Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Review of the Fishery Improvement Plan for Indonesian Tuna fisheries and revisions to
the MSC scoring
Richard Banks
June 2015
ii
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1: Summary report on milestone outcomes ........................................................................ 3
GOAL 1: To ensure that the tuna catches do not exceed sustainable levels ............................... 4
GOAL 2: To promote the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management ...................... 12
GOAL 3: Fisheries Governance strengthened. ............................................................................ 14
Section 2: Benchmarking and MSC scoring .................................................................................... 17
The Benchmarking Monitoring Tool ........................................................................................... 17
Summary BMT scores .................................................................................................................. 18
Summary outputs from the Units of Certification ..................................................................... 26
Section 3: Revised FIP Action Plan .................................................................................................. 63
GOAL 1. Stock status and fisheries management ....................................................................... 64
Outcome 1 Stock status improved and reference points applied in management ................... 64
Outcome 2: Tuna management strategies applied .................................................................... 65
Outcome 3: Data collection and Information systems strengthened ........................................ 68
Outcome 4: Tuna Research Plan in place ................................................................................... 70
Goal 2. Ecosystem management ..................................................................................................... 71
Outcome 5: Retained species subject to a management strategy ............................................ 71
Goal 3. Governance Systems .......................................................................................................... 74
Outcome 6: Legal framework implemented .............................................................................. 74
Outcome 7: Fisheries specific management objectives applied ................................................ 76
Outcome 8: Effective application of compliance systems ......................................................... 77
Section 4: Guidance ......................................................................................................................... 79
4.1 institutional strengthening: governance, consultation and decision making ..................... 79
4.2 MMAF data collection system .............................................................................................. 82
4.3 Development of harvest strategies rules and tools and bycatch mitigation measures ...... 85
4.4.1 Bycatch & ecosystem impact analysis: main retained species ......................................... 88
4.4.2 Bycatch & ecosystem impact analysis: baitfish ................................................................. 92
4.5 Institutional strengthening: governance, consultation and decision making ..................... 95
4.6.1 National compliance systems ............................................................................................ 98
4.6.2 Comanagement ................................................................................................................ 100
4.8 Project management ........................................................................................................... 101
iii
ABBREVIATIONS Acronym Bahasa English Indonesian Institutions
AP2HI Asosiasi Pole and Line Dan handline Indonesia
Association of Pole-‐and-‐Line and Handline Indonesia
ASTUIN Asosiasi Tuna Indonesia Indonesian Tuna Association ATLI Asosiasi Tuna Longline Indonesia Indonesian Tuna Longline Association BBRSE Balai Besar Riset Sosial dan Ekonomi Research Agency on Social and Economy BRPL Balai Riset Penelitian Laut Marine Research Agency
BPSDM KP Badan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia Kelautan dan Perikanan
Marine and Fisheries Human Resources Development Agency
DKP Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan Fisheries Offices at Provincial and District Level
DG Directorate General
FKPPS Forum Komunikasi Pengelolaan dan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Ikan
Forum on Fishery Resources Utilization Management
KAPI Kapal dan Alat Penangkap Ikan Vessel and Fishing Gear KEMLU Kementerian Luar Negeri Ministry of Foreign Affairs KKJI Konservasi Kawasan dan Jenis Ikan Fish and Area Conservation KKP Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries KOMNAS KAJISKAN
Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan National Committee on Fish Stock Assessment
KTI Komisi Tuna Indonesia Indonesian Tuna Commission MDPI Masyarakat Dan Perikanan Indonesia Community and Fisheries PDN Pemasaran Dalam Negeri Domestic Marketing PLN Pemasaran Luar Negeri Foreign Marketing
PSDKP Pengawasan Sumberdaya Kelautan dan Perikanan Surveillance of Marine and Fishery Resources
P4KSDI
Pusat Penelitian Pengelolaan Perikanan dan Konservasi Sumberdaya Ikan
Research Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources
POKMASWAS Kelompok Masyarakat Pengawas Community Surveillance Group PUP Pelayanan Usaha Perikanan Fishing Services
PUSKITA Pusat Analisis Kerjasama Internasional dan Antar Lembaga
Centre for Analysis on International Cooperation and Inter Institution
SDI Sumberdaya Ikan Fishery Resources
SEACOM the Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport
Setkab Sekretariat Kabinet Cabinet Secretary
WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Fishery Management Areas Fisheries Management and monitoring BMT Benchmark Monitoring Tool CAB Conformity Assessment Body
CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
CCM Cooperating Commission Member CLS Collecte Localisation Satellites SA
iv
CMM Conservation and Management Measure EAFM Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected FIP Fishery Improvement Project FMA Fisheries Management Area IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission ITQ Individual Transferable Quotas MSC Marine Stewardship Council MoU Memorandum of Understanding MoV Means of Verification NPOA National Plan of Action NTMP National Tuna Management Plan PIRFO Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Sensitivity Analysis RBF Risk Based Framework
RCMFC Research Centre for Marine Fisheries Conservation
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model
SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SC Scientific Committee SPC South Pacific Commission TCC Technical Conservation Committee TAC Total Allowable Catch TURF Territorial User Rights in Fisheries UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement VDS Vessels Days Scheme UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement VMS Vessel Monitoring Scheme UoC Unit of Certification WCPFC Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western Central Pacific Ocean
WPEA Western Pacific East Asian Oceanic Fisheries Management
v
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Proposed work program for tuna Harvest Strategy case study for Indonesian tuna fisheries (WPP 713,714,715) ................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Summary of Principal indicators by species and fishery and changes to the Benchmark Monitoring scores, 2013-‐2014 ............................................................................................................. 18 Table 3: Projected P1 scoring by Western Pacific target species ......................................................... 20 Table 4: Projected P1 scoring by Indian Ocean target species ............................................................ 22 Table 5: Projected P2 scoring by Indonesian Pacific and Indian Ocean fisheries ................................ 24 Table 6: Projected P2 scoring by Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean fishery ........................................... 26 Table 7: Summary BMT outputs by UoC .............................................................................................. 27 Table 8: Indonesian Pacific handline BMT report sheet ...................................................................... 30 Table 9: Indonesian Pacific handline BMT index summary table ......................................................... 31 Table 10: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line BMT report sheet ............................................................. 34 Table 11: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line BMT index summary table ............................................... 35 Table 12: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline BMT report sheet ......................................................... 38 Table 13: Indonesian Indian Ocean BMT index summary table ........................................................... 39 Table 14: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line BMT report sheet .................................................. 42 Table 15: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line BMT index summary table .................................... 43 Table 16: Indonesian Pacific troll BMT report sheet ............................................................................ 46 Table 17: Indonesian Pacific troll BMT index summary table .............................................................. 47 Table 18: Indonesian Pacific purse seine BMT report sheet ................................................................ 50 Table 19: Indonesian Pacific purse seine BMT index summary table .................................................. 51 Table 20: Indonesian Indian Ocean purse seine BMT report sheet ..................................................... 54 Table 21: Indonesian Indian Ocean purse seine BMT index summary table ....................................... 55 Table 22: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline BMT report sheet ........................................................... 58 Table 23: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline BMT index summary table ............................................. 59 Table 24: Indonesian Pacific longline BMT report sheet ..................................................................... 62 Table 25: Indonesian Pacific longline BMT index summary table ........................................................ 63 Table 26: Strategic risk assessment of potential non-‐compliance issues by Solomon Island flagged vessels ................................................................................................................................................ 123
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Indonesian Pacific handline scoring category overview ....................................................... 31 Figure 2: Indonesian Pacific handline progress tracker ....................................................................... 31 Figure 3: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line scoring category overview ................................................ 35 Figure 4: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line progress tracker ................................................................ 35 Figure 5: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline scoring category overview ............................................ 39 Figure 6: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline progress tracker ............................................................ 39 Figure 7: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line scoring category overview ..................................... 43 Figure 8: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line progress tracker ..................................................... 43 Figure 9: Indonesian Pacific troll scoring category overview ............................................................... 47 Figure 10: Indonesian Pacific troll progress tracker ............................................................................. 47 Figure 11: Indonesian Pacific purse seine scoring category overview ................................................. 51 Figure 12: Indonesian Pacific purse seine progress tracker ................................................................. 51 Figure 13: Indonesian Pacific Indian Ocean purse seine scoring category overview ........................... 55 Figure 14: Indonesian Pacific Indian Ocean purse seine progress tracker ........................................... 55 Figure 15: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline scoring category overview ............................................ 59 Figure 16: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline progress tracker ............................................................ 59 Figure 17: Indonesian Pacific longline scoring category overview ....................................................... 63
vi
Figure 18: Indonesian Pacific longline progress tracker ...................................................................... 63
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Summary of data collection actions in Indonesia ...................................................... 106 Appendix 2: FIP Logframe ................................................................................................................ 107 Appendix 3: Gant chart ..................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix 4: Sample MCS Risk assessment ...................................................................................... 123
1
Executive summary This document represents a Progress Report on the Indonesian Tuna Fisheries Improvement plan, covering 5 fisheries in two Oceans, the Pacific and Indian Ocean. It assesses the progress towards achieving the objective ‘To ensure the long term livelihood of fishers by establishing sustainable resource management for the nation’s tuna fisheries, and supporting preservation of allied ecosystems from which these resources depend’’. The FIP contains 8 outcomes and 18 activities. The outcomes are consistent with the Marine Stewardship Council Principles, notably, healthy stock status for the main tuna species, the ecosystem approach to fisheries management and a strong governance system. The 18 outcomes are consistent with the MSC Performance Indicators. The Revised FIP now contains 53 milestones, which are determined against compliance with the MSC scoring guidance criteria. These milestones were updated to reflect any gaps in attainment. Because of changes to the MSC rules in 2015, 5 milestones were added and milestones were removed. The Report shows that there has been some progress towards achieving the milestones, with 21 achieved to date. The general progress over the space of four and a half years, would appear to be slow, however, it should be noted that there are also significant advances made within milestone development. These include such areas as strengthening data collection, developing a harvest strategy, strengthening governance systems and working on ecosystem related issues. Some fisheries, most especially pole-‐and-‐line and handline have reached a 0.8 Bench Mark score, with one other, troll, closely behind at 0.74. Both purse seine and longline remain below 0.7, but there is a need to ensure advancement in these fisheries under a collective management system. Barriers to the attainment of the milestones include:
• The slow progress with IOTC in adopting a harvest strategy, with associated tools • Some non compliance with the WCPFC harvest strategy consistent with RFMO requirements • The need to identify compatible limits for AW • No implementation of tools in place as part of the WCPFC harvest strategy (WCPFC 2-‐14-‐01),
including measures to control purse seine fishing effort and establish limits for ‘other commercial’ (handline, troll, pole-‐and-‐line and gill net fisheries)
• Some weaknesses in data collection, especially covering the smaller fisheries under IOTC jurisdiction
• Non-‐completion of the PSA assessments on secondary species for all fisheries • Weaknesses in the Tuna management plan which do not deal with fishery specific objectives
and do not show consistent objectives that meet with MSC Principles 1 and 2 • General lack of reporting details on compliance actions and levels of compliance
experienced amongst the different fleets. Some notable successes include:
• Agreement to Interim Limit Reference Point (LRP) and Target Reference Point TRP) for IOTC • A commitment to develop a TRP within WCPFC, but at fairly uncertain time scales • A commitment within the Indonesia Tuna Action Plan to adopt LRPs and TRPs, which are
likely to follow the limits set at RMFO level. • Work now commencing within Indonesia to develop a harvest strategy with supporting
harvest rules and tools for fisheries taking place within Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs) and Archipelagic Waters (AW) that are consistent with the Reference points to be adopted
2
• A strengthening of data collection and supporting systems including national and provincial enumerator collection, integrated national and provincial data bases, the adoption of catch logsheets throughout the Indonesian tuna fleets and the deployment of observers, consistent with the RFMO requirements
• A strengthening of fleet licensing requirements which integrate Provincial and National licensing
• Tighter controls on the definition of vessel limits (GRT), in order to prevent large vessels being licensed under provincial jurisdiction
• The incorporation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in the management plan
• Data collection on bycatch species and ETPs. The report sets out the progress for each of the 53 milestones and the changes required. Revised timelines are provided which lay out completion requirements by the end of 2016. Each participating stakeholder, government, NGO and industry, is given specific areas of responsibility.
Recommendations The following recommendations are made to ensure progress towards achieving an outcome by 2016. Recommendation 1: It is vital that all stakeholders work together under a common front so that there is a collective effort towards achieving the outcomes by the end of 2016. Recommendation 2: A FIP coordinating Director, probably someone of high standing within Indonesian fisheries. Recommendation 3: A FULL TIME dedicated FIP manager should be appointed to coordinate actions and act of a go between MMAF/P4KSI and the NGOs. Recommendation 4: Supporting finance should be channeled towards achieving core outcomes such as the harvest strategy working group, technical expertise on the development of Management Plans and Compliance outputs and in the development of ecosystem related management actions including the protection of sharks and turtles, management of primary (bigeye) and secondary species, as well as baitfish. Recommendation 5: The NGOs work together towards finalizing the assessment support documents held in the Dropbox. Key documents including relevant Decrees must be translated into English in order to facilitate review by the MSC assessment team.
3
Introduction A Fisheries Improvement Plan (FIP) for five Indonesian tuna fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll, purse seine and longline) commenced in April 2011 following two separate pre-‐assessments. The first on handline, undertaken in December 2009 (Poseidon, 2009), the second on all other Indonesian tuna fisheries, completed in 2010 (Poseidon 2010). The Indonesian Tuna FIP Action Plan was launched in 2010. During the course of the FIP Action development, a pre-‐assessment and FIP was carried out by IPLNF in March 2013 (Hough, 2013), followed by a separate FIP in December, 2013 (Poseidon, 2013). The IPLNF FIP was then amalgamated with the WWF FIP in January, 2014 to form one single FIP, prepared on behalf of the collective NGO groups involved. These included WWF, AP2HI/IPLNF and MDPI. The rational for this approach was to be able to ensure cohesion between the various groupings, which all had a common interest in realizing the same P1 and P3 outcomes, with common approaches required of P2. The Foreign Market Directorate of MMAF has now set up a task force under Bu Artati to accelerate the FIP progress towards achieving the MSC standard. This report provides a review of the Fisheries Improvement Plan (FIP) for the Indonesian tuna fisheries. The first section reviews the activities and milestones and assesses the achievement of these along with any barriers, if any. Section 2 rescores the fishery based on developments between 2010 and 2014, and applies the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Benchmark Tracking Tool (BMT) to determine the level of advancement in each of the Units of Certification. Section 3 provides a Revised FIP Action Plan (Draft), which was discussed with stakeholders in a meeting held in Bogor, on 11th and 12th May 2015. Section 4 provides amended Guidance for each key stakeholder in implementing the activities. Section 1: Summary report on milestone outcomes This section represents a summary of the current positions on the milestones set to evaluate the achievement of outcomes in the WWF Indonesia Fisheries Improvement Plan. The Fisheries Improvement activities were agreed at a workshop held in March 2011, with proposed timelines and responsibilities allocated to the various stakeholders. The timeline specified for the achievement of the FIP outcomes was 5 years, with the FIP originally due for completion in 2016. Twenty one milestones have been achieved. Some delays in implementation of specific activities suggest that the 5-‐year timeline has been over ambitious. That said, not only have there been some notable achievements, such as improvement in data, there are also a number of actions in progress that suggest that some of the milestones not achieved, should be close to finalisation by 2016. It is important to note that MSC requires vigorous assessment and public consultation processes, with a facility for objections and adjudication. For this reason very specific milestones have been set, which link to the MSC scoring guideposts and require validation through Means of Verification (MoVs). These are recorded in a Dropbox, and outputs are evaluated by the FIP consultant to test whether the evidence is sufficient, and if not sufficient, to identify specific activities and milestones that require strengthening. Having the specific MoVs in place will allow the MSC assessors to confirm if the MSC scoring guideposts have been met. It also provides clear evidence of outcomes to any prospective challenge to fishery specific certification. The report concludes that in the four years of the FIP to date, 21 from 50 original milestone outcomes have been achieved. In addition 2 milestones have been dropped because of changes to MSC methodology which removed 3 performance indicators, and 5 milestones added to ensure further clarification against existing or new scoring guideposts. In the period 2014-‐2015, only one
4
additional milestone was achieved from the preceding year, but there were considerable advances made within the development of specific milestone outcomes, not least:
• Agreement to Interim Limit Reference Point (LRP) and Target Reference Point TRP) for IOTC • A commitment to develop a TRP within WCPFC, but at fairly uncertain time scales • A commitment within the Indonesia Tuna Action Plan to adopt LRPs and TRPs, which are
likely to follow the limits set at RMFO level. • Work now commencing within Indonesia to develop a harvest strategy with supporting
harvest rules and tools for fisheries taking place within Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs) and Archipelagic Waters (AW) that are consistent with the Reference points to be adopted
• A strengthening of data collection and supporting systems including national and provincial enumerator collection, integrated national and provincial data bases, the adoption of catch logsheets throughout the Indonesian tuna fleets and the deployment of observers, consistent with the RFMO requirements
• A strengthening of fleet licensing requirements which integrate Provincial and National licensing
• Tighter controls on the definition of vessel limits (GRT), in order to prevent large vessels being licensed under provincial jurisdiction
• The incorporation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in the management plan
• Data collection on bycatch species and ETPs. The main weaknesses include:
• The slow progress with IOTC in adopting a harvest strategy, with associated tools • Some non compliance with the WCPFC harvest strategy consistent with RFMO requirements • The need to identify compatible limits for AW • No implementation of tools in place as part of the WCPFC harvest strategy (WCPFC 2-‐14-‐01),
including measures to control purse seine fishing effort and establish limits for ‘other commercial’ (handline, troll, pole-‐and-‐line and gill net fisheries)
• Some weaknesses in data collection, especially covering the smaller fisheries under IOTC jurisdiction
• Non-‐completion of the PSA assessments on secondary species for all fisheries • Weaknesses in the Tuna management plan which do not deal with fishery specific objectives
and do not show consistent objectives that meet with MSC Principles 1 and 2 • General lack of reporting details on compliance actions and levels of compliance
experienced amongst the different fleets. The report summary below also includes revision to milestones based on changes in the fisheries or its management structure. GOAL 1: To ensure that the tuna catches do not exceed sustainable levels Activity 1.1: Support training in stock assessment modeling for senior scientists and graduates Milestone 1: Training in stock assessment. Training on length-‐based stock assessment (data poor situations) (as inserted in the Dropbox) has been completed with two PhD qualified scientists: Dr Fayakun Satria, and Dr Lilis Sadiyah, covering WCPFC and IOTC research inputs respectively. Further
5
training in Seapodym modelling is being undertaken for six PhD graduates under MMAF R&D research. CVs illustrating qualifications are to be inserted into the dropbox. This milestone has been achieved (1). Milestone 2: Attendance at RFMO meetings. Scientists usually attend the SC meetings of IOTC and WCPFC and confirmation of this is in the RFMO meeting reports. Budgetary restrictions may prevent attendance from time to time, but there is evidence of Indonesian scientific engagement in the regular SC meetings, and the RFMO general sessions. This milestone has been achieved (2). Milestone 3: Training Indonesian scientists in Ecosystem modeling. The Government of Indonesia has received donor assistance from France using Collecte Localisation Satellites SA (CLS) to implement a programme to support the monitoring and sustainable management of marine resources. This includes training as well as environmental modeling and use of Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model (SEAPDYM) (INDESO embedded modeling.ppt), which incorporates the tuna forage sub-‐model that explores the dynamics of tuna prey organisms, using CSL work and BPOL (Marine Research Agency for Oceanography) trophics. This work extends to estimating standing stock biomass. Assessment of standing biomass is also significant since it may assist in establishing specific biomass levels inside AW1. The Research Station for Tuna fisheries in Bali is also examining stomach contents in the Eastern Indian Ocean (Bram Setyadji et al, 2013), which assist this work. This milestone is implemented and ongoing (3). Milestone 4: Specific application of ecosystem modelling relevant to Indonesia waters. SEAPDYM modeling is now being tested and applied by CLS. Work has not been finalised, but is well in progress. Specific papers on trophic organisms are also available from SPC and the Research Station of Tuna Fisheries (Bram Setyadji et al, 2013). Also WPEA II the template for the formulation of project activities. 2.3.1 Criteria for monitoring programs and stock assessment for highly migratory fish stocks and associated ecosystems developed includes provision for environmental data collection in Indonesia. This milestone is sufficient to pass (4) the MSC SG 2.5.3, but stress the importance of specific fisheries collaborating in supplying trophic data extracted from the WPEA II programme. Activity 1.2: Regional and national reference points adopted and formulated into harvest strategy Milestone 5: Explicit LRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Limit reference points set at 20% SB0 for WCPFC. This milestone has been met (5) Milestone 6: Explicit TRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Target Reference points have yet to be developed and will link to the WCPFC harvest strategy. CMM 2014-‐06 agrees to develop TRPs. PNA is expected to press for the adoption of a TRP at the WCPFC General Session in Bali, 2015. The milestone has not been met but may be met by Q4 2014. Milestone 7: Explicit LRPs and TRPs set at IOTC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Interim reference points are agreed by the IOTC Commission for albacore, swordfish and the three (3) tropical tunas (skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna at BTARGET = BMSY (TRP) and BLIM = 0.40 BMSY (LRPs) and bigeye tuna set at 0.50 BMSY (IOTC–2015–S19–R )2.) This milestone has been met (6)
1 Both Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have used the outputs from CLS to obtain estimates of standing biomass within their AW, which has provided the basis to establish compatible measures for these zones. 2IOTC–2015–S19–R. Available at www.IOTC.org
6
Milestone 8: Indonesia incorporates these Reference Points into the national tuna management strategy, including in waters under its direct sovereignty – territorial and archipelagic. Indonesian LRPs and TRPs may be set by the end of the year. The main issues are: The sovereign rights of the nation state to implement its own measures; Identifying the range of the stocks between Indian Ocean and Pacific; and determining biomass limits inside AW. Measures set for archipelagic waters must be compatible, or must not undermine measures set in the RFMOs, i.e. agreeing to the same reference points, but also setting limits based on these RPs for all Indonesian fisheries. This milestone may be met by Q4 2015, but is likely to take longer if addressing Action Planning issues including Archipelagic management. Milestone 9: Indonesia confirms strategy consistent with WCPFC for limiting EEZ PS effort and LL BET catch. This milestone was set establishing specific limits for purse seine and longline vessels in the WCPFC EEZ, but not in archipelagic or territorial seas (see Milestone 10 below). This milestone has been met (7). Activity 2.1: Harvest strategy incorporates LRPs (as above) and is responsive to the state of the stocks Milestone 10 a: Indonesia confirms strategy consistent with WCPFC for limiting EEZ PS effort; and 5,889 t (BET) LL days. This milestone was set establishing specific limits for purse seine and longline vessels in the WCPFC EEZ, but not in archipelagic or territorial seas. The measures include: Other coastal States within the Convention Area with effort in their EEZs exceeding 1,500 days annually over the period 2006-‐2010 shall limit effort in their EEZs to 2001-‐2004 average or 2010 levels (Para 22); and the catch limits for bigeye in 2014 and thereafter for bigeye tuna shall be as specified (Para 40). Indonesia remains subject to Compliance Review for not implementing (CMM 2014-‐01). This milestone has not been met. (New) Milestone 10 b: Mitigation measures implemented for bigeye (Longline and purse seine) that are likely to work. Bigeye has now fallen below PRI (Point of Recruitment Impairment). WCPFC sets limits for vessels < 50 m (Footnote 3). Indonesia set its own unilateral measure to limit FAD deployment (Decree 26/ 2014 (permen KP 26/ 2014) ) to 3 per vessel but has failed to implement this. Where catches are > 2% of vulnerable species, MSC requires management mitigation measures to be implemented. A rebuilding strategy 1.1.2 is not likely to work, so excluded as a FIP option. The Rebuilding strategy states ((60) 1.1.2) A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. SPC projections suggest that this is not attainable under the current strategy. This milestone has not been met. Milestone 11 a: Compliance reporting to IOTC and WCPFC demonstrates national effectiveness. Indonesia is required as a Member of each RFMO to comply with reporting obligations. Reports are submitted for scrutiny, and the WCPFC TCC Part 2 outputs remain confidential. However, it is generally known that Indonesia (along with other countries) has been subject to compliance review for not meeting its obligations, nor achieving the strategies objectives. There are similar findings found with IOTC compliance. Because of alleged non compliance, this milestone has not been met. Milestone 11 b: Compliance reporting implemented for measures applied inside national jurisdiction. DG Fisheries has yet to develop a comprehensive system to ensure the application of management actions in the tuna fishery. Milestone under development Activity 2.2 Harvest tools adopted
7
Milestone 12 a: The milestone requires a review of the harvest strategy and management measures supported by workshop processes. Some workshops have already occurred (November, 2014 and again in March, and May 2015). These establish some basic principles:
-‐ Creating a shared understanding of the primary topics including Harvest Strategies, Harvest Control Rules and Reference Points amongst stakeholders
-‐ Identification of stakeholders with an interest in and with an ability to give input to this topic
-‐ Identification of capacity building needs on this topic -‐ Accepting the need to adopt compatible measures in line with WCPFC and IOTC
reference points -‐ Identification of priority species/specific stock to use as trial or pilot examples for initial
TRP and LRP development -‐ Use of CLS SEAPDYM analysis to support biomass estimates for AW -‐ Identification of fishing areas of application or Indonesian Fishery Management Areas
(WPPs) to use as trial or pilot examples for initial Target Reference Point (TRP) and Limit Reference Point (LRP) development
A workshop was also held from 18-‐2 May (during the preparation of this FIP review document to review) and more workshops are to be held in August and November. A position paper is being prepared at the time of writing. The agreed strategy from the May workshop is listed below.
8
Table 1: Proposed work program for tuna Harvest Strategy case study for Indonesian tuna fisheries (WPP 713,714,715)
Milestone Activity Comple
tion Date
Responsibility
Scoping and preparatory analysis for workshop
1. Establish Technical Working Group and HS Development Steering Committee
2. Meeting for collation of existing data: i) data series from as presented in workshop (DGCF) ii) biological and other information on population biology and fisheries from regional institutes/agencies/universities/NGOs (P4KSI); iii) buyer/industry data (Associations) iv) Advice from CSIRO on collation of data for HS use
3. Pre-workshop for data analysis (DGCF) (3 day ws)
• CSIRO expert attend for advice on data analysis
4. Analysis of existing data for input to HS development i) exploratory analysis for identifying and scoping case studies, see below (catch efforts and biological data); ii) specific analysis for designing of monitoring system for harvest strategy data series; iii) characterizing the uncertainty in data and information input. Advise from CSIRO for: • Scoping of potential modeling approaches • Interpretation: population dynamics, fisheries e
conomics (supply chain and market/fisheries profile), and harvest strategy development
• Summarize relevant Harvest Strategy literatures (input for workshop)
29 May
3 August 3 August 3 August 15 August 15 August 15 August
DGCF(SC), PAKSI(TWG) DGCF (Yayan) PAKSI (Lilis) Associations (Wildon)/DGCF (Yayan) TWG + Expert +SC HS Experts +TWG+SC
Technical workshop 23-28 August (in conjunction with Stock Assessment training Workshop, RCFMC) (late September 2015 contingency)
• Workshop convened by TWG and assisted by CSIRO HS expert
• Reviewing analysis of available data • Identifying data gaps and/or additional data set
s • Confirm case study (Kendari/Sodoha, Sorong
, Majene, Bitung and Ternate) • Explore alternative forms of Harvest Strategy –
input/output • Form of model/platform for analysis • Discussion and design for information manage
ment • Detailed work program
23-25 August TBC (but 3 days between 23-28 Aug)
TWG+HS Experts+SC+NGO
Inter-sessional analysis
• TWG with advice and input from CSIRO HS Expert
• Additional analysis and data collation (TWG) • Preliminary model development (CSIRO with T
WG) • Draft stakeholder engagement strategy
16 October
TWG+ HS Expert SC
SC +TWG • Review analysis and model development pre-tec 20 October SC+NGO
9
Meeting (Teleconference)
hnical and stakeholder workshops • Finalise detailed agenda for November HS work
shops Harvest strategy Stakeholder workshop
• Introduce and overview of HS work program • Demonstration of case studies
18 November
SC+TWG+HSExpert+NGO
Harvest Strategy Technical Workshop
• Review inter-sessional work • Demonstration of case studies • Scope activities for 2016 and 2017
19-20 November, Bali
TWG+HS Expert+SC
The milestone is in progress and due for completion Year-‐end 2015. Milestone 12 b (New): Harvest tools should take account of the main uncertainties (i.e. may be set at precautionary levels). The precautionary approach to fisheries management is set in legislation and recognised in the Tuna Action Plan. Assessment of uncertainties may therefore be set at conservative levels. This is a new milestone, which needs to be considered. Milestone 13: Update decree to support the implementation of management tools, and provide guidance to DKP Provinsi on implementation of measures. This milestone endorses any input and output controls agreed in Milestone 12. This milestone is expected to come into place Q1 2016. Milestone 14: Undertake and assess evidence that the measures established are effective. MMAF will be required to have reviewed the effectiveness of the management tools prior to the MSC assessment, and evidence would need to illustrate that the measures are effective (SG 1.2.2 (80) (c)). This milestone is unlikely to be met until Q4 2016. Activity 3.1: Comprehensive catch data are collected in standard format. Milestone 15: Data collection system in place for all fishing methods. MMAF has established national database and working with SDI. There is some important data being compiled by several organisations, SDI Statistics, SDI Logbook, ACIAR / CSIRO / RCMFC, RCFMC / WPEA / WCPFC, AP2HI, MDPI, ACAIR, WWF, SFP and others (Appendix 1), but these cover WPP 713, 714 and 715. There are reported weaknesses in data provision on Indian Ocean fisheries (See Compliance reports). IOTC Resolution 10/02 (Mandatory Statistical Requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-‐Contracting Parties) calls for IOTC CPCs to report data on IOTC species for their fisheries, including catches for surface, longline, and coastal fisheries. This milestone has been partially achieved. The daily port-‐based monitoring established with the support of ACIAR, IOTC, OFCF (Japan) and RCCF (Research Centre for Capture Fisheries) for the longline fishery in Benoa, is still running, under full management of RCFMC (Research Centre for Marine Fisheries Conservation). The observer program we established for the longline fishery in the earlier ACIAR project, FIS/2002/074, is running, under full management of RITF (Powerpoint presentation in Dropbox 15). IOTC is setting up enumeration at some of the smaller landing places in West Sumatra and Java. Some difficulty has been experienced in recruiting reliable enumerators. IOTC and DGCF were also hoping to be able to extend that program, and to include more species identification training workshops for port authority and DKP enumerators. NGOs and MMAF also need to coordinates to improve the data collection in IO waters. MDPI is covering NTB and NTT provinces and other NGOs should submit the data collection in the IO water to MMAF.
10
This milestone is under development but is likely to meet for Pacific Fisheries, and areas 713, 714 and 715 SG (8). More information is required for Indian Ocean data collection. Milestone 16: Strengthen reporting systems from Province to MMAF. MMAF has established data inputting linkages direct to DKP Provinsi and District. Grants are paid by MMAF to Dinas to facilitate information. Enumerators recruited to strengthen data collection outside the main ports, with a commitment to recruit 2000 (+56 in local fishing port units) enumerators at district level. The frequency of information provided from small scale fisheries has increased. This milestone has been achieved (9). Milestone 17: Logbook awareness and training workshops. Confirmation of the logbook requirement is in Ministerial decree on catch logbooks (18 permen-‐kp 2010) (Dropbox 17). Ministerial Decree 48/2014 is a new logbook requirement. The logbook system is now supported by a sanction system, and vessels not completing will be denied an operational permit. The decree includes small scale fisheries (>5GT). Tuna species must be included in the logbook, even for vessels < 5 GT. 2014 logbook evaluation shows an improvement in the quality of reporting, as well as the number of returns (from all gears). Plans are in place to implement an e-‐log (SILOPI (e-‐logbook system)) for all vessels for all vessels over 100 GT. MMAF undertakes a significant amount of socialisation to promote the use of logbooks. This milestone is in the process of implementation but requires continuous strengthening, and is now underlined by a sanction system. Milestone 18: All tuna catch data collected from all methods by 2014 and transmission of all data to SPC and IOTC (2015). Milestone 18 has been removed and amalgamated with Milestone 15. Activity 3.2: Port sampling programmes established in the major tuna fishery ports. Milestone 19: Port specific sampling on growth parameters commences in principal WCPO and IO ports. WPEA reports indicate good port sampling from purse seine, longline and pole-‐and-‐line (and handline). Some follow up on other pacific methods, especially handline. IOTC WPDCS08.19 (para. 52): Two research centres, one in Benoa the other in Bitung, actively engaged in collecting and analysing size frequency data. A wide range of ports (Bitung, Benoa, Larantuka, Kupang, Sorong, Maluku, Lombok, Kendari, Malang (East Java)). This milestone has been achieved (10). Milestone 20: Port sampling extended to include trophic data (stomach contents) from main fisheries. Trophic data is being collected with papers to demonstrate knowledge of trophic dependencies supporting ecosystem related work (Setyadji, 2011, Dropbox 20). This milestone has been achieved (11). Activity 3.3: Observer programme consistent with RFMO requirements. Milestone 21: Observer training programme established in line with RFMO obligations. Two groups of observers are used in Indonesia – scientific under P4KSI and compliance under DG Marine Resources and Fisheries Surveillance. Evidence shows that observer training is now in place but the system requires evaluation by the RFMOs to ensure compliance with Regional Observer standards, and most specifically the RFMO modules applied. (http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/observer-‐form). WCPFC has not undertaken an inspection thus far (K.Staish, pers com, June, 2015). The output should a review paper to the observer training protocol and the standards applied The NGOs (WWF, MDPI, SFP, AP2HI) need to review the Observer program compliance with the standards and provide support where required.. BPSDM need to make a follow up to revised the training protocols. Evidence is required to corroborate whether the observer training is taking place, and is a regular activity. This needs to be verified. This milestone is in progress.
11
Milestone 22: Comprehensive observer scheme applied to all those vessels required to have observers on board in conformity with the CMMs and Resolutions. PER.30/MEN/2012 (Dropbox 20) underlines the requirement for fishing vessels to carry observers when fishing in EEZ fisheries. Indonesia is believed to be gradually fulfilling the levels of coverage, with the expectation that levels have reached 5% in compliance with the IOTC Resolution for LL observer deployment, and would also appear to be in progress for WCPFC which is 100% and 5% PS and LL respectively. However, to date, there is no documented evidence that shows whether the specific targets have been met. Details on deployment in WCPFC and IOTC require verification. This milestone is in progress. Milestone 23: Extension of observer scheme to include Territorial and AW. PER.30/MEN/2012 (Dropbox 21) underlines the requirement for fishing vessels to carry observers when fishing in archipelagic waters. This programme has been partially implemented on vessels < 30 GT but there is no readily available information from DG Capture Fisheries on the level of coverage. This milestone is in progress, but more information is required on coverage. Activity 3.4: Integrated vessel data base covering District, Provincial and National Fishing vessels Milestone 24: Integrated national data base on vessel registration and logbook. National Government has a system of registration and licensing for all vessels > 30 GT. < 10, 10-‐30 managed under DKP Provinsi. It is also logbook and statistical data linkages between the provinces and MMAF. A database has been created to link these registers. A proactive Vessel registration program is ongoing to verify fishing vessel data for pole-‐and-‐line and handline vessels. This is also expected to support the achievement of the milestone This milestone is in progress. Milestone 25: Implement an MoU between MMAF/DK Provinsi and SEACOM the 30 GT limits are being effectively applied . Information has been provided to suggest that large vessels are deliberately registering as under 30GT in order to escape compliance requirements, and pay lower licence fee rates. There is some evidence that this abuse is now been corrected with MMAF requiring pre-‐licensing information supplied by vessels owners and then SEACOM remeasures the 30 GT capacity. An MoU has been developed between MMAF (PUPI – Licensing Division) and SEACOM (the Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport). This is a new milestone is likely to be achieved in 2016 Activity 4.1: Preparation of a 5 year Research Programme Milestone 26: National Research Plan in place for WCPO and IO tunas. Indonesia relies heavily on the outputs of SPC and IOTC scientists to evaluate stock status. These organisations do have their own research plans. However, P4KSI has now published a research plan (Dropbox 26). This milestone has been met (12). Milestone 27: Raising awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and national level. Journal publications are regularly prepared and stakeholders are invited to the Tuna Forum where the results of research work are presented. This milestone has been met (13). Milestone 28: Research outputs subject to review. P4KSI and BPPL scientific papers are subject to Internal and external audit. A National Commission for stock assessment reviews the reports and thereafter reports to the Minister. This milestone has been met (14).
12
GOAL 2: To promote the ecosystem based approach to f isheries management Activity 5.1: RFMO Bycatch management systems implemented Milestone 29 a: Relevant CMMs and Resolutions on sharks and sea turtles applied. The two core management regulations for Archipelagic and territorial waters (MKDPRI PER 30/MEN/2012) and the EEZ PER.12/MEN/2012 are the tools covering application of shark, turtle, sea mammals and bird measures. Thresher sharks and turtles (penyu) are incorporated demonstrating compliance with IO Resolution 12/09 (thresher sharks) and partial compliance with 12/04 (turtles). Work on the Shark NPOA is ongoing and is expected to be complete by early 2016, demonstrating a commitment to the protection of sharks and rays within Indonesian Law. There is a moratorium on the export the hammerhead and oceanic white tip shark and fins (Decree 59/PERMEN-‐KP/20143 both now CITES Appendix II species and listed as Endangered and Highly Endangered on IUCN. However, none of the core WCPFC ETP CMMs are incorporated into the Decrees including: CMM 2010-‐07 (covering sharks and finning requirements), CMM 2011-‐04 and silky sharks CMM 2013-‐08 (Dropbox 29). These will need integrating into Indonesian Law. Attention would have to be paid to ensuring the conditions are integrated into vessel license conditions. IUCN Vulnerable and Endangered sharks are also included as an MSC requirement. A Draft turtle NPOA has been prepared (Dropbox 29). The turtle NPOA is covered by the Ministry of Forests. This milestone has not been met.
Milestone 29 b: Eliminate shark finning on board vessels. Prohibition on shark finning, supported by dockside monitoring. This milestone will be very difficult to implement as shark finning is common place throughout Indonesian fisheries, however, there are some precedents in place4. The problem is likely to occur for longline and purse seine fisheries. AP2HI has a prohibition on shark fishing within its Code of Conduct. A Community management option to prevent shark fishing by handline may need to be strengthened. Observer deployment and dockside monitoring will need to be strengthened to ensure compliance by longline, purse seine and other methods (gill net etc). This milestone is likely to be met for passive gears (pole-‐and-‐line and handline); but not likely to met for longline and purse seine. Activity 5.2: Environmental risks assessed for retained, ETP species and habitats using risk based methodology Milestone 30 Commence data collection programme on retained and ETP species. MMAF DGCF has bycatch catch information for purse seine, pole-‐and-‐line and longline. Information on handline is being collated by MDPI and WWF for selected sites. Some information may be available on sharks, but it is expected that these data may not be sufficient in identifying specific species. To achieve this milestone, the FIP consultant will need to see tables for each fishery showing species details. Observer coverage/port sampling/logbook recording will need to be strengthened Milestone 31: Environmental risks assessed through workshop processes. WWF engaged the University of Bogor to undertake a risk assessment. On reviewing the outputs to date, WWF and the FIP consultant stressed more attention to: species identification by fishery (and cross check with P4KSI observer data); use of the definition ‘main’ (5%), or vulnerable (>=2%); and careful attention to productivity and susceptibility criteria. MSC V2 now includes a CA and PSA for habitats that would now need to be assessed. Ecosystem CA would also require assessment. The report prepared was
3 http://infohukum.kkp.go.id/index.php/hukum/download/610/?type_id=1, 4 Cilacap, a district in southern area of Central Java has asked the vessels landing catch must land sharks without finning.
13
substandard with insufficient quantitative data, in correct identification of species and in correct scoring. WWF/MSC training needs to be revisited. The NGOs are tasked with completing these PSAs. Note that assessment should also explore interactions with gear, e.g. FADs as part of the data collection process . This milestone has not been completed successfully and needs updating to reflect the changes in the MSC assessment criteria. Milestone 32: Secondary species, ETP and habitat mitigation measures introduced across the range of Indonesian fisheries. If the risk assessment identifies at risk species, management mitigation measures will need to be developed with the support of fishery specific workshops. These will assess fishery specific interactions. These will be followed by implementing decrees. A workshop is required to assess the partial strategies (including shark finning) for the protection of secondary species, followed by supporting Decree amendments. The Tuna Action Plan refers to the development of bycatch mitigation measures. This milestone has not been met. Milestone 33: A review of the management implementation measures introduced, and a strengthening of the rules of application, when appropriate. A report will need to be compiled demonstrating the effectiveness of the management mitigation measures, and demonstrate that the fishery will not hinder recovery. This milestone has not been met. Activity 5.3: Baitfish management mitigation measures developed and implemented Milestone 34: Set up site-‐specific monitoring system for baitfish catches: Enumerator training, catch trends and composition and collection of PSA variables. This Milestone requires:
• Mapping of baitfish sites; • Identification of species (probably using pilot studies), with enumerator training for species
identification; • Collection of susceptibility criteria; • Collection of productivity criteria using FishBase.org or other science literature.
An Initial baitfish workshop was conducted in May 2015 and specific sites identified. A bait fish protocol is being developed and is also expected to specify the fish is use for consumption or bait, A baitfish fish identification booklet has been prepared and a PSA will be identified. The PSA is expressly orientated to the impact of the appropriate fisheries as opposed to human consumption fisheries. This milestone is in the process of being implemented. Milestone 35: A PSA on using risk based methodology. This will require a workshop process to test the risks across a range of pilot sites. P4KSI/University of Bogor have expertise in this area. Cooperation is required with AP2HI. This milestone is to be implemented. Milestone 36: Baitfish management plans (mitigation) developed for pole-‐and-‐line (and longline and handline). Three separate plans (one for each fishery) may need to be developed and should contain a process for catch monitoring, limiting availability, encounterability and mortality, assessing and reviewing site specific risks, assessing bycatch interactions and determining actions e.g. move on requirements. Data for handline caught bait may well be < 5%, and early work is likely to show minimal risk, so depending on data, handline plans may not be required. Longline baitfish plans will need to apply to the areas where baitfish is sourced. Key objectives of the plans should contain:
14
1. Keeping biomass levels of baitfish species above levels where recruitment could be impaired (Species sustainability)
2. Ensuring that any impacts on ecosystem structure and function are kept at acceptable levels (Ecosystem sustainability)
A network of sites will be identified in cooperation with the industry. It is likely that management processes will be pilot tested. From an ecological and biological perspective, the Sites will be linked to each FMA under the control of DKP Provinsi, and local control of DKP District. Best practice actions will be determined in cooperation with the pole-‐and-‐line industry. Special attention will be paid to medium to high risks sites where the intensity levels of fishing activity are likely to be high. Potential issues include:
1. Reduction in abundance of baitfish in individual bait grounds due to the direct capture of baitfish by either the ‘bouke-‐ami’ or ‘bagan’ techniques;
2. Incidental capture of adult and juvenile reef fish, and other non-‐target species (bycatch) during baitfishing operations;
3. Discarding of non-‐biological material (rubbish, debris) from pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans; 4. Spillage of oil/chemicals from pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans; 5. Anchors of pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans dragging causing damage to surrounding habitat 6. Disagreement on payments to bait ground owners and disputes on the distribution or use of
these payments within communities; 7. Negative social impacts of pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans operating in bait grounds.
The strategy will need to be monitored, and the success of any mitigation measures introduced regularly assessed. Management and mitigation must be incorporated into a strategy, which will be different for each fishery and will likely include, inter alia:
• Spatial and seasonal closures; • Changes to gear configurations, to minimize interactions with juveniles and at-‐risk species
e.g. hook types, minimum mesh sizes, maximum gear dimensions etc.; • Non-‐target species catch limits.
This milestone is to be implemented. GOAL 3: F isheries Governance strengthened. Activity 6.1: Core legislation strengthened to include Precautionary and Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Milestone 37: Refine objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at national and local level. Reference to the precautionary approach to fisheries management is contained in Decree PMKDPRI 15/MEN/2012 and 29/MEN/2012 (Dropbox 37). A number of MMAF familiarisation workshops (IMACS/WWF) have also taken place on the Ecosystem approach to Fisheries Management. EAFM has not however been transposed to national legislation. It is however referred to in the Tuna Fisheries Action /
15
Management Plan. There is a record of judicial process that has witnessed legal disputes, e.g. moratoriums on trawl bans and these have withstood challenges. This milestone has been met (15). Milestone 38: Ensure national governance principles are applied through provincial legislation and decrees. The regulation on lower level (provincial or district) Act 32/ 2004 and Act 12/ 2011 obligations, Pasal 14 – Content of legislation at Provincial and District Regulation will reference to higher regulations at national (Dropbox 38). Law 23/2014 clarifies the role of provincial governments in 0-‐12 nautical miles, as well as associated delegated powers5. The TMP also makes provision for Provinces to adopt CMMs and Resolution. This milestone has been achieved (16). Milestone 39: Indonesia becomes a full Member of WCPFC and is instrumental in formulating strong precautionary policies at both RFMOs and implements decisions. Indonesia became a full member of WCPFC in December 2013. This milestone has been achieved (17). Activity 6.2: Consultative and Organizational structure and functions clearly implemented Milestone 40: Indonesian Tuna Commission consulted on all relevant management issues. Indonesia’s Tuna Council is consulted, and advice referred to the Minister. The Fishing Associations and NGOs, along with key experts, are members of the Commission. This providing opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the consultation process. This milestone has been achieved (18). Milestone 41: Evidence that the FKPPS and DGCF, MMAF consultation and decision making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. P4KSI provide input into decisions taken by DGCF through annual stock status reviews. The Forum for Coordination for the Fisheries Resources Utilization and Management (FKPPS) is used as the organization to provide input into decisions from relevant research, monitoring, and evaluation. FKPPS meets every two years at national level, and once a year at FMA level. Reports on FKPPS outcomes are publically available (Dropbox 41). The slow adoption of RMFO management measures also suggests that this PI may result in a Condition. This milestone appears to have been achieved (19). However, it is recommended that WWF works with MMAF and FKPPS to demonstrate stronger evidence of the PI SG’s. Activity 6.3: DGCF fully implementing decisions that take account of research, information and evaluation, through the management plan and RFMO CMMs. Milestone 42: All components of KKP/DKP Provinsi and District fully implementing decisions supported by the Council and promulgated through the management plan. The Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) also checks the linkages between scientific and management advice and Ministerial decisions. MMAF’s own audit process assesses the degree to which national legislation is being implemented at provincial level. This milestone has been achieved (20). Activity 6.4: Negative incentives identified and removed
5 Law 23/2014 grants authority to the provincial governments for coastal area from 0-12nm, and removes authority for 0-4nm from the districts. Where previously districts had control over 0-4nm, and provincial 4-12nm, the ability of provinces to actually implement anything was restricted because of an “inability” to access the coastline and the nearshore waters. The new law clarifies and solidifies reporting lines from national > provincial > district. The onus now is on provinces to devolve authority to districts for 0-4nm if they so choose.
16
These requirements have now been removed from the FIP following a change to the MSC (V2) assessment criteria. Activity 7.1: Fisheries Management Plan operating Milestone 45: Tuna management plan adopted with clear objectives consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, and applied throughout the range of the fishery. DGCF MMAF has gone through three draftings of a tuna management plan. The current Action plan is not fishery specific, i.e. not referring to each fishing method within the plan, which would need to be included, and only identifies short term objectives: Information, identification of risks, strategies and partial management strategies and monitoring of outcomes. The current plan makes some distinctions for Archipelagic Waters but management actions need to address compatible measures (with the RFMOs). All stakeholders are encouraged to reengage with DGCF, to ensure that very clear goals and objectives are outlined, that address MSC principles 1 and 2, and that fishery specific actions are measurable. Templates exist of good management plans (Solomon Islands, PNG) that should be followed. This milestone has been partial met and requires further attention and guidance. Milestone 46: Assessment of the plans performance and evidence that it is achieving its objectives. The plan should be subject to revisions based on required changes to adopted harvest and bycatch mitigation strategies. This milestone has not been met. Activity 8.1: Compliance action to be implemented based on risk analysis and determine enforcement priorities across the range of tuna fisheries. Milestone 47: MCS risk analysis undertaken for all tuna fisheries. Risk analysis has not been undertaken by DG Marine Resources and Fisheries Surveillance,that could identify high-‐risk activities or systematic areas of non-‐compliance in each fishery. WWF has delivered a working example of risk analysis to DG MRFS. This milestone has not been met. Milestone 48: Industry awareness of MCS rules, sanctions and compliance actions. DG Marine Resources and Fisheries Surveillance hold periodic and annual socialisation meetings to inform industry of the licensing regulations. This milestone is being met (21). Milestone 49: Reports prepared and publicly available identifying violations detected. Reports on compliance actions and sanctions applied to each fishery (i.e. for all fishing methods) are required to demonstrate systematic compliance by each fishery under assessment. This milestone has not been met. Activity 8.2: Strengthen community based management schemes in small scale fisheries Milestone 50: Community organisations developed in artisanal fisheries. Local comanagement groups developed and implemented in nearshore fisheries to focus on strengthening community engagement in collecting information, developing strategies etc, including baitfish. WWF6, MDPI7 and AP2HI are currently developing some local village capacity but these have yet to devolve into management entities for tuna and baitfish. AP2HI is also in the process of developing community based Codes of Conduct. This milestone is in the process of being met.
6 WWF has organized fisherman groups in East Flores, Alor and Wakatobi and Malang 7 Under the Fair Trade program, MDPI has developed 24 tuna fishermens’ associations registered in each DKP Kabupaten and the data submitted to DMC.
17
Section 2: Benchmarking and MSC scoring The Fisheries Improvement Plan is tailored to 15 Units of Certification (UoC). These include six target tuna species, 3 in WCPFC (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye) and 3 in IOTC (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye); and eleven fisheries. Pre-‐assessment scoring took place in 2010 (Moody, 2010). The revised scoring, undertaken by the FIP consultant, illustrates the rate of progress. The Benchmarking Monitoring Tool The FIP BMT uses the MSC Standard to provide a status benchmark Index for FIPs at a particular point in time and for the duration of the period that the fishery is in the FIP. The BMT Index is produced using the results of an MSC pre-‐assessment. Each of the scoring categories which are assigned during the pre-‐assessment have a corresponding BMT score: ≥80=1, 60-‐79=0.5, <60=0. The BMT index of a fishery in a FIP reflects the number of PIs that are at the different scoring levels. Once a score has been awarded to each of the PIs, the BMT scores are averaged so that an overall FIP BMT Index is obtained which ranges between 0-‐1. A BMT Index of 1 would mean that all PIs of the fishery are at least at the 80 level, whereas a BMT score of 0 would mean that all of the PIs are less than the 60 level. As the BMT index moves closer to 1, it means the fishery is moving towards all of the PIs being at least, at the 80 level.
18
Summary BMT scores A summary of outputs is set out in Table 2 below: Table 2: Summary of Principal indicators by species and fishery and changes to the Benchmark Monitoring scores, 2013-‐2014
The main issues are summarized as follows: Principle 1 -‐ WCPFC tuna stock status: New WCPFC stock assessments were published in 2014 for skipjack (Rice et al)8, yellowfin (Davies, et al, 2014)9 and bigeye (Harley et al, 201410). Skipjack and yellowfin tuna remain above BMSY (skipjack being at SBCURR/SBMSY = 2.94, FCURR/FMSY = 0.35; and yellowfin at SBCURR/SBMSY are estimated at 0.93-‐1.13) and are not subject to overfishing and above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI). Both the skipjack and yellowfin assessments show that the stocks are highly likely to be above the PRI (MSC V2, P1.1.1SG 80 a). The problem issues are that: Reportedly large increases in catches of small yellowfin tuna have been occurring in WCPFC Region 3 (Indonesia, Philippines and Papua New Guinea) since 2012; and that the latest catches are close to or exceed MSY by up to 13%. In contrast, overfishing is occurring for WCPFC bigeye tuna, (FCURR/FMSY = 0.94; Harley et al, 2014) and
8 Rice, J. S. Harley, N. Davies and J. Hampton, Stock Assessment of Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, 2014. Available at http://www.wcpfc.int/node/18998 9 Davies, N., Harley S, and J Hampton (2014) Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-‐SC10-‐2014/SA-‐ WP-‐04, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands 6-‐14 August 2014. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC10-‐SA-‐WP-‐04%20%5BYFT%20Assessment%5D_rev1_25July.pdf 10 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC10-‐SA-‐WP-‐01%20%5BBET%20Assessment%5D_rev1_25July.pdf
Principle)1 WCPFC P1 IOTCOverall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)IndexOverall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)Index
Skipjack 6 2 2 2 0.50 6 1 3 2 0.42Yellowfin 6 2 2 2 0.50 6 1 3 2 0.42Bigeye 6 1 3 2 0.42 6 1 3 2 0.42Skipjack 5 3 0 2 0.60 5 3 2 0 0.80Yellowfin 5 3 0 2 0.60 5 3 2 0 0.80Bigeye 5 2 0 3 0.40 5 3 2 0 0.80
Principle)2 WCPFC IOTCOverall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)IndexOverall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)Index
Purse)seine 15 5 8 2 0.60 15 5 8 2 0.60Longline 15 6 5 4 0.57 15 5 7 3 0.57Pole&line 15 5 10 0 0.80 15 5 10 0 0.67Handline 15 12 2 1 0.83 15 5 9 1 0.83Troll 15 11 4 0 0.57 15 10 3 2 0.57Purse)seine 15 6 7 2 0.67 15 6 7 2 0.67Longline 15 7 4 4 0.60 15 7 4 4 0.60Pole&line 15 10 2 3 0.73 15 10 2 3 0.73Handline 15 11 4 0 0.87 15 11 4 0 0.87Troll 15 11 4 0 0.87Principle)3Principle)3 WCPFC IOTC
Overall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)IndexOverall ≥80 60779 <60 BMT)Index2010 Governance)&)Policy 9 3 5 1 0.61 9 3 5 1 0.612013 Governance)&)Policy 7 5 1 1 0.79 5 1 1 0.79
2010
2014
2010
2014
19
the stock is now overfIshed to beyond the PRI. Scored as a P1 MSC species, bigeye tuna would therefore have to be subject to rebuilding, which would require a timeframe shorter than 20 years or 2 times its generation time. it is highly unlikely that bigeye tuna can achieve recovery targets in a five year timeframe because the management measures in place are not sufficient to allow recovery on the scale required (Pilling, 2014)11. This means that for all Indonesian fishing methods where bigeye features as a catch > 2% of the total – purse seine and longline, bigeye tuna may only be considered as a primary species. This would been that bigeye tuna is assessed under P2 where it will have to satisfy the criteria: either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs and to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. PI 1.1.1 is likely to achieve higher than a pass score for skipjack and yellowfin,
Limit Reference points were set for all three species at the WCPFC General Session (WCPFC, 10) at 20%SB recent, F=0. (WCPFC 10). Target Reference points are under development and likely to be adopted and may be adopted, for skipjack at least at WCPFC 13. PNA has been developing Target Reference Point Scenarios that take account of uncertainties in line with their MSC recommendation. WCPFC CMM 2014-‐0612 has also sought to encourage the development of TRPs for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna by 2017. A harvest strategy exists for WCPFC tuna species in WCPFC CMM 2014-‐0113. The strategy makes explicit reference to the PNA purse seine VDS scheme, effort controls for other purse seine fisheries and a review of limits for other commercial fisheries. Article 8 of the WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 200014) also requires compatible measures to be adopted in Archipelagic and territorial waters (WPP 713, 714 and 715). Indonesia is currently reviewing which of its specific Fisheries Management Areas are within the range of Pacific and Indian Ocean stocks, but acknowledges that at least two management areas (WPP 716 and 717) are Pacific Rim areas. The strategy has yet to be applied to fisheries in Indonesia, with compatible action for archipelagic waters. The PI 1.2.1 will not achieve a pass with the current lack of application of the strategy by Indonesia and Philippines, especially because no compatible measures apply to AW. It is unlikely to do so until the two countries adopt the requirements in the CMM. This suggests that PI 1.2.1 and PI 1.2.2 would fail, if the UoC were to include AW.
Note that the scoring of harvest strategy and harvest control rules have been cross-‐checked with other assessments completed (PNA (skipjack), 2011), or in expedited assessment (PNA (yellowfin), 2014).
Information systems that support the stock assessment work are good and include a range of catch, stock structure and growth parameters from the Indonesian fisheries. Fleet composition data still needs to be improved, especially knowledge of the Provincial licensed fleets. Indonesia is not presently authorized as a Regional Observer Provider by WCPFC, and there would appear to be some
11 Pilling, G., Williams, P., Hampton, J., and Harley, S. (2013) Analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of key management measures for tropical tunas, WCPFC-‐SC9-‐2013/MI-‐WP-‐01 REV1. Available at http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/MI-‐WP-‐01-‐evaluation-‐measures-‐trop-‐tuna-‐Rev1.pdf
12 WCFFC CMM 2014-‐06. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/CMM%202014-‐06%20Conservation%20and%20Management%20Measures%20to%20develop%20and%20implement%20a%20harvest%20strategy%20approach%20for%20key%20fisheries%20and%20stocks%20in%20the%20WCPO.pdf 13 WCPFC CMM 2014-‐01. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-‐2014-‐01/conservation-‐and-‐management-‐measure-‐bigeye-‐yellowfin-‐and-‐skipjack-‐tuna-‐western-‐and
14 WCPFC, 2000, http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-‐conservation-‐and-‐management-‐highly-‐migratory-‐fish-‐stocks-‐western-‐and-‐central-‐pacific
20
weaknesses in the observer training, which needs to be rectified. Nevertheless, information is perceived to be sufficient because of work supported by the Government of Indonesia and the Western Pacific East Asian Oceanic Fisheries Management (WPEA)15. This PI is likely to score SG 80 or above, but may meet with some resistance under public scrutiny. It is the FIP consultants view that the assessment will be able to demonstrate compliance with SG 80 a and b scores because of the robust state of information provided for the WCPFC stock assessments, and that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock (SG 80 c). Issues such as poor catch logbook coverage and some filings in the observer scheme. These issues may be resolved at the time of the assessment.
Stock assessments are undertaken by the Secretariat of the Pacific Commission (SPC) using MULTIFAN-‐CL. Indonesian scientists participate in the Scientific Committee meetings. The scoring of SPC’s stock assessment work has been scored at GG 100 for past WCPFC assessments. Table 3: Projected P1 scoring by Western Pacific target species
Prin-ciple
Component PI No.
Performance Indicator (PI) Score
Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 90 FAIL 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding FAIL! Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy FAIL FAIL FAIL 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools FAIL FAIL FAIL 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 80 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 100 100 100 Summary scores FAIL FAIL FAIL
Principle 1 -‐ IOTC tuna stock status Skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna are all above MSY in the Indian Ocean. Current estimates (Appendix VII, IOTC–2015–S19–R). All stocks presently score > 80.
The 2014 skipjack stock assessment model results did not differ substantively from the previous assessments. All the runs indicate the stock is above a biomass level that would produce MSY in the long term (i.e. SB2013/SBMSY > 1) and that the current proxy for fishing mortality is below the MSY-‐based reference level (i.e. Ccurrent/CMSY < 1). Current spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 57% of the unfished levels. Catches in 2014 (≈424,000 t) remain lower than the estimated MSY values from the 2014 stock assessments. The average catch over the previous five years (2009–13; ≈401,000 t) also remains below the estimated MSY.
No new stock yellowfin assessment was carried out in 2014, thus, stock status is determined on the basis of the 2013 assessment and other indicators presented in 2014. All the runs (except 2 extremes) carried out in 2013 indicate the stock is above a biomass level that would produce MSY in the long term (i.e. SB2012/SBMSY > 1) and in all runs that current fishing mortality is below the MSY-‐based reference level (i.e. F2012/FMSY < 1). Current spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 40% of the unfished levels. Catches in 2013 (≈109,000 t) remain lower than the estimated MSY values from the 2013 stock assessments. The average catch over the previous five years (2009–13;
15 http://www.wcpfc.int/west-‐pacific-‐east-‐asia-‐oceanic-‐fisheries-‐management-‐project
21
≈106,000 t) also remains below the estimated MSY.
No new bigeye stock assessment was carried out in 2014, thus, stock status is determined on the basis of the 2012 assessment and other indicators presented in 2014. Total catch has continued to increase with 400,292 t and 402,084 t landed in 2012 and 2013, respectively, well in excess of previous MSY estimates (≈17% above the MSY level of 344,000 t), in comparison to 327,453 t landed in 2011 and 299,713 t landed in 2010. Therefore it is difficult to know whether the stock is moving towards a state of being subject to overfishing.
Interim reference points are agreed by the IOTC Commission for albacore, swordfish and the three (3) tropical tunas (skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna at BTARGET = BMSY (TRP) and BLIM = 0.40 BMSY (LRPs), except for bigeye set at 0.50 BMSY.
Various discussions have taken place by IOTC members about tools, but no agreement reached. The Maldives pole-‐and-‐line fishery (Intertek, 2012 and 2014)16 argued that the stock status for yellowfin and skipjack were sufficiently robust and that strategy, when introduced, would be effective. This has to some extent been consolidated with the adoption of Reference Points. However, this issue would still be contentious without the evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. MSC harmonisation rules may be sufficient to justify a score of SG 80 for PI 1,2,1, but it is noteworthy that this PI is subject to challenge by WWF in one of the current assessments (echebastar_indian_ocean_purse_seine_skipjack_yellowfin_and_bigeye_tuna 17) and as such scoring must be reviewed after the adjudication process18. The FIP consultant’s observation is that the standard of scoring in the Pacific yellowfin and skipjack assessments is considerably more robust, especially as there is already a strategy in place (WCPFC CMM 2014-‐01).
The Harvest rules and tools PIs are not likely to be met for:
The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties (SG 80a).
Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs (SG 80b).
Until clear harvest rules are implemented by IOTC, it is also questionable if PI 1.2.2 meets with the SG 60 guidepost: Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. SG 60 is the score attributed to the assessments for Echebastar free school purse seine, and the Maldive pole-‐and-‐line assessments.
16 https://www.msc.org/track-‐a-‐fishery/fisheries-‐in-‐the-‐program/certified/indian-‐ocean/maldives_pole_line_tuna 17 https://www.msc.org/track-‐a-‐fishery/fisheries-‐in-‐the-‐program/in-‐assessment/Indian-‐ocean/echebastar_indian_ocean_purse_seine_skipjack_yellowfin_and_bigeye_tuna/assessment-‐downloads-‐1/20150324_FR_v3_TUN393.pdf 18 Note that the WWF challenge argues as follows: the assessment team did not provide objective evidence of well-‐defined pre-‐agreed rules or actions used by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points. For any adequately managed fishery (certainly one with a “robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place”) the assessment team should be able to describe what management actions take place in response to specific trigger events affecting the stock.
22
Information provided by the main industrial fleets, purse seine, longline and pole-‐and-‐line is good, but there remain deficiencies in the provision of data from coastal fisheries and the application of the Indonesian observer scheme19. Stock assessments are undertaken by IOTC using MULTIFAN-‐CL. Indonesian scientists participate in the Scientific Committee meetings. A score of 95 has been determined in the other Indian Ocean Assessments. Table 4: Projected P1 scoring by Indian Ocean target species
Prin-‐ciple
Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score
Skipjack Yellowfin Bigeye One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 100 80 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 8020 8021 80 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 60 60 60 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 75 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 95 Summary
scores 85.0 85.0 78.3
Principle 2 – Fishery specific issues Primary, secondary and ETP species issues22 Information has strengthened on bycatch data collection, largely with the data collection improvements of the Research Centre outputs in Benoa and Bitung and work by the NGOs, WWF and MDPI. Retained and ETP species data is available and collected by P4KSI observers as well as WWF and MDPI enumerators. Whilst, it is probable that observer deployment requires strengthening, quantitative information is available from the purse seine, longline and pole-‐and-‐line fisheries, and is sufficient to support a partial strategy for retained species, other than baitfish. Bycatch data is also available from the selected handline fisheries23 (MDPI and WWF). Some analysis of the handline fishery shows that bigeye catches are below 2% where fishers handline tunas (single hook) and fish in deep waters (> 200 m), typically in the vicinity of FADs. Some data from both MDPI and WWF also indicates catches > 5% where larger amounts of bigeye, and some skipjack tare aken. Fishing < 200 m depth usually, but not exclusively takes place in the low season. Some Indian Ocean handline fisheries also recorded marlin at > 5% of the total catch. All species, additional to yellowfin caught in these fisheries would be assessed as ‘primary’’. Stock assessments are available for Indian Ocean marlins in the Indian Ocean, and are currently assessed at below PRI. It is noteworthy that handline fisheries < 200m and > 200m will have to be assessed as different fisheries. Shallow handline fisheries are likely to fail an assessment due to the high catch of bigeye tuna. In these cases, the client will need to be aware of Chain of Custody issues when fish are caught from <200 and > 200 metres. Reference to these different fisheries is available in Itano, 2009.24
19 IOTC-‐2013-‐CoC10-‐CR10 20 Noting the Public comment challenge to the Echebastar assessment may justify a reduction in the scoring. 21 ibid. 22 There are no bycatches in Indonesia tuna fisheries. The total catch is landed for human consumption. 23 MDPI data collection represents 0.58% of the total Indonesian handline catch 24 Itano, D., and Williams, P, Review of bigeye and yellowfin tuna catches landed in Palawan, Philippines, SPC
23
Weaknesses lie in the availability of catch data from troll fisheries, which has in the past been confused with handline data, when the target and bycatches are distinctly different. The pre-‐assessment indicated that some qualitative information was available for the troll fishery. It is also reported that P4KSI has strengthened its shark identification. No additional information has been made available. Baitfish catch information in selected handline fisheries is available from MDPI and has been classified by species groups. It is most likely that individual species catches, relative to targeted tuna species will fall below 5%, but this will need to be shown. Pole-‐and-‐line Baitfish data collection has now commenced, but no information was available at the time of the FIP review. Handline information provided for the selected fisheries is sufficient to qualify for a score of SG80. Some troll information is believed to be available but not shown. Retained species information in the pole-‐and-‐line fisheries would appear to indicate negligible catches of bigeye tuna and other species. The lack of baitfish catch information for pole-‐and-‐line and longline, would only allow a score of 60-‐79. WWF commissioned the University of Bogor to undertake a risk assessment across the range of fisheries. This work was reviewed by the FIP consultant and found to be deficient, and also not meeting the revised V2 PSA methodology. Therefore, the NGOs. WWF, AP2HI and MDPI have resolved to undertake fishery specific Consequence Analysis (CA) and Productivity Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) for all fisheries. It is a advised that the progress of P2 data collection should be coordinated collectively by the NGOs and should be shared with P4KSI. Some management mitigations actions may be required which will require coordination with MMAF DG Capture fisheries, and when appropriate, integrating into the tuna management plan. Catches of marine mammals and turtles by pole-‐and-‐line gear are virtually non-‐existent (Gillette, 2011)25. MDPI/WWF data also indicate that there are no ETP interactions, including sharks in handline and troll fisheries. Outcome status For those fisheries catching bigeye tuna (where more that 2% of the total catch), the client will need to demonstrate that management actions are in place that demonstrate an effective partial strategy such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding (PI 2.1.2 SG 80 b). This would suggest that compatible measures need to be in place in AW including FAD limits for purse seine vessels, as well as seasonal FAD controls26 or perhaps closed areas that demonstrate the protection of bigeye tuna. Longline management will also require demonstration of adherence to Attachment F of the CMM. FAD measures have been adopted, but anecdotal evidence suggests that they are not enforced, and there is no evidence of how effective these will be. This is unlikely to comply with the PI 1.2.1 SG 80 a or the SG requirement, ‘Evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place’.
Management Prohibitions on shark finning at sea will need to be implemented for all fisheries. Vessels landing sharks will need to do so, but with the fins attached. MSC requires that if shark finning is to take
2009.
25 Tuna Bait fisheries: The Results of a Global Study, ISSF Technical Report, September 2012. 26 Noting that Indonesian vessels fall under 50 m and are exempt from the CM
24
place, that the sharks are landed with fins naturally attached, there is some external validation such that there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.
If sharks are processed on board
a. There are comprehensive regulations in place governing the management of sharks;
b. There is full documentation of the destination of all shark bodies and body parts; and
c. Comprehensive external validation of the vessels’ activities is available to confirm with a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.
ETP interactions will need to demonstrate that there are low levels of longline interaction with turtles, and that non-‐retention policies are applied to protected sharks, either by Resolution, CMM or where sharks are classified as Vulnerable or Endangered within the CMM. This will require the updating of the NPOA – sharks. Currently the failure to include some of these endangered/managed shark fisheries in the Decrees will result in a fail for fisheries with these interactions, notable, purse seine and longline. The Management authorities would do well to ensure that entanglement of protected species in FAD materials is monitored and prevented. It is noteworthy that AP2HI has a Code of Conduct in place prohibiting the catching of shark. This is taken into account in the scoring (Table 5).
If any medium or high risks are found in the PSAs for primary and secondary species, fishery specific management mitigation will need to be adopted. These are unlikely for the handline, pole-‐and-‐line and troll fisheries. Habitat outcome information will need to be identified, Outcome and management actions, are unlikely for the named fisheries, as there is no benthic interaction, but will need to be quantified Ecosystem work, allied to modelling is being undertaken by P4KSI, and is reportedly being strengthened by the extended WPEA programme. Table 5: Projected P2 scoring by Indonesian Pacific and Indian Ocean fisheries
Prin-‐ciple
Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI)
Handline Pole-‐and-‐line
Troll Purse seine
Longline
Two Primary species
2.1.1 Outcome 60 60 80 60 60
2.1.2 Management 60 60 80 60 80 2.1.3 Information 80 80 60 80 80 Secondary 2.1.1 Outcome 60 FAIL 60 60 60 2.2.2 Management 60 FAIL 60 FAIL FAIL 2.2.3 Information 80 FAIL 60 60 FAIL ETP 2.2.1 Outcome 100 100 100 FAIL FAIL 2.3.2 Management 100 100 100 FAIL FAIL 2.3.3 Information 100 100 100 60 60 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 2.4.2 Management 100 100 100 100 100 2.4.3 Information 100 100 100 100 100 Ecosystems 2.5.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80
25
2.5.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 2.5.3 Information 80 80 80 80 80 Summary
score 82.7 FAIL 82.7 FAIL FAIL
Principle 3.1 Governance and Policy WCPFC, IOTC and Indonesia have strong systems of governance in place and achieve a pass for the legal and customary framework as well as consultation, roles and responsibilities. It is now evident that the legislative and management structure extends to Provincial and District Level (Act 32/ 2004 and Act 12/ 2011 obligations, Pasal 14). The precautionary approach to fisheries management has also been introduced as component of the government’s core management objectives (Decree PMKDPRI 15/MEN/2012 (National Strategy on Fisheries Management) and 29/MEN/2012). The ecosystem approach to fisheries management has been incorporated as an objective into the Indonesia Tuna Action Plan. Management Plans are endorsed by the Fisheries Act. It is likely that PI 3.1.3 will meet SG 80 ‘Clear long term objectives that guide decision-‐making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy, but evidence will need to demonstrate that the PAFM is required by management policy (SG 100). Some recent MMAF decisions e.g. the trawl ban in the Arafura Sea, may be sufficient to demonstrate that precautionary management actions are now taking place under the current Government.
Principle 3.2 Fishery specific management A number of PIs have been met including Decision-‐making, and Performance Review. Fishery specific objectives (PI 3.2.1) are promulgated through the Tuna Action Plan, which is likely to meet with a Partial score (70) as it contains some, but not a comprehensive range of, Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The Plan is also not specific to each fishery that will be subject to assessment.
Decision making (PI 3.2.2) by DGCF and FKPPS demonstrate established decision-‐ making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-‐specific objectives (SG 80 a) and decisions take account of serious and other important research, monitoring and evaluation, as well as the wider implications of decisions (SG 80 b), but to a large extent the general lack of information has prevented some key decisions being taken for specific fisheries, which makes it difficult to respond in a timely an adaptive manner (SG 80 b). Lack of information has already been scored under other PIs, but it is likely that assessors will require more evidence of fishery specific decisions. Information on each fishery’s performance is available but there is limited information on the lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring evaluation and review activity (SG 80 c). Slow adoption of RMFO management measures also suggests that this PI may result in a Condition.
Existing tools are in place to show effective compliance systems e.g. VMS, sanctions, (PI 3.2.3) but there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the enforcement of relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules (SG 80 a) and to demonstrate systematic compliance (SG 80 d) for each of the fisheries under evaluation. It is unlikely that an assessment will be able to demonstrate that Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery SG 60 c. Based on the weight of evidence, it would seem that much of Indonesia’s enforcement is applied to
26
foreign intrusions, as opposed to applying actions on domestic fishers. These issues need to be addressed through the application of coherent activities that can identify risk levels associated with fishery specific IUU actions. There is also no evidence that sanctions to deal with non-‐ compliance exist, being consistently applied to each of the fisheries that will be under assessment (SG 80 b). This PI is unlikely to pass and requires the support of technical assistance to meet with appropriate IUU standards.
A performance review structure is in place for both MMAF and Provincial DKP. An annual internal review on program planning and performance evaluation is undertaken by the Inspectorate General/Echelon I of MMAF (once a year). An external reviews is undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.
A performance review also takes place for P4KSI and its subsidiary research groups. This includes an internal review on research and program planning by Inspectorate General/Echelon I of MMAF (every three months) and M&E of Balitbang KP/Echelon I of MMAF (every month) -‐ external review on program is conducted by Finance Audit Agency/BPK twice a year during planning and evaluation, while university conducted external review on research plan once a year An external reviews of both organization are undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.
Table 6: Projected P2 scoring by Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean fishery
Prin-‐ciple
Component PI No.
Performance Indicator (PI)
Handline Pole-‐and-‐line
Troll Purse seine
Longline
Governance and polcy 3.1.
1
Legal & customary framework
100 100 100 100 100
3.1.2
Consultation, roles & responsibilities
80 80 80 80 80
3.1.3
Long term objectives
80 80 80 80 80
Fishery specific management system
3.2.1
Fishery specific objectives 70 70 70 70 70
3.2.2
Decision making processes 80 80 80 80 80
3.2.3
Compliance & enforcement FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
3.2.4
Performance review
80 80 80 80 80
Summary score
FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL
Summary outputs from the Units of Certif ication The scoring for each of the Units of Certification is provided in Tables 4 to 6 above. Table 7 (below) provides a summary of the Benchmark Monitoring Tool across all the Indonesian UoCs. These show that for stock wide measures, there still remains the critical issue of developing harvest strategies and tools. Under the management PI, fishery specific actions, such as the adoption of fishery specific
27
management measures for target species and bycatch, as well as developing compliance actions and developing a culture of compliance. These require collective effort by the clients in order to achieve the same or similar PI and P 3.2 outcomes. The table below shows marginal levels of improvement towards achieving higher benchmark scores for handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll as well as IOTC purse seine and longline. However, for the WCPFC purse seine and longline sectors, shows a marginal decline, largely in response to the progressively worse state of WCPO bigeye as well as a failure to implement important CMMs into national legislation. IOTC fisheries tend to fair better overall than their WCPFC counterparts because of fairly distinct interpretations in the application of harvest strategy. The general view here of this FIP consultant is that these reflect different standards of interpretation by the Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB).
Table 7: Summary BMT outputs by UoC, 2014
WCPFC yellowfin handline (BMT = 0.80) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. However, the management authorities have failed to implement the national elements of the WCPFC strategy as enshrined in the core management CMM (now 2014-‐01). Since these fisheries take place inside Archipelagic Waters, it is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced. Once these are in place, are demonstrably compatible with WCPFC measures, and Indonesia implements these and the WCPFC CMM, then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met. P2 issues have been slow to develop. Significant effort has been made by MDPI and WWF to collect data on target species, as well as primary and secondary species data. Data has been compiled for the relevant handline fisheries assigned to the each NGO, where it is first important to be able to determine that bigeye accounts for < 2% of the catch to be able to eliminate this vulnerable species
BMT$by$units$of$Certification$BMT$Score$(2014)
Revised$ranking
IOTC$Handline Yellowfin 0.83 1WCPFC$Handline Yellowfin 0.80 2WCPFC$troll Skipjack 0.80 2IOTC$poleMandMline Yellowfin 0.76 4IOTC$poleMandMline Skipjack 0.76 4WCPFC$poleMandMline Skipjack 0.72 6WCPFC$poleMandMline Yellowfin 0.72 6IOTC$Purse$seine Skipjack 0.72 6IOTC$Purse$seine Yellowfin 0.72 6IOTC$Purse$seine Bigeye 0.69 10WCPFC$Purse$seine Skipjack 0.67 11WCPFC$Purse$seine Yellowfin 0.67 11WCPFC$Purse$seine Bigeye 0.66 13WCPFC$longline Yellowfin 0.65 14WCPFC$longline Bigeye 0.63 15IOTC$longline Yellowfin 0.59 16IOTC$longline Bigeye 0.59 16
28
(below the PRI) from the assessment. Where bigeye is greater than 2%, then it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the handline fishery (as well as other assessed fisheries) does not cause irreversible harm. In addition, it is important to determine if baitfish caught accounts for less than 5% of the total catch, and that none of the baitfish species are vulnerable. Attention is drawn to the distinctions made by Itan0 et al, 2009, where different handline fisheries, < 200 m and > 200 m are identified in the Philippines. Further work is therefore required to test the distinctions in target species. WWF and MDPI report that ETPs are not caught in this fishery. Despite having provided training to WWF and MDPI on risk assessment (actioned by MSC and the FIP consultant funded by WWF), no PSAs had been conducted by these organisations. PSA work was commissioned by WWF to the University of Bogor but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an MSC assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the appropriate standard. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which now requires application of the data that is available for these handline fisheries. Further training is now required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA and this has been added as milestone (Milestone 31). Training is available from MSC. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance, or if catching shark by hook and line, landing the carcasses and fins. The FIP consultant was made aware of pilot studies in Maluku and Central Sulawesi provinces to promote the landing of sharks with fins attached. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant with experience in preparing management plans. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently need to (a) assess the risks of handline fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the handline fleet. If POKMASWAS is operational, details of their actions should also be qualified. In summary, critical areas of attention need to focus on the following:
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in WCPFC, with equivalent measures in Archipelagic Waters (1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o Target reference points agreed and applied across the range of the stock (Yellowfin) including AW. The setting of RPs, should also be consistent with the RFMO CMMs and take uncertainties into account
o The application of CMM 2014-‐01. Or its replacement, to the purse seine and longline fisheries in the EEZ
29
o Development of management arrangements for other commercial fisheries in AW and the EEZ, including establishing a system of effort control on handline, pole-‐and-‐line and other methods such as troll and gill net
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3/2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of bigeye tuna in the handline catch to ensure
that catches are less than 2% (PI 2.1.1) • Principle 2: An assessment of catch composition distinctions between < 200 m and > 200 m
handline fisheries • Principle 2: Revised training (from MSC) and a PSA assessment of baitfish interactions, if
accounting for >5% of the catch (PI 2.2.1) • Principle 2: Secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (PI 2.2.1) • Principle 2: Codes established to ensure that no shark fining takes place on board (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: ETP species information available (PI 2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of protected
species (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (PI 2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short term objectives for handline
fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for handline fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the POKMASWAS.
30
Table 8: Indonesian Pacific handline BMT report sheet
Principle Component Performance Indicator
Expected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year
5 Status
1
Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status ≥80 ≥80 On Target
1.1.2 Reference points --- ---
Management
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy ≥80 <60 Behind
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools ≥80 <60 Behind
1.2.3 Information and monitoring ≥80 ≥80 On Target
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2
Primary species
2.1.1 Outcome ≥80 60-79 Behind
2.1.2 Management ≥80 60-79 Behind
2.1.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 On Target
Secondary species
2.2.1 Outcome ≥80 60-79 Behind
2.2.2 Management ≥80 60-79 Behind
2.2.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 On Target
ETP species
2.3.1 Outcome ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2.3.2 Management ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2.3.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 On Target
Habitats
2.4.1 Outcome ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2.4.2 Management ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2.4.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 On Target
Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome ≥80 ≥80 On Target
2.5.2 Management ≥80 ≥80 On Target
31
Table 9: Indonesian Pacific handline BMT index summary table
Figure 1: Indonesian Pacific handline scoring category overview
Figure 2: Indonesian Pacific handline progress tracker
WCPFC Pole-‐and-‐Line skipjack and yellowfin (BMT score: Skipjack = 0.72; Yellowfin = 0.72) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. However, the management authorities have failed to implement the national elements of the WCPFC strategy as enshrined in the core management CMM (now 2014-‐01). Since these fisheries largely take place inside Archipelagic Waters, it is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced. Once these are in place, are demonstrably compatible with WCPFC measures, and Indonesia implements these and the WCPFC CMM, then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met.
Scoring Level
Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs ≥80 19 3 11 5
60-79 5 0 4 1 <60 3 2 0 1
BMT Index 0.80 0.60 0.87 0.79
!
19 3
11 5
5
0
4 1
3
2
0 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.54 0.54
0.80
1.00
0.54
0.80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
32
P2 issues have been slow to develop. AP2HI has a three-‐year data set on pole-‐and-‐line catches including bigeye and a number of secondary species. Additional data is available to support assessment work in this fishery from SDI. Baitfish catch data is reportedly available, including specific species interactions, supported by a baitfish ID booklet. No specific analysis was made available to the FIP consultant. It is first important to be able to determine that bigeye accounts for < 2% of the catch to be able to eliminate this vulnerable species (below the PRI) from the assessment. If bigeye is greater than 2%, then it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the pole-‐and-‐line fishery (as well as other assessed fisheries) do not cause irreversible harm. In addition, it is important to determine if baitfish caught accounts for less than 5% of the total catch, and that none of the baitfish species are vulnerable. The FIP consultant is aware that work is commencing to consolidate the data sets. WWF and MDPI report that ETPs are not caught in this fishery. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary and baitfish species must now be a priority. AP2HI have attached a student from the University of Wageningen to support this process. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now requires application to the data that is available for the pole-‐and-‐line fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The FIP consultant was made aware of the AP2HI Code of Conduct to prevent shark fishing by this fishery. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently need to (a) assess the risks of the pole-‐and-‐line fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the pole-‐and-‐line fleet. In summary, critical areas of attention need to focus on the following:
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in WCPFC, with equivalent measures in Archipelagic Waters (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o Target reference points agreed and applied across the range of the stock (Skipjack) including AW. The setting of RPs, should also be consistent with the RFMO CMMs and take uncertainties into account
o The application of CMM 2014-‐01. Or its replacement, to the purse seine and longline fisheries in the EEZ
33
o Development of management arrangements for other commercial fisheries in AW and the EEZ, including establishing a system of effort control on pole-‐and-‐line, handline and other methods such as troll and gill net
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of bigeye tuna in the pole-‐and-‐line catch to
ensure that catches are less than 2% (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) • Principle 2: Revised training (from MSC) and a PSA assessment of risks associated with
baitfish interactions (2.2.1) • Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment
(2.2.1) • Principle 2: Codes established to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board • Principle 2: ETP species information available (PI 2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of protected
species (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for pole-‐
and-‐line fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for pole-‐and-‐line fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied
34
Table 10: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ---
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
28 180 30 6
1.00 0.72
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
35
Table 11: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line BMT index summary table
Figure 3: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line scoring category overview
Figure 4: Indonesian Pacific pole-‐and-‐line progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 18 3 10 560-79 3 0 2 1<60 6 2 3 1
BMT Index 0.72 0.60 0.73 0.79
All PIs
18 3 10 5
3 0
2 1
6 2
3 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.46 0.46
0.70
1.00
0.46
0.72
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
36
IOTC yellowfin handline (BMT=0.83) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. IOTC still lacks a harvest strategy and tools, and a current assessment is under challenge for this reason. The Indian Ocean Maldives pole-‐and-‐line fishery attained a pass on strategy on the basis that the stocks were below MSY and a strategy would be implemented as and when there was a need. The potential issues of conflict in assessment scoring between WCPO and Indian Ocean are difficult to resolve, but the FIP is resolute on the need to determine a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries. In the case of Indonesia, the management authorities are reportedly intent on progressing the issue of developing a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries (WPP 572 and 573). It is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced in 2015. An additional problem is that there would also appear to be some inadequacies in the information available from the small-‐scale tuna fisheries of Western Sumatra, Aceh and Western Java. Whist work is taking place in these areas, which would at least allow for a score of 75 under PI 1.2.3, data strengthening needs to be improved. Once there is further evidence of data improvement from IOTC and a harvest strategy is in place that applies the IOTC reference points (or more conservative variations that take account of uncertainties), then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met. P2 issues have been slow to develop. Significant effort has been made by MDPI and WWF to collect data on target species, as well as primary and secondary species data. Data has been compiled for the relevant handline fisheries assigned to the each NGO, where it is first important to be able to determine that bigeye accounts for < 2% of the catch to be able to eliminate this vulnerable species (below the PRI) from the assessment. Where bigeye is greater than 2%, then it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the handline fishery (as well as other assessed fisheries) does not cause irreversible harm. In addition, it is important to determine if baitfish caught accounts for less than 5% of the total catch, and that none of the baitfish species are vulnerable. Attention is drawn to the distinctions made by Itan0 et al, 2009, where different handline fisheries, < 200 m and > 200 m are identified in the Philippines. Further work is therefore required to test the distinctions in target species. WWF and MDPI report that ETPs are not caught in this fishery. Despite having provided training to WWF and MDPI on risk assessment (actioned by MSC and the FIP consultant funded by WWF), no PSAs had been conducted by these organisations. PSA work was commissioned by WWF to the University of Bogor but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an MSC assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the appropriate standard. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for these handline fisheries. Further training is now required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA and this has been added as milestone (Milestone 31). Training is available from MSC. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance, or if catching shark by hook and line, landing the carcasses and fins.
37
P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of handline fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the handline fleet. If POKMASWAS is operational, details of their actions should also be qualified. In summary, critical areas of attention needs to focus on the following
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in IOTC (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o The application of Harvest control rules across the range of Indonesian fisheries operating in Indian Ocean, covering purse seine, longline, handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll and gillnet
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 1: A more comprehensive set of catch data from Indonesian Indian Ocean fisheries (PI 1.2.3)
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of primary species in the handline catch to
ensure that the risks to species covering at least over 5% of the catch are assessed (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2)
• Principle 2: An assessment of catch composition distinctions between < 200 m and > 200 m handline fisheries
• Principle 2: Training in risk assessment and a PSA assessment of risks associated with baitfish interactions (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: Codes established to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board • Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of protected
species (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for
handline fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for handline fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the POKMASWAS.
38
Table 12: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
--- ---
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
27 190 70 1
1.00 0.83
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
39
Table 13: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline BMT index summary table
Figure 5: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline scoring category overview
Figure 6: Indonesian Indian Ocean handline progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 19 3 11 560-79 7 2 4 1<60 1 0 0 1
BMT Index 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.79
All PIs
19 3
11 5
7 2 4
1
1 0 0 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.57 0.57
0.83
1.00
0.57
0.83
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
40
IOTC Pole-‐and-‐Line skipjack and yellowfin (BMT score: Skipjack = 0.76; Yellowfin = 0.76) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. IOTC still lacks a harvest strategy and tools, and a current assessment is under challenge for this reason. The Indian Ocean Maldives pole-‐and-‐line fishery attained a pass on strategy on the basis that the stocks were below MSY and a strategy would be implemented as and when there was a need. The potential issues of conflict in assessment scoring between WCPO and Indian Ocean are difficult to resolve, but the FIP is resolute on the need to determine a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries. In the case of Indonesia, the management authorities are reportedly intent on progressing the issue of developing a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries (WPP 572 and 573). An additional problem is that there would also appear to be some inadequacies in the information available from the small-‐scale tuna fisheries of Western Sumatra, Aceh and Western Java. Whilst work is taking place in these areas, which would at least allow for a score of 75 under PI 1.2.3, data strengthening needs to be improved. Once there is further evidence of data improvement from IOTC and a harvest strategy is in place that applies the IOTC reference points (or more conservative variations that take account of uncertainties), then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met. P2 issues have been slow to develop. AP2HI has a three-‐year data set on pole-‐and-‐line catches including bigeye and a number of secondary species. Additional data is available to support assessment work in this fishery from SDI. Baitfish catch data is reportedly available, including specific species interactions, supported by a baitfish ID booklet. No specific analysis was made available to the FIP consultant. It is first important to be able to determine that bigeye accounts for < 2% of the catch to be able to eliminate this vulnerable species (below the PRI) from the assessment, and to also determine secondary and ETP interactions. If bigeye is greater than 2%, then it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the pole-‐and-‐line fishery (as well as other assessed fisheries) does not cause irreversible harm. In addition, it is important to determine if baitfish caught accounts for less than 5% of the total catch, and that none of the baitfish species are vulnerable. The FIP consultant is aware that work is commencing to consolidate the data sets. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary and baitfish species must now be a priority. AP2HI have attached a student from the University of Wageningen to support this process. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for the pole-‐and-‐line fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark
41
avoidance. The FIP consultant was made aware of the AP2HI Code of Conduct to prevent shark fishing by this fishery. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the pole-‐and-‐line fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the pole-‐and-‐line fleet. In summary, critical areas of attention need to focus on the following:
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in IOTC (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o The application of Harvest control rules across the range of Indonesian fisheries operating in Indian Ocean, covering purse seine, longline, handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll and gillnet
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 1: A more comprehensive set of catch data from Indonesian Indian Ocean fisheries (PI 1.2.3)
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of primary species in the pole-‐and-‐line catch to
ensure that the risks to species covering at least over 5% of the catch are assessed (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2)
• Principle 2: A PSA assessment of risks associated with baitfish interactions (2.2.1) • Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment
(2.2.1) • Principle 2: Codes established to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board • Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of protected
species (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for pole-‐
and-‐line fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for pole-‐and-‐line fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
42
Table 14: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ---
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
28 180 50 4
1.00 0.76Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
43
Table 15: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line BMT index summary table
Figure 7: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line scoring category overview
Figure 8: Indonesian Indian Ocean pole-‐and-‐line progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 18 3 10 560-79 5 2 2 1<60 4 0 3 1
BMT Index 0.76 0.80 0.73 0.79
All PIs
18 3 10 5
5 2 2
1
4 0
3 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.46 0.46
0.73
1.00
0.46
0.76
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
44
WCPFC skipjack troll (BMT= 0.80) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. However, the management authorities have failed to implement the national elements of the WCPFC strategy as enshrined in the core management CMM (now 2014-‐01). Since these fisheries largely take place inside Archipelagic Waters, it is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced. Once these are in place, are demonstrably compatible with WCPFC measures, and Indonesia implements these and the WCPFC CMM, then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met. P2 issues have been slow to develop. No bigeye is caught in this fishery. Whilst there is some data on troll activity, there has been some mixing with other fishing methods, most especially handline. It is understood that the troll fishery’s bycatch comprises kawakawa and mahi mahi. Sharks are not known to be caught by troll. WWF and other independent observations suggest that ETP interactions with troll gear is very low level. Data on secondary and ETPs needs be strengthened but there is no dedicated activity from any of the NGOs participating in data collection. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now requires application to the data that is available for these troll fisheries. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the troll fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the troll fleet. In summary, critical areas of attention need to focus on the following:
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in WCPFC, with equivalent measures in Archipelagic Waters (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
45
o Target reference points agreed and applied across the range of the stock (Skipjack) including AW. The setting of RPs, should also be consistent with the RFMO CMMs and take uncertainties into account
o The application of CMM 2014-‐01. Or its replacement, to the purse seine and longline fisheries in the EEZ
o Development of management arrangements for other commercial fisheries in AW and the EEZ, including establishing a system of effort control on pole-‐and-‐line, handline and other methods such as troll and gill net
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available, including a check on possible shark interactions (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3)
• Principle 2: Secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (PI 2.2.1) • Principle 2: ETP species information available (PI 2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of protected
species (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for troll
fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for troll fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
46
Table 16: Indonesian Pacific troll BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ---
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
28 190 50 3
1.00 0.80
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
47
Table 17: Indonesian Pacific troll BMT index summary table
Figure 9: Indonesian Pacific troll scoring category overview
Figure 10: Indonesian Pacific troll progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 19 3 11 560-79 5 0 4 1<60 3 2 0 1
BMT Index 0.80 0.60 0.87 0.79
All PIs
19 3
11 5
5
0
4 1
3
2
0 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.52 0.52
0.77
1.00
0.52
0.80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
48
WCPFC skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye purse seine (BMT skipjack: 0.67; yellowfin: 0.67; bigeye 0.65). The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. However, the management authorities have failed to implement the national elements of the WCPFC strategy as enshrined in the core management CMM (now 2014-‐01), including measures to restrict purse seine effort in other WCPFC fisheries (Para 22, CMM 2014-‐01). Since these fisheries largely take place in both the EEZ and in Archipelagic Waters, it is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced. Once these are in place, are demonstrably compatible with WCPFC measures, and Indonesia implements these and the WCPFC CMM, then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met for yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Because of the poor state of bigeye, this species cannot be assessed as a P1 species and is relegated to P2 primary. Good data is available on purse seine catches in Indonesia, with P2 species comprising bigeye and some neritic tunas. This information is available from SDI. Shark catch data is also available but not by specific species. This should be improved with the extended application of an observer system. However, the Indonesian scheme has not been approved as a Regional Observer Programme. The shark and turtles CMMs have not been incorporated into the appropriate decrees. This will need to be implemented. As bigeye is greater than 2% of the total, then it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the purse seine fleet (as well as other assessed fisheries) do not cause irreversible harm. This outcome alone is likely to prevent the FAD fishery from achieving a successful MSC outcome. Therefore, only free school fisheries, where bigeye catch is minimal, are likely to progress to assessment. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary species must be a priority. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for the purse seine fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance / non-‐retention if they are to progress to MSC certification. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the pole-‐and-‐line fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the purse seine fleet.
49
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in WCPFC, with equivalent measures in Archipelagic Waters (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o Target reference points agreed and applied across the range of the stock (Skipjack and Yellowfin) including AW. The setting of RPs, should also be consistent with the RFMO CMMs and take uncertainties into account
o The application of CMM 2014-‐01. Or its replacement, to the purse seine and longline fisheries in the EEZ
o Development of management arrangements for other commercial fisheries in AW and the EEZ, including establishing a system of effort control on pole-‐and-‐line, handline and other methods such as troll and gill net
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of bigeye tuna in the purse seine catch to
ensure the level of catch dependency, <2% or 2-‐5% vulnerable (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) • Principle 2: Adoption of measures for BET (primary species) that are compatible with
measures applied by WCPFC, or more specifically that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI.
• Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: The shark decree expanded to ensure that WCPFC listed species (silk and OWT sharks) and IUCN vulnerable and endangered species are not retained, as well as a measure to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board
• Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of other
protected species (e.g. turtles) (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (PI 2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for purse
seine fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for purse seine fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
50
Table 18: Indonesian Pacific purse seine BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
--- ---
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
27 150 70 5
1.00 0.69
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
51
Table 19: Indonesian Pacific purse seine BMT index summary table
Figure 11: Indonesian Pacific purse seine scoring category overview
Figure 12: Indonesian Pacific purse seine progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 15 3 7 560-79 7 0 6 1<60 5 2 2 1
BMT Index 0.69 0.60 0.67 0.79
All PIs
15 3 7
5
7 0
6 1
5 2
2 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.54 0.54
0.69
1.00
0.54
0.69
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
52
IOTC skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye purse seine (BMT = skipjack 0.69; yellowfin 0.69; bigeye tuna 0.69) P1 assessment for the Indian Ocean purse seine fishery covers skipjack, yelllowfin and bigeye tuna. The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. IOTC still lacks a harvest strategy and tools, and a current MSC assessment is under challenge for this reason. The Indian Ocean Maldives pole-‐and-‐line fishery attained a pass on strategy on the basis that the stocks were below MSY and a strategy would be implemented as and when there was a need. The potential issues of conflict in assessment scoring between WCPO and Indian Ocean are difficult to resolve, but the FIP is resolute on the need to determine a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries. In the case of Indonesia, the management authorities are reportedly intent on progressing the issue of developing a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries (WPP 572 and 573). It is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced in 2015. Good data is available on purse seine catches in Indonesia, with P2 species comprising some neritic tunas. This information is available from SDI. Shark catch data is also available but not by specific species. The shark decree incorporates the IO Resolution of non-‐retention of thresher shark. However, this needs to be extended to include Endangered and vulnerable IUCN species including hammerhead and Oceanic whitetip sharks. This will need to be implemented. FAD interactions with sharks, turtles and other bycatches are likely to prevent this fishery from achieving a successful MSC outcome. Therefore, only free school fisheries are likely to progress to assessment. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary species must be a priority. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for the purse seine fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance / non-‐retention if they are to progress to MSC certification. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the purse seine fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the purse seine fleet.
53
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in IOTC (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
o The application of Harvest control rules across the range of Indonesian fisheries operating in Indian Ocean, covering purse seine, longline, handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll and gillnet
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 1: A more comprehensive set of catch data from Indonesian Indian Ocean fisheries (PI 1.2.3) including data on FAD interactions
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of primary species in the purse seine catch to
ensure that the risks to species covering at least over 5% of the catch are assessed (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2)
• Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: The shark decree expanded to ensure that all IUCN vulnerable and endangered species are not retained, as well as a measure to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board
• Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of other
protected species (e.g. turtles) (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for purse
seine fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for purse seine fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
54
Table 20: Indonesian Indian Ocean purse seine BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
--- ---
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
27 150 90 3
1.00 0.72
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
55
Table 21: Indonesian Indian Ocean purse seine BMT index summary table
Figure 13: Indonesian Pacific Indian Ocean purse seine scoring category overview
Figure 14: Indonesian Pacific Indian Ocean purse seine progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 15 4 6 560-79 9 1 7 1<60 3 0 2 1
BMT Index 0.72 0.90 0.63 0.79
All PIs
15 4
6
5
9
1
7
1
3 0
2 1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.54 0.54
0.72
1.00
0.54
0.72
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
56
IOTC skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye longline (BMT yellowfin 65; bigeye 63) P1 assessment for Indian Ocean longline fishery covers skipjack, yelllowfin and bigeye tuna. The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. IOTC still lacks a harvest strategy and tools, and a current MSC assessment is under challenge for this reason. The Indian Ocean Maldives pole-‐and-‐line fishery attained a pass on strategy on the basis that the stocks were below MSY and a strategy would be implemented as and when there was a need. The potential issues of conflict in assessment scoring between WCPO and Indian Ocean are difficult to resolve, but the FIP is resolute on the need to determine a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries. In the case of Indonesia, the management authorities are reportedly intent on progressing the issue of developing a harvest strategy for Indian Ocean fisheries (WPP 572 and 573). It is important that management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) are advanced in 2015. Good data is available on longline catches in Indonesia, with P2 species including marlins, sharks, oilfish and mahi mahi. This information is available from SDI and from the SFP observer programme. Shark catch data is also available but not by specific species. The shark decree incorporates the IO Resolution of non-‐retention of thresher shark. However, this needs to be extended to include Endangered and vulnerable IUCN species including hammerhead and Oceanic whitetip sharks. This will need to be implemented. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary species must be a priority. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for the longline fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance / non-‐retention if they are to progress to MSC certification. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the longline fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the purse seine fleet.
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in IOTC (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2). Specific actions relating to these include:
57
o The application of Harvest control rules across the range of Indonesian fisheries operating in Indian Ocean, covering purse seine, longline, handline, pole-‐and-‐line, troll and gillnet
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 1: A more comprehensive set of catch data from Indonesian Indian Ocean fisheries (PI 1.2.3)
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of primary species in the purse seine catch to
ensure that the risks to species covering at least over 5% of the catch are assessed (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2)
• Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: The shark decree expanded to ensure that all IUCN vulnerable and endangered species are not retained, as well as a measure to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board
• Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: A review of baitfish sources and the status (PSA) of these fisheries • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of other
protected species (e.g. turtles) (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for purse
seine fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for purse seine fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
58
Table 22: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 60-79 Behind
--- ---
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
27 140 40 9
1.00 0.59Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
59
Table 23: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline BMT index summary table
Figure 15: Indonesian Indian Ocean longline scoring category overview
Figure 16: Indonesian Indian Ocean long line progress tracker
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 14 2 7 560-79 4 1 2 1<60 9 2 6 1
BMT Index 0.59 0.50 0.53 0.79
All PIs
14 2 7
5
4 1 2
1 9 2 6
1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.52 0.52
0.61
1.00
0.52 0.59
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
60
WCPFC yellowfin and skipjack longline (BMT = yellowfin 65; bigeye 63) The advancing of milestones, and changes in management actions have allowed for some positive changes in the 16 months from the previous FIP review. Specific advances have been made in adoption of reference points and improved data collection. However, the management authorities have failed to implement the national elements of the WCPFC strategy as enshrined in the core management CMM (now 2014-‐01), including measures to restrict purse seine effort in other WCPFC fisheries (Para 22, CMM 2014-‐01). These fisheries largely take place in the EEZ. WCPFC Management measures (a harvest strategy and tools) need to be fully adopted by Indonesia. Once in place and implemented by Indonesia, then the Principle 1 performance indicators are likely to be met for yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Because of the poor state of bigeye, this species cannot be assessed as a P1 species and is relegated to P2 primary. Good data is available on purse seine catches in Indonesia, with P2 species including marlins, sharks, oilfish and mahi mahi. This information is available from SDI. Shark catch data is also available but not by specific species. This should be improved with the extended application of an observer system. However, the Indonesian scheme has not been approved as a Regional Observer Programme. The shark and turtles CMMs have not been incorporated into the appropriate decrees. This will need to be implemented. As bigeye is greater than 2% of the total, it will be required to demonstrate that catches by the purse seine fleet (as well as other assessed fisheries) do not cause irreversible harm. This outcome alone is likely to prevent the FAD fishery from achieving a successful MSC outcome. Therefore, only free school fisheries, where bigeye catch is minimal, are likely to progress to assessment. Implementing a risk assessment for secondary species must be a priority. PSA work was undertaken by the University of Bogor, but the reporting and analysis was sub standard, and would certainly not pass scrutiny from an assessor. These issues are not insurmountable to achieve and it is disappointing that within the timescale of the second and third review that no PSAs had been prepared to the satisfaction of the FIP consultant. That said, MSC has now revised the SICA and PSA criteria which would now require application to the data that is available for the pole-‐and-‐line fishery. Further training is therefore required to encompass Consequence Analysis and PSA. An additional milestone has been added (Milestone 31) to support this task. The training should also cover habitat and ecosystem assessments. P2 management actions also need to address the issue of shark fining. This requirement was added to MSC V 1.3 and is continued in V2. The stakeholders therefore need to adopt a policy of shark avoidance / non-‐retention if they are to progress to MSC certification. P3 PIs have advanced well with P 3.1 PIs likely to receive > SG 80 for all components. However, P 3.2 remains a problem. The Tuna Action Plan is complete but lacks some of the objectives and outcomes that are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The Action Plan also lacks any reference to the full range of fisheries to be assessed. The FIP consultant is of the view that this could be easily adjusted with a refinement of the existing action plan. This requires high-‐level technical support from a consultant versed in management planning. More problematic is that the fisheries compliance actions fall well short of the required milestones needed to achieve a pass. A number of actions are urgently needed to (a) assess the risks of the longline fishery in terms of non compliance; and (b) report on the application of inspections and sanctions for the purse seine fleet.
• Principle 1: Harvest control rules and tools established for all Indonesian commercial fisheries in WCPFC, with equivalent measures in Archipelagic Waters (PI 1.2.3 / 1.2.2).
61
Specific actions relating to these include:
o Target reference points agreed and applied across the range of the stock (Skipjack and Yellowfin) including AW. The setting of RPs, should also be consistent with the RFMO CMMs and take uncertainties into account
o The application of CMM 2014-‐01. Or its replacement, to the purse seine and longline fisheries in the EEZ
o Development of management arrangements for other commercial fisheries in AW and the EEZ, including establishing a system of effort control on pole-‐and-‐line, handline and other methods such as troll and gill net
o Ensuring that the methods to be implemented are supported by an evaluation system to measure the effective application of the tools.
Other areas requiring a conditional pass:
• Principle 2: Primary and secondary species information available (PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3) • Principle 2: An assessment of the importance of bigeye tuna in the longline catch to ensure
the level of catch dependency, <2% or 2-‐5% vulnerable (PI 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) • Principle 2: Adoption of measures for BET (primary species) that are compatible with
measures applied by WCPFC, or more specifically that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI.
• Principle 2: All other secondary species outcome status analysed through risk assessment (2.2.1)
• Principle 2: The shark decree expanded to ensure that WCPFC listed species (silk and OWT sharks) and IUCN vulnerable and endangered species are not retained, as well as a measure to ensure that no shark finning takes place on board
• Principle 2: A review of baitfish sources and the status (PSA) of these fisheries • Principle 2: ETP species information available (2.3.3) • Principle 2: The application of management measures to ensure non retention of other
protected species (e.g. turtles) (PI 2.2.2) • Principle 2: Habitat information available and outcome status analysed (PI 2.3.3/2.3.1) • Principle 3: National tuna management plan incorporating short-‐term objectives for purse
seine fisheries (PI 3.2.1), and the objectives refined to ensure a cohesive plan, which contain measurable outcomes.
• Principle 3: Compliance risk assessment for longline fisheries completed (PI 3.2.3), along with a demonstration of the effectiveness of the control systems applied.
62
Table 24: Indonesian Pacific longline BMT report sheet
Principle ComponentExpected Scoring
Category: Year 5
Actual Scoring Category: Year 5 Status
≥80 ≥80 On Target
--- ---
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 60-79 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
≥80 <60 Behind
≥80 ≥80 On Target
27 150 50 7
1.00 0.65
2.1.1 Outcome
2.1.2 Management
1
Outcome
Management
1.1.1 Stock status
1.1.2 Reference points
1.2.1 Harvest Strategy
1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status
2
Ecosystem
Habitats
ETP species
Secondary species
Primary species
2.5.1 Outcome
2.5.2 Management
2.5.3 Information
Performance Indicator
2.3.3 Information
2.3.1 Outcome
2.4.1 Outcome
2.4.2 Management
2.4.3 Information
2.1.3 Information
2.2.1 Outcome
2.2.2 Management
2.2.3 Information
2.3.2 Management
1.2.3 Information and monitoring
Overall BMT Index
3
Governance and Policy
Fishery specific management
system
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
3.1.3 Long term objectives
3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives
3.2.2 Decision making processes
3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement
3.2.4 Management performance evaluation
Total number of PIs equal to or greater than 80Total number of PIs 60-79Total number of PIs less than 60
3.1.1 Legal and customary framework
63
Table 25: Indonesian Pacific longline BMT index summary table
Figure 17: Indonesian Pacific longline scoring category overview
Figure 18: Indonesian Pacific longline progress tracker
Section 3: Revised FIP Action Plan A revised FIP Logframe is provided in Appendix 2. This is a review document based on the achievement of milestones (Section 1), and identification of areas that require strengthening. The specified activities remain unchanged, but in some cases, milestones have been added to reflect specific differences between the RFMOs and where the Government of Indonesia is required to implement specific actions (also defined as milestones). The Logframe contains 8 outcomes, the same number of activities (18) as per the original Action Plan, with the number of milestones achieved remaining constant at 21, but very significant advances taking place during the time of the
Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3Scoring Level Number of PIs Number of PIs Number of PIs
≥80 15 3 7 560-79 5 0 4 1<60 7 2 4 1
BMT Index 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.79
All PIs
15 3 7
5
5 0 4
1 7
2 4
1
All PIs Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
Scoring Category Overview
<60
60-79
≥80
0.54 0.54
0.65
1.00
0.54
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
BMT Progress Tracker
Expected
Actual
64
review. The milestone timelines have been revised to reflect revised expectations (and integrated into the FIP tracking document). The project goals are as follows:
• Stock status and fisheries management: To ensure that the tuna catches do not exceed sustainable levels
• Ecosystem management: To promote the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management
• Governance systems: To strengthen governance systems in the Indonesia’s Tuna fishery The eight outcomes are as follows:
1. Stock status improved and reference points applied in management 2. Tuna management strategies applied 3. Data collection and information systems strengthened 4. Tuna research plan in place 5. Retained species subject to a management strategy 6. Legal framework implemented 7. Fishery specific management objectives applied 8. Effective application of compliance systems The specific activities will be addressed in the section below.
GOAL 1. Stock status and fisheries management
Outcome 1 Stock status improved and reference points applied in management Only some activities and milestones have been achieved, with some critical issues still to be resolved. These are the implementation of the WCPFC harvest strategy by Indonesia, the creation of a harvest strategy for the Indian Ocean and Archipelagic waters (WPP 713, 714, 715) Another feature is that the WCPFC bigeye stock is now below the PRI, and the timelines for achieving this outcome will not conform to the MSC standard for recovery. This now means that WCPFC bigeye is relegated to a primary (P2) species. IOTC bigeye is still above the PRI. Activity 1.1: Support training in stock assessment modelling for senior scientists and graduates The associated milestones are: Date
expected Current status
Milestone 1 Trained stock assessment personnel deployed OR Training in stock assessment completed
Q3 2012 Completed
Milestone 2 Indonesian scientists attending RFMO scientific meetings Q4 2012 Completed and ongoing
Milestone 3 Training P4KSI and University scientists in Ecosystem modeling Q4 2016
Completed and ongoing
Milestone 4 Specific application of ecosystem modeling relevant to Indonesia waters Q4 2016
Completed and ongoing
Assigned stakeholders WCPFC and IOTC with MMAF and P4KSI participation
65
Priority High Status Strengthening Indonesian scientific capacity Timeframe 2013-‐2016 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.4: Stock assessment Activity 1.2: Regional and national reference points adopted and formulated into harvest strategy The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 5 Explicit LRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna
Q3 2013 Completed
Milestone 6 Explicit TRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna
Q4 2017 Ongoing
Milestone 7 Explicit LRPs and TRPs set at IOTC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna Q2 2015 Interim TRPs
established
Milestone 8 Indonesia incorporates these Reference Points into the national tuna management strategy, including waters under its direct sovereignty – territorial and archipelagic waters.
Q4 2015 Workshop structure in process
Assigned stakeholders WCPFC and IOTC with MMAF and P4KSI participation Priority High Status Indonesia adopting of RPs at WCPFC and IOTC Timeframe 2013-‐2015 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.1/1.2.2 Harvest strategy and harvest control rules
Outcome 2: Tuna management strategies applied Activity 2.1: Harvest strategy incorporates LRPs (as above) and is responsive to the state of the stocks As reference points are set, these will need to be linked specifically to management actions and the harvest strategy covering the range of fisheries. Indonesia is bound by these reference points in its EEZ fishery, and as such effort controls and management measures will need to be applied to all tuna fisheries operating in Indonesian waters (EEZ and AW). This will include purse seine and longline fisheries with limits set on WCPO EEZ purse seine effort and longline, restricted by bigeye quota. Compatible management measures will also need to be set for other commercial fisheries operating in AW. Interim reference points have been set but a collective strategy still requires development. RFMO resolutions (WCPFC CMM 2014-‐01 and IOTC Resolution IOTC–2015–S19 ), and any subsequent adjustment to tuna management strategies are binding for the participants in each fishery. For the Pacific this includes a number of obligations relating specifically to yellowfin and skipjack tuna as contained in CMM 2013-‐01: Purse seine
66
• A four month (July, August, September and October) prohibition of setting on FADs shall be in place for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and high seas between 20N and 20S in the Convention Area27;
• Submitting a FAD management Plan • Binding limits for purse seine fishing effort, including for Indonesia • CCMs are encouraged to take measures not to increase their catch of yellowfin tuna • 100% observer coverage • Catch retention of all target tuna species
Longline
• Restricting the catch of BET at 5,889 tonnes. Other fisheries (Pole-‐and-‐line, handline and troll)
• CCMs shall take necessary measures to ensure that the total effort and capacity of their respective other commercial tuna fisheries for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna but excluding those fisheries taking less than 2,000 tonnes of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack, shall not exceed the average level for the period 2001-‐2004 or 2004.
• CCMs shall provide the Commission with estimates of fishing effort for these other fisheries for 2013 and future years.
The harvest strategy for the Indian Ocean responds to the status of stocks within the defined Kobe plots for the respective species, but these stocks are not subject to overfishing. Harvest control rules have yet to be developed for these species. Indonesia will also be bound to implement compatible measures for its archipelagic waters. CLS is evaluating the biomass levels for these areas and management measures will need to demonstrate compatibility with the WCPFC Convention ‘the measures adopted and applied by it to highly migratory fish stocks within areas under its national jurisdiction do not undermine the effectiveness of measures adopted by the Commission under this Convention in respect of the same stocks (Article 8, WCPC 2000 (the Convention). The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 9 Indonesia incorporates these Reference Points into the national tuna management strategy, including in waters under its direct sovereignty – territorial and archipelagic;
Q1 2016 Under development
Milestone 10a Agree action for ‘other commercial’ fisheries including compatible measures implemented for Archipelagic waters (based on CMM objectives);
Q4 2016 To be provided for WCPFC 2015
Milestone 10b Mitigation measures implemented for bigeye (Longline and purse seine) that are likely to work
Q1 2016 FAD limit in place but not applied
Milestone 11a Compliance reporting to IOTC and WCPFC demonstrates national effectiveness. Q2 2015 Ongoing
27 The limit allows for an exemption in October to vessels adopting overall FAD limits (Attachment A). Indonesia is not included in this provision.
67
Milestone 11b Compliance reporting implemented for measures applied inside national jurisdiction Q2 2016
To be implemented
Assigned stakeholders MMAF (SDI) Priority High Status Strengthening existing strategy Timeframe Q4 2013 and ongoing probably until Q4 2016 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.1 Harvest strategy
Activity 2.2: Harvest tools adopted This component falls to the explicit responsibility of MMAF (SDI) but, for vessels less than 30 GT, with delegated responsibility to Provincial Dinas (DKP). MMAF are required to monitor the uptake of EEZ purse seine days, along with the catch of BET for the longline sector. Compatible measures will have to be developed for AW fisheries – purse seine, longline, pole-‐and-‐line and handline, which ensure that effort does not increase from the years 2001-‐2004. Limits set for AW are the explicit responsibility of the Indonesian government and should not undermine the effectiveness of measures adopted by the Commission. Possible measures may include either or input restrictions -‐ vessel days scheme, or output -‐ fixed quotas for purse seine, pole-‐and-‐line, handline, longline and ringnet vessels, may be linked to the average 2001-‐04 or 2004 levels. The basis for establishing measures would have to conform to the decision making processes (3.2.2) which take account of relevant information, not least, the appropriate scientific advice. MFMR will also be required to monitor the application of measures at Provincial and national level, for reporting of compliance of these measures to WCPFC and the Technical Compliance Committee. An annual report will be submitted from DKP Provinces to MMAF. The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 12a
Conduct a workshop, involving stakeholders, to explore input and output controls including FAD management, quotas and effort limits following the CMM and IO Resolutions in the relevant fisheries (PS, LL and other commercial)
Q2 2014
3 workshops completed, with 2 remaining for 2015
Milestone 12b Harvest tools should take account of the main uncertainties (i.e may be set at precautionary levels) Q4 2015
Included as part of the strategy development
Milestone 13 Update decree to support the implementation of management tools, and provide guidance to DKP Provinsi on implementation of measures
Q1 2015 Not commenced
Milestone 14 Undertake and assess evidence that the measures established are effective Q1 2016 Not
commenced Assigned stakeholders MMAF Priority High Status Undertaking a new activity Timeframe 2014 to 2016 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools
68
Outcome 3: Data collection and Information systems strengthened Collection of catch and landings data for the Indonesian oceanic tuna fisheries is undertaken by MMAF (SDI) and passed to P4KSI. A number of other NGO and donor funded initiatives have added to the data collection process. Information from the Pacific is passed to the Oceanic Fisheries. Programme of SPC and incorporated into the annual stock assessments. This includes catches taken in archipelagic waters. Progress in this area has been facilitated by the West Pacific East Asia Oceanic Fisheries Management Project (WPEA OFM) and includes all the main industrial fisheries (purse seine, longline and pole-‐and-‐line catch data), and is being strengthened in other areas (handline and troll). A comprehensive range of information on stock structure (age, size, and sex), stock productivity, growth curves, and fleet composition is available to monitor and assess stock status in respect to the WCPO, but there are still uncertainties on the status of information from coastal fisheries. Indonesia has been judged to be non-‐compliant when reporting to IOTC in a number of areas: list of Active vessels 10/08, list of Authorized vessels 24 metres in length overall or more 07/02, coastal and surface fisheries 10/02 and observer reporting (5%) 11/04. There is still some uncertainty about the fleet composition in Indonesia, with both national, provincial and district licensing of fishing vessels. Three issues exist here in that there is no composite data base, vessels may be licensed in more than one FMA and that some larger vessels > 30 GT are registered in the province, when they should be on the national data base. Port sampling is now being undertaken by the two national research centres, including stomach contents, and this information will support Ecosystem modelling applied to Indonesia and SPC as a whole. The national observer scheme needs to be brought up the standard of international requirements. Indonesia’s observer programme is not presently authorised by WCPFC, and training has not been undertaken to Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer (PIRFO) standards (.http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/observer-‐form). Logbook data collection is now being implemented across the range of the fleet. This is facilitated by Decree, but is slow progress in its adoption. Activity 3.1: Comprehensive catch data are collected in standard format. The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 15 Data collection system in place for the principal fishing methods (PS and LL) Q1 2012 Completed
Milestone 16 Strengthen reporting systems from Province to MMAF Q3 2013 Completed Milestone 17 Logbook awareness and training workshops Q3 2014 Ongoing
Milestone 18 All tuna catch data collected from all methods by 2014 and transmission of all data to SPC and IOTC
Q4 2014 Ongoing
Assigned stakeholders MMAF/P4KSI supported by WPEA II Priority High Status Expanding from existing activity Timeframe 2012-‐2014 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.3 Information
69
Activity 3.2: Port sampling programmes covering growth parameters and trophic issues undertaken will provide data on, and will be established in the major tuna fishery ports. The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 19 Port specific sampling on growth parameters commences in principal WCPO and IO ports
Q1 2012 Completed
Milestone 20 Port sampling extended to include to trophic data (stomach contents) from main fisheries
Q4 2013 Completed
Assigned stakeholders P4KSI, supported by WPEA Priority High Status Expanding from existing activity Timeframe 2012-‐2013 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.3 Information Activity 3.3: Observer programme consistent with RFMO requirements The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 21 Observer training programme established in line with RFMO obligations Q4 2014
Insufficient evidence
Milestone 22 Comprehensive observer scheme applied to all those vessels required to have observers on board in conformity with the CMMs and Resolutions
Q4 2014 Insufficient evidence
Milestone 23 Extension of observer scheme to include Territorial and AW Q1 2016 Legislation in place
Assigned stakeholders P4KSI, supported by WPEA Priority High Status Expanding from existing activity Timeframe 2014-‐2016 (Timeframe extended) MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.3 Information Activity 3.4: Integrated vessel data base covering District, Provincial and National Fishing vessels The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 24 Integrated national data base on vessel registration and logbook Q4 2015 Ongoing
Milestone 25 Implement an MoU between MMAF/DK Provinsi and SEACOM the 30 GT limits are being effectively applied
Q4 2015
In process and likely to achieve an outcome
70
Assigned stakeholders MMAF, SEACOM, DKP Provinsi and District Priority High Status Expanding from existing activity Timeframe 2014 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 1.2.3 Information
Outcome 4: Tuna Research Plan in place A Research Plan needs to be prepared which provides a coherent and strategic approach to research and information needs across all three sustainability principles, in a timely and reliable manner. This integrated plan takes account of national and international requirements and obligations, and is supported by national government funding. The plan should include the following components, in all cases backed by an increased commitment to data collection to fill the considerable existing gaps in knowledge:
• Information gathering, review and interpretation of available information to identify information gaps and guide research planning; Tactical focus on critical target and retained species, recognizing that there is currently insufficient focus on the regional/migratory nature of these stocks;
• Overall risk assessment, with a strong focus on retained/bycatch and ETP species; • Application of ecosystem models; • Capacity building to support all activities; • Raising awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and
national level • Periodic review and assessment of the research plan (and subject to an external review
process).
Activity 4.1: Preparation of a 5 year Research Programme The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 26 National Research Plan in place for WCPO and IO tunas Q4 2013 Completed
Milestone 27 Raising awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and national level
Q4 2013 Completed
Milestone 28 Research outputs subject to review Q4 2013 Completed Working Group P4KSDI, BRPL, SDI, local fisheries schools, universities, RFMOs, external
research bodies Priority Intermediate Status Expanding from existing activities Timeframe 2013 MSC Performance Indicator(s) Intermediate:
3.2.4 Research Plan (Now incorporated into SG 100 1.2.4)
71
Goal 2. Ecosystem management
Outcome 5: Retained species subject to a management strategy RFMOs require specific management actions to be incorporated into law and implemented. Species covered include non-‐retention of specified shark species (Indian Ocean thresher, Pacific Oceanic whitetip sharks and silky sharks), avoiding incidental capture of whale sharks and releasing turtles and seabirds. In addition, WCPFC applies particular regulations relating to the restriction of finning on all shark species. To pass MSC, WCPFC CMM 2010-‐07 would have to be put in place. Decree number MKDPRI PER 30/MEN/2012 and the EEZ PER.12/MEN/2012 needs to be extended to include all vulnerable and endangered species of shark. Moreover, MSC does not certify fisheries that fail to apply regulations to shark fishing, and carry observers on-‐board to monitor requirements. Indonesia is in the process of completing its National Plans of Action (NPOAs) on sharks and sea turtles. All available information on retained/ bycatch: sharks (non ETP), marlins and other pelagic species, ETP (cetaceans, turtles, seabirds) and baitfish species needs to be gathered and reviewed to identify gaps in knowledge that would be required for risk assessment/Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) and to determine if management strategies need to be implemented for particular fisheries or species (see 3.4). A risk-‐based assessment (RBA) framework needs to be completed for each fishery covering for retained, ETP, and baitfish species as well as habitat impacts. This would draw on the information review as outlined above (3.3), and anticipating data deficiencies, would involve the application of SICA (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis -‐ qualitative analysis, requiring information from stakeholders) and PSA (Productivity-‐Susceptibility Analysis, involving semi-‐quantitative analysis). The RBA would identify ecological risk from species/fishery interactions, recognizing that risk will vary across species and fisheries, and may result in national limits for ETP (and other interactions) being established and enforced (see 3.3 above for the role of observer programmes, which would characterize operational aspects of all tuna fisheries). It would utilize information obtained from the literature (see 3.3) and experience with similar or same species elsewhere in the WCPO and Indian Ocean. Key requirements would be identification of the SICA28 components:
• The main risk bearing activities, which would in this case be fishing; • The spatial scale of the fishery, i.e., the percentage range of the stock that overlaps with the
fishing activity; • The Temporal Scale, the time spent on the fishing grounds where the interactions will occur; • The level of fishing intensity, identifies the direct impacts as defined as Negligible, Minor,
Moderate, Major, Severe and Catastrophic; • Consequence of fishing activity on either population size or reproductive capacity.
Other key requirements would be identification of PSA components:
• Average age of maturity • Average size of maturity • Average maximum age
28 See pages 86-‐106 of the MSC FAM version 2.
72
• Average maximum size • Fecundity • Trophic level • Reproductive capacity • The overlap of the fishery with the species distribution (Availability) • Species overlap with the type of gear (Encounterability) • Gear Selectivity • Post capture mortality
Based on the outputs of the risk assessment, where species caught are identified as medium to high risk, baitfish management actions (a partial strategy) may be required. This may take the form of species specific plans, such as a baitfish management plan, which may have to be elaborated based on the different levels of risk identified. The plan should contain a process for catch monitoring, limiting availability, encounterability and mortality, assessing and reviewing site specific risks, assessing bycatch interactions and determining actions e.g. move on requirements. Key objectives of the plan should contain:
1. Keeping biomass levels of baitfish species above levels where recruitment could be impaired (Species sustainability)
2. Ensuring that any impacts on ecosystem structure and function and kept at acceptable levels (Ecosystem sustainability)
A network of sites will be identified in cooperation with the industry. It is likely that management processes will be pilot tested. From an ecological and biological perspective, the Sites will be linked to each FMA under the control of DKP Provinsi, and local control of DKP District. Best practice actions will be determined in cooperation with the pole-‐and-‐line industry. Special attention will be paid to medium to high risks sites where the intensity levels of fishing activity are likely to be high. Potential issues include:
1. Reduction in abundance of baitfish in individual bait grounds due to the direct capture of baitfish by either the ‘bouke-‐ami’ or ‘bagan’ techniques;
2. Incidental capture of adult and juvenile reef fish, and other non-‐target species (bycatch) during baitfishing operations;
3. Discarding of non-‐biological material (rubbish, debris) from pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans; 4. Spillage of oil/chemicals from pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans; 5. Anchors of pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans dragging causing damage to surrounding habitat; 6. Disagreement on payments to bait ground owners and disputes on the distribution or use of
these payments within communities; 7. Negative social impacts of pole-‐and-‐line boats or bagans operating in bait grounds.
73
The strategy will need to be monitored, and the success of any mitigation measures introduced regularly assessed. Management and mitigation must be incorporated into a strategy, which will be different for each fishery and will likely include, inter alia:
• Spatial and seasonal closures; • Changes to gear configurations, to minimize interactions with juveniles and at-‐risk species
e.g. hook types, minimum mesh sizes, maximum gear dimensions etc.; • Non-‐target species catch limits;
These measures will be incorporated into the National Tuna Management Plan (NTMP). Activity 5.1: RFMO Bycatch management systems implemented The associated milestones are: Date
expected Current status
Milestone 29b Relevant CMMs and Resolutions on sharks and sea turtles applied
Q4 2015 Only partially implemented
Milestone 29b Eliminate shark finning on board vessels
Q4 2015 Not implemented
Working Group RFMO/MMAF SDI Priority High Status Expanding from existing activities Timeframe To be implemented immediately (early 2014) MSC Performance Indicator(s) High:
2.1.2 Primary species management 2.3.2 ETP species management 2.4.2 Habitat management
Activity 5.2: Environmental risks assessed for retained, ETP species and habitats using risk based methodology The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 30 Commence data collection programme on primary and ETP species Q4 2015 Ongoing
Milestone 31 Environmental risks assessed through workshop processes Q4 2015 To be
organized
Milestone 32 Retained species, ETP and habitat mitigation measures introduced across the range of Indonesian fisheries Q4 2016 To be
organized
Milestone 33 A review of the management implementation measures introduced, and a strengthening of the rules of application, when appropriate
Q4 2017 To be organized
Working Group P4KSI, BRPL, MMAF SDI, MDPI, AP2HI Priority High
74
Status Expanding from existing activities Timeframe Up until Q1 2016 MSC Performance Indicator(s) High:
2.1.1 Primary and secondary species assessment 2.1.2 Primary and secondary species management 2.1.3 Primary and secondary species information 2.3.1 ETP species assessment 2.3.3 ETP species information 2.3.2 ETP species management 2.4.1 Habitats information 2.4.2 Habitat management 2.4.3 Habitat information
Activity 5.3: Baitfish management mitigation systems developed and implemented The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 34 Set up site specific monitoring system for baitfish catches: Enumerator training, catch trends and composition and collection of PSA variables
Q4 2015 Ongoing
Milestone 35 Set up site specific monitoring system for baitfish catches: Enumerator training, catch trends and composition and collection of PSA variables
Q4 2015 To be organized
Milestone 36a Baitfish management plans (mitigation) developed for pole-‐and-‐line (and longline/handline if required)
Q4 2016 To be organized
Milestone 37b Evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy Q4 2017 To be
implemented Assigned stakeholders P4KSI/MMAF, AP2HI, Universities, Provincial and District Dinas Priority High Status Undertaking a new activity Timeframe Q1 2014-‐Q4 2016 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 2.1.2 (c) Secondary (baitfish) species management
Goal 3. Governance Systems Outcome 6: Legal framework implemented Indonesia is now a cooperating member of both WCPFC and IOTC. Long term objectives are articulated in the Fisheries Master Plan, and supporting legislation. These objectives include reference to stock sustainability and the precautionary approach to fisheries management (Decree PER.15/MEN/2012). Indonesia also applies the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM), which now forms a core objective of the Tuna Action Plan. It is also important to ensure that International actions are not only supported at national level but carry to provincial governance.
75
National consultation systems are in place through the Tuna Commission and FKPPS. These ensure that national actions are also designated to the Fisheries Management Areas.
MMAF is also in the process of strengthening its decision-‐making systems. Decisions are now required to take account of scientific advice and monitoring processes are in place to ensure that conservation principles are followed.
Activity 6.1: Core legislation strengthened to include Precautionary and Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 37 Refine objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at national and local level
Q4 2014 Completed
Milestone 38 Ensure national governance principles are applied through provincial legislation and decrees Q1 2013 Completed
Milestone 39 Indonesia becomes a full Member of WCPFC and is instrumental in formulating strong precautionary policies at both RFMOs and implements decisions
Q4 2013 Completed
Assigned stakeholders MMAF Priority High Status EAFM still to be endorsed (2014) Timeframe Q4 2014 MSC Performance Indicator(s) 3.1.3 Short and long term objectives
Activity 6.2: Consultative and Organisational structure and functions clearly implemented The associated milestones are:
Date expected Current status
Milestone 40 FKPPS tuna sub management organisation established with defined roles and responsibilities Q1 2012 Completed
Milestone 41
Evidence that the FKPPS and MMAF consultation and decision making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions
Q3 2012 Completed
Working Group MMAF (SDI), FKPPS, Tuna Commission. Priority High Status Expanded from current activity Timeframe All actions in place MSC Performance Indicator(s) High
3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities
76
Activity 6.3: DGCF fully implementing decisions that take account of research, information and evaluation, through the management plan and RFMO CMMs The associated milestone is:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 42 All components of KKP/DKP Provinsi and District fully implementing decisions supported by the Council and promulgated through the management plan
Q1 2015 Completed
Working Group MMAF (SDI), FKPPS, DKP Provinsi and District Priority High Status Expanded from current activity Timeframe Q1 2015 MSC Performance Indicator(s) High
3.2.2 Decision making Outcome 7: Fisheries specif ic management objectives applied The Fisheries Law (Law 31/2004) lays down a requirement to implement a Fisheries Management Plan. Despite international obligations (as above), and the need to implement a coherent tuna management policy, DGCF MMAF has now completed a Tuna Action Plan which meets the SG 60 scoring criteria, but requires refinement to include fishery specific measurable indicators, and to ensure that the plan covers a comprehensive range of, Short and long term objectives that meet with P1 and P2. Examples of short term objectives might include: Information, identification of risks, strategies and partial management strategies and monitoring of outcomes. The client is encouraged to reengage with DGCF and suggest using a consultant with expertise in Management plans to strengthen the existing document to meet with the requirements. The management plan must contain well-‐defined measurable and short-‐term objectives, which achieve the outcomes of sustainable fisheries, and incorporate the ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The Management Plan should incorporate the following:
• Definition of short term, fishery specific goals and outcomes;
• Incorporation of RFMO Conventions;
• Implementing national tools based on a defined harvest strategy;
• Implementing, where appropriate, additional precautionary management measures;
• Developing bycatch mitigation measures, when needed29, across the range of the tuna fisheries operating within Indonesia;
• Adopting a Management Plan review process (internal and external).
Activity 7.1: Fisheries Management Plan operating
29 The risk assessment will determine for each fishing method, if management mitigation measures are required
77
The associated milestones are:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 4530
Tuna management plan adopted with clear objectives consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, and applied throughout the range of the fishery
Q4 2014 Completed but requiring refinement
Milestone 46 Assessment of the plans performance and evidence that it is achieving its objectives Q4 2016
Subject to consultation
Working Group MMAF (SDI), P4KSDI, PUP, PSDKP, KTI and stakeholder associations
(ASTUIN, ATLI, Agency of MAF in province and district, dll) and WWF. Priority High Status New Timeframe 2014 MSC Performance Indicator(s) High and Intermediate:
3.2.1 Fishery specific short and long term measures 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 3.2.1 Fishery-‐specific Management System
Outcome 8: Effective application of compliance systems Enforcement systems in Indonesia have been upgraded through provision of training to PSDKP officers, a strengthening of the penalty system and application of VMS to vessels > 30 GT. However, the compliance system for the tuna sector does not appear to have been tested. PSDKP should define the most likely types of infringement according to seriousness, and their capacity to control them, along with partner organizations (the Navy, Marine Police, KKP, DKPP, DKPD and community groups) and plan to deal with them by undertaking a risk analysis. The principal risks would be divided into the following sections: Strategic Risk, Specific Risk, Likelihood, and Consequence, Risk Rating and MCS Adequacy, and Mechanisms for Improved Action. Reporting systems are in place (MMAF, Marine Fisheries Statistics) but these need to clearly show compliance levels for the specified fishing groups – purse seine, longline, pole-‐and-‐line, handline and troll. The overall level of offences detected also seemingly illustrates how little enforcement action there is to these fisheries. Under the Supervision of DKPD and PSDKP, fishers should agree to a set of standards, and allocate responsibilities to a number of community control officers. A TURF System is being explored to be implemented in nearshore fisheries. Lessons learned may be used to develop the potential of TURF implementation for coastal tuna fisheries. Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI) and WWF are currently developing some local village capacity but these have not evolved to management entities. Activity 8.1: Compliance action to be implemented based on risk analysis and determine enforcement priorities across the range of tuna fisheries The associated milestones are:
30 Milestone 43 and 44 (Incentives has been removed(
78
Date expected Current status
Milestone 47 MCS risk analysis undertaken for all tuna fisheries Q1 2015 To be implemented
Milestone 48 Industry awareness of MCS rules, sanctions and compliance actions
Q1 2015 To be implemented
Milestone 49 Reports prepared and publicly available identifying violations detected Q4 2015 To be refined
Working Group PSDKP, Agency of MAF in province and district/POKMASWAS Priority High Status New Timeframe Completed by 2015 MSC Performance Indicator(s) High Priority
3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement Activity 8.2: Strengthen community based management schemes in small scale fisheries The associated milestone is:
Date expected
Current status
Milestone 50 Community organizations developed in artisanal fisheries Q4 2016 To be implemented
Working Group POKMAS, PSDKP, DKP Province, DKP District Priority High Status Ongoing Timeframe Operating within 12 months to 3 years (because of the wide network
of coastal communities) but ongoing on a continuous basis MSC Performance Indicator(s) High Priority
3.2.3. Compliance & enforcement
79
Section 4: Guidance The following text may be used in the form of guidance to the relevant institute identified in the first FIP workshop, as the responsible organization. MMAF and partner organizations may choose to adopt alternative approaches to achieving the specific milestones provided. 4.1 institutional strengthening: governance, consultation and decision making P4KSI BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, P4KSI and BBPL, will endeavour to ensure that specific activities and milestones have been met that are consistent with MSC guidance. Most specifically this will relate to stock assessment and achieving responsible fishery management outcomes with the setting of Limit and Target Reference Points and providing input into Ecosystem modeling carried out by the international science providers such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Commission (SPC). The work of the Indonesian research institutions will provide key input into RFMO Scientific Committees, MMAF, the Tuna Fisheries Commission and FKPPS and will support MMAF and FKPPS in developing a national and provincial management strategy consistent with both RFMO requirements and that will also meet the MSC standard by year 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Global object ive The expected position by year 5 is that:
• There is a robust assessment of the stock status for the principal tuna stocks (SKJ, YFT and BET) in Indonesian waters;
• The stock assessment results will demonstrate that the stocks are at a level that will sustain high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing;
• A comprehensive range of information on stock structure, stock productivity, stock abundance, fishery removals and other environmentally related information is available;
• The expected position by year 2016 is that relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.
• A fishery research plan exists that addresses the information needs for management.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the Research Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources (P4KSI) and the Marine Fisheries Research
80
Agency (BBPL) to provide input to appropriate stock assessments in support of regional and national fishery managers. Requested Services P4KSI/BBPL will provide services supported by in-‐house scientists for a period of 5 years and beyond, contributing to assessment of stock status and guiding the implementation of a number of measures that support a regional and national Harvest Control Strategy (HCS) for skipjack (SKJ), yellowfin (YFT) and bigeye (BET) tuna in the Pacific and Indian Ocean including the EEZ, archipelagic and territorial waters of Indonesia. A number of specific outputs need to be introduced, and maintained, along with supporting measures, which require deliberation by MMAF and supporting FKPPs in order to set harvest strategies. These are:
• Contributing to the creation of Limit Reference Points (LRPs) and Target Reference Points for all skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas, at the relevant RFMOs;
• Target Reference Points are set such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome throughout national waters, extending from territorial waters to the EEZ;
• That the Reference Point takes into account of uncertainties and the ecological role of the stock.
As part of the institution’s undertakings, the team of scientists and technicians will: • Prepare a Research Plan for the tuna and other retained species caught by fisheries (Which
also includes ecosystem research (section 3.3); • Identify information requirements and gaps which will support knowledge of stock structure,
stock productivity, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental variables;
• Strengthen the data collection and port sampling system on stock structure, stock productivity, stock abundance, trophic data and fishery removals, by preparing a standard sampling protocol,
• Develop a comprehensive observer scheme to international standards (equivalent to established Regional Observer Programme (ROP standards) which will include adoption of the PIRFO observer modules, implement a training programme, and initiate an observer monitoring programme (with established debriefing and verification processes).
• Strengthen the system of data collection to ensure that there is a high confidence that the information on tuna is robust for data collected from the full range of national tuna fisheries (purse seine, handline, troll, pole-‐and-‐line and longline fisheries.
• Undertake training in stock assessment, ecosystem modeling (MULTIFAN-‐CL, ECOSIM. ECOPATH, SEAPODYM) to promote a higher level of input from Indonesian scientists into RFMO Scientific Committee deliberations;
• Undertake training in risk assessment to assist in the development of strategies to ensure sustainability of other commercial species caught, as well as Endangered, Threatened and Protected species (other fishery removals), and habitats;
• Support increasing awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and national level to all stakeholders;
• Implement a fisheries information system to record, integrate, and analyse the potentially large quantity of data, according to an agreed plan that integrates data collection from across the range of fisheries and allows for access and compatibility with data bases.
81
• Provide technical advice to the Tuna Commission, FKPPS and MMAF, which will lead to the establishing of a robust and precautionary harvest strategy for Indonesian fisheries, and will support the extension of RFMO Commission Management Measures to Indonesian waters (as required).
The available information should be: • of a standard to quantifiably support the P4KSI/BBPL stock data and assessment
requirements; • sufficiently accurate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage tuna and to assess
whether the strategy is achieving its objective; • support a comprehensive strategy on managing retained and bycatch (other fishery
removals); • continually collected to detect any increase in risk to tuna, retained and bycatch species31
The outputs that must be achieved are as follows: • A P4KSI/BRPL Research Programme containing the above services (and following
international best practice and MSC requirements) established by year 1 • Scientists and technicians engaged in Benoa and Bitung • Trained scientists in stock assessment techniques completed by South Pacific Commission
or equivalent organisation e.g. NOAA or CSIRO • Port sampling data collection system full operational in all the main tuna ports • Middleman and processor data sampling system (linked to species, sizes) fully operational
within 1 year in Bitung; Kendari, Ambon, Sorong, Benoa, Jakarta and Padang • A scientific observer programme fully operational across the range of fisheries in the Indian
Ocean and those fishing in Pacific, Archipelagic and territorial waters, that follows the Regional Observer Programme Standards;
• Longer term educational needs identified and implemented (University of Bogor as appropriate institution);
• Target and limit reference available for both Western Central Pacific and Indian Ocean by 2015;
• Research awareness programmes (posters) implemented in the main tuna fishing centres by year 3 (Bitung, Benoa, Padang, Pelabuhan Ratu and Sorong);
• An annual review of the research programme, and by year 4 have completed an external review.
• Attending science committee meetings in RFMO.
The following funding assumptions are made and are to be explored in more depth • Senior scientists and technicians are to be employed by P4KSI/BBPL. It is expected that
funding (equipment, training) will be supported primarily by national government;
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING
Milestones Reporting means of verification Standard
achieved 1 Trained stock assessment personnel Doctorates, SPC and CSIRO training √
31Bullets 3 & 4 are added to ensure that the LogBook system complies with the need to collect sufficient data to detect any increase in risk for bycatch species as part of the Ecosystem Approach.
82
deployed OR Training in stock assessment completed
workshop reports, and training certificates if available
2 Indonesian scientists attending RFMO scientific meetings
WCPFC and IOTC SC meeting reports √
3 Training P4KSI and University scientists in Ecosystem modeling
Reference from BPL showing that tuna are low trophic species
√
4 Specific application of ecosystem modelling relevant to relevant to Indonesia waters.
Publications from BPL / University showing that tuna are low trohic species, as well as ecosystem impacts from the fishery
√
5 Explicit LRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and Bigeye tuna
WCPFC meeting reports √
6 Explicit TRPs finalized at WCPFC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna
WCPFC meeting reports Q4 2017
7 Explicit LRPs and TRPs set at IOTC for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna
IOTC Resolutions √
8 Indonesia incorporates these Reference Points into the national tuna management strategy, including n waters under its direct sovereignty – territorial and archipelagic
National Decree
Q4 2015
19 Port specific sampling on growth parameters commences in principal WCPO and IO ports.
Port sampling reports √
20 Port sampling extended to include to trophic data (stomach contents) from main fisheries
Port sampling reports √
26 National Research Plan in place for WCPO and IO tunas
Research Plan √
27 Raising awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and national level
Workshop reports. P4KSI website √
28 Research outputs subject to review Reviewer reports √ Timeline priority Achieved 2015 2015-‐
2016
4.2 MMAF data collection system SDI MMAF BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, DG Capture Fisheries, MMAF, will
83
strengthen its vessel database, catch and effort recording programme. This will allow fishery managers and scientists to incorporate catch and effort data and fleet composition into management advice and will support the MMAF and FKPPS in proposing a management strategy that will comply with national and international data requirements. DESCRIPTION OF the ASSIGNMENT
Global object ive The expected position by year 2016 is that:
• Information on the nature and extent of target, retained and bycatch species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species;
• A comprehensive range of information on fleet composition, and fishery removals is available
• The expected position by 2016 is that relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is set out the requirements for MMAF (Fishery Resources under DG Capture Fisheries) to provide information that will support identify fishery and bycatch removals and fishing effort that will support stock assessment and monitoring of the effectiveness of the harvest control strategy. The specific requirements are:
• Information is of a standard to quantifiably support the P4KSI/BRPL stock data and assessment requirements;
• Information is sufficiently accurate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage tuna and to assess whether the strategy is achieving its objective;
• That the information available will support a comprehensive strategy on managing retained and bycatch (other fishery removals);
• Sufficient data are continually collected to detect any increase in risk to tuna, retained and bycatch species.
Requested Services MMAF will ensure that accurate and verifiable information is available on catch of tuna and bycatch species, and fleet composition, and that these data are collected to a high standard. A number of specific outputs need to be introduced along with supporting measures, which require deliberation by the Tuna Management Council and the scientific research institution in order to monitor the effectiveness of Harvest strategies and to provide accurate and certifiable information to BRPL. These are:
• Identify the main national, provincial and district supply centres for the range of tuna operations
• Ensure an accurate maintenance of a national data base of vessels by size group and segment across the range of fishery administrations – National, Provincial and District;
• Enter into an MoU with SEACOM; • Develop a catch and effort database operational and supporting interrogation both at
national and RFMO level (e.g. TUFFMAN)
84
• Quantify the spatial extent of FAD deployment, and FAD associated catches in accordance with Indonesia’s commitment to WCPFC CMM 2008-‐01 in preparing a FAD Management Plan;
• Implementing a VMS system across the range of industrial fisheries (purse seine and longline)
• Extending the system of logbook data collection to all vessel size groups over 10 GT; and assigning a system of sample logbooks for vessels under 10 GTs that reflect the ‘size of removals’ (catches by handliners of yellowfin and skipjack by troll being important as a proportion of Indonesia’s total catch);
• Implement a checking procedure to ensure that DKP Provinsi and DKP District fulfil their obligations for submitting verified data on licensed vessels as well logbook returns, for these vessels;
• Devise a system of alternative data provision from industry sources (processing plants, middlemen) to complement and corroborate the catch data collected by MMAF
• Participate in country data entry management training provided by SPC • Extract the relevant information for Indonesian fisheries which can feed into the SPC
database (TUFFMAN) and Indian Ocean equivalent in order to produce regular reports on catch and effort
• Undertake an awareness campaign, supported by P4KSI/BRPL, and WWF, which highlights the importance of data collection of tuna, other retained species and ETPs.
As part of MMAF and DKP Provinsi and District’s undertakings, the team of officers and statisticians will:
• Accurately record licensed fishing vessels of all size groups from National, Provincial and District, cross checking for double counting where vessels move from one management authority to the next
• Train boat captains, middlemen (for small vessel segments (troll & line and hand-‐line) in completing logbooks through a series of workshops
• Strengthen the log-‐book collection system to include the full range of vessel segments • Engage additional DKP enumerators at principal centres to verify and enter data • Provide reports on corresponding data made available from canneries, loining plants and
middlemen • To create a system that records and transmits electronic information from across the range
of data collection systems, including fish buyers and processors • Provide reports on vessel numbers and catches by species.
As part of the comanagement process fish processing plants and their associated middlemen will support the data collection system for smaller craft (< 10 GT).
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING
Milestones Reporting means of verification Standard
achieved 15 Data collection system in place for the principal
fishing methods (PS and LL) Indonesian specific work on ecosystem impacts, or integration into SPC papers
√
85
16 Strengthen data collection at provincial and district level by commencing the development of an integrated tuna data base; and establishing MoUs with the principal supplying companies for all provincial and district fisheries
Report on operating data base; MoUs with private sector
√
17 Logbook awareness and training workshops Logbook awareness workshop reports √
18 All tuna catch data collected from all methods by 2014 and transmission of all data to SPC and IOTC (2015)
SPC scientific papers indicating 'good information' from Indonesia. √
21 Observer training programme established in line with RFMO obligations
Observer training curriculum based on PIRFO standards
Q4 2015
22 Comprehensive observer scheme applied to all those vessels required to have observers on board in conformity with the CMMs and Resolutions
RFMO Summary SPC observer reports include Indonesia Q4 2015
23 Extension of observer scheme to include Territorial and AW
Decree specifying observer coverage in AW and territorial waters. Summary observer reports.
√
24 Integrated national data base on vessel registration and logbook
Fleet Register containing all Indonesian vessels, or DKP District registries for small scale vessels
√
25 Evidence that the 30 GT limits are being effectively applied
MoU between SEACOM, MMAD (SDI) and DKP
√
30 Commence data collection programme on retained, bycatch and ETP species
Logbooks and Statistical reports. Including observer reports\ and evidence that it is used for retained, bycatch and ETP species monitoring and risk assessment
√
34 Information on bait use and extraction collected Baitfish purchase ledgers and Report with species, quantities and maps
Q4 2015
Timeline priority Achieved 2015 2016
4.3 Development of harvest strategies rules and tools and bycatch mitigation measures MMAF (SDI) BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, MMAF and P4KSI will be responsible for advocating the introduction of RFMO management measures, as appropriate, or designing equivalent harvest strategies for archipelagic and territorial waters linked to the LRPs set, to be
86
applied across the range of Indonesian fisheries, and administrations, including DKP Provinsi and DKP Districts; and the application of fishery specific ecosystem management measures. This work will support the Tuna Management Council in proposing a management strategy in order to meet the MSC standard by year 2016. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Global object ive The expected position by year 2016 is that:
• There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place in Indonesia which is responsive to the state of the stock, reflects the requirements of RFMO Conventions and is designed to achieve stock management objectives set as target and limit reference points
• There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that are consistent with International harvest strategies and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the limit reference points are approached, and provide a management mechanism to allow recovery of depleted stocks
• The management system provides incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes for sustainable fishing practices
• There is a strategy in place for managing retained, bait species, bycatch, ETP species or habitats interactions in order to avoid the risk of serious irreversible harm from the fishery.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the MMAF (DG Capture Fisheries) and P4KSI in relation to implementing a harvest strategy, in cooperation with the FKPPS. Requested Services MMAF and P4KSI will undertake the following tasks in cooperation with the RFMOs and Pacific and Indian Ocean and in partnership with Provincial and District Dinas. Preliminary work will take place through a workshop process using an experienced facilitator with experience in tuna input and output management controls. Implementation and development of Proposed Strategy:
• Endorse the requirements as laid down in the relevant RFMO CMMs and IO Resolutions for EEZ fisheries, including implementation of a purse seine Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) or alternatively output controls Indonesian purse seiners, 100% observer coverage for purse seiners, seasonal closures to the use of FADs for the specified periods and confirming to longline limits
• Continually work with WCPFC and IOTC in the development of RFMO measures, and linking this to Limit and Target Reference Points
• Adopt all associated ecosystem management measures formulated by the RFMOs and finalising National Plans of Action for sharks and sea turtles
• Formulate other fishery specific ecosystem management actions formulated in response to the ecosystem risk assessments and ecosystem management mitigation measures (e.g baitfish management)
• Prepare or finalise NPOAs on ETPs (Sharks, turtles and seabirds), underlined by supporting national Decrees
87
• Undertake a review of all management actions – harvest control tools and ecosystem management actions.
Review of and adoption of proposed management tools: • Evaluate using both an International expert in harvest control (and bycatch mitigation) tools
to work with a highly respected Indonesia counterpart to provide an outline of best practice guidelines
• Coordinate a workshop comprising key stakeholders and nominated support experts to identify the appropriate tools for each fishery
• Establishing a limited entry licensing scheme for all vessels over 10 GT • Establishing management measures for all other Indonesian tuna fisheries in accordance
with RFMO requirements • Establishing ecosystem management measures compliant with RFMO CMMs (WCPFC) and
Resolutions (IOTC) • Establishing ecosystem management mitigation measures following on from the fishery
specific mitigation processes.
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING
Milestones Reporting means of verification Standard achieved
8 Indonesia incorporates these Reference Points into the national tuna management strategy, including n waters under its direct sovereignty – territorial and archipelagic
National Decree
Q4 2015
9 Indonesia confirms strategy consistent with WCPFC for limiting EEZ PS effort – 500 days; and 5,889 t (BET) LL days
Decrees; and Scientific papers indicating the effectiveness of the strategy
Q4 2015
10a Agree action for 'other commercial’ fisheries including compatible measures implemented for Archipelagic waters (based on CMM objectives)
Resolutions, CMMs and Decrees Q4 2015
10b Mitigation measures implemented for bigeye (Longline and purse seine) that are likely to work
Decree and evidence of application Q1 2016
11a Compliance reporting to IOTC and WCPFC demonstrates national effectiveness
TCC reports √
11b Compliance reporting implemented for measures applied inside national jurisdiction
National evaluation system in place
Q2 2015
12a Conduct a workshop, involving stakeholders, to explore input and output controls including FAD management, quotas and effort limits following the CMM and IO Resolutions in the relevant fisheries (PS, LL and other commercial)
Workshop report & recommendations
Q4 2015
12b Harvest tools should take account of the main uncertainties (i.e may be set at precautionary levels)
Evidence of the precautionary approach applied to the HS
Q4 2015
13 Initiate Decrees that support management tools, and provide guidance to DKP Provinsi on implementation of measures Resolutions, CMMs and Decrees
Q1 2015
14 Undertake and assess evidence that the measures established are effective Resolutions, CMMs and Decrees Q1 2016
29a Relevant CMMs and Resolutions on sharks and sea turtles applied.
WCPFC / IOTC compliance reports and national Decrees Q2 2015
29b Eliminate shark finning on board vessels National Decree Q4 2015
88
37 Refine objectives to ensure that priority is given to sustainable fisheries and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management at national and local level
National and provincial decrees, press statement
√
32 Retained species, ETP and habitat mitigation measures introduced across the range of Indonesian fisheries National Decrees
Q1 2015
33 A review of the management implementation measures introduced, and a strengthening of the rules of application, when appropriate MMAF report on effectiveness
Q1 2016
36a Baitfish management plans (mitigation) developed for pole-‐and-‐line (and longline/handline if required) (See section 5.4.2 (Baitfish))
Baitfish Management Plan Q1 2015
36b Evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy Evaluation report Q4 2016 38 Ensure national governance principles are applied
through provincial legislation and decrees SDI audit reports √
39 Indonesia becomes a full Member of WCPFC and is instrumental in formulating strong precautionary policies at both RFMOs and implements decisions
Decrees incorporating RFMO Resolutions and CMMs
√
Timeline priority Achieved 2015 2016
4.4.1 Bycatch & ecosystem impact analysis: main retained species AP2HI, Universit ies, P4KSI/BBPL/KAPI and NGOs BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, BRPL and KAPI, will set up a Retained Species Assessment Programme (RSAP), supported by AP2HI, MDPI and WWF, which will be responsible for determining risks, and developing management mitigation proposals, that will support the FKPPS in proposing a management strategy that will meet the MSC standard by 2016. DESCRIPTION OF the ASSIGNMENT
Global object ive The expected position by 2016 is that:
• The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to baitfish species, retained and ETP species, or habitats and does not hinder recovery for managing species associated with the tuna ecosystem ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species;
89
• There is a strategy in place for managing retained, bait species, bycatch, ETP species or habitats interactions in order to avoid the risk of serious irreversible harm from the fishery;
• Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of management mitigation strategy.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements the Research organisations, industry associations, NGOs and fishery managers, supported by the University of Bogor (or Provincial Universities) to provide support services. These services, all of which will relate to:
• Collecting information on bycatch and ecosystem interactions; • Exploring management mitigation strategies with stakeholders, including fisher associations,
private sector companies and fisher communities; • Promoting the concept of stakeholder actions; and awareness training.
Requested Services Working with fishing companies the Research organisations will provide services to the DKP Provinsi, FKPPS and associated provincial sub FKPPS. The following outputs must conform to the following principles:
• Ensuring that accurate and verifiable information is available on catches of all retained species, including bait, and ETP species;
• That the information available is sufficient to estimate the risks with respect to productivity and susceptibility limits, including mortalities and injuries to all bycatch species;
• That the distribution of habitat types is known over the range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types;
• That changes in habitat distribution over time are recorded; • Review bycatch mitigation measures appropriate for each fishery which might include:
o Purse seine -‐ increased mesh size, seasonal or area closures, alterations to the design of FADs and on fishing practices, elimination of shark finning on board and best practice handling procedures
o Long line -‐ use of circle hooks, TORI lines and lures, no catch retention of sharks, seasonal or area closures.
o Troll -‐ Tori lines, seasonal and area closures o Handline -‐ FAD management o Pole-‐and-‐line (if required)
• Implement baitfish management plans linked to the pole-‐and-‐line fishery; • Undertake, fishery by fishery, bycatch mitigation stakeholder workshop, working from
international best practice examples; • Raise awareness on bycatch avoidance and ecosystem interactions, and developing a system
that measures the effectiveness of the strategy.
There are four components for this research. Component 1 relates to the activities of the purse seine and longline (and possibly pole-‐and-‐line) segments. This function will be undertaken by P4KSI and BRPL.
90
Component 2 relates to the activities of the handline and troll and pole-‐and-‐line vessels, and any other District level tuna fishing activities. Some of these activities will be subcontracted through Universities to local NGOs. Component 1: Perceived high risk level interactions
• As part of the comprehensive observer scheme (5.2), P4KSI/BBPL will address the International standard modules which relate to the interaction of retained, bycatch species and ETPs. The same observers will receive training, and reporting requirements will form part of the observer monitoring programme (with established debriefing and verification processes).
• P4KSI/BPL will monitor the outputs of the observer data collection system to ensure that there is a high degree of confidence that the information on retained species, bycatch and ETPs is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the these species;
• BBPL will also record longline company sourcing of baitfish stocks outside Indonesia; • BBPL will undertake training in the Risk Based Framework to allow scientists to assess, with
stakeholders, the risks posed to ALL retained, bycatch (billfish, sharks, neritic tunas, mahi mahi and others), bait fish and ETP species identified in the national regulations. This will form part of the training process outlines in Section 3.1.;
• Support awareness of research needs, outcomes and application at district, provincial and national level to all stakeholders;
• KAPI and BRPL will provide technical advice to the FKPPS and MMAF, which will lead to the establishing of a robust and precautionary retained, bycatch, bait fish and ETP management strategies for Indonesian fisheries.
• Make an annual assessment to detect whether there are changes to risk levels for associated bycatch species.
Component 2 Private sector stakeholders, supported by Universities, may engage in a data collection process using Logbooks, observer and Statistical reports and evidence that it is used to retained species monitoring and risk assessment. This information will be used to undertake a risk assessment linked to relate to SICA and PSA32 focusing on the following:
o Perceptions of the range of the tuna stock (Spatial) o Perceptions of the range of other species (Spatial) and interactions, including bait fish
species o Timelines on interactions – seasons, preceding years o Fishing time in days (Temporal) o Levels of fishing intensity and overlap with fishing gear o Gear selectivity o Overlap of species range o Critical species hot spots o Gear loss o Anchoring and mooring
32MSC Fisheries Assessment methodology (pp 101-‐106), http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-‐documents/methodologies/Fisheries_Assessment_Methodology.pdf/viiew
91
o Perception of habitats o Perceptions on size (age, sex, gravid/non gravid) of all species encountered o Changes in detectable change in geographic ranges over time o Post capture mortality
Selected universities/NGOs will work with P4KSI / BRPL and WWF in designing a series of approaches and questions and report templates. Special attention will be paid to the quality of reports, and the need to ensure template presentations that accurately summarise results, which can be verifiable. This should be subject to external peer review, which can include the FIP consultant on request. Selected universities, supported by NGOs will undertake assignments in Participatory Rural Appraisal33 to assess the management implications of the PSA outputs. Field officers or university graduates will subsequently undertake fieldwork in selected communities, under the supervision of an ESC Director, to identify retained, ETP, habitat and bait fish interactions:
• Using village orientated workshops, and working with a Facilitator, DKP District and WWF, the University / NGO will define risks levels (High, Medium and Low) across a range of species – retained, bycatch, bait fish, ETP and habitats;
• Using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), explore the prospects for community orientated bycatch / ecosystem mitigation actions;
• The University will prepare a report on outcomes and recommendations for promotion of community based management mitigation measures to be supported by the FKPPS.
Component 3: • Following the approval of community management initiatives by the FKPPS, the NGOs and
Universities will carry out community workshops. These workshops will be reviewed annually, and will be used to assess the effectiveness of the strategies, including an assessment of any changes in habitat distribution;
• The Plans will be reviewed on an annual basis.
The outputs that must be achieved are as follows: • Data collection, years 1-‐3 • PRA interview template prepared (and approved) • PRA report prepared and submitted to FKPPS by beginning of year 4 • Bycatch mitigation workshops held for each fishery
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING
Milestones Reporting means of verification Standard achieved
30 Commence data collection programme on retained and ETP species
RRA Report and / or Logbooks and Statistical reports. Including observer reports\ and evidence that it is used for retained species monitoring and risk assessment
√
31 Environmental risks assessed for retained species using risk based methodology
Workshop reports, Fisheries Management Plan, Decree and comanagement codes of conduct
Q4 2015
33 http://www.wau.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/H81/H811/Skripten/811308/2_WorldBankparticipation.pdf
92
34 Information on bait use and extraction
(Longline) from abroad and domestic Purchase ledgers Q4 2015
35 Environmental risks assessed on baitfish using risk based methodology (LL)
Risk assessment reports Q4 2015
35 Environmental risks assessed on baitfish using risk based methodology (P&L/HL)
Stock status report from source country
Q4 2015
Timeline priority Achieved 2015 2016 4.4.2 Bycatch & ecosystem impact analys is : baitf ish AP2HI, Provincial universities, MMAF and DKP
BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, the FIP requires the monitoring the interaction of other species (other tunas and tuna like species and ETPs) and habitats, but more importantly, the development of a baitfish management plan. DESCRIPTION OF the ASSIGNMENT The expected position by year 2016 is that:
• The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the baitfish species, retained and ETP species, bycatch or habitats and does not hinder recovery for managing species associated with the tuna ecosystem ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species;
• There is a strategy in place for managing baitfish species and associated bycatch, as well as minimising habitat interactions in order to avoid the risk of serious irreversible harm from the fishery;
• Information on the nature and extent of all species catches (retained, baitfish, bycatch and ETPs) is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of management mitigation strategy.
93
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for AP2HI supported by IPLNF, MMAF and DKP Provinsi and District to implement ecosystem management actions, especially in respect to baitfish management. These actions will relate to:
• Collecting information on retained, and ETP interactions; • Collecting information of baitfish species and associated bycatch; • Undertaking a risk assessment of baitfish species interactions • Preparing a template management plan to be developed by AP2HI for each FMA in
partnership with DKP Provinsi, under the auspices of MMAF and FKPPS; • Eliminating any possible impacts on habitats such as the benthos through anchor dragging,
or interaction with coral reefs; • Supporting the collection of ecosystem related information that will support P4KSI in
assessing ecosystem interactions from the fishery.
Requested Services AP2HI will work with the Universities, BPDSM and MMAF/FKPPS/DKP in collecting data and when appropriate, undertake risk assessments, and develop a baitfish management plan. The core activities will be to:
• Cooperate with MMAF SDI in the continued collection of tuna and tuna like species data; • Work with partners (‘Fishing and Living’ and WWF), in an assessment of ETP and Habitat
interactions; • Engage Universities in recording and transmitting data on ETPs and baitfish, and seeking
their assistance in site specific Rapid Rural Appraisal34; • In cooperation with an International consultant and Universities undertake SICA and PSA of
the baitfish management sites; • With the support of an international consultant, prepare a baitfish management plan
template; • With the support of FKPPS, MMAF and DKP, finalise baitfish management plans for each
FMA; • Implement a baitfish management plan along with the required monitoring processes; • Undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of the plan.
Specif ic tasks Site selection Working with DKP Provinsi and District, AP2HI will map the baitfish extraction sites in each FMA Species identification. Working with a selected University, and assigned enumerators, AP2HI will identify the baitfish species, and any associated bycatches found in bagans and bouke-‐ami. Species will be divided into the following:
• Main baitfish species
• Bycatch species.
Once identified, productivity characteristics35 will be extracted from FishBase.org, following a template provided by the international consultant.
34 http://www.wau.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/H81/H811/Skripten/811308/2_WorldBankparticipation.pdf
94
The University, supported by MMAF BPDSM, will conduct a Rapid Rural Appraisal which will: • Identify the fishing susceptibility attributes36 for each baitfish extraction site which form part
of the PSA
• Identify and record any ETP interactions
• Identify any likely benthic interaction issues (Seabed anchoring/ potential interactions with coral reefs).
International consultant The International consultant (s) will be responsible for four main tasks:
• Supervise the template for the design of RRA questionnaires
• Train the Universities, MMAF (SDI) and DKP fishery managers in SICA and PSA;
• Supervise the scoring of PSA against collated data (FishBase and RRA);
• Work with the University, AP2HI and DKP in identifying low, medium and high risk sites;
• Prepare a management plan template to be used as a FMA bycatch management plan, and supervise, with the support of selected baitfish managers, completion of a pilot baitfish management plan which can be applied as a template for other FMA regions.
FMA Baitfish manager A baitfish manager will be selected from either AP2HI or DKP Provinsi, reporting to FKPPS. The baitfish managers will be responsible for working with all stakeholders in completing each management plan template. EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING The table below represents a sub set of milestones 34, 35, and 36. Milestones Reporting means of verification Timeline
34.1 Set up site specific monitoring system for baitfish catches
Monitoring component to the Baitfish management plan
√
34.2 Enumerator training Training certificates Q4 2015
34.3 Data on catch trends and catch composition by site, including bycatch information Statistical report
Q4 2015
35.1 Identification of species productivity indicators
Summary report on FishBase indicators Q4 205
35.2 Through the application of Rapid Rural Appraisal, collect productivity and susceptibility attributes
Summary report on FishBase indicators Q4 2015
35.3 Training in risk assessment and the application of the Risk Based framework (including training of trainers)
Training curriculum and training attendance records Q4 2015
36.1 Workshop to determine risk mitigation Workshop report with Q1 2016 35MSC Fisheries Assessment methodology (pp 101-‐106), http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-‐documents/methodologies/Fisheries_Assessment_Methodology.pdf/viiew 36 Op cit
95
for retained and bait species recommendations
36.2 Develop Prepare a workshop template on options for baitfish management
Management Plan template with short term and long term objectives and activities defined Q4 2015
36.3 Bait species management plans developed Management Plan Q1 2016
36.4 Introduce provincial decrees in order to protect baitfish species (if required) FMA Decrees Q1 2016
36.5 Evaluate the effectiveness of management mitigation measures for vulnerable retained and bait species Management evaluation report
Q4 2017
Timeline priority Achieved 2014 2015-‐
2016 4.5 Inst itut ional strengthening: governance, consultat ion and decis ion making MMAF, FKPPS and the Fisheries Counci l
BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, the FIP proposes to strengthen Indonesian tuna fisheries management processes in accordance with international obligations and will identify fishery specific management actions which are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Global object ive The expected position by 2016 is that:
• There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives in the target and limit reference points;
• There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the limit reference points are approached;
• There are strategies in place for managing retained, bait species bycatch, ETP species, and habitats;
96
• Evidence is in place to ensure that the strategies have been implemented successfully identified. Functions roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction;
• The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of information and explains how it is used or not used;
• The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement;
• Clear long and short term objectives are in place that guide decision making are in place, and are explicit within a Fishery Specific Management Plan;
• The national decision making processes responds to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions;
• The national Decision-‐making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Information on fishery 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;
• The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges;
• Explanations are provided for any actions taken and recommendations emerging from research, monitoring and evaluation and review activity;
• MMAF has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system and is subject to internal and external review processes.
Specific objectives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the consultation and decision making processes, which have three core components: MMAF, FKPPS and the Fisheries Council. Requested Services The decision making and consultation tools strengthened, and the roles of the Fisheries Council and FKPPS supported by national law. MMAF must seek to use the Fisheries Council as a core consultation vehicle, and the FKPPS structure as a support tool for the decision making processes. MMAF must try, as far as practicable, to ensure that the membership of the Fisheries Council and FKPPS is inclusive and provides for participation of an appropriate number of organisations engaged in, or with experience in fishery in relation to which the MMAF is responsible for. These should allow for input or membership from/of the Indonesian Research organisations, Provincial Government, an MCS manager (PSDKP), industry members covering all the relevant fisheries (Purse seine, longline, pole-‐and-‐line, handline and troll) and conservation NGOs such as WWF. The Fisheries Council will continue to play an advisory role to MMAF; and FKPPS will strengthen the decision making process, ensuring that measures affecting territorial and archipelagic waters are carried out within each FMA. The Fisheries Council will provide direct advice to MMAF the Tuna Management Plan, and the FKPPS, will provide the support vehicle to ensuring that the TMP is implemented.
97
The core requirements of the FKPPS would be: • To ensure a coherent decision making process that results in measures and strategies to
achieve fishery specific objectives, as laid down in the Tuna Management Plan (TMP); • That the decisions taken respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring and
evaluation and consultation in a transparent and timely manner, and take account of the wider implications of decisions;
• That the decision making process use the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management (PAFM) and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management, based on best available information;
• That formal reporting systems are implemented to ensure stakeholder awareness of the decisions taken;
• Consultation processes that regularly seek to accept relevant information and encourages all interested and affected parties to participate.
MMAF support actions MMAF organisational roles and responsibilities must include the following:
• Coordinating inputs for supporting organisations, as required – sub MMAF, P4KSI and allied agencies including BBPL;
• Formulating statutory decisions (management measures) following the deliberation of the council;
• Monitoring the implementation of the Harvest strategy, rules and tools including by Provincial and District DKPs;
• Providing training and mentoring support to National, provincial and district administrations with the preparation of guidelines;
• Organising training programmes for MMAF and DKP fishery managers ; • Organising stakeholder workshops to optimise the receipt of relevant information, to
promote the harvest strategy and explain the decisions taken by MMAF and FKPPS.
The required outputs: • Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management and Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
Management incorporated into National and Provincial Law, and prescribed as a component of the TMP;
• Draft Tuna Management Plan endorsed, but updated annually; • Legislation and Decrees upgraded and revised on an ongoing basis; • Training needs assessment undertaken and training programmes implemented for MMAF
and DKP fishery managers completed by year 3; • Institutional weaknesses addressed and rectified; • Co-‐management systems endorsed by DKP Provinsi, FKPPS, MMAF and bottom up
participation fully operational by year 2; • Support materials procured by MMAF.
MMAF and FKPPS performance is subject to Independent external (but national) peer review).
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING Milestones Reporting means of
verification Timeline
98
40 FKPPS tuna sub management organisation established with defined roles and responsibilities
FKPP rules √
41 Evidence that the FKPPS and MMAF consultation and decision making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions
Minutes of meetings √
42 All components of KKP/DKP Provinsi and District fully implementing decisions supported by the FKPPS and promulgated through the management plan and Evidence of demarcation procedures which contains a structure to ensure implementation (and monitoring) of provincial and district offices
Available organograms and hierarchy of decisions taken; Performance reports
Q1 2015
45 Tuna management plan adopted with clear objectives consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, and applied throughout the range of the fishery
Tuna management plan
Q4 2015 46 Assessment of the plans performance and
evidence that it is achieving its objectives Tuna management plan
Q4 2016 Timeline priority
Achieved 2015 2016 4.6.1 National compliance systems PSDKP BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management, which will be consistent with international standards, not least the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and in compliance with Regional Fishery Management Organization management measures and principles. This project will be carried out over a period of 5 years, to support the long term goal of achieving recognition through Marine Stewardship Council certification for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas species (skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas) in five fisheries (handline, pole-‐and-‐line, purse seine, troll and longline). To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed a Fishery Improvement Plan (Section 3) and outputs from the FIP are expected to underline the formulation of an Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process it is recommended that PSDKP will set up a Joint Tuna Compliance Working Group which will be responsible for implementing compliance and enforcement activities in the tuna fishery. DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
Global objective The expected position by year 2016 is that:
99
• A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce the management measures set by PSDKP and other supporting institutions;
• Sanctions to deal with non-‐compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide an effective deterrent;
• Evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system, including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery;
• There is no evidence of systematic non-‐compliance.
Specific objectives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the Joint Tuna Compliance Working Group and lay out the support requirements and activities required to implement an effective compliance and enforcement system. Requested Services PSDKP (JTCWG) will be the implementing body to enforce the management measures. The PSDKP’s duties include:
1. Following decisions made by MMAF, and resulting Legal decisions put in place, PSDKP should prepare, with the support of an international compliance consultant, a risk assessment, to determine appropriate deployment strategies;
2. The systems of sanctions should be applied appropriate to the levels of risk identified; 3. Organisations and individuals involved in the compliance process should be well understood
with a clear hierarchy of decision making and active coordination functioning between the various groups – sub MMAF, Indonesian Navy and Marine Police;
4. Evidence should be in place of deployment actions taken (collection centre checks, boardings at sea), and results (penalties and confiscations). A time series of these activities and results should illustrate a demonstrably effective deterrent;
5. Awareness workshops should be promoted in cooperation with all stakeholder groups to explain the reasons for the measures and drawing on information received from community groups and fishers to support the effective implementation of the enforcement system;
6. Training provided and equipment made available for POKMASWAS, particularly in the context of Sea watch programmes, and communications to prevent external intrusions;
7. A continual internal review process of effectiveness of the Compliance system, through upgrading of the annual risk assessment exercise;
8. An external review process on the effectiveness of the compliance system.
EXPECTED MILESTONES AND REPORTING Milestones Reporting means of
verification Timeline
47 MCS risk analysis undertaken for all tuna fisheries Risk assessment report Q1 2015
48 Industry awareness of MCS rules, sanctions and compliance actions Workshop reports Q1 2015
49 Reports prepared and publicly available identifying violations detected
Report on violations and sanctions Q4 2015
Timeline priority Achieved 2015 2016
100
A sample risk assessment, based on a similar exercise for a Pacific based country fishery, is provided in Appendix 4. 4.6.2 Comanagement The WWF (or other NGOs) will procure the services of a co-‐management specialist who can work with fishing communities in establishing a system of best practice. DESCRIPTION OF the ASSIGNMENT
Global objective The expected position by 2016 is that:
• Artisanal fishing groups are identified for handline, troll, possibly coastal pole-‐and-‐line; • Communities and individuals involved in the management process have been identified; • The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seeks to accept
relevant information including local knowledge; • The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and
affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement; • There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place which is responsive to the state
of the stock, reflects the requirements of the national harvest strategy and is designed to achieve stock management objectives set as target and limit reference points;
• There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that are consistent with national harvest strategies and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the limit reference points are approached, and provide a management mechanism to allow recovery of depleted stocks;
• There is a strategy in place for managing retained, bycatch, baitfish, ETP species or habitats interactions in order to avoid the risk of serious irreversible harm from the fishery;
• There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.
Specific objectives The purpose of the guidance is to set out the requirements for a national expert to provide services to set up a system of community fisher organisations and train and assist fishers in establishing group networks. Requested Services The national expert will identify a structure similar to other effective community systems operating in Indonesia and seek to adapt this system to Indonesian tuna fisheries. Core community group interactions must clarify the following:
• A network of Community structures established for artisanal fishers – group leaders and officers;
• Broad goals and strategies are clearly outlined and consistent with protecting the target stock and ecosystem species;
• MMAF and FKPPS expectations for co-‐management activities are clarified with communities and District DKP;
• The system of TURFS reviewed and actions taken, if appropriate.
101
• Support structures and mentoring roles to facilitate the development of community organizations are identified;
• A system of community led financial sustainability is secured; • A culturally appropriate process and creating a community support structure to facilitate
implementation (a village Fisheries Council) is implemented, defining actions to be undertaken by the community (including compliance actions) and support functions required by the higher authority (DKP District);
• The community groups, facilitated by the NGO PRA process, set up a management plan linked to their ‘territorial’ tuna stocks and bycatch/ecosystem management;
• Ensuring continuing community commitment with regular contact between communities and extension staff, exchange of information between communities, a review of fisheries management structures if any additional risks are identified;
• Ensure participation of other stakeholders – Fish processors, WWF, DKP, BRPL; • Establishing communication linkages with other community groups.
Milestones Reporting means of
verification Timeline
50 Community organizations developed in artisanal fisheries
Records of Co-‐management group meetings and actions Q4 2014
Timeline priority Achieved 2014 2016
4.8 Project management WWF BACKGROUND The Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), supported by its allied agencies (DKP Provinsi and DKP District, and P4KSI), the Indonesian Seafood Sector and WWF, is engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the standards in Indonesian Fisheries Management. To this end, all stakeholders have endorsed an Action Plan which, when implemented, will satisfy the MSC standards, but will also embrace activities required to support the RFMO management measures and are expected to underline the outcomes of the Indonesian Tuna Management Plan. As part of this process, WWF will manage this project and secure the placement for a FIP Coordinator to supervise the implementation of the project and a National Project Manager, to monitor and support the application of the FIP. The Project will also require the support of A FIP consultant with specific strengths in Monitoring and Evaluation, facilitation of management processes as well as knowledge of MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology.
A. WWF FIP PROGRAMME MANAGER DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT Global object ive The expected position by year 5 is that:
• The fishery is suitable for advancement to MSC Full assessment and has met with all the Assessment criteria that link to the outcomes and activities described in the FIP.
102
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the WWF Regional Coordinator who will be responsible for overall Project coordination, as well as liaising with stakeholders and funders (Industry Government and Donors). Requested Services The Coordinator will be appointed by the WWF Indonesia and will be based in Indonesia. He/she will be responsible for the overall management of the Project and will act as the contact point for funding contributions, as well as liaison with stakeholders. The Project Coordinator will work with the National country manager and provide support as and when required. The following duties are required: • Coordinate the implementation of the FIP in partnership with the National Manager • Access funding channels • Develop, implement and track FIP Partner Agreements with private sector, including
developing and monitoring communication protocols and managing of market recognition • Managing the budget on behalf of WWF, and monitoring programme expenditure • Liaise with stakeholders, especially the foreign partners and WWF Network • Liaise with the FIP consultant in issues relating to project out turns and contractual
commitments • Supporting the Project in a number of duties including preparing support input to reports for
funders and the WWF USA • Communicate FIP progress, developments, examples etc. to WWF and broader sustainable
seafood community internationally, including managing communications around the FIP in the Asia Pacific Seafood Trade Network (APSSTN) website and other platforms and fora.
Expert’s prof i le WWF Regional Coordinator
1. Qualifications and skills
• A higher degree in social sciences, fisheries science and/or business management
• Experience in Project management
2. General professional experiences
• Extensive knowledge of Indonesian fisheries
• Knowledge of the WWF network
• Working knowledge of English and Indonesian
DURATION
The assignment will be for 5 years with a view to establishing long term linkages thereafter based on performance. REPORTING
• With the assistance of the National Project manager, prepare a quarterly report for the WWF USA which will include summary FIP outcomes and Budget expenditure;
103
• With the assistance of the National project Manager, prepare a regular newsletter on FIP progress for circulation for all stakeholders.
B. WWF PROJECT OFFICER
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT Global object ive The expected position by year 5 is that:
• The fishery is suitable for advancement to MSC Full assessment and has met with all the Assessment criteria that link to the outcomes and activities described in the FIP.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for the National Project Manager to support the implementation and monitoring of the Indonesian Tuna Fisheries Improvement Project. Requested Services The Project Manager will be expected to undertake a series of activities during his/her tenure. The national officer will report directly to WWF and the FIP consultant, and will be responsible for coordinating the FIP budget and tracking quarterly progress of the FIP. Requested Services The following duties are required:
• Monitoring the progress of each Activity as defined in the Programme LogFrame, the FIP Tracking document, and the above defined reports as provided in the above Guidance
• Communicating with MMAF, P4KSI, industry stakeholders and other NGOs, as required • Participating in workshops, and supporting activities • Reporting and liaising with Regional Coordinator and the International FIP consultant • Mentoring to various stakeholders as required • Supporting the Project in a number of duties including preparing support input to reports for
funders and the WWF US.
Expert’s prof i le WWF Project Manager
3. Qualifications and skills
• A degree in environmental science
• Experience in Project management
• Knowledge of the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment methodology
4. General professional experiences
• Knowledge of Indonesian fisheries
• Working knowledge of English and Indonesian
104
DURATION
Following the signature of the contract, the international consultant will be available for mobilisation within 10 working days. The exact date shall be agreed with WWF.
The assignment will be for 5 years with a view to establishing long term linkages thereafter based on performance. REPORTING
• Updating the WWF FIP Tracking document
• Collating FIP milestone outturns and proving these to the M&E consultant
• Preparing a quarterly report
• With the assistance of the National project Manager, preparing a regular newsletter on FIP progress for circulation for all stakeholders.
C. INTERNATIONAL FIP CONSULTANT
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT Global object ive The expected position by year 5 is that:
• The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and external review;
• The fishery is suitable for advancement to MSC Full assessment and has met with all the Assessment criteria that link to the outcomes and activities described in the FIP.
Specif ic object ives The purpose of the Guidance is to set out the requirements for an International FIP consultant to monitor activities and outcomes for the Indonesian Tuna FIP. Requested Services The FIP consultant will be deployed annually and will review outcomes, with the support of the WWF country manager. The consultant will report directly to WWF US and WWF Indonesia. The following duties are required:
• Create management templates that support the monitoring of the activities described in the FIP;
• Participate in workshops to recommend changes to FIP actions; • Assist in redrafting Terms of Reference (TORs) or Guidance for FIP activities, as required; • Rescore the fishery against the MSC standard and update the FIP action plan accordingly • Undertake specific training exercises to strengthen the knowledge of WWF Indonesia’s staff.
Expert’s prof i le International consultant
1. Qualifications and skills
• Post-‐doctoral degree in fisheries sciences, economics or community and social studies
105
• At least 10 years’ experience in Programme Planning
• An intricate knowledge of the Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment methodology
• Experience in Institutional Strengthening and Training Needs analysis in South and South East Asia.
2. General professional experiences
• Knowledge of Indonesian fisheries;
• Knowledge of WCPO and IOTC tuna fisheries management.
DURATION
The assignment will be for 5 years with a view to establishing long term linkages thereafter based on performance. REPORTING
1. Update Terms of Reference or Guidance Based on the Revised Logframe 2. Revise FIP budget in coordination with WWF Indonesia on an ongoing basis 3. Review all FIP milestones 4. Assist with FIP deliverables 5. Rescore the fishery against the MSC standard and update the FIP action plan accordingly
