextualise and refine the report.
v
Executive Summary This project – the draft Healthcheck - delivers an approach to summarise available information to document the sustainability of Australian fisheries – efficiently, consistently, comprehensively and transparently. The draft Healthcheck categories includes social, economic and governance factors not consistently included in fishery assessments to-date, alongside common biological considerations, such as stock status. A holistic picture of the sustainability of Australian fisheries is needed to inform both the general public and public and private organisations about the sustainability of Australian fisheries. If implemented, a fisheries Healthcheck portal will support transparent and efficient access to commercial fishery information such as by-catch levels or economic performance which will then serve in tandem with the Status of key Australian fish stocks reports (SAFS) as the ‘go to’ source of overview information about individual fisheries. A prototype online evaluation tool provides clear information on the strengths and challenges for Australian fisheries across a range of indicators. To make this online tool operational, additional fisheries information would need to be added, and wide consultation with potential users undertaken.
The proto-type Healthcheck application is available at http://www.marine.csiro.au/apex/f?p=131:1 Username is GUEST, Password is GUEST.
Why do we need to assess sustainability for fisheries? Australian fisheries are recognized as world leading with regard to research and management, yet many Australians lack information to judge aspects of fishery performance they value. Recent events, such as the ‘supertrawler’ debate, have shown that information about fishery performance with regard to target species is no longer sufficient. Increasing attention in the media and society-at-large is now given to a broader range of concerns. Thus, while Australian fisheries have long recognized that it fishing is no longer just about catching fish - it is about a sustainable industry and management of a broader range of factors – ways of communicating this have never been more important. This need was recognised in Australia as early as 2001 – such a tool was identified in the original ESD project (National Application of Sustainability indicators for Australian fisheries), and in the subsequent EBFM working group. What is the purpose of the Healthcheck? The Healthcheck is designed to provide summary information about the performance of Australian fisheries against a broad set of criteria. The criteria include those addressed directly through fisheries management, such as managing the sustainable harvest of targeted stocks, as well those outside the scope of formal fisheries management but identified as of concern to stakeholders. The Healthcheck comprises a data repository and portal providing this summary data to transparently and comprehensively support reporting on a broad range of issues relevant to Australian fisheries. It does not give a score or provide subjective interpretation of the status of fisheries. The objectives of the Healthcheck project are to: 1. In consultation with fisheries stakeholders identify a broad range of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries
vi
2. Develop a web-based and summary template for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of criteria 3. To illustrate this approach, undertake several case studies on selected fisheries 4. Develop a pathway for linking these fishery-level reports with the stock status reports (SAFS) and handing over methods to appropriate jurisdictions for operationalising of the reports into the future. Who is the Healthcheck target audience? The Heathcheck is designed to support fisheries managers and managing agencies, as well as communities of interest (recreational fisheries, regional coastal communities), eNGOs (as authors of many existing seafood guides), third party assessment bodies, and provide information for interested members of the public. Coverage of the Healthcheck: A review of over 50 existing fishery sustainability assessments from Australia and around the world identified a wide range of structures and indicators. The Healthcheck summary of each fishery is based on indicators organised into sub-categories and categories (see below). The sorting and coding of indicators into sub-categories and categories was conducted without application of any existing framework, however, the results strongly aligned with the National ESD framework for wild-capture fisheries (Fletcher et al. 2002). Highlighting the link between this framework and the Healthcheck assessment is advantageous given the importance of the ESD framework in informing the design of management goals and objectives for Australian fisheries. Four categories (biological, economic, governance and social) with between two and six sub-categories are proposed here. It is proposed that each subcategory is represented by two indicators, for a total of 32 indicators per fishery. The specific indicators may need to be varied between fisheries. The current information summary structure is proposed and may need to be refined through further testing and consultation with stakeholders.
vii
Testing the Healthcheck: The Healthcheck approach has been tested on three case study fisheries that represent some of the diversity of Australian fisheries, including data poor, multijurisdictional, and multi-species fisheries. These case studies, summarised on the Healthcheck portal, show how information might be presented, and reveal challenges with accessing the wide range of data required. A single score for each fishery? A number of other sustainability assessments provide a single score or rating for a species or fishery. With less comprehensive systems this may be possible, but the information contained in the Healthcheck spans a wide range of categories, and so combining disparate information into a single score, while possible, will conceal important information and trade-offs. We expect users of the Healthcheck portal to explore the data across a range of indicators to gain an appreciation of the strengths, weaknesses and progress towards sustainability across all the categories. Updating the Healthcheck: Information on each of the indicators is accessed through a dedicated web-portal, with near real-time updating allowed by nominated authorities – or potentially from machine to machine. Information can be vetted by a quality control group, before going public. Such a quality control group might be comprised of experts in fisheries assessments, as with the Status of Australian fish stocks approach. Protocols for data management access will need to be developed. Engagement with stakeholders: A range of workshops, presentations, face-to-face and telephone interviews were completed to understand sustainability issues from the perspectives of the fishing industry, fishery managers, seafood marketers, special interest groups, and society at large. These conversations helped shape the form of the proposed Healthcheck summary. Implications for relevant stakeholders: the Healthcheck portal has the potential to streamline some types of reporting for fishery managers and departments, as well as providing a platform for reporting on areas of performance outside of legislated responsibilities but of strong community interest. This value needs to be ascertained via additional consultation. It can support additional assessments by other organisations, as reported during this project. Recommendations: The Healthcheck portal is not ready for public release due to the limited number of case studies and the fact the draft category and indicator structure needs further consultation and testing. We propose that this project continue for another year. Additional fishery case studies (up to 20) will be completed in this next year, with additional outreach and testing before official launch. Follow-up interviews with eNGOs and fishery stakeholders can refine the presentation and delivery of information on the portal. Automated uploads of data can be streamlined, while some additional data may be collated for particular indicators.
Keywords: social license, assessment, sustainability, Australian seafood, indicators
viii
Introduction We use the term "Healthcheck" to describe this project; as for a human health check, we aim to deliver an approach by which to achieve an efficient and wide-ranging evaluation of Australian marine commercial fisheries - including the people, species and habitats involved, area, and method of fishing. The proposed Healthcheck is a web-based portal delivering information on 32 indicators in four assessment categories. These categories and indicators can be revised and updated based on additional development and stakeholder engagement. This project was developed in response to the FRDC 2014 Annual Competitive Round Call for Expressions of Interest. It addresses a priority listed in the "ALL JURISDICTIONAL PRIORITIES 2014" category; 2. Fishery/Stock Status Report. The project focuses on the second element under this priority, development of a template for reporting the status of Australian fisheries as a companion to the Status of key Australian fish stocks reports (SAFS). To complement SAFS, a more holistic picture of the sustainability - biologically, socially and economically – of Australian fisheries is needed to proactively inform the broader seafood sustainability debate. A key need is to develop indicators to support performance reporting on how fisheries are tracking in relation to issues such as status of the target species bycatch, economic performance, stock status and social/societal issues. The Healthcheck summary relies on existing and soon-to-be available information from completed projects, however, some new data may be needed. The selection of Healthcheck categories, subcategories and indicators was also informed by another strategic FRDC project, evaluating objectives in Australian fisheries (FRDC 2013/204). Sustainable fishing is typically used to imply sound use of a sustainable resource. Australian fisheries are recognized as world leading with regard to research and management (Pitcher et al 2009; Costello et al 2012), yet that message is still not being heard by many Australians, potentially eroding support for this industry. Recent events have shown that information about fishery performance with regard to target species is no longer sufficient for many Australians. Increasing attention in media and society-at-large is now given to a range of other fishery issues, including bycatch, economic performance, stock status and social/societal issues. The ESD framework (Fletcher et al. 2002) identified many of these issues as components within a fisheries system, and provided reporting guidelines. However the framework as a reporting tool has been implemented to a limited extent, and the suite of issues now identified as important by the Australian community with regard to the performance of fisheries has evolved. We lack a data management and communication platform at the national level for transparently and comprehensively reporting on the performance of our fisheries against these emerging key social concerns issues. Here we describe the approach for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of issues, as a companion to the Status of key Australian fish stocks reports (SAFS). This web-based assessment template will provide a holistic summary picture of the biological, governance, social and economic performance of Australian fish fisheries. This will provide fisheries managers and other stakeholders with a clear view of successes, strengths, and challenges. This Healthcheck portal and information may form the basis for performance reporting on fisheries for other purposes, such as State of Environment Reports. This work will assist Australian fisheries be recognized more widely by the general public as having a strong sustainability focus compared to most other nations. The Healthcheck, if developed further, will draw on a wide range of existing research and management outputs, be
1
accessible, and through an inclusive development and consultative process, be trusted by the fishing sector and the Australian public.
Objectives The objectives of the project were to: 1. In consultation with fisheries stakeholders identify a broad range of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries 2. Develop a web-based and summary template for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of criteria 3. To illustrate this approach, undertake several case studies on selected fisheries 4. Develop a pathway for linking these fishery-level reports with the stock status reports (SAFS) and handing over methods to appropriate jurisdictions for operalisation of the reports into the future.
Methods For each objective, we describe the methods used to address the key issues.
Development of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries – Objective 1 Objective 1: In consultation with fisheries stakeholders identify a broad range of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries
Review of existing sustainability assessment schemes A web and literature search for sustainable fisheries indicators and assessments was undertaken to document suitable indicators. This search was supplemented with the collection of indicators from other fisheries certification sources, such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the IndiSeas project (www.indiseas.org). Snowballing from these searches and their references identified a range of other assessments. For the assessments that use categories and indicators from each source, indicators were entered into an excel spreadsheet and a consistent set of names created that accounted for language ambiguity. Additional metadata was created for each assessment that we located which allowed some classification and helped focus the Australian Healthcheck. Assessment sources were grouped by how they were certified i.e. Fishery certification, third party and whether or not they were local (Australian) or International. Based on this review, we organised a large draft set of indicators, organised by category and sub-category. While we recognize and were guided by formal processes to identify the indicators (Box 1), we were also informed by bottom up (e.g. workshop) methods, as well as legislative
2
guidelines and objectives specific to the Australian region.
Box 1. Formal steps in selecting indicators (Rice and Rochet, 2005). Step 1 - identify user groups and their needs, featuring the setting of operational objectives Step 2 - identify a corresponding list of candidate indicators Step 3 – prioritise indicators based on criteria Step 4 - score the indicators against the criteria Step 5 – summarise the results Step 6 - decide how many indicators are needed Step 7 - final selection of complementary suites of indicators. Step 8 - clear presentation to all users of the information contained.
Links between management objectives and the Healthcheck The categories, sub-categories and candidate indicators identified through the review and preliminary workshops were then compared with management objectives and performance indicators used for Australia’s key managed fisheries. The purpose of this comparison was to: 1. identify equivalence and thereby minimise the need for additional data collection; 2. highlight areas which fisheries management and reporting is not specifically addressed; and 3. maximise the utility of the Healthcheck assessment and data portal for fisheries management agencies The database of management objectives and performance reporting for Australia’s key fisheries compiled by Emily Ogier for FRDC project 2013/204 was used for the analysis. The units of analysis were the 110 fisheries which include the 68 fish species reported against in the SAFS 2014 report (SAFS 2014). The Healthcheck sub-categories were compared with the generalised high-level management objectives for Australia’s key fisheries developed (Figure 1) using content analysis, and informed by the ESD framework. The number of fisheries within each jurisdiction to use an objective equivalent to each sub-category was tabulated. Similarly, the Healthcheck indicators were compared with the performance indicators in use for Australia’s key fisheries and the number of fisheries within each jurisdiction to use an equivalent indicator was tabulated.
3
Figure 1. Generalised high-level objectives for Australia’s key fisheries.
Engagement via interviews Several groups are of particular importance as potential users of the Healthcheck portal and data. The groups included fishery managers, environmental non-government organisations (eNGOs), and fishery participants. Each group also recognized the importance of the other groups. Engagement with fishery managers was through the project workshops, but for other groups, face to face and phone interviews were used. For example, early in the project, a first workshop (October 2014) was held with fisheries managers where it was agreed that eNGOs would be an important stakeholder group to involve in order to ensure that the development of the Healthcheck was sensitive to their needs and concerns. A list of interview questions was also presented and approved at this workshop (see Appendix 5). A list of marinerelevant eNGOs engaged in fishery sustainability was sourced from a protest organised in response to the factory trawler Margiris/Abel Tasman (http://www.stopthetrawler.net/stop_the_trawler). From this list, publically available email addresses and phone numbers were used to invite individuals to participate in an interview. From these interviewees, further recommendations for interested people to contact were also gathered (snowballing technique), until 10 interviews covering a range of the active eNGOs were completed. Interviews generally lasted 30 minutes, were either face to face or over the phone, were audio recorded and transcribed and participants were able to view and
4
comment/change their transcript if desired. Ethics approval was sought before any interviews were conducted and was granted as minimal risk. Following selection of the case studies, fishery participants were interviewed. These participants were selected based on involvement in one of the case study fisheries1. After the prototype website was sufficiently completed to use for discussion and the three case studies for the project were decided, two stakeholders from each case study fishery were selected and invited to participate in an interview (six in total). The case study interviews focused more on the website prototype and more on the specific fisheries compared to the eNGO interviews, which were usually more general discussions about the Healthcheck aims and value of other existing assessments. Again, the interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes, were either face to face or over the phone and were audio recorded, with the opportunity for participants to edit their transcripts. The 16 eNGO and fishery participant interviews were imported into NVIVO qualitative analysis software and coded for key issues. An excel spreadsheet was also used to record the number of codes in order to analyse data and produce summary graphs (such as number of cumulative concepts) that also illustrate the suitability of the sample size.
The prototype Healthcheck portal – Objective 2 Objective 2: Develop a web-based and summary template for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of criteria In order to store and present the analysis undertaken in Objective 1, following review of potential web platforms, we decided to develop the database and associated web front end in Oracle and Oracle Application Express (APEX) respectively. There are a number of benefits associated with using this design model, including: Rapid development of the website front end that can be achieved when using the database/client model provided by Oracle Inbuilt security The details of the relevant tables are shown below as the database schema is discussed. The database has been structured based on the analysis from Objective 1, with the content being presented consistently with the category/subcategory/indicator structure. Information describing each category, sub-category and indicator is also presented alongside the data for the indicator. The HCK_CATEGORY table contains textual information describing the category. The subcategory further expands on the concepts contained in the category, and this is the basic unit that all the data presentation falls under. To illustrate the Healthcheck data, information from three case study fisheries is presented. For simplicity, these three fisheries are entered directly into a fisheries table. This table can be easily expanded in future to accommodate additional fisheries.
1
Additional consultation is needed now the draft has been completed, including peak bodies.
5
The main information is held in an indicator table. The indicator table has been constructed with expedience of data presentation in mind. There are some metadata type fields to describe the indicator and then an XML record that contains the data. For editing the indicator data, one simply loads an XML file into the database. Currently this is done directly in Oracle. In future, this would be an option for a user (based on login credentials) to edit as appropriate.
6
Case studies – Objective 3 Objective 3: To illustrate this approach, undertake several case studies on selected fisheries After consultation with fishery managers, interested eNGO staff, consideration of related projects and discussion within the project team, we selected three case studies to evaluate the availability, display, and interpretation of fishery Healthcheck indicators in each category and sub-category. While three case studies cannot span the full set, these include a Commonwealth and two state-managed fisheries, three gear types, one data-limited fishery, and fisheries with a range of bycatch, habitat and TEP interactions (Table 1). We considered fisheries that: 1.
Include species covered in SAFS 2014
2.
Are included in the FRDC objectives project (Ogier et al; FRDC 2013/204)
3.
Cover the range of criteria identified in fishery scenarios described in the National Guidelines for Harvest Strategy Development
The selected case study fisheries are: 1. Commonwealth fishery, multi-species – South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth trawl sector 2. State fishery – South Australia – Lakes and Coorong Pipi fishery 3. Data deficient fishery – Tasmanian Scalefish fishery (similar to NSW inshore finfish; QLD inshore finfish)
7
Table 1. Selection criteria considered against the selected case study fisheries.
Gear Existing eco‐certification Species included in SAFS 2014
Case study 1 SESSF commonwealth trawl sector Trawl No Yes
Case study 2 SA ‐ Lakes and Coorong Pipi fishery Hand and Rake Yes ‐ MSC Yes
Fisheries Scenarios in National Guidelines for Harvest Strategy development Multi‐jurisdictional fisheries Y Recreational fisheries Y ? Customary/ cultural/ traditional fisheries Multi‐species fisheries Y Data‐poor fisheries Y Fisheries based on fluctuating Y stocks Multi‐gear fisheries N N Enhanced fisheries Fisheries based on ecologically Y important species Exploratory and developing Y fisheries Fisheries based on low Y ‐ some productivity species Spatially structured fisheries Y Fisheries recovering from Y overfishing or unfavourable environmental conditions
Case study 3 Tasmanian Scalefish fishery Gillnet No Tasmanian Banded Morwong Y Y Y N Y
1. SESSF - Commonwealth Trawl Sector – http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/southerneastern-scalefish-shark-fishery/ The bottom trawl sector covers the area south from Barrenjoey Point (north of Sydney) around the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines to Cape Jervis in South Australia, and extends to the edge of the Australian fishing zone, although most trawling occurs in depths less than 500 m. A number of fishery closures are used to manage target and bycatch species by protecting spawning habitat or to exclude a type of fishing gear from an area where bycatch issues are known to occur. A harvest strategy is used to help determine what the quota should be for the target species of the fishery. Fishing, environmental and economic information is included in the harvest strategy, which helps to monitor and maintain the sustainability of the targeted species. 2. Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fishery http://pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/commercial_fishing/commercial_fisheries/lakes_and_coorin g_fishery
8
Fishers with quota for pipi from the Lakes and Coorong Fishery operate on the ocean beaches of Younghusband Peninsula in South Australia. Pipis are collected by hand or using pipi rakes. Fishery-dependent data and annual fishery-independent estimates of relative biomass provide the key performance indicators for these fisheries. The minimum legal length for harvest is 35 mm to allow spawning to occur at least once before harvest is permitted. The fishery has been managed under an annual total allowable commercial catch since 2007. Mean annual relative biomass and complexity of size structures suggest the stocks are healthy. The fishery has been certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, with some issues associated with other sectors of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. 3. Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery – http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishingaquaculture/commercial-fishing/scalefish-fishery The Tasmanian Scalefish Fishery is a multi-species and multi-gear fishery predominantly comprised of small owner operated commercial businesses. Many types and sizes of vessels and different fishing gears are used, such as gillnets, hook and line, longlines, drop lines, automatic squid jig machines, octopus pots and Danish seine. Some of the species commercially targeted include banded morwong, southern calamari, octopus, tiger flathead, school whiting, southern garfish, wrasse, Gould's squid, bastard trumpeter, blue warehou, silver warehou, flounder, silver trevally and striped trumpeter. For each of the case studies, we attempted to locate data for each indicator, from a range of sources, both primary and secondary. These data or descriptions were then loaded to the database behind the Healthcheck portal.
Pathway for delivery – Objective 4 Objective 4: Develop a pathway for linking these fishery-level reports with the stock status reports (SAFS) and handing over methods to appropriate jurisdictions for operalisation of the reports into the future. This objective does not have methods per se, and will be covered in the next section.
9
Results and Discussion Key Points Existing sustainability assessment schemes cover a range of categories, subcategories and indicators o
A diverse range of fishery sustainability assessments already exist – it is important to distinguish the Healthcheck and not compete in the same space – thus we have designed the Healthcheck as a portal for fishery information that can be used by a wide range of existing assessments
o
The Healthcheck covers a comprehensive set of categories considered important in sustainability assessments
o
Scoring is not implemented at this time in the Healthcheck, but could be implemented in future
o
Need for Absence of scoring makes it clear that the Healthcheck can operate as a source of high quality and verified data for the wide range of existing assessments was identified through the research process, which has informed the design of the proposed Healthcheck assessment and portal
Stakeholders strongly support the concept and coverage of the Healthcheck There is clear link between management objectives, the ESD framework, and the Healthcheck categories and indicators Online information delivery with easy access and rapid and efficient updating of information is possible The set of case studies illustrated in the online Healthcheck portal show both the workflow and the ease of updating data to keep the Healthcheck current.
Development of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries – Objective 1 Objective 1: In consultation with fisheries stakeholders identify a broad range of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries.
Review of existing sustainability assessment schemes A total of 54 fishery sustainability assessment schemes were considered in our review (Appendix 4). These were classified as 1st, 2nd or 3rd part schemes. A total of 4 schemes were classed as 1st party assessment schemes: ‘self-declarations’, often established by individual companies who may or may not verify their own compliance against a set of selfdetermined criteria. These self-declarations are usually a marketing tool to distinguish a product in the marketplace. A total of 16 were 2nd party assessment schemes; usually
10
established by an industry association or other form of representative body to certify their own members’ products. Criteria may be developed by reference to standards declared by the association, or standards developed externally to the association. Verification of members’ compliance with criteria is often, but not always, conducted internally by the association. The majority, 34 assessments, were 3rd party assessment schemes: usually established by independent entities rather than by producers, distributors or sellers of labelled products. Verification of compliance with standards and criteria is conducted by independent certification bodies – independent and separate from producers etc., as well as from the standard setter and label owner. Oversight and accreditation of independent certification bodies is also separate and conducted by independent organisations – independent from certification body, standard setter and label owner. The 54 assessment schemes were “sponsored” by government (n=15), private entities (n=24), researchers (n=7) and eNGOs (n=8). The basic unit of assessment in the surveyed examples was “species” (n=28), “fishery (n=21) and “regional sustainability” (n=5). Review of these existing assessments has identified a wide range of structures and indicators (~400 indicators) with many indicators used in only a single assessment (Table 2). For example, a total of 199 indicators have been used to report on Biological attributes, including 94 for Target species, 28 for bycatch species, and so on. Not all the assessments had clear indicators identified for their assessment (Appendix 4). Table 2. Summary of the number of unique indicators found in 25 existing assessments that were classified into each of the sub-categories used in the Healthcheck.
11
The proposed framework for the Healthcheck has been developed based on review of these existing sustainability assessments from Australia and around the world. The Healthcheck assessment of each fishery is based on indicators organised into sub-categories and categories. Four categories, with between two and six sub-categories, have been developed. Each sub-category is represented by two indicators, for a total of 32 indicators per assessment (Figure 2). These indicators are described in detail in Appendix 3.
Figure 2. Structure of the Fishery Healthcheck We mapped the indicators used in the 25 indicator-based assessments that we reviewed (Table 3), which showed that biological indicators were the most widely used, followed by governance, social and economic categories (Figure 3). Target species indicators were the most common.
12
Table 3. Summary of indicators used in a range of fishery sustainability assessments, mapped to the categories used in the Healthcheck2.
2
Reviewer comment ‐ The National ESD Framework, the EAF framework and the EBFM framework each have components for which indicators are expected that cover essentially all of the subcategories listed. It is not clear why these scores are not similar to the EAF –Nansen as this was a specific for of EAF. Response: These summaries should be revisited, but we do stand by this subjective classification at this stage. We retain this reviewer comment, to indicate that there is a subjective element is this “scoring”.
13
Number of assessments
25 20 15 10 5 0 Target species Bycatch species
Protected species
Habitats
Ecological Environmental Communities context
Number of assessments
25 20 15 10 5 0
30
Number of assessments
25 20 15 10 5 0 A. Biological
B. Economic
C. Governance
D. Social
Figure 3. Indicator summary across assessments. Upper: Number of assessments (out of 25) with indicators in the biological category. Middle: Number of assessments with indicators in each subcategory. Lower: Number of assessments with indicators in each category.
14
Cluster analysis of existing assessments shows related assessment groups – those with similar indicators (Figure 4). A total of six clusters were identified (Table 4). This analysis indicates where the Healthcheck complements existing assessments, and this analysis will form the basis of a peer-reviewed publication.
Figure 4. Cluster analysis results showing the relationship between existing assessments based on the number of indicators in each sub-category. Six clusters were identified, with the Healthcheck (#25) falling within the largest cluster.
15
Table 4. Membership of in each of six clusters for 25 indicator-based assessments covered in the review.
Engagement via interviews Overall, there was very high support for a Healthcheck for fisheries, with 100% of case study interviewees and 80% of eNGO interviewees in favour of developing a Healthcheck. Similarly, high numbers of interviewees currently used assessments (such as SAFS) – 100% of eNGOs and 90% of case study interviewees – and would likely use a Healthcheck assessment in their own work. The two cases where eNGO individuals were not in favour of a Healthcheck were where there was lack of clarity about what the Healthcheck would add in addition to other existing assessments (such as consumer seafood guides). Informal discussion since these interviews suggests that subsequent refinement of the Healthcheck has addressed these concerns. The eNGO interviews were analysed and coded in NVIVO 10 (QSR International) and through this process four key themes emerged grouped according to four key themes (see Appendix 5 for full list). These were: issues relating to the environmental state of ecosystems or species. Issues related to decisions people make in various roles as consumers, fishermen, fishery managers and so on. Issues relating to existing assessments such as discussion of accreditations systems like MSC, and issues specific to the Healthcheck, such as the trustworthiness of CSIRO, particular risks identified or areas of important information to include the best type of format to use.
16
People issues (22 codes) Current assessment issues (13 codes) Healthcheck specific issues (12 codes) Environmental and biological issues (11 codes) The largest of these themes was issues related to decisions people make, as this is also the broadest – covering government, consumers and private industries and spanning from individual decisions to cultural ones. The other three themes were all of a similar size, reflecting their more specific focuses, with environmental issues only slightly larger than behind the other two. This spread of responses indicates some of the eNGOs focus on environmental concerns, but not as much as otherwise might have been expected, as the focus was clearly on the people theme of decision making and the active part that people (consumers, scientists, eNGOs and government) need to play in sustainable fisheries. This is a very positive finding, as while the issues raised in this theme are often complex, they are the mostly within our power to change because they relate to how people use information, work together and make decisions. Overall, the number of new concepts raised in interviews declined with an increasing number of interviewees, indicating satisfactory sample size (Figure 5). 70
Number of ideas raised
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Interview
Figure 5. Summary of the number of ideas raised by eNGO interviewees. Note the slowing of new ideas after interviewee number 7, indicating satisfactory sampling by interview 10. In the two themes on assessments, interviewees raised a number of issues related to existing assessments and to what they would like to see in the Healthcheck. The most prevalent of these related to discussion around how the Healthcheck could link with, or learn from other successful assessments, such as MSC or AMCS seafood guide. The need for transparency, was also a core concern, with 8/10 eNGO interviewees raising this as both a criticism of current assessments and fishery decision making processes and an important factor to include in the Healthcheck. Transparency relates to making sources of information clear, keeping all interpretive steps open and honest (for example making explicit data that is excluded) and providing links to the raw data or the source of data wherever possible. Another key issue raised by eNGO interviewees was the number of information gaps 17
(including excluded information) which added to the lack of transparency around decision making and created a sense of distrust about reporting structures. These information gaps were more likely to be contentious when the information was collected, but withheld, rather than where there was not yet any information (e.g. commercial in-confidence). Interview quotes: “I think any level, any increased level of transparency and availability and accessibility of data, of research, of opinion, of so forth is - would be welcome” Interview 10. “I think it’s an excellent idea, and particularly though, if you draw together all of the other existing sorts of information. So you’ve got the ABARES document, you’ve got the FRDC document, you’ve got ABS data which would be in your economics. Well, I assume you would have Australian Bureau of Statistics data in your economics section” Case study 3. Another key issue raised by eNGO interviewees was the number of information gaps (including unacknowledged excluded information) around decision making and created a sense of distrust about reporting structures. These information gaps were more likely to be contentious when the information was collected, but withheld, rather than where there was not yet any information (e.g. commercial in-confidence). Interview quotes: “the rule of the commercial in confidence is a complete farce from our point of view in the sense that there are claims that environmental and ecological data that’s collected by companies is commercial in confidence, which is clearly untrue” Interview 3. “I’ve heard from various – people who work in government that a lot more information exists but it’s simply not publically available... So it’s very difficult to get an understanding of whether things are improving in Australia or not” Interview 8. “we very much believe in open and transparent process and data. Let’s face it, we live in a rich, wealthy country, we’re a developed country, we’re in the western world, there’s no reason why our fisheries shouldn’t be up amongst the best in the world, but we have issues with data in a number of our fisheries” Interview 9. Another key point raised was that the Healthcheck would provide a useful tool to showcase fisheries that were doing well, particularly smaller fisheries, or fisheries that were successful in one particular area. In these cases participants from the case studies could see a role for the specific fishery, or industry to manage the use of the Healthcheck for marketing purposes. Interview quotes: “We certainly aren’t trying to hide. We’ve got to be proud in how we operate, and how we’re managed, and the science behind our industry as a whole” Case study 4.
18
“the industry themselves are very interested in getting that information out there to a broader community” Case study 6. “It becomes a one stop shop for anything people want to know about the fishery” Case study 5. “I’d market it flat out” Case study 1. “I think it would be great to see a consolidation of the ways that we assess things in Australia, and all talking the same language.” Interview 7 Interviewees in both the eNGO and the case study groups noted that there was likely to be a lot of data gaps and that it was essential that the data that was presented was up to date and detailed, including for example, whether a fishery was taking steps for improvement, to show some kind of information of the trend of change. A key issue to highlight is that all of the interviews were discussions about a hypothetical Healthcheck that was still in development, or with the case study interviews, partially developed and so interviewees had to imagine the end result or look through the example categories without real data. It would be very helpful to do interviews once data is actually populated in the Healthcheck to see how it actually can be used to make decisions and what issues and opportunities arise, rather than how people might predict or imagine possible uses and scenarios as these are likely to be different in unexpected ways. Finally, the social component of the project demonstrated that the objective for the Healthcheck was not really to be an ‘assessment’ per se, in that it does not replace any of the many other assessments already existing nor provide a score or interpretation of fishery performance. Instead the Healthcheck provides a framework to collect information about fisheries and to act as a portal for others to search for information to answer specific questions or collate together in reports or guides. However, it is also much more than just a repository of information as it also acts as a benchmarking tool to highlight where there are gaps in information, where industries are doing well and where resources need to be targeted to improve practices, data, or management and where there are untold success stories to communicate more effectively. Interview quotes - examples: “I think healthchecks of a fishery is a great idea, I really, really support it.” Interview 1’ “I like the concept immensely. I think it’s a great idea. I think the more you can link to other, either websites, information sites, or data sites, the better off everyone will be” Case study 3 “you don’t have to convince me that it’s important to include the economic and the social issues, because we’ve been banging on about the fact that all three of them are important and we’ve got to get to the other two for years and nothing has really ever happened” Interview 7 ‘I think it’s really important if CSIRO gets into this that it is really seen as the independent umpire. If there’s even the slightest whiff of supporting an unsustainable industry or not giving the whole story, that’s going to really bugger
19
up the credibility. So there’s actually a bit of risk involved in participating in this sort of thing, I think, for CSIRO.’ ‘I think the general fishery statistics are always useful with the catch, the estimate of population or stock size compared to virgin biomass estimates. I think, from my perspective I really like the idea of looking at ecological impacts and I think that’s been missing. I think there’s an interesting aspect that’s often overlooked with fisheries and that is the social dynamic that’s involved and so a lot of people value the marine environment for non-extractive uses and I think they are often overlooked.’ Full thematic analysis of the stakeholder interviews will form part of a publication arising from this project.
Links between management objectives and the Healthcheck Results of the comparison of Healthcheck assessment categories and sub-categories with the ESD components formally addressed within Australia’s fisheries management systems (management objectives and performance indicators) determined that there is a:
High degree of overlap between Healthcheck Assessment categories and sub-categories and high-level legislative and management objectives for all Australian fisheries (Figure 6 and Table 5);
Variable degree of overlap Healthcheck Assessment categories and sub-categories and specific management and operational objectives (variation across sub-categories, jurisdictions and fisheries) (Table 5); and
Variable degree of overlap Healthcheck Assessment categories and sub-categories and management performance indicators (variation across sub-categories, jurisdictions and fisheries) (Table 6).
Both Table 5 and Table 6 need to be verified with jurisdictions to ensure they have been correctly assembled, although there will be some degree of subjectivity in summarising documents. Sub-categories and associated indicators with the greatest overlap with formal management components and performance indicators were consistent across objectives and performance indicators and were: Biological sub-categories: Target species Bycatch species Protected species Economic sub-categories: Fishery benefits Governance: Management system
20
Institutional capacity Compliance Sub-categories and associated indicators with the lowest or no overlap were consistent across objectives and performance indicators and were: Biological sub-categories: Habitats Ecological communities Economic sub-categories: Community benefits Markets Environmental costs Governance: Ecosystem governance Social: Fishers Wider community
Figure 6. Schematic of the link between Healthcheck assessment categories and sub-categories and Australian fisheries management. 21
Table 5. Comparison of Healthcheck assessment categories and subcategories with the number of equivalent management objectives for Australia’s key managed fisheries in each jurisdiction. Healthcheck Assessment
Category Biological
Economic
Sub‐category
22
COMM NSW NT (n=11) (n=7) (n=7)
PZJA QLD SA TAS VIC (n=3) (n=13) (n=12) (n=5) (n=3)
WA (n=41)
Target species
11
7
4
3
0
11
5
3
6
Bycatch species
11
7
3
3
0
11
5
3
6
Protected species
11
7
3
3
0
11
5
3
6
Habitats
11
0
2
3
0
11
5
3
6
Ecological Communities
11
7
2
3
0
11
4
3
6
Fishery benefits
11
4
1
3
0
11
3
3
0
Community benefits
11
0
1
0
0
11
3
0
0
Markets
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Environmental costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
7
3
3
0
11
4
3
6
Management system
11
3
1
0
0
11
4
3
0
Institutional capacity
11
3
1
0
0
11
4
3
0
Compliance
11
3
0
0
0
11
2
3
6
Fishers
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
Wider community
0
0
2
2
0
11
4
3
0
Governance Ecosystem governance
Social
Number of fisheries in each jurisdiction with equivalent management objectives (fishery‐level)
Table 6. Comparison of Healthcheck assessment categories and sub-categories with the number of equivalent performance indicators for Australia’s key managed fisheries in each jurisdiction Healthcheck Assessment
Number of fisheries in each jurisdiction with equivalent performance indicators (fishery‐level)
Category
Sub‐category
Indicator
COMM NSW (n=11) (n=7)
NT (n=7)
PZJA (n=3)
QLD SA TAS (n=13) (n=12) (n=5)
VIC WA (n=3) (n=41)
Biological
Target species
Stock status
11
7
5
3
9
11
5
14
41
Harvest level
11
7
7
3
12
12
5
14
41
Size composition
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Bycatch species
Bycatch composition
11
5
4
3
9
11
4
3
41
Bycatch amount
11
5
4
1
9
11
4
3
41
Bycatch status
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Protected species
Capture amount
11
5
4
3
9
11
4
3
41
Reporting
11
5
2
3
9
11
4
3
0
Habitats
Habitat impact
11
0
0
0
9
11
0
0
41
Habitat status
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Ecological Communities
Ecosystem status
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Ecosystem structure
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Environmental productivity
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
23
Healthcheck Assessment
Number of fisheries in each jurisdiction with equivalent performance indicators (fishery‐level)
Category
Sub‐category
Indicator
COMM NSW (n=11) (n=7)
Ecosystem character
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Economic
Fishery benefits
Income
11
5
0
0
1
11
5
3
41
Investment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Community benefits
GDP Value
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Wealth spread
0
1
0
0
Number of wholesale markets
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Volatility in market price
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Carbon footprint
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Energy use
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Bycatch mitigation
11
0
0
0
9
11
4
3
41
Protected species mitigation
11
0
0
0
9
11
0
3
41
Harvest strategy
11
1
2
1
0
11
5
0
6
Management plans
11
7
3
2
0
11
5
3
41
Accountability of decision making bodies
11
0
0
0
0
11
3
3
0
Uncertainty management
11
0
0
0
0
11
0
3
41
Markets
Environmental costs
Governance
Ecosystem governance
Management system
24
Institutional capacity
0
NT (n=7)
0
PZJA (n=3)
0
QLD SA TAS (n=13) (n=12) (n=5)
0
0
VIC WA (n=3) (n=41)
Healthcheck Assessment
Number of fisheries in each jurisdiction with equivalent performance indicators (fishery‐level)
Category
Sub‐category
Indicator
COMM NSW (n=11) (n=7)
NT (n=7)
PZJA (n=3)
QLD SA TAS (n=13) (n=12) (n=5)
VIC WA (n=3) (n=41)
Compliance
Compliance regime
11
7
4
13
5
3
41
Surveillance
Variable ‐ not a management performance indicator
Fisher satisfaction
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
Age structure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Community satisfaction with fishery
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
Other human uses
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Social
Fishers
Wider community
7
11
25
Figure 7. Sub-categories with low/moderate/high degree of overlap with Australia’s fisheries management systems.
To score or not to score? We reviewed a range the range of visualisation and scoring schemes (Figure 8). Support for an overall score was mixed (Figure 9). At this stage we think that an overall score would not allow the Healthcheck information to be widely used in other assessments, and it would put the Healthcheck in direct competition with existing assessments.
Figure 8. Examples of visualisations of overall scores for fishery assessments. 26
Figure 9. Support for an overall assessment score was mixed according to a survey of Australian fishery managers (Project workshop 1).
The prototype Healthcheck portal – Objective 2 Objective 2: Develop a web-based and summary template for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of criteria We have developed the prototype website, based on the APEX system, which will allow easy updating and modification if the Healthcheck becomes operational. Key to our design is ease of data management. This platform allows a fishery to be selected from a list, a map of the fishery region is provided, along with fishery specific text. Information on each of the categories, sub-categories, and indictors will accompany each selected set of indicators.
The Healthcheck application is available at http://www.marine.csiro.au/apex/f?p=131:1 Username is GUEST, Password is GUEST.
As security is in built with APEX, we can control login access at this stage. A constrained guest password has been configured that will allow viewing only. Other accounts can be configured for agency use as appropriate, to update or modify information.
27
Home screen: Upon login, the user is presented with a tabbed user interface that allows direct interaction with the Healthcheck in an intuitive setting. For more information about the Healthcheck, click the “About” tab, which can hold a range of information. For now, it holds a project information sheet.
28
Select Fishery: By selecting a fishery from the drop down menu, the user is presented with the fisheries that are available in the Healthcheck. At this stage, it is limited to the three case study examples. Once selected, a brief description of the fishery is presented along with an indicative geographical location of the fishery. The dashboard of buttons then allows the user to investigate the health of the fishery along the lines of the category/subcategory distinction outlined in Objective 1.
29
Indicators: Indicators are displayed by selecting the icon of interest on the portal. There is one icon for each of the 16 sub-categories. An example of the two biological indicators for the SESSF – Otter Trawl fishery is shown below.
30
Case studies – Objective 3 Objective 3: To illustrate this approach, undertake several case studies on selected fisheries were initiated by the project team These case studies are documented in the web-portal. The total number of indicators available for each fishery is indicated by a dial on the fishery front page. Information for all the indicators was not readily available, but the project team is continuing to populate the data fields. Information can be quantitative, with a clear metric, or qualitative, with a description provided for the particular indicator. Sub‐component
Indicator
Metric/Qual
Target species
Stock status
y
Harvest level
y
Size composition
y
Bycatch species
Bycatch composition
y
Bycatch amount
y
Bycatch status
y
Protected species
Capture amount
y
Reporting
y
Habitats
Habitat impact
qual
Habitat status
qual
Ecological Communities
Ecosystem status
Ecosystem structure
Environmental productivity
Ecosystem character
y qual y qual
Fishery benefits
Income
y
Investment
y
Community benefits
GVP Value
y
Wealth spread
y
Markets
Number of wholesale markets
y
Volatility in market price
y
Environmental costs
Carbon footprint
y
Energy use
y
Ecosystem governance
Bycatch mitigation
qual
Protected species mitigation
qual
Management system
Harvest strategy
qual
Management plans
qual
Institutional capacity
Accountability of decision making bodies
qual
Uncertainty management
qual
Compliance
Compliance regime
qual
Surveillance
qual
Fishers
Fisher satisfaction
y
Age structure
y
Wider community
Community satisfaction with fishery
qual
Other human uses
qual
31
Pathway for delivery – Objective 4 Objective 4: Develop a pathway for linking these fishery-level reports with the stock status reports (SAFS) and handing over methods to appropriate jurisdictions for operalisation of the reports into the future. We had assumed that the FRDC would become the web-host for the Healthcheck assessment, however, during the project we have encountered the following issues about independence, branding and trust. They are all interconnected, but in brief: a)
Independence: Our project research into existing sustainability assessments, and responses to in-depth interviews with NGOs (n=10) suggests that independent information hosts are most desirable. Secondary considerations include information that is maintained by generally independent funding (in our case that would mean no direct industry funding). True independence is difficult given other constraints, and a transparent process, data analysis and interpretation in relation to any performance measures is the best we can manage. An example quote from an interviewee is: “So we (eNGO) do hold a position of trust and inherently people don’t trust governments whether it’s CSIRO or the Department of Agriculture that’s going to be putting out a score card. There is a possibility that people are going to go, well it’s a government report, we don’t believe you.” (ID_8) For discussion: Community perceptions of the trust-worthiness of fisheries management and research agencies has not been specifically tested or explored for the whole population. Until this is undertaken we may have to consider if 3rd party auditing is needed to build confidence in the assessments, or if CSIRO or ABARES scientists are trusted by end users.
b)
Branding: The proto-type website is being developed without formal branding, which makes it portable to FRDC, or to a third party, or to be linked to existing FRDC products (e.g. status reports at fish.gov.au, fishfiles.gov.au) from the FRDC home page. For discussion: Branding does not need to be agreed immediately – but we suggest independent branding (e.g. Healthcheck branding) with FRDC, ABARES and CSIRO noted as funding supporters.
c)
Trust: If the Healthcheck is successful, it will become a go-to source of information for a range of existing assessments and reporting requirements. Thus, trust for the information is paramount, and so we are firstly relying on previously verified information, produced from a range of sources (e.g. SAFS, primary peer-reviewed literature). Standards and protocols will need to be developed, agreed to by Australia’s fisheries jurisdictions, and applied to the management of data as part of the next stage of the project. For discussion: good and bad outcomes must be transparently reported, which will need our fisheries to be prepared for critique.
Overall proposal: CSIRO can continue to host the site for a potential phase II period (e.g. for the 12 months following the end of this pilot project) without branding as CSIRO (or FRDC), with FRDC becoming the primary host when the platform is launched. In making this transition, we need to ensure that the transparency and information reliability is paramount, and this is not seen as a biased assessment by any of external stakeholders.
32
Conclusion Overall the Healthcheck project has met the four objectives, with a broad range of criteria for reporting the status of Australian fisheries developed in consultation with fisheries stakeholder (Objective 1), and a web-based template developed for reporting the status of Australian fisheries across a range of criteria (Objective 2). Several case studies on selected fisheries that represent the diversity of Australian fisheries have been initiated (Objective 3). We have developed a pathway for linking these fishery-level reports with the stock status reports (SAFS) and handing over methods to appropriate jurisdictions for operalisation of the reports into the future (Objective 4), although we recommend another year of development to increase the number of case studies that can be displayed if the web-portal is launched for public access.
33
References Costello, C., D. Ovando, R. Hilborn, S. D. Gaines, O. Deschenes and S. E. Lester (2012). Status and Solutions for the World’s Unassessed Fisheries. Science 338: DOI: 10.1126/science.1223389. Fletcher, W. J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K. J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A. D. M., and Whitworth, B. (2002). National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The ‘How To’ Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia. 120 pp. Pitcher, T. J., D. Kalikoski, K. Short, D. Varkey and G. Pramod (2009). An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy 33: 223-232. Rice, J. C. and M.-J. Rochet (2005). A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 516-527. SAFS (2014). Flood, M, Stobutzki, I, Andrews, J, Ashby, C, Begg, G, Fletcher, R, Gardner, C, Georgeson, L, Hansen, S, Hartmann, K, Hone, P, Horvat, P, Maloney, L, McDonald, B, Moore, A, Roelofs, A, Sainsbury, K, Saunders, T, Smith, T, Stewardson, C, Stewart, J & Wise, B (eds) 2014, Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2014, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Additional references for generating and describing the indicators are listed with Appendix 4.
34
Implications Australian fisheries are recognized as world leading with regard to research and management, yet many Australians lack information to judge aspects of fishery performance they value. Recent events have shown that information about fishery performance with regard to target species is no longer sufficient. Increasing attention in the media and societyat-large is now given to a broader range of concerns. Thus, for Australian fisheries, it is no longer just about catching fish - it is about a sustainable industry and management of a broader range of factors. The Healthcheck offers the potential to allow cost-effective provision of fishery information across a wide range of sustainability categories. This information will increase the transparency of fisheries management and fisher activities, in a format which can be used by other sustainability assessments.
35
Recommendations It has become clear over the course of the project that the most appropriate approach to a Healthcheck is not an ‘assessment’ per se, in that it does not replace any of the many other assessments already existing nor provide a score or interpretation of fishery performance. Instead the proposed Healthcheck provides a framework to collect and provide information about fisheries and to act as a portal for others to access information. However, it is also much more than just a repository of information as it also acts as a benchmarking tool to highlight where there are gaps in information, where industries are doing well and where resources need to be targeted to improve practices, data gathering or management and to communicate successes more effectively.
Further development “Projects like this one may play an important role in the social acceptability of Australian fisheries, and we should not lose momentum, just as the pilot phase ends. This project continuation could be developed in the coming months if additional funding is an option” (ID_07). This one year pilot project has now concluded, with funds spent as planned. Our engagement with fishery managers, policy makers, scientists and NGOs all confirm that this is a desirable project and product. Example feedback includes: “From a WWF perspective, but also from a personal perspective, hence why I work for WWF, is it’s so frustrating just to always get locked down in conversations about target stocks. And yes, it’s very important. Yes, we understand the economic drivers behind having a healthy target stock and looking after that and having a well-managed fisheries, those sort of things, but fisheries are – that’s probably 1% of the fishery, that the rest of it in terms of impact and its potential economics, growth, is associate with by-catch species, your by-products, interaction, social licence, those sorts of things. So the broader we can go with that, fantastic.” (ID_9) “I think your project looks interesting if it does incorporate more of that bycatch element because our experience is with our supporters that they do care about what the broader impacts of fishing is on the environment. It’s not just about the stock. It’s about the whole – and I think the general public is becoming more and more educated about that.” (ID_5) “I think the general fishery statistics are always useful with the catch, the estimate of population or stock size compared to virgin biomass estimates. I think, from my perspective I really like the idea of looking at ecological impacts and I think that’s been missing.” (ID_1) Additional work is needed to further evaluate and develop the Healthcheck over at least a 12 month period. Proposed continuation elements include: a)
36
Additional case studies added to the portal (there will be 3 case studies at the end of the current project – would be good to have 10-20 fisheries by the end of a second year, such that the Healthcheck could be launched publicly)
b)
Testing with managers, industry stakeholders, eNGOs and the general public in terms of use and criteria indicators. For managers for upload and download of information – long term relevance of the Healthcheck requires information to be accurate and up-todate. This is a potential challenge and the end products should be developed to demonstrate potential benefits to management agencies.
c)
We will work with data holders to train them to upload information to the assessment portal. Through our workshops with fisheries managers we have discussed the challenges arising for management agencies in resourcing the transfer of data. Machine-to-machine uploading of data will be the long term goal. We will work with the AFMF and the Fisheries Management Sub-committee to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed Healthcheck assessment and portal and address the disincentives.
d)
Outreach: to build the profile of the Healthcheck, we will undertake road shows with potential end users, conference presentations, and popular articles.
e)
Value: Follow-up interviews with NGOs and fishery stakeholders, to tune the information and demonstrate the value of the Healthcheck assessments.
Once the Healthcheck assessment and portal is finalised following additional consultation on the indicators, it will be important to keep the Healthcheck flexible and up to date. We have designed a system that will be flexible once this stage is reached with regard to: Emerging issues, such that new indicators are needed Maintaining relevance of the assessment categories Best practise guidelines (e.g. ERM in AFMA) Evaluation of the whole approach Uptake – in parallel with SAFS – into a range of other assessment formats
Extension and Adoption The project was profiled to stakeholders at the Seafood Directions conference in October 2015. Without additional investment, there will be no need for any extension or adoption. Presentations to fishery managers, eNGOs, fishery participants and other scientists also need to occur in any new phase, and this may be possible in synchrony with the SAFS assessment process.
Project materials developed The project materials are the website and logos for the project and sub-categories.
37
Appendix 1 – Project Staff Alistair Hobday (CSIRO) – fisheries scientist Aysha Fleming (CSIRO) – social scientist Jason Hartog (CSIRO) – scientific programmer Linda Thomas (CSIRO) – project scientist Emily Ogier (UTas) – social scientist Ilona Stobutzki (ABARES) – fisheries scientist and SAFS project leader and Advisory Committee Marcus Finn (ABARES) – fisheries scientist, SAFS project Matt Flood (ABARES) – project design, SAFS project replaced by Marcus Finn
38
Appendix 2 - Project workshops A total of four workshops were held as part of this project. The agenda and PowerPoint presentations for each workshop are not reproduced here, but are available from the lead author on request. 1. Project workshop 1. 21-22 October, 2015. Concurrent meeting with the related project “Objective setting for Australia’s fisheries” – overview of the project to managers, feedback on layout, scoring, categories, issues around updating the assessment discussed. 2. FRDC Key projects workshop – Canberra February 2/3 2015. Project presentation. Selection of indicators discussed, as was the need for continued work in this area after the project concludes in June 2015. The importance of linking objectives to indicators, sub-categories and categories was discussed. These linkages are now explicit. 3. Project workshop 2: March 2, 2015, Melbourne Project presentation. Ranking and selection of indicators with fishery managers. 4. Project workshop 3: June 23, 2015, Canberra Project presentation. Final discussion about project outcomes with senior decision makers in FRDC, AFMA, DA and the Department of Environment.
39
Appendix 3 – Descriptions of categories, sub-categories and indicators (v12-5-16) The Healthcheck assessment provides information on some 32 indicators that are arranged into 16 higher subcategories and four categories. A rationale for the value of each category, subcategory and indicator is provided below, and on the website.
BIOLOGICAL CATEGORY Fisheries are biological systems made up of multiple fish species, including the fish being targeted by fishing activity, living habitats and ecological interactions between all the living parts. Objectives of fisheries management legislation in every Australian state and territory include the ecological sustainable harvest of fish and the protection of marine ecosystems from unacceptable impacts. This in accordance with the National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development 1992 [http://www.environment.gov.au/aboutus/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy]. The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries] also requires the Australian Government to assess the environmental performance of Commonwealth species and other fisheries where there is an export component fisheries, and in particular impacts on protected marine species. States and territories have specific environmental legislation that is applied to fisheries.
40
Target species
Fisheries in Australia target one or, in many cases, multiple species of fish. The health of populations or stocks of target species is determined using a variety of measures which examine the size of the fish stock or population (or ‘abundance’, measured either by number or in weight/biomass), how much fish is caught each year (fishing mortality), or, in some cases, how much effort is put into catching fish. Objectives of fisheries management in every Australian state and territory require the regulation of fishing mortality and levels of fishing effort to ensure fish stocks or populations of target species are biologically sustainable. Indicator 1 – Stock status – A sustainable fish stock is defined under the national reporting framework for the Status of key Australian fish stocks report (SAFS 2014) as a stock for which biomass (or biomass proxy) is at a level sufficient to ensure that, on average, future levels of recruitment are adequate and for which fishing pressure is adequately controlled to avoid the stock becoming recruitment overfished. The status is determined by fishery experts, based on a range of analyses (SAFS 2014). Stocks represent a functionally discrete population that can be regarded as a separate entity for management or assessment purposes. o
Indicator 2 – Harvest level – The harvested biomass for each species does not indicate sustainability per se, but provides useful information on the levels of the catch. Data is collated annually by ABARES and responsible state agencies. Alternative indicator – Size composition ‐ the size of the target species is a measure of the health of a population. Here the mean size of fish captured in the fishery provides a measure of this health. Rapid changes in this measure of time should be a concern. o
Bycatch species
If species sustainability information is not available in SAFS, using the ERAEF categories (Low, Medium, High) is a reporting option for some AFMA‐managed commonwealth fisheries, but not for the state fisheries (Hobday et al 2007).
If size is unavailable, the trophic level of the target species can be used as an indicator of change in target species composition.
Fishing activity can include catching or interacting with fish species other than the species being targeted. These species are known as bycatch, and are either retained or returned to the sea. Fishing can impact on non‐target species through either overfishing of by‐catch species or physical damage to bycatch species which are discarded. Objectives of fisheries management in every Australian state and territory require the regulation of fisheries to ensure that any impacts on non‐target species are kept to a minimum by ensuring the risks posed by fishing to the sustainability of bycatch species are kept within ecologically acceptable levels. Indicator 1 – Bycatch composition – the composition of the bycatch is a measure of the number of different taxa that are captured in the fishery. Here we use a mean trophic level as a measure of the composition of the bycatch. Rapid changes in this measure of time should be a concern, although other factors can also explain rapid changes, such as environmental change. Careful interpretation is required, via accompanying text. Indicator 2 – Bycatch amount – the number, volume or weight of bycatch species relative to the target species reflects one impact of fishing other species. In some fisheries, there may be very little or no bycatch, while other fisheries using less specific fishing gears may catch a range of species. Low bycatch levels are considered desirable. Alternative Indicator – Bycatch status – while formal population status is not widely assessed for bycatch species in the same way as for target species,
41
the risk to sustainability due to fishing activity may be assessed. Species with life history characteristics indicating low productivity and high susceptibility to the fishery may be at risk if management responses are not adequate to minimise impact. The ERAEF scores for the bycatch species can be provided for many Commonwealth fisheries, as can equivalent risk‐based assessment used in other jurisdictions. Protected species
Habitats
42
Fishing activity can interact with species of animals which are listed as threatened, endangered or protected (TEPs) under various State and Territory legislation. Interactions can include capture and release of these species or physical contact between fishing gear or vessel and TEPS animals. In some cases, these interactions cause damage and death to individual animals. Commonwealth fishers are required by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/fisheries] to report all interactions with TEPS species. Efforts by both fisheries management agencies and fishers to reduce such interactions and potential harm to TEPS species include changing or modifying fishing gear, avoiding/closing areas or seasons. There are two issues for protected species, whether fishing is preventing population recovery and for Commonwealth fisheries, whether all reasonable steps are taken to minimise capture. Indicator 1 – Capture amount – Fisheries sometimes accidentally capture protected species, which in some cases can be released alive. The annual reported mortality for protected species is an indicator of interest to many evaluating the health of a fishery (NB: these numbers do not count seahorses and pipefish – sygnathids – which are all protected, but not commonly recorded). Indicator 2 – Reporting – the quality of reporting is important in understanding trends in capture of unwanted species. Reporting can be measured as the fraction of the catch that is monitored by independent observers. Fishing activity can impact on marine habitats through contact between fishing gear, fishing vessels and the seafloor. Fishing can also indirectly affect habitat conditions by targeting and removing key species which play an important role in maintaining the ecological processes that ensure the continuation of habitats. Objectives of fisheries management in every Australian state and territory require the regulation of fisheries to ensure the long term sustainability of the marine environment. Indicator 1 – Habitat impact – the impact of fishing gear on the environment is assessed by detailed studies. The impact is also related to the structure of the habitat and rates of natural disturbance – impacts of the same gear may be greater on sponge gardens that on sandy bottoms in the surf zone. Here we use evaluations of fishing gear impact on the habitat type as classified by Chuenpagdee et al (2003). Indicator 2 – Habitat status – The status of the habitat types is a measure of the condition relative to a pristine state. Fishing may not be responsible for that habitat status, but it is important to note if fishing is taking place in pristine or disturbed habitats. Habitat status is reported in ERAEF and SoE reports.
The fish species targeted by fishing activity are parts of marine communities which also include many other species. Maintaining the diversity of marine life is a fundamental feature of ecological sustainability. Fishing activity can impact on marine biodiversity and specific communities through the catching of non‐target species and through impacts of fishing gear on marine habitats. Objectives of fisheries management in every Australian state and territory require the regulation of fishing levels, locations and gear types to ensure that impacts on non‐target species and habitats are kept to a minimum. Marine protected areas in which fishing is excluded have been established in each of the State and Territory marine waters, as well as Commonwealth waters. These are an important mechanism for protecting habitat types. Indicator 1 –Ecosystem status – the status of the ecosystems in which fishing occurs is documented in State of Environment reporting (e.g. SoE 2011). This information provides context for the fishing activities, and notes where non‐ fishing activities have impact on the ecosystem. Alternative sources of information may also exist. Indicator 2 – Ecosystem structure – healthy ecological communities have a wide range of species and sizes, including large top predators. These measures typically come from ecosystem models. In the absence of this information, the mean size of species in the fishery catch data (target and bycatch species) may be informative. Declines in this mean size indicate loss of ecosystem structure, although other causes exist. Environmental Fisheries are reliant on healthy supporting marine ecosystems. Marine context environments can differ substantially around Australia and also have a range of natural variability. It is important to understand the fishing activity relative to the environmental context. Indicator 1 – Environmental productivity – A measure of environmental productivity is the biomass of phytoplankton, which in oceanic waters can be approximated by chlorophyll a concentration, as estimated from satellite. The mean value for the fishery region, compared to the mean value for Australia, provides some indication of relative productivity. Australia has generally low productivity waters. Indicator 2 – Ecosystem character – fisheries take place in a range of ecosystems, from enclosed (estuarine) to open ocean waters and from oligotrophic to eutrophic waters. This indicator provides context for the fishery harvest levels that can be taken from different regions. Ecological Communities
ECONOMIC Fisheries are resource-based industries which generate significant economic activity. Objectives of fisheries management legislation in every Australian state and territory include the development and use of publically-owned fisheries resources within sustainable limits in order to generate economic benefits for the Australian community. Fishing activity generates direct costs and revenues for commercial enterprises and governments. It also generates indirect economic benefits and costs to fisher communities, regional and national communities and to the environmental systems from which it draws resources. Catches are sold on open markets and the economic performance of commercial fisheries is dependent on market conditions.
43
Fishery benefits
Community benefits
3
Fishing activities are influenced by a variety of economic factors at both the enterprise and fleet level which have a direct impact on fisher livelihoods. These include access and property‐rights arrangements (and whether these are tradeable), vessel size, fleet size and capacity, gear types and distance to fishing grounds. Measures of the economic performance of a fishery include: Indicator 1 – Gross Value of Production (GVP). The economic activity generated by the fishery sector provides an indication of the contribution that the fishery sector makes to the national economy. GVP is obtained by multiplying the volume of catch by the average per unit beach price. GVP is reported annually by ABARES in the Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics publication. Indicator 2 – Net Economic Returns. A profitable fishery sector fosters resilient regional communities for those that depend on fisheries for their livelihood. Net Economic Returns (NER) is equal to fishing revenue less fishing costs and measures the economic profit that is derived from fishing activity. The measure is routinely reported at the fishery level by ABARES for key Commonwealth fisheries in the “Australian fisheries indicators report” series and equivalent indicators by a number of State jurisdictions. Alternative Indicator ‐Latency3 ‐ Often fishery concessions are not fully utilised by fishers, for example, often the annual total allowable catch is left partially or largely uncaught for a fishery. An indicator of the extent of uncaught quota or underutilised effort is latency. Latency in a fishery can be used to provide some information about the profitability of a fishery. Latency is fishing capacity that is authorised for use not currently being used; therefore high levels of latency can suggest low expected profits in the fishery. Alternative Indicator ‐ Investment4– a healthy fishery will have investment in new equipment (e.g. vessels) and facilities (e.g. processing). One measure is the average age of the vessels in the fleet, or for shore based fisheries, major plant equipment. Fish in Australian waters are a resource and integral part of marine ecosystems which are the common property of the Australian community. The goal of fisheries management is to gain the greatest benefit from fishing (whether from commercial, recreational or Indigenous fishing activity) for the broader community while maintaining the ecological health of fisheries. Benefits derived from commercial fisheries are measured using economic tools and can include contributions to State revenue from the sale of fish, and expenditure by fishers and its contribution to regional communities. Indicator 1 – GDP value to regional communities– The value of the fishery is one measure of the economic health of the fishery and the contribution it makes to employment and incomes within a community. Indicator 2 – Wealth spread – the spread of profits to owners and crew members indicates how the benefits of fishing spread to a community. A wide spread of benefits may be important to some fishery stakeholders. A narrow spread may not indicate poor health.
Proposed in review – added here and will be considered as part of consultation process in (any) next project phase. 4 Proposed in review – added here and will be considered as part of consultation process in (any) next project phase.
44
Review comment: i. How might this indicator could be constructed? Perhaps a count of large business versus small business, classified by turnover or number of employees may provide an indicator: i.e. is the regional GDP contributed to by one or two large businesses or a spread of many smaller businesses. Alternative indicator suggestions5: i. Distribution of ownership, as measured by Goni index of licence / quota ownership. Shows if the fishery is providing wide benefit or concentrated in ownership of a few individuals. ii. Distribution of economic benefit (yield) from commercial sector, with economic yield estimated as: yield= [(lease price +royalty payment) * kg] iii. Estimate what fraction goes to each of the three parts below $ public within jurisdiction (i.e. the percentage going to royalty payment) $ private within jurisdiction $ private outside of jurisdiction
Markets
Australia’s commercial fisheries sell their catches to both domestic (local) and international markets. Market conditions have a direct impact on fishing activity through changes in seasonal demand, demand for live compared with processed fish, and the use of subsidies in countries supplying competing fish product. Indicator 1 – Number of wholesale markets – fisheries can supply a range of markets, and for some fisheries this will be a useful indicator of health. However, both high and low value species may have few markets (e.g. abalone to china, Australian salmon to pet food). Indicator 2 – Volatility in market price – variability in price can be problematic for producers. While seasonal variability exists in many fisheries, annual measures of the range in ex‐vessel value (per kg) over time can be revealing. This variation can also impact consumers. Environmental Fishing activity impacts on broader environmental conditions through the costs consumption of fossil fuels and bait fish species and through the use of marine pollutants. Economic valuation of these impacts provides a measure of environmental ‘cost’ with which to assess the sustainability of fishing activity. Indicator 1 – Carbon footprint – the environmental cost of fishing can be measured in the total carbon equivalent in the fishery. Online calculators can be used to determine the carbon footprint, for example, the Fisheries Emissions Calculator (http://www.emissionscalculator.gbrmpa.gov.au/tourism/). By measuring levels of energy use over time, areas that require attention can be identified, as well as overall use tracked. Indicator 2 – Energy use – a simple measure, related to the carbon footprint, is the use of fuel per kg of fish harvested. By this measure, more efficient harvest involves lower carbon footprints. These estimates can be derived from life cycle assessments (LCA) – e.g. (Parker & Tyedmers 2014; Farmery et
5
Proposed in review – added here and will be considered as part of consultation process in (any) next project phase (Caleb Gardner)
45
al 2014). Comparison with other sources of protein can also be made using this common metric.
GOVERNANCE Governance of fisheries refers to the entire system of legal, social, economic and political arrangements used to manage fisheries. It includes legally binding rules, such as national or state and territory legislation and regulation, as well as co-management arrangements developed with fishing industries and with Indigenous customary fishing communities. Governance quality, or the ability to achieve the goals of governance, refers to the processes, the organisations and the method of managing fisheries.
Ecosystem governance
Management system
46
Objectives of fisheries management in every Australian state and territory require the regulation of fishing activity to ensure that any impacts on marine environments are kept to a minimum. Ecosystem‐based fisheries management is being implemented in an increasing number of fisheries. It aims to assess and manage ecological impacts related to fish and fisheries at a broader ecosystem level. Ecosystem governance refers to the capacity to manage multiple activities (including fishing) and their interactions at the scale of a marine system. Indicator 1 – Bycatch mitigation – Mitigation measures include: Closure of fishing areas (seasonal, permanent or in‐season when triggered) to prevent unacceptably high levels of bycatch, and Deployment of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs). Assessment is by scoring the extent to which bycatch mitigation strategies for a fishery meet 7 standards for the effective mitigation of fisheries bycatch (Kirby and Ward 2013), developed for Australian fisheries. Alternatively, the FAO Guidelines recommend the implementation of 5 types of management measures to mitigate bycatch (FAO 2010). Indicator 2 – Protected species mitigation – Protected (including threatened and endangered species) are a special category of bycatch identified by their status in legislation. Assessment of the adequacy of mitigation to reduce capture or impact in fisheries is based on the objectives and performance measures as specified in legislation. Additional assessment is based on the extent to which management arrangements meet national and international requirements for TEPS protection, and the degree of confidence that direct and indirect effects on TEPS from fishing are within acceptable limits (MSC 2014). Fishing activity is managed on a day‐to‐day basis by a system of management which includes management policies and objectives, harvest tools and catch controls, record keeping, assessment and monitoring of fishing activity and fish stocks, and reporting. Effective management systems enable the objectives of the fishery, including ecologically sustainable development, to be implemented. Indicator 1 – Harvest strategy – Defined in the National Guidelines to Develop Fisheries Harvest Strategies (Sloan et al 2014) as “a framework that specifies the pre‐determined management actions in a fishery for defined species (at the stock or management unit level) necessary to achieve the agreed ecological, economic and/or social management objectives”. These presence of the following key elements can be used for the purposes of assessment: Defined operational objectives for the fishery; Indicators of
Institutional capacity
fishery performance related to the objectives; Reference points for performance indicators; A statement defining acceptable levels of risk to meeting objectives; A monitoring strategy to collect relevant data to assess fishery performance; A process for conducting assessment of fishery performance relative to objectives; and Decision rules that control the intensity of fishing activity and/or catch (Sloan et al 2014). Alternatively, assessment can be based on scoring presence of the following: a harvest strategy designed to achieve management objectives; harvest control rules and tools; collection of relevant information to support the harvest strategy; and, assessment of stock status (MSC 2014). i. Reference points ‐ Reference points are measures of performance against management objectives that identify: targets to be achieved on average, limits to be avoided, or triggers to initiate specific management responses. Assessment can be by the scoring the presence of reference points for the following five elements: target species; by‐ catch species; threatened, endangered or protected species; habitats; and food webs (Sainsbury 2008). Indicator 2 – Management plans – This is the main instrument that specifies how a fishery is to be managed. Management plans can be assessed by scoring the presence absence of minimum requirements, as follows: a description of the fishery especially its current status and any established user rights: the management objectives; how these objectives are to be achieved; how the plan is to be reviewed and/or appealed, as well as the consultation process for review and appeal (Cochrane 2002). The ability to manage fisheries to ensure objectives for ecologically sustainable development are met relies on the capacity of managing agencies. Critical factors include the presence of fisheries management legislation and frameworks to guide and account for decision‐making for specific fisheries. Indicator 1 – Accountability of decision making bodies – Scoring of the level of accountability using the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 (2014), as follows: Low ‐ Some information on the fishery’s performance and management action is generally available on request to stakeholders; Medium ‐ Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring evaluation and review activity; High ‐ Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Indicator 2 – Uncertainty management – The explicit incorporation of uncertainties in decision support processes used to inform and make appropriate choices of management actions (FAO 1996). Assessment can be on the basis of scoring the extent to which: Major sources of uncertainty are identified; Assessment takes uncertainty into account; Frequency of monitoring of indicators is high; Monitoring of more than one indicator to support management decisions; Assessment evaluates stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way; Robustness of assessments are
47
tested, Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches are rigorously explored (MSC 2014). Compliance
Effective management of a fishery to meet biological, social and economic objectives requires fishers to compile with rules and regulations established by managing agencies to safeguard the Australian community’s interest in fisheries resources. Non‐compliance attracts formal penalties. High levels of compliance indicate that rules and regulations are appropriate and widely understood, and that surveillance and monitoring of fishing activity is routinely undertaken. Indicator 1 – Compliance regime (catch) – the adequacy of management programs implemented to manage the harvest of a fishery such that it protects the fisheries resource and any access and property‐like rights granted. The level of compliance with rules and regulations controlling catch can be assessed by measuring the annual number of breaches/observed offences or enforcement actions, preferably as a function of the level of enforcement effort ($). Alternatively, assessment can be scored on the basis of the presence of key monitoring, control and surveillance elements and capacities (see Flewwelling et al 2002). Indicator 2 –Surveillance (compliance monitoring) – the degree (%) and types of observations required to manage compliance with regulatory controls (Flewwelling et al 2002). Types include logs and catch reporting, on‐board observer programs, vessel inspections, vessel monitoring systems, and visual or electronic surveillance using radar or satellite by boat or by air. Higher degrees of surveillance, or coverage using multiple methods, provide greater levels of certainty in estimates of effort, fishing mortality, bycatch and discard levels, and interactions with protected/listed species.
SOCIAL The social dimension to fisheries includes both the communities of fishers themselves and to the broader regional and national communities which are affected by fisheries. Objectives of fisheries management legislation in every Australian state and territory include the development and use of publically-owned fisheries resources within sustainable limits in order to generate social benefits for the Australian community. Fishing activity provides livelihoods to fishing communities, and provides recreation and cultural benefits to recreational and Indigenous customary fishers. It also impacts on broader regional and national communities through its use of a common resource and provision of seafood.
Fishers
48
The sustainability of fisheries includes the social sustainability of fisher communities. Factors which affect the well‐being of fishers include equity of entry into the fishery, levels of income and indebtedness, alternative livelihood strategies, work health and safety, social networks, literacy and levels of participation in fisheries management. These indicators can be qualitative or quantitative. Indicator 1 –Fisher satisfaction – satisfaction can be assessed via surveys, for example as conducted by EconSearch (SA fisheries). Although these surveys are not conducted every year, recent distributions of satisfaction scores will provide insight into one aspect of social wellbeing of fishers that is easily measured and tracked over time.
Wider community
Indicator 2 –Age structure – in a fishery that provides a range of social benefits there will be a good spread of ages participating in the fishery. Here we use the mean age for fishers that were involved in the previous 5 years. If the fishery is not attractive or difficult to enter, the age distribution will be skewed to older ages.
Fishing activity has a direct impact on the supply of fresh seafood to the Australian consumer. More indirect effects on the well‐being of the broader Australian community include effects on coastal landscape values, sea country values, and on other marine‐based industries (such as tourism). Indicator 1 –Community satisfaction with fishery –a wide range of the community also derive benefits from fishery resources and the general marine environment. Feedback on industry performance by the community can indicate areas that are valued and provide mutual benefits into the future. Ideally, a measure of social licence would be used, which is best done with focus groups, surveys, or content analysis. Indicator 2 –Other human uses: Recreational fisher participation rates – Species captured in the fishery also have value in the non‐commercial sector. This indicator is a proxy for the social value of the recreational fishery that targets any of the same species.
49
Appendix 4 – References for Indicators Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse and D. Pauly (2003). Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(10): 517‐524. Cochrane, K.L. (ed.) A fishery manager’s guidebook. Management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 2002. 231p. FAO (2010) Report of the Technical Consultation to Develop International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards. Rome, 6–10 December 2010.FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report. No. 957. Rome, FAO 32pp. FAO. 1996 Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 2: scientific papers. Prepared for the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries (Including Species Introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6–13 June 1995. (A scientific meeting organized by the Government of Sweden in cooperation with FAO). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 350, Part 2. Rome, FAO. 210p. Farmery, A., C. Gardner, B. S. Green and S. Jennings (2014). Managing fisheries for environmental performance: the effects of marine resource decision‐making on the footprint of seafood. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 368‐376. Fletcher, W. J., J. Chesson, et al (2002). National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The 'How To' Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145, Fisheries Research & Development Corporation. Flewwelling, P.; Cullinan, C.; Balton, D.; Sautter, R.P.; Reynolds, J.E. Recent trends in monitoring, control and surveillance systems for capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 415. Rome, FAO. 2002. 200p Hobday, A. J., A. D. M. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A. Williams, M. Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller and T. Walker (2007). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. July 2007. Kirby, DS & Ward, P 2013, Improving the management of bycatch: standards for the effective mitigation of fisheries bycatch, ABARES report to client prepared for the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, May. Marine Stewardship Council (2014) MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidance v2.0 (Extracted from Annexes SA, SB, SC and SD of the Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0). London. Parker, R. W. and P. H. Tyedmers (2014). Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: current understanding and knowledge gaps. Fish and Fisheries: DOI: 10.1111/faf.12087. Sainsbury, K. J. (2008). Best Practice Reference Points for Australian Fisheries. R2001/0999. Canberra, Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
50
Sloan, S. R., A. D. M. Smith, et al (2014). National Guidelines to Develop Fishery Harvest Strategies. Canberra, FRDC Report – Project 2010/061 and Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia, Adelaide. State of Environment (2011). Independent Report to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, Aust.: Aust. State Environ. Comm.
51
Appendix 5 – Review of existing assessment schemes Number
Assessment Name
Assessment style
Sponsor
Focus
Summary statement
Date/ versio n
Coverage
Categories covered
# indicators in "Categories and Indicators" sheet
Strengths
Weaknesses
Reference
Home page website
How located
1
Australian Conservation Foundation Seafood guide
3rd party
NGO
Specie s
The Sustainable Australian Seafood Assessment Program (SASAP), developed with the assistance of a team of leading marine scientists, assessment criteria and process are independent, transparent, and scientifically rigorous. They also provide for collaborative engagement with the seafood industry in a program that is about improvement not punishment.
2012
Australia
Biological
15
looks at status of the wild stock
No governance, economic, social indicators
see document (https://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/SASAC wildcatchcriteriaFebruary2012.pdf) and(https://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/SA SAPoverviewFebruary2012.pdf)
http://www2.acfonline.org.au /category/green‐ eating/blog/helping‐you‐ choose‐sustainable‐seafood
internet search
Specie s
Smartphone app, pocket guide
2013
http://www.sustainableseafood.org.au/pages/assessment‐ criteria.html
http://www.sustainableseafo od.org.au/index.php
Specie s
Wild caught fisheries uses MSC and FOS
http://www.cleanfishaustralia .com.au/
FISH magazine
2
3
Australian Marine Conservation Society ‐ Australia's sustainable seafood guide
3rd party
CleanfishAustralia
2nd party
NGO
Private
2014
4
EAF‐Nansen Project; http://www.eaf‐ nansen.org/nansen/en
3rd party
Govern ment
Fishery
2009
5
EBFM Framework (Fletcher et al 2012)
3rd party
Researc h
Fishery
6
FAO (2009) EBFM Fisheries indicators / EAF hierarchical framework
3rd party
Govern ment
Fishery
7
FAO (Garcia et al 2000)
3rd party
Govern ment
8
FishChoice (MSC)
2nd party
Private
52
Australia
Australia
Global
Biological, governance
unknown
13
0
looks at target species, TEP species, habitat and management
No economic
Aimed at retailers
Does not state what indicators are looked at. Just a statement saying they rely on work carried out by MSC, Friend of the Sea, GlobalGAP (aquaculture), FRDC and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
http://www.cleanfishaustralia.com.au/sustainable‐fish‐practices
Biological, social, economic, governance
30
A good set of indicators under each category. Expert and data based
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am429e/am429e.pdf
2012
Biological, social, economic, governance, external drivers
14
A good set of indicators under each category. Also takes into account external drivers
Fletcher WJ, Gaughan DJ, Metcalfe SJ, Shaw J (2012) Using a regional level, risk‐based framework to cost effectively implement Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). In: Kruse, G.H., Browman, H.I., Cochrane, K.L., Evans, D., Jamieson, G.S., Livingston, P.A., Woodby, D., Zhang, C.I. (eds) Global Progress on Ecosystem ‐ Based Fisheries Management. pp. 129 ‐ 146. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. doi: 10.4027/gpebfm.2012.07
2009
Biological, social, governance
7
Takes into account biological, social and governance
Fishery
2000
Global
Biological, social, economic, governance
30
A good set of indicators under each category. Expert based
Specie s
Umbrella organisation. Partners with MSC, SeaChoice, Safina Centreu, Monterey Bay, Vancouver aquarium, Fish Watch to provide a guide that shows each species' sustainability summary (i.e. shows what MSC etc. have for the species http://www.fishchoice.com/buying‐guide/pacific‐cod)
2014
USA
Biological, governance
0
Can see what "FishChoice Sustainable Seafood Partners" ratings are for each species looked at. Also lists which species has sustainable seafood certification
internet search
n/a
From Em
Economic missing
From Em
internet search
Garcia SM, Staples DJ, Chesson J (2000) The FAO guidelines for the development and use of indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries and an Australian example of their application. Ocean & Coastal Management 43 (2000) 537‐556
No economic or social indicators
http://fishchoice.com/
http://fishchoice.com/
9
10
Friend of the Sea
3rd party
IMAS/UTAS/FRDC "Your Marine Values"
2nd party
11
IndiSeas
12
NGO
Fishery
Certification from audits of fisheries carried out by independent bodies. Follow FAO guidelines.
11/05/ 2010
Global
2013
Australia
Biological, social, governance, other
37
Biological, social, economic
17
biological, social
Biological, governance
Researc h
Region al
3rd party
Researc h
Region al
IndiSeas is a scientific program which evaluates the effects of fishing on the health status of marine ecosystems. A panel of indicators is provided, characterizing the ecological and biodiversity status of exploited resources, their environment, and the human dimension of fisheries. Indicators should reflect well‐defined ecological, social or economic processes underlying fishing activity. The ecological and human dimension indicators should rely on strong scientific and theoretical knowledge of the links between exploited marine communities, human communities and fishing pressure. Environmental indicators should
?2013
Marine Conservation Society ‐ Fish Online
3rd party
NGO
Specie s
Marine Conservation Society (UK) tool. Has a smartphone app, downloadable pdf.
2012
13
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment
3rd party
NGO
Fishery
Recognised worldwide; Three principles. 1) Sustainable fish stocks (Target species); 2) Minimising environmental impact (Ecosystem); 3) Effective management (Management)
v2.0. 2014 (effect ive on 1 April 2015)
global
Biological, governance
14
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch
3rd party
Private
Specie s
Program of the Monterey Bay aquarium that researches and evaluates the sustainability of fisheries. Available as a pocket guide, website and smartphone app. link to FishBase vulnerability score to assign a score for the inherent vulnerability of the stock. If no score by FishBase then use own steps modified from the MSC Productivity Attributes
23‐ Jan‐14
USA
Biological, economic
Global but not Australia
Good set of indicators for governance, resource and environment, social
see auditor's document http://www.friendofthesea.org/public/page/Checklist%20FoS%20 Wild%20Catch%20Fisheries.pdf
http://www.friendofthesea.or g/
internet search
http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/53590 8/Your‐Marine‐Values‐Document_WEB‐FULL.pdf
http://www.imas.utas.edu.au /
From Em
http://www.indiseas.org/
internet search
What is important from a community perspective
No governance
15
Takes into account a range of biological, environmental and social indicators
no economic or governance indicators
http://www.indiseas.org/
0
Mainly weighted on stock and vulnerability of species
no social, economic indicators
http://www.mcsuk.org/downloads/fisheries/176‐2012_Wild‐ Capture%20Methodology%20Handbook_Nov2012_LowRes.pdf
28
Looks at target, secondary and ETP species as well as fishery specific management. Recognised world wide
no governance indicators
23
What is important from a community perspective
No social, governance indicators
see document http://www.seafoodwatch.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/medi a/MBA_SeafoodWatch_RecommendationProcess.pdf
http://www.fishonline.org
http://www.msc.org/
http://www.montereybayaqu arium.org/conservation/resea rch/seafood‐watch
internet search
15
National ESD framework for fisheries and aquaculture‐ check, Fletcher et al,
3rd party
Govern ment
Fishery
Development of first holistic ESD framework for Australia
2002/ versio n 1.01
Australia
Biological, social, governance
8
good spread of indicators for each category covered (biological, social, governance)
no economic indicators
see documents (http://www.fisheries‐ esd.com/a/pdf/WildCaptureFisheries_V1_01.pdf ) and (http://www.fisheries‐ esd.com/a/pdf/ESDHowtoGuideAquaculture.PDF)
16
Naturland "WildFish"
2nd party
Private
Specie s
Naturland's main concern is the sustainable use of resources, in ecological, social, and economical respect. Since the mid‐nineties, they have been conducting Organic Aquaculture projects, with the focus on certification against specific and detailed standards.
May‐ 14
Germany (worldwid e)
Biological, social, economic
3
Biological, social and economic indicators
no governance indicators
http://www.naturland.de/naturlandwildfish.html and also see document (http://www.naturland.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/Richtlinien _englisch/Naturland‐Standards_Sustainable‐CaptureFishery.pdf)
http://www.naturland.de/wel come.html
internet search
From Em
17
OECD (Le Gallic)
3rd party
Govern ment
Region al
The main activities of the OECD in the fisheries field is to provide a forum among OECD Member countries to deal with the challenges that policy makers and the fishing industry face dealing with fisheries as a unique natural renewable resource.
2002
Global
Social, economic, other
8
Takes into account social, economic, resource and environmental indicators. Allows comparisons across OECD countries. Based on known and regularly updated data at national level.
No biological indicators
Le Gallic (2002) Fisheries Sustainability Indicators: The OECD experience. Joint workshop EEA‐EC DG Fisheries‐DG Environment on "Tools for measuring (integrated) Fisheries Policy aiming at sustainable ecosystem" October 28‐29, 2002, Brussels (Belgium); http://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/2507611.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/
internet search
18
OzCoasts
3rd party
Govern ment
Region al
OzCoasts Coastal Indicators is an information source for those with an interest in the coastal zone. It is a series of fact sheets that provide background information.
1998
Australia
Biological
4
Takes into account formal status of fishery, stock assessment, landed weight, landed value. Australian centric.
Only looks at target species.
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/fishing_pressure.jsp
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/i ndex.jsp
internet search
19
RAPFISH: Rapid Appraisal for Fisheries
3rd party
Researc h
Fishery
A rapid appraisal technique that estimates the status of fisheries. Most comprehensive set of indicators of all looked at.
2012‐ 2014/ versio n 3.1
Global
Biological, social, economic, governance
42
Indicators across biological, social, economic and governance.
http://www.rapfish.org/
internet search
see documents on this page http://www.rapfish.org/evaluation‐ fields‐attributes/revised‐fields‐2011
53
20
Rice & Rochet (2005)
3rd party
Researc h
Fishery
A framework for the objective selection of a suite of indicators for use in fisheries management. The framework encompasses eight steps, and provides guidance on pitfalls to be avoided at each step.
2005
Global
Biological, social, economic
13
Mainly covers biological indicator selection
Not an actual scheme
Rice JC and Rochet M‐J (2005) A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(3): 516‐527. DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003
21
SeaChoice
3rd party
NGO
Specie s
Collaboration of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and Sierra Club. Works in collaboration with Monterey Bay and uses their rating system.
2013
Canada
Biological, governance
17
good set of indicators for biological and governance
no economic, social indicators
http://www.seachoice.org/seafood‐recommendations/seachoice‐ methodology/
http://www.seachoice.org/
internet search
Govern ment
Fishery
Seafish is a Non‐Departmental Public Body (NDPB) set up by the Fisheries Act 1981 to improve efficiency and raise standards across the UK seafood industry.
2006
Takes into account legislation, assessments and development of new fisheries
No economic
http://www.seafish.org/responsible‐sourcing/environmental‐ toolkit
http://www.seafish.org/
internet search
2014
22
2nd party
23
Seafish Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood ‐ RASS (Phase 1)
2nd party
Govern ment
Specie s
Seafish is a Non‐Departmental Public Body (NDPB) set up by the Fisheries Act 1981 to improve efficiency and raise standards across the UK seafood industry.
24
The Blue Ocean Institute Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood (now the same as Monterey Bay)
3rd party
NGO
Specie s
Available online, uses a traffic light system to asses wild caught fish. Show MSC certified fish along with those that contain mercury or PCBs.
25
The Blue Ocean Institute Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood (previous)
3rd party
NGO
Specie s
Uses colour coded ratings to assess fish products
26
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
3rd party
Govern ment
Region al
27
Unilever's Fish Sustainability (FSI)
1st party
Private
Specie s
Gets suppliers to adopt UNFAO guidelines on sustainable fishing practices. Help set up the MSC with WWF, help suppliers seek MSC certification. Uses a traffic light system to grade fisheries.
2003
Specie s
First started in 2006, aligns with Marine Stewardship Council objectives on wild caught fish. risk relates to both ecological risk & business exposure risk
2012
Private
Specie s
The GLOBALG.A.P. Aquaculture Standard applies to a diversity of fish, crustaceans and molluscs and extends to all hatchery‐based farmed species, as well as the passive collection of seedlings in the planktonic phase. It covers the entire production chain, from brood stock, seedlings and feed suppliers to farming, harvesting and processing. Aquaculture producers are also required to source the compound feed used at the aquatic farming and hatchery levels from reliable suppliers. You can search for a certified compound feed manufacturer in the GLOBALG.A.P. Database e.g. with a specific number like the GGN or via a country/product/standard combination (please note that in this case you need to choose a country, and afterwards other search filters (e.g. Country: Vietnam, Product=Compound Feed for Aquaculture, Standard=GLOBAL.G.A.P. Compound Feed Manufacturing). Learn more about the GLOBALG.A.P. Compound Feed Standard here. The GLOBALG.A.P. Chain of Custody Standard gives aquaculture producers a high level of transparency and integrity by identifying the status of your product throughout the entire production and supply chain, from farm to retailer. For added value, read more about the GLOBALG.A.P. Chain of Custody Standard here.
28
Young's Bluecrest Fish for Life
1st party
Not scored ‐ fishery related
GlobalG.A.P.
54
0
UK
Biological
4
Good biological indicator that are sourced from scientific, industry and government sources.
No economic, governance
http://www.seafish.org/media/1286423/seafish_rass_document_ 05_low_res.pdf
http://www.seafish.org/
internet search
USA
Biological, governance
23
See Monterey Bay.
No economic
http://safinacenter.org/programs/sustainable‐seafood‐program/
http://safinacenter.org/progr ams/sustainable‐seafood‐ program/
internet search
USA
Biological, governance
6
simplicity
No economic, ceased
see document http://blueocean.org/documents/2014/05/seafood‐ choices‐rating‐methodology.pdf
http://safinacenter.org/progr ams/sustainable‐seafood‐ program/
internet search
29
Biological, governance
Seafish 'Environmental toolkit'
?2003
UK
internet search
2nd party
Private
2014
Global
Biological, economic
6
Looks at consumption patterns and ecosystem
No social and governance
Global
Social, governance
6
Check & recheck suppliers. Mainly uses MSC certification.
No biological indicators
looks at research into fisheries, traceability of wild fish caught
no economic, biological
UK
global
Social, governance
For aquaculture, chain of custody, food safety etc.
15
TBC
partnerships with consumers, buyers, producers
internet search
http://www.unilever.com/images/2003%20Fishing%20For%20The %20Future%20II%20Unilever%27s%20Fish%20Sustainability%20Ini tiative_tcm13‐5078.pdf
http://www.unilever.com/
internet search
http://www.youngsseafood.co.uk/sustainability/fish‐for‐life/
http://www.youngsseafood.c o.uk/
internet search
not assessed
http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/for‐producers/aquaculture/
http://www.globalgap.org/uk _en/
30
The North Sea Foundation
3rd party
Private
Specie s
North Sea Foundation strives to ensure that fishing in the North Sea is sustainable. This situation arises through effective regulation, self‐management by fishermen and appreciation of sustainability of consumers. Goals: 1) healthy ecosystem with lots of fish; 2) a healthy North Sea fishing industry, by, among other more sustainable fishing techniques, and increasing demand for sustainable fish; 3) the "commercial fish 'for consumer durable
N/A
The Netherlan ds
Seafood Choices
3rd party
Private
Specie s
Seafood Choices Alliance is a program of SeaWeb, a non‐profit organization founded in 1996. Seafood Choices Alliance is an international program that provides leadership and creates opportunities for change across the seafood industry and ocean conservation community. Founded in the United States in 2001, Seafood Choices helps the seafood industry— from fishermen and fish farmers to processors, distributors, retailers, restaurants, and food service providers —to make the seafood marketplace environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.
N/A
US and Europe
Recommends guides by Greenpeace, MCS, North Sea Foundation, Sea Choice and WWF
32
KRAV
3rd party
Private
Specie s
Sweden’s most well‐known sustainability label for food, based on principles of organic farming with especially rigorous requirements on animal care, health, social responsibility and climate impact
2014
Sweden
Condition of stock fished, impacts of fisheries on surrounding ecosystems, management of fisheries, level of environmental contaminants
Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP)
3rd party
Govern ment
Fishery
The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), a legally‐ binding multilateral agreement which entered into force in February 1999, established this program, the successor to the 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Dolphins (the "La Jolla Agreement"). The Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) provides the Secretariat for the program, which covers the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The first objective of the AIDCP is to reduce incidental dolphin mortalities in the purse‐seine fishery in the eastern Pacific Ocean to levels approaching zero. This Agreement and its predecessor, the 1992 La Jolla Agreement, have been spectacularly successful in meeting this objective, as shown by the reduction in mortality of dolphins incidental to fishing.
not stated
34
Clean Green (Australian Southern Rocklobster)
3rd party
Private
Fishery
The Clean Green program is a world first rock lobster supply chain management strategy. It is a product certification program integrating “pot to plate” standards for environmental management, food safety and quality, work place safety and animal welfare. The participants are audited by an independent third party Conformity Assessment Body (CAB), which is accredited against the ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 and JAS‐ANZ Procedure 15.
2007
Australia
35
Marine Ecolabel Japan
2nd party
Private
Specie s
Marine Eco‐Label Japan (MEL Japan) was established in December 2007 as a system to support the fishing‐friendly fisheries resources and the sea. Recognizing the global nature of the seafood industry and that Japan is one of the largest markets for fishery products, Japanese stakeholders in the fishing industry and fisheries management responded proactively and established their own ecolabeling scheme, Marine Eco‐ Label Japan (MEL Japan), which is most suitable to the Japanese fisheries.
not stated
Japan
36
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)
2nd party
Private
Specie s
ASMI is a public‐private partnership between the State of Alaska and the Alaska seafood industry established to foster economic development of a renewable natural resource. ASMI is playing a key role in the repositioning of Alaska’s seafood industry as a competitive market‐driven food production industry. Its work to boost the value of Alaska’s seafood product portfolio is accomplished through partnerships with retail grocers, foodservice distributors, restaurant chains, foodservice operators, universities, culinary schools, and the media. It conducts consumer campaigns, public relations and advertising activities, and aligns with industry efforts for maximum effectiveness. ASMI also functions as a brand manager of the Alaska Seafood family of brands. Launched in France in 2006, our sustainable development self‐assessment is a self‐ evaluation framework designed in conjunction with WWF France and ADEME. Available to suppliers via the internet, it consists of 49 criteria covering four main pillars: SD management and policy and environmental, social and economic performance. Since 2009, Carrefour has gone a step further by organising the Sustainable Development Awards. Businesses that have achieved the best results in the self‐ assessment receive an on‐site consultancy visit and are then put forward to a panel of expert judges. Each year, the awards recognise and promote the exemplary approaches of four businesses.
2014
Alaska
Earth Island’s unique International Monitoring Program maintains eighteen staff members in seven countries around the world, who regularly inspect tuna in canneries, at dockside, and aboard fishing vessels in order to insure consumers that the tuna they buy is truly “dolphin safe“. This is the largest private environmental monitoring program in the world. We maintain agreements with more than 500 tuna companies around the world, including all major tuna processors.
??199 0
37
38
Carrefour "Peche responsible"
Dolphin Safe (Earth Island Institute)
1st party
3rd party
Private
Private
Fishery
Fishery
http://www.noordzee.nl/en/about‐us/
31
33
http://www.noordzee.nl/en/topics/visserij/ **(NOTE: have to use google translate. Have link to VISwijzer (good fish) but it is in Dutch).
work place safety, animals health, welfare, stock status, product handling
Biological, social, economic, governance
http://www.seafoodchoices.com/home.php
doesn't have own set of categories/indicat ors
http://www.krav.se/sites/www.krav.se/files/krav‐ standards2015webb.pdf
http://www.krav.se/english
http://www.iattc.org/IDCPENG.htm
http://www.iattc.org/
http://www.southernrocklobster.com/cleangreen/
http://www.southernrocklobster.com/cleangreen/
Framework in line with FAO guidelines
Uses FAO checklist
http://ebooks.alaskaseafood.org/New_Certified_Brochure/index.h tml#/2/ or http://certification.alaskaseafood.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2014/10/Alaska‐RFM‐Scoring‐ Guidance_v_1_1.pdf
http://www.melj.jp/
http://www.alaskaseafood.or g
not stated
same as MSC
http://www.carrefour.com/cdc/responsible‐ commerce/our‐commitment‐to‐ theenvironment/responsible‐sourcing/
Global
biological
5
No Social, economic or governance
http://www.earthisland.org/dolphinSafeTuna/ and http://www.earthisland.org/immp/Dol_Safe_Standard.html
http://www.earthisland.org/index.php/aboutUs/
55
39
EcoFish
3rd party
Private
Specie s
At EcoFish, we are dedicated to offering only the most sustainable sources of seafood. To guide us in this mission, we have assembled a Seafood Advisory Board comprised of some of the world's leading marine conservation scientists who help us research and recommend which species and fisheries to feature. The Board uses a diverse array of existing guidelines at their organizations as reference when assessing a fishery. Research scientists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch Program, Environmental Defense, Blue Ocean Institute and New England Aquarium recommend these fisheries to EcoFish.
not stated
US
Biological, governance (biological characteristics of seafood, population status, management of fishery, bycatch, impact harvesting method has on surrounding environment)
40
Iceland Responsible Fisheries
2nd party
Govern ment
Fishery
The Iceland Responsible Fisheries programme (IRF) arose out of discussions with all members of the seafood supply chain in Iceland and was officially launched in October 2008. The certification model is a robust, common sense, practical and cost‐ effective approach and allows Icelandic fisheries to meet the FAO criteria for credible certification. This programme also utilizes a certifier who is accredited to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) by an International Accreditation Forum member. The result is a model that is practical, verifiable, transparent and incorporates the criteria and procedures outlined in the FAO Code and Guidelines. The Iceland Responsible Fisheries Foundation owns and operates the brand of Iceland Responsible Fisheries. The Foundation was established in February 2011 and took over the operation and management of the IRF certification programme from the Fisheries Association of Iceland. The foundation operates on a cost basis, as a non‐profit organisation.
Versio n 1.1; March 2014
Iceland
Biological, governance (Fisheries management, compliance and monitoring, ecosystem considerations)
41
Responsible Fishing Scheme
2nd party
Govern ment
Fishery
The Responsible Fishing Scheme has been developed to raise standards in the catching sector, enabling those within the seafood supply chain to demonstrate their commitment to the responsible sourcing of seafood. The aim is that, over time, accreditation will become a condition of supply. Based on a Publicly Available Specification from the British Standards Institution (BSi), the Responsible Fishing Scheme is an independent, audited assessment of the application of good practice by a vessel skipper and crew in their fishing operations. It covers four key areas, namely: Fishing practices; Vessel criteria; Crew competence; Environmental considerations.
2006 (The schem e was review ed in 2014 and will be formal ly re‐ launch ed in mid‐ 2015)
UK
biological, social, governance (environmental interaction and impact, catch handling and storage practices, vessel, equipment and crew hygiene standards and crew knowledge, awareness and qualifications)
42
Fair‐Fish
3rd party
Private
Fishery
Fair‐fish cooperates with players in fishery and aquaculture who respect animal welfare, fair trade and nature, our guidelines being the bench mark. We take action instead against stakeholders in production and trade of fish who lack respect towards fishes, fish workers or nature.
2007, versio n 2.3 (no longer curren t as fishery projec t ended in 2010)
Senegal
Governance, biological (Fishing areas, Control, Use of trademark, Animal protection, sustainability, fair trade, quality, management, sanctions, conflict settlement)
based on FAO
http://www.ecofish.com http://www.seafoodsafe.com /
http://responsiblefisheries.is/files/pdf‐skjol/certification/fai‐rfm‐ version‐1.1‐march‐2014.pdf
http://www.responsiblefisheries.is/
http://rfs.seafish.org/about
http://rfs.seafish.org/
FAO based
http://www.fair‐fish.ch/files/pdf/english/instructions.pdf
http://www.fair‐fish.net or http://www.fair‐ fish.ch/english/
43
FishWise
3rd party
Private
Specie s
FishWise was founded in 2002 to enable consumers and grocery retailers to support marine conservation through their seafood purchasing decisions. The organization's co‐founders, Teresa Ish and Shelly Benoit, identified a critical gap in which consumers did not have the information necessary to make informed choices and well‐ intentioned businesses did not have the tools and resources to accurately and credibly incorporate sustainability into their seafood cases. Through a collaboration with Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program and a pilot project with New Leaf Community Markets in Santa Cruz, California, FishWise was born.
2014
US
Biological, Governance (Species, ecology, management)
44
Peche Responsible Intermarche
1st party
Private
Specie s
When the crew of the COMATA vessel the Kerguelen de Trémarec made their first voyage in the southern seas nearly 20 years ago, they could not have imagined they were writing the first lines in the history of Scapêche. COMATA, a subsidiary of Scapêche, is now a permanent fixture in the French Southern and Antarctic Oceans. The Société Centrale des Armements des Mousquetaires à la pêche (Scapêche) is France's leading fishing vessel owner. "Control of production of its fish and sea products" was the Les Mousquetaires Group's primary objective. This is how, on the initiative of Jean‐Pierre Le Roch, Scapêche came to be created. The Group grew very rapidly by regularly acquiring fishing vessel companies: Lucas, SCAD, Nicot, Furic, etc. As dictated by the links with these companies, more than 16 vessels were added to the ranks of the Scapêche fleet alongside the Kerguelen de Trémarec. They were given the names of the founders of the Les Mousquetaires Group, such as: Albert Granet, Claude Moinier or Jack Abry.
N/A
Atlantic Ocean, fisheries in Scottish waters, (French) Southern and Antarctic Oceans
Biological, Governance (TEPS, Waste disposal, management, research, social)
56
http://www.ecofish.com/about/selectioncriteria.htm
Biological, Governance
No economic, social
http://fishwise.org/index.php/science/assessment‐methods
http://www.fishwise.org/
www.scapeche.fr/our‐commitments/our‐environmental‐ responsability/ ; http://www.scapeche.fr/our‐ commitments/conserving‐flora‐and‐fauna/ ; http://www.scapeche.fr/our‐commitments/reducing‐our‐carbon‐ footprint/ ; http://www.scapeche.fr/our‐commitments/our‐ corporate‐responsability/
http://www.scapeche.fr/trad_anglais/index_english.htm
45
Sustainable Seafood Coalition
2nd party
Private
species
The Sustainable Seafood Coalition (SSC) represents the first ever cross‐industry group to tackle seafood sustainability. The members of the SSC are united in a vision for sustainable seafood and have made a commitment to develop and adopt the SSC voluntary codes of conduct. ClientEarth founded the Sustainable Seafood Coalition in May 2011 in order to pursue a vision of all seafood and fish sold in the UK is from sustainable sources. The SSC proposes to contribute to this vision primarily through the creation and implementation of voluntary codes which address our joint aims. The founding members of the SSC include ClientEarth, Icelandic UK, Waitrose, Marks and Spencer, Young’s, Birds Eye Iglo, and FishFight. Since its establishment the Coalition has grown significantly, with a wide variety of ‘full’ members and a number of ‘representative organisations.’ The latter cannot participate in decision‐making, but can represent the interests of their own members if they are also full SSC members (e.g. if a member is unable to make an SSC meeting).
Sept 2014 for sourci ng code
UK
46
WWF ‐ country seafood guides
3rd party
Private
Specie s
WWF, together with the Seafood Choices Alliance, North Sea Foundation and the Marine Conservation Society, developed a methodology to assess the sustainability of seafood species. Based on this, we've created guides that tell you which seafood to enjoy and which seafood to avoid.
N/A
various countries;
Recommends guide by MSC
47
Environmental Defense Fund's Seafood Selector
3rd party
Private
Specie s
To decide which fish merit an Eco‐Best, Eco‐OK or Eco‐Worst rating, EDF scientists and our partners evaluate many aspects of wild fisheries and fish farming operations, and offer their analyses of more than 200 types of fish and shellfish common in the U.S. market. Eco‐Best choices represent fish whose fishing or farming methods have minor impacts on the environment, while Eco‐Worst choices have considerable impacts on the environment. As fishing and farming practices change over time and new information becomes available, we re‐evaluate our rankings. Our guide is produced in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, another producer of seafood eco‐ guides.
N/A
US
Biological, governance (Life history, Abundance, Gear impacts on habitat, Bycatch, Management)
48
Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative
2nd party
Researc h
Specie s
The mission of GSSI is to deliver a common, consistent and global benchmarking tool for seafood certification schemes to ensure confidence in the supply and promotion of sustainable seafood to consumers worldwide as well as promote improvement in the schemes. GSSI Objectives: Create an internationally agreed set of criteria and indicators to measure and compare the performance of seafood certification and labelling programs, in order to facilitate their implementation and use; Provide an international Multi‐Stakeholder Platform for collaboration, knowledge exchange in seafood sustainability; and Increase affordability and flexibility within the supply chain by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency of seafood certification and labelling programs.
49
Fishery performance indicators
3rd party
Researc h
Fishery
Pursuit of the triple bottom line of economic, community and ecological sustainability has increased the complexity of fishery management; fisheries assessments require new types of data and analysis to guide science‐based policy in addition to traditional biological information and modelling. We introduce the Fishery Performance Indicators (FPIs), a broadly applicable and flexible tool for assessing performance in individual fisheries, and for establishing cross‐sectional links between enabling conditions, management strategies and triple bottom line outcomes. Conceptually separating measures of performance, the FPIs use 68 individual outcome metrics— coded on a 1 to 5 scale based on expert assessment to facilitate application to data poor fisheries and sectors—that can be partitioned into sector based or triple‐ bottom‐line sustainability‐based interpretative indicators. Variation among outcomes is explained with 54 similarly structured metrics of inputs, management approaches and enabling conditions. Using 61 initial fishery case studies drawn from industrial and developing countries around the world, we demonstrate the inferential importance of tracking economic and community outcomes, in addition to resource status.
50
iFish4Chips
3rd party
Private
species
Smart phone guide to UK's fish and chip shops and restaurants
UK
http://www.ifish4chips.co.uk/
51
The sustainable restaurant association
3rd party
Private
species
UK, Ireland
http://www.thesra.org/
http://sustainableseafoodcoalition.org/
For wild capture fish, the Code requires Members to assess the status of all the fisheries from which they source. Wild caught fish can be certified by an environmental third party.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/ marine/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/seafood_guides/
http://wwf.panda.org/
http://seafood.edf.org/how‐we‐develop‐our‐eco‐ratings
http://seafood.edf.org/
2015
Global
Ecology, Economics, Community
68
http://www.ourgssi.org/
paper
Paper
theoretical linkages
qualitative
Anderson JL, Anderson CM, Chu J, Meredith J, Asche F, Sylvia G, et al (2015) The Fishery Performance Indicators: A Management Tool for Triple Bottom Line Outcomes. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0122809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122809
57
Guiding frameworks ‐ will cross reference these to the indicators, sub‐categories and categories to show how they cover the issues that the Healthcheck covers
52
Australian fisheries management legislative objectives
2nd party
Govern ment
fishery
53
National Harvest Strategy Guidelines
2nd party
Govern ment
fishery
54
Annual "Fisheries checklist" (Kennelly 2014)
2nd party
Govern ment
fishery
#VALUE!
58
annual stock specific reports
Kennelly, S.J., IC Independent Consulting. 2014. Benchmarking Australia’s national fisheries status reporting system. Final FRDC Report, ISBN 978‐0‐9924930‐0‐4, March, 2014. 82pp.
Appendix 6 – Interview questions and coding eNGO interview questions Representatives from a range of eNGOs active in wild fisheries were interviewed 1.
Are you involved in advocacy space for fisheries? Recent/long term (and if recent, why?)
2.
Which Australian fisheries are you most interested in?
3.
What is your top concern for environmental sustainability in terms of Australian fisheries?
4.
Would you like to see a system of reporting for that fishery?
5.
What aspects do you think it is important to include? What information would you like to see in particular?
6.
Do you have any concerns about these “assessments”?
7.
Do you think the Australian public currently has an accurate understanding of fisheries? Would they be interested in more information?
8.
Do you/would you use assessment reports in your own work? How?
9.
What sort of format do you think the information would be best delivered in?
10. Do you think CSIRO is a trustworthy source to produce this system? If not, who would you trust?
Stakeholder interview questions Representatives from the three case studies (SESSF – CTS, Pipi, Tasmanian Scalefish) were interviewed 1.
What is your role in the fishery?
2.
Do you currently use any assessments?
3.
Would you like to see an assessment such as the Healthcheck?
4.
Let’s look through the prototype – what are your initial thoughts?
5.
What do you think of the breadth of the assessment categories?
6.
Do you have any concerns about an assessments like this?
7.
Do you think the Australian public currently has an accurate understanding of fisheries? Would they be interested in more information?
8.
Are there any stand out examples of each category in your fishery?
9.
Do you think CSIRO is a trustworthy source to produce this system? If not, who would you trust?
10. What is your top concern for environmental sustainability in terms of Australian fisheries? 59
Analysis hierarchy: themes, categories and codes (frequency is the number of times coded across all interviews). Theme (frequency) Issues with other assessments (152)
Category (frequency)
Problems (53)
Successes (46)
People and management issues (121)
Social values (53)
The role of the public (32)
Barriers to change (20)
Pathways to change (16)
Issues specific to Healthcheck (109)
Benefits (55)
Difficulties (47)
Format (7)
Environmental and biological issues (68)
Environment (35)
Species (33)
60
Important features (53)
Codes (frequency) Talks about the importance of transparency (23) Discusses gear types (10) Notes scientific research important (9) Discusses bycatch (5) Talks about aquaculture (5) Mentions mitigation devices (1) Discusses failures of existing assessments (20) Highlights information gaps (19) Highlights commercial bias (7) Talks about data poor fisheries (7) Identifies examples of successful fisheries (19) Uses reports (14) Talks about accreditation such as MSC (13) Talks about recreational fishing (25) Highlights forgotten social values (9) Mentions indigenous sector (6) Talks about labour issues (4) Mentions tourism (3) Talks about overseas fisheries (3) Mentions education (2) Discusses changes in lifestyle (1) Discusses importance of participatory processes (13) Public is disengaged until a crises (8) Talks about consumer pressure (6) Public expects sustainable (5) Talks about cultural or structural barriers (8) Discusses bad management (6) Disagreement about ‘sustainable’ (3) Identifies funding limitations (2) Takes a long time to implement change (1) Talks about supply chain issues (4) Discusses the role of supermarkets (4) Discusses social media (3) Talks about industry involvement and ownership (3) Advocates policy change (2) Sees CSIRO as trusted if independent (24) Expresses support for Healthcheck (19) Discusses marketing (5) Consumer interested in Healthcheck (4) Notes the need for data detail (3) Identifies competition (17) Identifies risk (13) Consumer disinterested (9) Difficult to do (8) Talks about webpage (5) Highlights app useful (4) Prefers hardcopy (2) Discusses environmental impacts (13) Compares land and sea (8) Discusses marine parks (6) Discusses ecological based management (5) Discusses urchin barrens (2) Discusses eco‐system services (1) Discusses threatened species (14) Discusses stocks (7) Mentions depletion (7) Discusses pests and disease (3) Compares different impacts on different species (2)
