The best environmental choice in seafood

1. Disclaimer If any interpretive issues arise in relation to the issues covered in these presentations, the text of the MSC Scheme Documents will prevail in all instances. The MSC is not responsible for any issues arising to any parties as a result of consulting these presentations. If you are unsure of any details on any of the subjects covered, please consult the relevant MSC scheme documents or contact the MSC at standards@msc.org. MSC Executive October 2010 The best environmental choice in seafood

2. Enhanced Fisheries

3. What is an enhanced fishery? • Over to you – discuss with a partner what you think the key features of an enhanced fishery are • Share ideas Photo: John Allan

4. Learning Objectives • To be familiar with the MSC scope criteria for enhanced fisheries • To be able to use the scope criteria to decide if an enhanced fishery is within scope • To know the process for proposing changes to the default assessment tree Photo: Rod Allday

5. Enhanced Fishery Agenda • Types of enhanced fishery in scope • Scope criteria • Examples to try

6. Wild Culture Catch Culture Wild Release Catch Enhanced Fisheries 1. Catch and Grow Fisheries (CAG) e.g. mussel farming from wild spat Not closed-cycle aquaculture - out of scope 2. Hatch and Catch Fisheries (HAC) e.g. salmon stocking / ranching • Habitat Modified Fisheries e.g. FADs, artificial reefs

7. Three groups of scope criteria A. Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock B. Feeding and husbandry • Habitat and ecosystem impacts CAB determines whether the fishery is in scope against these criteria

8. Scope Criteria: A. Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock A1. At some point in the production process, the system relies upon the capture of fish from the wild environment. Such fish may be taken at any stage of the life cycle including eggs, larvae, juveniles or adults. The ‘wild environment’ in this context includes marine, freshwater and any other aquatic ecosystems. A2. The species are native to the geographic region of the fishery and the natural production areas from which the fishery’s catch originates. A3. There are natural reproductive components of the stock from which the fishery’s catch originates that maintain themselves without having to be restocked every year. A4. Where fish stocking is used (in HAC), such stocking does not form a major part of a current rebuilding plan for depleted stocks.

9. Performance Assessment Issues: A. Linkages to and maintenance of a wild stock • Assess impacts on wild stock, not enhanced stock • Assess impacts of translocations on: natural genetic characteristics of the stock, and other environmental impacts

10. Scope Criteria:B. Feeding and Husbandry B1. The production system operates without substantial augmentation of food supply. In HAC systems, any feeding is used only to grow the animals to a small size prior to release (not more than 10% of the average adult maximum weight), such that most of the total growth (not less than 90%) is achieved during the wild phase. In CAG systems, feeding during the captive phase is only by natural means (e.g. filter-feeding in mussels), or at a level and duration that provide only for the maintenance of condition (e.g. crustacea in holding tanks) rather than to achieve growth. B2. In CAG systems, production during the captive phase does not routinely require disease prevention involving chemicals or compounds with medicinal prophylactic properties.

11. Performance Assessment Issues: B. Feeding and Husbandry B1. The production system operates without substantial augmentation of food supply. Need to provide evidence in Notification Report and others thatmost of the total growth (not less than 90%) is achieved during the wild phase B2. Assess environmental impacts of enhancement in P2. e.g…. impacts of any disease prevention measures in HAC impacts of fertilisation or removal of predators in CAG

12. Scope Criteria: C. Habitat and Ecosystem Impacts C1. Any modifications to the habitat of the stock are reversible, and do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.

13. Performance Assessment Issues: C. Habitat and Ecosystem Impacts C1. Assess impacts under P2 How to deal with cumulative impacts of multiple production operations?

14. If fishery is in scope then… • CAB decides any changes to propose to the default assessment tree as a variation request • Subject to: • MSC approval • 30 day stakeholder review • (Part C 27.8) Photo: Mike Pennington

15. Special Arrangements • The MSC may require additional consultation with other CABs developing performance assessment guidance for similar fisheries • Requirements for enhanced fisheries still under development for some species-specific default trees • MSC may require these to be applied retrospectively • CABs and clients should be aware

16. Questions & Answers Questions?

17. Exercise • 2 parts • Part 1 Implementation • Part 2 Assessment of enhancement issues • Answers on the sheet • Review Photo: Steven G Johnson