sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ecopath, Gulf of Riga, Vessel monitoring system

NZRO GULF OF HERRING ( Clupea harengus membras ) AND SPRAT ( Sprattus sprattus ) TRAWL

Herring landed at Skulte port. Picture from: Bureau Veritas

FINAL DRAFT REPORT

DECEMBER 2019

Prepared by: BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION HOLDING SAS

Authors: Hans Lassen Gemma Quílez-Badia Sarmite Zoltnere José Ríos Contact: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Client: Nacionālās zvejniecības ražotāju organizācija -NZRO- (Latvian Fishermen’s Producers Organization)

Contents

Contents ...... 2 Glossary ...... 7 1. Executive Summary ...... 9 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 11 2.1. Assessment team ...... 11 2.2. Peer Reviewers...... 13 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 13 3.1. Units of Assessment (UoAs) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 13 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 14 3.1.1.1 Other eligible fishers ...... 15 3.1.1.2 Proposed Unit of Certification ...... 15 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data: ...... 15 3.2. Overview of the assessed fishery ...... 16 3.2.1 Ownership, history and organisational structure of the assessed fleet ...... 16 3.2.2 Assessed area: jurisdiction and user’s rights ...... 17 3.2.3 General overview on the Latvian and Estonian ...... 18 3.2.4 Latvian pelagic trawl herring fishery in the gulf of Riga ...... 19 3.2.4.1 Commercial herring fisheries in ...... 19 3.2.4.2 Trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga: fishing practices, regulations and catches ...... 20 3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 21 3.3.1 Considerations on key Low species (Key LTL) ...... 22 3.3.1.1. Baltic proper: Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat ...... 22 3.3.1.2. The Gulf of Riga ...... 22 3.3.2 Herring stocks ...... 24 3.3.2.1. Gulf of Riga Herring ...... 24 3.3.2.2. Herring in SD 25–29 and 32 (Central , excluding Gulf of Riga) ...... 26 3.3.3 Baltic sprat ...... 28 3.4. Principle Two: Background ...... 30 3.4.1 Gulf of Riga: context ...... 30 3.4.1.1. Location ...... 30 3.4.1.2. Oceanographic and Environmental features ...... 31 3.4.1.3. ...... 38 3.4.1.4. ...... 38

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 2 3.4.1.5. and ecosystem resilience ...... 41 3.4.1.6. Regime shifts in the Baltic ecosystem ...... 42 3.4.1.7. Marine Protected Areas ...... 43 3.4.2 Species composition of the catches: species assigment to MSC P2 categories...... 45 3.4.2.1 Sources of information...... 45 3.4.2.2 P2 species classification following MSC requirements ...... 47 3.4.3 Primary species impacted by the UoC ...... 48 3.4.4 Secondary species impacted by the UoC ...... 49 3.4.5 ETP species impacted by the UoC ...... 49 3.4.5.1. Fish species ...... 52 3.4.5.2. Seabirds ...... 53 3.4.5.3. Marine mammals ...... 54 3.4.6. Habitats ...... 63 3.4.6.1 Habitats assignment as P2 subcomponents ...... 63 3.4.6.2 Management measures ...... 66 3.4.6.3 Habitats impact ...... 67 3.4.7 Ecosystem impact ...... 67 3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 68 3.5.1. Regulatory framework ...... 68 3.5.2. Institutions involved in the LFPO sprat fishery management ...... 72 Roles and responsibilities...... 72 Fishing rights and opportunites: mechanisms for allocation ...... 74 3.5.3. Scientific monitoring of the pelagic fishery in the Gulf of Riga...... 74 3.5.4. Control, enforcement, and compliance ...... 75 3.5.5 Fishery-specific objectives: the Baltic Sea MAP (Regulation (EU) 2016/1139) ...... 75 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 80 4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 80 4.1.1 Harmonisation activities ...... 80 4.1.2 Harmonisation outcome ...... 81 4.1.3 Harmonisation November 2019 outcomes – Principle 1 scoring for Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat ...... 84 4.2. Previous assessments ...... 88 4.3. Assessment Methodologies ...... 88 4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 88 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 88 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 90

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 3 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 92 4.4.4 Risk Based Framework ...... 94 4.4.4.1 Rationale for using the RBF ...... 94 4.4.4.2 RBF stakeholder consultation strategy ...... 95 4.4.4.3 Information and list of components obtained from the meetings ...... 95 5 Traceability ...... 96 5.1. Eligibility Date ...... 96 5.2. Traceability within the Fishery ...... 96 Description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems ...... 96 Risks assessment of the fishery traceability system ...... 97 5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 98 5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 99 6 Evaluation Results ...... 99 6.1. Principle Level Scores ...... 99 6.2. Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 99 6.3. Summary of Conditions ...... 100 6.4. Recommendations ...... 101 6.4.1 Rationale ...... 102 6.4.2 Recommendation ...... 102 6.5. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 102 6.6. Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 102 References ...... 102 General ...... 102 Legislation References ...... 112 Appendices ...... 114 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 114 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 114 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status – UoA1 (Gulf of Riga Herring) ...... 114 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A –key LTL- UoA2 (Baltic Sprat) ...... 115 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A –key LTL- UoA3 (Central Baltic herring)...... 119 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding –All UoAs-PI 1.1.1 (Gulf of Riga Herring), and PI 1.1.1A (Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat) scores 80 or above and therefore PI 1.1.2 is not scored for any of the three UoAs ...... 121 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy – All UoAs ...... 122 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools – All UoAs ...... 125 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring – All UoAs ...... 130

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 4 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status – All UoAs ...... 132 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 134 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy...... 137 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 139 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 141 PI 2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element...... 144 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 145 PI 2.2.2 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element...... 149 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 150 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 152 PI 2.3.1 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element...... 159 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 160 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 166 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 169 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 173 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 178 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 181 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 183 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 186 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework –All UoAs- ...... 189 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities –All UoAs- ...... 194 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives –All UoAs- ...... 199 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives –All UoAs- ...... 200 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes –All UoAs- ...... 202 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement –All UoAs- ...... 208 Evaluation Table for PI3.2.4 – Monitoring & management performance evaluation –All UoAs- ...... 213 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 216 Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 ...... 216 Appendix 1.2.2 -Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) ...... 216 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 229 Condition 1 for PI2.2.1 –All UoAs- ...... 229 Condition 2 for PI2.3.1 –All UoAs- ...... 231 Condition 3 for PI1.2.2 –UoA2 (Central Baltic Herring) & UoA3 (Baltic Sprat)- ...... 233 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 239 REPORT FROM PEER REVIEW A ...... 239

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 5 General comments ...... 239 PI comments ...... 240 RBF comments ...... 254 REPORT FROM PEER REVIEW B ...... 257 General comments ...... 257 PI comments ...... 262 RBF comments ...... 271 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 273 Follow-up from Peer Reviewers ...... 273 Follow-up PR-A ...... 273 Follow-up PR-B ...... 281 MSC Technical Oversight ...... 284 WWF comments ...... 289 Latest harmonisation outcomes ...... 291 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 292 Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale ...... 292 Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit ...... 292 Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program ...... 293 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 294

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 6 Glossary Below are presented the abbreviations and acronyms used in the report. The terms defined here do not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI vocabulary. Concepts and terms: Blim Limit [PRI refrence point] BMSY Spawning biomass (equilibrium) when fishing at FMSY BS Baltic sprat BSAC Baltic Sea Advisory Council BRP Biological Reference Points CAB Conformity Assessment Body (in the case of this particular assessment the CAB is BV) CBH Central Baltic herring stock CFP (European) CoC Chain of Custody CPUE DCF (European) Data Collection Framework ERS Electronic recording and reporting system ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected f/v Fishing vessel FCR [MSC] Fisheries Certificacion Requirements Flim Fishing mortality which should be avoided with high probability because it is associated with unknown or stock collapse FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY GoR Gulf of Riga GORH Gulf of Riga herring stock IPI Inseparable or practicably inseparable (catches or stocks) LTL Low Trophic Level MAP Multi-annual () Plan MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MS (European) Member State NGO Non-Governmental Organization PRI Point where would be Impaired UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VMS Organizations/Institutions/Bodies/Agreements: AC (EU) Fisheries Advisory Council ACOM [ICES] Advisory Committee ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas BALTFISH Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum BIOR Latvian Institue of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment BSAC Baltic Sea (EU) Advisory Council BV Bureau Veritas CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora CJEC Court of Justice of the European Communities EFCA (EU) Fisheries Control Agency EU European Union FAC (Latvian) Fisheries Advisory Council FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations HELCOM Helsinki Commission -Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission IBSFC International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea LFPO Latvian Fishermen’s Producers Organization (NZRO in Latvian) MSC Marine Stewardship Council NZRO Nacionālās zvejniecības ražotāju organizācija Latvian Fishermen’s Producers Organization (LFPO in English) STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (EU)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 7 WGBFAS ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (ICES)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 8 1. Executive Summary The client group includes 5 different fishing companies, all of them members of the Latvian Fishermen Producer’s Organization (Nacionālās zvejniecības ražotāju organizācija, NZRO or LPFO), which are currently owning 12 fishing vessels authorised for, inter alia, targeting herring in the Gulf of Riga. Henceforth, the term client will be used to refer to them. This Final Draft Report provides details to the client, peer reviewers and stakeholders on the assessment process of the NZRO Gulf or Riga herring and Baltic sprat trawl fishery against the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0 (1 st October 2014). The assessment team has addressed the comments received during the stakeholder period and modified the PCDR accordingly in order to elaborate the current Final Draft Report, which will be published at the MSC website for a 15 UK working day objection period. This report was prepared by Bureau Veritas Iberia. The assessment team for this fishery was comprised by Hans Lassen, Gemma Quílez Badia, Sarmite Zoltnere and José Ríos (who acted as team leader). The MSC certification process was initiated on February 14 th , 2019. following the publication of the official announcement and the timeline at the MSC website. No pre-assessment had been performed for this fishery. As part of the assessment process, the team visited Riga and Skulte (Latvia) between April 24 and 26, 2019. The assessment team met with managers, scientists and fishers’ representatives to discuss and gather information on the fishery under assessment. The team witness the landing and grading processes at the Skulte port. Also, a multi-stakeholder RBF workshop for scoring PI2.2.1 was performed in Riga on April 26. After the site visit, the team compiled and analysed the information collected and, when necessary, additional information was requested to the stakeholders. Each expert prepared their respective draft scores and rationales, and then all the team discussed and weighed up the evidences for assigning the final scores. Detailed scoring rationales are provided in Appendix 1 . During the preparation of the report the team requested the MSC for a variation on FCR 7.10.2.2 in order to assess the central Baltic herring stock as a P1, since in the gulf of Riga there is a certain degree of mixture between this stock and the gulf of Riga herring stock. The variation request was approved on the 26 th of July 2019 and can be consulted at the MSC website. The Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of 4 potential experts to undertake the peer review for the PRDR. This list, including a summary of the experience and qualifications of the reviewers was published at the MSC website on July 18, 2019. The results of this assessment has been harmonised with overlapping fisheries (see section 4.1) for a complete account of the harmonisation activities and outcomes. The Final Report includes a new condition on PI1.2.2 as a result of the latest harmonisation meetings held in November 2019. The team agrees that none of the scoring issues assessed for the NZRO Gulf or Riga herring and sprat trawl fishery fail to meet at the SG60 level, and a weighted average score of 80 or more was achieved for each of the 3 MSC Principles. Scores allocated to the default performance indicators are summarised in Section 6.2. The NZRO Gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery complies with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. Thus, the team determines that the MSC Fishery certificate should be awarded. Please note that this is a determination, not a final certification result. The team has set 3 binding conditions for certification and 1 non-binding management recommendations (see section 6.4 for more details). The conditions have been drafted to be closed within the first certification period.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 9

The main strengths of the client’s operations are listed below: . The stock status for all three stocks (G. Riga Herring, Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic Herring) are good. There is no need to score PI 1.1.2 (rebuilding). . Ecosystem functioning is well researched and there are for the Baltic Proper well established food web models available. Some understanding of the Gulf of Riga system has been published and further studies are emerging. . The harvest strategy is well established through the EU Multiannual Plan for the Gulf of Riga herring and for the Central Baltic Herring and the Baltic Sprat through the EU-Russian agreement for Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic Herring, see also weaknesses below. . There are well defined HCRs available, see weaknesses below. . The EU MAP for the Baltic (EU 2016) is applied to all three stocks. . The fishery and the stocks are well monitored through ERS, EU-DCF and stock assessments performed by ICES. Latvia and perform a joint annual acoustic survey in the gulf of Riga. . The fishery is highly selective, with catches of herring and sprat accounting between 87 and 99% of total UoA catches . No interactions with cetaceans have been reported from the monitoring program on incidental catches of cetaceans since 2006. . No interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys were reported by the client, and BIOR only recorded this species in very few occasions. No other interactions with ETPs have been reported for the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet . Since pelagic trawls are designed to operate free of the sea bottom, the fishery has very low or marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats, and is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of VMEs. . The fishery is managed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy and Latvian fisheries regulations. There are mechanisms in place to regularly evaluate all parts of the EU-CFP . The comprehensive MCS system implemented in Latvian fisheries is solid, there is evidence that sanctions are consistently applied and fishers comply with the management system. . The Latvian integral traceability system known as LZIKIS is in force since the June 1, 2018. The system clearly improved the possibilities for traceability of fish products from landing at a Latvian port until the product is consumed in Latvia or exported. The main weaknesses of the client’s operations are detailed herein: . for the Gulf of Riga are less developed than for the Baltic Proper ecosystem. . The EU MAP for the Baltic fish stocks (EU 2016) are applied to all three stocks for ICES advice. However, Russia has not fully accepted the EU MAP or an alternative MAP for the Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic herring. This leads to disputes over the quota allocation in particular for the Central Baltic Herring. . The assessments models could be improved to better provide confidence limits on the estimates or otherwise quantify the accuracy of the stock status. . All secondary P2 components were classified as Data Deficient in accordance to FCR7.7.6. . The smelt in the Gulf of Riga was found to score 60-79 based on the fish being sensitive to fishing and because the overlap with the fishery is high. This led to set a condition on PI 2.1.1 for this species. The status of the smelt in the Gulf of Riga should be established based on stock status reference points before the next certification period starts. The status should be based on an analytical or using empirical approached.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 10 . As a result of the harmonisation meetings held with Lloyd’s Register, the cumulative impacts from all MSC UoAs on harbour porpoise population in the Gulf of Riga led to set a condition on PI 2.3.1. . According to HELCOM’s “State of the Baltic Sea”, many ecological indicators are not in a good status, including some that are relevant for the UoA (i.e., pelagic habitats or in the Gulf of Riga). . ICES has raised concerns in recent advice about species misreporting (herring/sprat) in the Central Baltic fisheries, while the SES expressed some concerns in relation to a regulatory gap which may facilitate species misreporting in the mid-water trawl fisheries targeting sprat and herring. However, LFICIS system has improved the SES capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of misreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1. Assessment team The assesment team was comprised by the following experts. For more details on their CVs and competences of the team members, please check the announcement of the fishery at the MSC website (click here ): Hans Lassen (Assessment expert, P1 and P3) Hans Lassen is an independent consultant with a M.SC. degree from Copenhagen University and a B.Sc. from Copenhagen Business School. He is the author or co-author of more than 30 scientific papers in prime peer reviewed publications of fisheries related topics. He has more than 40 years experience with fish stock assessment, formulating and communicating scientific advice for fisheries. He has worked on fish stock assessments, estimating catch composition issues in fisheries, he has worked on cetacean surveys and ecosystem modelling, topics relevant to P1 and P2. He was involved in all parts of the Greenland fisheries management system representing Greenland Fisheries Research institute, he has been a member of Danish delegations on fisheries negotiations, he has participated in quota allocation workshops, he took part in numerous consultation meetings with the fishing industry partly as his function as scientific advisor and as head of advisory programme at ICES. He conducted regular meetings with RACs (now Acs) and worked as consultant for EFCA on management issues, all relevant topics to P3. He chaired a group that contributed to the EC review of the MGP programme: provided input to the 2002 reform of the CFP and been a member of a similar group that reviewed the Danish fisheries management system. He has participated since 2009 as team member in more than 25 MSC assessments and surveillance audits of North Atlantic and Baltic Sea including shrimp, pelagic and demersal fisheries. He carries a MSC certificate as Team leader/Fisheries auditor for FCR v1.3, v2.0 and v2.1. Furthermore, the certificate includes training as RBF assessor. Also, he carries a certificate as Team leader ISO 19011:2011. He has no conflict of interests with the Latvian sprat and herring fisheries.

Gemma Quilez (P2). GEMMA QUÍLEZ holds a Biology degree from Barcelona University (Spain), an MSc in Natural Management from Leicester University (UK) and a PhD in from Newcastle upon Tyne University (UK).

She has around 20 years of experience working in Marine Biology, Marine , Biology and Fisheries. In 1998, she did her MSc thesis on neritic and oceanic fish larvae from the Irish Sea. From 1999 to 2001 she worked at the ICM-CSIC (Marine Science Institute) of Barcelona (Spain) on trophic ecology of pelagic species larvae and participated in different

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 11 oceanographic cruises on board the RV García del Cid. In 2004, while doing her PhD on Marine , she was employed at the Fisheries Research Institute of Kavala, Greece, to conduct a study on trophic ecology of anchovy larvae. Also, during her PhD (2001-2006), she participated on several research cruises on board the RV Bernicia. Once she finished her PhD she went to work on marine invasive species for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (USA) until 2010. From 2010 until 2016, she worked as fisheries policy officer for the Mediterranean Programme of WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) in Barcelona, Spain. As such she worked on fisheries regional and international policy processes (e.g. GFCM, ICCAT, MedAC), mostly on Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna and at ICCAT, both at a scientific and policy level. She also participated in the creation and in the following functioning of the co-management committee of the Catalan sandeel fishery.

Since 2010 until present she has been working studying the biology, ecology and population dynamics of Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna and being deeply involved in the stock assessment of the species at ICCAT level.

In addition, from 2008 until 2018 she has been one of the two the Spanish representatives at two ICES working groups (WGBOSV - Working Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors, and WGITMO - Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms).

Her experience (over 8 years) studying the biology, ecology and population dynamics of Atlantic bluefin tuna, deeply involved with ICCAT, as well as her previous work on trophic ecology of pelagic species larvae, proves her capacity to meet the qualification and competency criteria for PC3 (i) Fishing impacts on aquatic . Her 6 years as WWF fisheries officer working on fisheries policy processes (mostly on Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna) and on the co-management of the Catalan sandeel, proves her capacity to meet the qualification and competency criteria for PC3 (ii) Fishery management and operations. She carries a MSC certificate as Team leader for FCR v2.0 and v2.1. Furthermore, the certificate includes training as RBF assessor. She has no conflict of interests with the Latvian sprat and herring fisheries.

Sarmite Zoltnere. SARMITE ZOLTNERE, since 2012 Lead Auditor of ISO 9001, 14001, 18001, ISCC, MSC COC, FSC COC; SA8000 in Bureau Veritas Latvia, SIA. She meets the competency criteria concerning current knowledge of the country and the CoC Standard and CoC Certification Requirements, language and local context established in Annex PC. She carries a MSC certificate as Team leader for FCR v2.0. She has no conflict of interests with the Latvian sprat and herring fisheries.

José Ríos (Team Leader and P2 and P3). JOSÉ RIOS holds a degree in Sea Sciences from the University of Vigo and an MSc in Fisheries and Aquaculture from the University of Wales-Bangor. He has 15 years of experience working in fisheries from different angles and places around the world. Between 2003 and 2010 he was responsible for designing and monitoring fisheries management plans for the exploitation of several marine resources (clams, cockles, barnacles, and octopus) for the Regional Fisheries Authority of Galicia (Spain). In 2008-09 he developed the scientific monitoring scheme for an experimental octopus fishery in the waters of Namibia for a private fishing company. Between 2008 and 2012, as part of different projects funded by the Spanish International Cooperation Agency (AECID), he supported local fisheries and aquaculture management bodies to strengthen organizational and managing capacities of the fishing and rural aquaculture sector in Namibia, Cape Verde, Colombia and Mozambique. Since 2013, as part of the fisheries team of WWF Spain, he was promoted different initiatives to improve fisheries management in coastal Spanish fisheries. As WWF representative he took part in the daily management of different coastal fisheries in the Spanish Mediterranean (Catalan sandeel, Balearic boat seines, and Palamós red shrimp).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 12 His 7 years in charge of designing and monitoring fisheries management plans for the exploitation different marine resources in Galicia, together with his experience on trophic ecology of species in the Mediterranean (ICM-CSIC), his work with the University of Azores assessing an experimental fishing license for in the Azores islands, and his experience designing and monitoring an experimental fishing license for octopus in Namibia (IIM-CSIC) ensure he meets qualification and competency criteria established in PC3 for (i) Fishing impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Also, his 3 years of experience as a practicing fishery manager as a WWF representative in 3 Mediterranean fisheries, together with his 7 years of experience participating in the implementation of fisheries management plans in Galicia and his experiences assessing experimental fishing licenses in the Azores and Namibia ensure he meets qualification and competency criteria established in PC3 for (ii) Fishery management and operations.

Since 2016 he is a full-time employee at Bureau Veritas Fisheries Department. He carries a MSC certificate as Team leader/Fisheries auditor for FCR v1.3, v2.0 and v2.1. Furthermore, the certificate includes training as RBF assessor. He has no conflict of interests with the Latvian sprat and herring fisheries.

2.2. Peer Reviewers The MSC’s Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for the NZRO gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery (click here to download the list ). 3. Description of the Fishery

3.1. Units of Assessment (UoAs) and Scope of Certification Sought Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that this fishery is within the scope of the MSC fisheries certification: - It is a non-enhanced wild-capture fishery - The fishery is not based on any - It does not target species classified as ‘out-of-scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) - It does not make use of any kind of destructive practices - It is regulated under the EU Common Fisheries Policy and is not conducted under any controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, further its management regime includes mechanisms for resolving disputes - Latvia has been a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) since 1991. The country has ratified 52 out of a total of 189 ILO Conventions, including the 8 core Conventions and the 4 governance Conventions 1. The CAB is not aware that none of the fishing operators included in the UoA have been prosecuted for forced labour in the last 2 years. Further, since the NZRO is already a MSC-fishery certificate owner for the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery, the organization has completed the MSC Certificate Holder Forced and Child Labour Policies, Practices and Measures Template in accordance with the new FCP 2.1. Besides, Bureau Veritas has checked that: - There are no catches of non-target species that are inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) from target stock

1 Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/gateway/faces/home/ctryHome?locale=EN&countryCode=LVA&_adf.ctrl-state=h39b6loo8_13

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 13 - Despite there are no other MSC-certified or in-assessment fisheries in the gulf of Riga, there are several MSC certified fisheries targeting the Baltic sprat and the Central Baltic herring stocks. Harmonisation process has been observed as described in section 4.1 . - The fishery has not previously failed an assessment and has no certificate withdrawn.

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) According to the UoA definition given by MSC in its MSC-MSCI Vocabulary and the information collected during and after the site visit, the CAB concluded that the UoAs presented in Table 3.1.1.1 meet the MSC fisheries requirements while suits client’s needs. Table 3.1.1.1 Units of Assessment defined for the Gulf of Riga Herring fishery Target stock Gulf of Riga herring (ICES SD 28.1) Fishing Area ICES Subdivision 28.1 (Gulf of Riga) Fishing method Pelagic trawl Vessels organised under NZRO and who have signed up for UoA1 Fishing operators the Gulf of Herring certificate Other trawling fleet fishing in the Gulf of Riga under Latvian Other eligible fishers Flag, members of NZRO and signing up for the Gulf of Herring certificate Target stock Central Baltic herring (ICES SD 25, 26,27, 28.2, 29 & 32) Fishing Area ICES Subdivision 28.1 (Gulf of Riga) Fishing method Pelagic trawl Vessels organised under NZRO and who have signed up for UoA2 Fishing operators the Gulf of Herring certificate Other trawling fleet fishing in the Gulf of Riga under Latvian Other eligible fishers Flag, members of NZRO and signing up for the Gulf of Herring certificate Target stock Baltic Sea sprat (ICES SD 22-32) Fishing Area ICES Subdivision 28.1 (Gulf of Riga) Fishing method Pelagic trawl Vessels organised under NZRO and who have signed up for UoA3 Fishing operators the Gulf of Herring certificate Other trawling fleet fishing in the Gulf of Riga under Latvian Other eligible fishers Flag, members of NZRO and signing up for the Gulf of Herring certificate The target species is herring and despite there is a separate herring stock in the gulf of Riga (SD28.1) it is acknowledged by ICES that there is a certain degree of mixture with the central Baltic herring stock (SDs25-27, 28.2, 29 & 32). Besides, Baltic sprat (SD 22-32) constitutes the main of this fishery. Therefore, a total of 3 different stocks with different geographical scopes are being assessed against MSC P1. Despite the geographical scope of the UoA (i.e. the gulf of Riga, SD28.1) is smaller than the geographical distribution of two of the 2 target stocks (i.e. Baltic sprat and central Baltic herring), when assessing P1 the team shall score the whole of the target stocks selected for inclusion in the UoA, in accordance with SA2.1.1. The list of vessels provided by the client to be included in the UoA (see below table 3.1.1.2 ) include almost 50% of the Latvian trawlers targeting herring in the gulf of Riga and most of the trawlers owned by fishing companies members of the NZRO which are targeting herring in the gulf of Riga (see section below on ‘other eligible fishers’). Table 3.1.1.2 . List of vessels included in the Unit of Assessment as provided by the client Special fishing permit # Vessel name Vessel reg Nº Fishing Company for the gulf of Riga 1 Zane LVR 0518 Yes “A.I. UN KO” Ltd.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 14 2 Sencis LVR 0662 Yes 3 Vergi LVR 0829 Yes 4 Urga LVR 0786 Yes 5 Ulrika LVR 0814 Yes “VERĢI” Ltd 6 Unions LVR 0805 Yes 7 Stella LVR 0841 Yes 8 LVR 1504 Yes “LĪCIS - 99” Ltd 9 Varita LVR0657 Yes “VARITA” Ltd. 10 Una LVR0844 Yes 11 Bukaisi LVV2058 Yes "Kursas Jura" Ltd 12 Bravo LVR0813 Yes

3.1.1.1 Other eligible fishers Other eligible fishers exist in cases where a client enters into assessment with the aim of initially certifying only part of a fishery, but also wishes to have the possibility of expanding the UoC at a later data by the mechanism of certificate sharing (see FCR G7.4.7-G7.4.9). All vessels shall hold a special fishing permit to fish in this area. Based on historical fishing rights only Latvia and Estonia have fishing rights in the Gulf of Riga and both countries have a fleet of pelagic trawlers targeting herring in this area. In addition, the Latvian fleet of trawlers fishing in the Gulf of Riga amounts to a total of 26 vessels, but only 13 belong to NZRO members. In turn, 12 out of the 13 vessels currently owned by NZRO (LFPO) expressed their interest in being included in the certificate process (see Table 3.1.1.2 for a list of the vessels to be included in the certificate). However, the client expressed his wish to not share the certificate with other fishing companies operating in the area which are not NZRO (LFPO) members or even with vessels belonging to NZRO members but which have refused to sign up for the MSC-fishery certificate. Therefore, there are no other eligible fishers in accordance with FCR 7.4.12.

3.1.1.2 Proposed Unit of Certification The unit of assessment (UoA) defines the full scope of what is being assessed and is therefore equal to or larger than the UoC. If it is larger this means it will include “other eligible fishers”. As in this case the are no other eligible fishers (see above), the UoC is equal to the UoA defined in Table 3.1.1.1 .

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data: Table 3.1.2.1 shows the EU TACs and the Latvian between 2016 and 2019 for the 3 stocks assessed against P1. The UE TAC and the total TAC is the same in the case of the gulf of Riga herring, while in the cases of the Baltic sprat and the central Baltic herring Russia is also part of the fishery. The gulf of Riga TAC is shared exclusively by Estonia and Latvia, the Latvians accounting for 53.82% of the TAC. Latvian allocations of the Baltic sprat TAC amount for 13.83% in the studied period, and only 2.77% of the central Baltic herring. Table 3.1.2.1. EU TACs and Latvian quotas between 2016 and 2019 for the three stocks assessed against P1. Source: EU Regulations Gulf of Riga herring Baltic Sprat Central Baltic Herring

(SD28.1) (SD22-32) (SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 & 32) 2019 2 EU TAC 31,044 270,772 170,360

2 Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1628

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 15 Latvian quota 16,708 37,460 4,723 EU TAC 28,999 260,993 229,355 2018 3 Latvian quota 15,607 36,289 6,359 EU TAC 31,074 260,993 191,129 2017 4 Latvian quota 16,724 36,107 5,299 EU TAC 34,915 202,320 177,505 2016 5 Latvian quota 18,791 27,990 4,921 EU TAC 38,780 213,581 163,451 2015 Latvian quota 20,872 29,548 4,532 The TAC proposed for the Gulf of Riga area is based on the advised catch for the Gulf of Riga herring stock, plus the assumed catch of herring from the central Baltic stock taken in the Gulf of Riga, minus the assumed catch of the Gulf of Riga herring taken outside the Gulf of Riga. Table 3.1.2.2 presents the UoA species composition of the catches in the gulf of Riga between 2015 and 2018 against the herring quota allocated in the gulf of Riga to the fishing companies included in the UoA. Comparing this data against those presented in Table 3.1.2.1 , it can be found that UoA’s herring catches in the gulf of Riga account for about 38-41% of the total Latvian quota of herring in this area (and for about 21-23% of the total TAC of herring in the gulf of Riga). Table 3.1.2.2 . Latvian trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga. Herring quota allocated to the fishing companies included in the UoA and UoA catch data (tons) between 2014 and 2018. Source: Client Herring Catches (t) quota Year allocated Four- to the Herring Sprat Cod Eelpout Smelt Flounder horned UoA (t) sculpin 2018 6,624 6,621.83 925.29 - - 1,066.28 - - 2017 6,702 6,667.68 1,389.60 0.10 - 389.93 - 6.20 2016 7,135 7,082.02 736.90 - 2.89 1.90 5.30 2015 8,303 8,236.14 263.71 - 7.48 240.27 578.44 - 2014 6,735 2,089.85 92.74 - 1.83 130.07 175.13 -

3.2. Overview of the assessed fishery

3.2.1 Ownership, history and organisational structure of the assessed fleet Society ‘’Nacionalas zvejniecibas razotaju organizacija’’ was created in 2004 for representing the interests of 34 Latvian off-shore fishing companies targeting cod and pelagic species. Objectives of society: improvement of fish trade conditions for the members of the organization, rational use of marine resources, development of catch plans and programs, development of fishing methods, control of fishing activities by members of the organization, protection of fishing activities, regulation of catch quotas of members of the organization - after coordination with the State Fisheries Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture. The NZRO is included in the list of recognized EU producer organizations since 25/10/2004. The NZRO participates in the Latvian Fishery Advisory Council (LFAC) and also in the Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC).

3 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1970 4 Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1903 5 Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 16 Currently the NZRO includes 12 fishing companies and a fleet of 25 trawlers. Only 6 of those fishing companies have trawlers with fishing permits to target in the gulf of Riga, a total of 13 trawlers targeting herring in this area. All those fishing companies and vessels, but one (see section 3.1.1.1), decided in 2019 to enter in the the MSC assessment process of the fishery.

3.2.2 Assessed area: jurisdiction and user’s rights Baltic fisheries are managed by EU Member States and the Russian Federation. The Parties cooperate on fisheries management under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement of 2009. The EU fisheries, including the Latvian sprat fishery, are regulated under the EU Common Fisheries Policy using a combined TAC and effort management system. In Latvia, the Competent Authority is the Fishery Department (Division of Fishing Management and Fish Resources), under the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries advice is provided by ICES, the European Commission’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), the Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), and BALTFISH. BALTFISH is a regional body involving the eight EU Member States bordering the Baltic Sea, which submits joint recommendations to the European Commission. BSAC is an advisory body composed of representatives from the commercial fisheries and other interest groups, mainly environmental NGOs. The fisheries statistics is split in subdivisions as shown in figure 3.2.2.1 . The assessed area covers ICES 28.1 (Gulf of Riga). Regulation EC 2187/2005 establishes specific measures to limit the total fishing effort excerted in the gulf of Riga: vessels shall hold a special fishing permit to fish, there a limitation on the total engine power by Member State (to levels declared in 2000-2001), maximum engine power by vessel (221 kW), several limitations to vessel engine replacements, and a prohibition to trawl in waters of less than 20m depth. The Gulf if shared between Latvia and Estonia, there is no international waters. Recreational fisheries are mostly managed at the national level. Based on historical fishing rights Latvia and Estonia have fishing rights in the Gulf of Riga and both coutries signed agreement on the management of the marine resources in the gulf of Riga in 1997. The herring quota in the Gulf is shared on 50:50 basis between Latvia and Estonia. A significant part of the fishing grounds are inside the 12nm coastal zones (territorial waters) of either Latvia or Estonia, and there is no bilateral agreement allowing Estonians to fish inside the Latvian territorial waters and vice versa. Since all Estonian fishing grounds are inside their territorial waters, the Lavtian fleet operates exlusively within the Latvian waters. Estonian, however, can fish in those fishing grounds located within the Latvian EEZ (but outside the 12nm). Both Latvia and Estonia establish closed seasons for the herring trawl fishery in their respective waters.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 17

Figure 3.2.2.1 . FAO Fishing Areas (green lines; areas are named 27.III.d.xx where the xx is the subdivision) and Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ) of the Baltic countries. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/baltic_fishing_zones.pdf

3.2.3 General overview on the Latvian and Estonian fisheries Based on ICES (2019d) below find a short summary of the pelagic fisheries in Latvia and Estionia including the fisheries in the Gulf of Riga Latvia The fleet comprises around 55 registered offshore vessels (12–40 m) and 610 coastal vessels (< 12 m). The offshore vessels target sprat in the Baltic main basin and herring in the Gulf of Riga using pelagic trawls, and cod and flounder in subdivisions 25 and 26 using demersal trawls. Since 2000, sprat and herring have accounted for 92% of the total annual landings. Most vessels in the coastal fleet are < 5 m and target herring, smelt, round goby, salmon, sea trout, vimba bream, turbot, eelpout, flounder, and cod using fykenets, trapnets, and gillnets. Recreational fisheries occur on all coasts and target flounder, cod, perch, and round goby.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 18 Estonia The active offshore fleet comprises around 30 fishing vessels (17–42 m), while the coastal fishery consists of several hundred small vessels of < 12 m. The pelagic fleet consists of stern trawlers mainly targeting herring and sprat in subdivisions 28.1, 28.2, 29, and 32. Trawlers also catch cod in subdivisions 25 and 26. About 25–30% of the herring catch is taken in coastal fisheries, mainly in the Gulf of Riga (Subdivision 28.1) and the Gulf of Finland (Subdivision 32) using trapnets and poundnets. Flounder is also taken (using Danish seines and gillnets) in the coastal fisheries in the Gulf of Riga and subdivisions 29 and 32. Recreational fisheries primarily target perch, pikeperch, flounder, and whitefish, mainly in the Gulf of Riga.

3.2.4 Latvian pelagic trawl herring fishery in the gulf of Riga

3.2.4.1 Commercial herring fisheries in Latvia The Latvian ‘Fishing Law’ distinguishes coastal and offshore fishing. Coastal fishing is in areas shallower than 20 m depth or inside 2 NM from the baseline, and offshore fishing outside those areas. The commercial herring catches in Latvia are due to: i. The off-shore pelagic trawl fishery targeting sprat in the Baltic proper (mainly in SDs 28.2 and 26). Here herring constitutes the main bycatch ii. The off-shore pelagic trawl fishery targeting herring in the gulf of Riga (exclusively in SD28.1). Here sprat constitutes the main bycatch. iii. Coastal fisheries in the gulf of Riga using traps (seasonal fishery between April and June) and gillnets. Major part of boats in coastal fisheries are no longer than 5m length. Despite of comprising a large fleet, herring catches from the coastal fisheries represent a reduce proportion of total catches in Latvia (around 3%). However, this contribution is higher in the gulf of Riga (around 15%). Figure 3.2.4.1 shows the geographical distribution of herring catches according to data from logbooks of the Latvian fishing fleets.

Figure 3.2.4.1 Geographical distribution of herring catches according to data from logbooks of the Latvian fleet. Herring caught outside the gulf of Riga is caught as bycatch of the sprat fishery in the Baltic proper. Source: BIOR

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 19 3.2.4.2 Trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga: fishing practices, regulations and catches The assessed fishery uses pelagic trawls with mesh size of 16 mm in accordance with the technical regulation (Council Regulation EC 2187/2005). The fishery is regulated (Council Regulation EC 2187/2005) by minimum mesh size (16 mm stretched mesh) and a prohibition to fish in water less than 20m depth. The gear is a light trawl (semipelagic trawl) with large meshed (3-24 cm mesh) in the mouth and with a fine meshed (~20 mm) codend. The gear is equipped with a light footrope consisting of a chain with small plastic bobbins. During the site visit the interviewed skipper informed the assessment team that the trawl is operated as far as possible free of the bottom and with 7-10 m off the bottom as a reasonable guess (see figure 3.2.4.2 showing that schools of herring are normally located between 8 and 20m above the seabed). The gear may occasionally touch the bottom during deployment but this is best avoided because of the soft bottom that is dominating in the fishing area and the gear may stick to bottom. Also because of fuel consumption the trawl is kept in free water dragging the trawl on the bottom is costly.

Figure 3.2.4.2 . Picture of an echo-sounder sign from a fishing vessel included in the UoA showing a typical herring school in the gulf of Riga. The herring school is concentrated between 10 and 22m depth, i.e between 8 and 20m above the seafloor. Source: the client A total of 26 Latvian vessels were authorised to target herring in the gulf of Riga with pelagic trawl in 2018. These vessels were owned by 13 different Latvian fishing companies. The UoA includes 12 out of those 26 vessels as detailed in section 3.1.1.1 (‘Other eligible fishers’). Out of the 26 trawlers targeting herring in the gulf of Riga, only 11 are fishing exclusively inside this area, while the remaining 15 vessels also have quotas for targeting sprat, cod and/ founder in the Baltic proper. All 12 trawlers included in the UoA have quotas to be fished in the Baltic proper. Fishing inside and outside the GoR in the same fishing trip is not prohibited due to the ERS which allows fishermen to change and record fishing gear depending on fishing area if a fishing vessel has an authorisation/fishing licence for fishing both in the Baltic proper and in the GoR, but only if fishermen can provide completely separated fish storage on board and fill electronic logbook in accordance with regulation. In practice this would require to change the fishing gear (there are different minimum mesh size requirements inside and outside of the GoR) and segregate catches on board. However, this is far too complicated and during the site visit the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that no fisherman has ever practiced that kind of fishing. The Latvian Ministry of Agriculture allocates 75% of the Latvian herring quota for the gulf of Riga (SD28.1) among the different off-shore fishing companies with vessels holding fishing permits for this area, while the remaining a15% is allocated to coastal fisheries. The Ministry also allocates a sprat quota as bycatch to each fishing company. Table 3.2.4.1 shows the herring and sprat quotas allocated for 2019 in the gulf of Riga to the different fishing companies included in the UoA. The

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 20 percentage of sprat allowed as bycatch differ between the different companies (between 2.8% and 19%). However, the fishing companies are allowed to trade with their quotas along the fishing season to cover their needs. Table 3.2.4.1 . Herring and sprat quotas for 2019 allocated in the gulf of Riga among the fishing companies included in the UoA. Source: the client.

Table 3.2.4.2 presents the total Latvian catches of sprat and herring in the gulf of Riga between 2016 and 2018 are presented against the UoA catches. The assessed fleet accounts for 37-39% of the total Latvian herring caches in the gulf of Riga and 45-51% of the sprat catches in this area.

Table 3.2.4.2 . Total Latvian catches (t) of herring and sprat in the gulf of Riga Vs UoA catches (t) between 2016 and 2018. Sources: the Ministry of Agriculture for the Latvian catches and the client for the UoA catches 2016 2017 2018

Herring Latvia 19.072,03 17.936,34 16.903,63 UoA 7.082,02 6.667,68 6.621,83 Sprat Latvia 1.599, 55 2.726,89 2.057,46 UoA 736,90 1.389,60 925,29

3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background The herring catch in the Gulf of Riga exploits both Gulf of Riga herring as well as Open Sea herring (Central Baltic herring in subdivisions 25, 26, 27, 28.2, 29 and 32). The UoCs covers fishing in the Gulf of Riga only (ICES 28.1) with three Principle 1 targets: Herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) split into three stocks: - Gulf of Riga herring - Central Baltic herring - Baltic Sprat in Subdivisions 22-32

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 21 Management of herring and sprat in these areas are based on TACs set under the EU CFP (Herring in the Gulf fof Riga) and by EU and Russia; (Sprat and Herring in the Open Sea). An EU multiannual plan for the management of Baltic stocks (MAP) is in place for stocks and includes herring and sprat (EU, 2016). Herring and sprat are caught together in a trawl fishery. There are well established sampling programmes that provide fairly accurate estimates by species. The fishery is obliged to sample the catches to provide estimates of landings by species. This is supplemented by BIOR that runs a data collection program with 2 BIOR scientists on board a few fishing trips for sampling. These scientists record catch composition, and sample length and age on sprat and herring. Furthermore, the programme provides data that allows a split of the herring catches into whether the herring is of Gulf or Open Sea origin.

3.3.1 Considerations on key Low trophic level species (Key LTL) Herring and sprat are both clupeidae and as such candidates for being classified as key LTL species FCR v2.0 Box SA1. Besides, for a stock to be classified as key LTL shall meet at least two of the following criteria (FCR v2.0 SA 2.2.9) i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’).

3.3.1.1. Baltic proper: Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat When judging the sprat in the open sea and the Baltic sprat, Andrews and Scarcella (2018) considering the Finnish pelagic trawl fisheries found that these stocks should be evaluated as ‘Key LTL’ stocks. Lassen et al (2017) considering the Latvian sprat fishery in the Open Sea found that Baltic Sprat should be evaluated as ‘Key LTL’ stock. This judgement is based on that ‘Standard ecosystem models of the Central Baltic ecosystem indicate that the herring and sprat are holding positions in the ecosystem meeting criteria (i) and (ii) as cited above.’ Hence Central herring and sprat are classified as Key LTL species and the present evaluation maintains this classification for Central Baltic herring and Baltic Sprat, i.e. that reference points etc also apply for their occurrence in the Gulf of Riga. This in spite that within the Gulf of Riga ecosystem these two stocks do not represent ‘Key LTL’ species (see below).

3.3.1.2. The Gulf of Riga The Gulf of Riga is in many contexts dealt with as a separate ecosystem, Ojaveer et al (1999), Ojaveer (2017). ICES ecosystem overview of the Baltic Sea, based on bathymetry and hydrology, however only distinguish three main regions, ICES (2019): . The transition area, consisting of the Belt Sea and the Arkona Basin; . The central Baltic Sea, consisting of the deep areas of the Bornholm Basin, Gdansk Deep, Gotland Basin and the Gulf of Riga; and . The northern Baltic Sea, including the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland and the Archipelago Sea. This split based on bathymetry and hydrology is not directly aplicable to assess the foodweb which is the basis for judging whether the herring should be classified as key LTL species or not. Based on description of the biological system in the Gulf of Riga (ICES 28.1), Ojaveer et al (1999) and Ojaveer (2017) the Gulf of Riga should be dealt with separately from the Baltic Proper (Open Sea). The annual acoustic surveys of the Gulf of Riga demonstrate the of herring within the pelagic fish compartment of the Gulf, Figure 3.3.1.1 The sprat is considered a component of the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 22 Baltic Sprat, occurs only in limited amounts and is not considered to represent a major foodweb path in the Gulf of Riga ecosystem. Tomzak et al (2009) presented a broad analysis of five ecosystems in the Eastern Baltic Sea including the Gulf of Riga. This is based on a general model applied to all ffive ecosystems and demonstrate energy paths through planktivorous fish, macro zooplankton and macro zoobenthos. This study is being refined for the Gulf of Riga system and the results of the ongoing with ecosim modelling for the Gulf has not yet been published, this model considers five pelagic fish components: adult and juvenile Herring, Sprat, Smelt and Stickleback and includes significant environmental drivers for the ecosystem, Figure 3.3.1.2 . There is no demonstration of ‘significant predator dependency’ for the Gulf, the major predator in the open sea, cod, is not present in the Gulf except in the . Other top predator e.g. seal are scarce in the Gulf. Based on the preliminary results it appears that i) is not fulfilled (there are numerous trophic connections that do not involve herring, and there is no demonstrated predator dependency), ii) might be fulfilled based on the dominance of the adult herring biomass, and iii) is not fulfilled (there are several other pelagic species and paths which do not involve fish at all where energy might pass). Hence, the Gulf of Riga Herring is not considered Key LTL species in the gulf of Riga. This would also be the case of the central Baltic herring and the Baltic sprat while in the gulf of Riga. However, for the purpose of this assessment these two stocks will be assessed as key LTL.

Figure 3.3.1.1 Catch composition in the acoustic annual survey in the Gulf of Riga. Dark blue is herring.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 23

Figure 1.3.1.2 Setup for Ecopath with Ecosim for Gulf of Riga. Source: site visit 24-26 April 2019 (BIOR meeting)

3.3.2 Herring stocks The biology of herring in the Gulf of Riga is described by Ojaveer (2017). The Central Baltic herring is accounted for by Andrews and Scarcella (2018). The G. Riga stock is isolated from the herring in the open sea although some limited exchange takes place. A mixture of central Baltic herring (subdivisions 25–27, 28.2, 29, and 32) and the Gulf of Riga (Subdivision 28.1) herring is caught in subdivision 28.1 and in the Open Sea. The assessment and the advice take account of all of the Gulf of Riga herring stock, both that caught in and that caught outside of the Gulf of Riga. The TAC is set for herring caught in the Gulf of Riga, which also includes a certain amount of central Baltic herring caught in the Gulf of Riga, but does not include Gulf of Riga herring taken outside of the Gulf of Riga. The assessments of Baltic herring are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is ICES (ICES 2019). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), ICES (ICES 2019).

3.3.2.1. Gulf of Riga Herring ICES (2019a) summarises that due to high recruitment, spawning-stock biomass (SSB) increased in the late 1980s and is estimated to have been above the MSY Btrigger since then. Recruitment has been quite variable from year to year without any clear trend since the late 1980s. The 2018 recruitment is estimated to be high. Fishing mortality (F) has been generally fluctuating around F MSY since 2008 and has been below F MSY since 2017, see Figure 3.3.2.1 . The stock assessment is based on an Age-based analytical assessment XSA (ICES, 2019a) that uses catches in the model and in the forecast. The data that are used in this assessment include: Commercial catches; one acoustic survey index (BIAS); one commercial cpue index (trapnets); fixed maturity ogive; natural mortality is assumed to be constant at 0.2 for all years except 1979–1983, when it was 0.25. The herring in the Gulf of Riga is managed based on the EU (2016) multianual plan for Fisheries in the Baltic Sea, and the ICES advice is based on this plan. The plan has been evaluated by ICES and found to be precautionary. Reference points has been defined for the stock, see Table 3.3.2.1.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 24 The TAC proposed for the Gulf of Riga area is based on the advised catch for the Gulf of Riga herring stock, plus the assumed catch of herring from the central Baltic stock taken in the Gulf of Riga, minus the assumed catch of the Gulf of Riga herring taken outside the Gulf of Riga. The values of the two latter are given by the average over the last five years. 1. Central Baltic herring assumed to be taken in the Gulf of Riga in 2020 (Subdivision 28.1) is 4377 tonnes (annual average 2014–2018); 2. Gulf of Riga herring assumed to be taken in Subdivision 28.2 in 2020 is 314 tonnes (annual average 2014–2018).

Herring—Gulf of Riga

Figure 3.3.2.1. Herring in Gulf of Riga (ICES 28.1). Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019a) Figure 1 and Table 1

Table 3.3.2.1 Herring in Subdivision 28.1. Reference points, values, and their technical basis. Weights in tonnes. Source: ICES (2019a) Framework Reference point Value Technical basis MSY Btrigger 60 000 t From stock–recruitment relationship Stochastic simulations with Beverton, MSY approach Ricker, and segmented regression stock– FMSY 0.32 recruitment model from the full time- series (1977–2013).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 25

Blim 40 800 t Blim = Bloss ICES (2015a) Bpa = Blim × exp(σ × 1.645) with the Bpa 57 100 t default value σ = 0.2 Precautionary Flim derived from the curve of SSB/R approach Flim 0.88 against F Fpa = Flim × exp(−σ × 1.645) with the Fpa 0.63 default value σ = 0.2 MSY Btrigger EU (2016 – Annex II column MAP MSY Btrigger 60 000 t A) MAP B lim Not defined EU (2016 – Annex II column B) MAP F MSY 0.32 FMSY EU (2016 – Annex I columns A and B) Consistent with the ranges provided by ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% MAP target range 0.24 – 0.32 reduction in long-term yield compared Management plan Flower –FMSY with MSY ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column A) Consistent with the ranges provided by ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% MAP target range 0.32 – 0.38 reduction in long-term yield compared FMSY –Fupper with MSY. ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column B)

3.3.2.2. Herring in SD 25–29 and 32 (Central Baltic Sea, excluding Gulf of Riga) Herring is one of the most abundant fishes in the Baltic Sea and is found in almost all areas of the Baltic Sea. The stock comprises mainly spring-spawning herring and a small autumn- spawning population. Spring-spawning occurs at the coast with a temporal gradient from south to north. After spawning, individuals migrate to the deep basins for feeding. In addition, migrations between subareas of the Baltic have been observed (Aro, 1989). Since 2005, the stock has been managed together in units SD 25–27, 28.2, 29 and 32 (EC and Russian quotas). Most adult fish are in the range of 20-30 cm. On average, more than 60% of the 2- year-olds and 95% of the 3-year olds are mature. The maximum lifespan exceeds 10 years Herring are demersal spawners. Herring represent an important prey for many predators, including cod and other large gadoids, dogfish and sharks, marine mammals and sea birds. The Central Baltic herring is assessed by ICES as a single stock. The basis for the advice and the stock status and trends are summarised in Figure 3.3.2.2 . The stock is almost entirely exploited outside the Gulf of Riga while compared to the catches in the Gulf the sprat stock is of importance.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 26 Central Balc Herring

Figure 3.3.2.2. Herring in the Central Baltic (ICES 25-29 and 32, excluding 28.1). Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019a) Figure 1 and Table 1

The assessment was benchmarked in 2013 and the present assessment has been conducted following the procedure agreed during the benchmark, i.e. an XSA based analytical assessment based on age compositions from the catches and acoustic survey information. The most recent assessment is presented by ICES (ICES 2019a) and the corresponding advice on fishing opportunities by ICES (ICES 2019c). Reference points are defined for the Central Baltic herring stock, Table 3.3.2.2 . Table 3.3.2.2 Reference points for the Central Baltic Herring. Source ICES (2019) Advice on Central Baltic herring Framework Reference point Value Technical basis MSY Btrigger 600 000 t Bpa Stochastic simulations with Beverton, MSY approach Ricker, and segmented regression stock– FMSY 0.22 recruitment model from the full time- series (1977–2013). Blim 430 000 t Blim = B loss ICES (2015a) Precautionary Bpa 600 000 t Bpa = Blim × 1.4 approach Flim 0.52 Consistent with Blim

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 27 Fpa 0.41 Consistent with Bpa MSY Btrigger EU (2016 – Annex II column MAP MSY B trigger 600 000 t A) MAP B lim 430 000 EU (2016 – Annex II column B) MAP F MSY 0.22 FMSY EU (2016 – Annex I columns A and B) Consistent with the ranges provided by ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% MAP target range 0.16 – 0.22 reduction in long-term yield compared Management plan Flower –FMSY with MSY ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column A) Consistent with the ranges provided by ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% MAP target range 0.22 – 0.28 reduction in long-term yield compared FMSY –Fupper with MSY. ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column B) During the benchmark (ICES, 2013a), the data used for the Central Baltic herring assessment were reviewed with particular focus on the tuning-series included, the degree of misreporting, natural mortality, weight and age and maturity. Two assessment models were evaluated, XSA and SAM, and it was decided to run both models in parallel until the next benchmark, using XSA as the primary model and SAM as the secondary model. Separate trial assessments for different populations conducted in 2013 (ICES, 2013a) showed only a limited impact of this complex stock structure on the perception of the overall stock dynamics. Species misreporting of herring has occurred in the past; this is presently considered to be negligible. As discarding is considered negligible for this stock, under the EU landing obligation, which entered into force in 2015, up to 9% interspecies quota transfers are allowed for stocks that are considered to be within safe biological limits (EU, 2013) - Article 15). The TAC value proposed for the central Baltic area is based on the advised catch for the central Baltic herring stock, plus the assumed catch of the Gulf of Riga herring taken in the central Baltic, minus the assumed catch of herring from the central Baltic stock taken in the Gulf of Riga.

3.3.3 Baltic sprat The sprat in the Gulf of Riga is a component of the Baltic sprat in Subdivisions 22-32. The abundance in the Gulf of Riga is well below that of the herring according to catch composition and to results from acoustic surveys, Figure 3.3.1.1 . The biology of the Baltic sprat in Subdivisions 22-32 is described by Ojaveer (2017). Status and trends for the stock are summarised in Figure 3.3.2.3 . The stock is within the EU (CFP) system managed according to the Baltic multiannual plan EU (2016). This stock is shared between the EU and Russia based on the EU-Russian fisheries agreement for the Baltic (2009). There is an understanding between EU and Russia on the allocation scheme for quotas. The advice, based on the FMSY ranges used in the management plan, is considered precautionary (see Table 3.3.2.3 ). Russia does not have a management plan for this stock. The stock is almost entirely exploited outside the Gulf of Riga while compared to the catches in the Gulf the sprat stock is of importance.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 28 Balc Sprat 22-32

Figure 3.3.2.3 . Baltic Sprat Stock status and trends. Source: ICES (2019b)

Table 3.3.2.3. Baltic sprat. Reference points. Source ICES (2019b)

Framework Reference point Value Technical basis MSY Btrigger 570 000 t Assumed at Bpa Stochastic simulations with segmented MSY approach FMSY 0.26 regression and Ricker stock–recruitment curves from the 1992– 2013 time-series Stock–recruitment relationship (biomass Blim 410 000 t which produces half of the maximal Precautionary recruitment in a Beverton–Holt model) approach Bpa 570 000 t 1.4* Blim Flim 0.39 Consistent with Blim Fpa 0.32 Consistent with Bpa MSY Btrigger EU (2016 – Annex II column MAP MSY B trigger 570 000 t t A) MAP B lim 410 000 Blim EU (2016 – Annex II column B) Management plan MAP F MSY 0.32 FMSY EU (2016 – Annex I columns A and B) Consistent with the ranges provided by MAP target range 0.19 – 0.26 ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% Flower –FMSY reduction in long-term yield compared

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 29 Framework Reference point Value Technical basis with MSY ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column A) Consistent with the ranges provided by ICES (2015a), resulting in no more than 5% MAP target range 0.26 – 0.27 reduction in long-term yield compared FMSY –Fupper with MSY. ICES (2015a) and EU (2016 – Annex I column B)

3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1 Gulf of Riga: context The Baltic Sea is one of the largest brackish areas in the world. It receives fresh water from a number of larger and smaller rivers while salt water enters from the North Sea along the bottom of the narrow straits between Denmark and Sweden. This creates a salinity gradient from southwest to northeast and a water circulation characterized by the inflow of saline bottom water and a surface current of brackish water flowing out of the area (ICES, 2008a). The Baltic Sea is characterized by large areas (ca 30%) that are less than 25 m deep, interspersed by a number of deeper basins with a maximum depth of 459 m. The Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Riga are internal fjords, while the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Finland feature several deep basins separated by sills. The western and northern parts of the Baltic have rocky bottoms and extended archipelagos, while the bottom in the central, southern, and eastern parts consists mostly of sandy or muddy sediment.

3.4.1.1. Location The Gulf of Riga (Figure 3.4.1.1.1 ) is a relatively shallow and isolated water-body with a surface area of 16,330 km 2. On its eastern and southern sides it is flanked by the Estonian and Latvian mainlands, and on the northern side by the islands of and (Kotta et al., 2008). The Gulf of Riga is connected to the Baltic Proper via the Irbe Strait, and to the Väinameri Archipelago Sea by the Suur Strait.

Figure 3.4.1.1.1 . The Baltic Sea Ecosystem and its subsystems with map of the Gulf of Riga. (Source: Kotta et al., 2008 and Furman et al., 2014)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 30 Regarding the ICES subdivisions in the Baltic Sea, subdivision 28-1 corresponds to the Gulf of Riga (Figure 3.4.1.1.2 ).

Figure 3.4.1.1.2 . ICES subdivisions in the Baltic Sea (Source: ICES).

3.4.1.2. Oceanographic and Environmental features The gulf has an area of 16,330 km 2 and a volume of 424 km 3, while its annual river inflow ranges between 18 and 56 km 3 (on average 32 km 3) (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). The residence time of water masses is 2–4 years (HELCOM, 1996). The Gulf of Riga receives fresh water from a huge drainage area (134,000 km 2), mostly entering the southern part of the basin (Andrushaitis et al. 1995).

Bathymetry In general, the bottom relief of the area is quite flat (Figure 3.4.1.2.1 ), with gentle slopes towards deeps. The northern part of the Gulf is characterised by a wide coastal zone with diverse bottom topography and extensive reaches of boulders. The southern part of the Gulf of Riga is more exposed; steep and soft substrate prevails. In the deeper parts of the Gulf, silty sediments prevail (Kotta et al., 2008). Its greatest depth being 51-60 m and the average only 23-27 m (Kotta et al., 2008; Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009; Szaniawska, 2018).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 31

Figure 3.4.1.2.1 . The bottom topography of the Gulf of Riga (Source: Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009 ).

Salinity Saline waters enter the gulf from the open Baltic Sea and mix with fresh water brought by the rivers flowing into the bay. The Dźwina River Daugava and the other rivers entering the southern part of the gulf have a substantial impact on the gulf (Figure 3.4.1.1.1 ). Their fresh waters reduce the average annual salinity of the surface water in the south of the gulf to 0.5–2.0 ‰, whereas in the northern parts the salinity is much higher at around 7 ‰ (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). Most of the gulf waters have a salinity of about 5-6.5 ‰ (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). In July, salinity has a two-layer vertical structure in the Gulf of Riga (Figure 3.4.1.2.2 ). The upper layer is thin, and the halocline is found at depth of 20-30m (Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009), although, due to its shallowness, the halocline is not permanent (Berzinsh, 1995 and Raudsepp, 2001 in Kotta et al., 2008). The watermass in the upper layer has a local origin, whereas warm, saline water flows in from the Eastern Gotland Basin into the lower layer of the Gulf of Riga. Salinity in the upper layer is between 4.5 and 6 ‰ and at most 7 ‰ in the lower layer (Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009).

Figure 3.4.1.2.2 . Surface salinity (left), and bottom salinity (right) of the Gulf of Riga in July (Source: Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009).

Temperature Because the Gulf of Riga is a shallow water basin, changes in air temperature have a direct influence on the dynamics of both surface and deep water. In a “typical” year the water is cold and no clear

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 32 thermocline occurs until May. Later, in July-August, the surface water temperature rises to about 17–20 °C while the bottom temperature is at 7-15 °C (Figure 3.4.1.2.3 ) and a thermocline builds up. The water temperature below 30 m remains relatively stable throughout the year at 3 °C. The thermocline reaches a depth of 25 m in August and disintegrates in September–October due to intensive wind mixing. In the course of autumn storms the surface water cools down to 9-11 °C and the deep water temperature to 5–10 °C (Kotta et al., 2008; Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009; Szaniawska, 2018). In winter, the coastal waters freeze over and, although the duration of the ice season has a large interannual variability and it depends on the area, the ice cover can persist from 80 days a year in the Irbe Strait and the open Gulf of Riga to as many as 150 days in Pärnu Bay (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). The number of ice days has decreased by 5–7 days in the last century (Jevrejeva, 2000 in Kotta et al., 2008 – More detailed information can be found in Section “Climate change effect in the GoR”).

Figure 3.4.1.2.3 . Surface temperature (left), and bottom temperature (right) of the Gulf of Riga in July (Source: Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009).

Oxygen The oxygen regime of the Gulf of Riga is relatively good due to its shallowness and strong vertical mixing. In most areas oxygen concentrations are higher than 5 ml ml −1 . From April to the middle of October, a summer, seasonal thermocline may restrict vertical water exchange, thus promoting oxygen depletion and storage of nutrients in the bottom water until the is remixed in autumn. Concentrations below 2 ml −1 have occasionally been found in the deepest part of the gulf (> 45 m) (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). Since the mid-1960s, however, a statistically significant decreasing trend in the concentration of oxygen has been observed in the Gulf of Riga (Berzinsh, 1995 and Yurkovskis, 2004 in Kotta et al., 2008). At a Baltic Sea level, total absence of oxygen and lack of oxygen in the deep water are mainly found in the central deep basins in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga (Hansson et al., 2018). During 1960-1999, hypoxia affected large areas while anoxic conditions were found only in minor deep areas (e.g., Autumn 1998 - Figure 3.4.1.2.4 ). After the in 1999, both areal extent and volume of anoxia have been constantly elevated to levels that only occasionally have been observed before 1999 (e.g., Autumn 2008 - Figure 3.4.1.2.5 ) (Hansson et. al, 2011).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 33

Figure 3.4.1.2.4 . Extent of hypoxic (grey areas) and anoxic (black areas) bottom water, Autumn 1998. Dots are the sampling stations (Source: Hansson et. al, 2011).

Figure 3.4.1.2.5 . Extent of hypoxic (grey areas) and anoxic (black areas) bottom water, Autumn 2008. Dots are the sampling stations (Source: Hansson et. al, 2011).

Nutrients The gulf is on average twice as eutrophicated as the Baltic Proper, and the outflow of nutrients through the straits is higher than the inflow (Mägi and Lips, 1998 in Kotta et al., 2008). The total inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are 141,741 t a −1 and 3,084 t a −1 , respectively. The seasonal and vertical regime of nutrients in the Gulf differs somewhat from that in the open sea. The nutrient concentrations are set by the occasional inflows of saline and nutrient-rich deep water from the Gotland Basin via the Irbe Strait, and year-to-year variations in river inflows. The rivers play a crucial role in the total input of nutrients and exceeds the combined contribution from atmospheric deposition, point emission from cities and industries along the coast, as well as nitrogen fixation by marine organisms. Higher concentrations of nutrients are found in the southern and northeastern

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 34 parts of the Gulf, i.e. adjacent to the mouths of the Daugava, , Gauja and Pärnu rivers. Because of its shallowness, the Gulf of Riga has no clear chemocline (Kotta et al., 2008).

Circulation in the GoR Regarding the mean circulation, modelling has revealed that the strength and persistence of currents are lower in the Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland, and Bothnian Bay than in the Baltic Proper, possibly due to the impact of ice in winter (Omstedt et al., 2014). Because the Baltic Sea is a permanently stratified system, a key physical feature is the deep-water circulation and its implications for the overall dynamics. There are still major gaps in the understanding of the physics of Baltic Sea deep-water dynamics. The main problems are different inflows and stagnation periods, water exchange between basins, diapycnal mixing, eddies, and entrainment (Figure 3.4.1.2.6 ).

Figure 3.4.1.2.6. Schematic of the large-scale internal water cycle in the Baltic Sea. The deeplayer below the halocline is shown in the lower part of the figure. Green and redarrows show the surface and bottom layer circulations, respectively, the light greenand beige arrows show entrainment, and the grey arrow shows diffusion (Source: Omstedt et al., 2014).

Coastal erosion Regarding coastal erosion, over the last two decades the loss of area has reached proximately 0.65 km 2 in the Gulf of Riga, compared to 2.6 km 2 at the coast of the Baltic Proper (Figure 3.4.1.2.7 ), but most of the new erosion risk areas are located on the western and eastern Gulf of Riga coast (Figure 3.4.1.2.8 ) (Kramer et al., 2012).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 35

Figure 3.4.1.2.7. Changes of the Kurzeme coast of the Baltic Proper (left) and of the Gulf of Riga (right) (1935– 1990) (Source: Kramer et al., 2012).

Figure 3.4.1.2.8. Width of a 50 year coastal erosion risk zone for the area along the coast of Gulf of Riga (Source: Kramer et al., 2012).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 36 Climate change effect in the GoR The duration of ice cover on the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Riga has been decreasing during the last 60 years and is related to later start and earlier melt of the ice cover. There are significant differences in respect to ice cover in the Gulf of Riga and at the coastline of the Baltic Sea. The time of ice break-up depends on global climate change and can be related to increasing air and sea water temperatures (especially in the autumn (September, October, November) and winter seasons (December, January, February)) (Klavins et al., 2016). However, the trends of sea ice regime are not consistent over different periods, and there are also alternating mild and severe winters. The sea ice regime appears to be greatly influenced by large-scale atmospheric circulation processes over the North Atlantic, especially during winter (December, January, and February) and cold seasons (October–April) (Klavins et al., 2016). Moreover, warming has for example lead to shifts in fish phenology (http://marinespecies.org/introduced/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_the_North_Sea_and_Baltic_Sea#ci te_note-ma-1). During the substantially colder climate in the 17 th century, the herring Clupea harengus membras fishery in the Gulf of Riga mostly took place during the summer months (June- July). This was probably because the fish migrated later to the spawning areas close to the coast where they were caught. In contrast, nowadays, in much warmer climate conditions, the coastal trapnet herring fishery in spawning grounds takes place a few months earlier (Heip et al., 2009). Climate change will also have many non-thermal impacts on fish populations. For example, changes in the strength, direction and location of ocean currents can affect the probability that fish eggs and larvae survive and grow. Moreover, as temperatures rise, the ability of the ocean to retain oxygen will decrease. In many coastal areas in Europe (e.g., bays, straits, estuaries) the combination of rising temperature and decreasing oxygen, will lead to eutrophication, especially in areas which already also receive high levels of nutrients such as the Gulf of Riga. This will reduce the size of bottom-living fish species such as cod and flatfishes. These species will become less abundant and widespread as coastal areas experience longer and more frequent anoxic periods (MarBEF, 2008; Heip et al., 2009). In some areas of the world, climate change could even influence the salinity of the seawater. This could happen because precipitation and the discharge of freshwater from rivers and lakes in, for example, north-eastern Europe, could change. In the Baltic Sea, some climate oceanographic models predict that the salinity will fall even further because climate change in this area will increase precipitation. The salinity in this area is already so low that some fish species have adapted their physiology to be able survive. If climate change leads to a fall in Baltic Sea salinity, this will reduce the number of marine fish species, even though one might otherwise predict that the increasing temperature should allow warm water-adapted species to immigrate. The Baltic Sea example shows that it will be important to consider multiple aspects of climate change, especially in coastal areas, if we are to estimate how marine biodiversity will change in future (Heip et al., 2009). In general, changes in sea surface level are determined by changes in the global mean sea level, the uplift and future changes in the local wind and pressure patterns. Although the size of the global mean level change is under debate, the total effect is anticipated to be larger in the southern and southeastern part of the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Riga and Gulf of Finland while the northern part will be less affected due to the ongoing uplift. Postglacial uplift is still ongoing in the northern part of the Baltic Sea while the southern parts are sinking (Kramer et al., 2012). With climate change, both the melting of land-based glaciers and the seawater rise as it warms up will cause flooding of existing coastal lowlands. The newly flooded coastal areas will provide more fish habitat, especially for benthic juveniles stages which are common in coastal areas (Heip et al., 2009).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 37 3.4.1.3. Habitats A broad-scale seabed habitat map for Europe (EUSeaMap (2019) – EUNIS/full-detail classification) was obtained from the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu ) for the Gulf of Riga and is shown in Figure 3.4.1.3.1 . In general, in the Gulf of Riga sand and mixed sediments (gravel and pebbles) can be found in coastal areas, while clay–silt is found at around 80 m depth (Kotta et al., 2008; Szaniawska, 2018). The northern part of the Gulf is characterised by a wide coastal zone with diverse bottom topography and extensive reaches of boulders, while the southern part of the Gulf of Riga is more exposed and steep and soft (mudh and sand) substrate prevails (Kotta et al., 2008).

Figure 3.4.1.3.1 . EUSeaMap (2019) – EUNIS/full-detail classification. Source: EMODnet - https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/access-data/launch-map-viewer/

3.4.1.4. Biodiversity The brackish Baltic Sea hosts species of various origins and environmental tolerances. These immigrated to the sea 10,000 to 15,000 years ago or have been introduced to the area over the relatively recent history of the system (Ojaveer et al., 2010 and references therein). Based on a variety of available data sources (published papers, reports, grey literature, unpublished data), the Baltic Sea, incl. Kattegat, hosts altogether at least 6,065 species, including at least 1,700 phytoplankton, 442 phytobenthos, at least 1,199 zooplankton, at least 569 meiozoobenthos, 1,476 macrozoobenthos, at least 380 vertebrate parasites, about 200 fish, 3 seal, and 83 bird species (Ojaveer et al., 2010 and references therein). In general, but not in all organism groups, high sub- regional total is associated with elevated salinity (e.g., macrozoobenthos in Figure 3.4.1.4.1 ). Although in comparison with fully marine areas the Baltic Sea supports fewer species, several facets of the system’s diversity remain underexplored to this day, such as micro-organisms, foraminiferans, meiobenthos and parasites (Ojaveer et al., 2010).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 38

Figure 3.4.1.4.1 . Sub-regional distribution of (A) marine and (B) freshwater taxa in the Baltic Sea: case of macrozoobenthos. Source: Ojaveer et al., 2010. In particular, for the Gulf of Riga, while the total number of phytobenthic species is rather high for the whole Baltic Sea area, the GoR diversity is much lower (Figure 3.4.1.4.2 B), i.e., the total number of macroscopic phytobenthos species is 39, including 12 species of aquatic higher plants (Ojaveer et al., 2010). The low salinity, sandy sediments and the bottom instability caused by frequent turbulence is the reason for the small number of phytobenthic species (Szaniawska, 2018). The sub-regional diversity of heterotrophic plankton may be best illustrated by flagellates. As observed from Figure 3.4.1.4.2 C, the highest species richness is registered in Kattegat (240 species) while the lowest in the Gulf of Riga (Ojaveer et al., 2010). And the same more or less happens with all six organism groups studied (Figure 3.4.1.4.2) (Ojaveer et al., 2010).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 39

Figure 3.4.1.4.2 . Recorded sub-regional species richness of six organism groups in the Baltic Sea. Regarding fish, over 50 fish species and two cyclostomes – the anadromous river lamprey ( Lampetra fluviatilis ) and the sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) – live in the Gulf of Riga. The ichthyofauna of the Gulf of Riga consists mainly of marine boreal species. Here is found the most abundant and important commercial species, the Baltic herring ( Clupea harengus membras ), but also eelpout (Zoarces viviparus ), flounder ( Platichthys flesus ), three-spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) and cod ( Gadus morhua ) (Kotta et al., 2008). Migratory fish are of lesser importance. Among anadromous and catadromous fish, the most important are smelt ( Osmerus eperlanus ), whitefish ( Coregonus lavaretus ), vimba bream ( Vimba vimba ), salmon ( Salmo salar ) and historically also sturgeon (Acipenser sturio ) (Kotta et al., 2008). The number of freshwater fish species is relatively high and they are important in coastal fisheries over the entire basin. The most common species are perch ( Perca fluviatilis ), pikeperch ( Sander lucioperca ) and several cyprinid species such as whitebream (Blicca bjoerkna ), roach ( Rutilus rutilus ), and bream ( Abramis brama ) (Kotta et al., 2008). The Gulf of Riga is also known as an important refuge for glacial relict species. In addition to historical introductions [e.g. rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchys mykiss ), gibel carp ( Carassius gibelio ), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), chum salmon ( Oncorhynchys keta ), humpback salmon ( O. gorbusha ), sterlet ( Acipenser ruthenus ), Siberian sturgeon ( A. baeri ), and Russian sturgeon ( A. gueldenstaedti )], two new alien species have been recorded recently: the round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ) and the bighead ( Aristichthys nobilis ) (Kotta et al., 2008).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 40 3.4.1.5. Food web and ecosystem resilience The models of the Baltic food web predict that top predators at the fourth trophic level, including mammals, large fish and cormorants, control the abundance of small fish species at the third trophic level such as perch, sprat, herring and cyprinid fish. The second level mainly consists of herbivorous invertebrates such as zooplankton and benthic invertebrate fauna (zoobenthos), which control the abundance of primary producers at the fi rst trophic level (phytoplankton, benthic algae and vascular plants) (HELCOM, 2010). Currently, however, the long-standing balance among the trophic levels has been disturbed and the zooplankton and benthic fauna at the second trophic level are subject to pressures both from above and from below. On the one hand, the zooplankton and benthic fauna can no longer control the abundance of phytoplankton, benthic algae and vascular plants at the first trophic level in many areas of the Baltic, where excessive nutrients have caused accelerated plant growth and eutrophication. At the same time, the zooplankton and benthic fauna are impacted by growing numbers of hungry perch, sprat and herring. These, in turn, are thriving well because their predators, including larger fish, seals, harbour porpoises and white-tailed eagles (at level four), have been reduced owing to human pressures (HELCOM, 2010). In order to analyse the food web dynamics of the Gulf of Riga, monthly sampling of phytoplankton, zooplankton biomass and herring food composition was performed during 2011 and 2012. Based on these data, an Ecopath model was set up to describe the food web dynamics, mainly focusing on the role of herring, and a cold year (2006) whith low zooplankton biomass in spring was added to the analysis, using historical data sets collected by BIOR (Putnis et al., 2013). rates from the Ecopath models indicated that fish provides significant impact on zooplankton production during the autumn time in year 2012 (Figure 3.4.1.5.1 ), mainly due to declining zooplankton biomass and production rates in autumn. Both 2011 and 2012 were warm years with relatively high zooplankton biomass and production rates during spring, so the predation impact by fish on spring zooplankton was low. Contrary, May 2006 was characterized by low zooplankton biomass and in fish consumption exceeded zooplankton production (Figure 3.4.1.5.1 .d). With the fish groups, adult herring has the largest impact on zooplankton, followed by stickleback. However during spring (May), part of the adult herring stock are not feeding at spawning time, so consumption rate for adult herring might be overestimated. Age 1 herring does not spawn and actively feeds during the spring time. The amount of herring at age 1 varies from year to year and depends on recruitment success during the previous year, which has large scale fluctuations (ICES, 2013b). Therefore, in years following the spawnign of a rich herring year-class, age 1 herring may exert significant predation pressure on zooplankton during spring, resulting in reduced prey availability for young of the year herring. This can contribute to poor recruitment success, especially when environmental conditions are unfavourable for zooplankton production as shown for May 2006 (Putnis et al., 2013).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 41

Figure 3.4.1.5.1 . Production of zooplankton biomass and zooplankton consumption by fish in the Gulf of Riga foodweb (tons wet weight km -2/day -1). a. May 2012; b. August 2012; c. October 2012; d. May 2006. Source: Putnis et al., 2013.

3.4.1.6. Regime shifts in the Baltic ecosystem Food-web models suggest that the co-occurrence of a weakened predation pressure by fewer mammals and large fish and increased primary productivity at level one have caused a complex series of changes in the Baltic Sea. As many as three regime shifts seem to have occurred in the Baltic Sea during the 20 th century (Osterblom et al. 2007). Although some of the observed changes are considered to have been influenced by climatic variation, reduced top predation pressure and excessive nutrient loading are likely to be the other causative factors (Mollmann et al. 2008; 2009). The first of the three changes in the Baltic food-web structure took place in the early 20th century, when increasing cod populations signalled the decline of seal and harbour porpoise populations due to hunting. The second change in the food-web structure was caused by increased nutrient loading from the catchment area, which led to an increased productivity in the sea. The development of a large-scale fi shing industry in the Baltic in the latter half of the 20th century caused the third change in the foodweb structure, leading to prospering prey fish populations. During this shift, the cod population plunged and decreased sevenfold, while the sprat population benefi ted and multiplied eightfold. The cascading effects of decreased predation and increased resources may also bring about eutrophication effects, including blooms of blue-green algae and nuisance short-lived macroalgae (Vos et al. 2004, Heck and Valentine 2007). Support for such a scenario has been recently found in the Baltic marine environment (Casini et al. 2008). The changes in the food-web structure have mainly been seen in the pelagic areas of the Baltic Sea, but increasing evidence shows that similar phenomena can also be observed in the coastal areas (Korpinen 2008, Eriksson et al. 2009).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 42 For the Gulf of Riga, an analysis of available data identified two regime shifts for the Gulf of Riga dataset, in 1982/1983 and 1988/1989 (Figure 3.4.1.6.1 ). The first regime shifts marked a slight summer warming in the Gulf and initial higher summer phytoplankton biomass, whereas 1988/1989 initiated the major restructuring in water temperatures, zooplankton biomass and herring stock size in the Gulf of Riga (ICES, 2014a).

Figure 3.4.1.6.1. Traffic-light plot of the temporal development of the Gulf of Riga time-series. Variables are transformed into quintiles, colour coded (green = low values; red = high values), and sorted in numerically descending order according to their loadings on the first principal component (PC1). Source: ICES, 2014a

3.4.1.7. Marine Protected Areas In the Baltic Sea, the most important strategy in place for managing all impacts on (including fishing impacts) is the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) ( http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea- action-plan ). The BSAP is an ambitious programme to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. The Plan, adopted by all the coastal states and the EU in 2007, provides a concrete basis for HELCOM work. It incorporates the latest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation, and stimulates goal- oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region. The BSAP is regularly updated in ministerial meetings. Under the umbrella of the BSAP, several actions are being implemented, as for example the network of HELCOM MPAs established in the Baltic Sea (including the Gulf of Riga) for protecting marine habitats and species. The network of HELCOM MPAs are currently covering 11.8% of the total

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 43 marine area of the Baltic Sea, above the 10% target established by UN Convention on Biological Diversity - CBD (HELCOM, 2016). Of the 176 established HELCOM MPAs, 127 (72%) currently have a management plan in force, and 39 HELCOM MPAs (22%) have a management plan under preparation. The following figure shows HELCOM MPAs management plan status for the Gulf of Riga (Figure 3.4.1.7.1 ).

Figure 3.4.1.7.1 . HELCOM MPAs and their management plan status in August 2017. Source: http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/marine-protected-areas/management-of-sites/

In addition to the HELCOM BSAP, Natura 2000 is an EU network of areas of high biodiversity value. It comprises special protection areas (SPAs) established under the 'birds directive' (1979 – EC, 2009) and special areas of conservation (SACs) established under the 'habitats directive' (1992 – EC, 1992). HELCOM MPAs are restricted to the coastal zone and marine area, while Natura 2000 areas may also cover inland areas. The Natura 2000 network protects natural habitats and species deemed important at EU level, whereas the HELCOM MPAs network aims to protect marine and coastal habitats and species specific for the Baltic Sea. Figure 3.4.1.7.2 shows HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 areas in the Baltic Sea.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 44

Figure 3.4.1.7.2 . HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 areas in the Baltic Sea. MPA data are from August 2017 and Natura 2000 data are from December 2011. Source: HELCOM - http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/marine- protected-areas/HELCOM-MPAs-and-Natura-2000-areas/

3.4.2 Species composition of the catches: species assigment to MSC P2 categories The species assessed under P2 are those species in the catch that are not covered under P1. The assessment team considered each P2 species within only one of the primary species, secondary species or ETP species components, according to MSC FCRs SA3.1.3-3.1.5 and SA3.4.4-3.4.5.

3.4.2.1 Sources of information Before categorising P2 species, it is important to indicate the different sources of information used by the team to assess the species impacted by the fishery:

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 45 a. Data collected by the UoA EU fishing vessels are bound to record their catches in their logbooks. In the case of the assessed fleet, they do it in electronic format in accordance to the applicable regulations, i.e., COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009, COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011, and the Latvian Cabinet Regulation No 296 of 2 May 2007. From these logbooks, the obtained UoA catches are the ones presented above in Table 3.1.2.2 from section “3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data” in tons. The following table (Table 3.4.2.1.1 ) summarizes the percentage of catches (in tons) of the different species caught by the UoA while fishing for herring between 2014 and 2018. Table 3.4.2.1.1. Latvian herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga. Percentage of catches (tons) per species 2014- 2018. Source: Client.

Herring Sprat Cod Eelpout Smelt Flounder Fourhorn sculpin Year (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

2018 76.878 10.742 0.000 0.000 12.379 0.000 0.000

2017 78.875 16.438 0.001 0.000 4.613 0.000 0.073

2016 90.459 9.412 0.000 0.037 0.024 0.000 0.078

2015 88.313 2.828 0.000 0.080 2.576 6.202 0.000

2014 83.943 3.725 0.000 0.074 5.224 7.034 0.000 These data were taken into account to elaborate the table presented in the following section, where all species with recorded interactions with the assessed fleet are presented and assigned to MSC P2- components.

b. Data from biological sampling on comercial pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR Unlike in the Baltic Proper sprat fishery, there is no on-board observer program in the GoR herring fishery as vessels are smaller (restricted to 221 kW, in accordance to COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea) and therefore it is more difficult to have observers on board on a regular basis. Nevertheless, BIOR performs a sampling program at ports . Biological data collection from the herring pelagic trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga is performed on a monthly basis using random draw from vessels and the samples are collected from the selected vessels in the harbours (BIOR, 2016) . The sample number per 1000 t has been increasing in the last three years: 2.9 samples per 1000 t were taken in 2016, 3.3 in 2017, and 3.6 in 2018 (ICES, 2017; 2018; 2019). During the site visit, BIOR presented to the team the distribution of species composition (by weight) in all the biological samples from commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga obtained from the aforementioned sampling between 2015 and 2018 (total of 121 samples) (Figure 3.4.2.1.1 ). These data match those provided by the client (Table 3.4.2.1.1 ) when it comes to identify the assessed fishery as a highly selective fishery with herring and sprat accounting for 87,6 – 99,9 % of the total catches (2015-2018). Furthermore, since the sampling and identification processes conducted by BIOR are more detailed than those applied by the fishing companies, it seems right that the list of bycatch species is larger than that from the client. However, comparing both sets of data there are some notorious differences in relation to the contribution of smelt and fourhorn sculpin, see section 3.4.2.2 to understand how these differences were taken into account for species assignation to MSC P2 components.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 46 All these data were taken into account to elaborate the table presented in the next section where all species with recorded interactions with the UoA are presented and assigned to MSC P2 components.

Figure 3.4.2.1.1 . Distribution of species composition (by weight) in all biological samples from commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga collected during 2015-2018 (total of 121 samples ). Source : BIOR

3.4.2.2 P2 species classification following MSC requirements According to the different sources of information presented above, the assessment team elaborated the most complete list of all species susceptible to interact with the UoC, and they were classified into primary (main/minor), secondary (main/minor) and ETP species according to MSC requirements. The difference between ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species lies on whether management is based on biological reference points (primary) or not (secondary). Since the eastern Baltic cod is the only stock listed in Table 3.4.2.2.1 with reference point based management, this is the only species caught by the UoA to be assigned as ‘Primary’. Cod catches by the assessed fleet are very rare and limited (only 100 kg of cod were reported in 2017 by a single company). Since its annual contribution to the total UoA catches is below 5% for at least the last 5 years this stock was assessed as a ‘Minor Primary’ species (FCR SA3.4.5). All other species except the Sea lamprey (ETP species) are classified as ‘Secondary’, as they are all managed without reference points. According to the client’s data (Table 3.4.2.1.1 ) only the smelt and flounder account for ≥5% of the total UoA catches in particular years, while all the other species are well below that threshold. However, data from BIOR samplings at GoR ports, besides expanding the list of bycatch species compared to those identified by the client (gobids, sticklebacks, pipefish and the shorthorn sculpin), it provides a different picture in relation to the contribution of smelt (much lower than the one reported by the client) and four-horned sculpin (higher than the one reported by the client). In order to apply a precautious approach, the team decided to assign the three species as ‘Main Secondary’: flounder, smelt and fourhorn sculpin; while the remaining seven were assigned as ‘Minor Secondary’.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 47

Table 3.4.2.2.1. List of all P2 species with recorded interactions with the assessed fleet classified according to FCR SA3.1.3-3.1.5 and SA3.4.4.-3.4.5. Sources of information (see section 3.4.2.1 used to select each of the species is presented. Data deficient column was assessed against FCR7.7.6. P2 P2 ETP Sources of Data Stock Scientific name component subcomp regulation information deficient Teleosts Eastern Baltic Cod Gadus morhua Primary Minor N/A (a) N Stock Flounder 26, 28 (Eastern Gotland Platichthys Secondary Main N/A (a) & (b) Yes and Gulf of flesus Gdansk) Osmerus Smelt Secondary Main N/A (a) & (b) Yes eperlanus Myoxocephalus Fourhorn sculpin Secondary Main N/A (a) & (b) Yes quadricornis Myoxocephalus Shorthorn sculpin Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes scorpius Zoarces Eelpout Secondary Minor N/A (a) & (b) Yes viviparus Neogobius Round goby Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes melanostomus Pomatoschistus Sand goby microps and P. Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes minutus Three-spine Gasterosteus Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes stickleback aculeatus Nine-spine Pungitius Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes stickleback pungitius Straight-nose Nerophis Secondary Minor N/A (b) Yes pipefish ophidion Habitats Petromyzon Sea lamprey ETP N/A Directive (b) NO marinus Annex II Marine mammals No recorded interactions with the assessed fleet ore ven the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet targeting herring in the GoR Seabirds No recorded interactions with the assessed fleet ore ven the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet targeting herring in the GoR The only species in the list that fall under the MSC definition for ETP species (FCR SA3.1.5) is the Sea lamprey, as this species is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). There are no records of interactions between the Latvian pelagic trawl fishery targeting herring in the GoR and marine mammals or seabirds. BIOR has an observer program in place for meeting requirements established in COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 which includes the pelagic trawling fishery in the GoR. These observers have the mandate to record and report interactions with cetaceans and seabirds. See section 3.4.5 for more details on the ETP species.

3.4.3 Primary species impacted by the UoC A comprehensive list of species with recorded interactions with the assessed fleet is presented in Table 3.4.2.2.1 . The only species managed based on reference points is the cod, and therefore there

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 48 is only one primary species. The cod caught by the UoA is part of the Eastern Baltic Cod stock. This stock is regulated based on the EU Multiannual Plan for the Baltic Sea COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2018/1628 of 30 October 2018 . Cod do not occur in significant amounts in the Gulf of Riga, as reflected in the negligible catches of the assessed fleet and the fact that it has not been recorded by BIOR during the fishery sampling performed at ports. Thus, this stock was assigned as a minor subcomponent of the primary species.

3.4.4 Secondary species impacted by the UoC A comprehensive list of species with recorded interactions with the assessed fleet is presented in Table 3.4.2.2.1 . A total of 10 secondary species were identified. According to their contribution to the UoA catches and the BIOR samplings they were assigned to main or minor subcomponents: - Main secondary species: Flounder, smelt and fourhorn sculpin - Minor secondary species: shorthorn sculpin, eelpout, round goby, sand goby, three-spine stickleback, nine-spine stickleback and straight nose pipefish. The flounder caught by the UoA is part of the Flounder 26, 28 (Eastern Gotland and Gulf of Gdansk). This is the only species with a defined stock. Flounder is regulated locally but there are no reference points involved with setting these TACs. There are general by-catch limitations on the other species but not species specific regulation. For none of the secondary species there are assessments and they are all data deficient. Therefore RBF was evoked for each of the species performaing a PSA, see Appendix 1.2.

3.4.5 ETP species impacted by the UoC According to MSC requirements (SA 3.1.5), the team shall assign ETP species as follows: a. Species that are recognize by national ETP legislation. b. Species listed in binding international agreements given below: . Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. . Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), such as the Agreement on the Conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North Sea (ASCOBANS). c. Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). The main Latvian national legislation concerning the protection of biodiversity, including marine biodiversity, are the Law on Specially Protected Nature Territories and the Law on Species and Habitats Conservation. Both laws cover a wide range of regulations and include lists of protected species and habitats, the establishment of marine protected areas as well as general and specific rules on the protection and use of protected areas. European Union nature protection legislation includes two directives: the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). These directives are based on the Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats), a binding international legal instrument on the conservation of species and habitats for the EU Member States. These two directives are the the basis of the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, but in addition their annexes include lists of species of special concern that require special conservation efforts.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 49 Apart from the global (worldwide) IUCN Red List, the IUCN provides a regional assessment at an European level. The European Red List identifies those species that are theatened with extinction at the European level so that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. The IUCN listings apply only to birds and mammals in the context of the MSC assessment. In addition, the HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct (2013) is the first threat assessment for Baltic Sea species that covers all marine mammals, fish, birds, macrophytes (aquatic plants), and benthic invertebrates, and follows the Red List criteria of the IUCN. Specifically, there is a Red List of Fish and Lamprey species (including the sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus ). HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission) is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention. Latvia is one of its Contracting Parties and as such it has to implement through its national legislation the Recommendations made by HELCOM. As seen under Section 3.4.2 , different sources of information were analysed in order to elaborate a complete list of species for which interactions with the UoA have been recorded. The list of species is presented in Table 3.4.2.2.1 and it only includes 1 ETP species, the sea lamprey. A list of all other ETPs (including seabirds, marine mammals and fish species) that potentially may interact with the Latvian pelagic trawl fishery targeting herring in the GoR is shown in Table 3.4.5.1 . With regard to the fish species, other potential ETPs to be considered in the context of the Latvian herring fishery are the Atlantic salmon and the twaite shad. The twaite shad, both, in the IUCN list and the HELCOM list it is classified as Least Concern (LC), thus, not meeting the MSC criteria for ETP species. In addition, no interactions have ever been recorded with the pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR. Therefore, this species will not be considered in the present report. On the other hand, salmon is classified as Vulnerable (VU) in both lists (IUCN and HELCOM). Moreover, catches have been reported by BIOR while trawling using commercial pelagic trawls in the GoR during the annual acoustic survey performed together with their Estonian counterparts (see Figure 3.3.1.1 ). However, only fresh water populations are protected under the Habitats Directive, therefore, as the UoA does not include fresh water, neither will this species be considered in the present report. Table 3.4.5.1 . ETP species that might interact with the assessed fleet (although no interactions with the fishery have been recorded). Description of: (a) Habitats Directive: Annex II- Animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation, Annex IV- Animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection, Annex V- Animal and plant species of community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures; (b) Birds Directive: Annex I- Bird species in danger of extinction, rare, vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat or requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of their habitat, Annex II- Bird species which may be hunted under certain circumstances, Annex III- Bird species which may be traded. The Red List categories are: LC- Least Concern; VU- Vulnerable; CR- Critically Endangered

IUCN Scientific Habitats Birds Name European Red HELCOM Red List name Directive Directive List Fish and lamprey species Altantic Salmo salar Annex II* - NA NA Salmon Twaite shad Alosa fallax Annex II, V - NA NA Marine Mammals Harbour Phocoena Annex II, IV - CR Baltic subpopulation (CR) porpoise phocoena Grey seal Halichoerus Annex II, V LC LC

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 50 grypus Pusa hispida Ringed seal Annex II, V LC VU botnica Birds Red-throated Gavia stellata - Annex I LC Wintering (CR) diver Black- throated Gavia arctica - Annex I VU Wintering (CR) diver Common Tadorna - Article 1 LC (LC) shelduck tadorna Common Mergus - Annex II LC Wintering (VU) merganser merganser Long-tailed Clangula - Annex II VU Wintering (EN) duck hyemalis Melanitta Breeding (VU); wintering Velvet scoter - Annex II VU fusca (EN) Little gull Larus minutus - Annex I NT Wintering (NT) Great Phalacrocorax - Article 1 LC (LC) Cormorant carbo * Only fresh water populations are protected, ** Except the Swedish populations.

Grey seals are known to be abundant in the GoR. However, this species is classified as Least Concern (LC) both by the EU-IUCN list and the HELCOM list. Therefore, the grey seal does not meet the MSC criteria for ETP species. Furthermore, there are no recorded interactions between this species and the pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR. Therefore, no seals were considered as scoring elements for this fishery. However, general information on this species and conservation management for seals is provided in section 3.4.5.3 on Marine Mammals. Even though the harbour porpoise does not occur regularly in the GoR, and no interactions with the pealgic trawl fishery in the GoR have been recorded, it has been included as a scoring element in the assessment due to its high vulnerability, i.e., the Baltic Sea subpopulation is classified as Critically Endangered (CR) both by the IUCN list and the HELCOM list. Morevoer, BIOR observers are being deployed in vessels inside and outside the GoR with the objective of recording interactions with harbor porpoises. For futher details on the harbor porpoise, see section 3.4.5.3 on Marine Mammals. Finally, a list of protected seabirds common in the GoR (based on Bojārs, 2009) is also presented in Table 3.4.5.1 . No interactions between the assessed fleet (or the pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR) were reported by the BIOR observers. Therefore, no seabirds were considered as scoring elements for this fishery. However, general information and conservation management on seabirds is provided in section 3.4.5.2 on Seabirds. In addition, the potential impact of the UoA on seabirds is also assessed.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 51 3.4.5.1. Fish species

Sea lamprey The sea lamprey is an anadromous long distance migrating species. Adults enter freshwater habitats in late winter or spring and migrate upstream to their spawning sites. It is distributed throughout the Baltic but is very rare in most basins, in particular in the northern parts (Figure 3.4.5.2 ). It may have been more common in the past but in the Baltic Proper and the Gulfs it has been very rare at least since the early 1800s. In the ocean, sea lampreys are found from inshore to deep waters, either on rock bottom where they can attach with their sucking disk, or parasitic on their prey. In the northern Baltic Sea it is caught irregularly: in Finland, Russia and Latvia the species is not an annual catch, athough it is caught almost annually in Estonia. For example it has been reported only eight times since 1927 in the Russian part of Gulf of Finland (HELCOM, 2013a). A small population with a suspected continuing decline and less than 1,000 individuals in the largest subpopulation lead HELCOM to classify this species as Vulnerable (HELCOM, 2013a). Besides, this species is also included in Annex II of the European Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) in order to ensure protection for core areas of its habitat (under the Natura 2000 network, see section 3.4.1.7 ). This species is considered rare and highly sensitive to human activities according HELCOM (HELCOM, 2013a). This is the only species found from the samples taken by BIOR on the commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR that falls under the MSC definition for ETP species (FCR SA3.1.5) (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1).

Figure 3.4.5.2 . Map showing the sub-basins in the HELCOM area where the Sea lamprey is known to occur regularly (HELCOM 2012).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 52

3.4.5.2. Seabirds Europe is home to more than 500 wild bird species. But at least 32 % of the EU's bird species are currently not in a good conservation status. The Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) aims to protect all of the 500 wild bird species naturally occurring in the European Union. Habitat loss and degradation are the most serious threats to the conservation of wild birds. The Directive therefore places great emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered and migratory species. It establishes a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) including all the most suitable territories for these species. Since 1994, all SPAs are included in the Natura 2000 , set up under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. In addition, in 2012 the European Commission adopted a Plan of Action for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. The Action Plan seeks to provide a management framework to minimise seabird bycatch to as low levels as are practically possible. This is in line with the objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of moving towards ecosystem management covering all components of the ecosystem including seabirds. It is also consistent with the framework of an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for Reducing the Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries adopted in 1999 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI). In the Baltic Sea, in the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) - an ambitious programme to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021 -, it has been agreed to increase knowledge on and protection of Baltic marine habitats, communities and species by i.a. the development and implementation of effective monitoring and reporting systems for all by-caught birds and mammals. In addition, the ministers also decided to take action to reduce the negative impacts of fishing activities on the and to this end, support the development of fisheries management and technical measures to minimize unwanted by-catch of fish, birds and mammals in order to achieve the close to zero target for by-catch rates of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and minimize damage to sea bed habitats (Declaration point 15B). As shown in Table 3.4.5.1 there are a number of ETP bird species in the Gulf of Riga. In HELCOM (2013c), the threats for all endangered seabird species in the Baltic were described and assessed at the species level. The threat of birds being caught as bycatch in the Baltic is strongly linked to the use of gillnets in shallow coastal areas or on shallow offshore grounds, as the fine monofilament nets are nearly invisible to birds and thus they become entangled while diving for food. Several studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea carried out since the early 1980s have shown that set net (gillnet) fisheries cause the death of tens of thousands of birds every year (see HELCOM 2013b and Žydelis et al. 2009 & 2013 for comprehensive reviews). The list of seabirds with high bycatch rates includes several ETP species: the Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus ), the tufted duck ( Aythya fuligula ), the greater scaup, the velvet scoter ( Melanitta fusca ) and the eider ( Somateria mollissima ) are quite often found in gillnet fishing gear. At the southern coast of the Baltic Sea (Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia), the long-tailed duck ( Clangula hyemalis ) is the most numerous species caught in gillnets, followed by the black scoter ( Melanitta nigra ), the velvet scoter ( Melanitta fusca ) and the red-throated diver ( Gavia stellata ). Bycatch appears to be an important problem also for wintering velvet scoters off the Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish coasts. The available studies mainly investigate bird bycatch in near-coastal waters. Information on the bycatch in fishing grounds further offshore is scarce, although it is known that high densities of birds and seasonal high fishing intensity may also overlap in these areas. The total ban of driftnets within the EU in 2008 has probably contributed to reducing bycatch; however, shifting the effort to long-lining in salmon fishing may be having the opposite effect, especially in the southern Baltic Sea (HELCOM, 2013b). In addition, it is unclear (due to insufficient data) whether the bycatch has declined due to a reduction in gillnet fishing effort or to seabird population declines (Žydelis et al. 20013).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 53 There are no records of the UoA vessels (or any other vessel fishing for herring) interacting with seabirds. During the site visit, none of the interviewees (including managers and scientists) considered that the herring fishery directly impacts with seabirds. In general, available information indicates that there is no concern on trawl fisheries interacting with seabirds in the Baltic Sea. None of the MSC certified fisheries in the Baltic Sea (see Table 4.1.1 ) considered interactions between bottom or pelagic trawling and seabirds in their assessments.

3.4.5.3. Marine mammals

a. Harbour porpoise The harbour porpoise is one of the smallest cetacean species and the only year-round resident whale species in the brackish waters of the Baltic Sea. It inhabits temperate and cold coastal and shelf waters throughout the northern hemisphere. In the 19 th and early 20 th centuries harbour porpoises were widespread throughout the entire Baltic, as far as the northeast part of the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland. Today, their geographical range has been reduced considerably, and currently porpoises are considered to be virtually absent in the north-eastern Baltic, including the Gulf of Riga (Figure 3.4.5.3.1). Different studies indicate that there are two populations of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea area, one in the western Baltic Sea encompassing the Kattegat, the Belt Sea, the Sound and the German Baltic and a second one in the proper Baltic Sea (Evans and Teilmann, 2009; Sveegaard et al., 2015; ICES, 2018e). Recently, an extensive Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) approach was used for collecting data on and spatial and temporal distribution of harbor porpoises in the Baltic (SAMBAH, 2016). The results found a clear separation of two population clusters during summer (Figure 3.4.5.3.1).

Figure 3.4.5.3.1. Porpoise distribution modelled as the probablility of detecting click trains for (a) August and (b) February. Dashed line in (a) indicates the proposed delimitation border between the two summer clusters. Source: SAMBAH, 2016.

The harbour porpoise population in the Baltic proper has declined dramatically over the past 100 years and there are indications that this population is facing extinction (classified as Critically Endangered (CR C2a(ii)) under the IUCN Red List 2008). The number of mature individuals is

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 54 estimated to be less than 250 and a continuing decline of at least 25% within one generation is assumed (HELCOM, 2013c). The most recent information on abundance of harbor porpoises in the Western Baltic showed a reduction from 28,000 in 1994 to 11,000 individuals in 2005 (this subpopulation is classified as Vulnerable by IUCN and HELCOM). IUCN and HELCOM classifications, however, are based on very uncertain abundance estimates. Results from the most recent acoustic monitoring carried out within the SAMBH project estimated a population of 497 animals (95% CI 80- 1,091) in the Baltic proper, and more than 21,390 porpoises (95% CI 13,461-38,024) in the Western Baltic. In 2015, the ICES WGMME was asked to compile a matrix of threats (Figure 3.4.5.3.2) to the predominant marine mammal species in each of the MSFD regional seas (ICES, 2015b). Regarding porpoises, they are threatened by a variety of anthropogenic activities and impacts (Figure 3.4.5.3.2) (ICES, 2019f). Among these, bycatch in fisheries is of greatest concern (Berggren 1994, Vinther 1999, Skóra & Kuklik 2003). Bottom-set gillnets are thought to be responsible for most bycatches, but porpoises are also taken by semi-drifnets (ICES, 2019f) and occasionally in trawls (Berggren 1994). Murphy et al. (2010) found indications for a link between higher organochlorine concentrations and lower pregnancy rates in harbor porpoises. Porpoises in the Baltic Sea have been reported to have up to 254% higher mean levels of PCBs than samples from Kattegat and Skagerrak (Berggren et al. 1999, Bruhn et al. 1999). In later years, levels of PCBs in Baltic biota have declined, so the negative impacts of pollution may be reduced in the future.

Figure 3.4.5.3.2. Threat matrix for the Baltic Sea (ICES, 2019f).

Other threats in the Baltic Marine Area include habitat degradation, acoustic disturbances and prey depletion due to over-fishing (Figure 3.4.5.3.2). For example, the collapse of herring stocks in the North Sea during the 1960s has been implicated in declines of harbour porpoise in the region, whilst during the 1990s, observed declines in porpoises in the Shetland Islands were linked to reduction in local sandeel stocks (ICES, 2019f and references therein). Harbour porpoise is likely to be particularly vulnerable to prey depletion due to its high energetic requirements (Read and Hohn, 1995; Wisniewska et al., 2016). In the EU marine area, harbour porpoises are under strict protection, because they are not only listed in Annex II, but also in Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. Article 12 of the Habitats

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 55 Directive establishes that Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed on Annex IV. To comply with the provision of Article 12, the EC adopted Regulation 812/2004. This Regulation obliges the use of deterrents (ex. pingers) in specific fisheries to avoid contact with cetaceans (mainly gillnets) and also requires monitoring by observers of incidental catches in specific gears. The species is also part of the ASCOBANS, which has specifically focused on the recovery of the proper Baltic Sea population with the enactment of a recovery plan for Baltic Sea, the so called Jastarnia Plan (ASCOBANS, 2016), and the conservation plans for the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea and Kattegat (ASCOBANS, 2012) and for the North Sea (ASCOBANS, 2009). They list recommendations and mitigation actions concerning threats to the species and its habitats and state the need for monitoring population trends. ASCOBANS (2012), for example, has advised that, to be sustainable, the maximum annual anthropogenic induced mortality (including bycatch) for harbour porpoises should not exceed 1.7% of the population size (Resolution No. 3, Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans, Bristol 2000), which in the case of the Baltic Proper would mean around 8.5 individuals. Furthermore, the International Commission (IWC) stated that the flag of concern should be raised if the number of small cetaceans captured is greater than 1% of their total population size. In addition, the ASCOBANS Recovery Plan (Jastarnia Plan), states that every effort should be made to reduce bycatch towards zero as quickly as possible, noting that gillnet fisheries are considered the primary threat for the survival of the harbour porpoise population primarily inhabiting the Baltic Proper. The Jastarnia Plan, which has the interim goal of restoring the Baltic harbour porpoise population to at least 80% of the , has been reviewed at the 8th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS in Helsinki between the 30 th august and 1 st September 2016, and the results were issued as the ASCOBANS Resolution 8.3 (ASCOBANS, 2016) which includes a set of actions to be taken. ASCOBANS invites non-party range States (such as Latvia) to implement this Plan fully without delay. The HELCOM Recommendation 17/2 (adopted in 1996 and revised in 2013) recommends that the Goverments of the Contracting Parties to the Convention take action in close cooperation with ASCOBANS and ICES for collection and analysis of additional data on several aspects of the harbor porpoise biology, population and ecology. Since (EC) No 812/2004 came into force, Latvia has not observed any of cetaceans. This fact leads BIOR to conclude that the cetaceans monitoring has no practical significance and is an unnecessary expenditure of financial and human resources. Every year, BIOR suggests on behalf of Latvia to stop this monitoring program and instead of intensive observations of cetaceans proposes to use information from National fisheries data collection programs or from other available data sources. Latvia suggests reviewing the requirements of the (EC) No 812/2004 and proposes looking for possibilities to replace the monitoring program on incidental catches of cetaceans with information gathering from other available data sources in the areas where there have been no observations of cetaceans for several continuous years. In the case of the herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga, the observer coverage presented significant inter annual variations (between 1.22 and 32.89% in fishing days, see Table 3.4.5.3.1 ), but overall coverage between 2010 and 2017 was around 11%, irrespective of the indicator used (fishing trips, fishing days, N hauls, towing time). Pelagic trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Riga (ICES subarea IIId) are not subject to specific minimum requirements on minimum level of fishing effort to be observed. As a general rule, Regulation (EC) 812/2004 establishes that monitoring schemes shall be based on a sampling strategy designed to allow the estimation of the by-catch rates of cetaceans, for the most frequent species in the by-catch per unit effort by a given fleet to achieve a coefficient of variation not exceeding 0,30. However, the most restrictive default observer coverage is established at 10% to pelagic trawl fisheries in ICES VI, VII and VIII. Thus, 11% is considered more than an appropriate coverage rate. Observer coverage for the Latvian sprat fleet targeting sprat in the Baltic proper is not presented here but is also close to 9%. However, the team assessing the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 56 Baltic herring and sprat fishery confirmed during harmonisation meetings (and drafts shared with the BV team) that observer coverage in those fisheries was below 5%. Table 3.4.5.3.1 . Description of the total fishing effort of the Latvian herring trawl fishery and observer coverage of the monitoring program derived from Reg (EC) 812/2004 in the Gulf of Riga. Data analysed by the assessment team, based on information presented in the Annual Reports on the implementation of Reg (EC) 812/2004 provided by BIOR.

N fishing trips Fishing days N hauls Towing time (h)

Latvian Latvian Latvian Latvian Year fleet Obsd Cov fleet Obsd Cov fleet Obsd Cov fleet Obsd Cov

2010 2552 142 5,56% 2552 142 5,56% 5270 170 3,23% 33449 1846 5,52%

2011 2531 633 25,01% 2663 666 25,01% 4088 1020 24,95% 16658 4165 25,00%

2012 2025 633 31,26% 2025 666 32,89% 32552 1020 3,13% 13346 4165 31,21%

2013 1891 31 1,64% 1893 23 1,22% 2889 37 1,28% 12139 175 1,44%

2014 1721 48 2,79% 1721 40 2,32% 2523 70 2,77% 11175 335 3,00%

2015 1764 52 2,95% 1764 52 2,95% 2297 54 2,35% 11409 288 2,52%

2016 1617 100 6,18% 1617 100 6,18% 1897 100 5,27% 10300 670 6,50%

2017 1963 202 10,29% 1962 202 10,30% 2352 215 9,14% 12942 2133 16,48%

TOTAL 16064 1841 11,46% 16197 1891 11,68% 53868 2686 4,99% 121418 13777 11,35%

b. Seals Two species of seals have been identified as possible ETPs (see Table 3.4.5.1), the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and the Baltic ringed seal (Pusa hispida botnica).

Grey seal Grey seals are found on both sides of the North-Atlantic in temperate and sub-Arctic waters. Their abundance is well known, and the Baltic population which is monitored annually has been increasing in the Baltic since the mid-1980s, with the most pronounced growth in the southern and western parts of the moulting distribution. During recent years, however, the growth has shown signs of estabilising, which can be an indication of approaching carrying capacity of the current Baltic Sea environment (ICES, 2019f). In any case, for now, there is no reason to suspect a population decline in the future. This species is, therefore, categorized as Least Concern both by the IUCN and HELCOM, although it is listed in Annexes II and V of the Habitats Directive (HELCOM, 2013c). The counted number in the whole Baltic Sea has been at the level of 30 000 animals during recent years (HELCOM, unpublished) (ICES, 2019f). Of the hauled-out population, over 80% is found in the core moulting area in the central Baltic proper (archipelagos of central Sweden, southwestern Finland and western Estonia) (ICES, 2019f) (Figure 3.4.5.3.3).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 57

Figure 3.4.5.3.3. Grey seal distribution based on reported information (HELCOM, 2015). As the abundance of the population has increased, its range has expanded to also include the southern Baltic, where grey seals have been breeding regularly, although in small numbers, since 2003 (Galatius et al., 2019). In recent years, pups are now also annually observed in Kattegat (Galatius et al., 2019). This expansion has brought Baltic grey seals in contact with the Atlantic subspecies, and there are strong indications for hybridisation between the two groups based on microsatellite data from the southern Baltic (Fietz et al., 2016). The annual numbers of grey seals observed during moult surveys in different subareas of the Baltic are shown in Figure 3.4.5.3.4. But, even though grey seals are recovering after a population decline in the late 20 th century, they face a changed ecosystem both in terms of human-induced mortality (hunting and by-catch in fishing gear) and in availability of food resources. A study analysing the by-catch of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus ) in Finland, Sweden, and Estonia (including the northern part of the GoR) in 2012 was conducted. The analysis showed that trap nets make about 88% of the total by-catch, i.e. between 2180 and 2380 individuals (Vanhatalo et al., 2014). An average of only 9–13% of the seal population is outside the aforementioned study area; therefore, it is likely that the by-catch covered in this study represents at least 90% of the total fisheries-induced mortality of grey seals (trawls included) in the Baltic Sea (Vanhatalo et al., 2014). Based on the ICES WGMME (ICES, 2019f), the loss of sea ice breeding habitat in the Baltic (in areas such as the Gulf of Riga and Bothnian Bay) as a result of climate warming has been identified as a threat for grey seals in the GoR (Figure 3.4.5.3.2).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 58

Figure 3.4.5.3.4. Trends for results of moult counts of grey seals in subareas of the Baltic Sea. (ICES, 2019f). According to SA3.1.5 of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, the grey seal is not an ETP species, as it is not recognised by the Latvian legislation as an ETP species, is not listed in CITES or the CMS, and even though it is an “out-of-scope” species, it is not listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the IUCN Redlist. But, even though the grey seal is not classified as an ETP species, it is worth noting the conservation actions that are in place for the species. Numerous countries have invoked protective measures to limit grey seal harvests, culls, , and by-catch (Bonner, 1981; ICES, 2005). In the Baltic, licenses for hunting have been issued predominantly in Finland and Sweden, but Baltic countries being members of the EU are obliged to ensure that Baltic seals will achieve 'favourable conservation status' and, according to the Habitats Directive criteria, the Baltic grey seal has a favourable conservation status. The aim of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is to achieve or maintain “good environmental status” (GES) of Europe’s marine environment by 2021, although it is not very clear regarding the status of Baltic marine mammals. On the other hand, the HELCOM Seal recommendation (HELCOM, 2006a), which has been ratified by all Baltic countries in 2006 states that the long-term objectives of the conservation of marine mammals in the Baltic are: 1) natural distribution; 2) natural abundance; and 3) a health status that ensures the future persistence of marine mammals in the Baltic.

Ringed seal The ringed seal ( Pusa hispida ) is an arctic species with a separate population and subspecies in the Baltic Sea (Pusa hispida botnica ). The ringed seal had traditionally been the most numerous seal species in the Baltic Sea, with a population of approximately 200,000 individuals at the beginning of the 20 th century. Nowadays, however, it is estimated at about 20,000 individuals. Especially the southern subpopulations in the Gulf of Finland, the Archipelago Sea and the Gulf of Riga are small and vulnerable. The subpopulations of the Gulf of Riga and Finnish Archipelago Sea have been estimated to consist of about 1000 individuals (M. Jüssi, pers. comm, 2013, within ICES WGMME, 2018) and 200–300 (Nordström et al ., 2011; Halkka and Tolvanen, 2017), respectively (Figure 3.4.5.3.5 ). (ICES WGMME, 2018) The Baltic ringed seal population decreased from 190,000-220,000 to approximately 5,000 from the beginning of the century to the late 1970s (Figure 3.4.5.3.6). In the mid 1960s the remaining

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 59 populations were afflicted by sterility, caused by organochlorine and heavy metal contaminants, and in the 1970s, only 17% of females were thought to be fertile (Backlin et al., 2013; ICES WGMME, 2019). Thus, the decrease in seal numbers was a consequence of excessive hunting, but the low numbers at present are due to lowered fertility rates after 1965 (Harding and Härkönen, 1999). Although infertility levels in Baltic seals have declined since restrictions came into force on use and release of persistent organic pollutants, fertility rates of ringed seal females are only about 68% in the Bothnian Bay, below the rates found in some Arctic populations (Backlin et al., 2013). Therefore, as a result of the population decline during the 20th century, the current ringed seal population is divided into four geographical subpopulations: the Bay of Bothnia (the largest subpopulation), the Archipelago Sea, the Gulf of Riga (the largest of the southern breeding populations) and the Gulf of Finland (Figure 3.4.5.3.5 ) Halkka and Tolvanen, 2017; ICES WGMME, 2019).

Figure 3.4.5.3.5. Ringed seals in the Baltic (Source: Halkka and Tolvanen, 2017). Before the population collapse of the 20 th century, the ringed seal was numerous in the southern areas, and had been hunted there since prehistoric times as part of a specialised hunting culture. At present, up to 90 per cent of the Baltic population inhabit the Gulf of Bothnia. The locations of the breeding areas roughly correspond to areas which form relatively good ice cover in normal ice years. However, as Baltic winters have already warmed considerably, poor ice years are now relatively common (Halkka and Tolvanen, 2017). Probably as a result of reduced breeding success caused by reduced extent and duration of sea ice with less snow compared to historically average winters, these subpopulations are threatened with extinction (ICES WGMME, 2019). Baltic ringed seals have been classified as “Vulnerable” under the HELCOM Red List (HELCOM, 2013) and under a previous IUCN assessment (2009), but as “Least Concern” in the latest IUCN assessment (Härkönen, 2015). Despite these classifications, the threats of climate warming apply to all southern subpopulations of the Baltic subspecies, which are facing a risk of regional extinction. Depopulation of the southern remains of the historical breeding distribution will lead to a significant loss of the total breeding

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 60 range of the Baltic ringed seal. Although the species is recovering from the lowered reproductive ability caused by environmental contaminants and the subpopulation in the Bothnian Bay is currently growing (Figure 3.4.5.3.7), albeit at a low rate, the projected negative trends in suitable breeding habitat and reproductive success due to climate warming are threatening the whole subspecies in a longer perspective (ICES WGMME, 2018). As ringed seals are listed as protected species in Annexes II and V of the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May, 1992), this means that a) core areas of their habitat must be protected under the Natura 2000 Network and the sites managed in accordance with the ecological requirements of the species (Annex II) and b) it has to be ensured that their exploitation in the wild is compatible with maintaining them in a favourable con-servation status (Annex V) (ICES, 2018e).

Figure 3.4.5.3.6. Population development of the Baltic Ringed seal since the beginning of the 20th century. Adapted after Hårding & Härkönen (1999); recent population estimate from IUCN (Härkönen, 2015) (Source: Halkka and Tolvanen, 2017).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 61

Figure 3.4.5.3.7. Trends of estimated numbers of ringed seals hauled out on sea ice during moult surveys in the Baltic (Source: ICES WGMME, 2019).

No direct impacts of human activities on seal sites have been reported in recent years in the regions under review in the North-East Atlantic at OSPAR, i.e., the Artic Waters, the Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay Iberian Coast and the Wider Atlantic (OSPAR, 2010; 2017). However, regarding the threats for the ringed seal in the Baltic Sea (Figure 3.4.5.3.2), the species is still thought to be affected by pollutants, although the health status has significantly improved during the last decades (Nyman et al., 2002; Routti, 2009 – within ICES, 2015b). As an ice-breeding species, and as mentioned above, in areas such as the Gulf of Riga and Bothnian Bay, it is affected by warmer winters and less ice coverage in recent years as a result of climate warming (Meier et al ., 2004; ICES, 2005a; Sundqvist et al., 2012). Other threats include bycatch, disturbance, and increasing shipping destroying the pack ice habitat (Stenman et al., 2005). According to SA3.1.5 of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, the Baltic ringed seal is not an ETP species, as it is not recognised by the Latvian legislation as an ETP species, is not listed in CITES or the CMS, and even though it is an “out-of-scope” species, it is not listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the IUCN Redlist. But, even though the Baltic ringed seal is not classified as an ETP species, it is worth noting the conservation actions that are in place for the species. Latvia does not have particular protection for the species, however, nearby countries do (HELCOM, 2013c), such as Estonia – where the species is protected by the Nature Conservation Act; all known important areas for the species are under national protection; and hunting is not allowed -, Finland – where the species is considered a game animal but hunting permits have not been granted since 1988; killing seals to avoid damage (e.g. to fisheries), however, is possible; the maximum annual quota is 30 animals, but only a few animals have been killed yearly -, Germany – where all hunting of seals is forbidden -, Poland - where the species is under strict protection, and disturbing, catching or killing are forbidden; the species is recognized as requiring active protection -, Russia - where since 1970s hunting on seals in the Russian part of the Baltic Sea is fully prohibited; ringed seal is included in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation -, Sweden – where the species is protected under the Species Protection Act 4 §, paragraphs 2 and 4, which means that it is forbidden to disturb the species or disturb or damage its habitats; according to the Hunting Act 3§, it is forbidden to capture of kill the species unless it is allowed in other parts of the hunting legislation.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 62 The aim of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is to achieve or maintain “good environmental status” (GES) of Europe’s marine environment by 2021, although it is not very clear regarding the status of Baltic marine mammals. On the other hand, the HELCOM Seal recommendation (HELCOM, 2006a), which has been ratified by all Baltic countries in 2006 states that the long-term objectives of the conservation of marine mammals in the Baltic are: 1) natural distribution; 2) natural abundance; and 3) a health status that ensures the future persistence of marine mammals in the Baltic.

3.4.6. Habitats According to MSC requirements (SA 3.13.1), the team shall assess the habitats component in relation to the effects of the UoA on the structure and function of the habitats impacted by the UoA. The habitat’s structure and function (i.e., the ecosystem services that it provides), including abundance and biological diversity, is of concern in an MSC assessment. Thus, an assessment should look not only at the impact on the habitat but also the habitat’s delivery of ecosystem services. Prior to the assessment of the habitats component, the team shall determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats).

3.4.6.1 Habitats assignment as P2 subcomponents a) Commonly encountered habitats MSC defines these habitats as those that the target species favours, that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit, and/or that make up a reasonable portion of the UoA’s fishing area. Comparing the geographical distribution of the herring catches of the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet (see Figure 3.4.6.1 ) and the map of MSFD Benthic Broad Habitat Types obtained from the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website ( www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu ) (Figure 3.4.6.2 ), it can be observed that the fishing area in the GoR is dominated by soft bottoms. The commonly encountered habitats are circalittoral mud and circalittoral sand (according to the

MSFD benthic broad habitat classification).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 63 Figure 3.4.6.1 . Geographical distribution of herring total catches (2013-2018) according to data from logbooks of the Latvian fleet . Source : BIOR

Figure 3.4.6.2 . EUSeaMap (2016) – MSFD Benthic Broad Habitat Types. Source: EMODNET - https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/access-data/launch-map-viewer/

The herring fishery, however, is conducted with mid-water pelagic trawls designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic community. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain), the integrity of the gear is likely to be jeopardized before performing any substantial damage to the seafloor. This type of gear is considered to have very low ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; ; Eigaard et al. 2013; and FAO, 2019).

b) Pelagic habitats The open water column is the key setting for productivity in the Baltic Sea. Microscopic primary producers support the growth of zooplankton, which all fish species depend upon during at least some part of their life. The status of pelagic habitats is affected by human induced pressures such as eutrophication and hazardous substances, as well as by natural and human-induced changes in climate (HELCOM, 2018a). The status of the pelagic habitats in the open sea was assessed using the biodiversity core indicator ‘Zooplankton mean size and total stock’ (HELCOM, 2018b), which evaluates the zooplankton community structure. In good status, zooplankton is dominated by large-bodied species. Not all open sea areas could be assessed due to lack of agreed threshold values. Furthermore, the eutrophication core indicator ‘Chlorophyll-a’ and the pre-core indicator ‘Cyanobacterial bloom index‘ were used in order to represent changes in primary producers (HELCOM, 2018c,d). Chlorophyll-a concentration is used as a proxy of phytoplankton biomass. It increases along with eutrophication as a result of higher nutrient concentrations. The ‘Cyanobacterial bloom index’ evaluates the accumulation of cyanobacteria in the surface water and the biomass of cyanobacteria during summer.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 64 Additionally, indicators representing changes in the species and size structure of phytoplankton are under development in HELCOM and are presented descriptively for testing in a few sub-basins: the ‘Diatom/dinoflagellate index’ (HELCOM, 2018e), which measures the relative abundance of diatoms and dinoflagellates in the water column, and the ‘Seasonal succession of phytoplankton’ (HELCOM, 2018f). Coastal areas were assessed using national indicators on chlorophyll-a, and phytoplankton bio- volume, as used for assessments under the Water Framework Directive. The corresponding indicators are also used in the assessment of eutrophication (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/biodiversity-and-its-status/benthic-habitats/ ). However, the results of the biodiversity assessment may differ from results of the eutrophication assessment in coastal areas, due to differences in the scaling methods of the BEAT tool as applied here, and in the HEAT tool used for eutrophication assessment. The pelagic habitats were assessed at assessment scale 4, encompassing Baltic Sea sub-basins in the open sea and water bodies or water body types as used nationally under the Water Framework Directive in coastal areas. c) Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: • Uniqueness or rarity • Functional significance of the habitat • Fragility • Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult • Structural complexity The FAO Guidelines’ Annex identifies the following species groups, communities, and habitat- forming species that may form VMEs and may be indicative of the occurrence of VMEs: • Certain coldwater corals and hydroids • Some types of sponge-dominated communities • Communities composed of dense emergent fauna where large sessile protozoans and invertebrates form an important structural component of habitat • Seep and vent communities comprised of invertebrate and microbial species found nowhere else The FAO Guidelines’ Annex also lists various geographical features that are often associated with these communities. The MSC’s intent is that, even though the FAO Guidelines were written for deep-sea fisheries, the Guidelines’ VME characteristics also apply to non-deep-sea fisheries. Further, when the FAO Guidelines are applied in shallow, inshore waters, the definition of VME could include other species groups and communities (e.g., seagrass beds, complex kelp-dominated habitats, biogenic reefs). d) Minor habitats From Figures 3.4.6.1 and 3.4.6.2 , eight minor habitats have been identified: circalittoral mud, sand, coarse sediment, rock and biogenic reef, and mixed sediment, and infralittoral mud, sand, and rock and biogenic reef.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 65 Comparing the geographical distribution of the herring catches of the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet (Figure 3.4.6.1 ) and the map of MSFD Benthic Broad Habitat Types obtained from the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website ( www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu ) (Figure 3.4.6.2 ), a new figure has been obtained (Figure 3.4.6.3 ), and from this eight minor habitats were identified, i.e., circalittoral mud, sand, coarse sediment, rock and biogenic reef, and mixed sediment, and infralittoral mud, sand, and rock and biogenic reef (according to the MSFD benthic broad habitat classification).

Figure 3.4.6.3 . EUSeaMap (2016) – MSFD Benthic Broad Habitat Types overlapped with the geographical distribution of the herring catches of the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet (black line).

Habitats scoring elements considered Based on the habitats identified, a table summarizing the Habitats scoring elements (Table 3.4.6.1 ) was obtained. Table 3.4.6.1. Habitats Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/Minor Data-deficient or not Habitats Pelagic habitat Commonly encountered No Habitats Circalittoral mud Minor No Habitats Circalittoral sand Minor No Habitats Circalittoral coarse sediment Minor No Habitats Circalittoral rock and Minor No biogenic reef Habitats Circalittoral mixed sediment Minor No Habitats Infralittoral mud Minor No Habitats Infralittoral sand Minor No Habitats Infralittoral rock and Minor No biogenic reef

3.4.6.2 Management measures There are several national and international measures managing the herring pelagic trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 66 Cabinet Regulation No. 296, Adopted on May 2, 2007 (Cabinet Regulation, 2007), has measures to regulate the procedures for the performance of in Latvia: trawlers are prohibited to operate in less than 20 m depth; there are time (e.g. for spawning) and spatial closures within the Gulf of Riga; there are fishing limits (i.e., Lavtian quotas, specific coastal fishing limits, limits in the number of fishing gears); effort limits (i.e., limits to engine power, number of fishing vessels approved by the Ministry of Agriculture). In addition, within Cabinet Regulation No. 296, there is a Sampling Plan for the Conformity Supervision of the Engine Power of Fishing Vessels whose objective is to improve and ensure the conformity of the capacity of the fishing fleet with the requirements of the laws and regulations of the European Union and the national laws and regulations. Moreover, the Latvian Law (2000) on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes, dopted on March 16, 2000, includes the following purpose: to ensure biodiversity through the conservation of fauna, flora and biotopes characteristic to Latvia; and to regulate the conservation, management and supervision of species and biotopes. In addition, the use of pelagic gear with net sounder equipment is key to avoid benthic habitat impact, by avoiding physical impact with the bottom. As concluded in few studies, this type of gear is considered to have very low or a marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; and FAO, 2019). Furthermore, as seen in Section 3.4.1.7 , the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the actions implemented under its umbrella (e.g., the HELCOM MPAs – Figure 3.4.1.7.1 ) manage all impacts on marine habitats (including fishing impacts). And the Natura 2000 network (Figure 3.4.1.7.2 ) comprises special protection areas (SPAs) established under the 'birds directive' (1979) and special areas of conservation (SACs) established under the 'habitats directive' (1992).

3.4.6.3 Habitats impact The herring fishery, is conducted with pelagic trawls designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic community. As the ground rope is equipped with very small and light rubber bobbins, therefore, the integrity of the gear is likely to be jeopardized before performing any substantial damage to the seafloor. All UoC client member vessels fish with net sounder technology, allowing the captains to evaluate the performance of the fishing nets during the fishing operations, thus ensuring that the gear- bottom interactions are minimal. And, even though there is a possibility that the fishing gear could accidentally touch the seabed, or the net could break, or fragments / sections / entire nets could be lost; this type of gear is considered to have very low or a marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; FAO, 2019). Based on all the above, the most encountered habitat is the pelagic habitat. See Section 3.4.6 for more details. Pelagic habitats function are mostly determined by their physico-chemical properties (Raymond, 2011). The status of pelagic habitats is affected by human induced pressures such as eutrophication and hazardous substances, as well as by natural and human-induced changes in climate (HELCOM, 2018a). The fishing activity, however, will not affect negatively the pelagic habitat.

3.4.7 Ecosystem impact As seen in Section 3.4.1 , the key elements of the ecosystem where the UoA fishery is occurring are the oceanographic characteristics in the Gulf of Riga, thus, the pelagic ecosystem species (from phytoplankton up to top predators). The biodiversity in the Baltic Sea is domintated by few species. In the fish department, it is completely dominated by sprat, herring and cod. The Baltic ecosystem is divided into a number of more or less isolated subsystems (Ojaveer et al., 2010), but herring, sprat and cod migrate between

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 67 these subsystems. The distribution of the fish inhabiting the Baltic is largely goverened by salinity. Marine species dominate in the Baltic Proper, while fresh-water species occur in coastal areas and in the innermost parts (ICES, 2008a). The Gulf of Riga is a semi-enclosed ecosystem of the Baltic Sea characterized by low salinity that restricts the occurrence of marine species. Compared to the Central Baltic, sprat biomass is low and the food web is simplified by the absence of abundant predators, like cod (ICES, 2013b). Herring (Clupea harengus membras ) is the dominant species and the main planktivorous fish and takes the top role in the pelagic food web (Putnis et al., 2013). Herring predation mortality is likely to be low because cod is found in the Gulf of Riga only in periods when the cod stock size is very high (last time in the early 1980s) (ICES ADVICE 2010 – Book 8). The most significant potential ecosystem impact, therefore, would be the removal of herring biomass. Apart from demersal fish (cod), herring is also a potential source of food for birds and sea mammals. ICES conducted a multispecies analysis for the Central Baltic (ICES ADVICE 2013 – Book 8) and concluded that increasing herring mortality was unlikely to to adversely impact certain components of the ecosystem (i.e., the cod stock).. In addition (as seen in PI 2.4.1), it is considered that the physical activity of trawling is not likely to disrupt the physical oceanographic processes in the Gulf of Riga nor will prevent them from their function (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010). The main influences on physical oceanography in the Gulf of Riga are the saline water flows from the Eastern Gotland Basin and climate change which is already affecting the duration of the ice cover, or shifting fish phenology (Heip et al., 2009; Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009; Klavins et al., 2016).

3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1. Regulatory framework The 3 stocks assessed against MSC P1 are considered as shared stocks . The Baltic sprat stock and the central Baltic herring stock are shared between different EU countries and Russia, while the gulf of Riga herring stock is only shared between Estonia and Latvia. Baltic fisheries are managed by EU Member States and the Russian Federation. The EU fisheries, including the Latvia Sprat fishery, are regulated under the EU Common Fisheries Policy , while the Russian Federation regulates fisheries within its EEZ under the Russian . The Parties cooperate on fisheries management under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement of 2009. This agreement set out a set of arrangements on joint management measures, licensing, scientific cooperation and other relevant issues. European fisheries are managed through the European Union Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP started in 1983 and is reviewed every 10 years, with the most recent review coming into force in 1 January 2014 (Regulation (EU) No 1380/20143). This Regulation sets out the strategic aims of the CFP, and includes the application of ecosystem-based management in fisheries implemented, for example, through the introduction of multispecies management plans, banning and reducing unwanted bycatches of mammals, birds and untargeted/undersized fish. The CFP is further executed under a number of Regulations covering a wide variety of issues such as monitoring, control and surveillance, fleet structure, overaching technical conservation measures, and TACs, among others. The herring fishery in the Gulf of Riga is managed based on the EU CFP (2013) and the EU multiannual Plan for fishing cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (Regulation EU 2016/1139, also known as Baltic Sea MAP, see Section 3.5.5 for more details). The TACs are determined on an annual basis and this decision is informed by advice from scientists (ICES, STECF) and other stakeholders (BSAC). Quotas are allocated by the EU Council to the Member States involved in that fishery, while further quota allocations at national level falls under the responsibility of each Member State (for more details see section ‘Fishing rights and opportunites: mechanisms for allocation’ below).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 68 Regulation EC 2187/2005 establishes specific measures to limit the total fishing effort excerted in the gulf of Riga: vessels shall hold a special fishing permit to fish, there is limitation on the total engine power by Member State, the maximum engine power by vessel is limited and there are several limitations to vessel engine replacements, and there is a prohibition to trawl in waters of less than 20m depth. Based on historical fishing rights Latvia and Estonia have fishing rights in the Gulf of Riga. Despite there is an signed agreement between Estonia and Latvia since 1997 on the fisheries management in the gulf of Riga, there is no binding agreement in relation to establish a common closed season in the area. A Latvian Cabinet Regulation regulates that trawling for herring is prohibited during the 12th of May to 10th of June, while Estonians they might move the closed season around from year to year. At this moment there is a ‘gentlemen agreement’ with the Estonians, so they do not fish in the Latvian EEZ at that time of the year. But there is no binding agreement on this issue. A list of relevant EU fisheries regulations applicable to pelagic trawl herring fishery in the gulf of Riga is presented below (it is not intended to be an exhaustive list): . Annual Council Regulations fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stock applicable to the Baltic. Through these annual regulations TACs applicable to Union fishing vessels are set by species and quotas are allocated to the Member States involved in that fishery. Council Regulation 2018/1628 set the TACs and national quotas for 2019. . Baltic Sea Technical Measures for the conservation of the fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound as established in the Council Regulation 2187/2005. Before this regulation anyone wishing to consult all the many different rules applicable to fishing activity in the Baltic had to consult a complex body of European regulations and ISBFC reccomendations. This Regulation sought to summarise all this legislation in a single legislative text, from measures on gears to those on target species, by-catches, minimum landing sizes and geographical and seasonal restrictions. This Regulation have been later amended by other Regulations (landing obligation, Baltic Sea MAP, etc.), but some of the technical measures included in this Regulation are still in place for the whole region, and this is particularly true in the case of the technical regulations limiting the fishing effort in the gulf of Riga: vessels shall hold a special fishing permit to fish, there a limitation on the total engine power by Member State (to levels declared in 2000-2001), maximum engine power by vessel (221 kW), several limitations to vessel engine replacements, and a prohibition to trawl in waters of less than 20m depth. The EC has recently issued a proposal for a new Regulations on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (COM(2016)134 final, click here to download the proposal) that would repeal Regulation 2187/2005. . The Landing Obligation (Regulation EU 2015/812). The Regulation 1380/2013 established as one of its objectives the gradual elimination of discards by a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits. Certain provisions of existing regulations establishing technical and control measures were contradictory to the landing obligation and obliged fishermen to discard fish, as was the case of the above mentioned Regulation 2187/2005 for the Baltic Sea. In order to remove the incompatibilities and to make landing obligation operational, Regulation 2187/2005 was amended by requiring that all unintended catches of marine organisms of species subject to the landing obligation in the Baltic Sea and caught in excess of catch composition limits be landed and counted against quotas; and by replacing

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 69 minimum landing sizes for marine organisms of species subject to the landing obligation with minimum conservation reference sizes (also other amendments were made for salmon and trout fisheries but are not relevant here). . The Multiannual Plan for cod, herring and sprat (Regulation EU 2016/1139). This Regulation repealed a management plan for the cod stocks in place since 2007 (Council Regulation EC 1098/2007) and amended the Council Regulation 2187/2005 (see above). . General Control Requirements for fisheries and specific control requirements for multiannual plans as set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009. . Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 on the EU-DCF. This Regulation is on the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy. This Regulation repealed Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 . Recommendation on the monitoring and management of the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region (Commission Recommendation EU 2016/688). Provides information on the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin- like PCBs in certain fish species (including herring and sprat) from a certain age, size and geographical region (ICES zone) and in particular as regards their compliance with the maximum level established in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Sprat from SD 22-28 are assumed to be compliant, while for sprat from SD 29-32 sorting is mandatory and individuals ≥12.5cm cannot be marketed or processed for human consumption unless analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance. In Latvia herring shall also be sorted before can be marketed, and minimum sizes for direct human consumption are different depending where it was caught (≤17cm for herring caught in the Gulf of Riga and ≤21cm for herring caught in the Baltic proper). Herring larger than 17 or 21cm (depending on the fishing area) cannot be marketed or processed for human consumption unless analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance. Other EU environmental legislation and international agreements that are applicable to habitats and species protection, but which are also relevant to fisheries activities are: . The ambitious Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) came into force on 15 June 2008. This Directive aims to protect more effectively the marine environment across Europe, and requires good environmental status to be achieved by 2020 for several descriptors, including biodiversity (with indicators on species, habitat and community level) and the integrity of the sea floor. It is the first EU legislative instrument related to the protection of marine biodiversity, enshrines in a legislative framework the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment, integrating the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable use. . The Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and fl ora). These Directives are the basis of the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The network is the major EU instrument to fulfi l global commitments of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It is legally enforceable and has strong legal protection. . The Bonn Convention ( Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, CMS ) is an intergovernmental treaty focusing on the protection of migratory

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 70 species. It has been concluded under the United Nations Environmental Programme (CMS 2003). All Baltic Sea countries, except Russia, are parties in the convention. CMS agreements that have direct relevance in the Baltic Sea area are the Agreement on Conservation of Small Cetaceans in Baltic Sea and in North Sea (ASCOBANS) and the African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement (AEWA). These agreements are legally binding treaties which are being executed under Action Plans. For example, three different Recovery Plans for the harbor porpoise have been signed within the ASCOBANS Agreement (North Sea, Western Baltic-Belt Sea-Kattegat, Baltic Sea). The Recovery Plan for Baltic Sea porpoises (known as the Jastarnia Plan) was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2009 and reviewed in 2016. However, so far Latvia is a non-party range State. . The Regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans. This Regulation establishes technical measures on the use of acoustic deterring devices (pingers) and also the standards for monitoring systems on incidental catches of cetaceans in European waters, including specific regulations in the Baltic Sea. The EC has recently issued a proposal for a new Regulations on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (COM(2016)134-final, click here to download it) that would repeal Regulation 812/2004. . The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM ). The Contracting Parties are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. At a national level, individual Member States are responsible for implementing the CFP and other EU legislation and agreements. EU fisheries legislation is transposed directly to national legislation, while environmental and other agreements are transposed by primary and secondary national legislation, enacted in accordance with the EU legislation. In addition, countries can have national conservation legislation that goes beyond the international 38 treaties or the EU Directives. Member States national fisheries administrations are responsible for a range of management and regulatory duties, including: fleet activity management; national quota management; the monitoring and control of all fisheries working within their national jurisdiction; the collection, collation, and communication of key fishery data; and finally undertaking a range of scientific monitoring and development work. Further, fisheries management within 12 NM of its baselines falls under the responsibility of Member States (measures to conserve and manage coastal resources must be at least as stringent as the measures under Union law). In conformity with the EU Pre-accession Agreement, the Latvian fisheries are controlled on the basis of the fishing quota distribution principle that was into force before EU accession. Latvia joined the EU in 2004 and accepted the provisions of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since its entry. Latvian vessels may fish all over the Baltic Sea outside the Russian fishing zone, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland. The overarching national legal instrument on fisheries is the 1995 ‘Fishing Law’ (12.04.1995), see the following link for the consolidated text: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/34871- fishery-law . The Fishing Law sets the basis for fisheries legislation in Latvia and institutions responsible for fisheries management and control, as well as rules on fish resources management. Other main Latvian fisheries regulations are listed below: . Cabinet of Ministers 296/2007 . Regulations on commercial fishing in the territorial waters and economic zone waters. In force since 2007. This regulation sets out different regulations on both off-shore and coastal fisheries, including technical requirements and duties of the fishermen. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=156709

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 71 . Law on Latvian Administrative Violations Code . https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/89648-latvian- administrative-violations-code . Cabinet of Ministers 808/2014 . Latvian Regulation on penalties. https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=145113 . Cabinet of Ministers 94/2018. This Regulation prescribes the procedures for the control of fish landing and inspection of fish marketing and transport facilities, as well as warehouses and processing premises. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/297288-nozvejoto-zivju-izkrausanas- kontroles-un-zivju-tirdzniecibas-un-transporta-objektu-noliktavu-un-razosanas-telpu- parbaudes-notei... . Cabinet of Ministers 433/2010. Regulation on hygiene and freshness and size criteria for the production and placing on the market of fishery products in force sin 2010 lays down common marketing standards (size and freshness categories), as well as hygiene requirements on board vessels and for fish processing enterprises. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=210012 . Cabinet of Ministers 918/2009. Regulation on the lease of water bodies and commercial fishing rights in force since 2009 sets down the lease conditions for public water bodies, and rules on fish resources and management. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=196472

3.5.2. Institutions involved in the LFPO sprat fishery management

Roles and responsibilities The main institutions involved in management of the assessed fishery are: Global and European institutions: . International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) – ICES is a global organization that develops science and advice to support the sustainable use of the oceans. This institution integrates a network of more than 4000 scientists from over 350 marine institutes in 20 member countries (Latvia included). ICES provides the forum for consolidation of scientific work undertaken by scientists in participating national institutions (through relevant Expert Groups), and the delivery of advice on how best to manage fish stocks. . Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) of the European Comission - is the Commission department responsible for the implementation of the Common Fisheries policy and of the Integrated Maritime Policy. DG MARE is made up of 6 Directorates dealing with all aspects of both policies, including among others conservation, control, market measures, structural actions and international relations relating to fisheries. . Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of the European Comission- the fisheries scientific committee of the European Commission providing advice to the Commission on all aspects of and economics. The STECF may set up working groups to examine specific questions on the basis of the terms of reference define. The STECF is the body in charge of compilying and analyzing data from national research institutes (see figure 3.5.2.1 ). . Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), former Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC) established in the 2002. The Advisory Councils were created in the previous CFP reform to increase stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management. The BSAC brings together different stakeholders involved in the Baltic fisheries management (fisheries administrations,

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 72 representatives from the fisheries sector and other interest groups affected by the CFP) from EU Member States. The NZRO is member of the BSAC. . Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH) . BALTFISH was initiated in 2009 and constitutes (the same as the BSAC) a regional body providing a platform for discussion on important fisheries issues in the Baltic Sea. The BALTFISH forum involves all the eight EU member states bordering the Baltic Sea and functions on two levels: (i) a high-level group (HLG) level consisting of fisheries directors and representatives of the European Commission; (ii) the BALTFISH forum seminar level consisting of officials of the EU Member States and European Commission, as well as representatives from organisations such as BSRAC, ICES and HELCOM. . The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (known as Helsinki Commission – HELCOM-) is the Governing Body of the Helsinki Convention. HELCOM was established about four decades ago to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation. HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities. National institutions: . Fisheries Department of the Ministry of the Agriculture . The Fisheries Department is responsible for overall management of the fisheries sector, quota management, sector development, strategies and legislation, issues related to fisheries science and restocking of fish resources, fish processing and trading issues, and they also represents Latvian fisheries interests in the various EU institutions and international organizations (Baltfish, FAO, NAFO, etc.). http://www.zm.gov.lv/en/zivsaimnieciba/statiskas-lapas/fishing- sector?nid=1200#jump . The State Environmental Service. This institution carries out fishing control in marine waters under Latvian jurisdiction, issues fishing licences, operates a vessel monitoring satellite centre and monitors fish landing at ports. http://www.vvd.gov.lv/eng/about-us/ . Latvia’s Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR). BIOR is responsible for the scientific assessment of fish stock, and for analysing biological and fishing data on catch levels for key commercial species. BIOR also undertakes specific research on fish resources, and participates in internationally coordinated surveys, provides scientific background for the protection and rational use of fish resources in Latvian waters, and ensures implementation of the fisheries data collection within the DCF. It is also responsible for analysing the sector’s economic situation, and for data collection. https://www.bior.lv/en . Latvian Fishermen`s Association (LFA) and Latvian Fishermen’s Producer Organization (LFPO) . The LFA was created in 1996 for representing the interests of 22 Latvian fishing companies targeting cod and pelagic species. In 2004, 13 of those 22 fishing companies decided to further create a Producer’s Organization, the LFPO. . At the national level the Fishing Law provides for the Fishery Advisory Council (FAC) , where government authorities regularly consult with fishermen organizations and other stakeholders (BIOR, NGOs) on fisheries regulations. It is an advisory body comprising between 15 and 23 members (it is not a fixed composition). FAC meetings are held by the Ministry 3-4 times a year, depending on the issues to deal with. The LFA has 3 votes on the FAC, and LFPO has 1 vote.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 73

(i) -(viii)

Figure 3.5.2.1. Work flow of the STECF advice to the Comission. The blue circles surrounding are for the different steps: (i) Commission request; (ii) Terms of reference; (iii) Selection of experts; (iv) Expert Working Group meeting; (v) Data analysis; (vi) Finalisation of the report; (vii) discussion by the STECF; (viii) STECF opinion and public report. Source: www.stecf.jrc.es.europa.eu

Fishing rights and opportunites: mechanisms for allocation The European Council establishes TACs for the most important commercial species through annual Regulation. This TAC is based on ICES advice, and allocated in quotas between the Member States targeting those species. The quota allocation is made according to the “Relative Stability” allocation key established at the time of the foundation of the CFP. The commercial species managed through TACs in the Baltic Sea are: sprat, atlantic salmon, plaice, cod, and herring. The Fisheries Department splits first the Latvian quotas between off shore and coastal fisheries, with off-shore companies retaining most of it. The UoA is comprised exclusively of off-shore companies. Off-shore quotas are allocated to companies on a 5-year leasehold basis with annual agreements on the exact quota allocation and lease fee. The companies are entitled to decide themselves which vessels to use, and have to pay for use of a fishing allocation (the fee for fishing rights lease). The allocation is based on historic records of quota utilization and tends to be stable. However, companies are compelled to make use of at least 80% of their quota, otherwise they would lose part of it for the next year. Quotas may be transferred between fishing companies on a temporary (annual) basis. At the end of the year unused coastal fisheries herring quota in the Gulf of Riga may be reallocated to the offshore companies (see scoring table on PI3.1.1SI(c) for more details).

3.5.3. Scientific monitoring of the pelagic fishery in the Gulf of Riga The monitoring of the Latvian includes data collection on vessels (vessel register), fleet activity (days at sea, VMS), landings, catches (through BIOR samplings on ports), and operating economics (costs and earnings surveys). BIOR is responsible for the implementation of the Latvian National Programme for the collection of data in the fisheries sector. This contributes to the EC DCF which evaluates the fisheries sector. For establishing the monitoring plan all Latvian fisheries were divided in metiers according to information on fishing gear and landings composition from the logbooks. The herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga in sampled both on-shore (unlike the sprat trawl fishery which is sampled both on-shore and with observers on board). The sampling data is submitted to FishFrame database. The data collected on herring, sprat and are prepared by the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). The collected biological parameters from the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 74 chosen units (fishing vessels) contain enough information to refer it to quarterly catches on certain fishing ground of the whole metier. Further, BIOR also implements an observer program on board pelagic trawlers as a result of the implementation of the Regulation (EC)812/2004 on the conservation of cetaceans. These observers get on board pelagic trawlers targeting sprat (in the Baltic proper) and herring (in the gulf of Riga) and record any interaction with cetaceans, see scoring tables on ETPs for more details. Since the beginning of 2017, Member States are obliged to record all protected species when monitoring for the DCF. Actually, other EU countries are not implementing an specific observer program for cetaceans since they decided to fulfil their requirements under Regulation (EU)8212/2004 through a combined monitoring within the DCF (this is the case of, for instance, Denmark, Germany and Sweden). However, the DCF currently focuses on métiers targeting commercial species, over- representing monitoring in these métiers and using observation coverage that are sufficient to look at target species for which the probability of capture must be 1 (STECF, 2019). To facilitate the implementation of protected species bycatch monitoring in the DCF started in January 2017, different ICES WGs (WBBYC, WGCATCH and RDBES) are currently working together.

3.5.4. Control, enforcement, and compliance Fisheries rules and control systems are agreed at EU level, but implemented and carried out by the national authorities and inspectors of EU Member States. To enforce the EU's Common Fisheries Policy rules, there is a European control system in place, designed to ensure that only the allowed quantities of fish are caught, to collect the necessary data for managing fishing opportunities, and to ensure the rules are applied to fishermen across the EU in the same manner. The system is set out in the EU's Control Regulation which entered into force on 1 January 2010 and which thoroughly modernised the EU's approach to fisheries control. This Regulation provides for a series of instruments to assist Member States in implementing the agreed rules, including system auditing and action plans. Data is shared between the Member States of the European Union. The recently issued multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic (Regulation 2016/1139) includes some specific requirements for MCS in the case of the sprat and herring fisheries. Below are listed tow of the main requirements affecting the assessed fishery in terms of inspection: . Prior notification : Vessels of an overall length of 8 meters or more retaining on board at least 300 kg of cod or 2 tonnes of pelagic stocks are obligued to send a notification at least 1 hour before the estimated time of arrival at port (to allow inspection). . Margin of tolerance in the logbook : for catches which are landed unsorted (e.g. sprat and herring) the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10 % of the total quantity retained on board. The activities of the Latvian fisheries (both off-shore and coastal fisheries) are comprehensively monitored by the Fisheries Control Department (FCD), under the State of Environmental Service (SES). For more details on the MCS system implemented in Latvia see scoring table PI 3.2.3

3.5.5 Fishery-specific objectives: the Baltic Sea MAP (Regulation (EU) 2016/1139) The CFP obligues to apply precautionary approach to fisheries management, ensuring that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Furthermore, the CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimized. The CFP aims to

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 75 gradually eliminate discards, promote the best use of unwanted catches, and provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities, among other measures. The EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) also commits Members States to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, such as the CFP, in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach, in order to meet the following targets by 2020. In Annex I provides qualitive descriptors for determining good environmental status, among them we list the following as relevant for fisheries: . Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within safe biological limits, exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; . All elements of the must occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long ‐term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity; . Biological diversity must be maintained and the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; and . Sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structure and functions of the ecosystems. In July 2016 a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (Regulation 2016/1139, known as Baltic Sea MAP) entered into force. This Plan was adopted by the European Comisison in view of the strong influence that biological interactions and environmental effects have on the Baltic stocks of cod, herring and sprat. In 2015 ICES advised the implementation of a spatial management plan for the clupeid stocks in Subdivisions 25-26 in order to help improving cod condition. The Commission considered that incorporate all relevant stocks into a single management plan would be a desirable first step towards an adaptive fisheries management in the Region consistent with the ecosystem approach to fisheries laid out within the CFP. In its Article 3 the Regulation establishes that the Plan shall contribute to the achievement of objectives laid out within the CFP by applying precautionary approach, ensuring exploitation levels are appropriate to MSY, and contributing by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches. Also, establishes that the Plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in a coherent manner with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC), in particular ensuring that the first descriptor mentioned above is fulfilled, and also contributing to the fulfilment of the all the others. In order to achieve these objectives, the Plan sets out ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) for most of the cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (with the exception of the EBC and the Bothnian Bay herring). The target values to be used for fixing fishing opportunities for a stock will depend on both intra- and inter-species stock dynamics. Besides, the Plan determines that fishing opportunities shall in any event be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5 % probability of the SSB falling below Blim. Among other technical measures, the plan also establishes a seasonal closure (1 st May – 31 st October) in 3 areas (all of them in the Baltic proper, see Figure 3.5.5.1 ).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 76

Figure 3.5.5.1. Marked in blue the areas closed for fishing from 1 May to 31 October according to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139.

The results of the Plan will be reviewed by July 2019 and every five years thereafter, although provision was made to report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself. Besides, in the case the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges or conservation reference points set out in the Regulation no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. Articles 3 (Objectives), 4 (Targets) and 5 (Conservation Reference Points) are particularly crucial for the ongoing management of the herring stocks considered in this assessment, the Baltic sprat, and the Eastern Baltic cod and are quoted below: Article 3: Objectives 1.The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY. 2.The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies. 3.The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 77 In particular the plan shall aim to: (a) ensure that the conditions described in descriptor 3 contained in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC are fulfilled; and (b) contribute to the fulfilment of other relevant descriptors contained in Annex I to that Directive in proportion to the role played by fisheries in their fulfilment. 4.Measures under the plan shall be taken in accordance with the best available scientific advice. Article 4: Targets 1.The target fishing mortality shall be achieved as soon as possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 for the stocks concerned, and it shall be maintained thereafter within the ranges set out in Annex I and in line with the objectives laid down in Article 3(1). 2.In accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, fishing opportunities shall be fixed in accordance with the objectives and targets of the plan and shall comply with the target fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column A, to this Regulation. 3.Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, fishing opportunities may be fixed at levels corresponding to lower levels of fishing mortality than those set out in Annex I, column A. 4.Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, fishing opportunities for a stock may be fixed in accordance with the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column B, provided that the stock concerned is above the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point set out in Annex II, column A: (a) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 3 in the case of mixed fisheries; (b) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics; or (c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20 %. The application of this paragraph shall be explained by a reference to one or more of the conditions set out in points (a) to (c) of the first subparagraph. 5.Where, according to scientific advice, the MSY exploitation rate is achieved for the stock concerned by 2020, fishing opportunities for that stock may be fixed in accordance with paragraph 4 thereafter. 6.Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. 7.Fishing opportunities shall in any event be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5 % probability of the spawning stock biomass falling below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point (Blim) set out in particular in Annex II, column B. Article 5: Conservation Reference Points 1.The conservation reference points expressed as minimum and limit spawning stock biomass levels that are to be applied in order to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks concerned are set out in Annex II. 15.7.2016 L 191/6 Official Journal of the European Union EN 2.When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column A, to this Regulation, all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, to achieve such levels, fishing opportunities for the stock

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 78 concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I, column B, to this Regulation, taking into account the decrease in biomass of that stock. 3.When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column B, to this Regulation, further remedial measures shall be taken to ensure the rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY, which may include, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, suspending the targeted fishery for the stock concerned and the adequate reduction of fishing opportunities. 4.Remedial measures referred to in this Article may include: (a) Commission measures in case of a serious threat to marine biological resources in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) Member State emergency measures in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (c) measures pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of this Regulation. 5.The choice of measures referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with the nature, seriousness, duration and repetition of the situation where the spawning stock biomass is below the levels referred to in paragraph 1. 6.Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 79 4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment In accordance to FCR PB3.1 CABs assessing overlapping fisheries using the same default tree shall ensure consistency of outcomes so as not to undermine the integrity of MSC fishery assessment. The harmonisation reported upon below included also concerns with the herring and sprat fisheries in the Open Sea outside the Gulf of Riga. There are therefore in the report sections that are not relevant to the assessment of the Gulf of Riga herring fisheries. Table 4.1.1 lists all overlapping fisheries subject to harmonisation with the NZRO Gulf of Riga herring and sprat trawl fishery. Lloyd’s Register is assessing the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden Baltic herring and sprat fisheries. Further, Lloyd’s Register was also the CAB providing the MSC-fisheries certificate to the Finland herring and sprat fishery in 2018. The third overlapping fishery is the LFPO sprat trawl fishery which is certified by Bureau Veritas (BV). With respect to the assessment of the Gulf of Riga pelagic fishery the overlap for P1 concerns the Central Baltic Herring and the Baltic Sprat. For P2 (Ecosystem impact) there are no geographically overlapping fisheries because the fisheries that exploit Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat occurs outside the Gulf of Riga. However, where assessing cumulative impacts of the fisheries (e.g. ETP species) harmonisation is required. For P3 (Management). there is some overlap because the MSC certified fisheries all are managed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy. However, there was no need to harmonise most of P3 performance indicators since there are different fleets targeting different stocks for different purposes (e.g. fish meal and oil, human consumption) and operating under different flags and areas (i.e. fisheries management depend exclusively on two EU countries in the case of the Gulf or Riga). Harmonisation on P3 was restricted to PI3.1.1 and PI3.1.3. As noted above the harmonisation report below includes sections that refer to the fisheries in the Open Sea only. These fisheries assessed the Central Baltic herring and/or the Baltic sprat against the P1. There are other MSC-certified fisheries in the Baltic but they either take place in the western Baltic Sea (SDs 22-24) or do not target herring and/or sprat (e.g. Western Baltic spring spawning herring fishery, the DFPO, DPPO and SPFPO Skagerrak, Kattegat and Western Baltic Herring Fishery, the Estonia North East Arctic cold water prawn and cod fishery). Further, there are several fisheries which are either suspended or have been withdrawn of the MSC process. Finally, during the latest part of the harmonisation process a new fishery assessed by SAI Global was added to the meetings. However, this fishery is still to be announced (the ACDR is expected to be issued in early 2020) and therefore it cannot be mentioned here. Table 4.1.1 . List of overlapping fisheries to be harmonised Fishery name CAB Certification status and date Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden In assessment Lloyd’s Register Baltic herring & sprat fishery (PCDR not published)

Finland herring & sprat fishery Lloyd’s Register Certified since June 25, 2018

LFPO pelagic trawl fishery (Sprat) Bureau Veritas Certified since May 2017

4.1.1 Harmonisation activities In the case of the two BV fisheries, the same team performed for the 2 nd surveillance audit of the sprat fishery and the initial assessment of the NZRO gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery, and the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 80 site visits were performed simultaneously. This was planned in order to ensure consistent outcomes for the two fisheries. No other harmonisation activities were considered necessary in relation to the NZRO Gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery. Four different harmonisation meetings were scheduled with Lloyd’s Register between February and September 2019 (see dates below). These harmonisation discussions between the Lloyd’s and the Bureau Veritas (BV) teams were initiated prior to the BV on-site visit scheduled for 24-26 April 2019, and a final meeting was held on the 9th of September 2019, right after the 30-day consultation on the new UoA (the CBH) added to the NZRO fishery. The meetings were focused on discussing/reviewing the following PIs and SIs, based on the differences in scores found by the Lloyd’s Register team while assessing the DDES Baltic herring and sprat fishery: - PI 1.1.A for Baltic sprat SI(b)- review whether a high degree of certainty is met or not for SG100. Include a paragraph on the ICES recommendation on spatial management, but this should not be assessed here since it is considered under PI2.5.1 and also PI3.2.2 - PI 1.1.1.A for Central Baltic herring SI(b) –review whether a high degree of certaintay is met or not for the SG100 - PI 1.2.2 SI(a) & SI(c) for sprat - Review whether a score of 80 or 100 is appropriate - PI 1.2.3 SI(b) for sprat - Review whether a score of 80 or 100 is appropriate - PIs 2.1.1. & 2.2.1 Review spatial extends of the fishing activities to confirm whether or not there is either species is caught. - PIs 2.1.3 & 2.2.3.- Discuss about the lower scores awarded for these PIs in the Finnish fishery are still appropriate. - P2.3.1 & 2.3.3- Discuss about the cumulative impacts on the harbour porpoise and potential conditions to outcome and information. - PI 3.1.1 SI(a)- Review whether a score of 80 or 100 is appropriate - PI 3.1.2 SI(c)- Review whether a score of 80 or 100 is appropriate - PI 3.1.3 SI(a)- Review whether a score of 80 or 100 is appropriate - PIs 3.2.x (generally)- Discuss whether these PIs should be restricted to the EU framework or the Russian cooperation should also be assessed here (in the case of the sprat fishery in the Baltic proper, not for the herring fishery in the Gulf or Riga). - PI 3.2.3 SI(c) & SI(d)- Review appropriate scoring taking into consideration potential missreporting between herring and sprat. The list of participants in these meetings is presented below: - Polly Burns, Jim Andrews, Fiona Nimmo and Beatriz Roel on behalf Lloyd’s Register - José Ríos, Hans Lassen and Gemma Quilez on behalf Bureau Veritas

4.1.2 Harmonisation outcome It was recognised that there is no geographical overlapping between the assessed fishery (restricted to the Gulf of Riga) and the other overlapping fisheries. It was noted that some differences in scores awarded for different UoAs in relation to P2 were to be expected in the Baltic Sea because of different composition of the catches, level of information for the impacted species, and also because of the environmental characteristics of the Baltic Sea and the significant changes that exist over a small geographic scale and also because of differences between fishing fleets (in terms of areas fished as well as métiers). Further, none of the overlapping fisheries assessed ‘main’ subcomponents of the P2 apart from sprat or herring. Therefores there is no need to assess cumulative impacts between all MSC UoAs for primary and secondary P2-components.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 81 In relation to PI 2.3.3 it was noted that the level of information available and legal requirements for different fisheries was variable when it comes to score this PI. Explicit legal requirements exist in Latvia in relation to the obligation to report interactions with cetaceans, and there is evidence that observer coverage derived from the implemention of Reg (EC) 812/2004 was around 10% in the case of Latvia (both inside and outside the GoR), while the Lloyd’s Register team was not presented with evidence of observer coverages in the different flag states of their assessed fleets. Given that this PI (on the contrary of PI2.3.1) does not measure cumulative impacts it was considered appropriate that different UoAs could have different scores, so harmonisation of scoring was not necessary. It was also acknowledged by the teams that there was no need to harmonise most of P3 performance indicators since there are different fleets targeting different stocks for different purposes (e.g. fish meal and oil, human consumption) and operating under different flags and areas (i.e. fisheries management depend exclusively on two EU countries in the case of the Gulf or Riga). Harmonisation on P3 was restricted to PI3.1.1 and PI3.1.3. PI1.1.1A –Baltic sprat- Initially, no agreement was reached for this PI, since the BV team considered that SG100 is met for SI(b) and this was reflected in the latest surveillance audit report for the LFPO Baltic sprat fishery (Lassen et al 2019). However, at a later stage it was acknowledeged that the assessment presented in 2019 readjusted the SSB slightly downward from that level presented in 2018 and the SG100 is not met for SI(b). Therefore, an overall score of 90 is given to this PI and there is no scoring difference with Lloyd’s. BV agrees that overall score is now different from the score provided in Lassen et al (2019) and this issue will be tackled during the next surveillance audit of the sprat fishery. This is also the case for Lloyd’s Register and the Finish fishery. PI1.1.1A –Central Baltic Herring- This was the only PI for which agreement was not reach among the team, while agreement was found among teams for the following PIs: the BV team considered that score of 100 is justified, while the LR team provides an overall score of 90 since they consider that SI(b) does not meet SG100. Despite this assessment is conducted using FCR2.0, it was decided to follow requirement PB1.3.3.4.a.ii from FCP2.1 as adopt the lowest score. Therefore, this PI got an overall score of 90 in this report, and the justifications adopted by other CAB were added to this report. PI 1.2.2 SI(a)&(c)- sprat-. BV agreed to include Lloyd’s concerns and score 80 for SI(a) and SI(c). Overall score would move from 95 to 80. BV agrees that overall score is now different from the score provided during the latest surveillance audit for the LFPO Baltic sprat fishery and this issue will be tackled during the next surveillance audit of the sprat fishery. This is also the case for Lloyd’s Register and the Finish fishery. A final note concerning scoring PI 1.2.2 (Harvest control rules and tools) Sic –sprat- There were agreement that SG80 is met while the Lloyd’s Register Team found that SG100 is currently not met based on the following concerns:

Concerns (Lloyd’s Bureau Veritas Comments Register)

The sprat is scored at PI 1.1.1A i.e. based on ecosystem The fishing mortality considerations rather than MSY. The total catch in recent years

is above F MSY ends slightly above advised levels suggesting that the exploitation is just above what is considered sustainable

The total annual TAC Both EU and Russia respects the Harvest Control Rule but the total is dictated by the TAC is set slightly above the advised level. Harvest Control rule

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 82 (EU) as laid down in Total TAC Catch the Multiannual Plan Year ICES advice basis (2016) tons tons 2014 MSY approach < 247000 267,900 243,800

2015 MSY approach < 222000 240,200 247,200

MSY approach (F = 0.26) ≤ 2016 243,000 246,500 205000

MSY approach (F = 0.26) ≤ 2017 303,593 285,701 314000

MAP target F ranges: Flower to Fupper (F = 0.19– 0.27), but F 2018 higher than FMSY = 0.26 only 304,000 308,827 under conditions specified in MAP 219152–301722

At the on-site visit in April 2019 the BV team looked into the issue of the Russian performance with setting its autonomous TAC and There is uncertainty found that there is common understanding between EU and Russia of the Russian on the quota allocation key for sprat while the allocation key is performance in disputed for herring. Normunds Riekiens per. Comm. Hence there is relation to this plan commonly accepted HCR and the quota allocation has worked without disputes for several decades. The BV team therefore finds that the uncertainty is not important.

The BV team investigated the likelihood of misreporting and in particular the possibility of misreporting sprat-herring. The team saw sampling records from the catch and sampling of the landings and identification of the species in the samples. They did not for the Latvian fishery found that systematic misreporting takes place. The issue was also raised with the Control and Enforcement authorities that has found some WGBFAS (2018) problems related to the EU regulation which in some cases expresses some have led to overreporting of smelt. An overreporting of smelt concerns about the corresponds with underreporting of herring and sprat. This problem is raised in the EU CFP context. Furthermore, the possibility of issues have been dealt with at the local level. Also, BIOR misreporting in the confirmed that they were confident that the sprat catch data sprat fishery. were reasonably accurate. In conclusion, no systematic misreporting for the Latvian sprat fishery have been identified. WGBFAS (2018d) notes in its report that there may be misreporting of sprat-WGBFAS (2018). WGBFAS (2018d) Section 7.12 reads 7.1.2 Unallocated removals No information on unallocated catches was presented to

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 83 th e group. It is expected, h oweve r, that misreporting of catches occurs, as the estimates of species composition of the clupeid catches are imprecise in some mixed pelagic fisheries. This statement is rather imprecise and is not included in the ICES (2018a) advice and the BV team evaluation is therefore that while the WGBFAS is considering the possibility, ACOM has not found that there is sufficient evidence that this should be noted in the advisory text. Therefore, this is not considered in the scoring.

However, the two first issues remain (F> FMSY and TAC set above ICES advice) and on this basis PI 1.2.2c was rescored and for PI 1.2.2c found that SG100 is not met. PI 1.2.3 SI(B) –sprat-. BV agreed to score 80 in this SI (instead of 100). Overall score would move from 100 to 90. For more details see the final note on this issue at the end of this table. PI 3.1.1 SI(a). BV agreed to modify the rationale and scoring provided in the LFPO sprat fishery in order to accommodate Lloyd’s Register concerns on procedures governing cooperation with other parties (Russia). Sia will score 80 instead of 100. Overall score would move from 100 to 95 PI 3.1.3 SI(a). BV agreed to review this score down to 80 in the light of analysis of international cooperation (Russia to be included). PI 3.2.3 SI(c) and SI(d). Lloyd’s Register agreed to mention misreporting and review scoring after discussions with fishery enforcement stakeholders. In any case it was agreed that there was no need to harmonise this score based on the different information from the different UoAs and States. Pis 3.2.x (generally). The Lloyd’s Register team agreed to alter perspective of DDES assessment to focus on the EU management regime. PI 2.3.1 SI a – the information presently available for different MSC UoAs enables their impact on harbour porpoises to be determined with certainty for some, but not all UoAs. Because the SG80 level of performance for SIa refers to cumulative impacts, LR felt that SG60 was met, but not SG80. Therefore, it was agreed to raise a condition on this PI for all overlapping UoAs. The wording of the condition was discussed and agreed only in September 2019.

4.1.3 Harmonisation November 2019 outcomes – Principle 1 scoring for Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat Two additional harmonisation meetings were held in November 2019. A fishery to be assessed by SAI Global was added to the meetings. This fishery is still (December 2019) to be announced (the ACDR is expected for 2020). This fishery takes place outside the Gulf of Riga and therefore only Central Baltic herring and Baltic Sprat were discussed. Notes taken by Jim Andrews (Lloyd’s Register) during these meetings are presented in below. The results of these meetings were considered as comments received during the 30-day consultation period on the PCDR. The outcome of these meetings resulted on a new condition set on PI 1.2.2 (see Appendix 1.3). Participants

Name Role 11 th November 2019, 21 st November 2019, 13:30GMT / 14:30CET 15:00GMT / 1 6

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 84 Beatriz Roel P1 Assessor, Lloyd’s Register, DDES herring & sprat fishery X X

Conor Team lead, SAI Global, Polish herring & sprat X X Donnelly

Giuseppe P1 Assessor, Lloyd’s Register, Finland herring & sprat X Apologies Scarcella fishery

Hans Lassen P1 Assessor, Bureau Veritas, LFPO Sprat & herring fishery X X P1 Assessor, Bureau Veritas, NZRO Gulf or Riga herring & sprat trawl fishery

Jim Andrews Team lead & P3, Lloyd’s Register, DDES herring & sprat X X fishery Team lead, P2 & P3, Finland herring & sprat fishery

José Rios Team lead, Bureau Veritas, LFPO Sprat & herring fishery X X Team lead, Bureau Veritas, NZRO Gulf or Riga herring & sprat trawl fishery

Maciej P1 Assessor, SAI Global, Polish herring & sprat fishery X X Tomczak

Polly Burns Lloyd’s Register X -

Kate Morris Lloyd’s Register - X

Geraldine SAI Global - Apologies Criquet

Sam Dignan SAI Global X Apologies

Agenda 11 th November 2019, 13:30GMT / 14:30CET 1. Introductions a. All participants introduced themselves and their role in the assessment. b. Team leaders explained the status of each of their fisheries, as follows:- i. Finland herring & sprat – fishery certified in 2018, surveillance audit currently underway ii. LFPO sprat & herring – fishery certified in 2017, most recent surveillance report published in July 2019. iii. NZRO Gulf of Riga herring & sprat trawl fishery – the PCDR for this assessment has been completed and is due for publication shortly. iv. DDES herring & sprat – assessment started in November 2018, still underway. v. Polish herring & sprat – announcement comment draft currently in preparation. 2. Context a. ICES advice All agreed that it was appropriate to refer to the May 2019 ICES advice and reference points for the sprat and herring stocks

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 85 b. Key LTL status of sprat & herring All agreed that both Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring should be considered “key LTL” species. All agreed that these stocks should be assessed using PI1.1.1A. 3. Scoring discussion a. Maciej Tomczak had circulated scoring rationales for the Polish herring and sprat UoAs for discussion prior to the meeting. He was keen to ensure that the harmonised scoring outcome for all fisheries took into account current and emerging views about the Baltic Sea ecosystem. b. There was a discussion between P1 experts about how best to determine the scores for both herring and sprats with respect to PI1.1.1A. Key points discussed included:- i. Herring and sprat play important roles in the Baltic ecosystem. The role of sprat as prey for eastern Baltic cod is well documented. The stock assessments for both herring and sprat take account of cod predation through their natural mortality values. ii. Eastern Baltic cod is presently in a poor state, both in terms of biomass and the condition of individual fish. There are several possible explanations for this including the abundance of sprat and other prey items; the relative spatial distribution of sprat and cod; parasite loadings; and changes in the oceanographic conditions in the Baltic Sea. iii. ICES produced a multi-species model in 2013 that considers the interactions between herring, sprat & cod. iv. There is an emerging view that the ICES multi species model no longer describes the relationship between these species under current oceanographic / climatic conditions. v. The biomass of both sprat and central Baltic herring is currently high. c. P1 experts considered how this information should be taken into account in scoring SIa and SIb in PI1.1.1A. After careful consideration it was agreed that:- i. SIa: there is a high degree of certainty that stock biomass for both Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring is above 20%B0, meeting the SG60 (“likely”), SG80 (“highly likely”) and SG100 (“high degree of certainty”) levels of confidence that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. ii. SIb: there was a consensus that the stocks of both Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring meet the SG80 requirements for this SI, since the effect of fishing for sprat is not expected to result in a reduction in cod abundance by more than 15% compared to a scenario where there is no sprat fishery (SA2.2.13.b.i). It was felt that further consideration of the robustness of this view would be beneficial, and also whether or not the SG100 requirements may be met. d. It was agreed by all that it would be useful to hold a further discussion to confirm the score that it would be appropriate to award for each species. 4. Date for next meeting: 21 st November 2019 at 1500GMT / 1600CET.

Agenda 21 st November 2019, 1500GMT / 1600CET 1. Introductions a. All participants introduced themselves and their role in the assessment. 2. Note of last meeting

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 86 a. José Rios asked that the notes should be corrected to report that the LFPO fishery has not been extended, but a new fishery assessment for the Gulf of Riga herring has been conducted. (Action JA) 3. Principle 1 Scoring discussion a. Maciej Tomczak had circulated some revised scoring rationales for the Polish herring and sprat UoAs for discussion prior to the meeting. He was keen to ensure that the harmonised scoring outcome for all fisheries took into account current and emerging views about the Baltic Sea ecosystem b. There was a discussion between P1 experts about scoring. It was agreed that:- i. PI1.1.1.A – a score of 90 was appropriate for both Baltic sprat and CB herring. ii. PI1.2.1 – after some discussion it was agreed that a score of 80 was appropriate for this PI for both species. iii. PI1.2.2 – it was agreed that a score of 75 was appropriate for both species, based on the observation that in recent years the TAC for the fishery had not been effective at achieving the exploitation rate required under the HCRs (SIc met at 60 but not at 80). This scoring applied to both species. iv. PI1.2.3 – all agreed on a score of 90 for both species. v. PI1.2.4 – all agreed on a score of 85 for both species c. It was agreed that in response to this discussion:- i. Maciej Tomczak would revise the scoring tables to reflect the agreed scoring and circulate for comment. ii. Beatriz Roel & Jim Andrews would draft a condition for PI1.2.2 SIc and circulate this for comment. 4. Species misreporting a. Jim Andrews reported that he had spoken to enforcement agencies in Sweden and Denmark about the species misreporting issue concerning Swedish vessels landing sprat & herring in Denmark. The key points noted were:- i. Enforcement agencies had noted a change in fishing behaviour by some vessels in late 2018: they were reporting catches of herring but VMS records and catch rates suggested it was more likely that they were catching sprat. ii. In Q1 2019 the Swedish and Danish enforcement agencies carried out control inspections of vessels and found that for 9 Swedish trawlers the logbook estimates of catch composition showed a much higher proportion of herring than the actual catch. iii. Most of the vessels agreed to correct their landings record to match the control findings. 4 vessels did not feel that they were legally obliged to do this. The enforcement agencies are taking further legal action against these operators. iv. Article 13 of the Baltic Sea MAP (EU Regulation 1139/2016) provides a derogation from the requirement under Regulation 1224/2009, requiring that logbook records of catches of unsorted fish are within 10% of the total catch weight (rather than within 10% of the individual species weights). The logbooks met this overall requirement, and consequently there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance with the reporting requirements of the MAP.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 87 v. It is understood that from 1 st January 2020 the first sale buyer of fish will be responsible for filing an accurate record of the landings composition. vi. It is not presently clear that any aspect of the fishery therefore scores less than 80 for any part of PI3.2.3 or the rest of P3. vii. JA is in the process of revising the scoring of P3 for the DDES herring assessment in the light of these findings and would circulate the scoring to other CABs 5. Date for next meeting: it was not felt necessary to schedule further harmonisation discussions following the successful meeting.

4.2. Previous assessments The fishery has not previously be subject to an MSC assessment. However, part of the assessed fleet is included in other two UoCs: - The ‘LFA Latvia trawl and gillnets Eastern Baltic Cod Fishery’, certified on the 9 th of July 2015 and suspended later on that year (17 th December) because the results of the 2015 ICES benchmark assessment on the eastern baltic cod stock forced to re-score P1 below 80. The suspension affected the other certified cod fisheries targeting the same stock - The LFPO pelagic sprat trawl fishery, certified on the 21 st of May 2017. This certificate covers the sprat fishery in the Baltic proper. The fishery remains certified.

4.3. Assessment Methodologies The fishery was announced on February 14, 2019. Therefore, the assessment was still conducted in accordance with the FCR2.0, since the new requirements for the certification process (FCP v2.1, published on August 21, 2018) only became effective for those assessment processes announced on or after February 28, 2019. The assessment team used the default assessment tree (SA). The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 (issued by MSC on the 8th October 2014) was used as basis for this report.

4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits The site visit was carried out between 24th and 26 th of April 2018 in Riga and Skulte (Latvia). The lead auditor (José Ríos) and the foreign assessors (Hans Lassen and Gemma Quílez) travelled to Latvia to join the local member (Sarmite Zoltnere) and participate in all meetings listed in Table 4.4.1 . As explained in Section 4.1.1 (Harmonisation activities), the same BV team performed the assessments for two overlapping fisheries for the same client: (i) the initial assessment of the NZRO gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery the 2 nd surveillance audit of the sprat fishery; (ii) the 2 nd surveillance audit of the sprat fishery. Since all other relevant stakeholders are the same for the two fisheries (e.g. BIOR, Fishery Department in the Latvian Ministry of Agriculture, control Unit of the State Environmental Service), it was decided to perform both visits (i.e. the site visit for the inicial assessment and the one for the surveillance audit) at the same time. This decision (using the same team and perform a single site visit) was planned by BV to promote consistent outcomes for the two fisheries. Apart from meeting with the client, managing authorities and the research institutions based in Riga, the team also visited Skulte and checked the landing and the grading facility at that port. This port is used by vessels fishing targeting herring in the Gulf of Riga and have grading facilities which are sometimes hired by the fishing companies included in the UoA. The team had the chance to witness

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 88 the landing of the catch from one of the vessels included in the UoA, interview the skipper, witness the sampling and reporting procedures on-shore prior to grading, and the grading and packing process. The auditors had the chance to compile and check all the traceability documents generated after landing. Also, meetings were held in Skulte with: (i) representatives of the fishing companies included in the UoA and (ii) Representatives of the Rural Support Service of the Ministry of Agriculture. To conclude the visit, an RBF workshop was held in Riga on April 26. This RBF workshop allowed to score all main and minor secondary species identified by the team based on the different sources of information used (i.e. UoA catches and BIOR samplings on ports). Before the RBF workshop the team met with WWF Latvia and discussed the topic of the spatial management of the eastern Baltic cod stock, which is more related to the sprat fishery under surveillance audit. The closing meeting with the client for this surveillance audit took place in Riga on April 26, 2019. Table 4.4.1. Details of the meetings held during the site visit for the assessment of the NZRO herring and sprat fishery in the Gulf of Riga Date Place/Address Time Attendees Topics

Inarijs Voits NZRO HQ in Riga 9-11 Viesturs Ulis See list below (NZRO representatives)

Viesturs Ulis (NZRO) Visit to the port, 13:00- Elina Latvena (SIA A.I. un KO) witness landing 14:00 Lelde Vindedze (SIA VARITA) operation and Centris Sustrins (skipper f/v UNA) grading process April 24 Viesturs Ulis (NZRO) Wednesday Elina Latvena (SIA A.I. un KO) Lelde Vindedze (SIA VARITA) Inform about the 14:00- Janis Laguns (SIA VERĢI) MSC process and Skulte port 14:45 Ivars Janeks (SIA VERĢI) provide responses Kaspars Udris (SIA LĪCIS 99) to their queries Inga Hausmane (SIA LĪCIS 99) Inta Antane (SIA LĪCIS 99) Inform about the Irina Vanaga 14:45- MSC process and Sorina Jakovleva 16:00 provide responses (Rural Support Service representatives) to their queries Normunds Riekstiņš Ilze Rutkovska Ministry of 10-12 Saula Jamone See list below Agriculture HQ Ricards Derkaes in Riga (Fisheries Department representatives) Assessment team April 25 Maris Plikshs Thursday BIOR HQ in Riga 13-15 Ivars Putnis See list below (BIOR and University representatives) Fishery Control Department and 15:30- See list below

Inspector team 17:00 HQ in Riga 18:00- Pre-scoring Hotel BV team 21:00 meeting (I)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 89 8:00-9:00 Elza Ozolina (WWF Latvia) See list below Viesturs Ulis (NZRO) 9:00- Elza Ozolina (WWF Latvia) RBF workshop for 12:00 Maris Plikshs (BIOR) PI 2.2.1 April 26 Ilse Rutkovska (Fisheries Department) Bureau Veritas Friday Closing meeting: HQ in Riga Preliminary review 12:00- Viesturs Ulis (NZRO) of findings 12:45 Review of outstanding issues 13:00:00- Pre-scoring BV team 15:00 meeting (II)

4.4.2 Consultations The announcement of the fishery entering the MSC assessment process was made publicly available at the MSC website on February 26, 2019. This announcement detailed that dates of the scheduled site visit to Latvia, and encouraged those stakeholders interested in scheduling a meeting to get in contact with the assessment team. Further, BV also encouraged stakeholders to share with the team, at any time throughout the process, any information they might consider relevant to the assessment. An specific email informing about the announcement of the fishery and encouraging participation was sent to a comprehensive list of stakeholders which was elaborated by the CAB with the assistance of the client. 46 different stakeholders were contacted via e-mail, including the Fishery Department (Ministry of Agriculture), the Rural Support Service (Ministry of Agriculture), the Ministry of Environment, the Control Unit of the State Environmental Service, BIOR (Latvian Fish Resources Agency), the University of Latvia, the NZRO members, other sprat fishermen which are non NZRO members, the Baltic Environmental Forum (BEF), the Fisheries cooperation Network, and NGOs –WWF (Latvia, Poland, Sweden and International), Hel Marine Station, Latvian Fund for Nature (LDF), Latvian Ornithological Society, etc.). Further, the team with the assistance of the client elaborated a list of key stakeholders to be interviewed and Sarmite Zoltnere contacted them in order to ensure their participation during the site visit and arrange the meetings. In the case of WWF-Latvia they got in contact with BV requesting to meet the team during the site visit. The list of institutions and people finally interviewed during the site visit is detailed in Table 4.4.1 . The stakeholder input was restricted to the information collected during the meetings held at the site visit and the documents sent by the stakeholders as a result of the requests made by the team during those meetings. No other stakeholder inputs were received by email using the template provided by MSC. Table 4.4.2 presents the main topics discussed with the different stakeholders during the different meetings. Feedback obtained from all the interviewed stakeholders allowed the team to collect information on different details of the fishing operations at sea (data recording and reporting, handling, storage), offloading and grading, selling (sales notes, invoices), MCS system and activities, scientific monitoring, and other relevant issues. Information collected was used to elaborate Section 3 (Description of the fishery) and Section 5 (Traceability), and also to evaluate and score the assessed fishery using the default tree (Annex SA) as shown in Appendix 1 . All documents used for the assessment are listed in Section 4 (References). BV submitted a request to the MSC’s Peer Review College to assign peer reviewers to this assessment process. The Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of 4 potential experts to

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 90 undertake the peer review for the PRDR. This list, including a summary of the experience and qualifications of the reviewers was published at the MSC website on July 18, 2019. Further, since the mixture between the gulf of Riga herring and the central Baltic herring (CBH) in the gulf of Riga was not detected initially, it was necessary to announce a new UoA for the CBH at the MSC website. The announcement was released on July 30, 2019 and following the MSC response to the variation request sent by BV, a 30-day consultation period for stakeholders followed by an off- site meetings with relevant stakeholders. No comments were received during the period. Further, BV contacted with the key stakeholders (client, BIOR and the Fisheries Department) and confirmed that they do not have nothing to add to the ICES advice on this stock. Therefore, no off-site meetings were held to complete the assessment of this stock. Table 4.4.2. Details of the main topics discussed with the different stakeholders during the site visit for assessment of the NZRO herring and sprat fisheyr in the Gulf of Riga Stakeholder Topics discussed - Current situation of the NZRO, major changes in the latest years - General view on the fisheries management within the GoR (TAC management, sprat bycatch limit, industrial Vs coastal fishermen, any shared management with Estonia? Human consumption Vs fish meal) - Details on the data collection and reporting (electronic logbook, VMS, observers on board…). - Quota swap between herring and sprat? - Check NZRO fishing companies targeting herring in the Gulf of Riga, licences and quotas - Evidence of the compliance (N inspections, N infringments, N sanctions paid…) - Check latest catch composition data. - Feedback on the implementation of the Multi-species management plan NZRO - Feedback on the Implementation of the landing obligation - Describe all the different possibilities after the fish is offloaded on shore: Do all fishing companies own a processing plant? Do these processing plants purchase fish from vessels outside of the NZRO? …. - Details on the grading process - Check all traceability records until the point of change of ownership. - Participation in consultation bodies (e.g. Baltic Sea Advisory Council,…) - Relationship with coastal fisheries within the GoR - Technical caractheristics of the fishing gear used, details of the fishing operations (N hauls per day, duration of the hauls) - Maps of the fishing activity if possible - Interactions with birds and marine mammals: any records? - General view on the fisheries management within the GoR (special permit to fish within the GoR, TAC management, sprat bycatch limit, fishing rights of industrial Vs coastal fishermen, any shared management with Estonia? Human consumption Vs fish meal) - Official landings of the herring fishery in the GoR (2006-2018) - Are they allowed to fish inside and outside the GoR in the same fishing trip? - Are the Latvian vessels fishing within the Estonian waters? (and viceversa) - Are the Latvian vessels offloading in Estonia? Ministry of Agriculture - Any concerns regarding the quota swap between herring and sprat? (Fishery Department) - Is it possible to perform interannual quota swaps? - Check current Latvian fishing companies targeting herring in the Gulf of Riga, licences and quotas - Feedback on the implementation of the Multi-species management plan - Consultation mechanisms in place for this fishery (FAC? Baltfish?): N of meetings/year, transparency of the process (are the minutes available?) - Mechanisms for dispute resolution provided within the Latvian Fisheries legal framework

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 91 - Details on the sampling program (although this can also be discussed in detail with BIOR) - Insight on the Integrated Control Information for Latvian Fisheries Systems. - Which information is being collected, how is it collected, who is receiving it, transparency… - Feedback on the Implementation of the landing obligation - Helcom MPAs in the GoR, implications to the fishery management - Insight on the MCS system in place in Latvia: structure and means of the Control Unit, activities developed, decision-making - Main regulations in relation to the MCS systems, sanctioning procedure…Does the control unit issues an annual report detailing the activities performed? Ministry of Environment - Latest activities of MCS system implemented in relation to the herring fishery (Control Unit) in the GoR: N inspections at sea and on shore, N and severity of the infringements, N sanctions imposed - Compliance of the assessed fleet (NZRO vessels targeting herring in the GoR) - Transparency of the process. Mechanisms for dispute resolution. - Feedback on the implementation of the landing obligation - Details of the sampling program implemented in the herring fishery in the GoR and also on the sprat fishery in the Baltic (confirm that it includes: (i) on board sampling with observers, (ii) sampling on shore, (iii) acoustic surveys). How is this information reported and to whom? - Confirm that recent changes in the EU-DCF affected the observer program in Latvia (previously observer allocation was done through tender at end of the fishing season, now it is random) - Data on catch composition collected by the observers on board the assessed fleet (herring in the GoR) and the certified fleet (sprat in the Baltic). Annual reports that can be found on-line? - Would it be possible to get an updated map of the fishing operations of the herring fishery and another one of the sprat fishery? (in the PCR of the sprat BIOR fishery we included a figure prepared by Georgs Kornilovs, figure 3-3, which would be very useful if could be updated (in the case of the sprat fishery) or created (in the case of the herring fishery)) - Any improvement in relation to ecosystem modelling in the GoR and/or Baltic to predict herring recruitment - Which is the best available habitat map of the GoR? - Harbour porpoise monitoring to comply with Regulation 812/2004 or the Jastarnia Plan (Ascobans 2009) or Helcom Recommendation 17/2 (revised in 2013) - Other sources of information on interactions between the herring fishery and birds and mammals - Helcom MPAs in the GoR, implications to the fishery management - National lists of endangered, protected species. - The CAB provided information on the MSC assessment process and the two Latvian fisheries involved in it. WWF Latvia - The spatial management of the eastern Baltic cod: latest ICES report and NGOs position paper on this issue Day Venue Time I nstitution / Company Topics

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques The full assessment was publicly announced on the 14 th of February 2019 at the MSC website and supplemented by emailing a list of relevant stakeholders (see Section 4.4.2 ). This was also the method used for consultation on subsequent steps (e.g. peer reviewers announcement, new UoA…). See Section 4.4.2 for a detailed list of all consultations that took place at different stages along the process. However, meetings and conference calls held during the site visit constituted the main tool in guaranteeing the participation of relevant stakeholders.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 92 Additionally, the assessment team has reviewed documents sent by the client (catch data, logbooks, internal records of quota monitoring, sales notes and other relevant documents generated after landing), EU and Latvian fisheries and environmental regulations, STECF reports, ICES advices and reports and other scientific publications. See section 7 for a detailed list of references used. Scoring was performed according to the procedure established in Certification Requirement 7.10 (MSC FCR v2.0). The assessment team held preliminary scoring meetings along the site visit where the Performance Indicators of the fishery were evaluated jointly by the team in order to assess whether there was still information needs to be communicated to the client. After the site visit, each expert got in charge of finishing its part of the report before proceeding to a joint evaluation of every PI and the pertaining scoring systems through scoring meetings which took place via conference calls. The necessary harmonisation procedure was already described in section 4.1 . Although all P2 species scoring elements were listed in Table 3.4.2.2.1 (all species with recorded interactions with the assessed fishery), Table 3.4.5.1 (all potential ETPs) and Table 3.4..6.1 (habitats) a complete list of the different scoring elements as used in the scoring tables is presented below in Table 4.4.3. Table 4.4.3. List of all scoring elements as used in scoring tables in Appendix 1 Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient P1 Herring N/A No P1 Sprat N/A No Primary Eastern Baltic Cod Stock Minor No Flounder 26, 28 Secondary Main Yes (Eastern Gotland and Gulf of Gdansk) Secondary Smelt Main Yes Secondary Fourhorn sculpin Main Yes Secondary Shorthorn sculpin Minor Yes Secondary Eelpout Minor Yes Secondary Round gobid Minor Yes Secondary Sand gobid Minor Yes Secondary Three-spine stickleback Minor Yes Secondary Nine-spine stickleback Minor Yes Secondary Straight-nose pipefish Minor Yes ETP Sea lamprey N/A No ETP Harbour porpoise N/A No ETP Seabirds N/A No Commonly Habitats Pelagic habitat GoR No encountered Habitats Circalittoral mud Minor No Habitats Circalittoral sand Minor No Habitats Circalittoral coarse sediment Minor No Habitats Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef Minor No Habitats Circalittoral mixed sediment Minor No Habitats Infralittoral mud Minor No Habitats Infralittoral sand Minor No Habitats Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef Minor No

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 93

The team agrees that none of the scoring issues assessed for the NZRO gulf or Riga herring and sprat trawl fishery fails to meet at the SG60 level, and a weighted average score of 80 or more was achieved for each of the 3 MSC Principles. Scores allocated to the default performance indicators are summarised in Section 6.2. The NZRO gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery complies with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. The team has set 2 binding conditions for certification and 1 non-binding management recommendations (see section 6.4 for more details).

4.4.4 Risk Based Framework The Risk Based Framework (RBF) was adopted by the MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data- deficient situations, and it is designed to allow the assessment of specific PIs (1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1 and 2.5.1) using the default assessment tree.

4.4.4.1 Rationale for using the RBF There are sufficient data available to estimate the impact of the assessed fishery on the different ecosystem components: primary species, habitats and ecosystems. Therefore, the use of the Risk Based Framework was not triggered in this assessment to assess those PIs. However, as this is not the case for the secondary species a RBF was triggered for assessing main and minor subcomponents in PI2.2.1. The criteria and rationale for using the RBF is set out in Table 4.4.4.1 below. Table 4.4.4.1 . Criteria and rationale for using RBF, based on Table 3 (FCR v2.0).

Performance Criteria Rationale Consideration Notes Indicator

“Secondary” species are defined as those whose management is not based on biological reference points (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.1.4). Stock status reference Out of the 10 secondary points are species identified ( Section available, 3.4.2.2 ), only flounder is derived either assessed by ICES in the Baltic Use Annex PI 2.2.1: Secondary from Sea. However, no stock status No PF (RBF) species outcome analytical reference points were for this PI. stock available, therefore, no assessment or analytical assessment was using performed for any of the empirical flounder stocks in the Baltic approaches. Sea (ICES, 2014a), and advice provided was based on biomass index comparisons from previous years (ICES, 2012b). Next advice is due for 2020. Therefore, all Secondary

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 94 scoring elements are Data Deficient species according to FCR7.7.6.

4.4.4.2 RBF stakeholder consultation strategy Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of the use of the RBF. Stakeholders were notified that the RBF was due to be used for assessing Performance indicator 2.2.1 of this fishery prior to the site visit, both by notices posted on the MSC website, and by direct e-mail contact from Bureau Veritas. These notices included the text required by the MSC (FCR v2.0 PF2.3.2). No stakeholder comments were received on the consultation about the use of the RBF published on 14 th February 2019. During the site visit, a specific stakeholder-driven, qualitative RBF meeting was carried out. To achieve a robust outcome, previous to the meeting, a broad range of stakeholders with a balanced knowledge of the fishery were identified and asked to participate in such meeting. We encouraged those stakeholders with experience or knowledge on the fishery to attend the meeting. See table 4.4.1 for more details on the participants in the RBF workshop.

4.4.4.3 Information and list of components obtained from the meetings Prior to the meeting, as we only had the catch data from the client available a list of 3 species (i.e., eelpout, fourhorn sculpin and flounder) was identified to be assessed with the RBF. During the site visit and before the RBF meeting, BIOR showed us the distribution of the species composition from all the biological samples taken from commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga collected during 2015-2018 (Figure 4.4.2.1.1 ), and realized that 7 additional species had to be included in the analysis. At the end, the following 10 species were included in the RBF analysis:

European flounder (Platichthys flesus ) European smelt (Osmerus eperlanus ) Fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis ) Shorthorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius ) Eelpout (Zoarces viviparous ) Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus ) Sand goby (Po matoschistus microps and P. minut us) Three -spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus ) Nine -spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius ) Straight -nose pipefish (Nerophis ophidion )

Appendix 1.2.2 contains the specific Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) for all the components.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 95 5 Traceability

5.1. Eligibility Date The Eligibility Date will be the date of the certification of the fishery (the publication date of the Public Certification Report). This means that any fish harvested after the eligibility date and sold shall be handled in conformity with relevant product requirements in the MSC Chain of Custody standard. In order to consider all potential traceability impacts, the CAB has verified traceability and identification systems before the eligibility date came into effect. The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – are detailed in the rest of this section.

5.2. Traceability within the Fishery

Description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems Latvia is a Member State of the EU, and its fisheries are subject to the principles and practices of the CFO. The overall CFP requirements for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) is the Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009. Some of the measures included in the European regulation are:

 Obligation of the VMS.  Accurate reporting: logbooks and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross-checked).  Special rules for entry into or exit from specific areas.  Use of Designated ports.  Completion and submission of a landing declaration  Prohibition of transiting and transhipping.  Obligation that all fisheries products are first marketed or registered at an auction centre or to registered buyers or to producer organisations. In the case of the assessed fishery there is no auction, but the product is sold to registered buyers and sent to their registered grading sites listed in https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/00/73/21/sarakstsuz2019. gada6.martu.pdf ).  Verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics.  Reporting prior to landing with limited tolerance. The Latvian traceability system known as LZIKIS is in force since the June 1, 2018. The Latvian Ministry of Agriculture operates the LZIKIS, which contains several databases and IT tools. The core IT databases available in LZIKIS used for control purposes are the quota uptake monitoring database, Electronic Reporting System (containing electronic logbook, electronic landing declaration data), electronic sales note, inspections (e.g. detected infringments) and VMS data, as well catch certificates for the fisheries products import and export. Latvian fishermen submit electronic logbook and electronic landing declaration data to LZIKIS via ERS system. This is monitored via the cross-checking of the VMS and ERS data. The fisheries Monitoring Centre of the SES supervises the vessels 24/7. The LZIKIS is accessible by the SES, which can also make changes in the logbook data, e.g. in case of errors. There modifications are visible and inspectors at the regional offices have correction rights.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 96 Moreover, to improve cooperation in 2015 the Customs officials of the State Revenue Service was granted access to LZIKIS, this allows to see and check import certificate validated by the SES. As well Food and Veterinary Services officials has access to LZIKIS to for the purpose of verifying information and data provided fisheries products accompanying documents. All first buyers of fishery products are registered by the Ministry of Agriculture in the LZIKIS database. LZIKIS allows the competent Authorities to crosscheck the information at all steps, ensuring the traceability of fish products from landing at a Latvian port until the product is consumed in Latvia or exported. The system clearly improved the possibilities for traceability of fish products from landing at a Latvian port until the product is consumed in Latvia or exported. The State Environmental Service is the main user of the LZIKIS. The following explanation summarizes the process carried out by the fleet under assessment. - Upon haulback, the codend is emptied directly to the vessel hold and is stored in the tubs. After every haul, the skipper estimates the species composition and weight and writes the estimated catch composition in the electronic logbook. - The skipper register the information of their fishing activity in the electronic logbook, including species, estimated catch (kg), ICES area, etc. They send the information to the control unit at least 2h before arriving to port. Once the vessel arrives port, it is inspected (if selected by the State Environmental Board) and the fish is offloaded and weighed, the skipper introduces the confirmed weights in the logbook and closes the fishing trip and sends the landing declaration. After offloading, there are 2 options: i) NZRO is responsible for the transportation in trucks to the grading and processing facilities owned by the buyer; or, ii) The vessel offloads directly at ports with grading facilities which are hired by NZRO members (i.e. Skulte). In this case there is no transportation. In any case grading falls under the responsibility of the NZRO members.

Risks assessment of the fishery traceability system Table 5.2.1 provides a default list of traceability factors prepared by MSC that may lead to risks of non-certified fish being mixed with certified fish prior to entering CoC. The CAB analyses the risk associated to each factor for the assessed fishery and, if necessary, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place is given. Table 5.2.1. Traceability Factors within the Fishery: Traceability Factor Risk Factor and Mitigation Measures In Latvia sprat fishery, quota is only issued for trawlers. Further, Latvian regulations do not allow the pelagic trawlers to Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used alternate different types of fishing gears during fishing trips, within the fishery and technical measures of the gear are well established. Therefore, the CAB found no risk associated to this traceability factor. Most of the vessels included in assessed fleet can also operate in the Baltic proper, outside of the Gulf of Riga. There is a potential risk of assessed vessels fishing outside of the UoC geographical area in different trips . Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish However, the Latvian Cabinet Regulation No 296 of 2 May, outside the UoC or in different geographical 2007 established the regulations on commercial fishing in areas (on the same trips or different trips) territorial waters and economic zone waters which requires the fishing area to be recorded in different documents (logbook, landing declaration and sales note) on a mandatory basis, so it can be easily traced back. Fishing inside and outside the GoR in

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 97 the same fishing trip is not prohibited due to the ERS which allows fishermen to change and record fishing gear depending on fishing area if a fishing vessel has an authorisation/fishing licence for fishing both in the Baltic proper and in the GoR, but only if fishermen can provide completely separated fish storage on board and fill electronic logbook in accordance with regulation. In practice this would require to change the fishing gear (there are different minimum mesh size requirements inside and outside of the GoR) and segregate catches on board. However, this is far to complicate and during the site visit the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that no fisherman has ever practide that kind of fishing.

Therefore, the CAB considers there is no risk of mixing non- certified fish with certified fish prior to entering the CoC. As indicated in section 3.1.1.1 there are other Latvian vessels not included in the UoC fishing the same stocks and landing in the same ports . However, the vessel name can be easily traced Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or back as it is recorded on a mandatory basis in different client group fishing the same stock documents (logbook, landing declaration, sales note). Thefore, the CAB considers that there is no risk of mixing non-certified fish with certified fish prior to entering the CoC No at-sea processing takes place in this fishery. All the herring and sprat are landed chilled as whole fish. There is no risk associated with this factor at sea .

Risks of mixing between certified and non- When fish is offloaded it is stored in labelled (vessel names, certified catch during storage, transport, or landing dates) tubs for its transportation to the grading and handling activities (including transport at sea processing facilities owned or hired by the buyers. and on land, points of landing, and sales at Transportation falls under the responsibility of the NZRO and is auction) done in tubs. For each batch, a sales note is filled in by the NZRO and the buyer. The vessel logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes and identified tubs provide the necessary information for tracking the fish back to the origin before processing and prior to entering the CoC. There is no processing at sea, and therefore no associated risk. Risks of mixing between certified and non- On shore, grading takes place after subsequent CoC and prior certified catch during processing activities (at- to sale to buyers (i.e. prior to change of ownership). There is sea and/or before subsequent Chain of no processing on land before subsequent CoC . There is no risk Custody) of mixture with non-certified catch before subsequent CoC .

Risks of mixing between certified and non- Transhipment at sea is not allowed in Latvia . certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between fish The CAB did not identify any other risk related to traceability from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from different to those stated above. outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Only sprat and herring caught by trawl by the vessels within the proposed UoC (Section 3.1.1.2) shall be eligible to enter the chain of custody (CoC). No restrictions restrictions are imposed to that fish before entering the MSC CoC. Eligible landing points

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 98 The following ports can be used for landing herring and sprat caught by the assessed fleet:  Skulte,  Roja,  Ventspils and  Mesrags. Grading facilities are available in Skulte, Roja and Ventspils (not at Mesrags). However, the NZRO members may use their grading facilities in other locations located inland, such as Ugale. Grading facilities not included in the MSC-Fishery certificate CoC should commence following offload and prior to grading at grading facilities owned or hired by NZRO members. None of the grading facilities used by NZRO members are covered by the MSC- Fisheries certificate, they shall have their own MSC COC certificates.

5.4. Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody No IPI stocks have been identified.

6 Evaluation Results

6.1. Principle Level Scores Table 6.1.1. Final Principle Scores Score Principle UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 -GORH- -CBH- -BS Principle 1 – Target Species 94.2 86.7 86.7

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88.7 88.7 88.7

Principle 3 – Management System 87.9 87.9 87.9

6.2. Summary of PI Level Scores Table 6.1.2. Final Performance Indicator (PI) scores Score Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 -GORH- -CBH- -BS- Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 90 90

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N/A N/A N/A

Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 90 90 90

1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 95 75 75 PRINCIPLE 1 –

TARGET SPECIES 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90 90

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90 85 85

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 99 Primary species 2.1.1 Outcome 100 100 100

2.1.2 Management strategy 100 100 100

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 100 100 100

Secondary species 2.2.1 Outcome 75 75 75

2.2.2 Management strategy 85 85 85

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 80 80 80 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 75 75 75

2.3.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 2.3.3 Information strategy ECOSYSTEM

PRINCIPLE 2 – 80 80 80

Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 95 95 95

2.4.2 Management strategy 85 85 85

2.4.3 Information 80 80 80

Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 100 100 100

2.5.2 Management 85 85 85

2.5.3 Information 100 100 100

Governance and policy 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 85 85 85

3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85 85 85

3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 80 80

Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 100 100 100 management system 3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 85 PRINCIPLE 3 – 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 95 95 95 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 90 90 90

6.3. Summary of Conditions The condition on PI 1.2.2 was only raised after the 30-day consultation period on the PCDR as a result of the latest harmonisation meetings held in November 2019. Therefore, it was decided to add it as Condition #3, without modifying references to previously raised conditions. Table 6.2.3. Summary of Conditions

Condition UoA/s Condition Performance Indicator Related to number previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 100 Condition UoA/s Condition Performance Indicator Related to number previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA)

All UoAs The status of the smelt stock in the Gulf of Riga should be established based on stock status reference points. The status should be based on an analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches. In order to reach SG80, the outcome of the smelt stock shall be highly likely above the biologically based 1 limits. 2.2.1 NA Or if the stock is found to be below biologically based limits and there is no evidence of recovery the Client should approach authorities to establish an efficient strategy ensuring the Gulf of Riga herring trawl fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the smelt stock in the area

All UoAs Demonstrate that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population of Baltic proper 2 harbour porpoise are known and 2.3.1 NA highly likely to be within ASCOBANS limits for acceptable anthropogenic removal.

UoA2 & Evidence shall be presented to UoA3 demonstrate that the harvest control tools in use for the fishery (the overall TAC) is appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under 3 1.2.2 NA the Harvest Control Rules in place. In particular, that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

6.4. Recommendations A non-binding recommendation on reporting species composition of the catches was issued to the fishery.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 101 6.4.1 Rationale Article 13 of the Baltic Sea MAP establishes that: “for catches which are landed unsorted the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10 % of the total quantity retained on board”. This means that the margin of tolerance applies to all species together, while previously the Latvian authorities applied this margin to each of the species (more restrictive). Therefore, since Regulation 2016/1139 entered into force there are more chances that misreporting between species caught might take place. SES informed that initiatives are being taken to close this legal loophole.

6.4.2 Recommendation In subsequent surveillance audits the CAB will carefully monitor the infringements on misreporting between the species caught. The client should monitor infringements in this regard issued to the NZRO fleet and take actions to assure that no misreporting takes place, if necessary.

6.5. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The team agrees that none of the scoring issues assessed for the NZRO gulf or Riga herring and sprat trawl fishery fails to meet at the SG60 level, and a weighted average score of 80 or more was achieved for each of the 3 MSC Principles. Scores allocated to the default performance indicators are summarised in Section 6.2. The NZRO gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery complies with MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. Thus, the team determines that the MSC Fishery certificate should be awarded. Please note that this is a determination, not a final certification result. The team has set 3 binding conditions for certification and 1 non-binding management recommendations (see section 6.4 for more details). The conditions have been drafted to be closed within the first certification period

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

6.6. Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment No pre-assessment was performed for this fishery. Not applicable

References

General

Andrews J. and Scarcella G., 2018. FFA Finland Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery. Certificate Code: F- ACO-0123 Client: Finland Fishermen’s Association / Suomen Ammattikalastajaliitto R.Y. Assessment Conducted by: Acoura Marine Ltd. Andrushaitis, A., Seisuma, Z., Legzdina, M., Lenshs, E. 1995. River load of eutrophying substances and heavy metals into the Gulf of Riga . In: Ojaveer E (ed) Ecosystem of the Gulf of Riga between 1920 and 1990. Estonian Academy, Tallinn, pp 32–40.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 102 Anon. 2009. AGREEMENT between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fisheries and the conservation of the living marine resources in the Baltic Sea. Oficial Journal of the European Union 28.5.2009 Antti Halkka and Petteri Tolvanen (eds.) 2017. The Baltic Ringed Seal – An Arctic Seal in European Waters – WWF Finland report 36. ASCOBANS, 2009. Conservation Plan for Harbour Porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena L.) in the North Sea . MOP6/Doc.7-02 (AC). 6th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS. UN Campus, Bonn, Germany, 16-18 September 2009. Available at: https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/MOP6_7- 02_NorthSeaConservationPlan_1.pdf ASCOBANS, 2012. Resolution No. 1. Conservation of Harbour Porpoises and Adoption of a Conservation Plan for the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea and the Kattegat . 7 th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS, Brighton, UK, 22-24 October 2012. Available at: https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/MOP7_2012- 1_HarbourPorpoiseConservation.pdf ASCOBANS, 2016. Revision of the Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises (Jastarnia Plan) – Resolution No. 3. 8th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS, Helsinki, Finland, 30 August - 1 September 2016. Available at: https://www.ascobans.org/sites/default/files/document/MOP8_2016- 3_JastarniaPlan_inclAnnex.pdf Bäcklin, B-M., Moraeus, Ch., Kauhala, K. and M. Isomursu. 2013. Pregnancy rates of the marine mammals - Particular emphasis on Baltic grey and ringed seals. HELCOM Core Indicator Report. Online. Availabe at: http://www.helcom.fi/Core%20Indicators/HELCOM- CoreIndicator-Pregnancy_rates_of_marine_mammals.pdf Berggren, P. 1994. Bycatches of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena ) in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic waters, 1973–93 . Reports of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 15: 211–216. BIOR, 2016. Latvia Work Plan for data collection in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, 2017-2019. Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment BIOR, Latvia. Bojārs, E. 2009. Aizsargājamās jūras teritorijas “Rīgas līča rietumu piekraste” dabas aizsardzības plāns. Rīga. Bonner, W.N. 1981. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Fabricius, 1791 . In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 2: Seals, pp. 111-144. Academic Press. Börjesson, P. and A. J. Read. 2003. Variation in timing of conception between populations of the harbor porpoise. Journal of Mammalogy , 84(3):948-955. Bruhn, R., Kannan, N., Petrick, G., Schulz-Bull, D.E. & Duinker, J.C. 1999. Persistent chlorinated organic contaminants in harbour porpoises from the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and Arctic waters. The Science of the Total Environment , 237/238: 351–361.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 103 Casini, M., Lövgren, J., Hjelm, J., Cardinale, M., Molinero, J., & Kornilovs, G. 2008. Multilevel trophic cascades in a heavily exploited open marine ecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society B- Biological Sciences , 275, 1793-1801. Donaldson, A., Gabriel, C., Harvey, B.J. & Carolsfeld, J. 2010. Impacts of Fishing Gears other than Bottom Trawls, Dredges, Gillnets and Longlines on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems . Research Document 2010/011. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Eigaard, O. R., M. Breen, L. Buhl-Mortensen, G. Dinesen, T. K. Sørensen, P. Jonsson, M. Zengin, and A. Rijnsdorp. 2013. Deliverable 1.1b: Benthic impact from the perspective of the fisheries . Pages 35–71 Deliverable 1.1: Report on benthic ecosystem processes and the impact of fishing gear. Benthis. Available at: https://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis/Results.htm Eriksson BK, Ljunggren L, Sandstrom A, Johansson G, Mattila J, Rubach A, Raberg S, Snickars M. 2009. Declines in predatory fish promote bloom-forming macroalgae. Ecol. Appl ., 19:1975– 1988. Evans, P.G.H. and Teilmann, J. (Editors) 2009. Report of ASCOBANS/HELCOM Small Cetacean Population Structure Workshop . ASCOBANS/UNEP Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 140 pp. FAO, 2019. Fishing Gear Types. Midwater Trawls . Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/400/en Fietz, K., Galatius, A., Teilmann, J., Dietz, R., Frie, A.K., Klimova, A., Palsbøll, P.J., Jensen, L.F., Graves, J.A., Hoffman, J.I. and Olsen, M.T. 2016. Shift of grey seal subspecies boundaries in response to climate, culling and conservation. Molecular Ecology , 25(17):4097–4112. Fishbase Smelt ( Osmerus eperlanus ). accessed 25 June 2019. https://www.fishbase.de/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1334&AT=smelt Furman, E., Pihlajamäki, M., Välipakka, P. and K. Myrberg (eds). 2014. The Baltic Sea Environment and Ecology . Helsinki. Galatius, A., Sveegaard, S. and Teilmann, J. 2019. Havpattedyr – sæler og marsvin. In Hansen JW (ed) Marine Områder 2019. Scientific Report from DCE, National Centre for Energy and Environment, Aarhus University. Garcia, S., P. Sparre, and J. Csirke. 1989. Estimating surplus production and maximum sustainable yield from biomass data when catch and effort time series are not available. Fisheries Research 8:13–23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165783689900374. Hansson M., Andersson L. & Axe P., 2011. Areal Extent and Volume of Anoxia and Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea, 1960-2011 . Report Oceanography no 42, ISSN: 0283-1112. Hansson, M., Viktorsson, L., and L Andersson. 2018. Oxygen Survey in the Baltic Sea 2018 - Extent of Anoxia and Hypoxia, 1960-2018 . REPORT OCEANOGRAPHY No. 65. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Göteborg, Sweden. Harding, K.C. & Härkönen, T. 1999. Development in the Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and ringed seal (Phoca hispida) populations during the 20th century. Ambio 28 (7): 619–627.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 104 Härkönen, T. 2015. Pusa hispida ssp. botnica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41673A66991604. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T41673A66991604.en. Downloaded on 20 February 2018. Heck, K. L. Jr., and Valentine, J. F. (2007). The primacy of top-down effects in shallow benthic ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts , 30, 371–381. Heip, C., Hummel, H., van Avesaath, P., Appeltans, W., Arvanitidis, C., Aspden, R., Austen, M., Boero, F., Bouma, TJ., Boxshall, G., Buchholz, F., Crowe, T., Delaney, A., Deprez, T., Emblow, C., Feral, JP., Gasol, JM., Gooday, A., Harder, J., Ianora, A., Kraberg, A., Mackenzie, B., Ojaveer, H., Paterson, D., Rumohr, H., Schiedek, D., Sokolowski, A., Somerfield, P., Sousa Pinto, I., Vincx, M., Węsławski, JM., and Nash, R. 2009. Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning . Printbase, Dublin, Ireland. HELCOM, 1996. Third periodic assessment of the state of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. 1989–1993: Background document . Baltic Sea Environ Proc 64B. HELCOM, 2006a. Conservation of seals in the Baltic Sea area . Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red%20List %20Halichoerus%20grypus.pdf#search=seals HELCOM, 2006b. Assessment of in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc . No. 103 A. HELCOM. 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea . Balt. Sea Environ. Proc No. 116B. HELCOM, 2010. Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment . Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 122. HELCOM, 2012. Checklist of Baltic Sea Macro-species . Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 130. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 203 pp. HELCOM, 2013a. HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group 2013 . Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red% 20List%20Petromyzon%20marinus.pdf HELCOM, 2013b. HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct . Balt Sea Environ. Proc. No.140. HELCOM, 2013c. HELCOM Red List Species Information Sheets (SIS) Mammals . Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/ HELCOM%20RedList%20All%20SIS_Mammals.pdf HELCOM, 2013d. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP138.pdf and http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea- trends/biodiversity/red-list-of-biotopes-habitats-and-biotope-complexes/biotope- information-sheets/ and http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/?datasetID=821b33a7- 35b3-489c-93ab-9ef8f4422f2a HELCOM, 2015. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission . Ad hoc Seal Expert Group Berlin, Germany, 2-4 December 2015. Obtained from:

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 105 https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/SEAL%209-2015-275/MeetingDocuments/5- 1%20Development%20of%20a%20HELCOM%20database%20for%20seals.pdf HELCOM, 2016. Ecological coherence assessment of the Marine Protected Area network in the Baltic. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 148. HELCOM, 2018a. HELCOM Thematic assessment of biodiversity 2011-2016. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic-assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea- 2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018b. Zooplankton mean size and total stock HELCOM core indicator 2018. HELCOM core indicator report . Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic- assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018c. Chlorophyll-a HELCOM core indicator 2018. HELCOM core indicator report. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic-assessments/state-of-the- baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018d Cyanobacterial bloom index HELCOM pre-core indicator 2018. HELCOM pre-core indicator report. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic- assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018e. Diatom-Dinoflagellate index HELCOM pre-core indicator 2018. HELCOM core indicator report, Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/holistic- assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018f. Seasonal succession of dominating phytoplankton groups HELCOM core indicator 2018. HELCOM Core indicator report. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea- trends/holistic-assessments/state-of-the-baltic-sea-2018/reports-and-materials HELCOM, 2018g. Status of coastal fish communities in the Baltic Sea during 2011-2016 – the third thematic assessment . Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings N° 161. HELCOM, 2018h. State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011-2016. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 155. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP155.pdf HELCOM, 2018i. Distribution of Baltic seals – Key Message. HELCOM core indicator report. July 2018. Available at: https://www.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Distribution-of-Baltic- seals-HELCOM-core-indicator-2018.pdf ICES. 2005. Report of the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME), 9-12 May 2005, Savonlinna, Finland . ACE:05. 137 pp. ICES. 2008a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2008 . ICES Advice, 2008. Book 8, 133 pp. ICES. 2008b. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) , 8–17 April 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008\ACOM:06. 692 pp. ICES. 2009. Workshop on Multiannual Management of Pelagic Stocks in the Baltic, 23–27 February 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:38. 126 pp. ICES. 2010. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2010 . ICES Advice, 2010. Book 8 – Baltic Sea, 119 pp.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 106 ICES. 2013a. Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Pages 1–6 ICES Advice 2013, Book 8. ICES. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/Baltic%20Multisp ecies%20Advice.pdf ICES. 2013b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2013 . ICES Advice, 2012. Book 8 – Baltic Sea, 167 pp. ICES. 2014a. Second Interim Report of the ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), 10-14 February 2014, Kiel, Germany . ICES CM 2014/SSGRSP:06. 48 pp. ICES. 2014b. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Flatfish Stocks (WKBALFLAT) , 27–31 January 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:39. 320 pp. ICES. 2015a. EU request to ICES to provide FMSY ranges for selected North Sea and Baltic Sea stocks. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 6, Section 6.2.3.1. 11 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/EU_F MSY_ranges_for_selected_N S_and_BS_stocks.pdf ICES. 2015b. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 9–12 February 2015, London, UK . ICES CM 2015/ACOM:25. 108 pp. ICES. 2016. Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) , 1–5 February 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:27. 82 pp. ICES. 2018a. EU request on the further development of ICES mixed-fisheries considerations and biological interactions . In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2018. ICES Advice 2018, sr.2018.34. 7 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2018/Special_requests/eu.20 18.34.pdf . ICES. 2018b. Advice basis. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 20 18. ICES Advice 2018, Book 1, Section 1.2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4503 . ICES. 2018c. Baltic Sea Ecoregion Fisheries Overviews Baltic Sea Ecoregion . Published 30 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4648 ICES Advice 2018 ICES. 2018d. Report of the Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS ). ICES WGBIFS report 2018 24-28 March 2018. Lyngby, Copenhagen, Denmark. 380 pp. ICES, 2018e. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 19–22 February 2018, La Rochelle, France . ICES CM 2018/ACOM:28. 120 pp. ICES. 2018f. Report from the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) , 1–4 May 2018, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:25. 128 pp. ICES. 2018g. Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25-29 and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga (central Baltic Sea). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=34253 .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 107 ICES. 2018h. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in subdivisions 22–32 (Baltic Sea). Page 8 ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Baltic Sea Ecoregion. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=34249 . ICES. 2018i. EU request on the further development of ICES mixed-fisheries considerations and biological interactions. Page 7 ICES. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=35092. ICES. 2019a. Herring ( Clupea harengus ) in Subdivision 28.1 (Gulf of Riga) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea ecoregion . Published 29 May 2019. ICES Advice 2019 – her.27.28 – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4749 ICES. 2019b. Sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) in subdivisions 22–32 (Baltic Sea) Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea ecoregion . Published 29 May 2019 ICES Advice 2019 – spr.27.22-32 – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4754 ICES. 2019c. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) . ICES Scientific Reports. 1:20. 651 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5256 ICES. 2019d. ICES Ecosystem Overviews - Baltic Sea Ecoregion. Published 12 December 2019. 4.1 Baltic Sea Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview . ICES Advice 2019 - https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5752 ICES. 2019e. Fisheries Overviews Baltic Sea Ecoregion . Published 30 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4648 ICES Advice 2018 1 4.2 Baltic Sea Ecoregion – Fisheries overview ICES. 2019f. Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME) . ICES Scientific Reports. 1:22. 131 pp. ICES 2019g. Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 24–32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Baltic Sea ecoregion Published 29 May 2019 ICES Advice 2019 – cod.27.24-32 – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4747 Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. 1998. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology , 34:201–352. Klavins, M., Avotniece, Z., and Rodinovs, V. 2016. Dynamics and impacting factors of ice regimes in Latvia inland and coastal waters. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences . Section B, Vol. 70 (2016), No. 6 (705), pp. 400–408. Kotta, J., Lauringson, V., Martin, G. , Simm, M., Kotta, I., Herkül, K., and H. Ojaveer. 2008. Gulf of Riga and Pärnu Bay . In: Schiewer U. (eds) Ecology of Baltic Coastal Waters. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis), vol 197. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Korpinen, S. 2008. Nutrient enrichment and water depth modify control in rocky shore macroalgal communities . Doctoral thesis, University of Turku, Finland. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis SER AII: 222, 37 pp. Available at: https://oa.doria.fi /handle/10024/37818 Krämer, I., Borenäs, K., Daschkeit, A., Filies, Ch., Haller, I., Janßen, H., Karstens, S., Kule, L., Lapinskis, J., and Varjopuro, R. 2012. Climate Change Impacts on Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region . Baltadapt Report # 5. Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 108 Lassen H., Devitt S., Zoltnere S., and Ríos J., 2017. LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) for LATVIAN FISHERMEN’S PRODUCERS ORGANIZATION –LFPO- (Nacionālās zvejniecības ražotāju organizācija –NZRO-). MSC assessment reports. Retrieved from: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/lfpo-pelagic- trawl-sprat-sprattus-sprattus/@@assessments Lassen H., Quilez-Badia, G., Rios, J. 2019. Second surveillance audit. LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) for LATVIAN FISHERMEN’S PRODUCERS ORGANIZATION –LFPO- (Nacionālās zvejniecības ražotāju organizācija –NZRO-). MSC assessment reports. Retrieved from: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/lfpo- pelagic-trawl-sprat-sprattus-sprattus/@@assessments Latvian Law, 2000. Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes. Adopted on 16 March 2000. Leppäranta, M., Myrberg, K., 2009. Physical Oceanography of the Baltic Sea . Springer-Praxis, Heidelberg, Germany, 378p. Lockyer, C. and C. C. Kinze. 2003. Status, ecology and life history of harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), in Danish waters . Pages 143-176 in T. Haug, G. Desportes, G. A. Vikingsson and L. Witting, eds. Harbor porpoises in the North Atlantic, Volume 5.NAMMCO Scientific Publications, Tromsø. Lundström, K., Hjerne, O., Alexandersson, A., & Karlsson, O. 2007. Estimation of grey seal (Halichoerus grypus ) diet composition in the Baltic Sea. NAMMCO Sci. Publ ., 6:177-196 Lunneryd, S., Königsonm, S., Sjöberg, N., 2004. By-catches of seals, harbour porpoises and birds in Swedish commercial fisheries. Fiskeroverket Informerar , 2004/8. Öregrund, Göteborg, Sweden. MarBEF, 2008. Newsletter No 8. Beyond the horizon . Autumn 2008. Dublin, Ireland. Meier, H.E.M., Descher, R., and Halkka, A. 2004. Simulated distributions of Baltic Sea-ice in warming cli-mate and consequences for the winter habitat of the Baltic ringed seal. Ambio, 33: 249– 256. Möllmann, C., Muller-Karulis, B., Kornilovs, G., St Johnm M. A. 2008. Effects of climate and on zooplankton dynamics and ecosystem structure: regime shifts, , and feedback loops in a simple ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci ., 65, 302 Möllmann, C, Diekmann, R, Müller-Karulis, B, Kornilovs, G, Plikshs, M, Axe, P. 2009. Reorganization of a due to atmospheric and anthropogenic pressure: a discontinuous regime shift in the Central Baltic Sea. Glob Change Biol ., 15:1377–1393 Murphy, S., Pierce, G.J., Law, R.J., Bersuder, P., Jepson, P.D., Learmonth, J.A., Addink, M., Dabin, W., Santos, M.B., Deaville, R., Zegers, B.N., Mets, A., Rogan, E., Ridoux, V., Reid, R.J., Smeenk, C., Jauniaux, T., López, A., Alonso Farré, J.M., González, A.F., Guerra, A., García-Hartmann, M., Lockyer, C. & Boon, J.P. 2010. Assessing the effect of persistent organic pollutants on reproductive activity in common dolphins and harbour porpoises. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science , 42:153–173.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 109 Niiranen, S. 2013. Multiple forces drive the Baltic Sea food web dynamics and its response to environmental change . Doctoral thesis in Marine Ecology Stockholm Resilience Centre Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Nyman, M., Koistinen, J., Fant, M. L., Vartiainen, T. and Helle, E. 2002. Current levels of DDT, PCB and trace elements in the Baltic ringed seals ( Phoca hispida baltica ) and grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ). Environmental Pollution 119:399–412 Ojaveer, H. 1997. Environmentally induced changes in fish aggregations on the coastal slope of the Gulf of Riga . In Proceedings of the 14th BMB Symposium. Pärnu, Estonia, 5-8 August 1995. Edited by E. Ojaveer. Estonian Academy Publishers, Tallinn, pp. 170-183. Ojaveer, H., Lankov, A., Eero, M., Kotta, J., Kotta, I., and Lumberg, A. 1999. Changes in the ecosystem of the Gulf of Riga from the 1970s to the 1990s. – ICES Journal ol Marine Science, 56 Supplement: 33-40 Ojaveer, H., Jaanus, A., MacKenzie, B., Martin, G., Olenin, S., Radziejewska, T., . . . Zaiko, 2010. Status of Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. PLoS ONE , 5(9): e12467. Ojaveer E. 2017. Ecosystems and Living Resources of the Baltic Sea. Springer 289pp Omstedt, A., Elken, J., Lehmann, A., Lepparanta, M., Meier, H.E.M., Myrberg, K., and Rutgersson, A. 2014. Progress in physical oceanography of the Baltic Sea during the 2003-2014 period. Progress in Oceanography , vol. 128 , pp. 139-171 . OSPAR, 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission, London. Available at: https://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/index.html OSPAR, 2017. Intermediate Assessment 2017. OSPAR Commission, London. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/ Österblom, H., Hansson, S., Larsson, U., Hjerne, O., Wulff, F., Elmgren, R., Folke, C. 2007. Human induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in the Baltic Sea, Ecosystems. Ecosystems , 10: 877–889. Putnis, I., Müller-Karulis, B., Kornilovs, G. 2013. Food web dynamics of the Gulf of Riga: the role of herring. ICES CM 2013/E:34. Raymond, B., 2011. A circumpolar pelagic regionalisation of the Southern Ocean . Short note submitted to the CCAMLR Workshop on Marine Protected Areas held in Brest, France 2011. Document number: WS-MPA-11/6. Hobart, Australia: Australian Antarctic Division., Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Australia, 9 p Read, A.J., and Hohn, A.A. 1995. Life in the fast lane: the life history of harbour porpoises from the Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science , 11: 423–440. Read, A. J. 1999. The harbour porpoise – Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758) . In Handbook of marine mammals Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, S. H. Ridgway & R. Har-rison (eds). London: Academic Press, 323–355. SAMBAH, 2016. Heard but not seen. Sea-scale passive acoustic survey revewals a remnant Baltic Sea harbour porpoise population that needs urgent protection . Nontechnical Report v. 1-8-1. Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise. Report: LIFE08.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 110 Santos, M., and Pierce, G. 2003. The diet o harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) in the Northeast Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual review 2003 , 41, 355-390. Skóra, K.E. and Kuklik, I. 2003. Bycatch as a potencial threat to harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) in Polish Baltic waters. NAMCCO Scientific Publications , 5: 303–315. STECF, 2019. Review of the implementation of the EU regulation on the incidental catches of cetaceans (STECF-19-07). JRC Science for Policy Report. Retrieved from: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/env-impacts Stenman, O., Verevkin, M., Dmitrieva, L. and Sagitov, R. 2005. Numbers and occurrence of ringed seals in the Gulf of Finland in the years 1997–2004. Symposium on Biology and Management of Seals in the Baltic area, 15–18 February 2005 Helsinki, Riista Ja Kal-atalouden Tutkimuslaitos 55–57. Sundqvist, L., Harkonen, T., Svensson, C.J., and Harding, K.C. 2012. Linking climate trends to population dynamics in the Baltic ringed seal - Impacts of historical and future winter temperatures. Ambio, 41(8): 865–872. Sveegaard, S., Galatius, A., Dietz, R., Kyhn, L., Koblitz, J.C., Amundin, M., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Sinding, M.-H.S., Andersen, L.W. and Teilmann, J. 2015. Defining management units for cetaceans by combining genetics, morphology, acoustics and satellite tracking. Global Ecology and Conservation , 3: 839–850. Szaniawska, A. 2018. The Gulf of Riga . In: Baltic Crustaceans. Springer International Publishing, IX, 199 pp. Tomczak Maciej T., Bärbel Müller-Karulis, Leili Järv, Jonne Kotta, Georg Martin, Atis Minde, Arno Põllumäe, Arturas Razinkovas, Solvita Strake, Martynas Bucase, and Thorsten Blenckner. 2009. Analysis of trophic networks and carbon flows in south-eastern Baltic coastal ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography Vol 81:111-131 Tomczak, M., Niiranen, S., Hjerne, O., & Blenckner, T. 2012. Ecosystem flow dynamics in the Baltic Proper-Using a multi-trophic dataset as a basis for food-web modelling. Ecological Modelling , 230, 123-147. Vanhatalo J, Vetemaa M, Herrero A, Aho T, Tiilikainen R. 2014. By-Catch of Grey Seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) in Baltic Fisheries—A Bayesian Analysis of Interview Survey. PLoS ONE , 9(11): e113836. Vinther, M. 1999. Bycatches of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena L.) in Danish set-net fisheries. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management , 1 (2):123–135. Vos, M., Kooi, B.W., DeAngelis, D. L. and Mooij,W. M. (2004). Inducible defences and the paradox of enrichment. Oikos , 105, 471–480. Wisniewska, D.M., Johnson, M., Teilmann, J., Rojano-Doñate, L., Shearer, J., Sveegaard, S., Miller, L.A., Siebert, U., and Teglberg-Madsen, P. 2016. Ultra-high rates of harbour porpoises make them vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance. Current Biology , 26: 1–6. Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Osterblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., . . ., Garthe, S. 2009. By-catch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation , 142: 1269–1281.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 111 Žydelis, R., Small, C., French, G. (2013). The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation , 162: 76-88.

Legislation References

Cabinet Regulation, 2007. Cabinet Regulation No. 296 Adopted 2 May 2007. Regulations Regarding Commercial Fishing in Territorial Waters and Economic Zone Waters. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/156709-regulations-regarding-commercial-fishing-in-territorial- waters-and-economic-zone-waters Cabinet of Ministers, 2018. Cabinet Regulation No. 94 adopted 20 Feb 2018. Rules for the control of landings and inspection of fish trading and transport facilities, warehouses and industrial premises https://likumi.lv/ta/id/297288-nozvejoto-zivju-izkrausanas-kontroles-un-zivju- tirdzniecibas-un-transporta-objektu-noliktavu-un-razosanas-telpu-parbaudes-notei... EC, 1994. Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down general provisions concerning special fishing permits. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31994R1627 EC, 1992. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92 / 43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31992L0043 EC, 2004. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:150:0012:0031:EN:PDF EC, 2005. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005R2187 EC, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (Text with EEA relevance) https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0056 EC, 2009. DIRECTIVE 2009/147/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. Available at: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0147 EC, 2009b. Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009R1224

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 112 EU. 2012. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Page 344. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN EU, 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. Available at: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1380 EU, 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the council of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007. Official Journal of the European Union, L. 191. 15 pp. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1139&rid=1 EU, 2017. Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1564670804429&uri=CELEX:32017R1004 EU, 2018. Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.133.01.0001.01.ENG EU, 2018b. Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1628 of 30 October 2018 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/120 as regards certain fishing opportunities in other waters. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R1628

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 113 Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status – UoA1 (Gulf of Riga Herring) The stock is at a level w hich maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guidepost It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that There is a high degree is above the point the stock is above the of certainty that the where recruitment PRI. stock is above the PRI. would be impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y Justification The assessment is based on the XSA technology which does not directly provide confidence limits for the estimated SSB. The internal consistency is high with correlation around 0.8 between age group estimates. Also, the correlations among the tuning fleets are high. The S.E of the log catchability coefficient for the important age groups are around 0.2 indicating that general CV for the assessment is around 20%. The distribution is internally in the XSA assumed to be log-normal and the standard dev is set at 0.2. Recruitment has been variable from year to year without any clear trend since the late 1980s. The 2018 recruitment is estimated to be high. Figure 3.3.2.1 demonstrates that the stock is well above PRI (B lim ) at full reproductive capacity; the SSB; in 2018 is more than twice Blim. Table below shows the lower limit of the confidence intervals for the SSB at the probabilities required at different scoring guideposts for PI 1.1.1 according to Table SA9 in FCR 2.0. By comparing these figures against the estimated Blim (40,800t) and the current SSB (110,182t), the team concluded that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Table 1.1.1.1.-UoA1- Values for Blim and SSB (2018) and estimated lower limit of the confidence intervals at SG60, SG80 and SG100. %ile Tons Conclusion B 40,800 lim SSB (2018) 110,182 Likely SSB 70% 99,221 SG60 is met Highly likely SSB 80% 93,113 SG60 is met High degree of certainty SSB 95% 79,294 SG100 is met

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidepost The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a of certainty that the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 114 The stock is at a level w hich maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 level consistent with stock has been MSY. fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Justification BMSY is not defined for this stock and as a proxy F MSY (=0.32) is used, see FCR v2.0 SA2.2.4 The recent trends in fishing mortality rate may be used as a means of scoring stock status

Fishing mortality (F) has been fluctuating around FMSY since 2008 (see Figure 4) and has been below F MSY since 2017. The average F for 2009-2018 is 0.31. This is supplemented by judging based on 1.4*MSY Btrigger as a proxy B MSY . The SSB is currently above the latter level 1.4*60,000 = 84,000 t < 110182 t. SG100 is met.

References ICES (2019a) Stock Status relative to Reference Point s Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Reference point used in scoring Blim 40,800 t stock relative to Flim 0.88 PRI (SIa) SSB(2018) = 110,182 t Reference point F(2018) = 0.25 used in scoring MSY Btrigger 60,000 t stock relative to FMSY 0.32 MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (UoA1) : 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relev ant): N/A

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A –key LTL- UoA2 (Baltic Sprat) The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 115 Guid e post It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem where serious ecosystem above the point where impacts could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring are considered as ‘Key LTL’ species based on the evaluation of the core occurrence in the Open Sea (ICES 25-29+32 excl 28.1), see e.g. Andrews and Scarcella (2018). In order to score the stock status relative to the ecosystem impairment the multispecies model (SMS model, (ICES, 2013a) has been used. According to SA 2.2.12 (MSC FCR v2.0) when scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species in a single species context and that serious ecosystem impact may occur only if the sprat biomass is below a certain threshold determined from ecosystem models, but in any case, shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. SMS simulations of the food web in the Open Sea are based on the three main species of the Baltic ecosystem (cod, herring and sprat) together with a mixed category (mainly zooplankton) defined as “other food ”, covering most of the functional groups present in the Baltic Sea. SA 2.2.12 (MSC FCR v2.0). The reference points based on the SMS simulations ICES (2013a) are used in the present assessment to evaluate the status of the stock relative to the ecosystem impacts. The multispecies model does not formally estimate such level because the ecosystem MSY can be achieved at a range of SSB levels through compensating biomass among species. For the purpose of reaching relevant reference points BMSY is considered to be half of the unexploited biomass (Garcia et al. 1989) and the B MSY is estimated based on a ‘everything else being equal’ basis. This is relevant for the Baltic ecosystem as both sprat and herring are around the MSY level and both are subject to cod predation.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 116 Justifi cation BMSY for sprat is estimated around 1,000 kt and the point where serious ecosystem impacts occurs should be around 400 kt for sprat (20% of 2000 kt). The stock assessment methodology is XSA which does not provide confidence limits directly. Based on the goodness of fit in the XSA (log (q) SE) the CV for SSB is found at 20% (individual age group is 0.35 and there are 3 age groups involved (2- 4)). The error distribution is in the XSA assumed to be lognormal. The SSB estimated in 2018 (1171 kt) is almost three times the point where serious ecosystem impacts occur. The SSB resulted to be fluctuating around this level for the period 2000-2018 and there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur Table 1.1.1.1.-UoA2- Values for SSB (2018), estimated value for the ecosystem impact limit and estimated lower limit of the confidence intervals at SG60, SG80 and SG100 SSB Estimate 2018 1103 kt CV 20% Ecosystem impact limit 400 kt Likely 70% 993 kt SG60 is met Highly Likely 80% 932 kt SG80 is met High degree of certainty 95% 794 kt SG100 is met

b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide post The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with has been fluctuating ecosystem needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 117 Justifi cation FCR v2.0 SA2.2.13 suggests that the default value for ‘ecosystem needs’ is 75% of the virgin biomass while the lower value is 40% of virgin biomass. Based on the analysis presented above these values are 1,500 kt / 800 kt. The default value is not used because there exist insight in the population dynamics allowing a more accurate vlue for the evaluation to be used. The BMSY estimate from SMS model (1 mill t) is in this interval and is taken as a system specific estimate of the ‘ecosystem needs’ reference point. The population dynamic of the Baltic sprat strongly depends on the environment (temperature and inflow by salt and oxygenated water from the west and freshwater from the east). Recruitment is variable with some very strong year classes outside ‘ecosystem needs’. At the beginning of 1990s the stock started to increase rapidly and in 1996–1997 it reached the maximum observed spawning- stock biomass of 1.9 million tonnes. The stock size increased due to the combination of strong recruitments and decline in natural mortality (effect of low cod biomass). This regime shift suggests that data before 1990 reflect population dynamics are not relevant for the current productivity regime in the Baltic Sea. To account for the occasional strong years classes the 1990 – 2018 SSB geometric average ~1050 kt may be appropriate for assessing if the stock is fluctuating around a level of ecosystem needs. Hence the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs. SG80 is met. The recent stock increase 2016-2018 suggests an average SSB at 1,155 mill t. The SSB is stable over these three years. The standard error for this average is (0.2/ suggests that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is fluctuating around corresponding to a 5% level of 955 kt). The average stock in recent years are not above the level of ecosystem needs (1 mill tons). SG 100 is not met . The assessment presented in 2019 readjusted the SSB slightly downward from that level presented in 2018. The stock assessment has seen some major readjustments over the years.

References Andrews and Scarcella (2018); ICES (2013a) SMS results; ICES (2019) Sprat advice; Garcia et al (1998) Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Reference point used in scoring stock relative to B20%virgin 400 kt ecosystem impairment (SIa) SSB (2018) 1171 kt Reference F (2018) = 0.32 point used in scoring stock BMSY 1,000 kt relative to ecosystem FMSY 0.26 needs (SIb)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 118 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A –key LTL- UoA3 (Central Baltic herring) The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Is sue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guidepost It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that There is a high degree is above the point the stock is above the of certainty that the where serious point where serious stock is above the point ecosystem impacts ecosystem impacts where serious could occur. could occur. ecosystem impacts could occur.

Met? Y Y Y Justification The basis for setting reference points for ecosystem needs is as outlined for the Baltic Sprat above.

The B MSY level for Central Baltic herring is estimated around 730 kt (SMS simulations) and B MSY is considered to be half of the unexploited biomass (Garcia et al. 1989), the point where serious ecosystem impacts occur is around 292 kt for central Baltic herring (20% of 1460 kt). The stock assessment methodology is XSA which does not provide confidence limits directly. Based on the goodness of fit in the XSA (log (q) SE) the CV for SSB is found at 15% (individual 0.3 around 0.3 for ages 3-6). The error distribution is in the XSA assumed to be lognormal. The SSB estimated in 2018 (938 kt) is three times the point where serious ecosystem impacts occur. The SSB resulted to be fluctuating around this level for the period 2000-2018 and there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Table 1.1.1.1.-UoA2- Values for SSB (2018), estimated value for the ecosystem impact limit and estimated lower limit of the confidence intervals at SG60, SG80 and SG100 SSB (2018) 938 kt CV 15% Ecosystem impairment limit 292 kt Likely 70% 867 kt SG60 is met Highly Likely 80% 827 kt SG80 is met High degree of certainty 95% 733 kt SG100 is met

b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 119 Guidepos t The stock is at or There is a high degree fluctuating around a of certainty that the level consistent with stock has been ecosystem needs. fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justification Guidance based on FCR v2.0 SA2.2.13 suggests that the default value is 75% of the virgin biomass while the lower value is 40% of unfished biomass. Based on the analysis presented above these values are around 1,095 kt / 584 kt. The BMSY estimate from SMS model (730 kt) is in this interval and is taken as a system specific estimate of the ‘ecosystem needs’ reference point. The regime shift noted with the sprat assessment above suggests that data before 1990 reflect population dynamics not relevant for the current productivity regime in the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, the stock was at a low level and only improved after 2002. The 2010 – 2018 SSB geometric average ~843 kt may be appropriate for assessing if the stock currently is fluctuating around a level of ecosystem needs. Hence the stock is fluctuating above a level consistent with ecosystem needs. SG80 is met. The recent 2010-2018 average SSB is 1,155 mill t. The SSB is stable over these

three years. The standard error for this average is (0.15/ suggests that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is fluctuating around corresponding to a 5% level of 776 kt). The average stock in recent years is above the level of ecosystem needs (730 kt). This would imply that SG 100 is met. However, at harmonisation, see section 4.1.2 the argument of the fishing mortality being above FMSY (which the BV team considers is not relevant under PI 1.1.1A where the emphasis is on ecosystem needs) was insisted upon and the score was adjusted to the lowest score adopted by all teams, following FCP v2.1 PB1.3.3.4a.ii as a guidance (current assessment uses FCR2.0 but FCP2.1 will be applicable at the first surveillance audit, so BV considered better to follow FCP for this particular issue). Thus, SG100 is not met .

References ICES (2013a) SMS results, ICES (2019) Central herring advice, Garcia et al (1998) Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Reference point used in scoring SSB (2018) = 938 kt stock relative to B20%virgin 292 kt ecosystem F(2018) = =0.29 impairment (SIa)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 120 Reference point used in scoring B 730 kt stock relative to MSY ecosystem needs FMSY 0.22 (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDI CATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding –All UoAs-PI 1.1.1 (Gulf of Riga Herring), and PI 1.1.1A (Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat) scores 80 or above and therefore PI 1.1.2 is not scored for any of the three UoAs Where the stock is reduced , there is evidence of stock rebu ilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time . For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation Not applicable b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to post determine whether the There is evidence that the There is strong evidence rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding effective in rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding stock within the specified likely based on stocks, or it is highly timeframe. simulation modelling, likely based on exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance rebuild the stock within that they will be able to the specified timeframe. rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation Not applicable

References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 121 Where the stock is reduced , there is evidence of stock rebu ilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe CONDITION NU MBER (if relevant): N/A

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy – All UoAs PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y G. Riga Herring: Y Baltic Sprat: Y Central Baltic Herring: Y Justifi cation The harvest strategy for all three stocks are based on the EU MAP plan. Targets in this plan is built on input from ICES and the reference points laid down in this plan are consistent with reference points evaluated by ICES. Furthermore, there are technical regulations for the herring fishery based on Council Reg 2187/2005 (which include specific measure to limit the fishing effort in the Gulf of Riga), Latvian national regulation introduces a closure during the spawning season 12 May – 10 June in conformity with the fisheries agreement between Latvia and Estonia (6 Feb 1997). Hence the strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG60 is met . The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stocks for all three stocks. The TAC is set based on annual stock assessments from ICES and hence work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG80 is met . The harvest strategy is designed through the intimate cooperation with ICES in the development of the multiannual plan to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG100 is met. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the post to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and argument. achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 122 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place levels. Met? Y Y G. Riga Herring: No Baltic Sprat: No Central Baltic Herring: No Justifi cation Gulf of Riga Herring : The stock harvest strategy is laid down in the EU Multiannual Management Plan (MAP), Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 aiming at meeting Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, ‘to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels that can produce MSY’. Measures under the plan are taken in accordance with the best available scientific advice. The history of the fishery in the Gulf of Riga suggests that the Harvest strategy will work. The Gulf of Riga herring stock, which is the main target stock in the fishery, is at a high level and has been so for more than 2 decades. SG 60 is met. The harvest strategy clearly defines target and conservation objectives and specifies the measures to follow when the assessment determines that the stock is deviating from those objectives. Further, the MAP endeavours to implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. Evidence of the stock status indicates that the strategy is achieving its objectives. SG80 is met. The G. Riga Herring stock harvest strategy has not been fully tested although evidence exists based on the performance of the management and stock development for more than 2 decades that the harvest strategy works well. SG100 is not met.

Baltic Sprat: The stock is managed based on the EU-Russian fisheries agreement (2009) and within the EU fisheries the EU Multiannual Management Plan. Management is based on objectives consistent with PI 1.1.1A (ecosystem approach) objectives and evidence of the stock status indicates that the strategy is achieving its objectives. There is no dispute over quota allocation (Latvian Ministry on-site information). SG60 is met. The stock development illustrates that the stock management is achieving its objectives. SG80 is met. The harvest strategy was based on advice based on inter alia computer simulations by ICES (2015a). The conclusion was that the strategy was precautionary. The history of the harvest strategy for the pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea provides evidence that the strategy is achieving its objectives. However, the recent data on exploitation indicates that the stock is fished beyond F MSY SG100 is not met.

Central Baltic Herring: The stock is managed based on the EU-Russian fisheries agreement (2009) and within the EU fisheries the EU Multiannual Management Plan. Management is based on objectives consistent with PI 1.1.1A (ecosystem approach) objectives and

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 123 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place evidence of the stock status indicates that the strategy is achieving its o bject ives. There is dispute over quota allocation between EU and Russia but this dispute has not led to significant over exploitation. (Latvian Ministry on-site visit information). SG60 is met. The stock development illustrates that the stock management is achieving its objectives. SG80 is met . The harvest strategy was based on advice based on inter alia computer simulations by ICES (2015a). The conclusion was that the strategy was precautionary. The history of the harvest strategy for the pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea provides evidence that the strategy is achieving its objectives. However, the recent data on exploitation indicates that the stock is fished beyond F MSY SG100 is not met.

Comment on the overall evaluation: The strategy in the Gulf of Riga is clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels also because the share of the sprat and Open Sea herring taken in the Gulf is minimal compared to the total fishery on these stocks . c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? All 3 UoCs: Y Justifi cation The fisheries are throughout the Baltic Sea subject to close monitoring and all removal are documented. There are annual surveys both off-shore as well as in the Gulf of Riga. SG60 is met. d Harvest strategy review Guid e The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? All 3 UoCs: Y Justifi cation The Harvest strategy is part of the EU Multiannual plan which is according to the plan reviewed regularly, the next review is planned for 2019. SG100 is met. e Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation Herring and sprat are not sharks. f Review of alternative measures

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 124 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. of the target stock and they of the target stock, and they are implemented as are implemented, as

appropriate. appropriate.

Met? All 3 UoCs: Y All 3 UoCs: Y All 3 Uocs: N Justifi cation The fisheries operate under the EU landing obligation. The landings are sorted and fish not processed in the are reduced to fish meal and fish oil. From 2015 to 2019, the landing obligation was phased in across EU fisheries and species, for pelagic fisheries including the Baltic pelagic fisheries it was implemented in 2015. The phasing in provisions as well as a number of exemptions are based on joint recommendations from regional groups of member states. Following evaluation by the STECF, and provided that the assessment is positive, the joint recommendations are transformed into temporary discard plans. The plans have a maximum duration of 3 years and the provisions of the landing obligation will eventually become incorporated into Multi Annual Plans (https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/discards_en), SG80 is met . Because the measures are not revised every two years SG 100 is not met .

References EU (2016) Multiannual plan; EU (2005) Technical measure Council Reg 2187/2005; Cabinet Ministers 2007 G.Riga Herring: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (all UoAs): Baltic Sprat:90 Central Baltic Herring: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools – All UoAs PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guidepost Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected HCRs are in place or place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is a target level exploitation rate as the approached, are consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment expected to keep the another more impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around appropriate level taking approached. a target level consistent into account the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 125 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place with (or above) MSY, or ecological role of the for key LTL species a stock, most of the time. level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? All 3 UoAs: Yes All 3 UoAs: Yes G. Riga Herring: Yes C. Baltic Herring: No Baltic Sprat: No Justification The EU Multiannual Plan includes HCRs for each of the three stocks that are considered: Gulf of Riga Herring, Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic herring. These HCRs are based on ICES advice, ICES (2015a) and ICES considers these HCRs to be precautionary, ICES (2019) Advice . The HCRs are accepted by the involved Parties . SG60 is met for all 3 UoAs.. The HCRs are well defined and embedded in legislation. The EU MAP plan includes provision for reducing the fishing mortality if the stocks fall below PRI (Blim) and are designed to keep the stock fluctuating around MSY (G. Riga Herring) or consistent with ecosystem needs (Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat). The same principle is embedded in the EU Russian agreement (Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic Herring). SG80 is met for all 3 UoAs. G. Riga Herring The HCRs embedded in the Multiannual plan are designed to keep the stocks fluctuating around appropriate targets. The reference points for the G. of Riga herring management meets MSY criteria and the stock has been fluctuating well above B MSY and exploitation around F MSY over the recent decade. SG100 is met. Baltic Sprat The reference points are designed based on an ecological model (SMS). The 2017 perception of the exploitation on the stock is just above the top of the F MSY range. The 2017-2018 estimates of fishing mortality are above the SMS estimate of F MSY (~0.3). SG100 is not met . Central Baltic Herring The reference points are designed based on an ecological model (SMS). The 2018 perception of the exploitation on the stock is just above the top of the F MSY range. The estimate of fishing mortality in recent years is above the SMS estimate of F MSY (~0.22). SG100 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidepost The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 126 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place uncertai nties. Met? All 3 UoCs: Y All 3 UoCs: N Justification The reference points on which the EU multiannual plan are built include considerations of uncertainties in the stock assessments (catch data and surveys). SG80 is met. The reference points take account of the ecological roles of sprat and central Baltic herring but not so for the Gulf of Riga herring. There are uncertainties around the influence of the environmental drivers and these uncertainties are included in the simulated variability of recruitment. The multiannual plan is up for evaluation in 2019 and the results of this evaluation may provide evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. SG100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guidepost There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that tools used or indicates that the tools that the tools in use are available to implement in use are appropriate effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate and and effective in exploitation levels effective in controlling achieving the required under the HCRs. exploitation. exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Met? All 3 UoAs: Y All 3 UoAs: Yes G. Riga Herring : Yes Baltic Sprat: No Centr. Baltic Herring: No Justification Gulf of Riga Her ring The tools embedded in the HCR are TAC combined with the EU technical regulations. By-catch rules have been in force since 2005 and similar regulations applied before that. The development of the Gulf of Riga fisheries and the Gulf of Riga herring stock provides evidence that the HCR is effective on controlling exploitation. SG60 is met . The average fishing mortality over the last decade has been kept in check around F MSY .. SG80 is met The status of the Gulf of herring stock and the implementation of the Baltic MAP for the Gulf of Riga with a strict adherence to the regulations is evidence that the tools are effective. SG100 is met. Central Baltic herring The main tool available in the fishery to implement the HCRs is the TAC. Recent stock biomass and fishing mortality are estimated in the stock assessment process and are then used as input values to implement the HCR. Other tools available to support the HCRs are minimum mesh size, area and season closures to protect spawning and juvenile fish, gear specifications to prevent bycatch of protected species and a negative impact on the ecosystem and, the fixing of minimum fish sizes to protect juvenile fish. These are technical measures

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 127 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place considered under Ar ticle 8 of the MAP. The EU TAC for herring in subdivisions 25-28(20), 29 and 32 has been implemented since 2007. With the exception of 2012 when the TAC was marginally exceeded, catches were equal or below the agreed TAC during that period and the stock size is in full reproductive capacity (ICES Advice 2018, Table 7) showing that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation, SG60 is met .

Figure 2: Figure showing relationship between ICES advice, agreed TAC and actual catches for Central Baltic Herring over the period 2007-19. Data from ICES Advice.

However, recent implementation has resulted in fishing mortality above FMSY (0.22) and above the MAP FMSY ranges (0.16-0.22 and 0.22-0.28). The assessment team is of the opinion that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate but have not always proven effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. Further, in the light of possible misreporting and in the absence of effective mechanisms to agree EU – Russian quotas in line with scientific advice, SG80 is not met .

Baltic Sprat The main tool available in the fishery to implement the HCRs is the TAC. Recent trends in biomass and fishing mortality are estimated by the stock assessment process and are then used as input values to implement the HCR and determine the TAC. A comparison of the ICES advice, estimated catch and the agreed TAC since implementation of the MSY framework in 2012 (see figure below, ICES Advice 2019, Table 7) shows that the TAC exceeded the advice in some years, likely related to the absence of an agreed allocation process between the EU and Russia. The ICES estimate of the catch is by and large at the level of the TAC or lower. Overall, therefore, the TAC is based on scientific advice and generally there is compliance, providing some evidence that the tool is appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. SG60 is met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 128 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Figure 3: Relationship between ICES advice, the annual TAC and catches for Baltic sprat between 2012 and 2020. Data from ICES advice.

Proven, acceptable technical measures, including gear limitations (e.g. mesh sizes), and maximum bycatch percentages, are also in place and contribute to achieving the exploitation levels required. In Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and to a lesser degree in Poland, much of the sprat catch is taken in industrial fisheries for which ICES has commented that large bycatches of other fish species (mostly herring) may arise. It is also thought likely that there is some misreporting of catches, because estimates of the species composition of clupeid catches are imprecise in some mixed pelagic fisheries (ICES 2018 WGFBAS). The ICES Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) is aware of these issues and will no doubt be taking them up in its forthcoming Benchmark analysis. The assessment team is of the opinion that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate but have not always proven effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. Further, in the light of possible misreporting and in the absence of effective mechanisms to agree EU – Russian quotas in line with scientific advice, SG80 is not met.

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005; EU (2013) CFP; ICES (2015a) References Reference points; EU (2016); ICES (2019) advice for Baltic sprat, Central Baltic herring and Gulf of Riga Herring G. Riga Herring: 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Baltic Sprat: 75 Central Baltic Herring: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 3 3

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 129 Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring – All UoAs PI 1 .2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide post Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as

environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? All 3 UoAs: Y All 3 UoAs: Y G. Riga Herring: Yes Baltic Sprat: Yes C. Herring: Yes Justifi The stock assessments ar e is supported by data from the fishery (species cation composition and age compositions) and by results of abundance surveys both inside the Gulf of Riga and in the Baltic Proper. There is good understanding of the biology, population dynamics and reproduction strategy for herring and sprat. The fleet is well documented. The natural mortalities for sprat from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod while earlier estimates were based on SMS multispecies model run; these are now uncertain because of the uncertainties in the cod assessment. SMS, ICES (2013a) results are used to infer the natural mortality estimates relevant for stocks in the open sea. Similar results are not available for the Gulf of Riga herring where a constant natural mortality estimate of 0.2 is used. There is a comprehensive range of information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, removals and other information such as environmental information are available. There are multispecies based evaluations available for both the Open Sea and the Gulf of Riga. Hence SG100 are met for all three stocks . b Monitoring Guide post Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control monitored and at least regularly monitored at a rule is monitored with one indicator is available level of accuracy and high frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule , there is a good support the harvest and one or more understanding of control rule. indicators are available inherent uncertainties in and monitored with the information [data]

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 130 PI 1 .2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy sufficient frequency to and the robustness of support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? All 3 UoAs: Y All 3 UoAs: Y G. Riga Herring: No Baltic Sprat: No Central Baltic Herring: No Justifi Gulf of Riga Herring , Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic H erring SG60 and SG80 cation Stock abundance and removals are monitored, All fisheries on these stocks are subject to extensive fisheries statistics programmes (EU member states and Russia) and for all three stocks there are annual R/V surveys which provides abundance estimates (Acoustic surveys in the Baltic and in the Gulf of Riga), SG60 is met. The accuracy provided by the acoustics are state-of the art and the surveys covers the stock occurrences. SG80 are met .

Gulf of Riga Herring SG100 All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore, there is good understanding of the quality of the assessments and inherent uncertainties. Historical assessments have generally shown an overall upward revision in SSB and a downward revision in fishing mortality. The reasons for this are not fully understood. The catch data are believed to be of good quality, with differences between the survey and the catches for some years in the observations of year-class strengths. SG100 is not met.

Baltic Sprat and Central Baltic Herring SG100 All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore, there is good understanding of the quality of the assessments and inherent uncertainties. The robustness of the assessments is investigated at ICES benchmarks ICES (2013a) where the assessment is critically reviewed and alternative formulations are investigated. F. ex. The applicability of the SAM model to the sprat assessment was investigated by WGBFAS (2016). However, issues with the species composition in the catches on the Danish, Polish and Swedish fisheries suggest that SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide post There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? All 3 UoAs: Y Justifi There is detailed information also from Estonia (the only other country fishing in cation the Gulf of Riga) on all removals. Other fisheries on Baltic herring and sprat are conducted by EU countries and by Russia. The fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS (geographical area of fishing). For the larger vessels. The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available ICES. SG80 is met.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 131 PI 1 .2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

References ICES (2019) WGBFAS; HELCOM 2018g. UoA -1: Gulf of Riga herring: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoA-2: Baltic Sprat: 90 UoA-3: C. Herring: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status – All UoAs PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into account post appropriate for the the major features relevant to the stock and for the biology of the species and the nature harvest control of the UoA. rule. Met? Y G. Riga Herring: Yes Baltic Sprat: No Central Baltic Herring: No Just ifi Th e assessment s are reviewed a t irregular intervals approximately every 5 years at cation ICES benchmarks. At these benchmarks the robustness of a range of assessment approaches is investigated and a method of ‘best practise’ is adopted, ICES (2013a). The assessments are appropriate for the stocks and the harvest control rule. SG80 is me for all three UoAs.

Gulf of Riga Herring The Assessment of the Gulf of Riga herring is based on single stock dynamics and is appropriate for this stock based on the ecosystem description (G. Riga). The assessment takes into account the major features of this stock. SG 100 is met.

Central Baltic Herring and Baltic Sprat Herring and Sprat are prey species (key LTL species) with cod as a major predator. The influence is modelled through the natural mortality on herring/sprat which takes account of the . The sprat recruitment is in general driven by environment changes and the changes in productivity is accounted for in the projections on which the TAC is based. ICES benchmarked the assessment in 2013 (ICES, 2013a) and found that the assessment takes into account the major features of herring and sprat including the effects of the cod predation. However the assessments are both generally single species assessments and as the stocks are considered as Key LTL species a dynamic model linking the stock development to predator and environmental conditions *particular for sprat( would be desirable. SG100 is not met. b Assessment approach

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 132 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Guide The assessment estimates The assessment post stock status relative to estimates stock generic reference points status relative to appropriate to the species reference points category. that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi The status of the stocks are evaluated relat ive to appropriate and available cation reference points SG 60 is met for all three stocks . The status of the stock is evaluated relative to appropriate and available reference points, see Scoring Issue a, and PI 1.1.1 above. SG 80 is met for all three stocks. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment The assessment takes into account post major sources of takes uncertainty uncertainty and is evaluating stock uncertainty. into account. status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi The major sources of uncertainty inc lude the environmental variability and the cation lack of ability to estimate recruitment at age 0. These are identified in the current approaches to the assessments, ICES (2013a). SG 60 is met . The current approach (XSA) has been standard practice for more than a decade and the settings within this model have been under constant review in WGBFAS to assure that the model formulation meets quality requirements. This allows ICES to provide advice which is a central piece of information for the HCR. The evaluation of the assessment takes these uncertainties into account through ICES ACOM system. SG80 is met . However, the assessments are not formulated probabilistic (based on XSA) and SG100 is not met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been tested and post shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? All 3 UoCs: N Justifi cation The three assessments are part of the ICES programme for benchmarking. The most recent benchmark is ICES (2013a). At these benchmarks alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches are rigorously explored. Also, within WGBFAS there are work ongoing that provides input to these benchmarks, e.g. the use of the SAM model was investigated at WGBFAS (2016) for sprat and central Baltic herring. The Gulf of Riga herring stock assessments have generally shown an overall

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 133 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status upward revision in SSB and a downward revision in fishing m ortality. ICES (2019 ) advice reports that the reasons for this are not fully understood. This suggests that the stock assessment is not robust. SG100 is not met. The Central Baltic herring stock assessment is subject to revision of SSB and fishing mortality for the recent years partly due to imprecision in the survey estimate of the large 2014 year class. Species misreporting of herring has occurred in the past and there are again indications of sprat being misreported as herring. This has not been quantified but may affect the quality of the assessment. All these suggests that the assessment is not robust SG100 is not met The Baltic sprat assessment has historically shown major deviations between years which the following year has been adjusted based on an additional year of data, this suggests that the SG100 is not met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of The assessment has been internally post stock status is and externally peer reviewed. subject to peer review. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessments are is internally peer reviewed within ICES throu gh WGBFAS and cation ACOM and there are external reviewers involved in the benchmark process, ICES (2013a). SG80 is met . The WGBFAS include scientists from all Baltic states also scientists that are not directly involved with the sprat assessment, ACOM involves scientists from all ICES member states and through the system of Advice drafting groups (ADG) there are external scientist involved in the evaluation of the assessment, the chair of an ADG is normally the chair or a vice chair of ACOM not involved with the assessment.. The benchmark process involves external experts Hence the SG100 is met for all three stocks . References ICES (2013a) Benchmark; ICES (2016) WGBFAS 2016; ICES (2019) Advice 2019 UoA -1: Gulf of R iga Herring: 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE (All UoAs): UoA-2: Baltic Sprat: 85 UoA-3: C. Herring: 85 CONDITION NU MBER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI species are above the PRI

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 134 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.

and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. OR OR

If the species is below the If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures PRI, there is either evidence in place that are expected of recovery or a to ensure that the UoA does demonstrably effective not hinder recovery and strategy in place between rebuilding. all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation Table 4.4.3 presents all P2 species scoring elements considered in this assessment, including its aligment to the P2 species categories provided by MSC (‘Primary/Secondary/ET’ and ‘Main/Minor). The eastern Baltic cod was found to be the only stock which can be assigned as Primary component impacted by the UoA. However, this cod stock was found to be a ‘minor’ subcomponent. Thus, as there are no ‘main primary’ species impacted by the assessed fleet this SI is considered as Not relevant . b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justifi cation Cod (Gadus morhua) is the only primary/minor stock in this fishery. The cod is part of the Eastern Baltic Cod stock. The total catch of the eastern Baltic cod stock is 21,605 t in 2018 (ICES 2019) while the catch in the Gulf of Riga herring fishery was 0 t. No more than 100 kg has been registred by the assessed fleet in recent years (see Table 3.1.2.2 ). The spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been declining since 2015 and is estimated to be below Blim in the last 2 years. Fishing mortality (F) has declined since 2012; the value estimated for 2018 is the lowest recorded. Recruitment (R) has been declining since 2012, and the recruitment in 2017 is estimated to be the lowest in the time series. The catch of cod in the Gulf of Riga herring fishery is minute and in some years no

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 135 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. cod at all are registred . There is therefore evidence that the Gulf of Riga herring fishery does not hinder recovery or rebuilding of the Eastern Baltic Cod stock. SG100 is met.

References ICES 2019g OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER ( if relevant): NA

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 136 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is des igned to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to above which are highly likely to be the point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Since there are no impacts on main primary species. SG60 and SG80 are met by default. Cod is primary/minor in this fishery. The cod caught in the gulf of Riga is part of the eastern Baltic stock which is subject to the Baltic Sea MAP (Regulation EC 1139/2016). Targets for herring, sprat and cod in this plan are built on input from ICES and the reference points laid down in this plan are consistent with reference points evaluated by ICES. This is a multi-species MAP which takes into consideration predator-prey relationships between the three target species. This plan is subject to regular evaluations. In addition, trawl fisheries targeting herring/sprat in the Baltic Sea are subject to by-catch regulations laid down in Regulation (EC) 2187/2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. This regulation limits the contribution of a list of 9 different bycatch species to a maximum of 10%. Cod is included in that list. Further, this Regulation also establishes that cod bycatches shall be limited to a maximum of 3% of the total catches. Other elements to be included in the strategy to manage cod is the scientific research (acoustic surveys together with the Estonian research institute) performed by BIOR, the sampling monitoring on ports as part of the EU-DCF, and the MCS system implemented by SES (see PI 3.2.3 for more details). Based on the information presented above the team concludes that there is a strategy (by-catch regulation) in place for All UoAs that apply to the only primary species impacted: cod. SG100 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based on based on information experience, theory or some information directly directly about the fishery

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 137 There is a strategy in place that is des igned to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. comparison with similar about the fishery and/or and/or species involved. fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The measures and strategy described in SI(a) seems to work based on general experience, on-site interviews with the Latvian Ministry and the Latvia Control authorities. SG60 is met. The fishery do not show any primary species in their by-catch of any significance and the strategy seems to work. SG808 is met. There are data available on a landing by landing basis providing the by-catch composition. These data combined with the BIOR sampling on ports confirms that there are virtually no by-catch of primary species. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully . successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi cation Data from the self-sampling by the industry at landings supplemented by sampling by BIOR on ports indicate that there are – as intended – virtually no by-catch of primary species. SES confirmed that cod is not a species which might be subject to misreporting in this type of fishery. SG80 is met. Cod represents a negligible part of the UoA catches (see Table 3.1.2.2 ) and this is confirmed by the BIOR sampling on ports (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1 ). Further, the MCS system implemented by the SES is comprehensive and no infrigments related to limit of cod bycatch have been imposed in 2018 (see PI 3.2.3 for more details on the MCS system implemented). The strategy is implemented successfully. SG100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justif i cation No Primary species are sharks. e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 138 There is a strategy in place that is des igned to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justi fi cation There are no unwanted catches of Primary species.

References EC 2005 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relev ant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species i s adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Sc oring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Gu ide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to

status.

OR OR

If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adeqaute to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justi fi cation The different sources of information used to identify the catch composition and the species scoring elements to be assessed (see section 3.4.2 ) provide adequate quantitative information to assess with a high degree of certainty that there is no ‘main’ primary species caught by the UoA, and therefore there is no impact. SG100 is met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 139 Information on the nature and extent of primary species i s adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Yes Justifi cation The cod is well researched and assessed on an annual basis, see ICES (2019) Eastern Baltic Cod advice. ICES provides annual advice based on stock assessment. The information avaliable is quantitative, catch data and survey indices. These are adequate to assess the overall impact on the stock. The impact on cod taken in the Gulf of Riga is assessed based on the share of the total cod catch taken in the Gulf of Riga, < 1t per year. SG10 0 is met . c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main Primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation ICES provides effective stock trend estimates for the eastern Baltic cod, as illustrated below (source ICES 2019 advice on Eastern Baltic cod).

The different sources of information available (logbooks, port samplings performed by BIOR as part of the EU-DCF, BIOR surveys, ICES assessment and advice on the eastern Baltic cod), together with the ICES stock assessments and

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 140 Information on the nature and extent of primary species i s adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species adv ice provide precise information to manage all primary species, and also to evaluate with high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective as expressed in PI 2.1.1(a). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met .

References ICES (2019) Eastern Baltic Cod advice. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMB ER (if relevant): NA

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species abov e a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide post Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based

limits.

OR OR

If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically measures in place based limits, there is expected to ensure that either evidence of the UoA does not hinder recovery or a recovery and rebuilding. demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 141 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species abov e a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justifi cation “Secondary” species are those whose management is not based on biological reference points (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.1.4). Regarding the difference between “main” and “minor”, this lies on the catch abundance of the species and on their resilience. Hence, “main” are those species whose catch comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA, or 2% if they are “less resilient”; and “minor” are those species accounting for less than the abovementioned percentages (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.4.2 and SA3.4.5). Based on these definitions and the catch information obtained from the UoA fleet and BIOR, the following “main Secondary” species were identified (Table 3.4.2.2.1 ): . European flounder ( Platichthys flesus ) . European smelt ( Osmerus eperlanus ) . Fourhorn sculpin ( Myoxocephalus quadricornis ) Internationally, coastal fish communities in the Baltic Sea are assessed through HELCOM to know the general status of the coastal ecosystem (see HELCOM 2018g for the most recent report). This includes reference points based on the survey results. These reference points are 1) trend in abundance as measured by the survey, and 2) absolute levels of the abundance indicator. These reference points are the basis for the 5 year reports issued by HELCOM on the status of the coastal fish communities. However, the assessment only provides trends for groups such as Cyprinids and Piscivores and does not provide assessment for particular species apart from perch (Perca fluviatilis ), flounder ( Platichtys flesus ) or cod ( Gadus morhua ), which are considered key species. Out of the three main secondary species identified, therefore, the only one assessed in HELCOM (2018g) is flounder, although the assessment for this species in the GoR is not provided. In addition, flounder is also the only species out of the three being assessed by ICES in the Baltic Sea. In January 2014 the flounder stocks in the Baltic were benchmarked. As a result four different stocks of flounder were identified. However, no stock status reference points were available, therefore no analytical assessment was performed for any of them (ICES, 2014b), and advice provided was based on biomass index comparisons from previous years, according to ICES DLS guidelines (ICES, 2012b). Next advice is due for 2020. Therefore, all Main Secondary scoring elements are Data Deficient species according to FCR7.7.6 and a RBF was triggered to assess this SI. According to PF4, the score for each component of the PSA has been recorded in

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 142 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species abov e a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. the “MSC RBF Worksheet” (see F igure 2.2.1.1 ). Their MSC PSA -derived scores and MSC scoring guideposts are shown below in the PI2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation. In addition, the scores and rationales for each component have been documented in the PSA rationale tables in Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).

Figure 2.2.1.1 . PI2.2.1 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) from the MSC RBF Woksheet with all Secondary species found in the GoR Latvia herring fishery. Summarizing, out of the 3 main species, two scored equal to or greater than 80 and one (the European smelt) scored 60-79. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide post Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? N/A Justifi cation As mentioned in SIa, “minor” are those species accounting for less than 5% of the total catch of all species, or less than 2% if they are “less resilient” (see FCR v2.0 at SA3.4.2 and SA3.4.5). Based on this definition and the catch information obtained from the UoA fleet and BIOR, the following “minor Secondary” species were identified (Table 3.4.2.2.1 ): Shorthorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius ) Eelpout (Zoarces viviparous ) Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus ) Sand goby (Pomatoschistus microps and P. minutus ) Three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus ) Nine-spine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius ) Straight-nose pipefish (Nerophis ophidion ) As all these species are data-deficient (see SIa), according to FCR7.7.6, a RBF was

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 143 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species abov e a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. triggered to a ssess this SI. According to PF4, the score for each component of the PSA has been recorded in the “MSC RBF Worksheet” (see Figure 2.2.1.1 in SIa). Their MSC PSA-derived scores and MSC scoring guideposts are shown below in the PI2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation. In addition, the scores and rationales for each component have been documented in the PSA rationale tables in Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity- Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). All seven minor secondary species scored 80 or above (see PI2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation).

References HELCOM, 2018g; ICES, 2014b; ICES, 2012b OVERALL PERFORMA NCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scoring calculations. CONDITION NUMBER (if releva nt): 1

PI 2.2.1 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element. The team has applied the rules set out in Table PF8: Combining multiple species scores. MSC PSA -derived MSC scoring Main/Minor Species PI score score guidepost Main European flounder 98 ≥8 0 Main European smelt 62 60 -79 Main Fourhorn sculpin 89 ≥8 0 Minor Eel pout 84 ≥80 Minor Shorthorn sculpin 89 ≥80 Three -sp ined Minor 94 ≥80 75 stickleback Nine -spine d Minor 96 ≥80 stickleback Minor Sand goby 97 ≥80 Minor Round goby 95 ≥80 Minor Straightnose pipefish 93 ≥80

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 144 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species th at is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in plac e Guide There is a strategy in post There are measures in There is a partial strategy place for the UoA for place, if necessary, which in place, if necessary, for managing main and minor are expected to maintain the UoA that is expected secondary species. or not hinder rebuilding to maintain or not hinder

of main secondary rebuilding of main species at/to levels which secondary species at/to are highly likely to be levels which are highly within biologically based likely to be within limits or to ensure that biologically based limits the UoA does not hinder or to ensure that the UoA their recovery. does not hinder their recovery. Met? See scoring calculation See scoring calculation See scoring calculation for each species for each species for each species Justifi cation According to the MSC FCR definition: “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. Based on these definitions, and as seen in PI2.1.2a, there is a strategy in place for managing main and minor primary species. Specifically the EU Baltic Sea Multiannual Plan (EU Regulation 2016/1139) which has a strategy for managing cod, herring and sprat, but also certain by-caught species within these fisheries (i.e., plaice, flounder, turbot and brill). In addition, the Gulf of Riga herring fishery is subject to by-catch regulations laid down in COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound. The regulation prescribes that no more than 3% of the total catch shall be cod. The key fisheries rules and regulations in place for the Baltic Sea herring fisheries

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 145 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species th at is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. are the cat ch constraints imposed by the annually agreed TACs, the technical measures included in Baltic Sea MAP (Regulation 2016/1139) and also in Regulation 2187/2005. These technical measures are mainly: more restrictive measures for prior reporting and the use of logbooks, establishing a margin of tolerance for catches landed unsorted, and effort restrictions in the Gulf or Riga. In addition, the Control Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009) requires, inter alia, that fishing vessels over 15m LOA broadcast a VMS and AIS signal; that all vessels over 10m LOA have a logbook and that vessels over 12m LOA have an electronic logbook.

Flounder: Even though the Baltic Sea MAP (EU Regulation 2016/1139), which is reviewed annually, is not specific for secondary species, it applies to bycatches of flounder caught when fishing for the stocks concerned (including the Gulf of Riga herring stock). Its Article 6 sets specific conservation measures for bycatch species (plaice, flounder, turbot and brill). The Latvian fleet targeting herring in the Gulf of Riga will be affected by the new multi-species plan for managing cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic. Besides, BIOR performs herring annual samplings at port in order to collect detailed information of the fishery. BIOR samplings confirm that the proportion in the UoA by-catches (excluding sprat) is very low (Figure 3.4.2.1.1 ). This sampling program allows to detect if the UoA is catching a species at a level where it would be necessary to take measures. Moreover, UoA catches in 2017 were over 8 tonnes, representing only a 0.054% of the total landings of the impacted flounder stocks. Low flounder catches by the UoA are also confirmed by fishery-independent sources. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing flounder. SG100 is met . All the other main and minor secondary species: To limit catches of non-target species in the herring trawl fishery in the Baltic Sea, Council Regulation 2187/2005 established that the authorized species (in this case herring) must make up to at least 90% of the catch, and set some technical and administrative rules: minimum mesh sizes according to the gear type and area; to fish within constraints imposed by their quota allocation for the target species; to nominate their landing port in advance; or to submit landing records within 48 h of landing. Besides, as explained under the “Flounder” section, BIOR’s sampling program allows to detect if the UoA is catching a species at a level where it would be necessary to take measures. Moreover, both, fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent data have demonstrated that there is a low impact with non-target secondary species. From all the above, and even though there are no specific management measures to manage impacts on secondary non-target species, the management regime is

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 146 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species th at is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. clearly designed to address such impacts should they occur; hence it is considered that there is a “partial strategy” that would prevent the trawl UoA from having an adverse impact on non-target species. The SG60 and 80 requirements are therefore considered to be met . Nevertheless, in the absence of a strategy, SG100 is not met . b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or UoAs/species). and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The partial strategy (including the Baltic Sea MAP, the technical measures form EC Regulation 2187/2005 and Fishery monitoring at a national level) for managing the catch of non-target secondary species are considered to be working based on the fact that the pelagic trawl under assessment has a low level of interaction with non-target secondary species (see Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4 ). This outcome has been provided from both fisheries-dependent and fisheries-independent sources. Moreover, BIOR’s sampling program is integrated within the EU DCF, meaning that the data collected are sent to ICES for their analysis together with data from other countries fishing in the Baltic. Altogether means that the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met . However, as there has not been any testing of the strategy or the partial strategy, the SG100 requirements are not met . c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi cation Through the EU DFC, member states are providing data on landings and samplings to ICES, and are also ensuring compliance with management measures through the technical measures set in Council Regulation 2187/2005 and Regulation 2016/1139. However, the SES representative interviewed during the site visit expressed some concerns in relation to a regulatory gap which may facilitate species misreporting in the mid-water trawl fisheries targeting sprat and herring (e.g. declaring a non-

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 147 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species th at is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. regulated species such as smelt instead of herring, or declaring l ess herring than sprat). Article 13 of the Baltic Sea MAP establishes that: “for catches which are landed unsorted the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10 % of the total quantity retained on board” . This means that the margin of tolerance applies to all species together, while previously the Latvian authorities applied this margin to each of the species (more restrictive). Therefore, species misreporting is more likely to happen since Regulation 2016/1139 entered into force. However, the recent implementation of the LFICIS system has improved the SES capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of underreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. Therefore, the concerns expressed by the SES representative in this regard, together with the fact that, as explained in SIa, it cannot be considered that there is a strategy in place for managing all secondary species, prevents the team to score 100 at this SI. SG100 is not met d Shark finning Guide post It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation There are no shark catches in the herring fishery according to both fishery- dependent and fishery-independent sources of information analysed in this assessment ( Section 3.4.2 ). Therefore, this scoring is not relevant for the assessment and there is no need to score it, according to MSC instructions. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the cation There is a regular review There is a biennial review potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- practicality of alternative practicality of alternative related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise unwanted catch of main UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of secondary species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guide There are n o reports of discarding or mortality of unwanted catches in the Uo A. All post the UoA landings are used for either direct human consumption or fish meal and fish oil. Hence, the assessment team is confident that there is no unwanted catch in the herring fishery. According to MSC FCR at SA3.5.3 and GSA 3.5.3, this scoring issue is considered not relevant.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 148 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species th at is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

References COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005; COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009; EU Regulation 2016/1139 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See scorin g calculation table. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

PI 2.2.2 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element. The Combining scoring per elements set out in Table 4 was used to determine the PI score. All elements meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. Main/Minor Species SIa SIb SI c Element PI score score Main European flounder 100 80 80 85 Main Euro pean sprat 80 80 80 80 Main Fourhorn scu lpin 80 80 80 80 Minor Eel pout 80 80 80 80 Minor Shorthorn sculpin 80 80 80 80 85 Minor Three -spined stickleback 80 80 80 80 Minor Ni ne -spined stickleback 80 80 80 80 Minor Sand goby 80 80 80 80 Minor Rou nd goby 80 80 80 80 Minor Straightnose p ipefish 80 80 80 80

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 149 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of sec ondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide post Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate the information is available is available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main secondary species OR with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate productivity and to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes susceptibility attributes for main secondary for main secondary species. species. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation As stated in PI2.2.1, a RBF was used to assess main secondary species stock status. From the outcome obtained, it is clear that there is good qualitative and some quantitative information to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for the main secondary species. Therefore meeting SG60 and SG80 requirements . At present, a network of coastal fish monitoring areas covering large areas of the Baltic Sea is sampled annually. The network comprises monitoring areas in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. Adjers et al. (HELCOM, 2006b), analysed the results of 22 years of this monitoring program to describe and elucidate long-term trends in fish populations and fish community development. However, the monitoring methods were not designed to catch pelagic species or small fish, and although some herring, smelts and sprat were caught in significant numbers during monitoring, it was done mostly in a random manner, which makes a long-term evaluation of their population development uncertain. No assessments on the status of smelt populations or even abundance indices for this species in the Baltic Sea were found. In addition, as RBF was used, a high degree of certainty cannot be achieved and SG100 cannot be met . b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor se condary species Guide Some quantit ative

post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 150 Information on the nature and amount of sec ondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. respect to status.

Met? N Justifi cation As there are no population estimates or biological limits for any of the minor secondary species (see PI2.2.1), SG 100 is not met . c Information adequacy for management strategy Guid e post Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main secondary strategy to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The information available (i.e., from the UoA, BIOR, HELCOM surveys) is adequate to identify the main and minor secondary species (see Section 3.4.2 ). The fleet is required to have electronic logbooks and they report all the data to ICES. In addition, low impact indices have been obtained. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met . However, as mentioned in PI2.2.2 SIc (also see PI3.2.3 SIc), the SES representative interviewed during the site visit expressed some concerns in relation to a regulatory gap which may facilitate species misreporting in the mid-water trawl fisheries targeting sprat and herring. In addition, even though it is compulsory for the fleet to record in the logbook detailed information on catch composition of herring, they are not obliged to record all incidental catches. Therefore, even though there is a partial strategy in place, the information available is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Therefore, SG100 is not met .

References HELCOM, 2006b OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (i f relevant): NA

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 151

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide post Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there is a effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the high degree of certainty population/stock are MSC UoAs on the that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are effects of the MSC UoAs within these limits. known and highly likely are within these limits. to be within these limits. Met? Y N N Justifi cation As seen under section 3.4.2 , different sources of information were analyzed in order to elaborate a complete list of species for which interactions with the UoA have been recorded. The list of species is presented in Table 3.4.2.2.1 and it only includes 1 ETP species, the sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ). A list of all other possible ETPs (including seabirds, marine mammals and fish species) that potentially may interact with the Latvian pelagic trawl fishery targeting herring in the GoR is shown in Table 3.4.5.1 . In summary, these are: • Altantic Salmon (Salmo salar) • Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) • Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) • Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) • Ringed seal (Pusa hispida botnica) • Red-throated diver (Gavia stellate) • Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) • Common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) • Common merganser (Mergus merganser) • Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) • Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) • Little gull (Larus minutus) • Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)

Details on all the ETP species considered can be found in Section 3.4.5 .

As there are no international limits set for any of these species, apart from the Harbour porpoise, they will be assessed in SIb. The harbour porpoise, however, is assessed here.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 152 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Harbour porpo ise ( Phocoena phocoena ): Different studies indicate that there are two populations of harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea area, one in the western Baltic Sea encompassing the Kattegat, the Belt Sea, the Sound and the German Baltic and a second one in the proper Baltic Sea (Evans and Teilmann, 2009; Sveegaard et al., 2015; ICES, 2018e). Recently, an extensive Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) approach was used for collecting data on population size and spatial and temporal distribution of harbour porpoises in the Baltic (SAMBAH, 2016). The results found a clear separation of two population clusters during summer (Figure 3.4.5.3.1). The harbour porpoise population in the Baltic proper has declined dramatically over the past 100 years and there are indications that this population is facing extinction (classified as Critically Endangered (CR C2a(ii)) under the IUCN Red List 2008 - https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/17031/98831650 ). Results from the most recent acoustic monitoring carried out within the SAMBAH project estimated a population of 497 animals (95% CI 80-1,091) in the Baltic proper, and more than 21,390 porpoises (95% CI 13,461-38,024) in the Western Baltic. In the Baltic Proper, acoustic detections were highest in the south, but the species was also detected further east and north off the coasts of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Finland (I. Carlén, pers. comm., within ICES (2015b)).” ASCOBANS (2012) advised that, to be sustainable, the maximum annual anthropogenic induced mortality (including bycatch) for harbour porpoises should not exceed 1.7% of the population size (Resolution No. 3, Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans, Bristol 2000). This means that the maximum annual limit would be 8.5 individuals for the Baltic proper and 663 individuals for the Western Baltic. During the 2018 Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) (ICES, 2018f) an evaluation on the bycatch risk posed by different fishing gears to protected species in the Baltic Sea was conducted. Risk assessment for a species group to being bycaught by a specific gear type was done by expert judgement. Regarding the harbour porpoise, the bycatch risk factor for trawls was kept at one, except for all pelagic trawls, which were given a two. It is known that some bycatch occurs in trawls (Lunneryd et al., 2004), but from this information the bycatch risk cannot be assigned to a specific métier. In Polish data, one bycatch could be assigned to a pelagic trawl (Skóra and Kuklik, 2003), which was the reason why the WGBYC gave a risk factor of 2 to pelagic trawls. Nevertheless, catches of harbour porpoises in pelagic trawls is considered to be very rare and none have been reported from the Latvian fishery over several years. As a result of the implementation of Regulation (EC) 812/2004, Latvia implemented in 2006 a domestic monitoring program on incidental catches of cetaceans which involves deployment of observers on both pelagic and gillnet Latvian fishing vessels. During the site visit the team was able to check the annual reports prepared by BIOR on the implementation of this monitoring program since 2010. No incidental catches of cetaceans were observed between 2010 and 2017, as it has been the case since the program started in 2006. In fact, due to the absence of incidental catches since 2006, BIOR concludes that the cetaceans monitoring has no practical significance and is an unnecessary

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 153 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species expenditure of financial and human resources. Every year, BIOR suggests on behalf of Latvia to stop this monitoring program and, instead of intensive observations of cetaceans, proposes using the information from the National fisheries data collection programs or from other available data sources. Latvia suggests that the requirements of the (EC) No 812/2004 should be reviewed, and proposes that the monitoring program on incidental catches of cetaceans should be replaced with the gathering of information from other available data sources in the areas where there have been no observations of cetaceans for several continuous years of the monitoring program. In the case of the herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga, the observer coverage presented significant inter annual variations (between 1.22 and 32.89% in fishing days, see Table 3.4.5.3.3 ), but overall coverage between 2010 and 2017 was around 11%, irrespective of the indicator used (fishing trips, fishing days, N hauls, towing time). Pelagic trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Riga (ICES subarea IIId) are not subject to specific minimum requirements on minimum level of fishing effort to be observed. As a general rule, Regulation (EC) 812/2004 establishes that monitoring schemes shall be based on a sampling strategy designed to allow the estimation of the by-catch rates of cetaceans, for the most frequent species in the by-catch per unit effort by a given fleet to achieve a coefficient of variation not exceeding 0,30. However, the most restrictive default observer coverage is established at 10% to pelagic trawl fisheries in ICES VI, VII and VIII. Thus, 11% is considered more than an appropriate coverage rate. Furthermore, the Latvian regulations regarding commercial fishing in territorial waters and EEZ (Cabinet Regulation No. 296 adopted 2 May 2007) details the duties of fishers (section II), and Article 8.10 states that fishermen shall “inform BIOR regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals (for example, harbour porpoises) and to perform the relevant entries in the fishing logbook”. The client confirmed that no incidental catches of cetaceans (including harbour porpoises) has been recorded/reported by certified vessels. Harbour porpoises are threatened by a variety of anthropogenic activities and impacts (Figure 3.4.5.3.2 ) (ICES, 2019f). Among these, bycatch in fisheries is of greatest concern (Berggren 1994, Vinther 1999, Skóra & Kuklik 2003), being the bottom-set gillnets the responsible for most bycatches (ICES, 2019f). Based on the information presented above, the team considers that the effects of the UoA on the Baltic proper population of harbour porpoise are known and likely to be below the limits established by ASCOBANS (8.5 individuals). Thus, SG60 is met . During the 2018 Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) (ICES, 2018f) an evaluation on the bycatch risk posed by different fishing gears to protected species in the Baltic Sea was conducted. Regarding the harbour porpoise, the bycatch risk factor for trawls was kept at one, except for all pelagic trawls, which were given a two. The ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology shows no pelagic trawl interaction with harbour porpoise, but does indicate capture of other cetaceans (common dolphins), highlighting a potential risk for other cetacean species (17 common dolphins caught in German pelagic trawls in ICES divisions VI and VII).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 154 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

With regard to cumulative impacts, as of July 2019, three MSC fisheries in the Baltic Sea, assessed under the MSC FCR v2.0, are overlapping with the UoA under assessment: the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery, the Finnish Baltic herring and sprat trawl and trap fisheries, and the Denmark, Estonia , Germany, Sweden Baltic herring & sprat fishery. The team assessing the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden Baltic herring and sprat fishery confirmed during harmonization meetings held during the preparation of the second surveillance audit report (and drafts shared with the BV team) that observer coverage in those fisheries was below 5%. Furthermore, the ICES WGBYC noted that while bycatch in pelagic trawls are considered extremely rare, observing 5% of pelagic trawl effort in the Baltic cannot provide estimates of total with an acceptable level of uncertainty. SG80 level requires justification that cumulatively all MSC fisheries (across Latvia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Estonia) are highly unlikely to have an impact above the acceptable limit of 8.5 harbour porpoises. Across six countries, this equates to 1.5 individuals each. On the basis of the available evidence, including frequency / proportion of observer coverage, the combined effects of the UoAs, covering Latvia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Estonia cannot be considered to be highly likely to be within the ASCOBANS limit of 8.5 individuals. SG80 is not met. b Direct effects Guide post Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? See scoring calculation See scoring calculation See scoring calculation Justifi As shown in Tables 3.4.2.2. 1 and 3.4.5.1 , apart from the Harbour porpoise, which cation has already been assessed under SIa, the additional possible ETP species were found:

• Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) • Altantic Salmon (Salmo salar) • Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) • Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) • Ringed seal (Pusa hispida botnica) • Red-throated diver (Gavia stellate) • Black-throated diver (Gavia arctica) • Common shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) • Common merganser (Mergus merganser) • Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) • Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) • Little gull (Larus minutus)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 155 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species • Great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo)

Fish species:

With regard to the Atlantic salmon and the Twaite shad, no impacts were recorded, therefore it was concluded that neither the Atlantic salmon, nor the Twaite shad were going to be considered in the present report (for further details, see Section 3.4.5 ). Regarding the Sea lamprey, this species is considered rare and highly sensitive to human activities according to HELCOM (HELCOM, 2013a). In the northern Baltic Sea it is caught irregularly: in Finland, Russia and Latvia the species is not an annual catch, although it is caught almost annually in Estonia. For example it has been reported only eight times since 1927 in the Russian part of Gulf of Finland (HELCOM, 2013a). A small population with a suspected continuing decline and less than 1,000 individuals in the largest subpopulation, lead HELCOM to classify this species as Vulnerable (HELCOM, 2013a). Also, this species is included in Annex II of the European Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). No interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys were reported by the client. And, even though, BIOR recorded this species within the catch composition of their biological samples collected during 2015-2018 (total of 121 samples) from the commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR, the % in weight is close to 1 (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1 ). Furthermore, there were very small amounts of catches recorded in the fish catch statistics for the Baltic Sea (ICES SD 24-26, 28.2, 29, 32) from the fishery- independent Estonian-Polish BIAS survey conducted by R/V "Baltica" in 2017, i.e., 0.002% and 0.007% of the catches for Estonia - SD28.2, 29, 32 - and Poland – SD 24-26 -, respectively (http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Repo rt/EOSG/2018/WGBIFS/WGBIFS%20report%202018.pdf ). In addition, there are no fisheries targeting this species in the Baltic Sea. The assessment team concluded that SG60 and SG80 are met .

Unfortunately, the team could not obtain detailed information on the occurrence frequency or the exact number of individuals caught during BIOR’s samplings, therefore SG100 is not met .

Seabirds:

The absence of reports of any direct impact (bycatch) of seabirds by the UoA (or any other vessel fishing for herring), together with the low risk assessed for pelagic trawl by the ICES WGBYC (ICES, 2018f) and HELCOM (http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/fisheries/ecosystem-effects/bycatch ), and the fact that none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding seabirds, provides a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP bird species. SG60 and SG80 are met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 156 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

However, due to the lack of observers’ data, the team cannot conclude with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP seabird species. SG100 , therefore, is not met.

Seals: Two species of seals were identified as possible ETPs (Table 3.4.5.1 ): the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus ) and the Baltic ringed seal ( Pusa hispida botnica ).

According to SA3.1.5 of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, neither of them is classified as an ETP species, as they are not recognised by the Latvian legislation as ETP species, are not listed in CITES or the CMS, and even though they are “out-of- scope” species, they are not listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the IUCN Redlist. In addition, no interactions have been reported from the UoA fishery dependent or independent (BIOR) reports. Therefore, they have not been assessed as scoring elements in this PI. c Indirect effects Guide post Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? See scoring calculation See scoring calculation Justifi Marine mammals : cation A matix of threats to the predominant marine mammal species in each of the MSFD regional seas was compiled (ICES, 2019f). The one specific for the Baltic Sea is presented in Figure 3.4.5.3.2. From the matrix obtained, it can be observed that indirect effects from fishing on marine mammals include underwater noise (for harbour porpoise) and prey depletion.

The commercial exploitation of fish & shellfish stocks, including smaller scale harvesting, angling and scientific sampling are also threats to marine mammals. Ecological consequences include the sustainability of stocks, impacting energy flows through food webs and the size and age composition within fish stocks (SAMBAH, 2016). The removal of prey species that are important in the diet of these mammals could have an impact on individuals and is probably a major determinant of spatiotemporal variation in species distributions, but impacts at the population level are not clear and are considered more difficult to be determined (SAMBAH, 2016; ICES, 2019f).

There has been a large increase in ambient noise in recent years, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Even though evidence of direct mortality does not exist, there is concern on the individual fitness and population consequences of displacement and change of behaviour (SAMBAH, 2016).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 157 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Harbour Porpoise : Santos and Pierce (2003) found that harbour porpoise’s diet is similar to many piscivorous fish and that harbour porpoises predate on a wide range of species including herring ( Clupea harengus ). Herring ( Clupea harengus ) is considered a key prey species in the Baltic Sea, although other species such as sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) or small specimens of cod (Gadus morhua ) are also important preys (Read, 1999; Börjesson and Read, 2003; Lockyer and Kinze, 2003). The herring stocks decreased steadily since the 1970s, but this trend changed at the turn of the century and they are now increasing (Casini et al ., 2008). All this suggests that prey should not be a limiting factor for the harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea. SG80 is, therefore, met. Börjesson et al (2003), however, considered the food between cod fishery and porpoises as a possible concern. Thus, not meeting SG100.

Seals: As mentioned in SIb, and according to SA3.1.5 of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, neither of the two identified seal species is classified as an ETP species, as they are not recognised by the Latvian legislation as ETP species, are not listed in CITES or the CMS, and even though they are “out-of-scope” species, they are not listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered in the IUCN Redlist. In addition, no interactions have been reported from the UoA fishery dependent or independent (BIOR) reports. Therefore, they have not been assessed as scoring elements in this PI

Sea lamprey : There are several threat factors for the sea lamprey (HELCOM, 2013a): (i) construction of weirs and dams in river, (ii) eutrophication of the spawning habitats in rivers (since larvae survive only on well oxygenated sand bottoms), (iii) fisheries outside the HELCOM area (sea lamprey as target species, e.g. in Portugal, France), and (iv) fisheries on sea lamprey's prey species (large fish). This information, therefore, shows that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on the sea lamprey, hence, SG80 is met .

Unfortunately, as the team could not obtain detailed information on the occurrence frequency or the exact number of individuals caught during BIOR’s samplings, SG100 is not met .

Seabirds: ICES Ecosystem Overview from 2018 (ICES, 2019d) states that "Three species that feed mainly on herring and sprat (common guillemot, razorbill, and Arctic tern) have increased in number over recent decades. White-tailed sea eagle and great cormorant have increased, following the cessation of hunting and the decline in persistent pollutants", which shows that food is available and that herring/sprat at present are not constraining sea birds. This information provides a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP bird species. SG60 and SG80 are met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 158 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

However, due to the lack of observers’ data, the team cannot conclude with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP seabird species. SG100 , therefore, is not met. ASCOBANS, 2012; Berggren, 1994; Börjesson and Read, 2003; Börjesson et al., 2003; Cabinet Regulation No. 296; Casini et al., 2008.; Council Directive 92/43/EEC; Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004; Evans and Teilmann 2009; HELCOM, 2013a; References ICES, 2015b; ICES, 2018e; ICES, 2018f; ICES, 2019d, ICES, 2019f; Lundström et al. 2007; Lunneryd et al., 2004; Lockyer and Kinze, 2003; Read, 1999; SAMBAH, 2016; Santos and Pierce, 2003; Skóra and Kuklik, 2003; Sveegaard et al., 2015; Vanhatalo et al., 2014; Vinther, 1999. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: See s coring c alculation below CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

PI 2.3.1 – Scoring Calculation for each scoring element. The Combining scoring per elements set out in Table 4 (FCR v2.0) was used to determine the PI score. All elements meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. Scoring element SIa SIb SIc PI score Harbour porpoise 60 N/A 80 Sea lamprey N/A 80 80 75 Seabirds N/A 80 80

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 159 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide post There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise the place for managing the strategy in place for UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP managing the UoA’s ETP species, and are species, including impact on ETP species, expected to be highly measures to minimise including measures to likely to achieve national mortality, which is minimise mortality, which and international designed to be highly is designed to achieve requirements for the likely to achieve national above national and protection of ETP species. and international international requirements for the requirements for the protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation As explained in PI 2.3.1 SIa, from all the species identified as ETP, the harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) is the only one subject to national or international requirements for its protection. The present SI is therefore only scored for this species, while the other species are scored in SIb (see MSC FCR at SA3.11.2).

Harbour porpoise: In the EU, harbour porpoises are under strict protection, because they are not only listed in Annex II, but also in Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Under Annex II of the Habitats Directive, the harbour porpoise are listed as animal species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). These obligations are met through the Natura 2000 program (EU) and the HELCOM program for protected areas. However, there are no specific areas identified for harbour porpoises and no SAC with these objectives are defined. Article 12 of the Habitats Directive establishes that Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed on Annex IV. To comply with the provision of Article 12, the EC adopted Regulation 812/2004. This Regulation obliges the use of deterrents (e.g. pingers) in specific fisheries to avoid contact with cetaceans (mainly gillnets) and also requires monitoring by observers of incidental catches in specific gears. In addition, Article 2 of the basic CFP Regulation 1380/2013 sets out obligations to minimise the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems. Its Preamble states the following: (11) The CFP should contribute to the protection of the marine environment, to the sustainable management of all commercially exploited

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 160 The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. species, and in particular to the achievement of g ood environmental status by 2020, as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; (13) An ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management needs to be implemented, environmental impacts of fishing activities should be limited and unwanted catches should be avoided and reduced as far as possible. Even though there are a number of gear restrictions in effect in the Baltic fisheries to avoid cetacean by-catch - among which the most noticeable are the driftnet ban and the requirement to use pingers on gillnets -, none of these affect the herring fishery. Harbour porpoise is also part of the ASCOBANS, which has specifically focused on the recovery of the proper Baltic Sea population with the enactment of a recovery plan for Baltic Sea, the so called Jastarnia Plan (ASCOBANS, 2016), and the conservation plans for the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea and Kattegat (ASCOBANS, 2012) and for the North Sea (ASCOBANS, 2009). They list recommendations and mitigation actions concerning threats (including fishing) to the species and its habitats and state the need for monitoring population trends, in order to meet the requirements in the EU Habitats Directive and 812/2004. The Jastarnia Plan serves as a framework for international collaboration towards achieving ASCOBANS’ interim goal of restoring the harbour porpoise population to at least 80 per cent of carrying capacity, and, ultimately, a favourable conservation status for Baltic harbour porpoises. Even though Latvia is not a Party to the ASCOBANS convention, many organisations of which Latvia is a Party to are, thus, it has obligations to provide information relevant to harbour porpoises. Examples of some of these instruments include the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, or the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) through its Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). Moreover, the Latvian regulations regarding commercial fishing in territorial waters and EEZ (Cabinet Regulation N. 296 adopted on 2 May 2007) details the duties of fishers (Section II), and Article 8.10 states that fishermen shall “inform BIOR regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals (for example, harbour porpoises) and to perform the relevant entries in the fishing logbook”. The client confirmed that no incidental catches of cetaceans (including harbour porpoise) have been recorded/reported by the UoA vessels. From all the above, it is clear that there is a strategy for avoiding by-catch and for avoiding ETP species in particular. Overall, the technical measures identified in the various EU directives protect against unwanted by-catch. The operational practise does not lead to such by-catch and therefore there is no specific national regulation in place. Management keeps the situation under observation through the ICES WGBYC (harbour porpoise) and the BIOR observer programs. The assessment team concludes that SG80 is met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 161 The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. The HELCOM action plan and the EU regulations, which are the basis for the strategy to avoid ETP species, are defining international standards and therefore, by definition, not attempting to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, hence, SG 100 is not met . b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide post There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that are expected place that is expected to strategy in place for to ensure the UoA does ensure the UoA does not managing ETP species, to not hinder the recovery hinder the recovery of ensure the UoA does not of ETP species. ETP species. hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y N Justifi cation In this SI, ETP species identified in section 3.4.2 other than the harbour porpoise will be assessed. Sea Lamprey : No interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys were reported by the client. And, even though, BIOR recorded this species within the catch composition of their biological samples collected during 2015-2018 (total of 121 samples) from the commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR, the % in weight was close to 1 (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1 ). The measures in place, which are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species, include the pelagic trawl fishing gear currently in use which is considered less likely than other métiers to have a direct impact on ETPs and is expected to not have a significant impact on lamprey. Moreover, fishing with trawls is prohibited at locations where the depth does not exceed 20 m. In addition, fishermen have an obligation to report all bycatch including other fish and marine mammals, and vessel inspections at sea and at-sea observers are also measures monitoring the ongoing fishing activities. The team concludes the SG60 requirement is met . There are international agreements, and EU and and national legislations in place, to ensure that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of the ETP species. In particular, the EU Habitats Directive (which sets out a framework for the creation of designated Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for the protection of species listed on Annex II, and also habitats listed on Annex I which are of conservation importance at a European scale); the EU CFP (which addresses ecosystem impacts), and the Latvian Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes. In addition, Cabinet Regulation No. 296 states that one of the fishers’ duties is “to inform the State scientific institute "Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment" (BIOR) regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals (for example, harbour porpoises) and to

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 162 The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. per form the relevant entries in the fishing l ogbook”. Latvian scientific authorities also monitor and report annually different types of fishery information including bycatch. This information collection and analysis form part of the strategy to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery. Annual scientific surveys throughout the fishery also provide a means of verification of any changes in . Given the abovementioned, the obligation to report, ongoing inspection and scientific surveys to monitor changes, significant other scientific studies which evaluated impacts to these ETP species, ongoing evaluation throughout the Baltic, and that there has only been very low lamprey bycatch, the team concluded there is a strategy to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. There is, however, no comprehensive strategy focused on this species (nor an identified need for) to achieve this, therefore the team concludes that SG80 is met but not SG100 .

Seabirds: The absence of reports of any direct impact (bycatch) of seabirds by the UoA (or any other vessel fishing for herring), together with the low risk assessed for pelagic trawl by the ICES WGBYC (ICES, 2018f) and HELCOM (http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/fisheries/ecosystem-effects/bycatch ), shows that the strategy in place is ensuring the UoA does not hinder the recovery of seabird ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met . There is, however, no comprehensive strategy focused on the seabird species identified to achieve this, therefore the team concludes that SG100 is not met . c Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is an objective The considered likely to basis for confidence that strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible the measures/strategy strategy is mainly based argument (e.g. , general will work, based on on information directly experience, theory or information directly about the fishery and/or comparison with similar about the fishery and/or species involved, and a fisheries/species). the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The fact that there are hardly no interactions between the ETP species and the UoA, provides an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy work. In addition, Latvia is a member state and participating member of the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). The 2016 WGBYC

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 163 The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. report (ICES, 2016) confirms that Latvia provides various data packages as part of its obligations and has provided observed effort data for 2009, 2011 – 2014 (last year analysed) (see ICES, 2016 - Tables 1 and 2). Under the DCF program (Table 3), 15911 days of trawling at sea were reported under the DCF program for the Baltic member states (Latvia included) with no protected species bycatch reported; furthermore, 377 additional trawling days at sea also recorded no protected species bycatch. Moreover, following Cabinet Regulation N. 296, no incidental catches of sea lamprey, seabirds, or marine mammals (including harbour porpoises) have been recorded/reported by the UoA vessels. The SG80 is met . However, in the absence of a quantitative analysis of the strategy to support a high level of confidence, and taking into account the precarious state of the harbour porpoise stock, SG100 is not met. d Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N Justifi cation There is evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully, i.e., the fishing gear used; the location reported and monitored; the obligation to report catches for which sanctions can be raised if significant variation or misreporting is discovered; BIOR continues to provide annual reports on behalf of Latvia under the DCF; the monitoring of the Natura 2000 network; the deployment of observers to monitor incidental catches of cetaceans; and the fact that not only the client is aware of their obligation to report any interaction with seabirds, fish and marine mammals in their logbooks, but no interactions have been registered. Therefore, SG80 is met. There are no specific programs designed to explicitly confirm that the strategy for this UoA is achieving its objectives, hence SG100 is not met . e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide post There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review potential effectiveness of the potential of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP species and they are ETP species, and they are

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 164 The UoA has in place precautionary manage ment strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Ju stifi In the Baltic Sea, protected and endangered species ar e monitored through the cation WGBYC and the collection of protected species bycatch data through the DCF as part of the Multiannual Plan (EU-MAP - Regulation (EU) 2016/1139). The WGBYC, which has been meeting regularly since 2009, reports and reviews the effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of ETP species. None has been deemed necessary or prescribed for the UoA fleet.

In addition, Latvia has participated in dedicated studies and is an active member of the ICES WGBYC and WGMME.

Moreover, even though the UoA fishery can potentially interact with the ETP species identified above (i.e., harbour porpoise, sea lamprey and seabirds), apart from a very low interaction observed by BIOR for sea lamprey, no catches of any of the other species have been recorded, even though their national legislation obliges them to do so. The SG60 and SG80 are, therefore, met. In the absence of a biennial review of alternative measures, SG100 is not met . ASCOBANS, 2016; ASCOBANS, 2012; ASCOBANS, 2009; Cabinet Regulation No. References 296; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC; Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 ; ICES, 2016; ICES, 2018f; Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; REGULATION (EU) 2016/1139

The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different scoring Scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 (Table 4) was used to assign the overall score for this PI: all summary species (scoring elements) meet SG80.

Scoring element 1 (Sea lamprey) 80 Scoring element 2 (Harbour porpoise) 80 Scoring element 3 (Seabirds) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 165 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant informat ion is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide post Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information adequate to estimate the information is adequate is available to assess with UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA related a high degree of certainty ETP species. mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- to determine whether related impacts,

the UoA may be a threat mortalities and injuries OR to protection and and the consequences recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP species. species. If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes Some quantitative for ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Qualitative and quantitative information on mortality of ETP species is available from stakeholders, WGBYC and the DCF. This information is applicable to all the ETPs identified. Through Cabinet Regulation No. 296, incidental catches of marked or rare fish and birds, as well as marine mammals have to be reported in the fishing logbooks. In particular, significant attention is given to harbour porpoise research and the ICES WGBYC work, which is primarily driven by the EU regulation 812/2004, provides annual reviews of their status. There are studies using passive acoustic mapping of harbour porpoise abundance. Although the WGBYC expresses reservations on the accuracy of its by-catch estimates, with respect to the Latvian sprat fishery and other UoA-related impact, there is high degree of certainty of the magnitude of the UoA-related impacts, i.e., these are very small. Member States are required, among other things, to report annually on the number of incidental catches of cetaceans, which is analysed by the WGBYC. In addition, data on cetacean bycatch may also be submitted through Reg. 812/2004

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 166 Relevant informat ion is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. reporting. These data are most commonly linked to at -sea obse rvations carried out for the purposes of fisheries monitoring in accordance with the EU Data Collection Framework Regulation 2017/1004 (DCF). In 2016, observations were made in 496 trips in Latvian pelagic trawl fisheries. The monitoring was carried out by seven observers on 13 different vessels. No incidental bycatch of cetaceans was observed in 2016, which is the same result as reported from 2006–2015. Reported observer coverage was 6.9% of the pelagic trawl fishery with vessels 12–18 m, and 11.4% with vessels 24–40 m (based on towing time) (ICES, 2018f). However, there are no data on encounters (not leading to catch) and injuries, although these are believed to be minimal. Therefore, even though SG60 and SG80 are met , the information is not adequate to have a high degree of certainty of the magnitude of the UoA-related mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species, thus, SG100 is not met . b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation From what has been stated in PI 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, information gathered from the UoA fleet, other Latvian fishing fleets and from Baltic member states in general is sufficient to measure trends and to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts on harbour porpoises, seabirds and sea lampreys. SG60 and 80 are, therefore, met . There is, however, insufficient information collected to support a strategy to minimize injury of ETP species and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objectives, hence, the SG100 is not met .

References Cabinet Regulation No. 296; COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812-2004; ICES, 2018f; Regulation (EU) 2017/1004

The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different scoring Scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 (Table 4) was used to assign the overall score for this PI: all summary species (scoring elements) meet SG80.

Scoring element 1 (Sea lamprey) 80

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 167 Relevant informat ion is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring element 2 (Harbour porpoise) 80 Scoring element 3 (Seabirds) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 168 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to hab itat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scori ng Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that reduce structure and to reduce structure and the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly function of the commonly to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would point where there would encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible point where there would harm. harm. be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Commonly encountered habitas are defined by MSC Requirements as those preferred by the target species, that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit, and/or make up a reasonable portion of the UoA’s fishing area. The herring fishery, is conducted with pelagic trawls designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic community. The ground rope is equipped with very small and light rubber bobbins small and light rubber bobbins, therefore, the integrity of the gear is likely to be jeopardized before performing any substantial damage to the seafloor. All UoC client member vessels fish with net sounder technology, allowing the captains to evaluate the performance of the fishing nets during the fishing operations, thus ensuring that the gear-bottom interactions are minimal. And, even though there is a possibility that the fishing gear could accidentally touch the seabed, or the net could break, or fragments / sections / entire nets could be lost; this type of gear is considered to have very low or a marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; and FAO, 2019). Based on all the above, the most encountered habitat is the pelagic habitat. See Section 3.4.6 for more details. Pelagic habitats function are mostly determined by their physico-chemical properties (Raymond, 2011). The status of pelagic habitats is affected by human induced pressures such as eutrophication and hazardous substances, as well as by natural and human-induced changes in climate (HELCOM, 2018a). The fishing activity, however, will not affect negatively the pelagic habitat. On the basis of the UoA gear configuration, the identified fishing area and habitats, the assessment team concludes that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats (i.e. the pelagic habitat) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Further, as per MSC FCR Clause SA3.2.1, the team concludes that the UoA has no impact on the habitat, thus SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 169 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to hab itat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to post reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that function of the VME to reduce structure and the UoA is highly unlikely habitats to a point where function of the VME to reduce structure and there would be serious or habitats to a point where function of the VME irreversible harm. there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation According to MSC, “ Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems ” have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines (MSC FCR clause SA3.13.3): Uniqueness or rarity, Functional significance of the habitat, Fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, or Structural complexity. In addition, MSC defines “ serious or irreversible harm ” (MSC FCR clause 3.13.4) as reductions in habitat structure and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely. GoR’s marine habitat distribution and sensitivity, as well as the protection of many of the areas that meet the VME definition (i.e., MPAs and Natura 2000 areas) (Figure 3.4.1.7.2 ), have been identified by HELCOM. In addition, HELCOM has produced a Red List of biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes (which are also listed in the EU Habitats Directive Annex I) from which the following occur in the GoR, overlapping where the UoA operates (Table 2.4.1.1 ):

Table 2.4.1.1 . Red-listed biotopes and biotope complexes present in the area of the GoR where the UoA operates. Source: (HELCOM, 2013d) Code/s Description HELCOM Classification Sandbanks (slightly covered by sea water all 1110 CR (Critically Endangered) the time) 1130 Estuaries CR (Critically Endangered) 1170 Reefs VU (Vulnerable) AA.H1B7; Baltic photic muddy sediment, coarse AAI1B7; sediment, sand or mixed substrate NT (Near Threatened) AA.J1B7; dominated by common eelgrass ( Zostera AA.M1B7 marina ) Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated AB.H3N1 by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia NT (Near Threatened) femorata

The herring fishery, is conducted with pelagic trawls designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic community. The ground rope is equipped with very small and light rubber bobbins, therefore, the integrity of the gear is likely to be jeopardized before performing any substantial damage to the seafloor.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 170 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to hab itat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. All of these VMEs identified in the GoR are located on the seabed, or very close to coast, and as mentioned in the scoring of SIa above, the fishing métier used in the UoA has very little impact on the seabed due to very infrequent contact with the sea bottom, therefore, the team concludes that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, thus, meeting SG60 and SG80 . However, as there is no evidence of it, SG100 is not met . c Minor habit at status Guide post There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justifi Minor habitats are defined by MSC as those which do not fall within the cation classification of Commonly Encountered Habitats or VMEs (SA3.13.3). Comparing the geographical distribution of the herring catches of the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet (Figure 3.4.6.1 and black line on the following figure) and the map of MSFD Benthic Broad Habitat Types obtained from the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website ( www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu ) (Figure 3.4.6.3 ), eight minor habitats were identified, i.e., circalittoral mud, sand, coarse sediment, rock and biogenic reef, and mixed sediment, and infralittoral mud, sand, and rock and biogenic reef (according to the MSFD benthic broad habitat classification).

The herring fishery is conducted with pelagic trawls designed to not touch the sea

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 171 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to hab itat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. bottom but to ‘fly’ 8 -10 m above it. The ground rope is equipped with very small and light rubber bobbins, therefore, the integrity of the gear is likely to be jeopardized before performing any substantial damage to the seafloor. Therefore, herring fishing usually interacts with the pelagic community and not with the benthic one, and, even if it can contact the sea bottom, there is evidence that it happens very seldomly, thus, the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Hence, SG100 is met .

References Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard, et al., 2013; FAO, 2019; HELCOM, 2013d; HELCOM, 2018a.; Raymond, 2011. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if rel evant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 172 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that place for managing the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 the Habitat Outcome 80 UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. level of performance or on habitats. above. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation There are measures and partial strategies in place regulating the procedures for the performance of commercial fishing in Latvia (i.e., Cabinet Regulation No. 296, Adopted on May 2, 2007). Among the measures, trawlers are prohibited to operate in less than 20 m depth, there are time (e.g. for spawning) and spatial closures within the Gulf of Riga; fishing limits (i.e., Lavtian quotas, specific coastal fishing limits, limits in the number of fishing gears); effort limits (i.e., limits to engine power, number of fishing vessels approved by the Ministry of Agriculture). In addition, within Cabinet Regulation No. 296, there is a Sampling Plan for the Conformity Supervision of the Engine Power of Fishing Vessels whose objective is to improve and ensure the conformity of the capacity of the fishing fleet with the requirements of the laws and regulations of the European Union and the national laws and regulations. Moreover, the Latvian Law on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes (Adopted on March 16, 2000), includes the following purpose: to ensure biodiversity through the conservation of fauna, flora and biotopes characteristic to Latvia; and to regulate the conservation, management and supervision of species and biotopes. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the understanding of potential gear impacts (through the BENTHIS project, an EU-FP7 project on the integration of marine benthic ecosystems in fisheries management, 2012- 2017), and an awareness to change, generated by the outcomes of the BENTHIS Project, whose objectives included, among others, ‘to develop sustainable management plans that reduce the impact of fishing and quantify its ecological and socio-economic consequences, together with the fishing industry and other stakeholders on a regional scale’. In addition, the use of pelagic gear with net sounder equipment is key to avoid benthic habitat impact, by avoiding physical impact with the bottom. As concluded in few studies, this type of gear is considered to have very low or a marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; and FAO, 2019), and, as noted above in PI2.4.1, it is highly unlikely to have an impact on the habitat. For all the aforementioned, it is deemed that SG60 and SG80 are met . The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is an ambitious programme to restore

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 173 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. the good ecological status of the Balti c marine environment by 2021. The Plan, adopted by all the Baltic coastal states and the EU in 2007, provides a concrete basis for HELCOM work. It incorporates the latest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation, and stimulates goal-oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region. The BSAP is regularly updated in ministerial meetings. Under the umbrella of the BSAP, several actions are being implemented, as for example the establishment of an ecologically coherent and effectively managed network of coastal and marine Baltic Sea protected areas (HELCOM MPAs) to protect marine habitats and species. Currently, 11.8% of the total marine area of the Baltic Sea is covered by HELCOM MPAs. Thus, the target of conserving at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, set by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was reached already in 2010 in the Baltic Sea. Through Recommendation 35/1 (adopted in 2014), HELCOM further agreed to reach the 10% target for each sub-basin, when scientifically justified. This target has been met in 11 out of the 17 sub-basins, including the Gulf of Riga, which has the highest coverage (i.e., 41%) out of the 17 sub-basins. Nevertheless, in its latest assessment HELCOM (HELCOM, 2016) found that the network is not yet ecologically coherent and improvements are needed (see SIc). The Contracting Parties (including Latvia) committed to this objective through HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 in 2014. HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 also emphasizes the development and implementation of management plans for MPAs, as well as assessing the effectiveness of management plans, or other measures, to ensure protection. One of the commitments is to develop and apply management plans, or measures, for all existing HELCOM MPAs by 2015, and to establish a management plan, or measures, for every new MPA within five years after its designation. This agreement has not been met; currently, of the 176 established HELCOM MPAs, 127 (72%) have a management plan in force, and 39 HELCOM MPAs (22%) have a management plan under preparation (Source: http://www.helcom.fi/action- areas/marine-protected-areas/management-of-sites ). Regarding the monitoring within MPAs, at present, it occurs in 64% of HELCOM MPAs (HELCOM, 2016). The following figure shows the HELCOM MPAs management plan status for the Gulf of Riga as for August 2017 (Figure 3.4.1.7.1 ).

Figure 3.4.1.7.1 . HELCOM MPAs and their management plan status in August 2017. Source: http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/marine-protected-areas/management-

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 174 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. of-sites/ In addition to the HELCOM BSAP, Natura 2000 (EC, 2019) is an EU network of areas of high biodiversity value. It comprises special protection areas (SPAs) established under the 'birds directive' (1979) (Directive 2009/147/EC) and special areas of conservation (SACs) established under the 'habitats directive' (1992) (COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92 / 43 / EEC). These EU directives provide legal protection to the sites, and active management (through management plans) of certain habitats is considered necessary for the conservation of Natura 2000 sites. Natura 2000 represents a strategy for managing, among others, impacts on marine habitats both within Territorial Waters and the EEZ. The EU legislation on which Natura 2000 is based, requires that the impacts of all activities (i.e., “plans or projects”, including fishing activities) taking place within these sites shall be assessed to be certain that they will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (Article 6 of the Habitats Directive). The Natura 2000 network protects natural habitats and species deemed important at EU level, whereas the HELCOM MPAs network aims to protect marine and coastal habitats and species specific for the Baltic Sea. The combination of the HELCOM BSAP and the EU Natura 2000 network represent a strategy for managing impacts of all fisheries on marine habitats in the Baltic Sea (including the Gulf of Riga), thus, meeting the SG100 . b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the work, based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The pelagic trawl is designed not to touch the bottom, therefore this is considered a measure which is likely to work regarding the impact on the sea bed habitats in the UoA. In addition, there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures and strategies in place will work, based on the fact that several studies have concluded that this type of gear is considered to have very low or a marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats and bottom structures (Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; and FAO, 2019). Moreover, VMS data can confirm the location of the fishing activities, demonstrating that there is little or no overlap with VMEs. All this information meets the SG60 and SG80 . However, even though information on the impacts of pelagic trawling on marine habitats exist, no specific testing for the assessed fishery has been performed in relation to its impact on the habitats involved. Actions for reaching the objectives of HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 are in progress, but still only partly accomplished. For example, the goal to ensure that HELCOM MPAs provide specific protection to HELCOM Red Listed species, habitats, biotopes and biotope

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 175 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. co mplexes has not been reached, since many threatened features are n ot protected in any of the HELCOM MPAs, at least not according to information reported by the Contracting Parties (HELCOM, 2016). Based on the above, SG100 is not met . c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi cation The use of a pelagic gear in the fishery, and the fact that this type of gear has only very low or a marginal ecological impacts on benthic habitats (according to scientific studies), can be considered as an evidence that the measures to not cause an adverse impact on habitats have been implemented successfully. Furthermore, the UoC member vessels using net sounder equipment and the VMS data provide evidence of the spatial range where the fleet operates. Since the designation of the first HELCOM MPA in 1994, there has been a substantial increase in the areal coverage of MPAs: in 2004, the protected marine area of the Baltic Sea was 3.9%, in 2010 it was 10.3%, and today, in 2016, it is 11.8%. Thus, the target of conserving at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, set by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, was reached in 2010 in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2016). Three new BSPAs were established in Latvia since 2010, and a fourth was enlarged encompassing EEZ waters. In 2017 (last update), there were 7 HELCOM MPAs in Latvia, covering 33% of the Latvian territorial waters and 1% of its , amounting a total of 4,364km2 (15% of the total Latvian maritime area). From these, four MPAs and part of a fifth (in the Irbe Strait) are in the Gulf of Riga (see Figure 3.4.1.7.1 ). Lacking the part of the Irbe Strait MPA that is within the GoR, the four MPAs cover a total of 2015 km 2 of Gulf of Riga Latvian territorial waters. Taking into account all the Gulf of Riga (Latvia and Estonia), out of the 17 Baltic Sea sub-basins, the GoR has the highest coverage (i.e., 41%). Based on the above, SG80 is met . However, in its latest assessment, HELCOM recognized that that the network of HELCOM MPAs is not yet ecologically coherent and improvements are needed in adequacy (quality of the network) and connectivity (how well the network supports migration and dispersal of species) (HELCOM, 2016). In addition, some of the objectives of the BSAP have not yet been accomplished, such as updating and assessing management plans for HELCOM MPAs. Currently, only 67% of the HELCOM MPAs have management plans and monitoring only occurs in 64% of the HELCOM MPAs (HELCOM, 2016). In particular, out of the five GoR Latvian MPAs, only one has a management plan in place, another has a management plan in preparation and three do not have management plans (Figure 3.4.1.7.1 ). Given the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 176 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. abo ve, the team concludes the SG100 is not met . d Compliance with manageme nt requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non -MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide post There is qualitative There is some There is clear evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its with both its requirements to protect management management VMEs. requirements and with requirements and with protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There is qualitative and quantitative evidence, as described under 2.4.2c (i.e., mid- water trawl design, Latvia being a signatory to HELCOM with respect to HELCOM MPAs, and also as an EU Member State with respect to Natura 2000 sites), confirming that the UoA complies with the management requirements to protect VMEs. Thus, meeting SG60 . The VMEs present in the area of the GoR where the UoA operates are listed in table 2.4.1.1. However, all of the VMEs that have been identified in the GoR are located on the seabed, and as noted in the scoring of PI2.4.1 above, the fishing métier used in the UoA has very little impact on the seabed. Therefore, there are no specific management requirements imposed to the Latvian herring fishery to protect VMEs. Reports published by other relevant MSC UoAs (the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery, the Finland Baltic herring & sprat fishery, and the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden Baltic herring and sprat fishery) were revised. None of these MSC UoAs has adopted additional protection requirements for VMEs. In addition, there are fisheries targeting herring in the Baltic proper conducted with trawl similar to those used for herring and with gillnets. But these fisheries, which are not MSC certified, neither represent significant cumulative impact on the habitats. Therefore, even though there is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant; such evidence cannot be considered clear enough. Hence, SG80 is met, but SG100 is not.

Cabinet Regulation No. 296; Council Directive 92/43/EEC; Directive 2009/147/EC References EC. 2019. Natura 2000 - Environment - European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm ; HELCOM, 2016; Donaldson et al., 2010; Eigaard et al. 2013; FAO, 2019 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATO R SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 177 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information In formation is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the U oA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide post The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all distribution of the main and vulnerability of the habitats is known over habitats are broadly main habitats in the UoA their range, with understood . area are known at a level particular attention to of detail relevant to the the occurrence of

scale and intensity of the vulnerable habitats. OR UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA:

If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the

types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Information on benthic habitat nature, distribution and vulnerability is available from published reports and maps obtained from international projects (BALANCE, MESH project), or GIS-based interactive websites, such as the EMODnet (https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/ , which integrates different databases, including the EUSeaMaps for the whole European coastal and marine range), the HELCOM Map and Data service ( http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/ ) or HELCOM’s updated on-line MPA database launched at the end of 2015 (http://mpas.helcom.fi/apex/f?p=103:5:::::: ). Information on pressures, biotopes, and biotope complexes can be accessed and plotted on maps in HELCOM’s websites. In particular, the HELCOM Red List project (HELCOM, 2013d), defined 328 benthic and pelagic habitats. Of these, 209 biotopes were assessed, of which 59 were red- listed and classified as Critical Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatned. Moreover, ten biotope complexes were recognized. These ten biotope complexes are also listed in the EU Habitats Directive Annex 1, and were all red-listed. The occurrence of vulnerable habitats in the Baltic Sea (including the GoR) is, therefore well understood, hence, meeting SG60 and SG80 . However, maps obtained with HELCOM’s database do not provide a level of detail

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 178 In formation is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the U oA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. relevant to the scale and intensity of th e UoA, therefore, SG100 is not met . b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of to broadly understand to allow for identification the gear on all habitats the nature of the main of the main impacts of have been quantified impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main fully. the main habitats, habitats, and there is including spatial overlap reliable information on of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of use OR of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score Qualitative information is PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available habitats. and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation As stated before (see PI 2.4.1), mid-water trawls are not designed (and therefore it is avoided by the operators) to fish on the seabed and, and only when it accidentally contacts the seabed, could have a very low or marginal ecological impact on benthic habitats. Moreover, from the information available, it is considered to have no effect on the pelagic habitat (i.e., the main habitat). Sufficient and adequate information exists on the fishing operations, i.e., effort, time and area fished trough VMS and catch data, to determine the impacts of the fishery on the habitat, and to reliably know the spatial extent of interaction and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met . However, there is not enough detailed information to fully quantify the physical impacts of the mid-water trawl on all habitats (i.e. water and benthic habitats within the UoA), therefore SG100 is not met . c Monitoring Guid e post Adequate information Changes in habitat continues to be collected distributions over time to detect any increase in are measured. risk to the main habitats.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 179 In formation is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the U oA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Met? Y N Justifi Sufficient and adequa te information continues to be collected t hrough the Data cation Collection Framework and through regular scientific monitoring and research, to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. As well as through the VMS to electronically monitor vessel’s movements. SG80 requirement is, therefore, met .

However, although detailed habitat maps are available (see SIa), there is no systematic programme in place to monitor changes in habitat distributions over time. In fact, HELCOM has already identified this deficiency and in its Monitoring Manual states ( http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and- assessment/monitoring-manual/introduction#Background ): “Currently there is no monitoring in place which targets seabed habitat distribution”, and gives a solution. But, for now, SG100 requirement is not met . References HELCOM, 2013d OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if re levant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 180 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irre versible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to ecosystem structure and elements underlying a point where there function to a point where ecosystem structure and would be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi This PI assesses whether the fishery is disrupting the ecosystem structure and cation function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

As seen in Section 3.4.1 , the key drivers of the Gulf of Riga ecosystem are the oceanographic characteristics, thus, the pelagic ecosystem species (from phytoplankton up to top predators).

The Baltic ecosystem is divided into a number of more or less isolated subsystems (Ojaveer et al., 2010), but herring, sprat and cod migrate between these subsystems. The distribution of the fish inhabiting the Baltic is largely governed by salinity. Marine species dominate in the Baltic Proper, while fresh-water species occur in coastal areas and in the innermost parts (ICES, 2008a).

The Gulf of Riga is a semi-enclosed ecosystem of the Baltic Sea characterized by low salinity that restricts the occurrence of marine species. Compared to the Central Baltic, sprat biomass is low and the food web is simplified by the absence of abundant predators, like cod (ICES, 2013b). Adult herring ( Clupea harengus membras ) is the dominant species and the main planktivorous fish and takes the top role in the pelagic food web (Putnis et al., 2013). Herring predation mortality is likely to be low because cod is found in the Gulf of Riga only in periods when the cod stock size is very high (last time in the early 1980s) (ICES ADVICE 2010 – Book 8). The most significant potential ecosystem impact, therefore, would be the removal of herring biomass. Apart from demersal fish (cod), herring is also a potential source of food for birds and sea mammals, specifically grey seals and ringed seals. These two seals are, according to HELCOM (2018i), not in good status (low abundance and no population increase) in the southern region (Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea, Gulf of Riga and Estonian coastal waters). However, that lack of growth is at least partly a result of declining ice coverage hampering breeding success (see Section 3.4.5.3 for further details). In addition, cetaceans have not been found by observers in any Latvian fisheries for more than 10 years. ICES (2019d) notes that "Three species that feed mainly on herring and sprat (common guillemot, razorbill, and Arctic tern) have increased in number over recent decades." suggesting that food is available and that herring/sprat at

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 181 The UoA does not cause serious or irre versible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. present are not constraining sea birds .

ICES also conducted a multispecies analysis for the Central Baltic (ICES ADVICE 2013 – Book 8) and concluded that increasing herring mortality was unlikely to adversely impact certain components of the ecosystem (i.e., the cod stock). Regarding more coastal areas, Olsson et al (2015) conducted an assessment of the temporal development of 13 coastal ecosystems in the Baltic Sea region (including the SW Gulf of Riga), regarding key ecosystem components in the foodweb and potentially important pressure variables related to climate, hydrography, nutrient status, and fishing pressure. They found that in the SW Gulf of Riga, where two trophic levels were included in the assessment: zooplankton and fish, over the time period assessed (1992-2011), there was an increase in the abundance of perch, great sandeel ( Hyperoplus lanceolatus ) and the non-native invasive predatory cladoceran Cercopagis pengoi . Concurrent with these patterns there was a decrease in the abundance of three-spined stickleback, nine-spined stickleback ( Pungitius pungitius ), flounder and copepods ( Acartia spp.). The first PCO axis exhibited the highest correlation with decreasing nitrogen concentrations and the second axis to decreasing phosphorous concentrations. The years of significant change in the structure of biological ecosystem components in the SW GoR happened in 1997/1998 (Olsson et al., 2015). In addition (as seen in PI 2.4.1), it is considered that the physical activity of trawling is not likely to disrupt the physical oceanographic processes in the Gulf of Riga nor will prevent them from their function (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010). The main influences on physical oceanography in the Gulf of Riga are the saline water flows from the Eastern Gotland Basin and the freshwater inflow from the rivers. The conditions have changed in recent years in response to climate change which has already affected the duration of the ice cover or has shifted fish phenology (e.g. spawning time) (Heip et al., 2009; Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009; Klavins et al., 2016). Taking into account all the above and the fact that the stock assessments show that herring is being harvested sustainably in the GoR, the team concluded that there are evidences that the herring fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. Donaldson et al. 20 10; Heip et al., 2009 ; HELCOM, 2018i; ICES, 2008 a ; ICES ADVICE References 2010 – Book 8; ICES, 2019d; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998; Klavins et al., 2016; Leppäranta and Myrberg, 2009; Ojaveer et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2015; Putnis et al., 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE I NDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 182 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that place, if necessary which in place, if necessary, consists of a plan , in take into account the which takes into account place which contains potential impacts of the available information measures to address all fishery on key elements and is expected to main impacts of the UoA of the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the on the ecosystem, and at UoA on the ecosystem so least some of these as to achieve the measures are in place. Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The Baltic Sea main commercial fisheries (i.e., cod, sprat and herring) are regulated through the Baltic Sea Multiannual Management Plan (MAP), EU Regulation 2016/1139. The Baltic Sea MAP was made in accordance to the CFP (EU regulation 2013/1380) and entered into force in 2016. Its objective is set out in Article 3(3) which states: “The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimized. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.”. The Baltic Sea fisheries management, therefore, is linked to the achievement of good environmental status in the Baltic Sea under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive – MSFD (Directive 2008/56/EC). The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), is based on the ecosystem approach and is structured around several ecological objectives, which are used to define indicators and targets, including managing nutrient input and monitoring implementation. The BSAP defines a full strategy, together with a plan with measures to address all anthropogenic impacts, including fisheries. For example, it states that fisheries shall be managed according to the ecosystem approach, and asks for immediate action to develop long-term management plans for commercially exploited fish stocks. In fact, the EU Baltic Sea MAP is a response to this ask from the BSAP. The BSAP strongly links Baltic marine environmental concerns to important socio- economic issues such as agriculture and fisheries and promotes cross-sectoral tools including marine spatial planning. The BSAP and the MSFD are complementary. Both want to achieve good environmental status (by 2020 in the case of the MSFD, and by 2021 in the case of the BSAP), and both by means of setting out indicators and objectives/targets that will build a plan to achieve this goal. The main difference between the BSAP and the MSFD is that only EU Member States are involved in the MSFD, whereas in the BSAP all Baltic Sea coastal states,

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 183 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. including Russia, implement this plan, and each state establishes appropria te measures that regulate all impacts including fisheries. Thus, SG 60 is met . The EU Baltic Sea MAP and the HELCOM BSAP provide strategies for managing the fisheries impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystems, including the Gulf of Riga. The ecosystem-based approach of these plans is based on scientific input from ICES. In addition, they are reviewed regularly (at HELCOM and ICES) to check whether anthropogenic activities are detrimental to the Baltic Sea ecosystems. Therefore, SG 80 is met . The HELCOM BSAP defines a full strategy which includes a plan with measures that addresses all main anthropogenic impacts, including fisheries. Furthermore, both the EU MSFD and the BSAP, have the aim to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ by 2020 and by 2021 for the MAP and the BSAP, respectively; and the CFP has the objective to achieve MSY for commercial fish stocks by 2020 at the latest. Moreover, the EU Baltic Sea MAP was made in response to the BSAP strategy. Therefore, there is evidence that there are plans which contain measures to address all the main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem and that these are in place, hence, SG100 is met . b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the based on plausible the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly comparison with similar directly about the UoA about the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There are measures to protect, for example, key habitats (see PI 2.4.2) or ETP species (see PI 2.3.2) and are considered to be likely to work based on plausible argument and comparing them with similar fisheries/ecosystems. Therefore SG60 is met . There is objective evidence that the potential impacts of the UoA on key ecosystem features are being managed effectively. The most significant potential ecosystem impact is considered to be the removal of herring biomass. Apart from demersal fish (cod), herring is also a potential source of food for birds and sea mammals. Based on the information available, ICES has concluded that herring is being properly managed in the GoR. In addition (see PI 2.4.1), it is considered that the physical activity of pelagic trawling is not likely to disrupt the physical oceanographic processes in the GoR nor will prevent them from their function (Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Donaldson et al. 2010). Moreover, it is also considered that the coastal zone is not affected. No interaction or hardly no interaction with ETPs have been observed, and direct fishery impacts are not considered to adversely affect these species (see PI 2.3.1).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 184 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Direct testing of the lack of impact can only be done through theoretical ecosystem modelling. There are a number of publications that summarize the status and identify the threats to the Baltic ecosystem (e.g. BALTICStern network or HELCOM HOLAS projects). There is substantial literature on theoretical modelling studies for the fisheries compartment in the Baltic Sea (e.g. Tomczak et al 2012). For the Gulf of Riga, in particular, Putnis et al. (2013) studied the role of herring in the food web dynamics of the GoR. Our best knowledge from this publication is that there are no effects, and gives some objectives basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, therefore SG 80 is met. However, as this is the only study specific for the Gulf of Riga, we cannot have high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, hence, not meeting SG100 . c Management strategy i mplementation Guide post There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi cation There is some evidence that the measures within the strategy is being implemented successfully. Latvia is clearly following the CFP and is managing its national fisheries accordingly, with the aim to achieve good environmental status by 2021 at the latest. The main measure in place that addresses the impact of the UoA on the GoR ecosystem is the herring TAC, which, apart from being set following the scientific advice from ICES, it is being successful implemented. SG80, therefore, is met . The Baltic Sea, including the GoR, ecosystem has been and still is being heavily modified. Analysis of available data for the GoR identified two regime shifts in 1982/1983 and 1988/1989 (see Section 3.4.1.6 and Figure 3.4.1.6.1 ) (ICES, 2014a). Currently, there are large anthropogenic pressures in the Baltic Sea, and the state of the ecosystem health is linked to the pressures and potential impacts acting upon each specific sea basin. HELCOM’s “State of the Baltic Sea” (HELCOM, 2018h) showed that many ecological indicators are not in a good status, including some that are relevant for the UoA (i.e., pelagic habitats or pelagic fish in the Gulf of Riga). In addition, ICES (2019d) stated that, according to recent assessments, many species and habitats of the Baltic Sea are not in good condition. Thus, SG100 is not met .

References Directive 2008/56/EC; Donaldson et al., 2010; EU regulation 2013/1380; HELCOM, 2018h; ICES, 2019d; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998; Putnis et al., 2013; ICES, 2014a OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER ( if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 185 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi cation Information available is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem. Recent publications by the BALTICStern network (https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-programmes-and- projects/balticstern/publications.html ), the HELCOM HOLAS projects (HELCOM, 2010 and 2018h) and other studies (e.g. HELCOM, 2009; Niiranen, 2013; Tomczak et al., 2012) provide thorough information on the fish compartment of the Baltic Sea and on the assessment of the key elements of the Baltic ecosystem. Within most of these publications, information can also be found regarding the Gulf of Riga’s key elements. In addition, specific studies on the Gulf of Riga to broadly understand its key elements are also available (e.g. Ojaveer, 1997; Szaniawska, 2018; Putnis et al., 2013). Therefore, SG80 is met . b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide post Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem between the UoA and elements can be inferred elements can be inferred these ecosystem from existing from existing elements can be inferred information, but have not information, and some from existing been investigated in have been investigated information, and have detail. in detail . been investigated in detail . Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation As mentioned in PI 2.5.1, the key elements of the ecosystem where the UoA fishery is occurring are the oceanographic characteristics in the Gulf of Riga, and the main potential impact would be the removal of herring biomass. Fisheries impacts and the interactions between fishing and the Baltic Sea ecosystem (e.g. Tomczak et al, 2012; Niiranen et al, 2013) and the Gulf of Riga ecosystem in particular (Putnis et al., 2013) have been studied in detail, therefore, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . c Understanding of component functions Guide post The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 186 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. the ecosystem are main functions of these known . components in the ecosystem are understood . Met? Y Y Justifi cation The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the GoR ecosystem are known from ecosystem modelling (i.e., Putnis et al., 2013). In addition the impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and habitats are identified (see PI 1.2.3 for target species, 2.1.3 for primary species, 2.2.3 for secondary species, 2.3.3 for ETPs, and 2.4.3 for habitats). Specifically, the impacts of pelagic trawls on marine habitats and ETP species have been documented and understood, and it was concluded that they were not significant. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are met . d Information relevance Guide post Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi cation As seen in PI 1.2.3, 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.3.3 and 2.4.3, there is adequate information on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be understood. Hence, SG80 is met . Detailed studies have been carried out on the interactions between the UoA and some specific ecosystem elements (i.e. herring, sprat, stickleback, zooplankton). This has allowed ICES to identify ranges for stock biomass and fishing mortality for herring that are compatible with the ecosystem needs of the Gulf of Riga. Therefore, SG100 is met . e Monitoring Guid e post Adequate data continue Information is adequate to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y Justifi cation Adequate data continue to be collected through programs coordinated under ICES and HELCOM (acoustic surveys, environmental mapping programs, coastal mapping of fish stocks, sea bird observer programs), or through initiatives such as the BalticSTERN network, to detect any increase in risk level, therefore SG80 is

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 187 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. met . The EU MSFD and the HELCOM BSAP, have the goal to achieve Good environmental status by 2020 (the MSFD) and 2021 (the BSAP) and through them the Baltic ecosystems (including the GoR ecosystem) are monitored and managed, demonstrating that the information gathered is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Therefore, meeting SG100 .

References HELCOM, 2009; HELCOM, 2010; HELCOM, 2018h; Niiranen, 2013; Ojaveer, 1997; Putnis et al., 2013; Szaniawska, 2018; Tomczak et al., 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMB ER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 188

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework –All UoAs- The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and organised and effective a framework for cooperation with other binding procedures cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to governing cooperation parties, where necessary, deliver management with other parties which to deliver management outcomes consistent with delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N Justifi cation At level of international law, Latvia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 2004. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and P2 (wider ecosystem impacts). Inter alia the regulation states: 1) “The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies”. 2) “The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield”. 3) “The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment.” Underneath the umbrella of the EU CFP, there are many binding regulations covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. A list of the most relevant fisheries Regulations and Recommendations applicable to Baltic fisheries are listed in section 3.5.1 . In addition, the EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) commits Members States to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 189 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. other relevant policies, such a s the CFP, in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach. In Latvia the EU CFP is enacted in the “Fishing Law” (12.04.1995 with later amendment 17.02.2000) which sets the basis for fisheries legislation and institutions responsible for fisheries management and control, as well as national rules on fish resources management. The Fishery Law states that the Ministry of Agriculture in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Laws and Regulations governing the fisheries (including coastal fisheries) shall organize the exercising of the fishing rights owned by the State in territorial waters and EEZ. Estonia, the other country with which Latvia shares the waters of the gulf of Riga, is also a EU member. Further, both States signed an agreement on February 6, 1997, on the management of the gulf of Riga fisheries. In the case of the Baltic fisheries, the EU cooperates with the Russian Federation under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement signed on 2009. The agreement lays down the principles and procedures to ensure that “the exploitation of the straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions”, and it also establishes that “the Parties shall base their cooperation on the best scientific advice available and on anu relevant data, shall apply the precautionary approach and shall agree to develop an eco-system based approach to fisheries management”. Both parties to this agreement participate in the Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee’s (JBSFC) annual meetings, and in ICES working groups that assess the status of Baltic Sea fish stocks (such as WGBFAS). The overall objective of the EU-Russia agreement (Article 4) is compatible with UNFSA Article 10(a). The account of the most recent EU-Russia JBSFC demonstrates that both Russia and the EU take account of Baltic sprat stock status and wider environmental issues when setting annual TAC, meeting the requirements of UNFSA Article 10(j). The meeting also showed that there is currently no agreement on setting an overall TAC and that the Russian fleet is currently not permitted to fish within the EU EEZ. The Russian Government provides data on the catch of Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat which informs annual ICES advice (meeting UNFSA Article 10(h)). Estonia and Latvia signed in 1997 an agreement on the fisheries management in the gulf of Riga. Among other activities, both countries perform (through their national fisheries research institutions) an annual acoustic survey in the gulf of Riga. Based on the above, through Latvian implementation of the CFP, there is an effective national legal system, cooperation with other parties through various international commissions which deliver outcomes consisitent with MSC Principles 1 and 3, thus the assessment team concludes that SG80 requirements are met. Despite the EU CFP sets out binding procedures for allocating fishing opportunities between EU Member States there is no binding agreement in place to determine the allocation of the TAC between the EU and Russia as required by UNFSA Article 10(b). Besides, Russia do not agree with current shares on certain stocks (i.e.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 190 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. central Baltic herring and eastern Baltic cod) and they als o consider that they should have quota for the western Baltic cod stock. Thus, Russian catches may cause overages since they do not respect the EU TACs for the central Baltic herring and eastern Baltic cod. This is not the case for other stocks where agreement on the shares was reached (e.g. Baltic sprat, salmon). Despite there is an signed agreement between Estonia and Latvia since 1997 on the fisheries management in the gulf of Riga, there is no binding agreement in relation to establish a common closed season in the area. A Latvian Cabinet Regulation regulates that trawling for herring is prohibited during the 12 th of May to 10 th of June, while Estonians they might move it around from year to year. At this moment there is a ‘gentlemen agreement’ with the Estonians, so they do not fish in the Latvian EEZ at that time of the year. But there is no binding agreement on this issue. Based on the above, SG100 is not met. b Resolution of disputes Guide post The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within resolution of legal resolution of legal the system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and appropriate to the proven to be effective . context of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There is a potential for legal disputes to arise at three different level: national, EU and between EU and Russia Federation. National disputes are resolved using two mechanisms: political through the ministry and through, potentially, court cases. Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through relevant primary and secondary legislation. Formal procedures apply for the resolution of disputes through the national court systems. In practise disputes are resolved through discussions with stakeholders at the Fisheries Advisory Council (FAC) and at the political level. During the site visit the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that there is no disputes regarding this fishery. Fines and other punishments based on fisheries infringement can appeal to the full judicial process by fishermen, or industry representatives representing a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 191 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. At the EU level conflict resolutions are through the European legislation, ie CFP in this case. Disputes between Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers (Fishery Council). Ultimately, any European citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. At European level there is also the possibility of appealing to the Ombudsman, which investigates complaints about maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union. There are also a wide range of organisations which provide alternative non-statutory avenues for raising concerns and seeking the resolution of disputes, such as trade organisations, professional associations, and advisory bodies (such as the multi-stakeholer Baltic Sea Advisory Council, the intergovernamental Baltfish, or the scientific/technical STECF). The Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) rules on cases brought before it concerning, amongst others, the application of Community legislation. All EU Member States are bound by the EU Treaty to comply with the requirements of the CFP, and any transgressions or disputes can be addressed by the CJEC. Although some cases are referred to the Court from national courts, most cases are brought by the Commission because Member States have failed to transpose and/or implement EU legislation. Individuals have very limited possibility to bring cases directly to the Court, but must rely instead on complaining to the Commission or bringing cases at the national level. Although the role of the CJEC is less visible, it is far from insignificant in the development of the CFP. For example, the Court has been called to judge on catch quotas, free circulation of capital, and the EC’s authority regarding relations with third countries. In case of disputes between Russia Federation and EU member states the EU- Russian fisheries agreement signed in 2009 established a Joint Baltic Sea fisheries Committee which shall “serve as a forum for the resolution of disputes which might arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement”. There is no major outstanding conflicts indicating that the mechanism can be considered effective. Hence the management system incorporates transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes at all levels: national, EU, EU-Russia. The few court cases suggest that the existing mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes (discussions with stakeholders and at the political level) is effective. SG60 and SG80 are met . Both Russian-EU, European and national systems have been tested. The EU legal system have been activated in several court cases. For example, infractions procedures have been made in the past by the EC against several member States for quota overshooting or lack to provide required fisheries data. Occasionally national court cases mainly over punishment related to fisheries regulations infringement occur. However, there is some unresolved issues between Russia and the EU on quota allocation of herring. Therefore, SG100 is not met . c Respect for rights Gu ide The management system The management system The management system

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 192 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on by custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

The EU CFP sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks ): “In view of the precarious economic state of the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by allocating fishing opportunities among Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.” Objectives of the CFP include: (f) contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects; (i) promote coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- economic aspects; These objectives apply throughout the EU EEZ, including Latvian waters. In order to facilitate the engagement of people dependent on fishing for their food and livelihood in the management system, the EU has established and provides funding for regional “Advisory Councils” such as the Baltic Sea Advisory Council. Quota allocation at national level falls under the responsibility of each Member State. In Latvia there are 610 coastal vessels smaller than 12m length (ICES 2018). Most vessels in the coastal fleet are < 5 m and target herring, smelt, round goby, salmon, sea trout, vimba bream, turbot, eelpout, flounder, and cod using fykenets, trapnets, and gillnets. The main coastal fisheries targeting herring in the gulf of Riga are traps (seasonal between April and June) and some nets. The Fishing Law prescribes a default ratio for quota allocation between off-shore and coastal fisheries, with off-shore fisheries taking 97% of the quota and coastal fisheries taking the remaining 3%. However, this ratio varies depending on the species and area. For instance, >15% of the Latvian quota of herring in the GoR correspond to coastal fisheries, and >4% in the Baltic proper. However, this ratio is much lower for sprat (>0.6% in the GoR and >0.04% in the Baltic proper). The quota consumption from coastal fisheries is closely monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture along the fishing season. Actually, if coastal fisheries do not use their quota, at the end of the season it can be transfer to the off-shore fisheries, but

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 193 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or cu stomary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. this was not the case for herring in the last two years according to the information shared by the Ministry of Agriculture during the site visit. Further, there is a spatial management regime for coastal fisheries which involves the local municipalities (e.g. there are three separate management areas in the gulf of Riga). The representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture interviewed during the site visit considered the management system implemented for coastal fisheries as fully satisfactory. Based on the above the assessment team concludes that the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2, thus that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. References EU 2013, ICES 2018c, Latvian Fisheries Law (https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/34871- fishery-law )

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities –All UoAs- The management syst em has effective consultation processes th at are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring I ssue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide post Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood . explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The fishery assessment operate under a flag of an EU Member State within which the organisations and roles associated with the fisheries management process are

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 194 The management syst em has effective consultation processes th at are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties well defined and understood. Exploitation of the Baltic sprat and the central Baltic herring also depend on the management regime established by the EU-Russia Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission. The Baltic Sea region also features active international organisations, such as HELCOM and ASCOBANS, each of which provides a forums for discussion and developing the agenda for improving environmental protection and ecosystem management of the Baltic Sea. In Section 3.5.2 a list of the main Regional and National institutions involved in fisheries management in the Baltic is provided, including a description of their functions, roles and responsibilities. They are summarized in table below (see section 3.5.2 for more details): Table 3.1.2.1 . Institutions involved in the management of the Baltic fisheries Roles and Institution Scope Web site Responsibilities Foster intergovernmental HELCOM Global http://www.helcom.fi/ cooperation to protect the Baltic Sea Inter-Gov’t http://www.helcom.fi/actio organization under n- BALTFISH Global HELCOM Framework areas/fisheries/managemen Multi-stakeholders’ t/baltfish advisory observers Fisheries scientific ICES http://www.ices.dk research and advice To reach agreements EU-RUSSIA Global on management fisheries actions between EU Committee and Russia Implementation of http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ma DGMARE the CFP ritimeaffairs_fisheries/ Technical advice to https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.e STECF EU the EC u/web/stecf/ Multi-stakeholders’ BSAC advisory body to the http://www.bsac.dk/ EC Fisheries Dept. of Legislation and the Ministry of fisheries https://www.zm.gov.lv/en/ Agriculture Management State Licencing, Control http://www.varam.gov.lv/e Environmental and Inspection ng/ Service Latvia Scientific assessment BIOR http://www.bior.gov.lv/en/ and advice Multi-stakeholders’ FAC fisheries advisory body

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 195 The management syst em has effective consultation processes th at are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

All of these institutions have well established protocols covering their purpose, roles, operation, representation, consultation, and decision-making process, as well as for communicating dissemination of policy, decisions and other information. Their roles are well understood and the interaction between them works effectively. Thus, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Consultation processes Guide post The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used . Met? Y Y N Justifi cation When drafting and proposing legislation, the DGMARE shall consult a wide range of stakeholders from public online consultations to meetings with the ACs, MSs, fishing industry representatives and environmental NGOs. As seen on previous SI there are 3 multi-stakeholders’ consultations bodies involved in Baltic and Latvian fisheries: 2 at an European level (BSAC and BALTFISH) and 1 at a National level (FAC). BSAC : The creation of Advisory Councils (ACs, BSAC is one of them) was one of the outcomes of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in response to the EU and stakeholdersʼ desire to increase the laerʼs parcipaon in the CFP process. The ACs prepare recommendations and suggestions on fisheries aspects in the area they cover and transmit them to the Commission or to the relevant national authorities. Submissions may be in response to a request from these bodies or on the ACs own initiative. The ACs are made up of representatives of the fisheries sector and other groups affected by the CFP. At this moment there are 7 ACs: North Sea, North Western Waters, South Western Waters, Pelagic Stocks, Mediterranean Sea, Long Distance, and Baltic Sea (BSAC). Once they are all up and running, there will be 11 Advisory Councils. The BSAC was created in 2006. Its main function is to advise the European Commission and Member States on matters relating to management of the fisheries in the Baltic Sea. The BSAC actively develops policy and advises the European Commission and is an integral part of the EC’s management system. The EU provides financial support to the BSAC to ensure it can fulfil this role. At this moment there are 43 BSAC members, 60% of its Executive Committee is comprised by representatives of the fisheries

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 196 The management syst em has effective consultation processes th at are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties sector, ensuring that their knowledge, interestests and concerns a re taken into account. (LFPO being a member of the Executive Committee). The BSAC meets regularly. At their website can be found the Statutes and rules of procedure, WG procedures, the current annual work programme, and the Annual Reports since 2007. The consultation process to be followed with the ACs is stated in the CFP, and they perform an important role in debating fisheries policy, plans and management measures. BALTFISH constitutes a MS forum for exchange of ideas, views and information to facilitate joint actions and various concrete projects aiming at achieving sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Region. BALTFISH works on two levels (High-level group –HLG-, and Forum Seminar). The Latvian Fishery Advisory Council (FAC) is recognized by the Latvian ‘Fishing Law’ as an advisory body of the Fisheries Department. FAC is the forum for the managers to consult with fisheries representatives and also other stakeholders (BIOR, NGOs) on fisheries regulations. It is an advisory body comprising between 15 and 23 members (it is not a fixed composition). FAC meetings are held by the Ministry 3-4 times a year, depending on the issues to deal with. The LFA has 3 votes on the FAC, and LFPO has 1 vote. These 3 bodies have regular meetings and constitute an effective conduit for incorporating local knowledge into the management system (in particular BSAC and FAC). Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met . However, although consultation is intense there is not always a clear explanation provided on how the information received from the stakeholders is used or not used and therefore SG100 is not met . c Participation Guide post The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and encouragement for all affected parties to be interested and affected involved. parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y N Justifi cation As explained in previous SI, extensive consultative processes are in place at European levels to debate fisheries policy, plans and management measures. The introduction of the BSAC in 2006 provided a structure and formal procedures to incorporate a wider stakeholder community within a regular consultation process. 40% of the seats at the BSAC Executive Committee and General Asembly are allotted to representatives of interest groups affected by the CFP other than the fisheries sector. In the BSAC Executive Committee for the period 2015-2018 were included the following environmental NGOs: OCEANA, World Wide Fund (WWF), Coalition Clean Baltic, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Baltic Sea 2020, and The

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 197 The management syst em has effective consultation processes th at are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Finnish Association for Nature Co nservation. Also, there are other stakeholders representing other interests appart from fishers and environmental NGOs, such as: the Federation of National Organisations of Inporters and Exporters of Fish, the European transport worker’s Federation, and the Dains Active Consumers Association. The EU provides financial support to the BSAC to enable it to provide these opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the management process, facilitating their engagement. Also, the BALTFISH forum seminar level allows representatives from organisations such as ICES and HELCOM to discuss relevant fisheries issues with officials of the MS and EC. At a National level the FAC also provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. However, the participation and involvement of other stakeholders than the fisheries sector seems to be low. and they have no statutory role. All these consultation processes have informed the development of the Baltic Sea MAP and its recent revision. Based on the information presented above SG80 requirements are met. At an European level it is clear that BSAC provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the Baltic Sea fisheries management, and facilitates their effective engagement. However, it is less clear how other maritime and marine organisations are brought into more routine fisheries management consultation. For example the degree to which marine recreation, aquaculture, aggregate extraction and offshore industries are actively facilitated (perhaps as part of an ICZM or marine spatial planning forum) is not obvious. This together with the lack of involvement of environmental NGOs in the national FAC consultations are reasons for considering that SG100 requirements are not fully met.

EU 2013, Latvian Fisheries Law ( https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/34871-fishery-law ) The websites of the following institutions and bodies: http://www.helcom.fi/ , http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/fisheries/management/baltfish , References http://www.ices.dk , http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/ , https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/stecf/ , http://www.bsac.dk/ ; https://www.zm.gov.lv/en/ ; http://www.varam.gov.lv/eng/ ; http://www.bior.gov.lv/en/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 198 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives –All UoAs- The management policy has cl ear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide post Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term guide decision-making, objectives that guide objectives that guide consistent with the MSC decision-making, decision-making, fisheries standard and consistent with MSC consistent with MSC the precautionary fisheries standard and fisheries standard and approach, are implicit the precautionary the precautionary within management approach are explicit approach, are explicit policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation As stated in PI 3.1.1SIa, the CFP has in its Article 2 specific precautionary and MSY objectives to reach sustainable fisheries: “The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)” . Furthermore, the CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment. In particular it shall, among other objectives: “(….) gradually eliminate discards; make the best use of unwanted catches; provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities; take into account the interests of both consumers and producers; and be coherent with the Union environmental legislation” ; while it states that “in order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks”. These long term objectives are clear and explicitly defined and entirely consistent with MSC fisheries standard. Besides, the 2013 reform of the CFP also embraced a long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. The EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) also commits Members States to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, such as the CFP, in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach, in order to meet the following targets by 2020. In Annex I provides qualitive descriptors for determining good environmental status, among them we list the following as relevant for fisheries:

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 199 The management policy has cl ear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within safe biological limits, exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; . All elements of the marine food web must occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long ‐term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity; . Biological diversity must be maintained and the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; and . Sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structure and functions of the ecosystems. It is apparent that there are clear long-term objectives in place for guiding decision making at the international, EU and national level that meet SG60 and SG80 . However, there is no binding agreement in place to determine the allocation of the TAC between the EU and Russia as required by UNFSA Article 10(b). SG100 is not met.

References EU 2013, EC 2018 OVERALL PERFOR MANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if rel evant): N/A

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives –All UoAs- The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide post Objectives , which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives , which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives , expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and consistent with achieving implicit within the 2, are explicit within the the outcomes expressed fishery-specific fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 and management system. management system. 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The fishery-specific management system is defined as the EU CFP, the Baltic Sea MAP and the national management regimes established by EU Member States. A multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 200 The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. (Regulation (EU) 2016/ 1139) ent ered into force in July 2016 . In its Article 3 the Regulation establishes the following long-term objectives for the Plan: 1. “The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY”. 2. “The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies”. 3. “The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC”. Regarding this objective the Plan shall ensure that the first descriptor mentioned in the previous SI is fulfilled, and also contributing to the fulfilment of the all the others. 4. Measures under the plan shall be taken in accordance with the best available scientific advice. In order to achieve these long-term objectives, the Regulation establishes target fishing mortalities (F MSY ) to be achieved as soon as possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 for the stocks concerned (including the three stocks assessed against the P1 and the eastern Baltic cod assessed against P2 in the current assessment). Once F MSY has been achieved “it shall be maintained thereafter” within the ranges set out in the Regulation (see Section 3.5.5 for a description of the plan and PI 3.2.2 for more details on decision making processes derived from the MAP). Further, since this is a multi-species MAP, target values to be used for fixing fishing opportunities for a particular stock will depend on both intra- and inter-species stock dynamics. During the course of this assessment, amendments to the Baltic Sea MAP are being developed by the EU. The key changes that are being introduced are to remove the reference points for fishing mortality and biomass set out in the MAP and instead to make an explicit link to the current ICES reference points for the Baltic Sea fish stocks addressed by the MAP. This change addresses the problems that arise when, for instance, the perception of stock identity changes; or when there is a change in perception of stock status that might result in new reference points for F and B. The reference of the Baltic Sea MAP to EU Directive 2008/56/EC (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) represents an explicit commitment to achieve good environmental status. The evaluation of Good Environmental Status under this Directive is rigorous and comprehensive and follows pre-determined and objective criteria that apply throughout Europe.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 201 The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Therefore, the multiannual management plan regulating the sprat fishery in the Baltic Sea has well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Hence, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

References EU 2013, EU 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes –All UoAs- The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide post There are some decision- There are established making processes in place decision-making that result in measures processes that result in and strategies to achieve measures and strategies the fishery-specific to achieve the fishery- objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan (MAP) sets out fishery-specific objectives and also provides the overall strategy for achieving these objectives. This plan was introduced in 2016 by the EU and is due to be amended in 2019. The decision-making process for agreeing the MAP and its subsequent amendment is set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU 2012). Very briefly, the European Commission prepares a proposal for new legislation which is presented to the European Parliament where it is discussed and amended. If agreed by the European Parliament, the legislation is then forwarded to the European Council for approval. Regulation 2016/1139 (EU 2016), adopted in July 2016, introduced new decision making processes for fisheries targeting cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic. In its Articles 4 and 5 (and Annexes I and II) the Plan sets out ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) for most of the cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (with the exception of the EBC and the Bothnian Bay herring) and details a decision-making process for fixing fishing opportunites of the concerned stocks (sprat, herring and cond) depending on both intra- and inter-specific stock dynamics. The process is detailed in the following points quoted from its Article 4: 2. In accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, fishing opportunities shall be fixed in accordance with the objectives and targets of the plan and shall comply with the target fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I,

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 202 The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. column A, to this Regulation. 3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, fishing opportunities may be fixed at levels corresponding to lower levels of fishing mortality than those set out in Annex I, column A. 4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, fishing opportunities for a stock may be fixed in accordance with the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column B, provided that the stock concerned is above the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point set out in Annex II, column A: (a) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 3 in the case of mixed fisheries; (b) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics; or (c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20 %. The application of this paragraph shall be explained by a reference to one or more of the conditions set out in points (a) to (c) of the first subparagraph. 5. Where, according to scientific advice, the MSY exploitation rate is achieved for the stock concerned by 2020, fishing opportunities for that stock may be fixed in accordance with paragraph 4 thereafter. 6. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. Further, it continues in Article 5, where the following process is detailed: 1. The conservation reference points expressed as minimum and limit spawning stock biomass levels that are to be applied in order to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks concerned are set out in Annex II. 2. When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column A, to this Regulation, all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, to achieve such levels, fishing opportunities for the stock concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I, column B, to this Regulation, taking into account the decrease in biomass of that stock. 3. When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column B, to this Regulation, further remedial measures shall be taken to ensure the rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY, which may include, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 203 The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. (EU) No 1380/2013, suspending the targeted fishery fo r the stock concerned and the adequate reduction of fishing opportunities. 4. Remedial measures referred to in this Article may include: (a) Commission measures in case of a serious threat to marine biological resources in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) Member State emergency measures in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (c) measures pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of this Regulation. 5. The choice of measures referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with the nature, seriousness, duration and repetition of the situation where the spawning stock biomass is below the levels referred to in paragraph 1. 6. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points. This plan was introduced in 2016 by the EU and is due to be amended in 2019. This set of procedures constitutes a established decision-making process resulting in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives . SG60 and SG80 are met . b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide post Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and take account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and implications of decisions. decisions. take account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The ICES working group structure (annual stock assessments and advices), and the consultative structure built into the decision-making process at the EU-level (STECF / ACFA / AC / DG MARE working groups/DG environment), and the consultation requirements at the regional/national levels does mean that serious and other important issues are considered. Certainly latest scientific advice, and industry and social implications play key roles in shaping decisions. Decision making processes respond to intra- and inter--species stock dynamics in the case of the Baltic Sea MAP.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 204 The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Further, the CFP has also in the past served as the basis for introducing regulations to protect marine mammals from the impact of fishing activity (Regulation EC 812/2004) in response to concerns about cetacean bycatch in salmon drift nets. Outside the EU CFP, the EU has several strategies in place to respond to other management in the Baltic Sea. The Natura 2000 (EC 1992) programme establishes a management framework, including decision making processes, for the protection of species of wildlife and for natural habitats. There are links between this Natura 2000 programme and the CFP which allow for the protection of areas of seabed outside a Member State’s area of. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC 2008b) established a programme for delivering the “good environmental status” (GES) of regional seas in the EU, including the Baltic Sea. The MSFD is based upon an objective assessment of impacts on the marine environment by all human activities that forms the decision base for management actions by the EU and Member States that are intended to achieve GES by 2020. In the Baltic Sea the work on the MSFD is complementary to the 1974 Helsinki Convention and the work of HELCOM and the signatories to this convention (which includes all of the EU Member States and Russia) to achieve the objectives of this convention (also “good environmental status”) by 2021. As with the MSFD process, HELCOM responds to all management issues in the Baltic Sea. Evidence of the success of HELCOM can be seen in the reduction of pollution inputs to the Baltic Sea and the recovery of marine mammal populations. Hence, SG60 and SG80 are met. In recent ICES advice concerns have been raised about the level of species misreporting in herring catches, and that the 9% inter-species quota transfer should be accounted for in setting the TAC (ICES 2018g). However, there is no evidence that the decision-making processes have responded to this issue yet. In the case of the Baltic sprat a recommendation was issued by ICES in 2014 about the need to develop a spatial management plan for the sprat fishery with the aim of improving cod condition. This recommendation was reiterated in 2018 (ICES 2018h). The EU has asked ICES for advice on mixed fisheries and biological interactions in the Baltic Sea, and ICES are investigating this issue (ICES 2018i). However, there is no evidence that the decision-making processes have responded to this aspect of managing the sprat stock. The Plan makes provision to established some closed areas between 1 May to 31 October but there is no clear decision making process established for achieving a responsive and adaptive spatial management. Althouhg in its Article 8 establishes that “The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts (…) regarding the following technical measures: (…) (c) limitations or prohibitions on the use of certain fishing gears and on fishing activities, in certain areas or periods to protect spawning fish, fish below the minimum conservation reference size or non-target fish species, or to minimise the negative impact on the ecosystem” . Based on the information presented above the team considers that SG100 is not met

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 205 The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. c Use of precautionary approach Guide post Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi cation Both targets, F (and safeguards) and SSB have been above their respective targets for at least the past 10 years and have been calculated using precautionary and MSY approach, and they are based on ICES assessments and advice. Removals from European fisheries is guaranteed by the EU Data Collection Framework, and ICES base their advice on the most up-to-date information available. The TAC is determined on an annual basis and this decision is informed by advice from ICES, STECF and the BSAC. The basis for taking these decisions is set out in the Baltic Sea MAP, which is itself founded on precautionary advice provided by ICES. Hence , SG 80 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide post Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance fishery’s performance interested stakeholders and management action and management action provides comprehensive is generally available on is available on request , information on the request to stakeholders. and explanations are fishery’s performance provided for any actions and management actions or lack of action and describes how the associated with findings management system and relevant responded to findings recommendations and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation emerging from research, and review activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation ICES reports and advice are publicly accesible, as well as STECF recommendations. It is also possible to see the outputs of the EU-Commissions’ deliberations (Agreed Records/Communications / Regulations), while a Regulation fixing the fishing opportunities for different fish stocks in the Baltic Sea is published on an annual basis. Any interested stakeholder can check whether ICES advice on appropriate levels of exploitation have been transposed into appropriate TACs. All these records describe how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation, and review activity. SG60 and SG80 are met . Although there is very clear formal reporting of both management and scientific actions from those two processes there is little ‘non technical’ reporting to the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 206 The fishery -specific management syste m includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. public or industry, making difficult to derive clear explanation of the decis ions that take place during the process. Therefore, SG100 is not met . e Approach to disputes Guide post Although the The management system The management system management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely to avoid legal disputes or continuing court fashion with judicial rapidly implements challenges, it is not decisions arising from any judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation There is no evidence that either the management authority (the EU and its Member States) or the vessels and fishing companies included in the UoA are subject to any court challenges or breaching any of the other legal requirements listed in SG60. The SG60 requirements are therefore met. There are a number of mechanisms in EU and Latvian fisheries management which act proactively to avoid legal disputes, and these are much improved in recent years. Following the review of the CFP in 2002, much increased emphasis was placed on stakeholder engagement in the management process as a means of proactively avoiding disputes. Stakeholder consultation through Advisory Councils (AC) is with the CFP reform in 2013 an integral part of the functioning of this system. The BSAC plays an important role in bringing parties together (industry – across all sectors, science, NGO) early on in the management process, thereby reducing the likelihood of management measures which trigger dispute. Additionally in Latvia, the Ministry of Agriculture through the FAC acts proactively with the industry to discuss management proposals, address industry concerns and inform of up-coming regulations. There are regular meetings between the industry and the Ministry which have done much to foster proactive dialogue. Neither the management system or the fishers are subject to any judicial decisions or legal decisions at present, meeting the SG80 requirements. There is also evidence of the management system acting proactively to avoid disputes at the EU and national level, meeting the SG100 requirements.

References EC 2004, EC 2008, EC 2009, EU2013, EU 2016, ICES 2018g, ICES 2018h, ICES 2018i, OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 207 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement –All UoAs- Monitoring, control and surveillance mechani sms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide post Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability fishery and has reasonable expectation to enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Fisheries rules and control systems are agreed at EU level, but implemented and carried out by the national authorities and inspectors of EU Member States. The basis for enforcement of fisheries controls in EU waters is the Control Regulation (1224/2009). This requires, inter alia, that fishing vessels over 15m LOA broadcast a VMS and AIS signal; that all vessels over 10m LOA have a logbook and that vessels over 12m LOA have an electronic logbook. The key fisheries rules and regulations in place for the Baltic Sea herring fisheries are the catch constraints imposed by the annually agreed TACs, the technical measures included in Baltic Sea MAP (Regulation 2016/1139) and also in Regulation 2187/2005. These technical measures are mainly: more restrictive measures for prior reporting and the use of logbooks, establishing a margin of tolerance for catches landed unsorted (see SIc for more details), and effort restrictions in the Gulf or Riga. The EU “Landing Obligation” applies to Baltic Sea fisheries. Baltic herring and sprat fisheries are not subject to any Minimum Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS), and there has therefore been no incentive to discard undersized fish in the past (in contrast to demersal fisheries in other parts of the EU). The Landing Obligation does however establish inter-species quota transfer rules which permit a vessel targeting herring to land up to 9% by weight of sprat, and vice-versa. The EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) was established in 2007 to strengthen and coordinate controls across all national enforcement authorities to bring about improved uniformity and effectiveness of enforcement. This was further reinforced by the EU control regulation (Reg 1224/2009) which came into force on 1st January 2010. In July 2013 The EU adopted an Action Plan to reinforce the Latvian monitoring, control and surveillance system. This plan made possible for Latvia to set up an effective administrative structure, with appropriate IT systems and enough resources. The Action Plan was designed jointly with the Latvian authorities following the results of the Comission’s audits, and it has been publicly

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 208 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechani sms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. acknowledged by the EU ( https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/latvia -ahead -schedule - improving-fisheries-control_en ) that Latvian’s MCS system has improved as a result of its adoption. During the site visit, the SES handed to the team the annual report sent to the EFCA detailing all the activities performed during 2018. Further, the SES prepared an ad-hoc report for the team detailing the inspections, infrigments and sanctions imposed to the off-shore fisheries during 2018. Details presented below are based on those pieces of information (together with the information shared during the meeting held with the SES representative as part of the site visit). The activities of the Latvian fisheries (both off-shore and coastal fisheries) are comprehensively monitored by the Fisheries Control Department (FCD), under the State of Environmental Service (SES). The SES supervises the work done by the control Units of the 4 environmental Regional Boards existing along the Latvian coast (Liepaja, Ventspils, Riga, and Salacgriva,). Besides, there is a mobile Marine Control Unit which can also perform inspections (they normally tackle the more complicated cases since its movements are less predictable for the fishers). A total of 27 senior inspectors were deployed in 2018, distributed as follows: 8 in Liepaja, 8 in Ventspils, 3 in Riga, 3 in Salacgriva and 5 in the mobile unit. There is also an ecologist included in the mobile unit. The FCD has 1 vessel, but they are also work in close cooperation with the Coast Guard and the Border Guard to carry out the inspections at sea. No plane is available for these tasks. The SES has access to the LZIKIS and during the site visit it was reckognised that the recent implementation of this traceability system has improved their capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of underreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. The notifications sent by the vessels and the information of non- compliances are also uploaded to the LZIKIS. Catch records from the coastal fisheries are also entered manually into the LZIKIS. The SES also receives the VMS data from the off-shore fishing fleet. The VMS installed are transmitting with a high frequency (every 2 minutes). In Riga there is a person 24h checking the signs. They mainly verify that all VMS are working properly and the fleet respect closed areas and seasons. Inspections in the sprat fishery are focused in controlling that the quota allocated to each company is not exceeded, and in verifying total landings and sprat/herring estimates. Inspections are performed both at quay side and at sea. The inspections are scheduled by the SES based on the risk-based assessment (see below) and the monitoring of the quota consuption. When a company reaches a point where only 3-4 tonnes of the quota are left it is not allowed to go fishing again, the remaining quota must be sold or it can also be transferred to the following fishing year. Fishing vessels are divided in three levels according to risk points: low risk vessels (from 0 to 10 risk points), high risk vessels (from 11 to 15 risk points) and very high risk vessels (from 16 and more risk points). Levels are determined using following criteria: 1) gear type (OTB, OTM, TBS, GNS, LLS, LLD and PTM) 2) is the fisherman also a first buyer 3) is the fisherman also a producer of fish products 4) penalty points. In 2018, SES performed a total of 165 inspections at sea and 851 port inspections, of which 26 and 130 respectively, correspond to the herring fishery in the gulf of Riga. The Coast Guard and Border Guard collaborated in the at sea inspections. A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 209 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechani sms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. total of 1 3 infringments were discov ered in the Latvian fishing fleet in 2018, resulting in penalties for a total of 7,796 euros. Only 2 of infringments were serious and were assigned with penalty points to the vessel license owners. Out of those 13 infringments only 1 corresponded to the herring fishery in the Gulf of Riga, however this resulted to be one of the serious infringments, since the amount of herring found on board exceeded the reported volume by 166%. A sanction of 3,500 euros was imposed to this vessel. This vessel was already rated as high risk. The rate of serious infringments reported to the EFCA in 2018 was 0,006%. The level of achievement of predefined benchmarks was higher in the case of ashore inspections to high risk and very high risk vessels and also in the case of inspections at sea for high risk vessels, only in the case of the inspections at sea for very high risk vessels the percentage achieved was below the predefined benchmark. According to the EFCA standards the level of achievement is within the acceptable range and there was no need for the SES to include any proposal for improving effectiveness of the control, inspection and enforcement activities carried out by Latvia. Different training and capacity building activities were implemented by the SES during 2018, as reported to the EFCA: (i) 4 seminars concerning the Common Fisheries Policy and the use of LFIKIS were organized and implemented for the Latvian inspectors. (j) Two technical courses for the Latvian inspectors were implemented (k) An experience exchange conference with Estonian/Lithuanian inspectors was held in Riga. Based on the information presented above, the team concludes that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Sanctions Guide post Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation According to the Latvian Administrative Penalty Code in case of violation of the rules of fishing in the territorial waters, the economic zone waters or in international waters legal persons can be fined from 140 € up to 4,300 € (depending on the severity of the infringement). Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to one year can be applied. In case of repeated violation of fishing regulations during the year legal persons can be fined from 700 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. For fishing without authorization, in prohibited place, or with prohibited gear, legal persons can be fined from 1,400 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 210 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechani sms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. license up to three year can be applied. The SES reported to EFCA that a total of 13 infringments were discovered in the Latvian fishing fleet in 2018, resulting in penalties for a total of 7,796 euros. Out of those 13 infringments, 8 correspond to off-shore fisheries in the Baltic proper (sprat, cod) and only 1 corresponded to the herring fishery in the gulf of Riga. However the infringement in the gulf of Riga resulted to be a serious infringments, since the amount of herring found on board exceeded the reported volume by 166%. A sanction of 3,500 euros was imposed to this vessel, while the 8 infringments found in the off-shore fisheries in the Baltic proper resulted in sanctions ranging between 140 and 500 euros. This vessel was already rated as high risk. The rate of serious infringments reported to the EFCA in 2018 was 0,006%. Based on the information discussed above, the team considers that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . c Compliance Gui de post Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of providing information of information of importance to the importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of effective management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation During the site visit SES confirmed that compliance has improved in Latvian fisheries during the last 6 years, and no concerns were raised in relation to the NZRO fleet. This was also confirmed by the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture interviewed. During the site visit BIOR representatives interviewed confirmed good understanding with the fleet both in relation to the port sampling procedure implemented for this fishery as part of the EU-DCF and in relation the necessary collaboration to get observers on board as par of the implementation of the Regulation (EC) 812/2004 on cetaceans. A total of 156 inspections (26 at sea and 130 on-shore) were carried out by the SES to the mid-water trawl fleet targeting herring in the gulf of Riga in 2018, and a single sanction was imposed to this fishery. Based on the above, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are met . Article 13 of the Baltic Sea MAP establishes that: “for catches which are landed unsorted the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10 % of the total quantity retained on board”. This means that the margin of tolerance applies to all species together, while previously the Latvian authorities applied this

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 211 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechani sms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. margin to each of the species (more restrictive). Therefore, since Regulation 2016/1139 entered into force there are more chances that misreporting between species caught might take place. This concern was expressed by the SES representative interviewed during the site visit, despite it was also acknowledged that the recent implementation of the LFICIS system has improved the SES capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of underreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. However, this is preventing the team to score 100 at this SI. SG100 is not met. Based on the concern expressed above the team decided to set a non-binding recommendation to the fishery. See section 6.4 for more details . d Systematic non-compliance Guide post There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi cation The Latvian authorities confirmed during the site visit that they have no specific concerns in relation to the compliance of the mid-water trawl fleet targeting herring in the gulf of Riga. According to the ad hoc report prepared to the team, a total of 156 inspections (26 at sea and 130 on-shore) were carried out by the SES to the mid-water trawl fleet targeting herring in the gulf of Riga in 2018, and a single sanction was imposed to this fishery. This data are in accordance with the total figures presented by the SES in their annual report to the EFCA. The assessment team concluded that there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance with rules and regulations for the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet targeting herring in the gulf of Riga. ICES has raised concerns in recent advice about species misreporting (herring/sprat) in the Central Baltic fisheries, while the SES expressed some concerns in relation to a regulatory gap which may facilitate species missreporting in the mid-water trawl fisheries targeting sprat and herring (see previous SI). However, no direct evidence has been presented to the assessment team to indicated that there is a systematic non-compliance in relation to reporting an accurate estimation of the species composition of the catches. SG80 is met.

EC 2004, EC 2005, EC 2008, EC 2009b, Cabinet of Ministers 2018, Law on Latvian Administrative Violations Code. https://likumi.lv/ta/en/id/89648- References latvian-administrative-violations-code Cabinet of Ministers 808/2014. Latvian Regulation on penalties. https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=145113 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 212 Evaluation Table for PI3.2.4 – Monitoring & management performance evaluation –All UoAs- There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide post There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation ICES performs regular internal reviews and benchmarks of its stock assessments and advices. At the EU level, the CFP is reviewed every decade (most recently 2012). Further, the EU Commission regularly consult the STECF on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines (click here ). At the STECF website can be found the reports elaborated by the STECF and its Working Groups assessing all parts of the EU fishery management system, such as: . Data Collection Framework (DCF/DCR): reports related to the DCR/DCF. The reports refer to topics such as evaluation of national programmes, indicators, review of surveys, data quality aspects, etc. . Economic analysis (fleet, processing, aquaculture): reports referring to topics such as the annual economic reports on the profitability of EU fleets, the fish processing sector, etc . Evaluation of Effort Regimes: reports referring to the evaluations of fishing effort regimes regarding e.g. Annex IIA of TAC & Quota Regulations, etc . Management Plans: impacts and evaluations: reports referring to topics such as multi-annual management plan evaluations, impact assessments, harvest control rules (HCRs), etc. . Review of Scientific Advice for Stocks: reports referring to the advice on stocks and fisheries provided by the STECF. . Balance between capacity and fishing opportunities: reports referring to STECF’s reviews of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. . Environmental Impacts: reports referring to topics such as by-catches of cetaceans, sensitive habitats, etc. . Landing obligation: reports referring to topics such evaluation and reduction of discarding practices, including annual evaluations of joint recommendations on LO

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 213 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

. Technical measures: reports referring to topics such as net selectivity, etc. . Strategic issues: reports referring to topics such as how to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries, etc... . CFP monitoring: reports referring to monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Article 15 of the Baltic Sea MAP states that by 21 July 2019, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the results and impact of the plan on the stocks to which this Regulation applies and on the fisheries exploiting those stocks, in particular as regards the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 3. The Commission may report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself. This review is currently underway since an amended MAP has been agreed by the European Parliament. The European Commission elaborated in 2016 a proposal for a Regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. This new regulation would repeal current Council Regulation (EC) establishing technical measures for the Baltic Sea fisheries (Council Regulation 2187/2005). This proposal aims to improve the performance of the different regulations establishing technical regulations and their consistency with existing EU-CFP and other Union policies. This process was subject to ex-post evaluations, stakeholder consultation and impact assessments, in accordance with the EU regulation. The proposal can be consulted here: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:134:FIN The Latvian fishery management institutions have amended the fisheries legislation in place to ensure that it remains relevant. In the context of the assessed fisheries, the purpose of the national legislation and management systems outlined here is to ensure that there are appropriate institutional and legal mechanisms in place to enforce the EU-CFP and the Baltic Sea MAP. The fishery-specific management systems (defined as the EU CFP, the Baltic Sea MAP and relevant technical regulations and the Latvian management system) are regularly evaluated through established mechanisms which are described below. Hence, SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met . b Internal and/or external review Guide post The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The Latvian parliament reviews the fishing law at irregular intervals. The CFP is revised every 10 years. Between 2012 and 2015, the Commission

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 214 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. perfo rmed a review aimed to improve the performance of the different regulations establishing technical regulations (including Regulation 2187/2005) and their consistency with existing EU-CFP and other Union policies. These processes are subject to ex-post evaluations, stakeholder consultation and impact assessments, in accordance with the EU regulation. The EU Commission regularly consult the STECF on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines (click here ). At the STECF website can be found the reports elaborated by the STECF and Working Groups referred to many topics: DCF, Economic analysis, MAPs, scientific advice, landing obligation, technical measures, CFP monitoring. Just as an example of how regular the evaluation is done: the STECF evaluates the DCF reports received every year, and the joint recommendations on landing obligations has been evaluated on an annual basis since 2016. Regulation 2016/1139 makes provision in its Article 15 for an internal review of the results achieved by the Plan every 5 years, as stated above in SI(a). However, the possibility for an earlier review is also considered: “ The Commission may report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself ”. The European Parliament agreed a proposal for a revised Baltic Sea MAP in late 2018, and this review is due to be completed in 2019. ICES performs regular internal reviews and benchmarks of its stock assessments and advices. Besides, ICES work brings together a wide range of national scientists, and in so doing builds external perspectives into the assessments and advice, in particular during benchmarking evaluations exercises. Overall, it is clear that the management system and the scientific advice are subject to regular internal and occasional external review. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met . However, it cannot be claimed that the fishery management system is subject to regular external review, and therefore SG100 is not met .

EC 2005, EU2013, EU2016

References STECF website: stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports Link for the proposal on the modification to EC 2005: https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:134:FIN OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN DICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 215 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 N/A

Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) The team has scored the productivity and susceptibility of each data-deficient scoring element using PF4: PSA productivity attributes and scores and PF5: PSA susceptibility attributes and scores. As a result the following tables were generated. Table 1.2.2.a. PSA Rationale Table

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) European flounder ( Platichthys flesus )

Attribute Rationale Score

2-3 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

12 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 2 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

400.000 to 2.000.000 eggs for each female (From FishBase Fecundity 1 website).

45 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

15-18 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average size at maturity 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss)

The expert from BIOR (M. Plikss) told us that there might be two Reproductive strategy different species with two different spawning strategies, 2 therefore, for precautionary reasons we give a score of 2.

3,1 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 2 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

During the workshop it was decided not to consider the whole Areal Overlap geographical range of distribution for P. flesus as there might be 1 two different species (from what BIOR’s expert Dr. M. Plikss told us). The flounder found in the GoR is actullay not a common

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 216 species for the GoR as it is a more marine species, and even in coastal areas is rare.

It is a species that even though it performs vertical migrations, it Encounterability is a demersal species, therefore there is a low overlap with the 1 fishing gear. (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. )

From the size-frequency distribution of flounder, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013-2018 (performing a total of 115 hauls), flounder’s most Selectivity of gear type common sizes are between 16 and 22 cm. Bearing in mind that 3 the common herring nets are 16 mm mesh size (and therefore anything of at least 10 cm length will be caught), it means that flounder will be retained in the fishing gear.

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

PI number 2.2.1

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) European smelt ( Osmerus eperlanus )

Attribute Rationale Score

2-4 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Average maximum age 10 years (From FishBase website) 2

400 – 131.000 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 2 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 1 and 2, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 2.

26 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Average size at maturity Lm = 12,8 cm. Range = 15-18 cm (From FishBase website) 1

Demersal egg layer (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis Reproductive strategy (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. 2 M. Plikss).

3,1 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 2 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 217 N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

Although it is only in summer, it is all over the Gulf of Riga (GoR), Areal Overlap therefore there is a significant areal overlap (Dr. M. Plikss pers. 3 comm. ).

It is not a truly pelagic species. It feeds on benthos, but the Encounterability 3 encounterability could be significant. (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. )

From the size-frequency distribution of smelt, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013- 2018 (performing a total of 115 hauls), smelt’s most common Selectivity of gear type sizes are between 8 and 14 cm. Bearing in mind that the 3 common herring nets are 16 mm mesh size (and therefore anything of at least 10 cm length will be caught), it means that smelt are frequently caught.

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Fourhorn sculpin ( Myoxocephalus quadricornis ).

Attribute Rationale Score

Average age at maturity . 3-5 years (From FishBase). 1

12 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 2 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

2.000 to 26.000 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 2 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 1 and 2, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 2.

34 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 218 Average size at maturity 15 cm (From FishBase) 1

Benthic eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Reproductive strategy Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. 2 Plikss).

3,3 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 3 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is found in very warm waters. There is over 30 % overlap (Dr. Areal Overlap 3 M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

It is a benthic species and unless the gear is pushed down, which is dependent to a seasonal effect and hardly ever happens, there Encounterability 1 is a low encounterability with the fishing gear (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

From the size-frequency distribution of four-horned sculpin, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013-2018 (performing a total of 115 hauls), four-horn Selectivity of gear type sculpin’s most common sizes are between 9 and 20 cm. Bearing 3 in mind that the common herring nets are 16 mm mesh size (and therefore anything of at least 10 cm length will be caught), it means that sculpins are frequently caught.

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Eel pout ( Zoarces viviparus )

Attribute Rationale Score

2 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

10 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 2 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 219 30-200 offspring (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Fecundity Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. 2 Plikss).

40 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

17 cm (16-18 cm) (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis Average size at maturity (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. 1 M. Plikss)

Reproductive strategy Internal live bearer. 3

3,25 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Trophic level 3 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

Areal Overlap High areal overlap (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ). 3

It is purely demersal. It can only appear as Herring by-catch Encounterability during spring. The encounterability is therefore low (Dr. M. Plikss 1 pers. comm. ).

From the size-frequency distribution of eel pout, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013-2018 (performing a total of 115 hauls), eel pout’s most Selectivity of gear type common sizes are between 11 and 19 cm. Bearing in mind that 3 the common herring nets are 16 mm mesh size (and therefore anything of at least 10 cm length will be caught), it means that eel pout are frequently caught.

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

C. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Shorthon sculpin ( Myoxocephalus scorpius )

Attribute Rationale Score

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 220 Average age at maturity . 3-5 years (From FishBase). 1

12 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 2 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

2.000 to 26.000 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 2 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 1 and 2, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 2.

34 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Average size at maturity 15 cm (From FishBase) 1

Benthic eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Reproductive strategy Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. 2 Plikss).

3,3 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 3 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

D. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is found in very warm waters. There is over 30 % overlap (Dr. Areal Overlap 3 M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

It is a benthic species and unless the gear is pushed down, which is dependent to a seasonal effect and hardly ever happens, there Encounterability 1 is a low encounterability with the fishing gear (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

From the size-frequency distribution of four-horned sculpin, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013-2018 (performing a total of 115 hauls), four-horn Selectivity of gear type sculpin’s most common sizes are between 9 and 20 cm. Bearing 3 in mind that the common herring nets are 16 mm mesh size (and therefore anything of at least 10 cm length will be caught), it means that sculpins are frequently caught.

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the N/A scoring element is scored

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 221 cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Three-spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ).

Attribute Rationale Score

1-4 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

6 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

30 to 1.950 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 3 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 2 and 3, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 3.

8 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

4-5 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average size at maturity 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Demersal eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Reproductive strategy Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. 2 Plikss).

3,1 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 2 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is distributed all over the GoR, therefore, there is a high areal Areal Overlap 3 overlap (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

It is a very superficial species. Only in summer, in the spawning period, it becomes more coastal, but at that time the fishery is Encounterability 1 not active, therefore the encounterability with the fishing gear is low (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 222 From the size-frequency distribution of the three-spined stickleback, according to data from hydroacoustic surveys conducted by BIOR between 2013-2018 (performing a total of Selectivity of gear type 115 hauls), three-spine stickleback’s most common sizes are 5 2 and 6 cm. Even though it is small, as it has spines, the potential of the gear to retain the species is medium. (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Nine-spined stickleback ( Pungitius pungitius ).

Attribute Rationale Score

1 year (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

4 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

80 to 960 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 3 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 2 and 3, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 3.

7 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

3-4 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average size at maturity 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Demersal eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Reproductive strategy Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. 2 Plikss).

3,1 (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: Trophic level 2 pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 223 Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is distributed all over the GoR, therefore, there is a high areal Areal Overlap 3 overlap (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

It is a very superficial species. Only in summer, in the spawning period, it becomes more coastal, but at that time the fishery is Encounterability 1 not active, therefore the encounterability with the fishing gear is low (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

Even though it has spines, as it is smaller than the three-spined Selectivity of gear type stickleback, the potential of the gear to retain the species is low 1 (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Sand gobies ( Pomatoschistus microps and P. minutus ). Scoring element (species) There are two species of Sand goby with are very difficult to differenciate, therefore it was decided to score them together.

Attribute Rationale Score

7 months - 1 year (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis Average age at maturity . (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. 1 M. Plikss).

1-2 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

600 to 3.400 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis Fecundity (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. 2 M. Plikss).

6,4 cm ( P. microps ) and 7 cm ( P. minutus ) (From: Plikss M., Average maximum size Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). 1 Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Average size at maturity 3-10 cm (From FishBase). 1

Reproductive strategy Demersal eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). 2 Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 224 Plikss).

3,3 ( P. microps – score of 3) and 3,2 cm ( P. minutus – score of 2) Trophic level (From FishBase), therefore, and following the precautionary 3 principle, a score of 3 was chosen.

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

They are coastal species, therefore, there is a low areal overlap Areal Overlap 1 (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

They are sea-bottom species, therefore the encounterability with Encounterability 1 the fishing gear is low (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

They are very small species, therefore, the potential of the gear Selectivity of gear type 1 to retain the species is low. (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ).

Attribute Rationale Score

2-4 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average age at maturity . 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

7-8 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

94 to 2.190 eggs (with a mean absolute fecundity of 645 eggs) (From: Tomczak M.T. & Sapota M.R., 2006. The fecundity and gonad development cycle of the round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus Pallas 1811) from the Gulf of Gdańsk. Fecundity Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies XXXV(4):353-367). 2 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 1 and 2, but to follow the precautionary principle and the fact that the mean absolute fecundity is over 100 eggs, we’ve chosen a score of 2.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 225 25,3 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Even though we could not find the average size at maturity, as Average size at maturity the maximum size is 25,3 cm (and therefore below 40 cm), we’ve 1 chosen a score of 1.

Demersal spawning (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis Reproductive strategy (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. 2 M. Plikss).

Trophic level 3,05 2

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is a coastal species which moves to deeper waters when they Areal Overlap run out of food, therefore there is a 20-30 % areal overlap (Dr. 2 M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

They are sea-bottom species, therefore the encounterability with Encounterability 1 the fishing gear is low (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

As it is a large species, the potential of the gear to retain the Selectivity of gear type 3 species is high. (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

A. Productivity

Scoring element (species) Straightnose pipefish ( Nerophis ophidion ).

Attribute Rationale Score

Even though we could not find the average age at maturity, as the average maximum age is 3 years (and therefore the average Average age at maturity . 1 age at maturity will certainly be below 5 years), we’ve chosen a score of 1.

3 years (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum age 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 226 40-450 eggs (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss). Fecundity 3 From the information gathered above, the score would be between 2 and 3, but to follow the precautionary principle, we’ve chosen a score of 3.

20 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average maximum size 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

12 cm (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Average size at maturity 1 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Live bearer (From: Plikss M., Aleksejevs E. 1998. Zivis (Fish). Riga, Reproductive strategy 3 Gandrs: pp.304 (In Latvian). Translated to us by Dr. M. Plikss).

Trophic level 4 (From FishBase) 3

Density dependence N/A

B. Susceptibility

Fishery only where the scoring N/A element is scored cumulatively

Attribute Rationale Score

It is a coastal species, therefore there is a low areal overlap (Dr. Areal Overlap 1 M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

As it is not a fully demersal species, the encounterability with the Encounterability 2 fishing gear is medium (Dr. M. Plikss pers. comm. ).

As it is a very thin species (i.e., 3-4 mm of diameter), the Selectivity of gear type potential of the gear to retain the species is low. (Dr. M. Plikss 1 pers. comm. ).

Post capture mortality High risk of the fish dying if taken by the gear. 3

Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is scored N/A cumulatively

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 227

In order to score the overall productivity and susceptibility risk scores (PSA score) and the equivalent MSC scores for each scoring elements, the team used the MSC RBF Worksheet below.

Susceptibility Scores [1 -

Productivity Scores [1-3] 3] Cumulative only

score derived derived (average) (average) Fecundity Fecundity Weighting Weighting Selectivity Selectivity Availability Availability PSA Score Score PSA Catch (tons) Catch (tons) Trophic level level Trophic MSC PSA- MSC Weighted Total Total Weighted Encounterability Encounterability Risk Category Name Risk Category Total Productivity Productivity Total Average max age age max Average Species Fishery size max Average Total (multiplicative) Total (multiplicative) Density Dependance Dependance Density Weighted PSA Score Score PSA Weighted Reproductive strategy strategy Reproductive mortality Post-capture MSC scoring guidepost scoring MSC Average age at maturity at age Average Scientific name Common name type descriptor Maturity size at Average Osmerus Non- eperlanus European smelt invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1,57 3 3 3 3 3,00 3,39 62 Med 60-79 Platichthys European Non- flesus flounder invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1,43 1 1 3 3 1,20 1,87 98 Low ≥80 Zoarces Non- viviparus Eel pout invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 1,86 3 1 3 3 1,65 2,48 84 Low ≥80 Myoxocephalus Non- quadricornis Fourhorn sculpin invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1,71 3 1 3 3 1,65 2,38 89 Low ≥80 Myoxocephalus Shorthorn Non- scorpius sculpin invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1,71 3 1 3 3 1,65 2,38 89 Low ≥80 Gasterosteus Three-spined Non- aculeatus stickleback invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1,57 3 1 2 3 1,43 2,12 94 Low ≥80 Pungitius Nine-spined Non- pungitius stickleback invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1,57 3 1 1 3 1,20 1,98 96 Low ≥80 Pomatoschistus microps and P. Non- minutus Sand goby invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1,57 1 1 1 3 1,05 1,89 97 Low ≥80 Neogobius Non- melanostomus Round goby invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1,43 2 1 3 3 1,43 2,02 95 Low ≥80 Nerophis Straightnose Non- ophidion pipefish invertebrate Pelagic trawl 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1,86 1 2 1 3 1,13 2,17 93 Low ≥80

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Condition 1 for PI2.2.1 –All UoAs-

2.2.1 SG80: Main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits OR If below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably Performa effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and nce rebuilding. Indicator AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Score for 60-79 smelt

Smelt ( Osmerus eperlanus ) was classified as ‘main’ i.e. that the catch includes more than 5% of smelt. Rationale Stock status reference points for smelt in the Gulf of Riga are not available, derived neither from analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches and smelt was scored based on RBF. The smelt stock in the Gulf of Riga was found to score 60-79 based on the fish being sensitive to fishing and because the overlap with the fishery is high (See susceptibility attributes).

The status of the smelt stock in the Gulf of Riga should be established based on stock status reference points. The status should be based on an analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches. In order to reach SG80, the outcome of the smelt stock shall be highly likely above Condition the biologically based limits.

Or if the stock is found to be below biologically based limits and there is no evidence of recovery the Client should approach authorities to establish an efficient strategy ensuring the Gulf of Riga herring trawl fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the smelt stock in the area.

Year 1 [2020] The Client to present evidence that a competent organisation has been contacted and agrees on developing stock status reference points for the smelt in the gulf or Riga Year 2 [2021] The Client to present evidence that the data for developing the stock status reference points has been compiled – if available – or that sampling has been established that will provide any missing information Year 3 [2022] The Client to present the reference points to be used to determine the status of Milestone the smelt in the gulf of Riga. At this point in time it should be clear if there is a need for additional s measures to safeguard the smelt stock and if so, the Client should present evidence that competent authorities have been approached and that work is in progress to introduce relevant measures (at least for the UoA) that will allow a SG80 scoring in Year 4. Year 4 [2023] The Client to present a stock assessment based on biologically set reference points of the smelt stock and, if required, demonstrate that relevant changes in the management has been introduced, The changes should assure that the G. Riga herring fishery together with other possible MSC UoAs operating in the Gulf iof Riga are not hindering recovery and rebuilding of the smelt stock. The scoring of smelt to be revisited and to reach 80.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 229

Society ‘’Nacionalas zvejniecibas razotaju organizacija’’ Action Plan Riga, September 24, 2019 General aspects (years 2020-2024): This monitoring is being provided by the Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment "BIOR" (BIOR). Procedure for sampling (reference to BIOR methodology): • Random sampling methodology for biological sampling from fishing vessels: https://www.bior.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/Random_sampling.pdf • Collection of biological data for industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea: https://www.bior.lv/sites/default/files/inline-files/Guidelines_observer_Baltic.pdf ) The Institute will organize the collection of the necessary information within the framework of the Latvian National Fisheries Data Collection Program. The BIOR Institute will carry out an indicative assessment of the state of the smelt stock using hydroacoustic data. Here it will be possible to calculate the smelt biomass index and estimate its changes over the years. Similar to what was done in the initial certification evaluation, cf. image:

Client action plan

The smelt stock in the Gulf of Riga corresponds to ICES Category 3 - stocks for which survey- based assessments indicate trends. There is no analytical evaluation for this stock and it is not possible to define the reference values used for stock. Survey indices will be used as benchmarks to measure the annual changes in the relative volume of slag based on hydroacoustic index information (biomass index). Year 1: An analysis of the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2020-2021 will be carried out. This labor will be entrusted to a Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR) at a national level, in order to develop a report that can be available for the audit that will be carried out one year after the approval of the certification. A special objective of the mentioned analysis will be to determine the incidence in the capture of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus). Year 2: With the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2021-2022, in addition to the one obtained in the previous year, a new analysis will be carried out that will also be entrusted to a Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR). The objective will be to prepare a new report for this biannual period, in order to be available for the audit that will be carried out on the second year after the approval of the certification. According to the results obtained and, in the case that recommendations are defined, the appropriate measures will be adopted to be implemented in the next fishing season. Year 3: With the information collected at the end of the fishing season 2022-2023, in addition to that obtained in the previous two years, a third analysis will be carried out, which will also be entrusted to a Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR). The aim will be to develop a new report containing the information collected during these three years, which will be available

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 230

for the audit to be conducted upon completion of the third year after the approval of the certification. According to the results obtained and possible recommendations to be defined, the appropriate measures will be adopted to be implemented in the next fishing season. Year 4: As in previous years, the recollection of information will continue and, at the end of the fishing season 2023-2024, with the global information obtained between 2020-2024, a fourth analysis will be carried out. This labor will, once again, be entrusted to a Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR). This analysis must be available for the audit that will be carried out on the fourth year after the approval of the certification. According to the results that emerge from this report, it will be defined if it is necessary to take new measures in the operation of the ships.

Society Nacionalas zvejniecibas razotaju organizacija Chairman of the board ______Viesturs Ulis

Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR) Head of Fish Resources Research Department ______Didzis Ustups

BV acknowledges that the action plan was discussed with BIOR. E-mails were exchanged between BIOR, the client and BV to clarify the objective and goals requested. Further, the client sent a PDF copy of the action plan signed by both the NZRO and BIOR, see snapshot of the signatures below.

Consultati on on condition

Condition 2 for PI2.3.1 –All UoAs- 2.3.1: The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species Performance The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Indicator SI (a)SG80: Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 231

species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stock are known and highly likely to be within these limits

Score 75 Midwater/pelagic trawl is considered by the ICES WGBYC to pose a higher risk (category 2) than other mobile gear. ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology shows no pelagic trawl interaction with harbour porpoise, but does indicate capture of other cetaceans (common dolphins), highlighting potential for risk to other cetacean species (17 common dolphin caught in German pelagic trawl in ICES divisions 6 and 7). With regard to cumulative impacts two MSC assessed fisheries overlaps with the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery and have been assessed under MSC FCR v2.0: the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden Baltic herring & sprat fishery and the Finnish herring and sprat trawl and trap fisheries. The team assessing the Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Sweden Baltic herring and sprat fishery confirmed during harmonisation meetings held during the preparation of the second surveillance audit report (and drafts shared with Rationale the BV team) that observer coverage in those fisheries was below 5%. Furthermore, the ICES WGBYC note that while bycatch in pelagic trawls are considered extremely rare, observing 5% of pelagic trawl effort in the Baltic cannot provide estimates of total cetacean bycatch with an acceptable level of uncertainty. SG80 level requires justification that cumulatively (across Latvia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Estonia) all MSC fisheries are highly unlikely to have an impact above the acceptable limit of 8.5 harbour porposie. Across six countries, this equates to 1.5 individual harbour porpoise each. On the basis of the available evidence, including frequency / proportion of observer coverage, the combined effects of the UoAs, covering Latvia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Estonia can not be considered to be highly likely to be within the ASCOBANS limit of 8.5 individuals. SG80 is not met. In accordance with FCR 7.11.1.3a, the CAB considers that the following exceptional circumstances determine that achieving a performance level of 80 may take longer than the period of certification: - Joint effort from at least 16 different UoAs from 6 different countries are required to fulfil this condition. - At the time of preparing this report the remaining certificate period for the Condition LFPO fishery is less than 3 years. However, during the harmonisation meetings it was agreed with Lloyd’s Register to

provide at least until 2023 to the affected UoAs to fulfil this condition. Therefore, the condition should be met within the first certificate period.

CONDITION: By 2023 it shall be demonstrate that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population of Baltic proper harbour porpoise are known and highly likely to be within ASCOBANS limits for acceptable anthropogenic removal. At the moment of preparing this report the DDES Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery is still busy preparing their action plan, and the LFPO will joint that action plan once approved. Most of the affected UoAs also have a condition on information. The draft milestones discussed during the harmonisation meeting are presented below:

Milestones Year 1 (2020): Prepare a proposal for developing a multi-national plan for collection of data across all MSC UoAs on the incidental capture of harbour porpoise, that is independently verified and that demonstrates the combined impact on this species. Score: 75 Year 2 (2021): Agree and adopt the multi-national plan. Score: 75 Year 3 (2022): Implement the multi-national plan. Score: 75 Year 4 (2023): Evaluate initial data and propose strategies to minimise impact if

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 232

required. Score: 80

In addition to the harmonized milestones explained above, the client has to achieve the following milestones for the first two years: Year 1 (2020). In order to help preparing a proposal for developing a multi-national plan, the client shall gather all relevant information in relation to interactions with harbour porpoises: (i) recorded by the Latvian fishers in compliance with the Article 8.10 of Cabinet Regulation 296/2007; (ii) collected by observers as a result of the implementation of Regulation (EC) 812/2004. Year 2 (2021). The client shall agree a joint action plan with the other overlapping MSC UoAs. Since the DDES Baltic Herring & Sprat Fishery is still working on its action plan to address the harmonized milestones (see above), the client has prepared there specific action plan for the first year milestones. The LFPO and the Finnish fishery will collaborate to develop a joint action plan. The client action plan developed by the client is presented below: As a result of the implementation of Regulation (EC)812/2004, interactions between Latvian fisheries and harbour porpoise in Baltic sea are being monitored by BIOR. They have observers on board the pelagic trawl fishing fleet (including NZRO vessels), both in the Baltic proper and the Gulf of Riga. Further, Republic of Latvia Cabinet Regulation No. 296, Article 8.10 determines that fishers shall inform the State scientific institute (BIOR): “regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals (for example, Client action plan harbour porpoises, seals) and to perform the relevant entries in the fishing logbook”. It is mandatory by law to record and report interactions with harbour porpoises.

Also, in our organization the data sheet used by fishermen to record catches has a special row (‘others’) where they should write species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals. Our fishermen are well aware of this legal requirement.

The NZRO commits to the following action plan aimed to fulfil the condition established on PI2.3.1: Year 1 (2020). The NZRO commits to collect and analyse all data collected in Latvia in relation to interactions between fisheries and harbour porpoises. Further, we will get in contact with the other MSC UoAs and start to work in close collaboration in order to develop a joint action plan Year 2 (2021). A joint action plan shall be adopted Year 3 (2022). The joint action plan shall be implemented. Annual reports prepared by BIOR on the implementation of Regulation (EC) 812/2004 are available under request (as confirmed by the team during current surveillance audit).

Consultation on The client contacted via email on 19/0//2019 with the contact person of the ‘Estonia, condition Germany, Sweden Baltic herring and sprat fishery’ to express their interest to work together towards a joint action plan regarding the condition on PI2.3.1. BV. BV got a copy of this email.

Condition 3 for PI1.2.2 –UoA2 (Central Baltic Herring) & UoA3 (Baltic Sprat)-

Performance PI 1.2.2: Harvest control rules and tools -

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 233

Indicator There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place . SIc SG80: Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Central Baltic Herring: 75 Score Baltic Sprat: 75

Central Baltic herring The main tool available in the fishery to implement the HCRs is the TAC. Recent stock biomass and fishing mortality are estimated in the stock assessment process and are then used as input values to implement the HCR. Other tools available to support the HCRs are minimum mesh size, area and season closures to protect spawning and juvenile fish, gear specifications to prevent bycatch of protected species and a negative impact on the ecosystem and, the fixing of minimum fish sizes to protect juvenile fish. These are technical measures considered under Article 8 of the MAP. The EU TAC for herring in subdivisions 25-28(20), 29 and 32 has been implemented since 2007. With the exception of 2012 when the TAC was marginally exceeded, catches were equal or below the agreed TAC during that period and the stock size is in full reproductive capacity (ICES Advice 2018, Table 7) showing that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation, SG60 is met .

Rationale

Figure 4: Figure showing relationship between ICES advice, agreed TAC and actual catches for Central Baltic Herring over the period 2007-19. Data from ICES Advice.

However, recent implementation has resulted in fishing mortality above FMSY (0.22) and above the MAP FMSY ranges (0.16-0.22 and 0.22-0.28). The assessment team is of the opinion that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate but have not always proven effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. Further, in the light of possible misreporting and in the absence of effective mechanisms to agree EU – Russian quotas in line with scientific advice, SG80 is not met .

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 234

Baltic Sprat The main tool available in the fishery to implement the HCRs is the TAC. Recent trends in biomass and fishing mortality are estimated by the stock assessment process and are then used as input values to implement the HCR and determine the TAC. A comparison of the ICES advice, estimated catch and the agreed TAC since implementation of the MSY framework in 2012 (see figure below, ICES Advice 2019, Table 7) shows that the TAC exceeded the advice in some years, likely related to the absence of an agreed allocation process between the EU and Russia. The ICES estimate of the catch is by and large at the level of the TAC or lower. Overall, therefore, the TAC is based on scientific advice and generally there is compliance, providing some evidence that the tool is appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. SG60 is met .

Figure 5: Relationship between ICES advice, the annual TAC and catches for Baltic sprat between 2012 and 2020. Data from ICES advice.

Proven, acceptable technical measures, including gear limitations (e.g. mesh sizes), minimum landing size and maximum bycatch percentages, are also in place and contribute to achieving the exploitation levels required. In Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and to a lesser degree in Poland, much of the sprat catch is taken in industrial fisheries for which ICES has commented that large bycatches of other fish species (mostly herring) may arise. It is also thought likely that there is some misreporting of catches, because estimates of the species composition of clupeid catches are imprecise in some mixed pelagic fisheries (ICES 2018 WGFBAS). The ICES Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) is aware of these issues and will no doubt be taking them up in its forthcoming Benchmark analysis. The assessment team is of the opinion that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate but have not always proven effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR. Further, in the light

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 235

of possible misreporting a nd in the absence of effective mechanisms to agree EU – Russian quotas in line with scientific advice, SG80 is not met.

Evidence shall be presented to demonstrate that the harvest control tools in use for the fishery (the overall TAC) is appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation Condition levels required under the Harvest Control Rules in place. In particular, that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Year 1 (2021): The client group shall present evidence that they have approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets. Resulting score: 70

Year 2 (2022): The client group shall present evidence that they have approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets. Resulting score: 70

Year 3 (2023): The client group shall present evidence that they have approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Milestones Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Resulting score: 70

Year 4 (2024): Evidence shall be presented to show that the TAC agreed by the EU Member States combined will all other fishery removals is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets. Resulting score: 80

Note that if the Year 4 milestone is achieved earlier in the certification cycle it may be possible to re-score PI1.2.1 SIc and close this condition sooner than anticipated.

Client action plan Nacionalas zvejniecibas razotaju organizacija

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 236

Ganibu dambis 24D, cab. 420, Riga, LV-1005, Latvia, phone +371 67383197; E-mail – [email protected] VAT ID LV40008083320. Bank account number LV34HABA0551034367572 AS „Swedbank”, code HABALV22

December 18, 2019 No. 01-01/85

The client action plan

Year 1 (2021): The client presents evidence that he has approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Year 2 (2022): The client presents evidence that he has approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Year 3 (2023): The client presents evidence that he has approached relevant national authorities and EU institutions (including DG-MARE and the Baltic Sea Advisory Council) to encourage the adoption of a TAC by EU Member States that is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Year 4 (2024): The client presents Evidence that show that the TAC agreed by the EU Member States combined will all other fishery removals is compatible with the exploitation levels required by the harvest control rules in place for all fishery removals, and in particular that the uptake from the fishery results in a fishing mortality (F) consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield targets.

Society "Nacionalas zvejniecibas razotaju organizacija" Chairman of the Board Viesturs Ulis

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 237

Consultation on NA condition

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 238

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

REPORT FROM PEER REVIEW A

General comments Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Res ponse to Peer Reviewer's comments (as initial Peer Review stage). Peer included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Reviewers should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery consistent with No In general yes, but in too many places the In this Appendix the CAB has provided responses to all the the MSC standard, and clearly based on the report relies on loosely argued rationales questions posed by the reviewer, and in some cases more evidence presented in the assessment that are not backed by sufficient evidence. details have been provided in the sections and scoring tables report? Particularly for LTL, P1 reference points, of the main report. However, no significant changes in the lamprey bycatch and ecosystem effects scores have resulted. this is problematic. Are the condition(s) raised appropriately Yes No further comments are needed written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub- clauses]

Is the client action plan clear and sufficient No The action plan for condition 1 lays out The client's action plan states in year 4 that "according to the to close the conditions raised? nicely the necessary actions for BIOR, but results that emerge from this report, it will be defined if it is [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2-7.11.3 and lacks a formal commitment by the fishery necessary to take measures in the operation of the ships". sub-clauses] to implement any measures necessary The first step is to identify reference points that allow to (either because it turns out the smelt is in a determine the status of the smelt in the Gulf of Riga and then, bad status, or because the status cannot the need to implement management measures will be be assessed. discussed. The team considered sufficient the action plan presented. In any case, the client's action plan is not binding, only the milestones are

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 239

Enhanced fisheries only: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Optional: General Comments on the Peer N/A Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary)

PI comments PI PI PI PI Peer Revie wer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Res - Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) ponse Code

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 240

1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring The argument presented (in chapter Score is maintained. The text might have been more clear Not accepted implications implications 3.3.1.2) to support the designation of for which we apologize. Herring is the top predator in the (no score unknown) unknown) GOR herring as a non-key LTL is not pelagic complex in the Gulf of Riga and predation on adult change) at all strong enough to carry the herring is low, the main top predator seems to be seals consequences that this designation (grey seals and ringed seals). Both are according to has for scoring outcomes. HELCOM core indicator report July 2018 not having good 1. It relies on an unpublished status (low abundance on no popultion increase) in the (unfinished) ecosystem model. southern region (Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea, Gulf of 2. It relies on a model that is not Riga and Estonian coastal waters) . However, that lack of comprehensive - it does not include growth is at least partly a result of decining ice coverage marine mammals or birds. Both hampering breeding success . Cod only exist in significant spotted and grey seal have herring as numbers in the Strait of Irbe and SAMBAH 2016 found only a part of their diet - indicating a about 500# harbour porpoise out of about 21,000# in the potential 'significant predator summer in the northeastern area. Cetaceans are not dependency'. found by observers in any Latvian fisheries for more than 1+2 = not a credible model - see GSA 10 years. Concerning the poor cod growth ICES 2.2.9. ecosystem Overview 2018 notes "It is hypothesized that 3. It does not use the information in the reduced mean size and growth of the eastern Baltic the model in a quantitative way (other cod stock since the 1990s is due to size-selective fishing, than in the most trivial sense reduced size at maturation, poor condition of cod, hypoxia, "numerous" and "several"). While SA and parasite infestation." and also "Three species that feed 2.2.9 does specify numerically what mainly on herring and sprat (common guillemot, razorbill, 'large' and 'few' means, GSA 2.2.9 and Arctic tern) have increased in number over recent contains several ways to determine decades." suggesting that food is available and that the three criteria quantitatively, based herring/sprat at present is not constraining sea birds. The upon e.g. Ecopath results. Ecosim model has been presented at various occassions If a credible, at least partially see e.g. Ivars Putnis, Bärbel Müller-Karulis, Georgs quantitative, argument for or against Kornilovs 2013. Food web dynamics of the Gulf of Riga: LTL status can actually be made on the role of herring ICES CM 2013/E:34 which shows that the basis of the unpublished Ecopath the model in earlier versions has been presented within the model, it is important that the model ICES community. The model is indeed credible. The model results are presented properly in the work is conducted within the BONUS Bluewebs report, because key information must programme. be made available to stakeholders (FCR 4.4).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 241

1.1.1 Yes No (no Scoring issue b: The justification text Score is maintained. Apology if the text is unclear and Not accepted score quotes Sa 2.2.4, but not 2.2.4.1: thank you for the clarification. The assessment team (no score change "teams shall demonstrate that F has assumes that the PR A refers to BMSY when comparing change) expected) been low enough, long enough to with the SSB and not FMSY ensure that (Bmsy) is likely to be met." While the fact that SSB has been mostly below Fmsy since 2011 on the face of it seems to make this likely, the assessment team does not demonstrate this (e.g. by comparing this timespan to generation times), but leaves the reasoning to be done by the reader. 1.1.1 Yes No (no SI a: The assessment team assumes Score is maintained for the time being.Thank you for the Not accepted score an ecosystem impact limit of 400 kt, comment. The text is harmonised with the assessments (no score change based upon the minimum made by the Latvian Baltic Sprat and The Finnish Herring change) expected) requirement of 20% Bzero. But given fisheries. The peer reviewer is probably right and the topic a single-species Blim (=PRI) of 410 will be taken up with the next harmonisation meeting with kt, this is not in accordance with the these fisheries. (quoted!) SA 2.2.12 "substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired." At the current SSB level, this is probably immaterial - but if audits are based upon a 400 kt threshold, there is a real risk that ecosystem impacts could occur without audit teams reacting to it.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 242

1.1.1 Yes No SI b: SA2.2.13 requires either an Score is maintained. The assessment of the status of the Not accepted (material ecosystem needs reference point of Open Sea Herring and the Baltic sprat are harmonised with (no score score 75% Bzero or a higher or lower target the assessments made by the Latvian Baltic Sprat and The change) reduction (down to 40% Bzero) IF it can be Finnish Herring fisheries. The Gulf of Riga herring is not expected to demonstrated that this does not assessed as LTL species. The argumentation for the <80) severely impact abundance levels of herring and sprat LTL stock are based on an assessment other species/trophic groups. The of B0 (FCR 2.01 SA2.2.13).See comment above assessment team uses Bmsy (50% concerning the Baltic sprat. The argument of the peer Bzero) as reference point, without reviewer that this is reversal to single stock reference presenting any evidence that such a points should be directed at the groups that defines the stock level does not severely impact standard rather than at a specific assessment that applies other species. Without such the standard . demonstration, the assessment is de facto circumventing the LTL requirements by using the same reference point (Bmsy) for SIb as any other (non LTL) assessment would. 1.1.1 Yes No (no SI a: The assessment team assumes See comment above Not accepted score an ecosystem impact limit of 400 kt, (no score change based upon the minimum change) expected) requirement of 20% Bzero. But given a single-species Blim (=PRI) of 430 kt, this is not in accordance with the (quoted!) SA 2.2.12 "substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired." At the current SSB level, this is probably immaterial - but if audits are based upon a 400 kt threshold, there is a real risk that ecosystem impacts could occur without audit teams reacting to it.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 243

1.1.1 Yes No SI b: SA2.2.13 requires either an Score is corrected. Thank you for pointing out the error, Accepted (material ecosystem needs reference point of the score is corrected. See comment above. (non-material score 75% Bzero or a higher or lower target score reduction (down to 40% Bzero) IF it can be reduction) expected to demonstrated that this does not <80) severely impact abundance levels of other species/trophic groups. The assessment team uses Bmsy (50% Bzero) as reference point, without presenting any evidence that such a stock level does not severely impact other species. Without such demonstration, the assessment is de facto circumventing the LTL requirements by using the same reference point (Bmsy) for SIb as any other (non LTL) assessment would. ]Note also that the harmonised score for 1.1.1 (90) has not been corrected here (it still reads 100)] 1.2.1 Yes No (non- SI a: For the two (possibly three) LTL Score is maintained. The harvest strategy that is evaluated Not accepted material stocks, it is not at all clear that the takes into account numerous studies of the foodweb in the (no score score harvest strategy is designed to meet Baltic, the foodweb is dominated by the commercial change) reduction 1.1.1A SG80 objectives (i.e. species which is a very significant proportion of the expected) ecosystem needs). The ICES advice biomass at these troåhic levels in the Baltic Sea Propoer. . and EU MAP clear recognises The harvest strategy in the open sea are harmonised with multispecies interactions, but other assessments that has been approved. primarily between commercial species, not from a comprehensive ecosystem perspective (which is what 1.1.1A requires).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 244

1.2.2 Yes No SI a: For the two (possibly three) LTL Score is maintained. The development of the Open sea Not accepted (material stocks, it cannot be argued that they herring and the Baltic sprat is as far as this is determined (no score score are expected to keep the stocks by fisheries dependent on the exploitation outside the Gulf change) reduction fluctuating around a level consistent of Riga. The arguments lack of food for cod is not carried expected to with ecosystem needs (given that by a low biomass of sprat/herring but based on lack of <80) they are not currently at this level, nor geographical overlap between sprat (and to some degree designed to achieve it - see herring) and cod.See also comment based on ICES comments above, for 1.1.1 SIb and Ecosystem Overview 2018 on causes for the poor cod 1.2.1) growth. 1.2.3 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

1.2.4 Yes No (scoring SI d and e: The latest benchmark of Score is maintained. The Gulf of Riga herring stock has Not accepted implications the GOR herring was 2008 been at the present level for a very long time and the stock (no score unknown) (according to the 2019 ICES advice assessment as not shown any problems with tracking this change) sheet). In light of the long timespan srock development, perhaps because the lack of major without benchmark assessments, the changes in the stock status. A benchmark without contrast assessment team should perhaps in the data, indications of problems with the stock reconsider whether GOR herring still assessment (e.g. retrospecitive patterns) or significant new meets SG100 for these two scoring understandaing of the population dynamics seems to be a issues. waste of time. PI 1.2.4d SG100 requires "The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored." The test is that the stock assessment seems to track the stock development appropriately and the studies on using e.g. ecosim models suggests that alternative hypotesis are being explored. 2.1.1 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 245

2.1.2 Yes No (no Scoring agreed - but the argument Thank you for the comment. The repeal occurred after the Accepted (no score would be stronger if it was shown that closing date for new information - at the end of the site score change the 3% cod bycatch threshold (as the visit/30 days after the site visit. This repeal will be change) expected) most important measure) is set at a considered at the next surveillance audit. On the level that ensures that the fishery substance of the comment the catch of estaren Baltic cod does not hinder recovery (I'm pretty was in 2018 around 21repeal sure this can be done - it just requires a bit of calculation to show what 3% would be in tonnes relative to the directed cod catch in other fisheries). [Note also that 2187/2005 and the 3% threshold is no longer in place (repealed by 1241/2019 - June 20, 2019)] 2.1.3 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

2.2.1 Yes No (no BIOR sampling data really should be We agree with this comment, but unfortunately we don't Accepted (no score presented as a table (rather than a have the raw data to produce such table. We requested score change plot), since they are used for the raw data to BIOR but unfortunately they never sent them. change) expected) designation of main and minor In any case the team considers that precautionary species, it is important for approach was applied in relation to the P2-species transparency, to be able to see the identification and classification. actual numbers, and how they relate to the 2 & 5% thresholds. 2.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Other species: agreed No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 246

2.2.2 Yes No SIa, Smelt: With a 62 score for smelt Catches of smelt have been documented to be up to Not accepted (material in 2.2.1, and variable, but 12.3% (never higher). Despite this, Regulation 2187/2005 (no score score occasionally very high bycatches (i.e., the 10 % limit) has not been breached (please, see change) reduction (>700 t in 2018) it is bold to suggest comment for PI 3.2.3). In addition, it might well be that expected to that there is a partial strategy herring could be misidentified as smelt, which might be the <80) expected to maintain smelt within reason for these high by-catches. safe limits. The justification text has According to the representative from the State of "the management system is clearly Environmental Service (SES) of the Fisheries Control designed to address such impacts if Department (FCD) that the team interviewed during the site they occur". But without any visit, since Regulation 2016/1139 entered into force there assessment of the status of smelt, are more chances that misreporting between species and no reaction to bycatches that for caught might take place. And in fact, since 2014, the one year exceeds the 10% limit on highest and the third highest catch of smelt have happened average and for individual landings in 2018 and 2017, respectively. reach 40 %, this is more optimistic However, the SES representative also acknowledged that than an MSC assessment is allowed the recent implementation of the LFICIS system has to be. improved the SES capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of underreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. 2.2.2 Yes No SIc: For smelt, measures are clearly Please, see comment above. Not accepted (material not succesfull - see above (no score score change) reduction expected to <80) 2.2.3 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

2.3.1 Yes No (score Yes SI a: Harbour porpoise. Given the fact Even though no interactions have been recorded from the Not accepted increase that this fleet has a relatively high fleet and the SAMBAH project shows no detections in the (no score expected) observer coverage with no recorded Gulf of Riga, harbour porpoises were reported in 1964 and change) interactions and even more 1974 as by-catch in gillnets in the Gulf of Riga (Taurins importantly the SAMBAH results 1982; Pilats 1994), which were the reason to include the show ZERO detection of harbour species in the SAMBAH project. Therefore, and in order to porpoises in the Gulf, it seems be precautious, the team considers it an ETP species. unreasonable to consider harbour porpoise an ETP in this fishery at all (and hence, to consider any 'overlap'

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 247

in this sense with the pelagic fisheries in the Baltic proper).

2.3.1 Yes No SI b, sea lamprey: with an annual No interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys were Not accepted (material catch of close to 60 t ("the reported by the client, and, even though the team does not (no score score percentage in weight is close to 1"), have information on the specific catch in tons of BIOR's change) reduction the HELCOM estimatesof population biological sampling, the species was only recorded in very expected to size are clealy too low for this area. few occasions - close to 1% (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1). <80) Nevertheless, 60 t of a rare and Table SA9 of MSC Fisheries Standard v2-01, states that declining population clearly does for PI 2.3.1, the probability required to achieve SG80 (i.e. NOT meet SG80 here - in fact it could highly likely) is the 80th %ile. be argued that it does not even meet Based on the cathes from the UoA (i.e., no interactions) SG60. and BIOR's samplings (Figure 3.4.2.1.1), SG80 is achieved. 2.3.1 Yes No (scoring SI c, sea lamprey and birds: the We agree with this comment. The text in 2.3.1 SIc has Accepted (no implications justification text in this section seems been changed accordingly. score unknown) to consider direct effects (again, for change) sea lamprey!), not indirect effects? 2.3.2 Yes No (score SI a, Harbour porpoise: see 2.3.1 SI a See comment for 2.3.1 SIa. Not accepted increase (no score expected) change) 2.3.2 Yes No SI b and c, Sea lamprey: the No interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys, very Not accepted (material justifcation text has "evidently no seldom records from BIOR's sampling (Figure 3.4.2.1.1) (no score score significant impact on sea lamprey". and the fact that it is a highly selective fishery, shows that change) reduction This is NOT what the data presented there is an objective basis for confidence that the expected to show. SG 80 is clearly not met for measures/strategy will work. <80) either of these two SIs.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 248

2.3.3 Yes No SI b: The discrepancy between 0 As mentioned in Section 3.4.2, the data from both sources Not accepted (material logbook recordings of sea lampreys, match when it comes to identifying the assessed fishery as (no score score and ~60 t recorded annually in BIOS a highly selective fishery with herring and sprat accounting change) reduction sampling (and a similar difference for for 87,6 – 99,9 % of the total catches (2015-2018). expected to sculpin) suggests that either the Furthermore, since the sampling and identification <80) onboard sampling for the logbook OR processes conducted by the researchers are more detailed the BIOS harbour sampling is not than those applied by the fishing companies, it seems right adequate to support a strategy for that the list of bycatch species is larger than that from the ETPs (which are often relatively client. difficult to sample because they tend to have lumpy distributions). 2.4.1 Yes No (scoring SI a: The description of the gear in Thank you for spotting the inconsistent use of the gear Accepted (no implications section 3.2.4.1 and here in PI 3.4.1 terminology. The text has been clarified and updated. The score unknown) do not match: gear is a pelagic trawl with infrequent and only by accident change) 3.2.4.1 first section: "semipelagic bottom contact. These infrequent incidents do not change trawl": a semipelagic trawl is normally the encounterability of bottom fish. a trawl that is constructed to have the footrope (lightly) on the bottom, but doors off the bottom. This fits well with the fact that it "is equiped with a footrope consisting of a chain with small plastic bobbins". It does not, however, fit with the description in the second half of 3.2.4.1 and elsewhere that it only very rarely touches the bottom. Nor does it fit the description here in 3.4.1 of a midwater pelagic trawl (not semi-pelagic) equiped with only chain (no plastic bobbins). If the former is the case (semipelagic, with bobbins) it suggests that contact with the bottom is (much) more regular than suggested by the client. This may only lead to insignificant reductions in this particular score (since most of the VMEs mentioned are not VMEs in the MSC sense and others very unlikely to be encountered by the fishery - and the

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 249

minor habitats are quite robust) - but it may have implications for the PSA encounterability scores.

2.4.2 Yes No (scoring SI a: see 2.4.1 - since using a pelagic As mentioned in 2.4.1, the description of the gear has now Accepted (no implications trawl is the main measure, whether or been clarified and updated. score unknown) not SG 100 is met depends upon how Even though the footrope has some rubber bobbins, these change) certain we can be that the bottom is are very light and small, therefore, the bottom is avoided only very rarely touched. as much as possible, as if the gear was not only rarely touching the bottom it would be getting stuck to the bottom very often (in addition to the increase in fuel consumption) and would get damaged very rapidly. 2.4.3 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 250

2.5.1 No (scoring No (see also 1.1.1) Without a credible We do agree with the fact that the ringed seal was absent Not accepted implications (material ecosystem model that includes non- from 3.4.5.3 and this has been changed accordingly (no score unknown) score fish top predators (notably birds and throughout the whole report. change) reduction both seal species), it is hard to even expected to argue that the fishery is highly Please see 1.1.1 for the response on the credibility of the <80) unlikely to disrupt the ecosystem - ecosystem model. much less that there is evidence that this is the case - bearing in mind that In the GoR, herring is the top predator in the pelagic although the fishery is not large in a complex ecosystem and predation on adult herring is low; global sense, it is large compared to the main top predators seem to be grey seals and ringed the size of the semi-separate seals. Both are, according to HELCOM core indicator ecosystem in the Gulf. report from July 2018 (as suggested by the PR), not in Information: Ringed seal is entirely good status (low abundance and no population increase) in absent from 3.4.5.3 and this PI - but the southern region (Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea, Gulf the Gulf is one of the three most of Riga and Estonian coastal waters). However, that lack of important areas for this species (see growth is at least partly a result of declining ice coverage e.g. hampering breeding success (please see the new Section http://www.helcom.fi/Core%20Indicat 3.4.5.3 where the Ringed seal has also been added for ors/Distribution%20of%20Baltic%20s more details). In addition, cetaceans have not been found eals%20HELCOM%20core%20indica by observers in any Latvian fisheries for more than 10 tor%202018.pdf) years. ICES ecosystem Overview 2018 notes that "Three species that feed mainly on herring and sprat (common guillemot, razorbill, and Arctic tern) have increased in number over recent decades." suggesting that food is available and that herring/sprat at present are not constraining sea birds. Moreover, the stock assessments show that herring is being harvested sustainably in the GoR. Therefore, there are evidences that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. 2.5.2 Yes No (non- SI a: Sea lamprey catches and the As mentioned in the response to 2.3.1 SIb, no interactions Not accepted material uncertainty around ecosystem between the UoA and sea lampreys were reported by the (no score score impacts are important enough client, and, even though the team does not have change) reduction potential effects, that the fishery does information on the specific catch in tons of BIOR's expected) not meet the SG100 requirement to biological sampling, the species was only recorded in very have a plan that adresses all main few occasions - close to 1% (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1). impacts. Regarding the uncertainty of the impacts to the ecosystem, please see the responses to 1.1.1 and 2.5.1.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 251

2.5.2 Yes No (non- SI b: "ICES has concluded We do agree with this comment and the text and score in Accepted material that...increasing herring mortality is 2.5.2 SIb have been changed accordingly. (non-material score unlikely to adversely impact score reduction ecosystem structure and function." reduction) expected) This is not the case. ICES has concluded that a higher herring mortality in the Central Baltic would not adversely effect certain components of the ecosystem (notably the cod stock). As the rationale text correctly says "Direct testing of the lack of impact can only be done through theoretical ecosystem modelling". As this modelling is unfinished, SG100 cannot be met (a number of publications on status and threats, litterature on modelling for the rest of the Baltic Sea, and a partial Ecopath model that contains no predators to Herring does not make up for this.) 2.5.3 Yes No (non- SI d and e: Given the lack of The absence of reports of any direct impact (bycatch) of Not accepted material knowledge regarding the fishery's seabirds by the UoA (or any other vessel fishing for (no score score impact on predators (birds and seals), herring), together with the low risk assessed for pelagic change) reduction SG100 is hardly met for these two SIs trawl by the ICES WGBYC (ICES, 2018f) and HELCOM expected) (http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/fisheries/ecosystem- effects/bycatch), and the fact that none of the stakeholders interviewed expressed any concern regarding seabirds, provides a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP bird species. A study analysing the by-catch of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Finland, Sweden, and Estonia (including the northern part of the GoR) in 2012 was conducted. The analysis showed that trap nets make about 88% of the total by-catch (Vanhatalo et al., 2014). An average of only 9– 13% of the seal population is outside the aforementioned study area; therefore, it is likely that the by-catch covered in this study represents at least 90% of the total fisheries-

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 252

induced mortality of grey seals in the Baltic Sea (Vanhatalo et al., 2014). In addition, no interactions with grey seals have been reported from the UoA fishery dependent or independent (BIOR) reports.

3.1.1 Yes No (non- SI b: With the long unresolved We agree with the reviewer. The rationale and the score Accepted material dispute between Russia and the EU were modified. SI(b) scores 80 and the overal score for PI (non-material score over quota allocation, it can hardly be 3.1.1 is 85 score reduction said that the mechanisms for reduction) expected) disputeresolution (at that level) have been proven to be effective. 3.1.2 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

3.1.3 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

3.2.1 Yes Yes Agreed. No further comments are needed

3.2.2 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 253

3.2.3 Yes No (non- SI a: With smelt catches regularly Regulation 2187/2005 is not being breached. Its Article 4 - Not accepted material above the 10 % threshold (in Calcultation of percentage of target species- states that: "1. (no score score 2187/2005) in sampling and logbook The percentages of target species referred to in Annexes II change) reduction reporting, it seems that this rule is not and III shall be calculated as the proportion by live weight expected) at all enforced? If tht is the case, of all species listed in Annexes II and III which are either SG100 is hardly met. retained on board after sorting or landed; 2. The percentage of target species and of other species shall be obtained by aggregating all quantities of target species and of other species listed in Annexes II and III retained on board". In the case of the assessed fishery herring and sprat are the target species mentioned in that Article. It is important to understand that only the species listed in those Annexes (Annex II in the case of trawl fisheries) have to be considered for that calculation (not all the species caught). Smelt is not listed in Annex II. Only flounder and cod are species listed in Annex II and caught as bycatch in the assessed fishery. Considering herring, sprat, flounder and cod it is clear that the assessed fishery complies with the requirement that target species (herring and sprat) account for at least 90% of the catches. 3.2.4 Yes Yes Agreed No further comments are needed

RBF comments PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justificatio n (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Res - Scoring Information initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) ponse Code 1.1.1 (RBF)

2.1.1 (RBF)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 254

2.2.1 No (scoring Yes Flounder, encounterabilty: The actual Apart from BIOR's plot (Figure 3.4.2.1.1), wich shows Not (RBF) implications bycatch (hard to judge from the plot, but percentage of species composition, flounder bycatch from accepted unknown) approx 200 t?) suggests that either the the Latvian herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of Riga can be (no score encounterability is actually medium (not found in Tables 3.1.2.2 (in tons) and 3.4.2.1.1 (in change) low) because the vertical migrations do percentage). bring flounder (at certain times og Flouder is a demersal species that performs vertical year/day?) into the depth range of the gear migrations, however, as the gear is pelagic (although from OR that the gear is actually at or very close time to time it can get close to the bottom), the team to the bottom more often than the scored it low based on what the experts from BIOR told us description in section 3.2.4.1 suggests and based on Table GPF7 (FCR v2-0): "A species occurring principally near the bottom will have low encounterability from a gear fishing in mid-water".

2.2.1 No (scoring Yes Flounder, areal overlap: the areal overlap Flounder is a more marine species, therefore, and Not (RBF) implications score is very under-justified. From Helcom according to BIOR's experts, it is not common in the Gulf of accepted unknown) surveys - or the RBF workshop participants Riga (apart from the Irbe Strait), and it is even rare in (no score - it should be possible to generate some coastal areas. Based on this and Figure 3.2.4.1 change) form of map of the flounder occurrence in (Geographical distribution of herring catches according to the Gulf, and overly this with the VMS of the data from logbooks of the Latvian fleet), the aereal overlap fishery to calculate a percentage. In the score cannot be medium. absence of that information, at least a medium score would be warranted. 2.2.1 No (scoring Yes Fourhorn sculpin, encounterabilty: The Apart from BIOR's plot (Figure 3.4.2.1.1), wich shows Not (RBF) implications actual bycatch (hard to judge from the plot, percentage of species composition, fourhorn sculpin accepted unknown) but approx 400 t?) suggests that either the bycatch from the Latvian herring trawl fishery in the Gulf of (no score encounterability is actually medium (not Riga can be found in Tables 3.1.2.2 (in tons) and 3.4.2.1.1 change) low) because it is not only benthic OR that (in percentage). the gear is actually at or very close to the Fourhorn sculpin is a benthic species and unless the bottom more often than the description in pelagic gear is pushed down (which only happens from here and in section 3.2.4.1 suggests time to time, depending on a seasonal effect), the encountaribility is low. In addition to this, Table GPF7 (FCR v2-0) states: "A species occurring principally near the bottom will have low encounterability from a gear fishing in mid-water".

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 255

2.2.1 No (material Yes Eelpout, fecundity: To follow the (absolutely According to Table PF4 (FCP v2.1), medium risk for Not (RBF) score reduction reasonable) precautionary principle used for Fecunditiy is given for 100-20.000 eggs per year, and high accepted expected to sculpin and smelt, the range provided (30- risk for >20.000 eggs per year. Therefore, the range of 30- (no score <80) 200) should result in a high (3) risk score. 200 for eelpout lies within the medium risk score. change)

2.2.1 No (material Yes Eelpout, trophic level: Again, given the fact Even though we rather use the knowledge from the experts Accepted (RBF) score reduction the the trophic level provided is borderline specialists in the Gulf of Riga than Fishbase (alghough we (non- expected to between medium and high risk, a 3 score have taken it into account too), we do agree that a trophic material <80) would be more appropriate (particularly level of 3,25 (which is in the borderline between medium score since the Fishbase estimate is 3.5). and high risk), can be given a score of 3 to be more reduction) precautious.

2.2.1 No (scoring Yes Eelpout, encounterability: In the rationale it The Eelpout occurs in the coastal zone down to about 40 Not (RBF) implications says "It can only appear as Herring by- m depth. The primary occurrences are in the inner coastal accepted unknown) catch during spring". It is not clear why this area down to about 6m. The eelpout occurs primarily on (no score is the case, but if it is because of eelpout hard and rocky bottom. It is dependent on finding hiding change) have pelagic behavior during spring, this places. Trawling is banded below 20 m and trawling avoids should be reflected as a higher risk score in particular hard bottom. Eelpout is an glacial relict with a (analogous to the diurnal examples in table preference for cold water and it is only in the spring that GPF7) the cold fresh water outflow from the rivers (ice melting) will be an acceptable environment for eelpout. Eelpout will thus only be available to the fishery in the spring but seeking hiding in the coastal zone f.ex. in the eelgrass. Because of the eelpout preference to hard and rocky bottom offering hiding which are avoided by the herring fishery for fear of meeting small underwater mountains, encountability is low. The example of a diurnal migration does not apply because it is only in the spring that the eelpout may appear as by-batch and even during this period the encountability is low. 2.3.1 (RBF)

2.4.1 (RBF)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 256

2.5.1 (RBF)

REPORT FROM PEER REVIEW B

General comments Questi on Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief explanations for their (as included in the Public Comment Draft 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed Report - PCDR) comments made in the PI and RBF tables.

Is the scoring of the fishery Yes In majority of cases the scoring is clearly based on the evidences No need for further comments consistent with the MSC presented in the assessment report, but in few cases my standard, and clearly based interpretation of the presented data would differ from that of the on the evidence presented in authors the assessment report?

Are the condition(s) raised Yes Appropriate No need for further comments appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses]

Is the client action plan clear Yes The assessment is done against MSC Fisheries Standards No need for further comments and sufficient to close the v2.0, and the Client Action Plan is provided. It is clear and sufficient conditions raised? to close the conditions raised [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 257

Enhanced fisheries only: This fishery targets wild fish No need for further comments Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 258

Optional: General Comments N/A The report is well writen and I am agree with the conclusions in The team thanks the reviewer the effort made on on the Peer Review Draft general, but there are some issues which I'll address while detecting mistakes and typo errors. The mistakes Report (including comments discussing specific PI, moreover, there are some minor comments underlined were corrected. Just a few clarifications: on the adequacy of the (the first figure is page number): - Page 9. No further comments on this background information if 8: Ms. Sarmite Zoltnere is indicated as author in the Executive - 12. LFPO is the english acronym for the latvian necessary) summary but not in the Title Page NZRO. This was clarified in the list of acronyms. 9: Weakness are a bit strange. Not so many things which cannot be - 13. Designation of the stocks was changed in improved. “The assessments models could be improved to better accordance to the reviewer's proposal. provide confidence limits on the estimates or otherwise quantify the - 39. Corrected following reviewer's proposal accuracy of the stock status.” - 42. Corrected 12: LFPO is absent in the list of acronyms. - 49, 52. Corrected 13: “Herring in the Gulf of Riga” does not look like a name stock, - 65. Reference to section 0 was removed rather just as any herring occurring in the Gulf of Riga. I understand - 16, 65, 66. Removed.. it should be “The Gulf Riga herring”. The same for other stocks. - 67. Changed into '...assessed fishery' Figure 3.3.1.1: Very difficult to read fish names. - 70. Againg, changed in 'assessed fishery'. These 39: “Siberian salmon (Oncorhynchys keta)”. Common names for O. are pieces of text copy/paste from a previous keta are Chum salmon or Dog salmon, not “Siberian salmon”. assessment done by BV to the same client for the 42: Put Fig 3.4.1.6.1. after the reference in text. Designations are sprat fishery in the Baltic Sea. In that report the needed. NZRO was named as LFPO, that's why some 49, 52: “especifically” references are found to the 'LFPO sprat fishery'. 65: What is “Section 0”? - 80 & 82 Corrected. see explanation above 16, 65, 66 Please remove “¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la - This figures is just showing the temporary closed referencia.” Should be removed also from pages 65, 66. areas in the applicable management plan. None of 67: “The main institutions involved in management of the LFPO sprat them is within the gulf of Riga, that's right. fisheries are:” Only sprat? Why LFPO? - 75. Corrected 70: “Below are listed tow of the main requirements affecting the - 77. We consider it is correct to use authors' LFPO sprat fishery in terms of inspection:” Why LFPO? names for quoting these type of reports. This is also 80: “Table 4.4.1. Details of the meetings held during the site visit for done in other MSC reports prepared by other CABs. the 2SA audit of the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery” Why LFPO?” - 79. Corrected 82: “Table 4.4.2. Details of the main topics discussed with the different stakeholders during the site visit for the 2SA audit of the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery. Why LFPO?” 72: “Figure 3.5.5.1. Marked in blue the areas closed for fishing from 1 May to 31 October according to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139”. Why these locations are indicated if the fishing takes place in other parts of Baltic 13: Vessels organised under NZRO and who have signed up for the Gulf of Herring certificate” What is “Gulf of Herring”? (mentioned three times).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 259

75: No other harmonisation activities were considered necessary in relation to the LFPO Gulf of Riga herring and sprat fishery.” NZRO instead of LFPO?

77: “(Lassen et al 2019).” I understand that the standard way to quote the MSC reports would be like that: (Bureau Veritas 2019).

79: “The site visit was carried out between 24th and 26th of April 2018 in Riga and Skulte (Latvia)” Executive Summary says about site visit between April 23 and 26, 2019.

84: Table 4.4.3. strongly overlaps with Table 3.4.2.2.1

87: Table 4.4.1. not about RBF.

89: “In Latvia sprat fishery, quota is only issued for trawlers. Further, Latvian regulations do not allow the pelagic trawlers to alternate different types of fishing gears during fishing trips, and technical measures of the gear are well established” Why it is related only to sprat fishery? What about herring fishery?

106: “Figure demonstrates that the stock is well above PRI (Blim) at full reproductive capacity” What figure? 3.3.2.1?

107: Where is Fig. 4?

10: “ICES has raised concerns in recent advice about species misreporting (herring/sprat) in the Central Baltic fisheries” Reference needed.

10: “while the SES expressed some concerns in relation to a regulatory gap” What is SES?.

27: “Species misreporting of herring”. Not clear. Above, it has been written about misreporting herring/sprat, but here, as far as I understand, it is written about misreporting between herring species. Are these actually different species of herring (i.e. Atlantic/Pacific, because no other species of herring exist), or different races of

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 260

herring (GoR/CB), or just herring/sprat again?

120: “The stock assessments are is supported by data…”

124: “The assessments are is internally peer reviewed”.

134: “See scoring calculation for each species” Why not to put the scores to the cells and provide calculations after this? I think it would be better.

186: “as explained in Section 0”. Where is Section 0?

199-200: “Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to one year can be applied. In case of repeated violation of fishing regulations during the year legal persons can be fined from 700 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. For fishing without authorization, in prohibited place, or with prohibited gear, legal persons can be fined from 1,400 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied”. Please remove replicates.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 261

PI comments PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Respon se to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res -ponse Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR)

Perfor- Has all Does the Will the PRs should provide support for their answers in CABs should summarise their response to the See codes page for mance available information condition(s) the left three columns by referring to specific Peer Reviewer comments in the CAB Response response options Indica- relevant and/or raised scoring issues and/or scoring elements, and any Code column and provide justification for their tor (PI) information rationale improve the relevant documentation as appropriate. Additional response in this column. been used to used to fishery’s rows should be inserted for any PIs where two or score this PI? score this PI performance more discrete comments are raised e.g. for Where multiple comments are raised by Peer support the to the SG80 different scoring issues, allowing CABs to give a Reviewers with more than one row for a single PI, given score? level? different answer in each case. Paragraph breaks the CAB response should relate to each of the may also be made within cells using the Alt-return specific issues raised in each row. key combination. CAB responses should include details of where Detailed justifications are only required where different changes have been made in the report answers given are one of the ‘No’ options. In other (which section #, table etc). (Yes) cases, either confirm ‘scoring agreed’ or identify any places where weak rationales could be strengthened (without any implications for the scores).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 262

1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA The comment relates to determination of low The herring is in the pelagic Not accepted (no implications implications trophic level species. The Table 3.4.2.1.1., a a top predator in the Gulf of Riga and score change) unknown) unknown) Figure 3.4.2.1.1 and figure 3.3.1.1. shows there are no other top predators of absolute dominance of herring and sprat in significance hence the discussion of LTL the pelagic zone of the GoR. Other listed based on supplying food for higher levels pelagic species present, but are are irrelevant. Harbour porpoise are incomparable with herring in quantity. Thus, I extremely scarce in the Gulf of Riga the believe that rejection of criterium iii) (There SAMBAH project found about 500 out of are few other species at this trophic level about 21,000 harbour porpoise in summer. through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’) is not well justified, and GoR herring should be considered as key LTL species. Moreover, rejection of i) is also questionable as ETPspecies harbor porpoise depend on herring quite a lot (see, for instance, Andreasen et al., 2017, Marine Mammal Science 33 (Issue 4): 1053-1079) 1.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA It is not clear how two different races of Indeed they are not distinguished and for Accepted (no score implications implications herring (GoR and Central Baltic herring) are this reason the MSC assessment includes change) unknown) unknown) differentiated in catches. If their differentiation both herring stock. Using otolith reliable and easy and can be done by fishers characteristics the races are distinguished themselves, or only by researchers? I in biological samples and the ICES stock understand that quite a high uncertainity can asse ssment are based on these splits. BIOR be associated with this differentiation which and the Estonian institute provide on an may affect stock assessment process. It is annual basis estimates of the relative not discussed at all in the text. In general, proportions description of biology of target species is too brief. Referenced source (Ojaveer 2017) is not easy to access. Please provide more information on biology of target species in this report.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 263

1.1.1 No (no No (no NA Misreporting is mentioned several times in Misreporting in the Baltic sprat and herring Accepted (no score score score report and it seems present a serious issue. fisheries has been discussed of rmany change) change change However, I do not find detailed description of years. As noted in the report each landing is expected) expected) this phenimenon, just several different sampled and the species composition fragments. Please devote a special section to reported before landings can begin. This its description: which species are substituted process was witnessed at the site visit in by what, for what reason, what quantity? Skute. This process together with close When it started etc. Otherwise it is diffult to control of the sprat and herring quotas has estimate the level of problem. largely removed the former misreporting of herring/sprat. As reported there has in recent years been incidences of in particular misreporting smelt for herring to save herring quota. This has been dealt with by the Control authorities and msreporting does not occur according to the information avaialble to audit at a systematic scale. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 264

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 265

2.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring Yes Comparison of Table 3.4.2.1.1, provided by As mentioned in Section 3.4.2, the data from Not accepted (no implications implications the Client, and Figure 3.4.2.1.1, provided by both sources match when it comes to score change) unknown) unknown) researchers, shows that proportion of some identifying the assessed fishery as a highly species is notably higher in the latter case. selective fishery with herring and sprat These species are fourhorn sculpin, flounder accounting for 87,6 – 99,9 % of the total (?), round goby, shorthorn sculpin, eelpout catches (2015-2018). Furthermore, since the (?). This may mean discarding these species sampling and identification processes in the sea, given that observance on small conducted by the researchers are more fishing boats in the Gulf of Riga is very low. It detailed than those applied by the fishing may mean that alternatively measures are companies, it seems right that the list of needed. bycatch species is larger than that from the client. However, we agree with the fact that comparing both sets of data there are some notorious differences, moslty in relation to the contribution of smelt and fourhorn sculpin.

In the Baltic Proper sprat fishery, however, there is no on-board observer program in the GoR herring fishery as vessels are smaller and therefore it is more difficult to have observers on board on a regular basis. Even so, we don't think there might be discards as, on one hand, the incentive would be minimal (bearing in mind the high selectivity of the fishery), and, on the other, operatively it would be almost unfeasible to sort out those species/specimens to be discarded from the whole haul. In addition, as explained in detail in PI 3.2.3, there are no concerns at national or international level in relation to this fleet's compliance.

The reason for these differences between both sources might be more to do with a misreporting issue. The activities of the Latvian fisheries (both off-shore and coastal fisheries) are comprehensively monitored by the Fisheries Control Department (FCD),

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 266

under the State of Environmental Service (SES). The SES representative, expressed his concern regarding this issue (i.e. misreporting between herring and sprat or smelt) during the site visit, although he also acknowledged that the recent implementation of the LFICIS system had improved the SES inspection capacity.

In addition, BIOR's sampling program at ports has been increasing in the last three years: 2.9 samples per 1000 t were taken in 2016, 3.3 in 2017, and 3.6 in 2018 (ICES, 2017; 2018; 2019).

Based on all this, we believe that no discards are happening and that no alternative measures are needed.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 267

2.2.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA e: Given that discards are quite probable As explained in the previous comment (for Not accepted (no implications implications (from my opinion), alternative measures are PI 2.2.1), we believe that discards are not score change) unknown) unknown) needed to be discussed happening, therefore, no alternative measures are needed.

2.2.3 No (scoring No (scoring NA Presence of discards may affect scoring this See comment for PI 2.2.1. Not accepted (no implications implications PI score change) unknown) unknown)

2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes No comments No need for further comments

2.3.2 No (scoring No (scoring NA I would also take into consideration reduction We agree that fishing for herring might have Accepted (no score implications implications of food resource for harbor porpoises an indirect impact on harbor porpoises. This change) unknown) unknown) resulting from removing of herring from the has been dealt with in the report in PI 2.3.1 GoR. Herring is the main food for them, but it SIc. is classified as non-key LTL species meaning Regarding herring being classified as non- that ecosystem requirements should not be key LTL, please see reponse to PI 1.1.1. taken into account while determining TAC. I assume, however, that this conclusion is questionable (see above), and thus fishing for herring may negatively affect harbor porpoises. This effect can be much more destructive for the harbor porpoise population than direct effects discussed here in so much details. 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 268

2.4.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA The herring is in the pelagic ecological niche The fishery is highly selective, with catches Not accepted (no implications implications a a top predator in the Gulf of Riga and there of herring and sprat accounting between 87 score change) unknown) unknown) are no other top predators of significance and 99% of total UoA catches. hence the discussion of LTL based on supplying food for higher levels are irrelevant. Regarding the gear, even though it is Harbour porpoise are extremely scarce in the equipped with a footrope consisting of a Gulf of Riga the SAMBAH project found about chain with very small and light plastic 500 out of about 21,000 harbour porpoise in bobbins, the gear is a pelagic trawl designed summer. to not touch the sea bottom and to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic community. Even though the gear may occasionally touch the bottom during deployment, this is avoided as much as possible because soft bottom dominates the fishing area and the gear could stick to the bottom. Also because of fuel consumption the trawl is kept in free water, as dragging the trawl on the bottom is costly.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 269

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comments No need for further comments

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 270

RBF comments PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Res -ponse Scoring Information initial Peer Review stage) (as included in the Public Comment Draft Code Report - PCDR)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA (RBF)

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA (RBF)

2.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring Information on nine-spine stickleback is Nine-spine stickleback is one of the minor Accepted (no (RBF) implications implications absent secondary species which was assessed using score change) unknown) unknown) the RBF (as it can be seen in the MSC-RBF- worksheet and in the table summarizing the Scoring Calculation for each scoring element of PI 2.2.1), however, as the reviewer has spotted, its information was missing from Table 1.2.2.a (PSA Rationale Table). The mistake has now been corrected. 2.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring For a number of species (Neogobius The team attended the RBF workshop with Not accepted (no (RBF) implications implications melanostomus, Gasterosteus aculeatus, information, including Fishbase, that we had score change) unknown) unknown) Platichthys flesus, Osmerus eperlanus, available before being able to interview the Pungitius pungitius) Fishbase, which is scientists from BIOR. However, once we were recommended by FCR, reports higher value able to interview BIOR's scientists, who are of trophic level, which requires different specialists for the Gulf of Riga, we decided to use productivity score (3 instead of 2). their knowledge instead of Fishbase, as it does not provide specific information for the Gulf of Riga. 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA (RBF)

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA (RBF)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 271

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA (RBF)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 272

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions The written submissions received during the 30-day stakeholders consultation period are presented below, together with the responses from the CAB:

Follow-up from Peer Reviewers

Follow-up PR-A PI PR Comm -ent Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Pub lic CAB response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the CAB Re s-ponse Code Comment Draft Report (PCDR) stage) Final Draft Report) Code

1.1.1 No (material Not accepted (no score reduction The assessment team response to the comment score change) expected to regarding the designation of GOR herring as a non- The assessment team is sorry that we have surprised the peer <80) key LTL, as well as to Peer reviewer B's related reviewer and thank for the lecture on the MSC standard and its comment, shows a surprising lack of consistency requirements for the scoring the Gulf of Riga as Key LTL species or as well as misinterpretation of parts of the MSC not, see section .3.3.1 requirements.

1.1.1 No (no score Not accepted (no change score change) A) The AT answers to PR B, that in the GOR, expected) besides herring there are no other top predators of significance - thus there is no issue of reducing the food available for predators at higher levels. In the The basic thinking behind the LTL concept is that there is a answer to PR As comments the AT acknowledges significant biomass feeding on the stock that is under consideration. I that at least five predators depend on herring for assume that e.g. cod is not a candidate as LTL species although food (grey and ringed seals, as well as common there is predation on cod by sea birds (small cod) and by seals. guillemot, razorbill, and Arctic tern). There is thus - without any doubt - a very real issue to consider when it comes to the role of GOR herring for its predators.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 273

1.1.1 No (non- Not accepted (no material score score change) reduction B) In considering this role, GOR herring can only The criteria are built on the assumption that the species under expected) be considered non-key LTL if at least two of the consideration in a food chain forms a major path of energy from one SA2.2.9 criteria are not met. In order to show this, group to another. The herring in the Gulf of Riga ecosystem does not the AT is required by the standard to be very function in such a role. Rather it has a role as top predator in the explicit in their justification and provide specific system. There are predators on herring just like there are predators rationales (see 2.2.9.c) The short section on page on cod in other systems but these are not determining the 22 that deals with all three criteria in one sentence, development of these predators. The low natural moratlity is an simply does not do justice to these requirements. indiation that there is no significant predation of the herring stock

1.1.1 No (material Not accepted (no score reduction score change) expected to AT claims that the ecosystem models that are consulted including the <80) SMS model are credible as these are used in the ICES context providing advice for management. AT is aware that a number of C) If the AT had used a credible ecosystem model models are currently presented and each of these are credible and (i.e. one that was comprehensive (GSA 2.2.9)) as presented in good faith. If the peer reviewer has a preference for a required, it is highly likely that the inclusion of the particular model the comment should have pointed to this model and predators of herring in the model would have given the reasons why this is superiour for the task. As a general shown an ecosystem where criteria i) and iii) are comment anthroponeic imfluence on the Baltic Sea is substantial and indeed met. 'virgin'biomasses are most probably only theoretical values. That an icefree Baltic Sea and a much larger sea bird population that what is present might be meeting food shortage is in contrast to the requirement that the assessment shall be done at the actual situation

1.1.1 No (non- Not accepted (no material score score change) The Gulf of Riga is a semi-enclosed ecosystem of the Baltic Sea reduction D) The fact that both seal populations are held characterized by low salinity that restricts the occurrence of marine expected) back by lack of ice coverage and the three bird species are increasing, is NOT a argument for non- species. Herring is the dominant species in the Gulf, and the by-catch of key LTL status. The actual indirect effects (or not) sprat in this fishery is low (about 10% in recent years). The predation of the fishery on species of predators is determined mortality is likely to be low because cod is found in the Gulf of Riga only in in a subsequent step in the assessment periods when the cod stock is very high (last time in the early 1980s). (ICES (SA2.2.13.b.i and ii) - but again, this requires 2009 advice on Gulf of Riga herring). There is no significant higher trophic robust, comprehensive ecosystem modelling. level. If this was so the predation mortality would be high.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 274

1.1.1 No (material score reduction No further comments are needed expected to <80) 1.2.1 No (non- SI b: Sorry for the error - the sentence should have Not accepted (no material score read "While the fact that F has been mostly below score change) reduction Fmsy since 2011...". But the PCDR text has not The stock has been at a high level for more than 20 years. expected) been changed, so it still does not demonstrate that F has been low enough long enough to ensure…etc. 1.2.2 No (material Not accepted (no score reduction score change) expected to <80) SI a: In spite of harmonisation, the score should not be set according to the wrong threshold. A limit AT beg to disagree, this is not an argument for choosing a higher substantially higher than 20% Bzero can be set, value. without the score dropping below 80 (thus no need for immediate harmonisation).

1.2.4 No (no score Not accepted (no change score change) expected) SI b: The AT response is that the score is set according to SA 2.2.13. This is somewhat ironic, since SA2.2.13 b is the exact point referenced in the comment ("if it can be demonstrated, through AT are sorry if we have seemed to be ironic, actually we take the the use of credible ecosystem models…etc."). The task seriously such an agrument might be found in the functioning of comment about reversal to single stock ref points the ecosystems. should thus not be directed at the standard (as suggested), but at the AT justifying the given score, as if this "if..." clause in SA 2.2.13 b did not exist.

2.1.2 Yes No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 275

2.2.1 No (no score How did the AT assess which catches were above The AT did not have the observer's raw data, that is the reason why Not accepted (no change and below the 2/5 % thresholds without the actual we presented these data in a Box Plot (which was what we received) score change) expected) numbers? (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1). But we did have the official catches from the fishery (see Tables 3.1.2.2 and 3.4.2.1.1), which were used to assess the 2/5% thresholds. 2.2.2 No (material SI a, smelt: Even if we assume that the high smelt Smelt is assessed under PI 2.2.1, not PI 2.2.2. Not accepted (no score reduction catches from self-reporting are mainly a result of Because the catches of smelt were indeed over the 5% threshold, score change) expected to misreporting, the BIOR samples still show very the species was assigned as Main Secondary (see PI 2.2.1), was <80) variable, but at times very significant bycatches of assessed using an RBF and got a score of 62 (see PI 2.2.1 - Scoring smelt. The AT does not show in any way how the calculation), based on the fish being sensitive to fishing and because management system is designed to react to the the overlap with the fishery is high. In fact, and due to the overall level of such bycatches. At the most basic level, score of 75, this PI has a Condition: how would the managers even know when the - The status of the smelt stock in the Gulf of Riga should be bycatch level is so high that they should react, established based on stock status reference points. The status given the lack of stock assessment? should be based on an analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches. In order to reach SG80, the outcome of the smelt stock shall be highly likely above the biologically based limits. - Or if the stock is found to be below biologically based limits and there is no evidence of recovery the Client should approach authorities to establish an efficient strategy ensuring the Gulf of Riga herring trawl fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the smelt stock in the area. 2.2.2 No (material As above. score reduction expected to <80) 2.3.1 Yes No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 276

2.3.1 No (material SI b, sea lamprey: This issue again highlights why As explained above, the AT did have the official landings of the Accepted (no score reduction the AT should have insisted on obtaining the actual fishery (see Tables 3.1.2.2 and 3.4.2.1.1). score change) expected to catches in tons from BIOR (see 2.2.1 comment Many MSC fisheries are assessed solely with the official landing <80) above). data. But in an effort of the team to have a wider vision and to be The boxplot (Figure 3.4.2.1.1.) does not show that more precautionary, we also asked BIOR for their sampling lamprey was only recorded on few occasions. In information. fact, what it shows is that all samples were around the average of approximately 1 % (and no zero- As we stated in SI(b): "No interactions between the UoA (official catches). If this is indeed the average of all landing data) and sea lampreys were reported", although "BIOR landings as well (which we must assume, given recorded this species within the catch composition of their biological that the samples show no variability), then they are samples collected during 2015-2018 (total of 121 samples) from the approx 60 t annually. commercial pelagic trawl fishery in the GoR, the % in weight is close (The fact that lampreys are never recorded by to 1 (see Figure 3.4.2.1.1)." Therefore, we do agree with the average fishermen - in spite of the fact that they show up in of 1% (in the case of BIOR's sampling), but there were no official the subsequent BIOR landing samples - is much records of interactions between the UoA and sea lampreys. more likely to indicate that they either do not physically show up when fishermen sample In any case, it is an issue that was discussed during the site visit and catches - possibly due to their shape - or are simply neither BIOR nor any of the stakeholders (including fishers, not considered worth recording by the fishermen). administration, scientists and NGOs) raised any red flags. However, How this can result in a 80% probability that the the AT takes note of this issue and will consider it as a priority in the fishery does not hinder recovery is difficult to first SV where more detailed information will be requested from BIOR understand (and the AT presents no arguments for both on this particular species and on the by-catch of the fishery in this - it is merely stated.) general. And especially on how sea lamprey appears in BIOR samplings when it is a species found either on rock bottom where they can attach with their sucking disk, or parasitic on their prey.. 2.3.1 Yes SI c: (Note that there is a discrepancy between the Thank you for spotting the discrrepancy. The text has been amended Accepted (no justification text for seabirds (which talks about high accordingly. score change) degree of confidence) and the scoring (80)).

2.3.2 Yes No further comments are needed 2.3.2 No (material SI b & c: As above - with this level of sea lamprey Please, see response to PI 2.3.1 SI(b). Accepted (no score reduction catches, it is not evident that the fishery has no However, we agree that the word "evident" should not be used here score change) expected to significant impact on such a rare species. and the text has been changed to "is expected to not have a <80) significant impact on lamprey".

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 277

2.3.3 No (material SI b: The important issue here, is not determining There is no on board sampling. There is only port sampling (BIOR's Not accepted (no score reduction whether the fishery is highly selective or not. It is sampling). The other source of information is the official landing data. score change) expected to whether or not the information is adequate to Please, see Section 3.4.2.1 Sources of information. <80) measure trends and support a management Since the identification processes conducted by the researchers are strategy. The discrepancy suggests that it is not more detailed than those applied by the fishing companies, it seems (because of the typically lumpy distribution of ETP right that the list of bycatch species is larger than that from the client. catches, port sampling will have very high Information gathered from the UoA fleet, other Latvian fishing fleets uncertainty - but if species that are found in port and from Baltic member states in general is sufficient to measure samples do not even show up/are not counted in trends and to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts on board self-sampling, then the on-board on harbour porpoises, grey seals, seabirds and sea lampreys. sampling clearly needs improvement in order to be used as basis for measuring trends and supporting a strategy).

2.4.1 Yes SI a: Partly - the text in 2.4.1 c still needs to be Agreed. It has now been been updated. revised (it has 'no bobbins, only chain') 2.4.2 Yes No further comments are needed 2.5.1 No (non- Agreed for SG80 (although the actual text in the The text in the scoring table has been updated. Not accepted (no material score scoring table should be updated with the We do not agree that we need additional models including birds and score change) reduction arguments from the response). For SG100, the mammals to reach SG100. The following is enough evidence: expected) evidence presented is too patchy (what score - ICES saying that: "Three species that feed mainly on herring and would a comprehensive modelling of the sprat (common guillemot, razorbill, and Arctic tern) have increased in ecosystem (ie. Including birds and mammals) number over recent decades." which suggests that food is available showing no impacts give - 120?!?) and that herring/sprat at present are not constraining sea birds. - HELCOM stating that: "the main top predators (for herring) seem to be grey seals and ringed seals." And, even though, both are, according to HELCOM, "not in good status (low abundance and no population increase) in the southern region (Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea, Gulf of Riga and Estonian coastal waters)", this lack of growth is at least partly a result of declining ice coverage hampering breeding success (see the new Section 3.4.5.3 for more details). - Furthermore, cetaceans have not been found by observers in any Latvian fisheries for more than 10 years.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 278

2.5.2 No (non- SI a: For Sea lamprey, see above. Otherwise, see Please, see responses above. Not accepted (no material score 2.5.1 above. score change) reduction expected) 2.5.2 Yes SI b: (But note that the statement "ICES concluded Agreed. It has now been been updated. Accepted (no that…" is still part of the justification for 2.5.1 SI a score change) and is repeated on page 67.

2.5.3 No (non- SI d & e: The PR comment did not relate to direct The inderect effects on ETPs have been assessed in PI 2.3.1. Not accepted (no material score impacts of the fishery (that would belong principally In PI 2.5.3, what we have to assess (and what we have assessed) is score change) reduction in 2.3.3) but the indirect effects (see comments for whether there is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on expected) 2.5.1.) the ecosystem. No idea what the comments for 2.5.1 have to do with this comment.

3.2.3 Yes SI a: My misinterretation of 2187/2005. Sorry. No further comments are needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 279

2.2.1 No (scoring Flounder, encounterabilty: If flounder performs The trawl is operated as far as possible free of the bottom and with 7- Not accepted (no (RBF) implications vertical migrations that regularly brings it into the 10 m off the bottom as a reasonable guess (see figure 3.2.4.2 score change) unknown) depth range of the gear, the risk score should be showing that schools of herring are normally located between 8 and adjusted up (see GPF8). 20m above the seabed). Small-scale vertical movements of 14 Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) residing in Chesapeake Bay were observed by using depth data collected with archival tags (Henderson and Fabrizio, 2014). Most of the archival-tagged Summer Flounder appeared to remain on or near the bottom for long periods (>2 consecutive weeks) while residing in Chesapeake Bay. During this time, observed depth changes reflected only tidal variation.Their observations suggested that along-bottom movements to new locations were characterized by a 2–5-m shift in the mean depth followed by the resumption of a regular tidal pattern. In contrast, what they believed to be off-bottom movements were generally of a higher magnitude (2–10 m) and shorter duration (20–40 min), and the fish would come within 2–4 m of the surface. In addition, Fish that were smaller than 400 mm TL exhibited larger depth changes at night than during the day, whereas time of day had little effect on the activity of larger fish. Analysis of high-frequency depth-recording data of adult Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus with depth/temperature logging tags, released in the Tsugaru Strait of northern Japan, showed that vertical movement of tagged fish was characterized by periodic departures from the seabed, a short period of swimming in the water column, and then returning to the seabed (Kawabe et al., 2009). However, fish tended to remain on the seabed for over 90% of the recording period. The distribution of swimming duration was heavily skewed to short periods, suggesting that the majority of the time (>80%) in their swimming duration was <100 s (the longest being 44.5 min). Similarly, the distribution of swimming height off the seabed was heavily skewed, suggesting that for most of the time (>75%), flounder in this study made the most of their vertical excursions within 2m from seabed. Therefore, from what can be extracted from these studies, the encouterability with the pelagic trawl would indeed be low.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 280

2.2.1 No (scoring Flounder, areal overlap: There is still nothing During the workshop it was decided not to consider the whole Not accepted (no (RBF) implications resembling evidence for the distribution of flounder. geographical range of distribution for P. flesus as there might be two score change) unknown) Apart from this, it is hard to understand that areal different species (from what BIOR’s expert Dr. M. Plikss told us). The overlap can really be < 20% with a mainly demersal flounder found in the GoR is actually not a common species for the species, and still catch >5 % in some years. GoR as it is a more marine species, and even in coastal areas is rare.

2.2.1 Yes No further comments are needed (RBF) 2.2.1 No (non- Eelpout, fecundity: High risk is not >20.000 eggs Agreed. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Accepted (no (RBF) material score per year, but <100 eggs per year. The range of 30- score change) reduction 200 does not lie within the medium risk score, but expected) across high and medium. A precautionary reading would be a high risk score.

2.2.1 Yes No further comments are needed (RBF) 2.2.1 Yes No further comments are needed (RBF)

Follow-up PR-B PI PR Comm -ent Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Public CAB response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the CAB Res -ponse Code Comment Draft Report (PCDR) stage) Final Draft Report) Code

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 281

1.1.1 No (scoring In relation to comment 1 (The comment relates…). The argument is related to the claim that Gulf of Riga herring is not a accepted (No implications Why abundance of the predator (harbour porpoise) Key LTL because there is not a significant amount of predators that score change) unknown) is an argument in this discussion? Scarity of depends on the herring. As an example of the scarcity of the predator (which is ETP species) makes the situation predators I not the scarcety of the harbour porpoise and apologise if even worse because fishing reduces density of this was confusing. The argument is that the Gulf of Riga ecosystem prey, which decrease its availability for predator, is not suffering from feed for the upper level of predators. The key thus worsens feeding conditions and therefore, argument that Gulf of Riga herring is not a key LTL species is that fitness of protected species. This does not the underlying foodweb does not include a significant level of necessarily depend on number of harbour predators. porpoises. It means that interpretation of GoF herring as non-key LTL is still not well justified. Which criterion of LTL does take into account abundance of a predator?

1.1.2 Yes No further comments needed 1.2.1 Yes No further comments needed 1.2.2 Yes No further comments needed 1.2.3 Yes No further comments needed 1.2.4 Yes No further comments needed 2.1.1 Yes No further comments needed 2.1.2 Yes No further comments needed 2.1.3 Yes No further comments needed 2.2.1 No (scoring I am ok with arguments of the team regarding low The SES representative, expressed his concern regarding this issue Not accepted (no implications risk of discarding, but instead of that, risk of (i.e. misreporting between herring and sprat or smelt) during the site score change) unknown) misreporting appears, and it is not clear how it is visit, although he also acknowledged that the recent implementation addressed in this case of the LFICIS system had improved the SES capacity to inspect processing plants and detect problems of misreporting certain species using the 10% margin of tolerance. In addition, it has also been dealt with in Section 4.1.2 Harmonisation outcome and with a Recommendation (please, see Section 6.4). 2.2.2 Yes No further comments needed 2.2.3 Yes No further comments needed 2.3.1 Yes No further comments needed 2.3.2 Yes No further comments needed 2.3.3 Yes No further comments needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 282

2.4.1 No (scoring For some reasons, my comment on this PI does not The fishery is highly selective, with catches of herring and sprat Not accepted (no implications appear in the published PCDR (it is below accounting between 87 and 99% of total UoA catches. score change) unknown) highlighted with red), although the CAB reply addresses it in some extent. I am not satisfied with Regarding the gear, even though it is equipped with a footrope the reply, though. Inbycatch of flounder as high as consisting of a chain with very small and light plastic bobbins, the 6-7% may happen due to 'ocassional touch the gear is a pelagic trawl designed to not touch the sea bottom and to bottom during deployment". Herring is normally ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, therefore, interacting mostly with the pelagic much more abundant species than flounder, and community. Even though the gear may occasionally touch the bottom thus just ocassional contact of trawl with bottom during deployment, this is avoided as much as possible because soft hardly can result in such high bycatch (the survey bottom dominates the fishing area and the gear could stick to the includes quite many samples, as far as I bottom. Also because of fuel consumption the trawl is kept in free understand). Therefore, on my opinion, the trawl water, as dragging the trawl on the bottom is costly. contactes the bottom systematically (whatever reason of this), and the assessment needs to address this specifically. Table 3.4.2.1.1 and Figure 3.4.2.1.1, provided by researchers, show presence of several bottom species such as eelpout, flounder, sculpins, gobies. I do not see another explanation except that these species could be caught only if the trawl fish from the bottom, and quite intensively, given that proportion of the bottom fish is rather high (despite they are not so abundant as herring). I understand arguments of fishers about damaging the trawl by bottom, but in other fisheries, for instance, Sea of Okhotsk Walley Pollock fishery, where they also use mid-water trawl, they regularly affect bottom as trying to fish as deep as possile because large pollock prefer to live closer to bottom. Another example is codfish fisheries in the Barents Sea when they use bottom trawls and say that they avoid trawling in locations with many sponges etc, becasue of risk of damaging the gear, but in fact they do this regularly because in such locations fish are more abundant. Thus I would be rather cautious to argument of fishers. Related qustion: it is written (p. 19): "The gear is a light trawl (semipelagic trawl) with large meshed (3-24 cm mesh) in the mouth and with a fine meshed (~20 mm) codend. The gear is equipped with a footrope consisting of a chain with small plastic bobbins". Does it mean that it is designed to for bottom fishing (with soft sediments, for instance)? 2.4.2 Yes No further comments needed

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 283

2.4.3 Yes No further comments needed 2.5.1 Yes No further comments needed 2.5.2 Yes No further comments needed 2.5.3 Yes No further comments needed 3.1.1 Yes No further comments needed 3.1.2 Yes No further comments needed 3.1.3 Yes No further comments needed 3.2.1 Yes No further comments needed 3.2.2 Yes No further comments needed 3.2.3 Yes No further comments needed 3.2.4 Yes No further comments needed

MSC Technical Oversight Requireme Grade OversightDescription Pi CABComment ntVersion Guidanc Title page: The date is listed as November 2018. Updated. Thanks e FCR- PI 1.1.1. SI a. UoA1 (Gulf of Riga Herring): The link to the Guidanc 7.10.6.1 figure is not provided. This appears to be referring to Figure 1.1.1, Corrected. It did refer to figure 3.3.2.1 e v2.0 3.3.2.1.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 284

Presumably, the MSC TO refers to the scoring of UoA2 and UoA3 under PI 1.1.1A and not PI 1.1.1 as noted. The Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring are considered as ‘Key LTL’ species based on the evaluation of the core occurrence in the Open Sea (ICES 25-29+32 excl 28.1), see e.g. Andrews PI 1.1.1. SI b. UoA2 (Baltic Sprat) and UoA3 (Central Baltic and Scarcella (2018) and the harmonisation discussions referred to in section . herring): The assessment team presents information relative The proposed scoring is “Yes” for PI 1.1.1A (b) “The stock is at or fluctuating around a level to the stocks "fluctuating around a level consistent with consistent with ecosystem needs.” This applies to both UoA2 and UoA3. ecosystem needs." The team state in both rationales that

"FCR v2.0 SA2.2.13 suggests that the default value for Credible ecosystem model ecosystem needs is 75% of the virgin biomass while the lower There shall be "credible ecosystem models or robust empirical data for the UoA/ecosystem value is 40% of virgin biomass." For UoA 2, the level of 75%B0 being assessed" (SA2.2.13b). Several ecosystem models have been investigated for the Baltic is given as 1,500 kt and the current SSB is 1171 kt. For UoA 3, Sea and these provide comparable results, e.g. Bossier S, Palacz AP, Nielsen JR, Christensen A, the level of 75%b0 is given as 1,095 kt and the current SSB is Hoff A, Maar M, et al. (2018) The Baltic Sea Atlantis: An integrated end-to-end modelling 938 kt. framework evaluating ecosystem-wide effects of human-induced pressures. PLoS ONE 13(7):

e0199168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199168 Requirement SA2.2.13 however, is that 75% B0 is the default

level (SA2.2.13a) but higher or lower levels are appropriate, The ecosystem model that is referred to is the SMS model for the Baltic Proper system, see ICES FCR- including 40%B0, if there are "credible ecosystem models or (2013a) Benchmark. This model is accepted as a valid input to an ICES Benchmark process and is Major 7.10.6.1 robust empirical data for the UoA/ecosystem being assessed" 1.1.1, therefore considered ‘Credible’. v2.0 (SA2.2.13b).

Applying a non-default reference point for ecosystem needs It is not clear how the team has demonstrated that The regime shift that took place around 1990 and after which time the ecosystem is dominated SA2.2.13.b is met. It is not clear if evidence demonstrates that by the pelagic components primarily sprat and herring, see ICES Ecosystem Overviews Baltic Sea the level adopted: Ecoregion published 12 December 2019. Sprat and herring are important food items for cod, but i. Does not impact the abundance levels of more than 15% of at present, the main part of their biomass is distributed north of the distribution area for eastern the other species and trophic groups by more than 40% Baltic cod. Hence sprat and herring are plentiful in the Baltic Ecosystem. Sea birds and the grey (compared to their state in the absence of fishing on the seal populations are increasing indicating good feeding conditions. target LTL species); and HELCOM (2018): State of the Baltic Sea – Second HELCOM holistic assessment 2011-2016. Baltic ii. Does not reduce the abundance level of any other species Sea Environment Proceedings 155 finds that the pelagic fish components are assessed as in or trophic group by more than 70%. ‘good health’, see Figure 5.3.1.

HELCOM HOLAS II does not indicate that the pelagic fish are causing a reduction of other At present, the rationale does not support the team's species. conclusion.

Hence it appears that the pelagic component of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is supporting ecosystem needs. The biomasses are above the minimum required by the MSC standard (40% of the virgin biomass).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 285

PI 1.2.2. SI a. The assessment team has provided information to demonstrate that the HCRs are 'well defined' and meet the SG80 level. However, the main part of this justification is: "The HCRs are well defined and embedded in legislation. The EU MAP plan includes provision for reducing the fishing mortality if the stocks fall below PRI (Blim) and are designed to keep the stock fluctuating around MSY (G. Riga Herring) or consistent with ecosystem needs (Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat)."

However, there is no explicit information relative to 1) what FCR- The Baltic sprat and Central Baltic herring are considered as ‘Key LTL’ species based on the these HCRs are 2) the legislation referred to, nor 3) how the Major 7.10.6.1 1.2.2, evaluation of the core occurrence in the Open Sea (ICES 25-29+32 excl 28.1), see e.g. Andrews HCRs reduce fishing mortality and "keep the stock fluctuating v2.0 and Scarcella (2018) and harmonisation discussions in section 3.3.1. around MSY (G. Riga Herring) or consistent with ecosystem needs (Central Baltic herring and Baltic sprat)".

Further, the rationale states that the HCRs reduce "fishing mortality if the stocks fall below PRI (Blim)." However, the requirement at both SG60 and SG80 is that the HCR reduces exploitation as the PRI is approached, not after it falls below PRI.

At present, the rationale does not support the team's conclusion.

PI 1.2.2. SI c. The assessment team provides information relative to the stock meeting SG80 for scoring issue c. The team state that the main tool for the HCR is the TAC. While FCR- the team states that F has been less than Fmsy over recent The proposed scoring is “Yes” for PI 1.1.1A (b) “The stock is at or fluctuating around a level Minor 7.10.6.1 years, there is no discussion as to whether the TACs have 1.2.2, consistent with ecosystem needs.” This applies to both UoA2 and UoA3. v2.0 been adhered to by the fishery. Given this is the main tool for "achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs" the rationale at present does not justify the team's conclusion.

That statement is needed only in those case where the client express its willingnes to share the FCR- Reference is made to other eligible fishers however, no certificate with other eligible fishers. This is not the case, as stated in this section. This implies Minor 7.4.12.2 reference is made in relation to 7.4.12.2a in listing a that there are no other eligible fishers and there is no need for that statement to be prepared v2.0 statement of willingness for certificate sharing agreements. and published.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 286

Table 5.2.1 - Please avoid use of term 'no risk' within the FCR- Mitigation measures are necessary only in those cases where there is an associated risk. The Guidanc tables, the fact that there are mitigation measures in place 7.12.1.4 term no risk is employed only in those cases where no risk was identified, no mitigation e suggests that there may be some risk, consideration to use a v2.0 measures are argued for these cases term like 'negligible risk' Table 5.2.1 (row 4) - no reference to the other potentially Guidanc FCR_7.12.1. All the documents (logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes) quoted here by the team are eligble fishers and the risks they may present of mixing at e 4 v2.0 vessel specific. landing.

Critical Guidance GSA 3.4.2 (as applied to SA 3.7.1) states that, “The overall intent when designating ‘main’ species, is that there should be a good understanding of the long-term average catch composition of P2 species of the UoA before In the Baltic Proper sprat fishery, there is an on-board observer program (carried out by BIOR). the PCDR is released; and further, that teams are confident However, as in the GoR herring fishery vessels are smaller and therefore it is more difficult to that the species compositions, as well as their respective have observers on board on a regular basis, what BIOR does in this case is to perform the catch volumes, are unlikely to change over the lifetime of the SA-3.7.1 observer program (sampling) at port. Data from logbooks and official landings reported to the Major certificate”. 2.2.1, v2.0 Ministry of Fisheries are considered the core of the information to assign species, data from

BIOR sampling are considered to complement the information providded in the official landing In this context it is unclear how the team have considered data. Results from both sources were considered complementary and no contradictions were catch/ and or interactions data with respect to Secondary raised by any of the stakeholders interviewed. species given the absence of observer programme for the Herring fleet (as referenced on Pg 45). E.g. how have the team validated conclusions drawn from logbook and BIOR sampling programme in scoring this SI.

GSA 3.14 states that a management strategy should be in place even for those UoAs that rarely encounter the seabottom. The rationale provided by the team sustain that the combination of PI 2.4.2. SI a. To meet SG100, the Management Strategy the type of fishing gear use, the regulations on its technical characteristics and use, coupled with FCR- should consider gear loss impacts as prescribed by GSA 3.14. the HELCOM BSAP and the EU Natura 2000 network represent a strategy for managing impacts Minor 7.10.6.1 2.4.2, The rationale provided does not provide detail on how lost of all fisheries on marine habitats in the Baltic Sea (including the Gulf of Riga). Midwater trawls v2.0 gear impacts are considered/managed. are not likely to be lost, they are not use on hard bottoms, they rarely touch the seabed. Therefore, there is no need that the management strategy include specific details to deal with lost gear.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 287

Regarding the closed areas, please see Figures 3.4.1.7.1 and 3.5.5.1. There are a number of gear PI 2.3.2. SI a. Harbour porpoise. The team note that "the restrictions in effect in the Baltic fisheries to avoid cetacean by-catch among which the most FCR- measures used to implement this plan are gear modifications noticeable are the driftnet ban and the requirement to using pingers on gillnets. However, none Minor 7.10.6.1 2.3.2, and closed areas". It is unclear what modifications have been of these affect the sprat fishery. The sentence quoted by the MSC reviewer was removed v2.0 made to the gear and where areas have been closed. because it was wrong and unnecesary to sustain that SG80 is met. No change to score is considered necessary.

Natura 2000 is a European network of important ecological sites underpinned by the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (EEC/92/43). In compliance with Art.4 of the Birds Directive, EU Member States are required to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to protect bird species listed in Annex I of the Directive as well as migratory species. In addition, the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan), is an ambitious programme to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. The Plan, adopted by all the coastal states and the EU in 2007, provides a concrete basis for HELCOM work. It incorporates the latest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation, and stimulates goal-oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region. The BSAP is regularly updated in ministerial meetings. Under the umbrella of the BSAP, several actions are being implemented, as for example the PI 2.3.2. SI b. Seabirds. The team explain absence of direct network of HELCOM MPAs established in the Baltic Sea (including the Gulf of Riga) for protecting impact shows "that the strategy in place is ensuring the UoA marine habitats and species. does not hinder recovery of seabird ETP species". It is unclear Please see Figure 3.4.1.7.2 (HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 areas in the Baltic Sea, including the FCR- what the strategy includes to "represent a cohesive and Gulf of Riga). Major 7.10.6.1 strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more 2.3.2, Moreover, BIOR has an observer program in place for meeting requirements established in v2.0 measures, and understanding of how they work to achieve an COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 which includes the pelagic trawling outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on fishery in the GoR. These observers have the mandate to record and report interactions with that component specifically" as per Fisheries Standard v2.01 cetaceans and seabirds. Table SA8. Furthermore, Cabinet Regulation No. 296, Adopted on May 2, 2007 (Cabinet Regulation, 2007), has measures to regulate the procedures for the performance of commercial fishing in Latvia, and states that one of the fishers’ duties is “to inform the State scientific institute "Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment" (BIOR) regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals and to perform the relevant entries in the fishing logbook”. In addition, the Latvian Law (2000) on the Conservation of Species and Biotopes, dopted on March 16, 2000, includes the following purpose: to ensure biodiversity through the conservation of fauna, flora and biotopes characteristic to Latvia; and to regulate the conservation, management and supervision of species and biotopes. The combination of all the abovementioned represents a strategy to manage the impacts of the fishery in the Gulf of Riga ecosystem (including seabirds).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 288

Cabinet Regulation No. 296, Adopted on May 2, 2007 (Cabinet Regulation, 2007), has measures to regulate the procedures for the performance of commercial fishing in Latvia, and states that one of the fishers’ duties is “to inform the State scientific institute "Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment" (BIOR) regarding the catching of marked or rare species of fish and birds, as well as marine mammals and to perform the relevant entries in the fishing PI 2.3.2. SI a. The team notes that no harbour porpoise FCR- logbook”. bycatch have been reported by the fishery. The report would Minor 7.10.6.1 2.3.2, In addition, BIOR has an observer program in place for meeting requirements established in benefit from description of management in place should a v2.0 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004, which includes the pelagic trawling marine mammal bycatch event occur. fishery in the GoR. These observers have the mandate to record and report interactions with marine cetaceans and seabirds. These data are most commonly linked to at-sea observations carried out for the purposes of fisheries monitoring in accordance with the EU Data Collection Framework Regulation 2017/1004 (DCF). These data are then presented at the ICES WGBYC, which provides annual reviews of their status. In the case of Flounder, as there is a definition of stock, there is a map of the stock that was used All RBF susceptibility areal overlap rationales – it is not clear FCR- to compare the fishery’s activity overlap. whether distribution maps and other forms of evidence have Minor 7.10.6.1 2.2.1, For the other species, as there was no definition of stock, to be precautionary, we considered been used to determine the scores derived for areal overlap v2.0 the whole Gulf of Riga (but just the Gulf of Riga and not the rest of the Baltic Sea) and compared as per PF4.4.6 e and f. it with where the fishery occurs. As we did not have the deployment data (and therefore we could not work out the % for rarely, FCR- All RBF susceptibility selectivity rationales – it is not clear that regularly or frequently caught), together with the expert from BIOR, we agreed to use only (b) Minor 7.10.6.1 both a and b have been scored and what evidence has been 2.2.1, based on the fact that if the mesh size is large, the percentage would be low. Hence, we decided v2.0 used to support the rationales as per PF4.4.8 c and d. to use the same risk level for both, a and b. Guidanc The RBF worksheet scores included do not show the final 2.2.1, Thank you for spotting this. It has now been corrected. e MSC scores generated.

WWF comments The WWF (Pasaules Dabas Fonds in Latvian) sent by email the following comment to the PDCR. The table below includes the response from the team. Suggested CAB Performance Input Evidence or CAB response to stakeholder Input detail score response Indicator (PI) summary references input change code

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 289

If suitable, Objective please provide The CAB shall evidence or a suggested assign a references should Performance Summary score change response code Detail of stakeholder input be provided in The CAB s hall respond in this column. Indicator - sentence based on your to each row support of any input and completed by claims or claimed evidence - the stakeholder. errors of fact. Optional Based on ICES recommendations, the sprat and herring stocks are within safe biological limits in Gulf of Riga (SD 28.1), meaning that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is above the target level (Bmsy-trigger).

• Baltic Sea sprat (SD 22 – 32): Pasaules Dabas Fonds would Thank you for the reminder. As noted like to remind that the ecosystem-based approach and the in the comment the interaction dynamics between the stocks of eastern Baltic cod (although between cod and sprat/herring are not rarely occurs in SD 28.1) and sprat as noted in the ICES advice of importance in the Gulf of Riga. should also be taken into consideration. In its Ecosystem Small fractions of the Baltic sprat and Overview – Baltic Sea Ecoregion, ICES explains: “Many Central Baltic herring occur in the Gulf species and habitats of the Baltic Sea are not in good condition, of Riga but the fishery here has very according to recent assessments. This affects foodweb little impact on the ecosystem in the functionality, reduces the resilience and resistance against Open Sea. Management of the Baltic further environmental changes, and diminishes prospects for Sprat and the Central Herring focuses socioeconomic benefits, including fishing opportunities.” More on the Open Sea fisheries rather than precaution is needed while managing pelagic stocks in a those in the Gulf of Riga. HELCOM disturbed Baltic Sea ecosystem. (2018) HOLAS II finds as reflected by • Central Baltic Sea (excluding Gulf of Riga) herring in SDs 25– 2.5.2 - Ecosystem ICES 2019 Pasaules Dabas Fonds that the status Accepted (no 29 & 32: Pasaules Dabas Fonds would like to remind that the management strategy recommendations of several fish are not good but also score change) ecosystem-based approach and the dynamics between the notes that the pelagic component is in stocks of eastern Baltic cod (although rarely occurs in SD 28.1) Good Health in the Baltic Proper. and herring as noted in the ICES advice sheet should be taken ICES (2019) stated that, according to into account; the ICES advice that the central Baltic herring recent assessments, many species biomass is expected to decline in the coming years; and the and habitats of the Baltic Sea are not necessity to limit variations in fishing opportunities between in good condition. The following consecutive years. ICES highlights in “issues relevant for the sentence has been added at the end advice” that “It should be noted that the large 2014 year class of the second paragraph of the will be the main contributor to the yield in 2019 and 2020 and to rationale for PI 2.5.2, SI(c): "In SSB in 2020. For this stock it is uncommon to see such a large addition, ICES (2019) stated that, contribution of one year class to the SSB. The biomass is according to recent assessments, expected to decline in the coming years because no substantial many species and habitats of the year classes have recruited to the stock since the large 2014 Baltic Sea are not in good condition." year class. This decline has already started to occur in 2019 and 2020.” Therefore, more precaution is needed while managing pelagic stocks in a disturbed Baltic Sea ecosystem. • Pasaules Dabas Fonds agrees that monitoring species caught should be done in order to ensure that no misreporting is taking place.

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 290

Latest harmonisation outcomes Two additional harmonisation meetings were held in November 2019. A fishery to be assessed by SAI Global was added to the meetings. This fishery is still (December 2019) to be announced (the ACDR is expected for 2020). This fishery takes place outside the Gulf of Riga and therefore only Central Baltic herring and Baltic Sprat were discussed. Notes taken by Jim Andrews (Lloyd’s Register) during these meetings are presented in section 4.1.3 . The results of these meetings were considered as comments received during the 30-day consultation period on the PCDR. The outcome of these meetings resulted on a new condition set on PI 1.2.2 (see Appendix 1.3).

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 291

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale The team considers that the fishery is candidate for a reduced surveillance program: Level 4 instead of default Level 6 is proposed.

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

1 Off-site audit 2 auditors The CAB considers that necessary information to verify information and progress against the 2 conditions can be provided remotely (e.g. BIOR and client interviews and reports on progress made in relation the assessing smelt status, report on the information collected on interactions with cetaceans in Latvia and contacts with other MSC UoAs in order to elaborated a joint action plan). An off-site visit is also scheduled for 2021 as part of the surveillance program for the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery.

2 On-site audit 2 auditors This year it is expected that the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery faces its 4 th surveillance and re- assessment site visit. Therefore, a joint onsite visit for the two overlapping could be easily scheduled

3 Off-site audit 2 auditors The CAB considers that necessary information to verify information and progress against the 2 conditions can be provided remotely (e.g. BIOR and client interviews and reports on progress made in relation the assessing smelt status, report on the information collected on interactions with cetaceans in Latvia and contacts with other MSC UoAs in order to elaborated a joint action plan). The PCR of the re-assessment for the LFPO sprat fishery is expected to be released this year.

4 On-site audit 2 auditors This site visit should be scheduled together with the re-assessment site visit and therefore it is expected to be an off-site visit.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit

Year Anniversary date of Proposed date of Rationale certificate surveillance audit

1 (expected) January February 2021 In order to facilitate aligment of the 2021 surveillance audits to be performed for the other overlapping certified fishery from the 2 January 2022 February 2022 same client: the LFPO sprat fishery. The anniversary of the sprat fishery is in May. 3 January 2023 February 2023 Therefore, a joint site visit in February should

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 292

accommodate both fisheries. This also allows to 4 January 2024 February 2024 audit the entire previous fishing season. The proposal complies with the surveillance audit timing requirements. However it will be reviewed before the Final Report publication.

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level -2021- -2022- -2023- -2024-

4 Off-site surveillance On-site surveillance Off-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit audit audit audit & re- certification site visit

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 293

Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

NZRO GULF OF RIGA HERRING AND SPRAT TRAWL FISHERY – Final Draft Report page 294