Level 2, 126 Vivian St, Wellington, New Zealand

ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION ORGANISATIONS OF NZ INC.

PO Box 11-057, Wellington

Email: Website: www.eco.org.nz
Phone/Fax 64-4-385-7545

To: MRAG America

100515th Street N, Suite 105

St Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211

United States of America

Via Email:

29 February 2016

Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 General Comments 2

2.1 Issues in Certification 2

3.0 MRAG Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales 3

3.1 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 3

Principle 1: Target Species 3

Principle 2: Ecosystem 8

Principle 3: Management System 22

References: 30

1.0 Introduction

The Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ (ECO) is the national alliance of 50 organisations with a concern for the environment. ECO has been involved in issues of resource and marine management, biosecurity, biodiversity protection, toxics and environmental administration since its formation in 1972.

This submission has been prepared by members of ECO Executive and is in line with ECO Policy that was developed in consultation with ECO member bodies and endorsed by our AGM.

ECO has been concerned at the management of orange roughy fisheries for over 30 years and has engaged with and made submissions on catch limits and the management arrangements on deepwater fisheries over this time.

2.0 General Comments

ECO does not consider that that orange roughy unit of certification (North-West Chatham Rise, East and South Chatham Rise and Challenger fisheries) meets the criteria for certification. ECO considers the application of criteria all UOC would have to be rejected.

ECO representative participated in the site visit undertaken by MRAG on 31 July 2014. ECO notes that at this stage the unit of certification (UOC) was uncertain so it was unclear which fisheries were involved. Apologies were given for Duncan Currie from Deep Sea Conservation Coalition at that meeting. Without knowing the unit of certification it is difficult for any

We would note that:

· This certification is being undertaken using MSC certification requirements v1.3, not the latest criteria v2.0.

· That there was nearly 18 month gaps between the site visit and the publication of the Draft Report. Under Ver 2.0 if a “9 month pause between site visit and PCDR publication; in which case FCR v2.0 (process and standard) shall be applied” (p137, Ver2.0). So why was version 2.0 not applied?

ECO objected to the peer reviewers as we considered they were missing key expertise in benthic and ecosystem impacts which is a critical issue in the consideration of MSC certification. While this submission was late due to family bereavement we are concerned at the inflexibility of MRAG and the MSC process.

2.1 Issues in Certification

ECO supports the comments made by WWF in its letter of 30 July 2014. This includes:

· Data deficiencies on orange roughy biology and research;

· Target reference point being not precautionary or best practice;

· Limit reference point is not best practice or considered significant sources of uncertainty;

· Stock depletion and rebuild strategy is not consistent with the MSC standard;

· Significant uncertainties with orange roughy recruitment and stock structure;

· Harvest control rules - which ECO emphasises is a voluntary mechanism which has no hard standards and has been applied to allow continued fishing rather than closing a fishery eg black cardinal fish.

A key element of the MSC standard is the application of the precautionary approach. New Zealand has no explicitly precautionary approach in law. Efforts by Ministers to introduce a precautionary approach has been rejected by Ministers.

Efforts to cut orange roughy catch limits in past years to prevent a hard land have been rebuffed by the fishing industry. Wallace and Weeber (2005) documents the history of decisions on deepwater fisheries including orange roughy.

3.0 MRAG Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Below is a commentary on the MRAG scoring of the orange roughy units of certification – North-West Chatham Rise, East and South Chatham Rise and Challenger fisheries.

3.1 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

A summary of the results of rescoring is listed in the table below.

Overall weighted Principle-level scores / NWCR / ESCR / ORH7A
Principle 1 - Target species / Stock rebuilding PI not scored / 68.13 / 63.13 / 65.63
Stock rebuilding PI scored / 66.00 / 62.71 / 62.51
Principle 2 - Ecosystem / 63.03 / 63.03 / 65.03
Principle 3 - Management / 77.25 / 77.25 / 75.50

Further our assessment of Performance indicator 2.4.3 is below the 60 performance level for all UOC.

The scoring results and indicator 2.4.3 result justifies our conclusion that the fishery should not be certified as it does not meet the MSC Standard.

Principle 1: Target Species

PI 1.1.1 / The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low
probability of recruitment overfishing
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / ORH3B NWCR
90
ORH3B ESCR
70
ORH7A 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): / ORH3B ESCR
1

There are a range of issues that MRAG have not considered which means the indicator score should be changed and replaced with a much lower value. Full consideration of the relevant issues would mean the UOC would not meet a 70 or 90 score respectively.

There are a number of uncertainties with the current stock assessments for that UOC:.

ORH3B - NW Chatham Rise

· An assessment in 2014 estimated to have increased to 37%Bo and the biomass was very likely to be at or above the target (30%);

· B2014 is very unlikely to be below B20%.

· At the current catch (110t) or the current voluntary catch limit (750t) it is very unlikely the biomass will decline below B20%.

· The biomass is expected to increase or stay steady over the next 5 years with annual catches of up to 1400t.

· Uncertainties in this assessment include how much of the spawning biomass the acoustic assessment covers, patterns in year class strength, and that the time series of abundance is short.

· There is a voluntary catch limit of 750 tonnes for this area within a total catch limit of 4500 tonnes.

ORH 3B – E and S Chatham Rise

· An assessment in 2014 estimated to have increased to 30%Bo and about as likely as not to be at or above the lower end of the management target range (30%);

· B2014 was unlikely to be below B20% but very unlikely to below B10%.

· “Overfishing is very unlikely to be occurring”.

· Uncertainties in this assessment include how much of spawning biomass the acoustic survey covers, whether a spawning plume (“Rekohu”) is new or longstanding, and patterns in year class strength as only 2 years of age composition data was used.

· The “old” spawning plume had the lowest estimated biomass in 2013 which was only 25% of the 2002 acoustic estimate, at which stage the stock was already well below 30%Bo.

· Alternative model assumptions (including lower value of M (0.036) estimated in the model) produced a range in biomass from 19 to 32% (95%CI) for B2014.

· On most of the South Rise and east features catch rates have tended to decline rapidly and then flatten out with little recovery. The fishery on the South Rise moved east over time “which was described as a serial depletion of orange roughy from the hills” (Clark 1997, MPI 2015). “The non-spawning fishery has therefore largely contracted to the hill complexes in the southeast corner of the Rise..” (MPI 2015). There has also been a “spatial contraction of the fishery during the spawning period” (MPI 2015).

· There is a voluntary catch limit of 3100 tonnes for this area within a total catch limit of 4500 tonnes.

ORH7A

· This fishery was closed in 2000 when the stock was estimated to have been reduced to 3%Bo (1-6%, 95%CI).

· An assessment in 2014 estimated that the biomass had increased to 42%Bo and was very likely to be at or above the target (30%);

· B2014 was very unlikely to be below B20%.

· “Overfishing is very unlikely to be occurring”.

· Uncertainties in this assessment include how much of spawning biomass the acoustic and trawl survey covers and patterns in year class strength.

· Age frequency of the fishery in 2009 was much younger than in 1988 with mean ages of 33 years (2009) and 53 years (1987). The age range from otoliths were 18-90 years (2009) and 26-145 years (1987). The spawning population in 2009 “consisted mainly of relatively young recruits (mean age of maturity is estimated at 23 years) most of which would not have been present prior to 2000.” (MPI 2012).

· While the assessment model shows increasing biomass, the acoustic and trawl surveys have been declining since 2009 – the 2013 survey was 54% of the 2009 result.

· This area was opened to fishing in 2010 with a catch limit of 500 tonnes.

Overall: Orange roughy fishery have a history of over-optimistic assessments and predicted recovery which never takes places. The assessment for ORH7A and E&Sth Chatham Rise have similar issues – with the main historic index declining while the stock assessment suggests the stock is increasing.

For these reasons we have down-weighted the scores.

Revised Score:

· ORH7A 70

· ESCR 60

· NWCR 80

MRAG – MSC ORH Public Comment Draft page 118

PI 1.1.2 / Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / ORH3B NWCR
80
ORH3B ESCR
80
ORH7A 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

We agree with the critique of the limit and target reference point made by WWF. We would not that CCAMLR has one example of best practice target reference points of 50%Bo for predator species and 75%Bo for prey species.

The current New Zealand reference points are not precautionary and they are not applied for either soft or hard limits. Given the uncertainty about orange roughy recruitment it is not possible to determine whether the limit reference point is appropriate,

For these reason we consider a score close to 60 is more appropriate.

Revised Score:

All Stocks

· ORH7A 65

· ESCR 65

· NWCR 65

MRAG – MSC ORH Public Comment Draft page 120

PI 1.1.3 / Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a
specified timeframe
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

New Zealand does not have a clear rebuilding strategy applied to orange roughy. Peer reviewer 1 raised issues over the rebuild strategy. ECO supports WWF and reviewer 1 concern over the rebuild strategy.

For these reason we consider a score close to 60 is more appropriate.

Revised Score:

All Stocks 60

· ORH7A

· ESCR

· NWCR

MRAG – MSC ORH Public Comment Draft page 122

PI 1.2.1 / There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / ORH3B NWCR
85
ORH3B ESCR
85
ORH7A 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

There is neither a robust nor precautionary harvest strategy in place. The precautionary principle is not clear in the Fisheries Act.

Given the history of over-optimistic orange roughy assessment caused by the limited period orange roughy have been fished and researched compared to their long life history it is essential that any MSE consider a wide set of uncertainties. The effect of climate change on a long lived species like orange roughy is not known.

For these reason we consider a score close to 60 is more appropriate.

Revised Score:

All Stocks 65

MRAG – MSC ORH Public Comment Draft page 124

PI 1.2.2 / There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / ORH3B NWCR
90
ORH3B ESCR
90
ORH7A 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

There is neither a robust nor precautionary harvest control rules in place. The precautionary principle is not clear in the Fisheries Act. Harvest control rules are a voluntary mechanism and not a legal requirement.

The uncertainty over orange roughy recruitment must be considered as part of any MSE approach.

For these reason we consider a score close to 60 is more appropriate.

Revised Score:

All Stocks 65

MRAG – MSC ORH Public Comment Draft page 126

PI 1.2.3 / Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: / ORH3B NWCR
90
ORH3B ESCR
90
ORH7A 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Peer reviewer 1 questioned whether the scoring could be justified.

A key element in information collection if the presence of MPI scientific observers on vessels. As Peer Reviewer 2 noted: