Addressing environmental considerations for Marine StewardshipCouncil certification: A case study using lobsters

Lynda M. Bellchambers a,n, Bruce F. Phillips b, Mónica Pérez-Ramírez c,Enrique Lozano-Álvarez d, Kim Ley-Cooper b,e, Armando Vega-Velazquez f

a Marine Ecology and Monitoring Section (MEMs), Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, Department of Fisheries,Government of Western Australia,, PO Box 20, North Beach, WA 6920, Australiab Department of Environment and Agriculture, School of Science, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australiac Department of Hydrobiology, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM), Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186, Col. Vicentina, Mexico City 09340, Mexicod Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales (Puerto Morelos), Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,PO Box 190. Cancun QR 77500, Mexicoe Colectividad RAZONATURA A.C. Av. Cozumel esq. Calle 28, Condominios Magic Paradise, depto. B4, Col. Centro, Playa del Carmen,Quintana Roo 77710, Mexicof Instituto Nacional de la Pesca/Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera-La Paz, Km # 1, Carretera a Pichilingue, La Paz, B. C. S., 23020, Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 February 2014Received in revised form4 July 2014Accepted 5 July 2014Available online 31 July 2014

Keywords:Third party certificationLobsterRisk assessmentEcosystem impacts of fishingMarine Stewardship Council

a b s t r a c t

This paper uses the Western Australian rock lobster, the first fishery certified by MSC, as a case study todiscuss some of the environmental issues encountered in MSC's Principle 2 and the strategiesimplemented to address them. Experience with the certification of Western Australian rock lobsterhas highlighted the importance of; comprehensive documentation of current and historical information,monitoring and research, a transparent process of risk identification and the value of an independentadvisory group to review risks and guide research directions.A comparison of other certified lobsterfisheries worldwide revealed that third party certification consistently identified specific environmentalissues, indicating that the strategies implemented to support the ongoing certification of the WesternAustralian rock lobster fishery may be relevant to other fisheries.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years there has been concern over the sustain-ability of global fish stocks [1–3] and the impact of fishing on themarine environment [4,5]. While many fisheries around the world arebeing fished and managed sustainably the increased profile of stocksustainability and the potential impacts of fishing practices on theenvironment has led to an increased awareness of environmentalissues by the general public and conservation groups [6–10].

Coupled with the rise in public awareness is the progressiontowards a more holistic approach to fisheries management in theform of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). EBFMconsiders the cumulative impacts on the environment of allfisheries-related activities operating in an area while also taking intoaccount social, economic and external factors (i.e. climate change andother non-fishing related activities) [11–13]. In Australia, the Envir-onment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act and

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Commonwealth require-ments for export fisheries have meant that many fisheries haveincorporated ecological risk assessments into their managementstrategies for some time. However, in some cases the implementationof EBFM has meant a significant increase in the information required[14]. In other countries, such as Mexico sustainability principals havebeen incorporated into legislation through a decree in “Ley de Pescay Acuacultura Sustentatable” or through the consideration of differ-ent sustainability initiatives such as the FAO International guidelinesfor securing sustainable small scale fisheries [15]. However, thepractical implementation of these principles in many cases lagsbehind the original intention of the guidelines or legislation. Regard-less, these processes have undoubtedly led to an unprecedented needand pressure to examine the sustainability of fishing practices,particularly in relation to habitats and ecosystems. Growing aware-ness of sustainable fishing practices has led to an increase inconsumer demand for sustainably-sourced seafood products [16–18] with a number of international retailers, such as Aldi, Carrefour,Tesco, Sainsbury's and Wal-Mart, and more recently Australianretailers (Woolworths and Coles) selling and promoting eco-labelled seafood products.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.0060308-597X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 08 9203 0175.E-mail address: Lynda.Bellchambers@fish.wa.gov.au (L.M. Bellchambers).

Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260

This increased demand has led to the prevalence of third partycertification programs worldwide [6,7,9,19]. While there are anumber of third party certification programs (e.g. Global Environ-mental Facility – GEF, Friends of the Sea) one popular certificationprogramme worldwide is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)[18]. Established by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Unilever in1999, the MSC is now an independent international non-profitorganisation that certifies ecologically sustainable fisheries to givethem an economic incentive to implement and maintain sustain-able fishing practices [6] and [7]. Currently, the MSC has certified221 fisheries and a further 98 are in the assessment process [20].

The MSC certification process involves independent third-partyassessments of a fishery based on evaluations made against threebroad principles; P1 – assessment of target species, P2 – ecologicaland environmental impact of the fishery and P3 – governance andmanagement of the fishery. For a fishery to successfully obtainMSC certification it must pass each of three principles individually,i.e. scores cannot be averaged across the principles. Therefore,while fisheries targeting species with sustainability issues (P1) willclearly not obtain MSC certification, equally fisheries with sub-stantial ecological or environmental impacts (P2) or inadequategovernance and management will also not be certified, regardlessof the status of the target species stocks. For many fisheries MSCcertification has meant additional scrutiny and review of existingprocesses. However, assessment and management of targetedspecies (P1 and P3) has been the core role of managementagencies, and in most cases, fisheries applying for MSC certifica-tion have the knowledge or capacity to deal with any P1 and P3issues that may arise during the process. The principle manyfisheries struggle to address is Principle 2, which states fishingoperations should allow for the maintenance of the structure,productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (includinghabitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species)on which the fishery depends. Assessment under Principle 2 encom-passes five different components; retained species (including non-targeted retained and bait), bycatch species, endangered threa-tened and protected species (ETPs), habitats and ecosystems [23].These areas have not, in many cases, been the traditional focus ofmanagement agencies [17] and [22]; therefore, addressing thecriteria and associated conditions has required considerableongoing research and assessment for a number of fisheries [21–23].

This paper compares Principle 2 issues in the Western Aus-tralian (WA) rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus) fishery, with Principle2 issues in other MSC certified lobster fisheries. While no twofisheries are identical, there are a number of key areas forconsideration when preparing for Principle 2 assessment of afishery. This paper suggests that by rigorously addressing theseareas, fisheries should be well prepared when entering thecertification process, which may reduce the likelihood of onerousconditions on the fishery, minimise the time taken to complete thecertification process and thus reduce the expense associated withthe certification process.

2. WA rock lobster: case study

In 2000, the WA rock lobster fishery (P. cygnus) became theworld's first fishery to receive MSC certification. However, theassessment team identified a number of deficiencies in the fisheryunder Principle 2, which formed the basis of the five conditionsplaced on the fishery (Table 1). While the conditions on the fisheryhave changed since the initial certification, due to a combinationof addressing original issues, newly identified risks and changes inthe assessment process, such as the introduction of the FisheriesAssessment Methodology (FAM), a review of the conditionsillustrates that there are some core issues that have occurred at

subsequent certifications (Table 1). Some of the key Principle2 issues in the certification of the Western Australian (WA) rocklobster fishery and examples to illustrate the range of initiativesimplemented to address these conditions are discussed below.

2.1. Risk assessment

One condition of the initial 2000 certification was to conduct acomprehensive and scientifically defensible risk assessment tobetter quantify the risks of fishing on all species (includingendangered, threatened and protected species), habitats and bioticcommunities (Table 1). This stemmed from the fact that at theinitial assessment there were few strategies in place in the fisheryto identify or assess the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem[27]. Therefore, during the first certification period, ecological riskassessments (ERA) were conducted by International Risk Consul-tant Environment (IRC) in 2001 [28] and Dr. Mark Burgman fromthe University of Melbourne in 2005 [29]. The ERA processadopted in the western rock lobster fishery is chaired by anindependent third party and includes all interested stakeholdersin the workshop discussion of issues although the allocation of riskratings is generally conducted by an expert technical panel (Fig. 1).The ERA adopted in Western Australia involves the examination ofthe sources of potential risk (issue identification), the potentialconsequences (impacts) associated with each issue and the like-lihood (probability) of a particular level of consequence actuallyoccurring [30]. This results in each identified issue being allocateda risk level that is used to determine the level of managementresponse required. Issues with moderate or above risks requireadditional management responses, which may include additionalresearch [30].

Both the 2001 and 2005 ERAs identified a number of moderaterisks in the fishery associated with: endangered, threatened andprotected species, habitats and ecosystem function. The majorityof the risks identified were not new issues that industry andmanagers were unaware of but were indicative of the level ofuncertainty due to paucity of data or an increased awarenessof previously detected issues. For example, the incidental mortalityof a small, but poorly quantified, number of Australian sea lionpups (Neophoca cinerea) in lobster pots, as the pups attempted toretrieve bait or rock lobsters from the pots, was a pre-existingissue [31]. At the initial MSC assessment of the fishery, the annualmortality of N. cinerea due to interactions with the fishery wasreported as being negligible [31,32] and very low relative to thehigh mortality of pups during parental mating related interactions[32]. However, Australian sea lion colonies, within the extent ofthe lobster fishery, are at the edge of their distribution, whichcombined with the lack of data to accurately quantify the level ofinteraction with the fishery meant the issue was assigned amoderate risk in the 2001 ERA [27] and [28]. Following the 2001ERA a sea lion scientific reference group (SL SRG) was formed toprovide advice on the research and management required toassess the impacts of fishing and eliminate the capture of juvenilesea lions in pots. A sea lion exclusion device (SLED) was developed,consisting of a metal bar placed through the neck of the pot andsecured in position [33]. Video trials indicated that the devicestops sea lion pups from entering lobster pots and drowning [34].Therefore, SLEDs were made mandatory in 2006 for both com-mercial and recreational rock lobster pots in waters less than 20 maround the mid-west coast sea lion breeding colonies. After themandatory introduction of SLEDs into the central west coast areaduring the 2006/07 seasons, the risk of sea lion interactions withpots was reduced from moderate to low in the 2007 ERA [35].

While the western rock lobster fishery was successfullyre-certified in 2006, the outputs of the 2005 ERA were consideredin the re-assessment process and resulted in additional Principle

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260250

2 conditions being placed on the fishery (Table 1). Subsequently,ERAs have been conducted in 2007 and 2013, both of whichresulted in reduced risk ratings for a number of previously

identified issues. For example, ERAs conducted in 2001 and 2005ranked the risk to dusky whaler sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus) ofentanglement in bait bands (plastic bands used to hold bait boxes

Table 1Conditions placed on western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus) fishery and each certification period. Data was obtained from MSC public certification documents listed inreferences.

Component 2000–2006a 2006–2011b 2012–2017c

Retained Speciesd Implement consistent reporting of retainedspecies i.e. octopus, deep sea crabs

Bycatch Speciese Implement reporting of bycatchEndangered Threatenedand Protected (ETP)Species

Implement reporting of interactionswith ETP species

� Implement more detailed reportingof interactions with ETP species

� Environmental Management Strategymust include ETP species

� Implement and monitor effectivenessof Sea Lion Exclusion Devices (SLEDs)

� Implement bait band mitigation

Habitats Implement habitat mapping across the extentof the fishery

Provide information on extent of keyhabitats and associated fishing effort

Ecosystems � Conduct an Ecological RiskAssessment (ERA)

� Implement an EnvironmentalManagement Strategy

� Incorporate Environmental ManagementStrategy into management of the fishery

� Increase participation of environmentalgroups in consultation process

� Conduct Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)� Implement an Environmental

Management Strategy� Form an Scientific Advisory Group to

advise on effects of fishing on theecosystem

� Develop a strategic research plan forassessing the ecosystem impacts of fishing

a [24].b [25].c [26].d refers to non-target species that are retained by the fishery (including bait).e refers to non-target species that are not retained by the fishery.

Fig. 1. Integrated framework illustrating the process that has been implemented in the WA rock lobster fishery to address P2 issues.

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260 251

together that were often discarded at sea) as low [28] and [29].However, during the 2007 ERA the risk was upgraded from low tomoderate [35]. The revised risk was due to new research on duskywhalers indicating a higher age of maturity and lower fecunditythan previously reported [36] which resulted in an additionalcondition on the fishery late in the recertification process(Table 1). Due to gaps in the knowledge regarding the source ofbait bands and the scale and intensity of the interaction withdusky whalers, the most effective way to deal with the risk was toeliminate bait bands. Therefore, a state-wide ban on bait bands onboard all commercial vessels (not just lobster vessels) operating inWA waters was implemented on 15 November 2011. As a result,the ERA conducted in 2013 [37] ranked all identified risks in thefishery as low due to recent research outputs, mitigation andmanagement that have been implemented since the 2007 riskassessment process. This resulted in the condition relating to theinteraction between dusky whalers and bait bands being removedfrom the fishery.

2.2. Reporting and monitoring

An important aspect of the MSC certification process is ensur-ing that the assessment team, which is an experienced fisheryexpert group assessing the fishery, get a comprehensive under-standing of all aspects of the fishery [25]. Under the MSCprogramme it is the responsibility of the fishery client or support-ing organisations to provide the information required for assess-ment [25] and [27]. However, as WA rock lobster was the firstfishery certified, there was no template or guidance regarding theformat of information considered adequate for the evolving MSCassessment process at that time. Similarly, industry, scientists andmanagers had no prior experience with and a limited under-standing of the requirements for certification [27]. At the initialassessment of the WA rock lobster fishery, the information forassessment was presented to the certification team as a series ofboth peer-reviewed and unpublished papers and reports. Thisapproach was not comprehensive and revealed a number of gapsin the data available for assessment, particularly historical data ofwhich the client was not aware or which may have been collectedbut not analysed or available in written form. For example, at thetime of the first assessment octopus by product in the WA rocklobster fishery had been incidentally recorded as part of thefishery-dependent monitoring programme, but it was not ana-lysed nor made available to the assessors.

As the MSC operates on a precautionary approach, failure topresent all available information, in an acceptable form for assess-ment, led to a number of conditions regarding formal monitoringsystems in the fishery and improved arrangements for recordingdata of bycatch and interactions with mammals, seabirds, mantarays, dolphins, or whales being placed on the fishery (Table 1). Thisprocess illustrated the importance of collating and analysing allavailable data to address Principle 2 criteria (i.e. current andhistorical) as the assessment team does not generally have theresources to conduct their own data analysis [27].

Since the 2006 re-assessment a number of formal reportingand monitoring systems have been implemented. In addition,data for MSC assessment process has been presented in a morestructured format. A key component in this improved process wasthe development of a comprehensive P2 summary document forthe 2012 re-assessment. The document provides a synthesis of allresearch relevant to Principle 2, including summaries of historicalpeer-reviewed and unpublished papers and reports, analysis ofhistorical datasets (such as bycatch and bait) and updates ofcurrent and ongoing research (see [38]). In addition, informationon all risks highlighted as moderate or above in the risk assess-ment process is presented. The document structure follows the

MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM) and is updatedannually prior to the surveillance audit. The P2 document, alongwith the outputs from the ecological risk assessments, now formsa critical component of the MSC assessment process for westernrock lobster fishery.

2.3. Strategies to manage or mitigate risk

While the MSC process identifies inadequacies or areas forimprovement in the fishery being certified it is not prescriptiveabout how to address any conditions. Therefore, an essentialcomponent of ongoing MSC certification is identifying and imple-menting appropriate strategies to manage or mitigate risk. All risksidentified as moderate or above by the ERA process have detailedindividual plans that outline strategies to reduce the risk.

For example, the potential ecological impact of lobster fishingin deep water (440 m deep) was identified as a moderate risk atthe 2003 ERA [39]. Following the 2003 ERA an Ecological Effects ofFishing Scientific Reference Group (EcoSRG), comprised of nationaland international experts, was established to provide advice onresearch to determine the effects of WA rock lobster fishing on theecosystem and habitats. The EcoSRG recognised that researchneeded to occur in a structured manner and devised a strategicplan to increase the understanding of deep water ecosystemsincluding habitats [40–42]. Following the research plan an initialresearch project established the relationship between lobsters andhabitats using existing gradients however failed to adequatelyquantify the potential impacts of fishing on the ecosystem [43].Therefore, a deep water closed area was established to examinethe impacts of lobster fishing using fished and unfished areas[39,42,44]. The value of the closed area and associated researchprojects in increasing the understanding of deep water ecosystemswas illustrated in the 2013 ERA where the risk of ecosystemimpacts due to the removal of lobster biomass to deep watercommunities was assessed as low [37]. This was due primarily tothe ERA technical panel having confidence that the researchoutputs had increased the understanding of deep water ecosys-tems and established a scientifically-rigorous monitoring frame-work capable of detecting any changes in the risk to the ecosystemthat may be attributed to fishing.

Similarly, the potential impacts of pots on the main benthichabitats (sand, limestone and granite) over which the fisheryoperates were considered low at the 2001 and 2005 ERAs, whilethe sensitive coral reefs at the Abrolhos Islands were ranked as amoderate risk [28] and [29]. Although pots are generally consid-ered a low impact gear [45–47] it was recognised that quantitativedata was required to evaluate the physical impacts of the fisheryon all habitats [26]. The need for quantitative data on habitat typesand corresponding fishing effort resulted in a condition on thefishery at the 2006 recertification which has persisted (Table 1).Increasing the understanding of benthic habitats is a key compo-nent of the EcoSRG's strategic research plan. Since 2006, consider-able effort has been focused on collating existing habitat data [38]and collecting additional habitat data for areas over which thefishery operates [43,44,48,49]. In recognition of the progress thathas been made, and the strategies put in place, the potentialimpacts of pots to all benthic habitats were assessed as either lowor negligible at the 2013 ERA. The final component of the strategyis to overlay key habitats with associated fishing effort andimplement a monitoring programmewhich is due to be completedat the 2014 surveillance audit of the fishery [37].

In addition, over the last ten years, a framework has beendeveloped that integrates the various components that provideresearch and advice to address conditions associated with theeffects of fishing on the ecosystem, including habitats, which hasbeen instrumental in ensuring the on-going MSC certification of

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260252

the fishery (Fig. 1). The advisory group (EcoSRG), strategic researchplan, P2 document and regular ERAs have been key components ofthis process. The EcoSRG meets annually and forms a criticalcomponent of the framework developed to ensure the continuedcertification of the fishery by providing guidance through thedevelopment and regular review of the strategic research plan andprovision of expertise for ERAs (Fig. 1).

3. Comparison with other lobster fisheries

Since the first certification of the WA rock lobster fishery in2000, seven other lobster fisheries have been MSC-certified:Eastern Canada offshore lobster [50], Maine Lobster trap fishery[51] and Iles-de-la-Madeleine lobster fishery [52] (Homarusamericanus), Normandy and Jersey lobster [53] (Homarusgammarus), Tristan da Cunha rock lobster [54] (Jasus tristani),Mexico Sian Ka'an and Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserves spinylobster [55] (Panulirus argus) and Mexico Baja California red rocklobster [56,57] (Panulirus interruptus) (see Table 2) and a numberof others are in the process of assessment (e.g. and Juan Fernandezlobster fishery (Jasus frontalis)). While each fishery is individuallyassessed according to its particular circumstances and require-ments in line with the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology(FAM) there are a number of similarities between the fisheries thatallow comparisons between the assessments. Despite differencesin the units of certification (i.e. species, location and gear; seeTable 2) across the fisheries there are common areas in ofweakness in Principle 2 as illustrated by the conditions placedon each fishery (Table 3).

Of the eight certified lobster fisheries, including WA rocklobster, all fisheries have at least one condition in Principle 2(Table 3). The majority of the conditions are requirements forimproved reporting and monitoring or strategies to detect orreduce risk. Two of the fisheries, Eastern Canada offshore lobsterfishery and Normandy and Jersey lobster (Table 3), have conditionson monitoring and reporting of retained species (including byproduct). For the Eastern Canada offshore lobster fishery, thecondition refers to quantifying the discards of adult and juvenilelobsters and the abundance of Jonah crab (Cancer borealis). Jonahcrabs taken in this fishery are currently discarded due to lowmarket demand although they have been retained historically;their abundance has declined since the 1990s and is currently atvery low levels [50]. Information on Jonah crab abundance iscollected but has not been reported in the most recent assess-ments [50]. In the Normandy and Jersey lobster fishery, catch andeffort information on the velvet swimming crab (Necora puber),which are caught in lobster gear and retained for sale, wasavailable but not analysed and provided for assessment [53]. Thisled to concerns about the possible effects on crab stocks [18].Similarly, at the second certification of the WA rock lobster fisheryin 2006, information on the catch and effort of retained species, i.e.octopus and deep sea crabs were available but not analysed andprovided for assessment resulting in a condition on the fishery. Inthe WA rock lobster fishery, this condition has subsequently beenaddressed by the introduction of compulsory reporting of allretained species via a catch disposal record, completed by allcommercial fishing vessels. The data from the catch disposalrecord is summarised and reported in the P2 document at theannual surveillance audits.

Bycatch was also an issue for several fisheries (Mexico BajaCalifornia, Eastern Canada and Iles-de-la-Madeleine). In the MexicanP. interruptus case, modifications to the lobster traps to improvecatches have reduced bycatch levels [56]. However, bycatch in someparts of the fishery is substantial, approximately 12% of the catchand consists mainly of crabs, octopus, finfish (kelp bass and rock

fish), and swell sharks [47,56,58]. However, the most ecologicallysignificant bycatch in the fishery are cormorants (8% of the bycatch insome areas) [47] due to their vulnerability and role as top predator inthe ecosystem. In contrast, bycatch in the Eastern Canada lobsterfishery is low, but it is spread across a wide variety of fish andinvertebrate species [50]. Similarly, bycatch in the in Iles-de-la-Madeleine lobster fishery is also low [52]. However, a lack of regularbycatch monitoring or recording means there is insufficient data todetect potential changes in the risk. In all three fisheries there is acondition requiring monitoring of bycatch. At the 2006 recertificationof the WA rock lobster fishery there was also a condition toimplement monitoring and reporting of bycatch. Quantifying bycatchin this fishery is collected from catch disposal records and periodicon-board monitoring on commercial vessels which is analysed andreported annually in the P2 document for assessment purposes.

Several fisheries have conditions that require improving report-ing of interactions with ETPs (i.e. Tristan da Cunha and EasternCanada). While there were no records of ETPs caught in traps inthe Tristan da Cunha lobster fishery there were indirect effects ofbird strikes with fishing vessels [54]. Subsequently, the fishery hasimplemented a code of practice for seabird handling and hasminimised the risk of bird strikes occurring by not using floodlights at night [54]. In the Eastern Canada offshore lobster fisherythe risks of interactions with ETPs were considered low howeverthere were no formal requirements to record and report oninteractions with ETPs [50]. In both fisheries this led to a conditionto collect quantitative data and report on interactions with ETPs.Similarly, in the western rock lobster fishery while the risk ofinteractions with ETPs was low, due to lack of quantitative dataand reporting a condition was placed on the fishery. This conditionhas subsequently been addressed by the introduction of compul-sory reporting of interactions with ETPs via a catch disposal recordwhich is summarised annually and reported in the P2 document atannual surveillance audits.

Six of the seven lobster fisheries examined, fish using pots ortraps (Table 2) which are generally considered to be a low impactgear [45–47,58]. However, three fisheries, including WA rocklobster, have conditions on habitats (Tables 1 and 3), while thefishery for J. tristani has a condition under P3 to develop a researchplan that explicitly incorporates habitats. The conditions placed onthese fisheries were not due to a high risk of the fishing methodcausing irreversible harm to benthic habitats but rather a reflec-tion of the lack of quantitative data or monitoring programs tosubstantiate the perceived low risk. Meanwhile, in the WA rocklobster fishery this condition has persisted since the 2006 recerti-fication of the fishery and is currently the only P2 condition on thefishery. The condition is being addressed by a combination ofstrategies which are encompassed in a strategic research plan (seeSection 2.3 for further details of strategies).

However, the Principle 2 component that most frequentlyresults in conditions is the ecosystem effects of fishing, with fiveof the seven certified lobster fisheries (including WA rock lobster)having conditions pertaining to this component (Tables 1 and 3).Even in fisheries where there are no P2 conditions, there is often acondition in P3 (Governance) regarding a need for a research planor strategy that explicitly includes understanding the ecosystemimpacts of fishing (i.e. Mexico Baja California red rock lobster, Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Tristan da Cunha) (Table 3). While thiscomponent had the highest number of conditions across certifiedfisheries, in most cases it was due to a lack of information oruncertainty rather than direct evidence of detrimental impacts.Previous reviews have also found that the majority of certificationconditions require improvements in the management actionrather than environmental outcomes [10]. In the case of the WArock lobster fishery, conditions relating to the ecosystem effects offishing persisted through two certifications (2000–2012) and

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260 253

Table 2Summary of MSC certified lobster (spiny and clawed) fisheries worldwide. Data was obtained from MSC public certification documents at www.msc.org and listed in references

Panulirus cygnus Panulirusinterruptus

Panulirus argus Banco Chinchorro SianKa'an

Jasus tristani Homarusgammarus

Homarusamericanus

Homarusamericanus

Homarus americanus

Fishery West Coast RockLobster ManagedFishery

Mexico BajaCalifornia red rocklobster fishery

Mexico Sian Ka'an and BancoChinchorro Biosphere Reserves spinylobster fishery

Tristan da Cunharock lobster fishery

Normandy andJersey lobsterfishery

Eastern Canadaoffshore lobsterfishery

Îles de laMadeleine lobstertrap fishery

Maine lobster trap fishery

CertificationPeriod

2000–2004 [24],2006–2011 [25]and 2012–2017[26]

2004–2010 [56]and 2011–2016[57]

2012–2017 [55] 2011–2016 [54] 2011–2016 [53] 2010–2015 [50] 2013–2018 [52] 2013–2018 [51]

Speciesdistribution

Endemic toWestern Australia,distributed fromHamelin Bay toNorth West Cape.

Distributed fromSouthern California(USA) south to theBaja CaliforniaPeninsula tip inMexico.

Widespread throughout the Caribbean,also found in Florida and Brazil

Distributed aroundthe South Atlanticislands of Tristanda Cunha,Nightingale,Inaccessible,Gough Island andVema Seamount.

Distributed aroundthe coast ofWestern Europefrom Norway toNorth Africa,although it is mostabundant aroundthe coasts of theNorth Sea, the UKand northernFrance

Distributed alongthe Atlantic coastof North America,mainly fromLabrador to NewJersey.

Distributed alongthe Atlantic coastof North America,mainly fromLabrador to NewJersey.

Distributed along the Atlantic coastof North America, mainly fromLabrador to New Jersey.

Area of certifiedfishery

Western RockLobster ManagedFishery in WesternAustralia fromCape Leeuwin(34˚24'S) in thesouth to NorthWest Cape(21˚44'S) in thenorth

The fisheryoperates in BajaCalifornia, fromCedros Island inBaja California(28.6˚N 115.5˚W)through PuntaAbreojos in BajaCalifornia Sur(26.6˚N 113.2˚W).the 2011 re-certificationincludes IslaGuadalupe(29.03˚N 118.27˚W)

The Sian Ka'an and Banco ChinchorroBiosphere Reserves Spiny LobsterFishery is part of the south central stockof the Yucatan Peninsula, locatedbetween Tulum (201 12’ N) and theMexican-Belize border.

The Tristan daCunha fishery is incentral SouthAtlantic islands ofTristan da Cunha,Nightingale,Inaccessible, andGough Island

The lobster fisheryoperates in theGranville Baytreaty area andassociated BasseNormandie andJersey territorialwaters bycommercialfishermen fromBasse Normandie(West and NorthCotentin) andJersey.

The fisheryoperates withinthe Canadian EEZ,in Lobster FishingArea (LFA) 41,extending from theInternational Courtof Justice(ICJ ) or“Hague” line onGeorges Bank tothe LaurentianChannel off CapeBreton and outsideof the offshoreboundary line

The fisheryoperates withinthe CanadianLobster FishingArea (LFA) 22. LFA22 is divided intotwo areas thenorth (from GrosseIles to Millerand)and south (fromOld Harry toHavre-Aubert)

The fishery operates in AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission(ASMFC) Lobster ConservationManagement Area (LCMA) 1

Description offishery

Fishery is managedin 3 zones with atotal of 283 boatsand a maximum of29 000 baitedwooden traps.Catch is managedby a TotalAllowableCommercial Catch(TACC)

The fishery ismanaged in twozones with a totalof 10 cooperatives,each with exclusivefishing areas with266 boats and 17843 baited wiretraps.

There are3 cooperatives,with a total ofapproximately 120fishers operating46 boats. Handcollection, freediving, in naturalhabitats using anet, snare or gaff

There are3 cooperatives,with a total ofapproximately 130fishers. Area isdivided intoapproximately 184individualexclusive accessparcels or campos.There areapproximately 20000 casitas in thefishery.Hand

The fisheryoperatesdifferentlybetween the islandof Tristan and theouter islands(Inaccessible,Nightingale andGough). There is aTAC for each island.Tristan:9 powerboats,using box trapsand hoop nets.

Fishery is a mixedfishery targeting H.gammarus andbrown crab(Cancer pagurus).All vessels arelicensed to fish forlobsters but manyare inactive or donot target lobsteralthough they maydo so. Vessels aregenerally less thanten metres. Two

Fishery is has8 licences all heldby one company.Two vesselsoperate in thefishery ranging inlength from 27–40 m. Fishery ismanaged with aTAC of 720mt.Fishery fishes indepths between100–320 m usingrectangular wire

Fishery has 325licences with amaximum of 279traps per licence(2012). Trapsgenerally made ofwood andhemicyndrical inshape. Traps arebaited and set inlines of up to7 traps per linewith a maximumof 14 m between

Fishery has 6 150 licences (2010).Vessels are generally between 7–14 m and are operated by 1–2people. Lobster are caught in baitedpots generally made of plastic coatedwire. Maximum of 800 pots perlicence

L.M.Bellcham

berset

al./Marine

Policy50

(2014)249

–260254

collection, freediving, using a net.

Fishers arepermitted to use 11box traps and 28hoop nets per boatOther islands:Monster trapsdeployed in stringsup to 18 longlinesof 20 traps eachfrom a mothervessel or mothervessel deployspowerboats with60–70 traps perboat.

types of pots areused: (i) inkwellpots and (ii)parlour pots. Potsare deployed instrings of 12–50pots BasseNormandie – 50vessels with amaximum of 1000pots per vesselJersey: 60–75vessels with amaximum of 1500pots per vessel.

coated lobstertraps set in stringsof 120–150 traps.

traps and 102 mfrom the first tothe last trap.Vessels aregenerally less than15 m and have 2–4crew 9week springfishery

Landings (MTWhole weight)

5500 1501 (average2004–13)

60 100 435 282 720 3073 43 000

Retained species(includingbait)a

Octopus (Octopustetricus), verysmall landing ofdeep sea crabsMajority of baitpurchased frommanaged fisheries,source, quantitiesand species knownand recorded

No other retainedspecies Somefinfish bycatch keptfor use as bait,quantitiesunknown Somebait purchasedlocally but sourceand quantity notknown for wholefisheryManagementstatus of allfisheries supplyingbait (exceptsardines) isunknown

No other retainedspecies No bait

Stone Crab(Menippemercenaria) fordomesticconsumption Nobait

Octopus vulgarisand O. magnificusand two fishspecies:Acantholatrismonodactylis andSebastes capensisBait is hake headsfrom South Africanhake fishery (MSCcertified)

Brown crab(Cancer pagurus),spider crab (Majasquinado) andvelvet swimmingcrab (Necorapuber). Velvetswimming crab isprimarily retainedin Normandy. Baitis horse mackerel(Trachurustrachurus) andBallan wrasse(Labrus bergylta)which arebyproduct of localtrawler fleet whilered gurnard(Aspitrigla cuculus)and redfish(Sebastes spp.) areimported fromoverseas fisheries.

Jonah crab, Cancerborealis can beretained but wasnot at the time ofassessment Bait isherring frommanaged purseseine fisheries inSW Nova Scotia.Quantities of baitare known.

No other retainedspecies The mainbait species ispredominatelyAtlantic mackerel(Scomberscombrus) fromNew-Jersey withsmall (o5%)amounts of PrinceEdward Islandyellowtail flounder(Limandaferruginea) andNewfoundlandherring (Clupeaharengus)

Jonah crab (C. borealis) and rock crab(C. irroratus) can be retained Bait isherring from fisheries managedunder the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission. Quantities ofbait are known.

Bycatchb Minimal bycatch,all bycatchreturned to thewater alive.

Bycatch primarilyshellfish andfinfish. Shellfishreleased alive.Some finfishbycatch kept foruse as bait. Alsocormorants caughtin traps.

No bycatch No bycatch Bycatch isprimarily smallquantities of fivefinger(Acantholatrismonodactylis) andsoldier (or falsejacopever; Sebastescapenis).

Bycatch is minimaldogfish andbrittlestarsoccasionally caughtand returned to thewater.

The most commonbycatch species arecusk (Brosmebrosme), Atlanticrock crab (Cancerirroratus), hake(red Urophycischuss and whiteUrophycis tenuis),Atlantic cod (Gadusmorhua) and spinydogfish (Squalusacanthias). Allbycatch is returnedto the water

19 species ofbycatch have beenidentified. Themost commonbycatch species isrock crab (Cancerirroratus) followedby sculpin. Otherbycatch isconsiderednegligible Allbycatch is returnedto the water

Low levels of bycatch, primarily 10species of finfish Most abundant isLonghorn sculpin(Myoxocephalusoctodecimspinosus)(0.5% of total catch) Also very lowcatches of several particularlyvulnerable species; Atlantic cod(Gadus morhua), white hake(Urophycis tenuis) and cusk (Brosmebrosme)

L.M.Bellcham

berset

al./Marine

Policy50

(2014)249

–260255

Table 2 (continued )

Panulirus cygnus Panulirusinterruptus

Panulirus argus Banco Chinchorro SianKa'an

Jasus tristani Homarusgammarus

Homarusamericanus

Homarusamericanus

Homarus americanus

EndangeredThreatenedand Protected(ETP)Interactions

Reportedinteractions with:Dusky Whalers(Carcharhinusobscurus)Australian SeaLions (Neophocacinerea)Humpback Whales(Megapteranovaeangliae)Turtles

Reportedinteractions with:Guadalupe furseals(Arctocephalustownsendi)Leatherback turtles(Dermochelyscoriacea) Greywhale (Escrichtiusgibbosus)

No reportedinteractions

No reportedinteractions

Reportedinteractions with:Fur seals(Arctocephalus sp)Range of seabirdsincluding albatrossand petrels

Numerous ETPs inarea of fishery butno reportedinteractions

Numerous ETPs inarea of fishery butno reportedinteractions

A number of ETPsin the area.Reportedinteractions withAtlantic(Anarhichas lupus)and northern(Anarhichasdenticulatus)wolfish,leatherback turtles(Dermochelyscoriacea) andunidentified whalespp. Whales spp. inthe area includeblue (Balaenopteramusculus), fin(Balaenopteraphysalus), NorthAtlantic (Eubalaenaglacialis) whales.

Reported interactions with: minkewhales, North Atlantic right whales,humpback whales, fin and seiwhales, loggerhead turtles andleatherback turtles

Habitats Range of habitats(coral to temperatelimestone reefs)and depths (10–200 m). Habitatdata is available forsome areas of thefishery. Someconcerns overpotential impactson sensitive coralhabitats of theAbrolhos IslandsNeed to determinethe most impactedand potentiallyvulnerablehabitats.

Habitat is primarilylow relief sand andcobble with Eiseniakelp and gorgoniancorals. Themajority of hardsubstrate iscovered bycoralline red algae.Studies haveshown traps have aminimal impact onassociated habitats

Fishers may makephysical contactwith hard benthicstructures (i.e.coral) whilesearching for andretrieving lobsterfrom dens howeverimpact is inrelatively smallisolated areas.Fishing groundsare relatively wellknown. There is nomonitoringprogramme toassess changes torisk to habitat

Casitas are placedon many types ofbottom includingseagrass (Thalassiatestudinum) beds.The direct impactof casitas on thehabitat structureand function isunknown. There issubstantialknowledge habitattypes. There is nomonitoringprogramme toassess changes torisk to habitat

Volcanic rockysubstratum,dominated by kelpand othermacroalgae.Encrusting algae,sponges, soft corals(sea fans) andanemones areabundant indeeper water. Noevidence ofdamage by traps.Goodunderstanding ofhabitat types in thearea and traps areset on hardsubstrata to restricthabitat damage.

Dominant habitatis rocky reefs, Thedominant benthicspecies in theseareas are seaweeds(Fucus and kelp),with some spongesand ascidians. Softbottom habitat isgenerallycomprised ofcoarse mobilesand, seagrass bedsare present inmore shelteredareas. Habitat inmain lobsterfishing areas andnumber of pots areknown There areno studies onhabitat impacts ofthis fishery ormonitoring

Sediments in thefishery areas aregenerally gravel,sand or mud ormixtures of thesesediments. Somerocky areas exist incanyons at theshelf break, andboulders may bemixed with gravel.Nature anddistribution ofhabitats on thefishing grounds arerelatively wellknown.The generaldistribution ofbottom sedimentshas been wellmapped, althoughlocal detail may besparse. Many of theareas fished arehigh energy areaswith large naturalsedimentmovements. Areas

Habitat in mainlobster fishingareas and numberof pots are known.Fishing does notoccur on sensitivehabitats such ascoral or eelgrass(Zostrea marina)beds. Given limitedseason and smallfootprint of fisherythe impact of potson habitat isthought to benegligible Thereare no studies onhabitat impacts ofthis fishery ormonitoring

No studies on structure and functionof habitat. Some benthic habitatmapping in nearshore areas. Fishingareas are primarily rocky and muddybottoms. Kelp and horse mussel bedsare characteristic of sub tidal areas.Footprint of the fishery is not wellunderstood. No monitoring offootprint of fishery or habitats

L.M.Bellcham

berset

al./Marine

Policy50

(2014)249

–260256

of known coralareas are closed.Number of pots forarea is low butcumulativeimpacts of trapshas not beenassessed There isno habitatmonitoring inplace

Ecosystems The main functionsof the componentsin the ecosystemare known andunderstood.However, this isprimarily forshallow waterecosystems.Insufficientinformation onspatial distributionof habitats todetermine impactsespecially thedeeper waterecosystem There isa strategy forexaminingecosystem impacts

Quantitativemodelling suggestspredation andcompetition aredriving forces.Evidence that trapshave a minimalimpact Cormorantsare considered amain bycatchspecies due to theirrole as toppredators in theecosystem. There isno formal orcomprehensivestrategy forprotection ofecosystem function

Limited or noimpact on otherretained non-target, bycatch andETP species. Themain functions ofthe target specieswithin theecosystem aregenerally known.There is nomonitoringprogramme toassess changes torisk to ecosystem

Limited or noimpact on otherretained non-target, bycatch andETP species. Themain functions ofthe target specieswithin theecosystem aregenerally known.The impact ofcasitas on habitatand ecosystem areunknown. There isno monitoringprogramme toassess changes torisk to ecosystem

Limited or noimpact on otherretained non-target, bycatch andETP species.Adequateinformation tobroadlyunderstand the keyelements of theecosystem. there isno explicitecosystem plan,and the ecosystemis not fullyunderstood as itrelates to thefishery

Information issufficient to give abroadunderstanding ofthe key elementsof the ecosystemEcology and thetrophicrelationships arefairly wellunderstood Thereis no explicitecosystem planinteractions of thefishery and thewider ecosystemhave not beenspecificallyinvestigated

Impacts onecosystem impactsof fishery areconsidered low butthere is no explicitecosystem planinteractions of thefishery and thewider ecosystemhave not beenspecificallyinvestigated

Information issufficient to give abroadunderstanding ofthe key elementsof the ecosystemEcology and thetrophicrelationships arefairly wellunderstood Thereis no explicitecosystem planinteractions of thefishery and thewider ecosystemhave not beenspecificallyinvestigated

Lobster does not play a key role inecosystem. Low bycatch thereforeimpacts are considered low. Nocomprehensive description of Gulf ofMaine ecosystem but descriptions ofinvertebrate, demersal fish andinshore benthic communities.Impacts on ecosystem impacts offishery are considered low but thereis no explicit ecosystem planinteractions of the fishery and thewider ecosystem have not beenspecifically investigated

a Refers to species non-target species that are retained by the fishery.b refers to non-target species that are not retained by the fishery.

L.M.Bellcham

berset

al./Marine

Policy50

(2014)249

–260257

required a considerable amount of time and resources. Theseconditions were addressed by using a combination of scientificallydefensible risk assessments [28,29,35,37] input from the indepen-dent advisory group, including producing a research plan [40–42]and targeted research projects [43,44]. This approach resulted inan increased understanding of the deep water ecosystem wherethe commercial fishery operates, which decreased the uncertaintyregarding the detrimental effects of fishing rather than answeringthe question per se (See Section 2.3 for further details). Similarly,[10] also found that the majority of conditions in P2 were resolvedby increasing the certainty that the effects of fishing are under-stood and management initiatives were implemented to detectchanges in or minimise risk.

4. Lessons learnt

Experience with WA rock lobster assessments over the past12þ years has highlighted a number of P2 issues. While no twofisheries under assessment are the same, it appears that the issuesexperienced and strategies implemented to support the ongoingcertification of the WA rock lobster fishery may be more widelyapplicable to fisheries at various stages of certification.

Firstly, it is essential that the fishery client, managers andscientists have a sound understanding of the potential and ongoingrisks in the fishery, as well as the type of data or strategies requiredto address identified risks. The MSC certification process has high-lighted the importance of having a robust scientifically-defensibleexpert based risk assessment in place early in the assessment orpre-assessment process. A risk assessment provides a transparentframework for involving stakeholders in the identification of issues,some of which may be addressed prior to certification, thusreducing the likelihood of onerous conditions. In addition, it allowsthe efficient allocation of resources to future management and/ormonitoring according to risk [30]. The importance of regularreviews of identified risks, including stakeholder participation, toensure changes in risks are identified and improved knowledge andresearch are accurately reflected in assessment process has beeninstrumental in addressing most of the P2 conditions initiallyplaced on the WA rock lobster fishery.

Since 2000, the MSC assessment process has also evolved withthe development of a fisheries assessment methodology (FAM)containing performance indicators and explicit sub-criteria toallow a comprehensive and objective review process [22]. How-ever, despite attempts to make the assessment process moreobjective and equal across fisheries, a lack of understanding of

Table 3Summary of conditions placed on lobster fisheries at each certification period. Information from public certification reports available on MSC website (www.msc.org). Note:blank cells represent criteria where there were no conditions, for fisheries assessed prior to 2011 conditions were matched to the criteria in MSC Fisheries AssessmentMethodology 2.2.

Component Panulirus.interruptus

Panulirusinterruptus

Panulirus argus Jasus tristani Homarusgammarus

Homarusamericanus

Homarusamericanus

Homarusamericanus

Fishery Mexico BajaCalifornia redrock lobster

Mexico BajaCalifornia red rocklobster

Sian Ka'an andBanco ChinchorroBiosphereReserves spinylobster

Tristan da Cunha rocklobster

Normandyand Jerseylobster

Eastern Canadaoffshore lobster

Îles de laMadeleinelobster trapfishery

Maine Lobstertrap fishery

CertificationPeriod

2004–2009 2011–16 2012–2017 2011–2016 2011–2016 2010–2015 2013–2018 2013–2018

Retainedspeciesb

Regularlyanalyse andreview dataon velvetswimmingcrab

Quantitative dataon Jonah crababundance anddiscards of adultand juvenilelobsters

Bycatchspecies c

Monitoring andreporting ofbycatchInformation onbait (species,amount origin)

Quantitative dataon bycatchspecies

Accurate andsufficient dataon main bycatchspecies to detectincreases in risk

EndangeredThrea-tened andProtectedSpecies(ETPs)

Quantitative data oninteractions with ETPspecies i.e. seabirds

Processes in placeto record andreport oninteractions

Habitats Monitoringprogramme todetect increasesin risk to habitatstructure andfunction

Strategy toensure fisherydoes not pose arisk of serious orirreversible harmto habitat types

Ecosystems Strategy forunderstandingecosystemimpacts offishingincludingmonitoringa

Information on theimpact of thefishery onecosystemcomponents i.e.Cormorantbycatch.

Monitoringprogramme todetect increasesin risk toecosystemstructure andfunction

Gap analysis andResearch plan for allaspects of fisheryincluding target nontarget ETP, habitats andecosystema

Strategies todetect and reduceecosystemimpacts includingETPs

Develop aresearch planfor all aspects ofP2a

a indicates conditions in P3 (Governance) regarding research plans that explicitly incorporate P2 components (e.g. habitats, ecosystem).b refers to species non-target species that are retained by the fishery.c refers to non-target species that are not retained by the fishery.

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260258

the process and requirements by the fishery client, managers andscientists can lead to inaccurate assessments resulting in onerousconditions that require significant additional resources [17].A fishery or client is expected to provide all relevant evidenceand documentation to the assessment team, as in general, theassessment team are not resourced to conduct their own extensiveresearch or data analysis on the fishery under assessment [27].While the FAM contains performance indicators and explicitcriteria by which a fishery will be assessed, there are no specificguidelines regarding the format of supporting documentation tobe provided by the client. However, experience with WA rocklobster assessments suggests that a single comprehensive docu-ment that is closely aligned with the MSC performance indicatorsand criteria provides assessors with an accurate and comprehen-sive understanding of the fishery that reduces the likelihood ofgaps in the information available for assessment. In addition, thisapproach highlights to the fishery client areas that may requireadditional data analysis or documentation prior to assessment,which may in some cases be achieved by revisiting unanalysedhistorical datasets or unpublished research. It is important toremember that while the assessment teams are comprised ofinternational experts, they cannot be expected to be aware of theintricacies of the fishery under assessment. Failure of the client toprovide adequate information may result in the assessors inad-vertently imposing conditions on the fishery that do not accuratelyreflect the real risks and gaps.

Secondly, the MSC assessment process requires a large amountof technical knowledge and data. Local expertise is essential forthe synthesis and analysis of data, preparation of assessmentdocuments and a comprehensive understanding of the fisheryunder assessment. However, the use of only local experts mayresult in motivational biases due to the alignment of individuals oragencies to a particular political or funding agenda. In the case ofthe WA rock lobster fishery, the formation of an independentEffects of Fishing Advisory Group, comprised of local, national andinternational experts, has been invaluable in minimising potentialbiases. The group provides a broader perspective on identifyingand addressing risks in the fishery based on experience in otherfisheries and reviews research to ensure that it is aligned with theobjectives of the research plan and addresses identified risks in thefishery.

5. Conclusions

Experience with the ongoing certification of WA rock lobstersuggests there are several key steps to achieving MSC certification,minimising conditions and ensuring improvement over time thatmay be useful in a wider range of fisheries.

� Education – ensure that the fishery client, managers andscientists associated with fishery under assessment arefamiliar with the certification process and understand theMSC FAM and the associated technical and datarequirements.

� Documentation – be aware of the risks in the fishery andhave a transparent process of risk identification. Ensurecurrent and historical data required to address the perfor-mance indicators have been analysed and presented in asingle comprehensive document. This saves time and moneyin the assessment process and focuses conditions andresearch on real gaps in knowledge/data.

� Independent advice – Consider establishing an advisory groupof local, national and international experts. An independentadvisory group may provide peer review of risks and research,but more importantly, acts as assurance to the assessment

team that the fishery has been considered in a broadercontext.Strategic framework – Establish a framework whereby thecomponents inform each other in a transparent and struc-tured fashion. Fisheries are not static but change with tech-nological advances, market demands and managementchanges. A defined framework provides a clear pathway foridentifying and addressing changes in risk.

Acknowledgements

We thank colleagues and anonymous reviewers for theircomments on the manuscript.

References

[1] Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, et al.Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science2001;2001(293):629–38.

[2] Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, et al. RebuildGlob Fish. Science 2009;09(325):578–85.

[3] Norse EA, Brooke S, Cheung WWL, Clark MR, Ekeland I, Froese R, et al.Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Mar Policy 2012;36:307–20.

[4] Pauly D. Beyond duplicity and ignorance in global fisheries. Sci Mar2009;73:215–24.

[5] Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, Lotze HK. Patterns and ecosystemconsequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol Lett 2010;13:1055–71.

[6] Cummins A. The Marine Stewardship Council: a multi-stakeholder approachto sustainable fishing. Corp Soc Responsib Env Manag 2004;11:85–94.

[7] Goyert W, Sagarin R, Annala J. The promise and pitfalls of Marine StewardshipCouncil certification: maine lobster as a case study. Mar Policy 2010;34:1103–9.

[8] Gulbrandsen LH. The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine StewardshipCouncil. Mar. Policy 2009;33:654–60.

[9] Gale F, Haward M. Global commodity governance: state responses to sustain-able forest and fisheries certification. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

[10] Martin SH, Cambridge TA, Grieve C, Nimmo FM, Agnew DJ. An evaluation ofenvironmental changes within fisheries involved in the Marine StewardshipCouncil certification scheme. Rev Fish Sci 2012;20:61–9.

[11] Fletcher WJ, Shaw J, Metcalf SJ, Gaughan DJ. An ecosystem based fisheriesmanagement framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for man-agement agencies. Mar Policy 2010;34:1226–38.

[12] Fletcher WJ, Shaw J, Gaughan DJ, Metcalf S.J. Ecosystem based fisheriesmanagement case study report – west coast bioregion. Fisheries ResearchReport 225. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia; 2011. Retrieved12 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/research_reports/frr225.pdf⟩.

[13] Fletcher WJ, Gaughan DJ, Metcalf SJ, Shaw J. Using a regional level, risk basedframework to cost effectively implement Ecosystem Based Fisheries Manage-ment (EBFM). In: Kruse GH, Browman HI, Cochrane KL, Evans D,Jamieson GS, Livingston PA, et al., editors. Global progress on Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Pro-gramme; 2012. p. 129–46.

[14] Parkes G, Young JA, Walmsley SF, Abel R, Harman J, Horvat P, et al. Behind thesigns–A global review of fish sustainability information schemes. Rev Fish Sci2010;18:344–56.

[15] FAO. International guidelines for securing sustainable small scale fisheries.Fisheries and agriculture organisation of the United Nations. Rome. Italy;2012.Retrieved 28 January 2014 from: ⟨ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/ssf/SSF_guidelines/ZeroDraftSSFGuidelines_MAY2012.pdf⟩.

[16] Pérez-Ramírez M, Ponce-Díaz G, Lluch-Cota S. The role of MSC certification inthe empowerment of fishing cooperatives in Mexico: the case of red rocklobster co-managed fishery. Ocean Coast Manag 2012;63:24–9.

[17] Heupel E, Auster PJ. Eco-labeling seafood: addressing impacts to vulnerableseafloor species, communities, habitats and ecosystems in data-poor regions.Mar Policy 2013;38:8–15.

[18] Ward TJ, Phillips BF. Lobster ecolabelling. In: Phillips BF, editor. LobstersBiology, Management, Aquaculture and Fisheries. Oxford: Wiley BlackwellScience; 2013. p. 139–85.

[19] Tlusty MF. Environmental improvement of seafood through certification andecolabelling: theory and analysis. Fish Fish 2012;13:1–13.

[20] MSC. Certified fisheries. 2013. Retrieved 6 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified⟩.

[21] Agnew DJ, Gutiérrez NL, Stern-Pirlot A, Hoggarth DD. The MSC experience:developing an operational certification standard and a market incentive toimprove fishery sustainability. ICES J Mar Sci 2013;71(2):216–25.

[22] Cambridge T, Martin S, Nimmo F, Grieve C, Walmsley S, Huntington T., et al.Researching the environmental impacts of the MSC certification programme.

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260 259

London;2011 .MRAG, Poseidon and Meridian Prime. Retrieved 12 December2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/documents/environmental-benefits/measuring-environmental-impacts-report-2011/environmental-impacts-of-the-msc-programme-full-report⟩.

[23] Agnew D, Grieve C, Orr P, Parkes G, Barker N. Environmental benefits resultingfrom certification against MSC's principles and criteria for sustainable fishing.London: MRAG, Meridian Prime and Marine Stewardship Council; 2006.

[24] SCS. Public summary of the MSC certification of the western rock lobsterfishery Western Australia. Emeryville CA, USA; 2000. Retrieved 22 December2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/western-australia-rock-lobster/assessment-downloads⟩.

[25] SCS. MSC Assessment: The Western Australian rock lobster fishery. EmeryvilleCA, USA; 2006. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/western-australia-rock-lobster/reassessment-downloads-1⟩.

[26] SCS. MSC public certification report Western Australia rock lobster fishery.Emeryville CA, USA; 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/western-australia-rock-lobster/2nd-reassessment-downloads⟩.

[27] Phillips B, Ward T, Chaffee C. Case Study 1: The western rock lobster. A: the fisheryand its assessment. In: Phillips B, Ward T, Chaffee C, editors. Eco-labelling infisheries what is it all about? Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2003. p. 94–102.

[28] Department of Fisheries. Chapter 2 Western rock lobster ecological riskassessment. Fisheries Occasional Paper 63. Perth: Department of FisheriesWestern Australia; 2009. Retrieved 17 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop063.pdf⟩.

[29] Department of Fisheries. Western rock lobster fishery. Ecological risk assess-ment 2005 report. Fisheries Management Paper 203. Perth: Department ofFisheries Western Australia; 2005. Retrieved 17 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/management_papers/fmp203.pdf⟩.

[30] Fletcher WJ. The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology toprioritize issues for fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci 2005;62:1576–87.

[31] de Lestang S, Thomson A, Rossbach M. 2010. West coast rock lobster fisherystatus report. Fletcher WJ, Santoro K., editors. State of the fisheries and aquaticresources report 2009/2010. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia.p. 28–38. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/sofar/state_of_the_fisheries_2009-10.pdf.

[32] Mawson PR, Coughran DK. Records of sick, injured and dead pinnipeds inWestern Australia 1980–1996. J R Soc West Aust 1999;82:121–8.

[33] Campbell R. Report for the sea lion scientific reference group. FisheriesOccasional Paper 16. Perth; Department of Fisheries; 2005. Retrieved 22December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop016.pdf⟩.

[34] de Lestang S, Thomson A, Rossbach M, Kennedy J, Baudains G, Steele A. Westcoast rock lobster fishery status report. In: Fletcher WJ, Santoro K, editors.Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia2011/12. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia; 2012.p. 37–48 (Retrieved 22 December 2013 from).

[35] Stoklosa R. Western rock lobster ecological risk assessment. Fisheries Occa-sional Publication 56. Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia; 2007(Retrieved 6 December 2013).

[36] McAuley RB, Simpfendorfer CA, Hall NG. A method for evaluating the impactsof fishing mortality and stochastic influences on the demography of two long-lived shark stocks. ICES J Mar Sci 2007;64:1710–22.

[37] Stoklosa R. West coast rock lobster fishery ecological risk assessment 20February 2013. Fisheries Occasional Publication 118. Perth: Department ofFisheries Western Australia; 2013 (Retrieved 16 December 2013).

[38] Bellchambers LM, Mantel P, Chandrapavan A, Pember MB, Evans SE. WesternRock Lobster Ecology – The State of Knowledge. Marine Stewardship CouncilPrinciple 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem. (Fisheries Research Report 236).Perth: Department of Fisheries, Western Australia; 2012 (Retrieved 12December 2013 from).

[39] Department of Fisheries. Proceedings of the western rock lobster ecologicaleffects of fishing workshop. Fisheries Occasional Publication 53. Perth:Department of Fisheries Western Australia; 2008. Retrieved 17 December2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop053.pdf⟩.

[40] Department of Fisheries. Western rock lobster ecological effects of fishingresearch plan. Fisheries Occasional Paper 39. Perth: Department of FisheriesWestern Australia; 2006. Retrieved 17 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop039.pdf⟩.

[41] Department of Fisheries. Western rock lobster ecological effects of fishingresearch plan. Fisheries Occasional Publication 72. Perth: Department of

Fisheries Western Australia; 2008. Retrieved 17 December 2013 from:⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop072.pdf⟩.

[42] Department of Fisheries. A report on the Effects of Fishing Advisory Group(EFAG) meeting (2–3 November 2010) and the western rock lobster ecologicaleffects of fishing research plan revised and updated by the Effects of FishingAdvisory Group (2-3 November 2010). Fisheries Occasional Publication 91.Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia;2013. Retrieved 17 Decem-ber 2013 from: ⟨http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop091.pdf⟩.

[43] Bellchambers L. The effect of western rock lobster fishing on the deep waterecosystems of the west coast of Western Australia. (Retrieved 12 December2013 from). Perth: Department of Fisheries Western Australia; 2010 (FinalFRDC Report, Project 2004/049).

[44] Bellchambers LM, Pember MB. Assessing the ecological impact of the westernrock lobster fishery in fished and unfished areas. Perth: Department ofFisheries, Western Australia; 2014; 254 (FRDC Final Report 2008/13. FisheriesResearch Report).

[45] Eno NC, MacDonald DS, Kinnear JAM, Amos SC, Chapman CJ, Clark RA, et al.Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES J Mar Sci 2001;58:11–20.

[46] Webster FJ, Dibden CJ, Weir KE, Chubb CF. Towards an assessment of thenatural and human use impacts on the marine environment of the AbrolhosIslands Volume 1: Summary of existing information and current levels ofhuman use. Fisheries Research Report 134. Perth: Department of FisheriesWestern Australia; 2002 (Retrieved 16 December 2013 from).

[47] Shester GG. Sustainability in small-scale fisheries: an analysis of the ecosys-tem impacts, fishing behaviour and spatial management using participatoryresearch methods. (Ph.D. Thesis). Stanford: Stanford University; 2008.

[48] Bellchambers LM, Evans SN, Meeuwig J. Abundance and size of western rocklobster (Panulirus cygnus) as a function of benthic habitat: implications forecosystem-based fisheries management. Mar Freshwater Res 2010;61:279–87.

[49] Hovey RK, Van Niel KP, Bellchambers LM, Pember MB. Modelling deep waterhabitats to develop a spatially explicit, fine scale understanding of thedistribution of the western rock lobster, Panulirus cygnus. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e34476, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034476.

[50] Intertek Moody Marine. Public certification report of the Eastern Canadaoffshore lobster fishery. Nova Scotia: Intertek Moody Marine; 2010 (Retrieved22 December 2013).

[51] Intertek Moody Marine. MSC assessment report for Maine lobster trap fishery.Derby: Intertek Moody Marine; 2013. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from:⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/north-west-atlantic/maine_lobster_trap_fishery/assessment-downloads⟩.

[52] SAI Global. 2013. MSC assessment: Public certification report for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Homarus americanus) trap fishery. Co. Louth, Ireland; 2013.Retrieved 6 January 2014 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/north-west-atlantic/iles_de_la-madeleine_lobster/assessment-downloads-1/20130716_PCR_LOB369.pdf⟩.

[53] MacAlister Elliott and Partners. Public certification report Normandy andJersey lobster (Homarus gammarus) fishery. Hampshire: MacAlister Elliott andPartners;2011. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/north-east-atlantic/normandy-and-jersey-lobster/assessment-downloads⟩.

[54] MacAlister Elliott and Partners. Public certification report Tristan da Cunhafishery for rock lobster Jasus tristani. Hampshire: MacAlister Elliott andPartners; 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2013 ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/south-atlantic-indian-ocean/tristan-da-cunha-rock-lobster/assessment-downloads⟩.

[55] MRAG Americas. MSC public certification report for Sian Ka'an and BancoChinchorro Biosphere Reserves spiny lobster fishery. California: MRAG; 2012.Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/western-central-atlantic/sian_kaan_banco_chinchorro_biosphere_reserves_spiny_lobster/assessment-downloads⟩. [4] Pauly D.2009. Beyond duplicity and ignorance in global fisheries. Scientia Marina. 73:215–24.

[56] SCS. An MSC assessment of the red rock lobster fishery Baja California Mexico.Emeryville CA, USA; 2004. Retrieved 22 December 2013 from: ⟨http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-programme/certified/pacific/mexico-baja-california-red-rock-lobster/assessment-downloads⟩.

[57] SCS. MSC public certification report Baja California red rock lobster fishery,Mexico MSC recertification. USA: Emeryville CA; 2011 (Retrieved 22 December2013).

[58] Shester GG, Micheli F. Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries:Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation.2011;144:1673–81.

L.M. Bellchambers et al. / Marine Policy 50 (2014) 249–260260