Public Certification Report for Norwegian North East Atlantic

MOODY MARINE LTD

Ref: 82049 /NEAMF /v5 Author(s): G Piling, J Nichols, A H Hoel, A Hough, S Davies

Public Certification Report for

Norwegian North East Atlantic Mackerel fishery

Client: Norges Sildesalgslag

Certification Body: Client Contact: Moody Marine Ltd Knut Torgnes Moody International Certification Norges Sildesalgslag, Merlin House POBox 7065 Stanier Way 5020 Bergen Wyvern Business Park Norway Derby. DE21 6BF UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1633 401092 Tel: +47 55 54 95 00 Fax: +44 (0) 1332 675020 Fax: +47 55 54 95 66 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION...... 4

1.1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION...... 4 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS...... 4 1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES USED ...... 5 2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY...... 8

2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES...... 8 2.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY ...... 10 2.2.1 Vessels and Gears...... 12 2.3 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES ...... 13 2.4 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ...... 15 2.5 BY-CATCH AND DISCARD...... 18 2.6 INTERACTIONS WITH THREATENED, RARE, PROTECTED AND ICONIC SPECIES...... 20 2.7 OTHER FISHERIES RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT ...... 22 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT ...... 22

3.1 DOMESTIC LEGISLATION...... 22 3.1.1 Regulation...... 23 3.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS ...... 24 3.3. ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL ...... 25 4 STOCK ASSESSMENT ...... 26

4.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 26 4.2 MONITORING OF STOCK STATUS...... 26 4.3 MODELLING ...... 30 4.4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE...... 31 5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT: ...... 32

5.1 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 32 5.2 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ...... 32 6 STANDARD USED...... 33

PRINCIPLE 1...... 33 PRINCIPLE 2...... 34 PRINCIPLE 3...... 34 7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION ...... 37

7.1 EVALUATION TEAM;...... 37 7.2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS...... 37 THE FISHERY HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED AGAINST THE MSC STANDARD...... 37 7.3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY...... 37 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION...... 38

8.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 38 02.02.2008...... 38 04.06.2008...... 39 8.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ...... 39 9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING...... 40

9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY ...... 40 9.2 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 40 10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY ...... 41 11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION...... 41

82049 Mackerel v4 Page ii Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

11.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ...... 41 11.2 SCOPE OF CERTIFICATION ...... 42 11.3 CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION ...... 42 11.3.1 Conditions...... 42 12 APPENDICES ...... 45

82049 Mackerel v4 Page iii Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

1 INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Norwegian North East Atlantic mackerel Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

1.1 The Fishery Proposed for Certification The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock)."

Norwegian vessels are permitted to fish for mackerel in the Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone (NEEZ) north and south of 62oN, in EU waters, in Faroese waters and in the adjacent international waters. In practice the whole fishery occurs in the Norwegian EEZ, with the northern North Sea (ICES Division IVa) as the most important area.

The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined as:

Species: Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Geographical Area: ICES areas II, III, IV, V, VI VII Method of Capture: The main method of capture is by offshore purse seiners, midwater trawlers and some smaller coastal vessels operating purse seines and handlines. Stock North East Atlantic Mackerel Management: The stock is managed according to EU-Norway Agreement. This agreement is implemented in Norway under National management systems, advised by ICES. Client group: Norwegian vessels only

1.2 Report Structure and Assessment Process

The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 5.

This report firstly sets out:  the background to the fishery under assessment  the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment  the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria)  stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)

Section 9 of the report sets out the methodology used to assess (‘score’) the fishery against the MSC Standard. The scoring table then sets out the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring Guidelines which aid the team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators.

The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring commentary in context.

Finally, as a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification.

82049 Mackerel v4 Page iv Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

In draft form, this report is subject to public scrutiny on the MSC website and critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (‘peer review’). The comments of these scientists are appended to the final report.

The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments and the peer review comments is then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (a panel of experts independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board then make the final certification determination on behalf of Moody Marine.

It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.

1.3 Information sources used

Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with stakeholders in the fisheries, notably:

I1. Client (Norges Sildesalgslag) and other Fishing Industry Representatives I2. Directorate of Fisheries and Institute of Marine Research I3. Ministry of Fisheries I4. WWF

Other information sources:

Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are:

R1. Coombs,S.H., Pipe, R.K. and Mitchell, C.E. 1981. The vertical distribution of the eggs and larvae of the blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the eastern North Atlantic. Rapp-P.-v. Reun. Cons. Int.Explor.Mer, 178: R2. Greer-Walker, M.G. and Nichols, J.H. 1993. Predation on Benthosema glaciale (Myctophidae) by spawning mackerel (Scomber scombrus). Journal of Fish Biology (1993) 42, 618-620. R3. ICES (2005). Report of the Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Surveys(WGMEGS). ICES CM 2005 / G:09 Ref.D R4. ICES (2006). Report of the Working Group on Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGHMSA). ICES CM 2006 / ACFM:36. R5. ICES (2007a). Report of the Working Group on the Integration of Environmental Information into Fisheries Management Strategies and Advice. (WKEFA). ICES CM 2007 / ACFM:25, 182pp. R6. ICES (2007b). Report of the Working Group on Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGHMSA). ICES CM 2007 / ACFM:31, 725pp. R7. ICES (2007c). ICES Advice 2007 Book 9 Section 9.4.2 R8. Lockwood, S.J., Pawson, M.G. and Mumford, B.C., 1977. Effects of holding mackerel at different densities in nets of various sizes. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, (33): 10pp. R9. Lockwood, S.J. (1978). Mackerel: A problem in fish stock assessment. Lab.Leafl. MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, 44, 18pp. R10. Lockwood, S.J. Nichols, J.H. and Dawson, W.A. 1981. The estimation of mackerel (Scomber scombrus L.) spawning stock size by plankton survey. Journal of Plankton Research. Volume 3 Number 2 1981 R11. Lockwood, S.J., Pawson, M.G. and Eaton, D.R., 1983. The effects of crowding mackerel (Scomber scombrus) - physical condition and crowding. Fisheries Res. 2: 129-147. R12. ICES (2007). Report of the Working Group on Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGHMSA). ICES CM 2007 / ACFM: 31, 725pp.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 5 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

R13. Lockwood, S.J. (1988). The Mackerel. Its biology, assessment and the management of a fishery. Fishing News Books Ltd. Farnham, Surrey, England. R14. Molloy, J. (2004). The Irish Mackerel Fishery and the making of an industry. Killybegs Fishermens Organisation Ltd and The Marine Institute, Ireland. 245pp. R15. Patterson, K.R. and Melvin, G.D. (1996) Integrated catch at age analysis, Version 1.2. Scottish Risheries Research Report No. 38. Aberdeen. R16. Pawson, M.G. and Lockwood, S.J., 1980. Mortality of mackerel following physical stress, and its probable cause. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 177: 439-443. R17. Russell, F.S. (1976). The Eggs and Planktonic Stages of British Marine Fishes. Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd. R18. Simmonds, J. (2005). Mackerel Assessment Explained. Fishing News. London WC1N 2BP. 4th February 2005, p15. R19. Wheeler, A. 1969. The Fishess of the British Isles and North-West Europe. Macmillan, London, 613pp. R20. Iversen, S.A. (2004). Mackerel and horse mackerel. In The Norwegian Sea Ecosystem. (Skjoldal, HR; Saetre, R; Faernoe, A; Misund, OA; Roettingen, I (eds)), Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim. pp. 289-300. R21. Skaug, H.J., Gjoesaeter, H., Haug, T., Nilssen, K.T., and Lindstroem, U. (1997). Do minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) exhibit particular prey preferences? J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 22, 91-104. R22. Lindstrøm, U., Harbitz, A., Haug, T., and Nilssen, K. T. (1998). Do harp seals Phoca groenlandica exhibit particular prey preferences? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55: 941– 953. R23. ICES. 2005. Report of the Regional Ecosystem Study Group for the North Sea (REGNS), 9– 13 May 2005, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2005/. 49 pp. R24. Sparre, P. 1984. A computer program for estimation of food suitability coefficients from stomach content data and multispecies VPA. ICES CM 1984/G: 25, 59 pp. R25. Daskalov, G. and Mackinson, S. (2004). Trophic modelling of the North Sea. ICES CM 2004/FF:40 R26. Pierce, G.J., J. Dyson, E. Kelly, J. Eggleton, P. Whomersley, I.A.G. Young, M. Begoña Santos, J. Wang and N.J. Spencer (2002). Results of a short study on by-catches and discards in pelagic fisheries in Scotland (UK). Aquat. Living. Resour. 15 (2002) 327-334 R27. Morizur, Y., Berrow, S.D., Tregenza, N.J.C., Couperus, A.S., and Pouvreau, S. 1999. Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic. Fisheries Research, 41: 297–307. R28. Northridge, S.P. (2003). Seal by-catch in fishing gear. SCOS Briefing Paper 03/13. NERC Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St. Andrews, UK R29. Napier, I.R., A.W. Newton and R. Toreson (1999). Investigation of the Extent and Nature of Discarding from Herring and Mackerel Fisheries in ICES Sub-Areas IVa and VIa. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 96/082. North Atlantic Fisheries College, Shetland Islands, UK. June 1999. R30. Prokopchuk, I., and Sentyabov, E. 2006. Diets of herring, mackerel, and blue whiting in the Norwegian Sea in relation to Calanus finmarchicus distribution and temperature conditions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 117-127. R31. Blanchard, J.L., Pinnegar, J.K. and Mackinson, S. (2002). Exploring marine mammal-fishery interactions using ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’: modelling the Barents Sea ecosystem. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., CEFAS Lowestoft, 117: 52pp. R32. Misund, O.A. and Beltestad, A.K. (2000). Survival of mackerel and saithe that escape through sorting grids in purse seines. Fisheries Research 48, 31-41 R33. IEEP 2004. Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear. DG FISH/2004/20 R34. Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser (1998). The effects of fishing on the marine ecosystem. Advances in Marine Biology Vol. 34 (1998) 203-302

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 6 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

R35. Wassmann, P., Reigstad, M., Haug, T., Rudels, B., Carroll, M.L., Hop, H., Gabrielsen, G.W., Falk-Petersen, S., Denisenko, S.G., Arashkevich, E., Slagstad, D. and Pavlova, O. (2006). Food webs and carbon flux in the Barents Sea. Progress in Oceanography 71, 232-287. R36. Temming, A., Bohle, B., Skagen, D.W. and Knudsen, F.R. (2002). Gastric evacuation in mackerel: the effects of meal size, prey type and temperature. J. Fish Biol, 61, 50–70. R37. Punzon, A, Villamor, B., and Preciado, I. (2004). Analysis of the handline fishery targeting mackerel (Scomber scombrus, L.) in the North of Spain (ICES Division VIIIbc). Fisheries Research 69, 189–204. R38. Vecchio, J.L. and Wenner, C.A. (2007). Catch-and-release mortality in subadult and adult red drum captured with popular fishing hook types. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:891–899. R39. Chopin, F.S., Arimoto, T., and Inoue, Y. (1996). A comparison of the stress response and mortality of sea bream Pagrus major captured by hook and line and trammel net. Fisheries Research 28, 277-289. R40. OSPAR 2010 presentation of quality state report R41. ACFM (2007). Northeast Atlantic Mackerel (combined Southern, Western, and North Sea spawning components) R42. Napier, I.R., A. Robb and J. Holst (2002). Investigation of Pelagic Discarding. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 99/071. North Atlantic Fisheries College and the FRS Marine Laboratory. August 2002. R43. Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (2008). Regulations amending the regulations relating to sea-water fisheries (140408). http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/english/regulations/080414_regulations_amending_the_reg ulations_relating_to_sea_water_fisheries R44. DEFRA (2003). UK Small cetacean by-catch response strategy R45. Northridge, S., Kingston, A., Thomas, L., and Mackay, A. (2007). Second annual report on the UK cetacean bycatch monitoring scheme. SMRU, 27p. () R46. Bekby, T. (2001) Dispersal and bycatch mortality in gray, Halichoerus grypus, and harbor, Phoca vitulina, seals tagged at the Norwegian coast. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 963-976. R47. Bjørge, A. and Kovacs, K.M., (sci. eds.). ‘Report of the working group on seabirds and mammals’. R48. Bjørge, A., Godøy, H. and Nedreaas, K. (2006). A system for monitoring bycatches of marine mammals in Norwegian coastal and inshore waters. NAMMCO/15/MC/BC/8. R49. Daan, N, Heessen, H. and Hofstede, R. (2005). North Sea Elasmobranchs: distribution, abundance and biodiversity. ICES CM 2005/N:06 R50. Forskrift om endring av forskrift om satelittbasert overvåking av fiske- og fangstfartøys aktivitet. J-86-2008. http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/content/view/full/944/(offset)/20 R51. Forskrift om fastsetting av kvotefaktor i fisket etter makrell i 2008, J-100-2008. http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/content/view/full/944/(offset)/20 R52. Forskrift av 22. Desember 2004 nr 1878 om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen. http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/content/view/full/944/(offset)/20 R53. Lov av 3. Juni 1983 nr. 40 om saltvannsfiske m.v. R54. Mikalsen, K. and S. Jentoft, 2003, Limits to particpation? On the history, structure, and reform of Norwegian fisheries management, Marine Policy. 27 (5): 397-407. R55. NOU 2005:10: Lov om forvaltning av viltlevende marine ressurser.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 7 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

R56. Ot.prp. nr. 20 (2007-2008) Om lov om forvaltning av viltlevande marine ressurser (havressurslova). R57. Riksrevisjonen Dokument nr 3:13 (2003-2004): Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av forvaltningen av ressursene). R58. Sak 26/07 Reguleringsmøtet 5 og 18 juni 2007: Regulering av fisket etter makrell i 2008. Fiskeridirektoratet,Bergen. http://www.fiskeridir.no/fiskeridir/fiskeri/sakspapirer_referater/reguleringsm_ter_juni_2007 R59. St.meld. nr 32 (2006-2007) Om dei fiskeriavtalane Noreg inngått med andre land for 2007 og fisket etter avtalane i 2005 og 2006. R60. MacKenzie, B.R. and Myers, R.A. (2007). The development of the northern European fishery for north Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus during 1900–1950. Fish. Res. 87, 229-239. R61. Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G. (2007). An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 195pp. R62. Luque, P. L., Davis, C.G., Reid, D.G., Wang, J. and Pierce, G.J. (2006). Opportunistic sightings of killer whales from Scottish pelagic trawlers fishing for mackerel and herring off North Scotland (UK) between 2000 and 2006. Aquat. Living Resour. 19, 403–410 R63. Zeeberg, J.J., Corten, A. and de Graaf, E. (2006). Bycatch and release of pelagic megafauna in industrial trawler fisheries off Northwest Africa. Fish. Res. 78, 186–195 R64. Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Gibson, R.N. and Atkinson, R.J.A. (2003). The diet of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 41, 355

2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY

2.1 Biology of the Target Species

The north-east Atlantic mackerel, (Scomber scombrus. L) is a member of the Scombridae family, which includes a large number of species, distributed widely throughout the world. At the southern end of its range, from the Bay of Biscay south, it may be found together with the Spanish mackerel (Scomber colias, Gmelin) but they are easily identified and separated by fishers (Wheeler, 1969). A comprehensive account of the biology of the north-east Atlantic mackerel is given by Lockwood (1988). The mackerel is an ectothermic fish, meaning that its body temperature does not remain constant, but varies between 1 and 2º C above that of the temperature of the water. The mackerel has the most northerly distribution of the family and one of its main distinguishing features is the lack of a swim bladder, which means that mackerel can change depth rapidly. It is a pelagic fish spending most of its time in mid-water traveling in large dense, shoals, often at great speed and making very long migrations. It is a voracious, opportunistic feeder and whilst feeding mainly on the rich supply of zooplankton, in spring and summer, it does also take small pelagic fish including myctophids which migrate up to the near surface waters at night (Greer-Walker and Nichols, 1993). As a result it is a very oily fish, building up high energy reserves during the spring and summer which it needs both for migration and subsequent gonad development during the following winter. During this period the oil content of a large mature mackerel may fall from 25% to 30% of the total body weight to less than 10% (Lockwood, 1988).

The north-east Atlantic mackerel may begin to mature as one year old fish and over 60% are generally mature by age two. By age four there is virtually 100% maturity. They are highly fecund producing between 200,000 and 800,000 eggs dependent on fish weight. The eggs are released in batches and the

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 8 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report spawning of an individual female may be spread over a few weeks. There has been much research, over the past twenty years, on the biology of spawning in mackerel. This has been targeted at the estimation of fecundity in relation to spawning stock biomass calculation from egg surveys. As a result there is now considerable knowledge on all aspects of their spawning biology including atresia in the ovaries and seasonal, annual and latitudinal variations on oocyte production. All these studies can be traced back through reference to the most recent egg survey report (ICES, 2005) or in the extensive bibliography by Molloy (2004)

The north-east Atlantic mackerel is widely distributed from the Iberian Peninsula in the south to the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea in the north. Over this area it may be found from over the deep waters of the shelf edge right up to the coastal waters of the whole area, including the English Channel and Irish Sea.

After many years of scientific investigation and debate it is now recognised that there is one stock in the north-east Atlantic. However it is further recognised that this stock comprises three different components, a southern component, a western component and a North Sea component (Molloy, 2004).

The pattern of migration of the southern and western mackerel components is complex but basically begins in the late winter and early spring when shoals which have been over-wintering in deep water begin their migration northwards to spawn and eventually to reach the rich summer feeding grounds in the North Sea. Most of these mackerel will make their way up to the west of the British Isles and Ireland but some will move into the southern and central North Sea via the English Channel. In the autumn the reverse migration occurs. However in recent years it has been observed that many of these fish remain in the northern North Sea until January or February and only then move back to the western area to spawn The North Sea component, which over-winters in the deep water of the Norwegian trench moves south to the central North Sea to spawn. It is clear from this pattern of migration that the three components may at times be found together, in particular during summer and autumn in the North Sea. Tagging results have shown that southern component fish tagged off the Iberian Peninsula can be found in the northern North Sea in the summer. Recent observed changes in the distribution of the mackerel fisheries has led the ICES assessment working group (ICES, 2007b) to the hypothesis that there has been an overall shift to the north over the period 2005-2007. There has also been a shift of the spawning and feeding areas in the northern part of the distribution, confirmed by high egg abundance during May 2007 at the most northerly limit of the egg survey area. Such changes if confirmed may have substantial consequences for the abundance, spawning, growth and recruitment of North East Atlantic mackerel. The reason for such changes could be found in changes in the hydrographic conditions linked to the strength of the sub-polar gyre. (ICES, 2007b)

Spawning occurs over a very wide area beginning off the Iberian Peninsula in January, progressing northwards and ending up to the north of Scotland and in the North Sea in July. In the southern area and to the west of the British Isles and west of Ireland, spawning tends to be strongly concentrated initially along the continental shelf edge eventually spreading to the shallower waters across the shelf. In the North Sea, the spawning area is discrete and clearly separate from those of the southern and western components. There is some spawning in the southern Bight of the North Sea in June, but these are western component fish migrating up the English Channel and not part of the North Sea component.

The eggs are planktonic, about 1.2 mm in diameter and contain a single oil globule (Russell, 1976). In the early part of the season they may be distributed down to 200 meters depth, but once a strong thermocline has developed over the spawning areas, by late May, the eggs are found concentrated above the thermocline (Coombs et al, 1981) The duration of egg development is entirely dependent on o temperature. At 10 C the larvae hatch in ten days, at a length of 2.5 mm to 3 mm. The larvae develop rapidly in the plankton and eventually arrive as young fish in the shallower near shore areas (Lockwood, 1988). Specific nursery areas are not clearly identified although there are areas, for an

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 9 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report example off the south-west coast of Britain and off north-west Ireland where the concentrations of juvenile fish are greatest.

Over recent years there has also been a body of funded research targeted at improving the basic knowledge of factors affecting mackerel distribution. For an example the EU funded programmes: Shelf Edge Fisheries and Oceanographic studies (SEFOS); Spatial Pattern of Migration and Recruitment of Northeast Atlantic mackerel project; Shelf Edge Advection, Mortality and Recruitment (SEAMAR). In 2007 ICES held a Working Group to study the integration of environmental information into fisheries management strategies and advice (ICES, 2007a)

2.2 History of the Fishery

Prior to the mid 1960’s there were two distinct and relatively small mackerel fisheries in European waters. The biggest of these was in the North Sea with annual landings of 60,000 to 100,000t which was about three times higher than landings from the fishery to the west of the Britain. In the mid to late 1960’s the North Sea fishery escalated rapidly to landings of almost a million tonnes by 1967. This huge expansion was almost entirely due to the impact of the rapidly developing Norwegian purse seine fleet catching fish for reduction to meal and oil (Lockwood, 1978). This kind of pressure on the stock resulted in rapidly falling landings and ultimately to the collapse of the North Sea stock during the 1970’s. The Norwegian Government reacted quickly to the crisis by introducing quota restrictions for their fleet which was taking around 85% of the total international catch from the North Sea. They also introduced further controls to reduce the quantity of mackerel taken for industrial purposes. Nevertheless the spawning stock biomass declined rapidly to levels well below 100,000t and have only in recent years begun to gradually increase above those low levels.

At the same time as the over-fishing and collapse of the North Sea stock was occurring there were signs of a steady increase in the fishery in the western area. Prior to 1970 the total international catch had been well below 100,000t annually but by 1971 this had more than doubled. This steady increase was mainly attributable to the activities of ex eastern bloc countries led by the Soviet Union. Landings increased to almost half a million tonnes by 1976, but in 1977 these vessels were all excluded from fishing in the waters of member states of the European Union (Lockwood 1978; 1988). Their effort was rapidly replaced by UK vessels, many of which had been re-directed onto mackerel following the total closure of the North Sea herring fishery in 1977. The UK trawlers at this time were normally landing direct to eastern bloc factory vessels offshore, and annual landings, in this ‘klondyke fishery’ increased again, reaching a peak of over 700,000t in 1981 (Figure 1). Over this period changes in the marine environment which affected the distribution of mackerel were noted. Large over-wintering shoals of mackerel began to appear off the Cornish peninsula during the mid to late 1960’s. These shoals attracted the attention of the offshore fleet of mid-water trawlers and purse seiners which greatly increased the effort on juvenile mackerel present in the area. As a consequence a closed area off the SW coast of England was introduced in 1981 (EU Council Regulation No.894/97 Article 9) to protect juvenile mackerel from the attentions of the offshore fleets. Lockwood (1978&1988) and Molloy (2004) both provide more detailed descriptions of the development and management of the North East Atlantic mackerel fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 10 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Figure 1 Annual landings of North East Atlantic mackerel (‘1000 tonnes) for the period 1972 to 2007

Throughout the 1980’s catches from the western area remained very high and then increased again to around 800,000t in 1993 and 1994. They have subsequently declined to 472,652t in 2006. From 1996 there was an increasing trend of catches from the North Sea and Skaggerak with well over a half of the total catch recorded from this area mainly during the second half of the year. In fact most of this catch is taken in the northern North Sea (ICES Division IVa). The increasing trend continued through to 2002 since when it has declined. However the proportion of the total catch taken from this area is still only just below 50%.

Table 1. Total western mackerel catch and the catch in sub-area IV abd Division IIIa for the years 2002 to 2006 (Source: ICES Assessment Working Group Reports 2003 to 2007)

Year Total western mackerel catch Catch of mackerel in sub-Area IV and Division IIIa (tonnes) (tonnes) 2002 718,000 363,000 2003 617,000 328,000 2004 611,000 294,000 2005 543,500 252,000 2006 472,700 206,000

With the increasing trend of catches from the North Sea and the prevalence of misreporting of catches into adjacent areas ICES advised that Division IVa should be closed to mackerel fishing for the first half of the year. This has subsequently been modified to take account of changes in the timing of migration and the advice now permits fishing for mackerel in Division IVa from 1 July to 15 February. This is in addition to the complete ban on directed mackerel fisheries in ICES Divisions IVb,c and IIIa at any time of the year.

In general the Norwegian mackerel fishery does not start until early August by which time the mackerel have reached their full growth potential for the season and will thus fetch a higher price at the market. There is a derogation which allows for some of the smallest coastal vessels to fish their quotas from 1 January. In practice the main offshore fishery takes place in the final third of the year with most of the catch taken in Division IVa, The Norwegian fleet also catch part of their quota in Division IIa and sub-Area V.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 11 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Table 2. Norwegian catches of mackerel by ICES Divisions and sub-Areas in 2006 (Source: (ICES 2007b)

Fishing Area Mackerel Catch (tonnes) IV and IIIa 113,079 IIa and V 8,914 Total 121,993

The total Norwegian Quota for mackerel in 2006 was 116,245t. An additional catch of 3,337t was registered for research and educational purposes which was not separately allocated in the quota. The quota in 2006 was overfished by about 2,400t. In 2007 the Norwegian quota of 131,965t included an allocation for research and educational purposes. The 2007 quota was underfished by about 500t. (Knut Torgnes, Pers Comm.)

The uptake of the Norwegian quota is closely monitored by Norges Sildesalgslag, the sales organisation through which all fish sales are processed. The catches are reported as they are taken and sold by auction whilst the vessel is still at sea. The reported catch is then delivered to the buyer where verification of the reported weight is made. Norges Sildesalgslag are responsible to the Ministry for monitoring individual vessel landings and their quota uptake and the national uptake of the quota. The information is updated on a daily basis and is immediately available and in the public domain via the official website. If over quota fish is landed then the proceeds from its sale are pooled for the benefit of the Industry as a whole. Funds thus generated may be used by Norges Sildesalgslag for example for control and monitoring purposes, for education and to assist the smaller coastal vessels to competitively market their catch. They are required to report on the use of such funds to the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.

2.2.1 Vessels and Gears

The vessels allowed to participate in the Norwegian fishery for mackerel are divided into three main vessel groups; purse seiners, mid-water trawlers and coastal vessels. In 2007, according to Norges Sildesalgslag figures, there were 107 offshore purse seiners, 32 licensed trawlers, 189 small coastal purse seine vessels and 269 coastal hook and line vessels fishing for NEA mackerel, whose access to the fishery is subject to annual regulation. The Norwegian quota for mackerel is allocated to the purse seiners and mid-water trawlers according to the licensed capacity of each vessel. For the coastal vessels the quota is allocated according to their overall length.

On average about 77% of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel catch originates from purse seiners, 3% from pelagic trawlers, 11% from coastal purse seiners and 9% from coastal handline vessels.

Purse Seine Both small coastal vessels and larger offshore vessels operate purse seine gears. Offshore purse seiners are generally between 36m and 94m, with a smaller group of vessels (18) around 27m. In addition, the 189 coastal purse seine vessels are between 15 and 27m.

While regulations are also developed on the minimum permissible size for mackerel (30 cm in Norwegian waters), there is no minimum size when fishing with nets and hooks, or when caught by seining and stored in lock seines, where catch is to be used for human consumption.

Other protective measures are the prohibition of the use of drainage grids that can be used as sorting equipment in the water separator or chutes leading from the water separator (drainage system) in fisheries for herring and mackerel. Pelagic trawl Pelagic trawl vessels operate offshore. These vessels are currently between 30 and 68m in length.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 12 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Within Norwegian regulations, protective measures include the prohibition of the use of drainage grids and graders in fisheries for herring and mackerel. Norwegian authorities also have the potential to close areas reactively if information suggests that juvenile or bycatch levels within catches are above acceptable limits. There are also spatial limitations on fishing areas.

Hook and line Coastal hook and line vessels are numerous in the NEA mackerel fishery. They range between 6 and 21m in length.

2.3 Fishing Locations and Administrative boundaries

The ICES sub-Areas and Divisions in which the North East Atlantic mackerel are fished are shown on the Figure 2 below. They are found throughout sub-Areas IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and in Division IIa. The Norwegian fishery takes place mainly in ICES Divisions IIa, IVa and Vb, although fishing in other areas also takes place (see Section 1.1). and mainly within the Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 ICES Fishing Areas in the North Atlantic

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 13 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Figure 3 The Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone (Source: Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs)

The mackerel fisheries take place in a very large area ranging from the Bay of Biscay in the South to the Northern Norwegian Sea. The fishery therefore occurs in the waters under the jurisdiction of several states bordering the Atlantic, as well as at the high seas beyond areas of national jurisdiction. All member states in the European Union are subject to the Common Fisheries Policy, which effectively leaves the authority to manage fisheries with the Community. Norway´s mackerel fisheries essentially takes place in its EEZ and to the south of 64oN.

The mackerel fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic are managed under three arrangements covering three areas: a tripartite agreement between Norway, EU and the Faroe Islands for the waters to the west of the British Isles, Ireland, and Norway, the bilateral cooperation between Norway and the EU for the North Sea component of the stock, and in the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) for the international waters. In addition, a southern component of the stock is managed by EU alone.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 14 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Norway and the EU enter an annual agreement for the distribution of recommended quota, but they do not always agree that this is the correct distribution as per the zones of the fisheries and discussions concerning this therefore occur on an annual basis.

The tripartite agreement between the coastal states to the stock: EU, The Faroe Islands and Norway was established in 1999, and the agreement has been renewed annually since. The parties agreed to a management strategy for the stock the same year, and cooperation on management has also entailed the establishment of a working group on control issues (see below).

The bilateral cooperation with the EU is based on a 1978 Agreement, which lays out the foundations for the cooperation and commits the parties to cooperate on the management of fish stocks that are shared between the two. Annual meetings are held under the agreement to agree on management measures for the shared stocks for the following year, as well as on quota exchanges on other stocks outside the North Sea. While 6 shared stocks are explicitly divided by a fixed percentage to each party, the EU and Norway has not been able to agree on a division of the mackerel stock. Since the EU and Norway do not agree on the division of the stock, the quotas agreed to between the two are annual, ad hoc arrangements (stm 32:18). Quotas are now set for 3 management areas: the North Sea and Skagerrak, Norway´s EEZ North of 62N and international waters, and EU waters.

Although the management responsibilities are divided between several international arrangements, they are defined within the three core areas of resource management: developing the knowledge base, preparing and implementing regulations, and enforcing them. Interactions are however not always effective in the sense of decisions being promptly followed up upon or abided by. The regulation of the mackerel fisheries in the NEAFC area (waters beyond 200 nautical miles), for instance, is not accepted by all NEAFC parties.

The knowledge base for resource management is developed by the marine scientific institutions of the countries that participate in the fisheries. There is cooperation on research planning, data collection, including joint research cruises, and the development of assessment models. This is the basis for the scientific advice for resource management provided by ICES. Additional scientific inputs on marine ecosystems issues are provided through other research institutions (universities other research institutes). The IMR is an independent research institution with its own board. About half of its funding comes directly from the Ministry of fisheries and coastal affairs.

The management strategies and the TACs for the different areas are decided on by the cooperation under the three arrangements mentioned above. In Norway, the overall responsibility for resource management resides with the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, which decides on policy and regulatory schemes. The Fisheries Directorate acts as a technical body preparing the secondary legislation containing regulations and implementing it. Interactions between the Ministry, Directorate and IMR appear to function well.

In Norway, enforcement of regulations is the responsibility of the Coast Guard (at sea), the Fisheries Directorate (near shore waters and upon landings) and the sales organizations (upon landings). These organisations have set procedures governing joint activities and meet regularly to coordinate actions.

2.4 Ecosystem Characteristics

The ecosystem approach has been agreed as a management principle in the Bergen Declaration from the 5th North Sea Conference and by the Norwegian Parliament in adopting the governmental white paper.

Norwegian Sea

Knowledge of the ecosystem characteristics of the North East Arctic region can be divided into two separate areas: the Barents Sea to Lofoten (the majority of which is not relevant for this accreditation,

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 15 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report but is the subject of a management plan, as described in Report no.8 to the Storting, “Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands”), and the remainder of the Norwegian Sea to the south of this area.

The study of the ecosystem within the Norwegian Sea is the focus of a number of groups within the Institute of Marine Research (Bergen). Areas of research include habitats and their significance for ecology and biological diversity; the health of benthic communities; oceanographic variability and changes in the marine climate for the production, distribution and behaviour of marine organisms; the distribution of species and their trophic interactions, as well as knowledge of non-commercial species, and indicators for marine ecosystem-based management.

Through the underpinning work, key geographical areas have been identified that are important for biodiversity and biological production in the area, and where adverse impacts might persist for many years. Besides being important within the life history stages of key commercial fish species (e.g. spawning and nursery areas), several areas have been identified as important as breeding, moulting or wintering areas for seabird populations of international importance. In addition, the areas identified include valuable and vulnerable habitats where the benthic fauna included species such as cold-water corals (the largest known cold-water coral reef is off Røst in the Lofoten Islands) and sponge communities. Unintentional negative impacts on these species “are to be reduced as much as possible by 2010”.

On the basis of these studies, the most vulnerable areas within the region have been identified and oil and gas activities forbidden in these areas. So far, one purely marine protected area has been established under the Act: the Selligrunnen coral reef in the Trondheimsfjorden, which has been temporarily protected. An Official Norwegian Report (NOU 2004: 28) on an Act on the protection of the natural environment, landscape and biological diversity contains a proposal to extend the geographical scope for the protection of sea areas from 12 nautical miles to include the Norwegian continental shelf and Norway’s exclusive economic zone. Five marine protected areas have been established under the fisheries legislation to protect coral reefs from damage caused by bottom trawling. These are the Sula Reef (1999), Iverryggen Reef (2000), the Røst Reef (2003), Tisler and Fjellknausene Reefs (2003). These areas protect these specific vulnerable species and habitats from disturbance. In addition, the world's shallowest known Lophelia-reef, Selligrunnen, rising up to 39 m depth below the surface, has been temporary conserved pursuant to the Norwegian Nature Conservation Act by the environmental authorities (2000) (http://www.fisheries.no/management_control/environmental_impact/coral_reefs.htm).

The MAREANO programme1 aims to survey and perform basic studies of the seabed’s physical, biological and chemical environment. This follows the Norwegian Government’s go-ahead for the launch of a marine survey programme in the Lofoten - Barents Sea region in 2005. Following collection, the data is entered into a database that covers Norway’s coastal and marine regions, increasing the information on ecologically important benthic communities such as coral reefs and sponges.

Large 3D hydrodynamic numeric models are being continually developed, and models for the Barents Sea are run by both IMR and PINRO. Sub-models for phytoplankton and zooplankton are now implemented in some of the hydrodynamic models. However, strong assumptions within these models mean outputs must be viewed with caution.

Further studies have looked into the food web characteristics of the Norwegian Sea region. Iversen (2004) described the migration and feeding of mackerel in the Norwegian Sea. Skaug et al. (1997) estimated food consumption estimates for Minke whales. They noted that pelagic species (particularly herring) form key food species (see also Lindstrom et al. (1998) for harp seals). These studies have begun to place mackerel within the foodweb of the Norwegian Sea region. A further aspect to the

1 IMR web page

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 16 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report ecosystem approach includes predicting the effect of mixed fisheries on individual exploited stocks. ICES is requested to provide advice which is consistent across stocks for mixed fisheries. Although work to this end is ongoing, (ICES 2006/ACFM:14), they are limited due to a need for better methods and limited data.

A number of multispecies models have been developed to examine ecosystem interactions between exploited species, but their use is limited by their data intensive nature. Simpler models, which look at an aspect of the total ecosystem, include GADGET (www.hafro.is/gadget), which can model interactions between cod, herring, capelin and minke whales in the Barents Sea. This model is still being developed. and currently does not include mackerel.

Further ecosystem studies by IMR have been recently launched on Lagenorhynchus dolphins, following a recommendation from the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO). The study aims to explore the ecology of Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus and the white-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris to increase knowledge of the ecosystem dynamics, and investigate the exposure of mammalian top predators towards environmental contaminants and study effects on their health status. In addition to sightings, this programme involves the capture and post-mortem examination of specimens.

As noted, a management plan for the Barents Sea/Lofoten has been developed based upon the collation of a considerable range of data sources. The process for more southerly Norwegian Sea waters is less advanced. However, the Barents Sea/Lofoten plan stated “The Government also intends to start the preparation of similar management plans for the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea, using experience gained during the preparation of this management plan as a starting point”. This process aims to present a white paper in Spring 2009. Work on a representative selection of marine habitats in Norwegian coastal waters (national marine protection plan) is also said to be well advanced, and proposals are expected to be ready for public consultation so that protected areas can be established. In the second phase of the work on the marine protection plan (up to 2012), further areas will be protected and other adjustments made as necessary.

North Sea

The North Sea is a semi-enclosed water body, situated on the continental shelf of Northwest Europe. Bounded by a number of countries, this relatively shallow sea (generally shallower than 200m) is strongly affected by both saline inflows from the north, and from freshwater inputs from the major rivers of the continent. It is a highly productive ecosystem, but primary productivity varies across the North Sea. Highest values of primary productivity occur in the coastal regions (influenced by terrestrial nutrient inputs), on the Dogger Bank, and at tidal fronts.

The North Sea is the focus of a range of human activities, including fishing, dredging, oil and gas exploration, shipping and as recipient for discharges from sources on land or offshore. In recognition of the potential impacts on the ecosystem, the Ministers at the 3rd Conference in The Hague in 1990 requested that OSPAR and ICES should establish a North Sea Task Force (NSTF), with one of the tasks being to produce a Quality Status Report (QSR) for the North Sea. This was completed in 1993 and identified fisheries as having major impacts on the North Sea ecosystem.

A range of information exists on elements of the North Sea ecosystem, including considerable knowledge on the oceanography, plankton, fish distribution and abundance, and the interactions between these fish components. Certain types of data, notably those related to fisheries, physical oceanography, plankton and nutrients, are measured typically throughout the North Sea, with many programmes covering several decades of observation. Other data, including biological effects (ecotoxicology), sediment chemistry (contaminants), species introductions, hazardous algal blooms in coastal waters and benthos surveys (to name a few) tend to be more localized (for example concentrated in coastal waters) or cover a more limited period of time, i.e., years rather than decades.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 17 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

The process of linking these components of the North Sea ecosystem is beginning under the ICES Regional Ecosystem study group for the North Sea (REGNS; ICES 2005), which includes Norwegian scientific representatives. Under these auspices, a workshop to progress an Integrated Assessment of the North Sea (9–11 May, 2004) and the meeting of the REGNS Study Group (12–13 May 2004) was held at ICES Copenhagen, Denmark. This aimed to seek agreement on the methodological approach (or framework) for undertaking an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of the North Sea (IEA). The process aims to bring together information from a range of other ICES Working Groups and organisations (including OSPAR and SAHFOS) to this aim.

The impact of fishing gears on the seabed of the North Sea has been the focus of many studies, both from the impact on benthos, and the geochemistry of the seabed. The impact is most notable through the activities of the beam trawl fleet, which targets flatfish rather than pelagic species. Indeed, the impact of pelagic gear on the seabed will only be an issue when fishing in shallow waters, such as the southern North Sea. Interaction of pelagic gear with the seabed is avoided as far as possible, to avoid gear damage.

Specifically concerning the interactions of fish species such as mackerel within the North Sea ecosystem, the feeding habits of this species have been examined through data collected during annual research surveys and during the two ‘years of the stomach’ programmes (1981, 1991). These studies underlie the Multispecies VPA (MSVPA; Sparre 1984) programme developed for the North Sea by the ICES Multispecies Assessment Working Group, which estimates the predation mortalities for 9 commercially important fish stocks based upon key fish predators, and by seabirds and seals.

Detailed mass-balance trophic models of the North Sea have been developed using the Ecopath with Ecosim methodology (Daskalov and Mackinson, 2004; Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007). This allows the temporal and spatial simulation of alternative fishing and environmental change scenarios to be examined on ecosystem components, which include mackerel.

The ICES Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE) has a wide remit which includes the review of current approaches for identifying offshore seabird aggregations and delineating Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs); the development of recommendations for a comprehensive monitoring programme for seabirds; and details of how to sample diet and how to report results of dietary studies in seabirds.

The different areas of ecosystem interactions are yet to be drawn together. However, this work has begun under the auspices of ICES. In turn, as noted for the North East Arctic region above, the Barents Sea/Lofoten plan stated “The Government also intends to start the preparation of similar management plans for the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea, using experience gained during the preparation of this management plan as a starting point”.

2.5 By-catch and Discard

Based upon Norwegian fisheries regulations, by-catch can be defined as the retained ‘incidental’ catch of non-target species (for the purpose of inspecting bycatch levels, Norwegian legislation Regulations amending the regulations relating to sea-water fisheries (140408) §40 notes “…a sample of at least 100 kg is considered to be representative of the composition of the catch”), and discard is a deliberately (or accidentally) abandoned part of the catch returned to the sea as a result of economic, legal, or personal considerations (ICES HAWG definition). Discarding of any part of the catch of specific species (listed below), as well as dead or dying individuals of any species, is illegal for all Norwegian vessels.

However, in this document we use the more standard definitions, where by-catch refers to the catch of non-target species (including birds, mammals and PET species), and discarding is the release of (generally dead) species to the sea. The impact of the fishery on sea mammal, seabird and other threatened, rare and iconic species that may form part of a by-catch/discard is examined in section 2.6.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 18 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

The main by catch species in the Norwegian mackerel fisheries are herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting. All by-catch species are retained on board, landed and the quantity set against the vessel and national quota for that species. If the vessel has no quota for that species or has exhausted its quota then the proceeds of the sale are pooled by the sales organisation (Norges Sildesalgslag) for the general benefit of the fishing industry. It may be used for monitoring and control purposes and for marketing support for the small and disparate coastal vessel fleet. Norges Sildesalgslag are required to report on the use of the money to the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.

Norwegian fisheries regulations (Regulation amending the regulations relating to sea-water fisheries, §48) notes that “In the internal waters, territorial sea and Economic Zone of Norway, it is prohibited to discard or release catches that are dead or dying [any species] or catches of the following fish species”: a) Cod b) Haddock c) Saithe d) Redfish e) Mackerel f) Norwegian spring-spawning herring g) Trondheimsfjord herring h) North Sea herring i) Greater argentine j) Capelin k) Greenland halibut l) Whiting m) Blue whiting n) Angler (monkfish) o) Shrimps p) Snow crabs q) Halibut

In fisheries targeting mackerel, Norwegian spring-spawning herring, and North Sea herring, and herring in the Skagerrak specifically, and in fisheries targeting capelin, it is also prohibited for vessels to discard fish waste.

The main by catch species in the Norwegian mackerel fisheries are herring, horse mackerel, and blue whiting. All these by-catch species are retained on board, landed and the quantity set against the vessel and national quota for that species. (see below). If the vessel has no quota for that species or has exhausted its quota then the proceeds of the sale are pooled by the sales organisation (Norges Sildesalgslag) for the general benefit of the fishing industry. It may be used for monitoring and control purposes and for marketing support for the small and disparate coastal vessel fleet. Norges Sildesalgslag are required to report on the use of the money to the Ministry of Fisheries of and Coastal Affairs.

While regulations are also developed on the minimum permissible size for mackerel (30 cm in Norwegian waters), there is no minimum size when catch is to be used for human consumption.

The purse seine fleet apparently occasionally slips catches of pelagic species. According to Norwegian laws it is illegal to discard dead or dying fish; however mortality is not registered in those instances where mackerel is discarded before it is pursed. The discard of pursed catch is illegal as

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 19 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report research indicated that pursed mackerel mostly die. Mackerel that is caught but is discarded before pursing has good possibilities for survival.

Full extent of discarding of commercial species is not well known because there is no observer programme in Norwegian waters, but inspection reports suggest that discarding, which is illegal, is rare. There are no statistics on the extent of catches and discarding of non-commercial species. Slippage is a potentially serious issue, since research suggests that once the purse seine has been pursed beyond a particular extent, caught fish will suffer total mortality post-slippage. The point at which this occurs has been the subject of IMR study, and management/industry discussions on the issue have occurred.

Pelagic Trawl The most common by-catch species is the horse mackerel but herring and blue whiting may also be taken. Skippers are aiming all the time to make a clean catch and in this context they benefit from modern developments of the multi frequency sonar systems.

Purse Seine By catches of other species are less common in the purse seine fishery which tends to identify and target single species shoals. However small by catches of herring and horse mackerel are sometimes taken.

Handline This is a clean fishery with no by-catch issues.

2.6 Interactions with threatened, Rare, Protected and Iconic Species

Norway has signed a number of conventions on species protection and management. The Convention on Biological Diversity sets out a general framework for these efforts, and proposals and decisions on which species should be given special protection are made under the regional and global nature conservation conventions, primarily the Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions.

Norway’s current Red List is from 2006 (with searchable database for 2007 at (http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/search-basic). This list contains 21 marine species classed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable, including a number of whale and shark species. Key species include the blue skate (Dipturus batis) and Atlantic cod and haddock (classed as vulnerable). In addition to the species on the Red List, there are a number of species in the area for which Norway has a special responsibility. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) was historically present within the area, but disappeared from the region in the early 1960s (MacKenzie and Myers, 2007). It should be noted that the Red List currently classifies this species as ‘data deficient’ (no assessment of extinction risk has been made), and the Red List notes “species listed in these categories should not be treated as if they were non-threatened, and it may be appropriate (especially for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of protection as threatened taxa”.

Endangered exploited species are reflected in annual regulations, for example limits on the exploitation of coastal cod, and regulations that stop fishing on species of importance to the ecosystem (e.g. capelin). Regulations appear more limited for those species caught as bycatch, although the ecosystem management plan for the Barents Sea indicates that, following the identification of species, regulations are being evaluated.

The importance of the life history and population trends of bird species within the ecosystem of the Barents Sea, and their links to human activity, is recognised in the BSMP White Paper. However, information with which to examine the bycatch of birds within fishing operations is incomplete; scattered information about bycatches of various species is available. To address this information need, the Norwegian Government has contributed to the development of the SEAPOP (Seabird Population Management and Petroleum Operations) programme. This programme aims to improve

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 20 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report knowledge of seabirds through studies of distribution and population size, in order to help distinguish between natural variations and anthropogenic impacts. A new web-based mapping tool for seabirds in Norway is being established to make it easier to access up-to-date information. Several bird scaring devices has been tested for longlining, and a bird-scaring line has been found to reduce significantly bird by-catch, as well as increase fish catch due to the reduction in bait loss.

Gannets (Morus bassanus), which frequently dive at and around trawl nets, have been observed by Napier et al. (2002) entangled in fishing nets in the northern North Sea and NW Scotland (Scottish and Norwegian pelagic trawlers). Actual mortality rates of caught gannets have not been assessed in detail, and some have been observed alive after release from the gear. Seabird by-catch in the North Sea is considered to be comparatively rare compared to the NW Scotland where 1-3 birds may be caught per haul.

NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission), along with IWC and ICES, have recommended that member countries, including Norway, should monitor and report by-catches of marine mammals and seabirds. For the coastal and inshore fisheries, vessel owners have provided information on effort, catch and by-catch over the period October-December 2005, in return for financial compensation. These concentrated on gillnet and trap fisheries. Further information on some by-catches is also collected by the ‘reference fleet’ operating in Norwegian waters. The “reference fleet” consists of a representative group of vessels engaged in more comprehensive collection of data for research purposes.

Further information is available from work in other countries. The Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) of St. Andrew’s University in Scotland, has performed observer programmes to estimate the level of by-catch in UK pelagic fisheries. Over 200 trawling operations around the UK have been observed, with no cetacean by-catch being observed in the herring pelagic fishery in the North Sea. Pierce et al. (2002) also reports no marine mammal by-catches in over 69 studies hauls (although a statistically limited sample size is noted), while pelagic fisheries studies (pelagic trawls in IVa and VIa) estimate bycatch events to be no more than five events per 100 hauls, and may well be considerably lower than this. There is also a temporal and geographic component, with incidental catches of cetaceans being most common in late-winter/early-spring in an area along the continental slope southwest of Ireland (e.g. Morizur et al. (1999)). Luque et al. (2006) also noted interactions between killer whales and commercial pelagic trawlers (Jan/Feb 2006), and examined data as far back as 2000, but no incidences of entanglement or contact with nets were noted.

Seal bycatch in pelagic trawls appears to be an issue to the northwest of the UK, and likely to be mainly grey seals (Halichoerus grypus, which are not considered threatened). Northridge (2003) observed 49 seals taken in 312 pelagic trawl tows throughout UK. By-catch rates in the North Sea are likely to be substantially less than off the NW Scottish coast, due to the distribution of this species. Luque et al. (2006) noted interactions between Scottish commercial trawlers and seals mainly during the herring fishery (June-Sept), when several mortalities were noted, rather than during the mackerel fishery.

Bycatch of sharks are possible in the pelagic trawl fishery (Zeeberg et al., 2006), and such fisheries operating around the British Isles may encounter porbeagle Lamna nasus, blue shark Prionace glauca, thresher shark Alopias vulpinus and tope Galeorhinus galeus (J. Ellis, Cefas, pers comm.)" Porbeagle are considered by the Red List to be ‘vulnerable’ at this time, while blue shark are considered ‘lower risk/near threatened’. Hence monitoring of the Red List status of these species should continue during update assessments.

Pelagic Trawl Little information is known on the catches of PET species in the Norwegian pelagic trawl fishery, which has the potential to accidentally catch marine mammals, and birds on hauling. In general the method is felt reasonably species-specific.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 21 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Handline Little information is known on the catches of PET species in the hook and line fishery, but in general the method is felt reasonably species-specific and unlikely to interact with these species.

2.7 Other Fisheries Relevant to this Assessment

The Norwegian mackerel fleet represents approximately 25%- 30% of the total international effort on the North East Atlantic mackerel stock. By far the largest fleet is comprised of EU nations with the UK Scottish fleet allocated approximately 33% of the quota for 2008 followed by Ireland (12%) and Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany with around 5% each.

Mackerel is also taken as a by-catch in other pelagic fisheries throughout the distribution area of the stock. Most commonly mackerel are taken in the North Sea herring fishery, Blue Whiting Fishery, Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring Fishery and the horse mackerel fishery mainly to the west of the British Isles.

3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT

3.1 Domestic Legislation Most of Norway´s fisheries, including mackerel, is based on stocks that are shared with other countries. The Norwegian quotas and other regulations resulting from the annual international negotiations with other countries are implemented through the domestic fisheries management system.

The basic legislation for regulation of Norwegian fisheries are the 1983 Saltwater Fisheries Act (Act of 3 June 1983 No 40) and the 1999 Act on Participation in fisheries (Act of 26 March 1999 No 15 concerning the right to participate in fisheries and hunting). These acts are the legal basis for the secondary legislation containing the actual regulatory provisions pertaining to fisheries. The participation act fundamentally deals with restrictions on access to fisheries, and is the basis for a number of licensing arrangements. The salt water fisheries act constitutes the legal basis for quota regulations and various technical regulations (see below). In addition, these laws contain the legal basis for regulations setting out decision-making procedures for fisheries management and the enforcement of regulations.

The legislation has evolved over time as a response to the developments in the industry and the need to regulate resource use, on the one hand, and in response to the developments in international ocean law on the other. The growing complexity of fisheries, a need to streamline and modernize legislation, along with increasing environmental awareness led to the establishment of a committee in 2003 to develop more modern ocean resources legislation. The committee submitted a draft of a new oceans resources law in 2005 (NOU 2005:10: Lov om forvaltning av viltlevende marine ressurser. Statens forvaltninstjeneste, Oslo). The new law was submitted to Parliament for adoption late in 2007 (Ot.prp. nr. 20 (2007-2008)), and adopted by the Parliament in May 2008. It will enter into force in late 2008 or early 2009. Work is currently under way to develop the secondary legislation to implement the act.

The new Act builds on the acts mentioned above, and represents a modernization of fisheries legislation that also incorporates recent developments in relevant international law. The need to take environmental concerns into account is an important aspect of the law.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 22 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

A number of other laws are relevant to the regulation of fisheries, for example the legislation establishing the Economic Zone Act of 17 December 1976 No 91 on Norway’s Economic Zone), and the Raw Fish Sales Act of 29 June 1951 No 31. The former provides the basis for Norwegian jurisdiction over fisheries. The latter sets up raw fish sales organizations controlled by fishers, and play an important role in regulating the execution of a fishery and in the control of landings.

The objectives of legislation is generally to provide the legal basis that the resources can be managed in a sustainable and responsible manner, to control and limit the access to fisheries in order to reduce overcapacity, and to enhance the economic efficiency of the industry. Norwegian fisheries legislation is comprehensive and covers all aspects of the industry. With the adoption of the new Ocean Resources Act it will represent a very modern approach to resource management in line with recent developments in international law, emphasizing for example ecosystems-based management of living marine resources.

3.1.1 Regulation

The actual regulation of fisheries is contained in secondary legislation that is regularly updated by the Government and communicated to the industry through newspapers, the web and through the fishers´organizations. An important distinction is between access regulations specifying criteria for permission to participate in a fishery, output regulations that deals with the amount of fish that can be caught, and technical regulations specifying how a given fishery shall be executed. Some regulations are generic and pertain to all Norwegian waters and/or to all Norwegian fishing vessels flying the Norwegian flag. Other regulations are limited to certain geographic areas and/or gear types.

The complexity of the regulatory system and the regulations is a consequence of the complexity of the activity to be regulated: some 20 fish stocks are exploited at a commercial scale, by some 7000 Norwegian fishing vessels (either full or part time). In addition about 1200 foreign fishing vessels are licensed to fish in Norwegian waters. The oceans under Norwegian jurisdiction are about 2,2 million square kilometers, about six times the land area. Most important fish stocks, with the exception of Northeast Arctic saithe, are shared with other countries.

Norway has entered into agreements regarding joint fisheries management with all neighboring countries and the EU, and the annual TAC’s for such shared fish stocks are arrived at through annual negotiations with these countries.

Regulations generally provides for the authorities (the Directorate) to stop a fishery when the quota is taken, and to modify the regulations so as to ensure its rational and appropriate execution. Catches and landings are monitored through a system that encompass almost all fisheries, including mackerel, and a fishery is stopped when quotas are taken. Regulations also set out rules for penalties that apply in case of violation of regulations.

Access regulations are generally complex, with most vessels holding a number of licenses and participate in a number of fisheries. Almost all Norwegian fisheries are closed, in the sense that access to them are regulated by licenses and permits. A major distinction is between licenses with no time restrictions, and annual permits to participate in a fishery. The former usually applies to larger vessels, while vessels fishing with conventional gears often have their access to a fishery regulated by annual permits that are renewed each year as long as there is a fishery and the permit holder has not violated the conditions it is granted on.

Output regulations in the form of fish quotas basically establish that fishing for a given fish stock is prohibited, except for those vessel groups that have explicit permission to fish. They give the total quota available to Norwegian vessels and the area the quota is to be taken in, and provide for detailed arrangements for how the quota is to be shared by participants in the fishery. There are different types of allocation arrangements. For mackerel, the Norwegian share of the TAC is allocated among three

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 23 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report groups: purse seiners, trawlers, and coastal vessels (see below).

Technical regulations are collected in one regulation (Forskrift av 22. Desember 2004 nr 1878, updated annually)). They include provisions for mesh size design and mesh size in trawls, restrictions on areas where such gears can be used, regulations concerning the construction of trawls and their use, restrictions on the use of conventional gear, bycatch regulations, minimum sizes, etc.

There is a prohibition on discards for a list of specific species (cod, haddock, saithe, redfish, mackerel, Norwegian spring-spawning herring, Trondheimsfjord herring, North Sea herring, greater argentine, capelin, Greenland halibut, whiting, blue whiting, angler (monkfish), shrimps, snow crabs and halibut), and release of catches of any species that are dead or dying. In the major pelagic fisheries there is in addition a ban on the discard of fish waste (Regulation amending the regulations relating to sea-water fisheries of 21 December 2006, para 48). For all groups of vessels, the regulations also include provisions on bycatch.

Technical regulations also include a number of closed areas and areas where special regulations apply (Forskrift av 22. Desember 2004 nr 1878 om utøvelse av fisket i sjøen.)

There is a general prohibition on the use of explosives in fisheries (Salt water fisheries act para 24).

The Raw Fish Act and the Salt Water Fisheries Act provides for a role for the sales organization in regulating fisheries. This is centred on a rational execution of a fishery, and by way of secondary legislation the sales organizations can for example establish weekly quotas for a given fishery, in order to prevent that too much is being fished in too short a time. The fish should remain in the ocean until there is capacity on shore to handle it.

The vessels allowed to participate in the Norwegian fishery for mackerel are divided into three main regulatory groups; purse seiners, mid-water trawlers and coastal vessels. The coastal vessel group fishes with various types of gear. Regulations are established on an annual basis. The Norwegian quota is allocated to the purse seiners and mid-water trawlers according to the licensed capacity of each vessel. For the coastal vessels the quota is allocated according to their overall length (Sak 26/07 Reguleringsmøtet 5 og 18 juni 2007).

For all groups the regulation also specifies rules for calculation of a vessel’s quota in case of replacement or modification of a vessel, in order to keep capacity development in the fleet under control.

3.2 Management Responsibilities and Interactions

As pointed out above, the mackerel fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic are managed under three arrangements covering three areas: a tripartite agreement between Norway, EU and the Faroe Islands for the waters to the west of the British Isles, Ireland, and Norway, the bilateral cooperation between Norway and the EU for the North Sea component of the stock, and in the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) for the international waters. Norway and the EU do not agree on the sharing of the stock, and this is the major issue in the management of the stock. The work under these agreements is based upon scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Although the management responsibilities are divided between several international arrangements, they are defined within the three core areas of resource management: developing the knowledge base, preparing and implementing regulations, and enforcing them. Interactions are however not always effective in the sense of decisions being promptly followed up upon or abided by. The regulation of the mackerel fisheries in the NEAFC area (waters beyond 200 nautical miles), for instance, is not accepted by all NEAFC parties. And the disagreement over the sharing of the stock may render management less efficient than it could have been.

The overall responsibility for the management of the resources resides with the Minister of Fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 24 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs sets the policy for fisheries through reports to parliament that specify objectives for resource management and the measures to achieve those. Since most fish stocks are shared with other countries, and since Norway exports almost its entire production of fish, international relations is an important aspect of the work of the Ministry.

The point of departure for the international negotiations on TAC for different stocks and species is the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). ICES advice, which comes in the format of several options for TAC’s with specified consequences for each, is developed in a comprehensive process where the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) plays an important role for stocks relevant to Norway. The mission of the IMR is to collect the data and develop the models necessary to provide scientific analysis and advice on the management of fish stocks in Norwegian waters. These activities are funded directly by the ministry. The IMR also engages in science that is not directly related to the provision of stock management advice, and in this case funding from the Norwegian Research Council, EU research programs and other is important.

The detailed work of developing regulations and implementing them after their approval by the Minister is the chief task of the Fisheries Directorate. The Directorate plays a key role in formulating the proposal for regulations and consulting with industry interests and others in this. The Directorate has 7 regional offices along the coast of Norway, and also plays an important role in the enforcement of fisheries regulation.

The Fisheries Directorate also has information function, to inform and advise fishers on the regulations of the industry. This is done by the web, newspapers, and radio messages.

In the development of proposals for regulations, the Fisheries directorate consults with the fishing industry and other stakeholders. A Regulatory Council, where industry associations dominated, was in 2006 replaced with an open regulatory meeting where anyone interested can meet and have a say. Meeting documents are posted on the web. Representatives for the fishing industry consult among themselves in advance of meetings and generally the Norwegian Fisherman’s Association, which consist of a number of fishers´ organizations as well as regional subsidiaries, has been able to agree to compromise solutions on most issues. When such compromises exist, the authorities will usually follow the stakeholder advice. A number of other organizations also participate in the regulatory meeting, representing among others environmental NGOs and indigenous people.

The 1938 Raw Fish Act provides for the establishment of fishermen’s sales organizations (cooperatives) with control over the first hand sales of fish. These bodies can also play an important role in regulating fisheries, as well in the enforcement of fisheries regulations. Norges sildesalgslag covers the pelagic fisheries of the entire country. 107 offshore purse seiners, 32 licensed trawlers, 189 small coastal purse seine vessels and 269 coastal hook and line vessels participate in fishing for NEA mackerel under the arrangements provided by Norges sildesalgslag. Fish are mostly sold by auctions. In recent years landings are paid according to the average size of fish, which reduce the incentive to highgrade.

3.3. Enforcement and control

The operations at sea are controlled by the Coast Guard and the Fisheries Directorate, while landings control are carried out by the sales organizations and the Fisheries Directorate.

The inspection activities of the Coast Guard in 2006 amounted to 2185 inspections in total, with 44 resulting in a report to the police and 27 an arrest. The inspections by the Fisheries Directorate itself, in ports and inshore amounted to 1850 inspections, with 155 reports to the police (statistics provided by the Fisheries Directorate).

In addition to landings controls, the sales organizations and the Fisheries Directorate also perform subsequent checks on statistics. The various bodies involved in enforcement in the North coordinate

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 25 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report in several meetings annually. The role of sales organizations in the control system is to ensure that the transaction between fisher and buyer is according to the rules regulating that. All fish shall be weighed upon landing. All landings shall be reported.

The cornerstone of the control activities of raw fish sales organizations is the contract note (landing receipt), giving among other things the fish species, weight landed, and time of landing. 99% of the contract notes are completed and submitted electronically in almost real time, so aggregate landings data are updated continuously. When the data are submitted, the sales organization transfers them to the Fisheries Directorate. The Directorate, in turn, checks these figures against the quotas that vessels have had allocated to them. Norges sildesalgslag has a comprehensive system for following up on catches and landings record, with all data available on their web site (http://www.sildelaget.no/default.aspx).

All vessels over 21 m in Norwegian waters are subject to satellite based monitoring,. In EU waters this applies to vessels above 15 meters. Automatic positioning signals are sent to the Fisheries Directorate every hour.

Following up on the National Audit Office review of the fisheries management system, the activities between the various agencies involved are now coordinated in annual meetings and based on risk analysis. This implies a strategic deployment of enforcement resources where they are considered most effective in terms of improvement of the control system.

Enforcement and control is also an issue in international cooperation and in the trilateral cooperation between Norway, EU and the Faores, a working group on control issues has been operative for several years. This has brought a number of modifications to regulations and enforcement both at sea and at landings. This has contributed to a significant decrease in unreported fishing of mackerel (St.meld 32 (2006-2007: 18, 47).

4 STOCK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Management Unit

The management unit is the North East Atlantic Mackerel stock. This consists of three components; southern mackerel, western mackerel and North Sea mackerel. Since 1996 these three components been combined for both management and stock assessment purposes. It is generally accepted that the western component comprises around 85% of the total stock and that the North Sea spawning component is still severely depleted compared to its status in the 1970’s. An egg survey in 2005 has indicated a further increase in the North Sea spawning stock biomass (SSB) to 220,000t compared with 2002. (ICES, 2007b). Consideration is now being given as to whether or not this should be added to the total area SSB as currently it is excluded. A decision on this has been deferred until after the next North Sea egg survey, proposed for 2008, because that will be more compatible with 2007 western area egg survey in terms of their proximity in time.

4.2 Monitoring of Stock Status The total catch of North east Atlantic mackerel in 2006, estimated by the ICES working group, was 472,652t, which was 71,000t.lower than in the previous year.(ICES, 2007b) This corresponds to a TAC of 444,000t (6% overshoot) which was an increase of 22,000t on the 2005 TAC. Less than half of that catch 206,000t was taken in the northern North Sea (Division IVa) mainly in the third and fourth quarters of the year. This was 46,000t less than in the previous year. Catches taken in the western area decreased by 20,000t to 167,000t whilst in the southern area catches continued to increase and were 52,000t in 2006. A total of 47,000t was taken in the Norwegian Sea and Area V, a decrease of 7,000 on the previous year. A nominal catch of 10,000t is ascribed to the North Sea component of the stock.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 26 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Recent analyses carried out by ICES suggests that, over the fourteen year period up to 2001, there has been under-reporting of the catch by between 60% and 240%, over and above the ACFM estimate of catches. Since then various enforcement measures have been taken which have improved the situation. These include vessel monitoring systems, designated landings ports and more frequent inspection of landings within the EU. However, overshooting of the TAC has continued and this is still a cause for some concern in the management of this fishery. Confidential information suggests that reliance on EU log book figures has generated under estimates of the catch of 18% up to 2004 and around 11% since then. This under-reporting can occur legally within current EU legislation. (ICES, 2007b). The working group reports that, where inspections are not carried out, the under- reporting of EU catches can be as high as 56% and the EU catches account for about 65% of the total landings.

In Norway there are very robust measures, operating at the individual vessel level, to monitor and control the mackerel catch and to ensure that the quota regulations are observed. This is strongly regulated through a single umbrella sales organisation through which all catches are reported and monitored. Information on a daily basis is available and in the public domain on the organisations website. As a consequence under reporting of the catch in the Norwegian fishery is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, within the fishery as a whole, a discrepancy remains between the reported landings and the perception of fishing mortality calculated by the assessment working group. Their perception is based on the results of the triennial egg survey taking into account the uncertainty and bias in that survey and also taking into account mortality derived from tagging data. The consequences of the under reporting of the catch are, not only that the perception of SSB is lower, but also that there is a serious underestimation of fishing mortality on which the harvest rule for this stock is based.

One of the major factors contributing to the poor perception of the actual fishing mortality is the level of discarding and slippage in this fishery. Both these factors are difficult to quantify and there are few records of the extent of the practice from the commercial fishery Discarding is defined as the non retention on board of dead fish or fish which, as a result of the catching process, would die if released. This practice is illegal in the Norwegian, Russian and Faroese fleets for specific species and catches that are dead or dying (Regulation amending the regulations relating to sea-water fisheries, paragraph 48) when fishing in Norwegian waters. Discarding and slippage can occur for a number of reasons the most common being high grading when the market for small mackerel is less lucrative. This has decreased in recent years as a result of a more equitable pricing regime and less pressure for large mackerel from the Japanese market. In Norway the price paid for the catch is now based on the average size of individual fish thus reducing the marketing incentive to high grade. Rigorous monitoring of the potential for this practice is carried out in the Norwegian fishery using on board inspectors on a reference fleet.

Catching an unmarketable mix of species and over quota catching also contribute to discarding and slippage. Real estimates of the extent of discarding in the 2006 fishery were only available for the Netherlands, German and Scottish fleets from observer trips. These fleets together take around 40% of the total catch of North East Atlantic mackerel. Discarding in those three fleets was estimated at 7,265t, 959t and 10,932t respectively. There are no independent estimates of the extent of slippage in this fishery. It is a cause for considerable concern that there is a perception, within the fishing industry internationally, that slippage of mackerel can be carried out without generating additional mortality. All the published research to date suggests that, once retained within the confines of a purse seine, the mackerel, even though they may swim away, will very quickly die from abrasion wounds. (Lockwood et al 1977; Pawson and Lockwood, 1980; Lockwood et al 1983).. The Institute for Marine Research in Norway currently have a research programme to update our knowledge of the potential for fish to survive the pursing process. Perception of the potential problem in the Norwegian commercial fishery, and the legal requirement not to ‘discard’ has led to a modification of the process of slippage which the industry believes does not cause the fish to subsequently die. In order to further address this problem the Directorate of Fisheries in Norway has recently invited the industry to participate in a

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 27 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report working group where fishery practice in the purse seine fishery will be discussed.

The general unreliability of catch data does generate problems in relation to the robustness of the stock assessment and the overall perception of fishing pressure on the stock. The North East Atlantic mackerel assessment suffers from having only two input sources; the catch at age data from the fishery and the triennial egg survey estimate of SSB, which is not age disaggregated. The triennial egg survey is the only fishery independent data source at present and has been running regularly since 1977. (Lockwood, 1978; Lockwood et al, 1981; ICES, 2005).. There are other surveys, including acoustic, aerial, and bottom trawl surveys, none of which are currently considered by the Working Group to be robust enough to be included in the assessment process. Up and until the 2004 assessment the triennial egg survey was used as an absolute estimate of SSB. Since then the egg survey results have been used as a relative index going back to 1992 to cover the minimum requirement of five data points. There are valid reasons why this change was made and why it is considered to be a better assessment strategy than an absolute index. In practice the egg survey tended to dominate the assessment in an egg survey year while the catch data dominated in the intervening years. The effect of using the egg surveys as a relative estimate is equivalent to using the catch data only to provide the absolute levels of the population. The North East Atlantic mackerel catch data indicate SSB’s lower than those measured by the egg surveys but if the catch data are serious underestimates then the actual estimate of SSB could be much higher. As a consequence of the uncertainties in the assessment and the absence of any other fishery independent corroboration, the assessment is considered to be of poor quality by ICES.

As a consequence of the methodology changes the retrospective analysis now shows a reduction in the perception of SSB compared with the previous assessments. It now appears that the estimated SSB has been below the Bpa of 2.3million tonnes since 2000 and was as low as 1.63 million tonnes in 2002. Following above average recruitment in 2001 and a very strong year class in 2002 the SSB has recovered and the most recent estimate indicates an SSB of 2.23 million tonnes at spawning time in 2006. It is predicted to remain at that level in 2007 increasing to around Bpa by 2009. (Figure 4) The 2003 year class is estimated to be poor but there are early indications that the 2006 year class may be strong.

Figure 4. Spawning stock biomass of North East Atlantic mackerel, in thousands of tonnes for the period 1980 to 2007.

Since 1998 fishing mortality (ages 4-8) has been very high, reaching a peak of F 0.46 in 2002 decreasing gradually to F 0.297 in 2005. This is well above the precautionary level of Flim 0.26 which is the fishing mortality estimated to lead to potential stock collapse. Fishing mortality reduced further in 2006 to F 0.258 which well above Fpa of 0.17 and only marginally below the Flim of 0.26

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 28 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

The Fpa was set at 0.17 in 1999 following an agreement between the EU, Norway and the Faroes that TACs should be consistent with an F between 0.15 and 0.20 for appropriate age groups. The ACFM subsequently opted for the 0.17 as Fpa and 0.26 as Flim. ICES considers that the agreement is consistent with the precautionary approach and provides a 95% probability of avoiding exploitation of the stock above Flim taking into account the uncertainties in the assessment. Bpa has been set at 2.3 million tonnes for this stock but there is currently no biological basis for defining Blim.

Based on the most recent estimates of fishing mortality ICES classifies the stock as being harvested unsustainably. Because of the unknown levels of under-reporting of the catch, SSB cannot be accurately evaluated in relation to Bpa. However all the indications are that SSB has increased since 2003 and has been stable for the last three years. The absolute values of the last three triennial egg survey estimates confirm this trend with SSB estimates of 2.90, 2.75 and 2.89 million tonnes in 2001, 2004 and 2007 respectively. (ICES, 2007b).

Figure 5 shows the pattern of recruitment in the North East Atlantic mackerel stock over the period 1972 to 2007. Recruitment tends to fluctuate at around the long term mean of 4.2 billion fish with occasional very good year classes, such as 1981, 1984 and 2002 and periods of poor recruitment in 1977, 1982/83 and in 2000. The big 2002 year class and the possibilities of another strong year class in 2006 inevitably invokes concerns about increased discarding in by-catch fisheries and also as a result of high grading. Unless this can be actively discouraged in some way, such practice may well reduce the positive affect that these year classes have on the future SSB.

Figure 5. The trend in annual recruitment of ‘0’ group mackerel over the period 1972 to 2007.

The relationship between spawning stock size and recruitment is not a strong one but it does not indicate any apparent level of SSB below which recruitment would definitely be impaired. The highest recruitment in the time series from 1980 was in 2002 and was produced by the lowest spawning stock biomass, 1.78 million tonnes (Figure 6).

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 29 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

o 10000

n 9000 o i l

l 8000 i m

7000 n i

' 6000 0 ' h

e s 5000 i g f a 4000 t a

t 3000 n e 2000 m t i

u 1000 r c

e 0 R 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Spawning stock biomass in thousands of tonnes

Figure 6. Annual recruitment of ‘0’ group North East Atlantic mackerel vs spawning stock biomass for the period 1980 to 2007.

Based on a TAC constraint of 499,000t plus an 18,000t estimate for discards minus 21,000t voluntary reduction in the Irish and UK catch and with geometric mean recruitment, the SSB at spawning time in 2007 is predicted to be 2.23 million tonnes. The ICES advice for 2008 is based on this scenario for the 2007 fishery. The upper and lower limits of F in the EU / Norway agreement generate catches of 392,000t (F0.17) and 456,000t (F0.2) in 2008. Both would produce an SSB around Bpa at spawning time in 2009. (ICES, 2007c).

4.3 Modelling The current assessment model is Integrated Catch Analysis (ICA) (Patterson and Melvin, 1996). Key model parameters are natural mortality and fishing mortality. Historic uncertainty analysis is based on the Monte-Carlo evaluation of the parameter distributions. Two other models were tested against the ICA model in 2003 and all showed similar flat F-patterns in the recent years and all indicated 2000 as a weak year class and 2001 as a strong one. The WG decided to use the ICA model for the assessment, and to use the SSB values from the egg surveys as an absolute index with a weighting of 5 and with a period of separable constraint of 11 years.

The North East Atlantic mackerel assessment suffers from having only two input sources to the assessment model; the catch at age data from the fishery and the triennial egg survey estimate of SSB, (Lockwood, 1978; Lockwood et al, 1981; ICES, 2005. This estimate is not age disaggregated and is the only fishery independent data source at present. At the ICES assessment working group in 2005 (ICES, 2006) it was decided that the egg survey estimates of SSB should be used as an index series and not as an absolute estimate of SSB as had been previously decided. There were valid reasons for this change particularly related to the uncertainty of the catch data through misreporting and discarding. In the past there was a perception that the reported landings corresponded well enough to the catch, and that the egg survey was an absolute measure of spawning stock abundance, or at least a similar small bias occurred in both the survey and the reported landings. It became clear that neither the landings nor the survey were unbiased Simmonds (2005) and it therefore became necessary to change the method. Using the egg survey as an absolute estimate leads to a conflict between the two input sources of information. In practice the egg survey dominates in an egg survey year while the catch data dominates in the past years The 2004 egg survey was the first year in which the data could be used as an index, because a minimum of five valid surveys were needed. Prior to the 1992 survey the spatial coverage of the surveys had not been good enough to be included in a time series.

The effect of using the egg surveys as a relative estimate is equivalent to using the catch data only to provide the absolute levels of the population. The NEA mackerel catch data indicate SSB’s lower than those measured by the egg surveys (see section 5.1).

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 30 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Prediction models - The short term prediction model used is age-structured, by fleet and area fished. Key model considerations are stock weight at age, natural mortality at age, maturity at age, catch weight at age by fleet (all these are averages from the last three years), proportion of male and females before spawning, fishing mortality by age, numbers at age and fishing mortalities by area (and age). Uncertainty model parameters are not incorporated though it is stated that sometimes a limited number of sensitivity analyses are performed, usually regarding recruitment level. The medium term prediction model is age structured with key model parameters the same as for the short-term prediction model.

The assessment model is considered as unreliable at estimating the most recent year classes prior to their appearance in the fishery. Given this, and the over-sensitivity of the model to the most recent egg survey SSB estimate leading to fluctuations in the stock assessment, a management regime is needed which is capable of incorporating this uncertainty in their advice. Specifically the regime should consider the possibility that poor year classes are not recognised until several years later, and that the recent perceptions of the stock is subject to variability and allow for this uncertainty in the advice.

The working group reported that in 2004 79% of the total mackerel catch was covered by sampling programmes. This was a reduction in effort from the previous year and below the long term average. However the intensity of sampling in terms of the numbers of fish measured and aged has steadily increased over the past twelve years. In 2006 85% of the commercial landings were covered by scientific sampling, the highest level ever recorded, and some countries including Norway achieved 100% coverage. There are big national differences with Norway and Scotland continuing to sample their catches thoroughly. England &Wales increased their sampling in 2004 but the coverage reduced from 15% to 9% of their total catch. The Faeroes and Northern Ireland did not sample any of their catch (44,000t) (ICES, 2006).

4.4 Management Advice

Following the meeting between EU and Norway on shared management stocks and the subsequent EU Council of Ministers meeting in December 2007 the agreed TAC for 2008 is 412,371t. There is a maximum limit of 70,225t to be taken in Division IVa and 27,005t in the southern area (ICES Division VIIIc and Areas IX and X. The Norwegian allocation is 120,450t made up of 31,134t in Divisions IVa and IIIc, 85,821 in Division IIa, 3246t in international waters, 491t in Faroese waters less 242t given to Sweden.

The advice for 2008 continues to contain the strong recommendation that the ICES Divisions IVb,c and IIIa remain closed to mackerel fishing to aid the recovery of the North Sea spawning stock. This also helps protect juvenile mackerel of western origin which are numerous in the division IVb,c during the second half of the year. This closure does of course generate discarding of mackerel in other EU North Sea fisheries, but not in Norway.

Egg surveys of the North Sea component have been carried out since 1982 and are now done on a regular triennial basis. The last survey was in 2005 and provided an SSB estimate of 223,000t. The Working Group decided not to add this to the 2007 western and southern component egg survey estimates but to wait for the result of the next North Sea egg survey in 2008 as this would be closer in time to the 2007 survey (ICES, 2007b).

Observed changes in the distribution of mackerel have led the assessment Working Group to the hypothesis that there has been an overall shift to the north over the period 2005 -2007. There has also been a westerly shift of the spawning and feeding areas in the northern part of the distribution. Such changes, if confirmed, may have substantial consequences for the abundance, spawning, growth and recruitment of North East Atlantic mackerel. The reason for such changes could be found in changes in the hydrographic conditions linked to the strength of the sub-polar gyre.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 31 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT:

5.1 Management Objectives

The agreed record of negotiations between Norway, Faroe Islands, and EU in 1999 states: “For 2000 and subsequent years, the Parties agreed to restrict their fishing on the basis of a TAC consistent with a fishing mortality in the range of 0.15 - 0.20 for appropriate age groups as defined by ICES, unless future scientific cadvice requires modification of the fishing mortality rate”.

“Should the SSB fall below a reference point of 2 300 000 tonnes (Bpa), the fishing mortality rate, referred to under paragraph 1, shall be adapted in the light of scientific estimates of the conditions prevailing. Such adaptation shall ensure a safe and rapid recovery of the SSB to a level in excess of 2 300 000 tonnes”

“The Parties shall, as appropriate, review and revise these management measures and strategies on the basis of any new advice provided by ICES”

ICES considers the agreement to be consistent with the precautionary approach, if F on average is kept below Fpa = 0.17. The rationale for ICES proposing Fpa = 0.17 is to have a high probability of avoiding exploiting the stock above Flim. In addition, projections indicate that F = 0.17 will optimize long-term yield and at the same time result in a low risk of the stock decreasing below Bpa. However, the management plan does not specify measures that would apply under poor stock conditions that preclude further evaluation. Furthermore, the management plan assumes that catch information is unbiased so that absolute estimates of SSB can be produced. This condition has not been met for a number of years.

An Flim of 0.26 has also been set for this stock. It is the fishing mortality estimated to lead to potential collapse of the stock.

5.2 Consultative Process

In the development of proposals for regulations, the Fisheries directorate consults with the fishing industry and other stakeholders.

A Regulatory Council, where industry associations dominated, was in 2006 replaced with an open regulatory meeting where any one interested can meet and have a say. Meeting documents are posted on the web. Representatives for the fishing industry consult among themselves in advance of meetings and generally the Norwegian Fisherman´s Association has been able to agree to compromise solutions on most issues among its constituent groups. When such compromises exist, the authorities will usually follow the stakeholder advice. During the last decade, also environmental NGOs and indigenous populations (Saami) have become active stakeholders in fisheries.

In addition to the consultation via the regulatory meetings, stakeholders have numerous other ways of interactions and influence with the government. The major fisheries organizations interact with the authorities on a regular basis through participation in delegations to international negotiations, written hearings on relevant issues where the Ministry seek the opinion of stakeholders (required by Norwegian law), direct meetings with the ministry, written communication and industry meetings where the authorities are represented.

The major organizations in the industry have fairly elaborate decision-making processes where much emphasis is laid on building consensus on difficult issues as allocation of quotas among different gear groups.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 32 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

There is an industry newspaper with 3 weekly issues and a web site which also constitute important channels for communication within the industry as well as between the industry and the authorities. New regulations are published in these papers.

Reviews of the management system Three sets of external reviews can be identified: first, the management system is subject to annual reviews by the parliament. The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs has since 1995 presented annual reports to the Parliament (latest: Stortingsmelding 22 2005-2006: Om dei fiskeriavtalene Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2006 og fisket etter avtalane i 2004 og 2005) on the performance of the management system. Since most important fisheries are based on stocks shared with other countries, the emphasis on on how the agreements with other countries are implemented.

Secondly, the National Audit Office, which performs regular checks on the performance of all public service in Norway, has recently (2004) done a study of the public management of the fisheries sector (Riksrevisjonen Dokument nr 3:13 (2003-2004): Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av forvaltningen av ressursene).

Third, Norway reports on its implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which covers almost every aspect of fisheries management, to the FAO Committee of Fisheries (COFI) every second year. An important task for COFI is to review countries´ implementation of the Code.

In addition, the process of formulating scientific advice in ICES can be viewed as a scientific review of the data, methods and analyses of the Institute of Marine Research.

Internally, a regular, systematic review exists in the annual review by the Regulatory meeting (previously the Regulatory Council). Comprehensive review documents are posted on the website of the Fisheries Directorate before meetings. The meeting examines the experiences gained in the regulatory arrangements for the previous year. Additional internal reviews can be found in Reports to the Parliament where various aspects of the regulatory arrangements are examined as a basis for proposals for change of elements of for example quota arrangements.

6 STANDARD USED

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.

Principle 1

A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 2:

Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would

2 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 33 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

Principle 2

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

Principle 3

The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Intent:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

A. Management System Criteria:

1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall:

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 34 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.

3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.

4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.

5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system3.

6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.

10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate.

11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

B. Operational Criteria

Fishing operation shall:

3 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 35 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.

13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;

15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc.

16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.

17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 36 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

7.1 Evaluation team;

Expert advisor: John Nichols. John Nichols is a retired UK government fisheries biologist with 42 years research experience in plankton ecosystems in the North Atlantic. He has been a member of ICES working groups on herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy assessments; and mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys. He was also a member of ICES study groups on herring larval surveys and plankton sampling. He was scientist in charge of numerous research vessel surveys for fish stock assessment purposes. He has also recently taken part in assessments of the PFA North Sea Herring, Hastings Fleet Dover sole, herring and mackerel fisheries and SW mackerel fishery re- assessment with Moody Marine.

Expert advisor: Graham Pilling. Graham is Fisheries Biologist & Advisor with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, UK. His experience includes a review of the NMFS Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock assessment, a review of the NMFS Pacific hake stock assessment, development of a fisheries management plan for Lake Paliastomi, Republic of Georgia, review of bycatch in the US Atlantic pelagic longline fleet for the US National Marine Fisheries Service, and implementing review recommendations, growth parameter estimation and effect of fishing on the assessment and management of snappers and emperors in the Indian Ocean, including capacity building of local institutions to improve stock assessment techniques, assessment of squid and finfish resources on the Patagonian shelf, South Atlantic.

Expert advisor: Alf Håkon Hoel. Alf Håkon is currently Associate Professor, Department of Political Science at the University of Tromsø specialising in management regimes for living marine resources. His experience includes acting as a member of the National Committee on Environmental Research, the Programme on Biodiversity Research, Norwegian Research Council, advisor to the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the management of living marine resources, member of the board of the Roald Amundsen Centre for Arctic Research, University of Tromsø, a member of the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, vice-chair, National Committee of Polar Research, Norwegian Research Council, member of the Norwegian Research Council’s committee on global change research, project leader for the Norwegian Research Council’s study on research on Svalbard, FAO consultant on fisheries management issues, member of Norwegian delegation to FAO Fisheries Committee (COFI), member, Scientific Assessment Team, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, member of the IUCN Working Group on Sustainable Use and a member of the Norwegian delegation to UN informal consultation process on oceans

7.2 Previous certification evaluations

The Norwegian mackerel fishery has not been previously assessed against the MSC standard. However, other fisheries targeting the North east Atlantic mackerel stock have been certified, or are currently being assessed against the MSC standard. As a result, this assessment has been the subject of a ‘harmonisation’ meeting, hosted by MSC, to ensure consistency in outcomes between different assessments.

7.3 Inspections of the Fishery

Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations, the mechanisms and effectiveness of management agencies and the operation of the fleet. The landing and subsequent handling of fish was also investigated to determine the suitability of fish landed to enter into a subsequent chain of custody.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 37 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Meetings were held as follows. The key issues discussed have been identified for each meeting.

Name Affiliation Date Key Issues -Otto James-Olsen, Fishing Industry 31.03.08 Fishing industry structures FHL, Fishing practices -Magne Skjønhaug, Fishery management Norway Pelagic AS, -Ivar Helge Melingen, Austevoll Fiskeindustri AS, -Oddvinn Sørhaug, Atlantic Pelagic - Knut Torgnes -Roald Oen -Knut Torgnes Client – Norges 01.04.08 Fishing industry structures -Roald Oen Sildesalgslag Fishing practices -Greta Langhelle Fishery management -Johs. Nakken Fishery science and management -Svanhild Rosnes Ecosystem science and management Kambestad -Anne Marie Abotnes Directorate of 02.04.08 Fishery science and management -Inger-Anne Arvesen Fisheries Ecosystem science and management -Snorri Palmason -Torbjørn Thorvik -Bjarne Schultz

-Dankert Skagen

-Knut Torgnes Institute of Marine -Roald Oen Research Geir Lerbukt Ministry of 07.04.08 Fishery science and management Nina Drange Fisheries and Ecosystem science and management Anna Magnussøn Coastal Affairs Maren Esmark WWF- Norway 07.04.08 Nina Jensen

8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

8.1 Stakeholder Consultation

An eventual total of 26 stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine. Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment:

Date Purpose Media Notification of confirmation of Direct E-mail/letter 31.01.2008 assessment Notification on MSC website Advertisement in press Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail 02.02.2008 nominees Notification on MSC website Confirmation of Assessment Team Direct E-mail 25.02.2008 Notification on MSC website 25.02.08 Consultation on draft Scoring Direct E-mail Indicators and Guideposts Notification on MSC website

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 38 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

29.02.2008 Notification of assessment visit and Direct E-mail call for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 07.04.2008 Assessment visit Meetings 04.06.2008 Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail Reviewers Notification on MSC website 29.2.2009 Notification of Draft Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 8.4.09 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website

8.2 Stakeholder Issues

Feedback from stakeholders has helped greatly in the identification and final selection of the assessment team. Feedback was also received on the scoring indicators and guideposts.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 39 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING

9.1 Introduction to Scoring Methodology

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Scoring Criteria against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. Performance is determined on the basis of compliance with each Scoring Criterion.

The Scoring Criteria developed by the Moody Marine assessment team have been identified on the MSC website (Certification Performance Criteria and Scoring Guidelines). In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator.

These generic Scoring Indicators and Guideposts have been the subject of stakeholder consultation and have been confirmed or modified following this process based on the judgement of the assessment team. Prior to scoring, the Indicators are also ‘weighted’ in relative importance according to the nature of the fishery undergoing certification.

At the top level, no weightings are assigned in terms of each MSC Principle; a fishery must ‘pass’ each of Principles 1, 2 and 3 in order to achieve certification and these are of equal importance.

Within each Principle, Scoring Indicators are grouped in a hierarchy. Each level represents separate areas of important information (e.g. Indicator 1.1 requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on).

At the level of Scoring Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles, 100 represents surpassing of the performance necessary and 60 a measurable shortfall. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude level of scoring, weighted average scores are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Weights and scores for this Fishery are presented in the scoring table. Weights for criteria, sub-criteria and sub-sub criteria add to a total of 100 for each Principle or Scoring Indicator, Scores are allocated relative to the Scoring Guidelines.

9.2 Evaluation results

Observations are presented in the scoring table, together with any weighting applied to the Fishery and the scores allocated.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 40 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY

Traceability

As detailed in Section 3, catches are recorded by the skipper and entered into vessel logbooks. These are subject to at-sea inspections by the Coastguard. In addition to landings controls, the sales organizations and the Fisheries Directorate also perform subsequent checks on statistics (this is relevant to all controls and is not limited to North sea herring or pelagic species). The various bodies involved in enforcement in the North coordinate in several meetings annually. The role of sales organizations in the control system is to ensure that the transaction between fisher and buyer is undertaken according to the relevant rules. In particular, all fish shall be weighed upon landing. All landings shall be reported.

The cornerstone of the control activities of raw fish sales organizations is the contract note (landing receipt), giving among other things the fish species, weight landed, and time of landing. 99% of the contract notes are completed and submitted electronically in almost real time, so aggregate landings data are updated continuously. When the data are submitted, the sales organization transfers them to the Fisheries Directorate. Traceability within the fishery is considered to be extremely well controlled.

At-Sea processing

Most fish is round frozen, but 2-4 vessels will undertake some filleting. Due to regulations and fishing locations, it is expected that this product will be recorded with an appropriately high degree of accuracy.

Points of Landing

Product is landed into Norwegian ports where comprehensive inspection is provided, through Sales Organisations and the Directorate of Fisheries as described above. Product may also be landed into non-Norwegian ports. In such cases, landing information is transmitted to Norwegian Authorities who cooperate with National control bodies at points of landing to ensure that the information is correct.

Eligibility to enter Chain of Custody

Product may be sold through auction arranged by the sales organisation or directly. Chain of Custody should commence following sale. Regardless of which sales route is used, all product is recorded as described here. Product from the certified fishery is therefore eligible to enter future Chain of Custody.

Please note, the target eligibility date for product from the fishery (as and when certified) to bear the MSC label is confirmed as 31 August 2008.

11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION

11.1 Certification recommendation

The Performance of the Norwegian North East Atlantic Mackerel Purse-seine and Pelagic Trawl Fisheries in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below:

MSC Principle Fishery Performance

Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock Overall : 82 PASS

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 41 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall : 87 PASS

Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall : 90 PASS

The fisheries attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. It is therefore determined that the Norwegian North East Atlantic Purse-Seine and Pelagic Trawl Fisheries be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

The Performance of the Norwegian North East Atlantic Mackerel Handline Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below:

MSC Principle Fishery Performance

Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock Overall : 82 PASS

Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall : 89 PASS

Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall : 90 PASS

The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. It is therefore determined that the Norwegian North East Atlantic Handline Fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

11.2 Scope of Certification

This assessment relates only to the fishery defined in Section 1.1 up to the point of landing as defined in Section 10.

Monitoring and control of fishing locations and methods is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery. This would allow fish and fish products from this fishery to enter into further chains of custody subject to appropriate assessment and certification.

11.3 Conditions or recommendations associated with certification

11.3.1 Conditions

The fishery attained a score below 80 against a number of Scoring Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification.

The conditions are associated with four key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses a number of Scoring Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Scoring Indicators are set out below. Where these differ between Purse-seine/Pelagic Trawl (PS/PT) and Handline (HL) Fisheries, these are noted accordingly.

Condition 1. Slippage

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 42 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Action required: Slippage of catches and subsequent mortality may be higher than currently considered by the industry. The practice must be actively discouraged throughout both the trawl fleet (where subsequent mortality is 100%) and the purse seine fleet (where post slippage mortality is likely to be high). Slippage of catches should be kept to as near zero as possible although it is recognised that this may be difficult to achieve for operational and safety reasons. Vessels must record all slippage events with their best estimates of the species mix, quantity released and condition of the school on release. Reporting programmes should be initiated to provide comprehensive and verifiable estimates of the extent of this form of discarding of the target species and the by-catches of other species. Information should be sufficient to allow statistically robust estimates of quantity, location and date and to allow an assessment of the impacts of slippage in relation to the distribution, ecology and abundance of the populations affected, enabling any necessary management measures to be implemented as required.

The client should seek to cooperate with scientists in the investigation of slippage mortality by active support of research programmes and observer coverage.

Timescale: Reporting program protocols should be designed and initiated within 1 year of certification and an initial evaluation of any potential impacts completed within 3 years of certification. Where mitigation measures are required to reduce or avoid impacts, these should be fully implemented within 5 years of certification.

Within 2 years of certification the client should provide evidence of proactive support of research and observer monitoring of slippage.

Relevant Scoring Indicators (PS/PT): 1.1.2.1, 3.B.6.1 Relevant Scoring Indicators (HL): 3B.6.1

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 43 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

Condition 2. Record discards/slippage of mackerel in other pelagic fisheries

Action required: It was noted that there may be slippage (and probably subsequent mortality) of mackerel in other pelagic fisheries, notably the herring-directed fisheries. Provisions under Condition 1 should be extended to other Norwegian pelagic fisheries over the same timescale.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.5.6, 1.1.2.4

Condition 3. Development and implementation of appropriate stock rebuilding or sustainable harvest strategy.

Action required: ICES are currently completing the evaluation of a new multi annual management plan for NEA mackerel. This involves the re-assessment of target and limit reference points for both fishing mortality and biomass. Although the request is from the European Commission, subsequent discussion and implementation will inevitably involve the EU/Norway negotiations. The client will be expected to put its full weight behind the new management plan formulated by ICES and promote its adoption throughout the Norwegian pelagic industry.

Timescale: A new management plan for the NEA Mackerel is expected to be drafted within the period of this certification. The Client must provide evidence of its support for the implementation of the plan at the surveillance audit immediately following publication of the plan. The new management plan needs to be shown to be fully adopted and effective by the end of the period of certification.

Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.4.1, 1.1.6.1, 1.1.6.2, 1.2.1

Condition 4. By-catches

Action required: Sampling programmes should be initiated to provide statistically robust estimates of the by-catch of all species, including estimates of slippage and discards. Information should be sufficient to allow an assessment of the impacts of by-catches in relation to the distribution, ecology and abundance of the species and populations affected (commercial and non-commercial fish, mammals and birds).

The potential impact of non-target species removals on the populations affected and the wider ecosystem should be evaluated.

Where assessments of impacts on by-catches are shown to be significant, and for all species identified as PET, appropriate measures to reduce by-catches to acceptable and precautionary levels shall be developed and implemented.

Timescale: Sampling programmes should be designed and initiated within 12 months of certification and an initial evaluation of any potential impacts completed within 3 years of certification. Where mitigation measures are required to reduce or avoid impacts, these should be identified within 3 years of certification and fully implemented within 5 years of certification.

Relevant Scoring Indicators (PS/PT): 2.1.2.2, 2.2.1.2, 3A.3.4, 3B.1.1, 3.B.6.1 Relevant Scoring Indicators (HL): 3A.3.4, 3B.1.1, 3.B.6.1

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 44 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Public Certification Report

12 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Scoring Tables

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 45 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, 33.3 for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and 33.3 associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 1.1.1 There should be sufficient information on the target species and stock separation to allow the effects of the fishery on the stock to 16.7 be evaluated. 1.1.1.1 Is the species readily identified as adults and juveniles? 14.3 60 Misidentification is possible Mackerel - Scomber scombrus, is easily identified throughout its life history by fishers, regulators and buyers. Wheeler (1969) 100 and increases recording The Spanish mackerel, Scomber colias (formerly, japonicus) may occasionally be found as far north as the errors of catches, but this English Channel, but this is easily recognised by fishermen and does not occur in large numbers. Catches of this does not compromise species in commercial quantities only occur from the middle of the Bay of Biscay southwards. monitoring to unacceptable levels. Methods to improve Catches are landed and recorded separately. identification are under development. 80 The target species are unlikely to be confused with any other species; or, if target species are grouped, then life history or stock identification information exists to justify this grouping. 100 The species is readily identified by fishers and by regulators and is recorded appropriately.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 46 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.2 Is the life history of the species understood and the spawning and nursery areas described? 14.3 60 There are gaps in information Life history is documented and well understood including different life stages from egg through to adult Russell (1976) 95 but the basis of the life history is The triennial mackerel egg surveys carried out since 1977 have led to an extensive knowledge of the Coombs et al understood. Information is temporal and spatial distribution of spawning and changes that have occurred over time. Spawning areas (1981) adequate to support a general are widely spread throughout the distribution of the north east Atlantic mackerel and in the North Sea the Lockwood et al, population model, but some spawning area is sufficiently distinct for this to be recognised as a separate spawning component. There is (1981) assumptions are required. There surprisingly little information on the distribution and habits of the ‘0’ group fish but the subsequent Lockwood is some information on spawning distributions of juveniles (1yr group +) are well documented from survey data. These data are updated (1988) and nursery areas. annually and used to support the continuing ‘mackerel box’ closed area off south west England and also to Molloy (2004) 80 The life history of the species is review the appropriateness of recommending other closed areas. See also 1.1.1.3 clearly documented and understood. Information is Adult fish sampling in relation to the egg surveys has provided a considerable amount of information on adequate to support an the spawning behaviour and physiology of spawning. Research in this area has been targeted at reliable appropriate population model. estimates of population fecundity and has produced valuable information in this respect on atresia and de- Spawning and nursery areas are novo vitelogenesis.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 47 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

adequately well described. 100 The life history of the species is Sufficient well established information is available on all life stages (other than 0+), behaviour, ecological clearly documented and interactions and spawning and nursery areas. understood including behaviour and ecological interactions. Spawning and nursery areas are sufficiently well documented to support closed area / seasons where this is deemed necessary.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 48 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.3 Is the geographical range of the target stock known and any seasonal migration described? 14.3 60 A management unit approximating ICES currently uses the term “North East Atlantic Mackerel” to define mackerel present in the area Lockwood 100 the stock is used with some extending from ICES Division IXa in the south to Division IIa in the north including mackerel in the (1988) biological justification. This is North Sea and Division IIIa. Within this extensive geographical range, three components are recognised Molloy based upon a sufficiently robust and well documented (The Western Component -spawning in ICES Divisions VI, VII, VIIIa, b, d, e, the (2004) estimation of the geographical Southern Component spawning in ICES Divisions VIIIc, IXa and the North Sea Component spawning in ICES range of the target stock. ICES Divisions IV, IIIa. Only the North Sea spawning area is sufficiently distinct to be clearly identified (2007b)

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 49 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

80 A reliable estimate of the as a separate spawning component. Assessments are performed on mackerel from the whole area of geographic range of the target distribution. Stock components are separated on the basis of distribution of catches rather than on any stock is available including biological evidence of differences between them. seasonal patterns of movement and availability. Stock assessment and The working group has observed changes in the distribution of the catches over the period 2005 – 2007. management units are consistent There has been an apparent shift to the north of the catches plus a shift to the west in the spawning and with the majority distribution of feeding areas in the north. More recently large catches have been taken in Icelandic waters. the stock. 100 The complete geographic range of Tagging experiments have demonstrated that, after spawning, fish from the southern and western areas the stock, including seasonal migrate to feed in the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea where they may mix, and be caught together patterns of movement/availability, with, the North Sea spawning component. The western and southern components begin their migrations is estimated and documented and is back to their spawning areas in late winter. kept under review. Distribution is well understood (and further explored by tagging experiments) but is not estimated annually but distribution is under constant review. Knowledge of the distribution of juvenile stages is not as comprehensive as that for adults although they do remain within the same overall geographical areas.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 50 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.4 Is life cycle information collected sufficient to populate an appropriate stock assessment model (1.1.5.1) – 14.3 life cycle, geography, fecundity, growth, sources of natural mortality, stock size/density, and relationship between stock size and abundance / density parameters? 60 There is basic information Egg production is measured triennially by international sampling programmes as a measure of stock size. ICES (2005) 90 available on all these parameters. As a basis for this, fecundity (average egg production per female) is measured. Stock size is then ICES (2006) 80 There is well developed modelled from the egg production. Commissioned research has been targeted at whether or not mackerel ICES information on all the parameters. are determinate spawners, which has now concluded that they are determinate. This has provided an (2007b)

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 51 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 There is comprehensive and extensive knowledge of the factors controlling fecundity, including atresia, and annual changes in IMR Bergen reliable information on each of fecundity. Major predators are indentified and referred to section 2.1.1.3 and form part of the MSVPA (site visit) these parameters and their change analysis. Natural mortality was estimated in 1976 from tagging data at about 0.13 but was rounded up to over time. 0.15 as a precautionary measure. This estimate is supported by modelling based on the life-span of the species (20-30 yrs) and is taken to be a constant of 0.15 over the complete age range including ‘0’ group fish.

There is a long time series of information allowing determination of trends and shifts in growth, fecundity, length and weight at age and age at maturity.

Relevant fishery dependent data is collected by all countries participating in the fishery. In 2006 85% of the commercial catch was covered by the biological sampling programme which is the highest level ever recorded. Some countries including Norway covered 100% of their landings. The intensity of sampling, in terms of the numbers measured and aged has steadily increased over the past 15 years. This sampling provides data on weight at age in the catch and in the stock, and also on maturity at age.

The only fishery independent index of stock abundance is measured via the robust triennial egg survey estimate of SSB, which is not age disaggregated. This provides an estimate of the daily production of stage 1 eggs on each of the surveys. Fecundity is expressed as viable oocytes per gram female and so the early stage egg production in the plankton can be extrapolated to the spawning (female) biomass. The ratio of males to females in the stock is estimated at 1:1 therefore the total fishable biomass is twice the female biomass. Although landing figures are collected on an annual basis and provide the basis for the annual stock assessment, egg surveys are carried out only triennially (due to the costs involved in such extensive surveys). The reliability of this fishery independent information declines in the second and third years after the survey. In 2004 ICES decided that the egg survey estimates of SSB should be used as an index series and not as an absolute estimate of SSB as they had been used previously. There were valid reasons for this change particularly related to the uncertainty of the catch data through misreporting and discarding. Using the egg survey as an absolute estimate leads to a conflict between the two sources of information. In practice the egg survey dominates in an egg survey year while the catch data dominates in the past years. The 2004 egg survey was the first year in which the data could be used as an index, because a minimum of five surveys were needed. Prior to the 1992 survey the survey area coverage had not been as extensive as subsequent surveys and was therefore not sufficiently comparable to be included in a time series index.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 52 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.5 Is there evidence of the factors causing variability in recruitment and can they be used to predict 14.3 recruitment? 60 There is some information on ICES (2007a) 80 factors generating recruitment A range of recruitment from good year classes through to poor ones is a feature of this stock, but the ICES (2007b) variability, including some time mechanisms generating this variability remain largely unexplained. The current stock and recruitment series data. Stock/recruit relationship gives no indication of any detrimental effect of the observed lowest SSB levels on relationship may not be validated. subsequent recruitment. 80 There is ongoing research into the factors generating recruitment The body of related research into environmental influences on the stock, described in 1.1.1.6, does variability. Good time series data address potential factors leading to recruitment variability such as food availability, changes in the are available but the S/R pattern of residual drift shifts in spawning distribution. To date none of the research has clearly relationship is not sufficiently identified the mechanisms responsible for the observed variability. robust for prediction process. 100 Strong evidence of ongoing research projects to study recruitment variability factors with some evidence of an understanding of those factors. A good S/R relationship, built up over a long time series exists and can be reliably used to predict recruitment for medium term stock projections.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 53 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.1.6 Is information available on environmental influences on the stock dynamics? 14.3 60 Evidence of some research studies The over exploitation and eventual demise of the North Sea mackerel stock, followed by the advent of a ICES (2007a) 80 providing some understanding of large fishery on the western stock, has generated extensive research and monitoring of all the related ICES (2007b) the effects of environmental factors. Much of that research and monitoring has been targeted at the immediate practical issues of Lockwood change. Research is encouraged improving the quality of the stock assessment procedures. There has also been a body of funded research (1988) and ongoing. targeted at improving the basic knowledge on factors affecting mackerel distribution. For example, the Molloy (2004) 80 There is knowledge of physical and EU funded programmes: Shelf Edge Fisheries and Oceanographic Studies (SEFOS); Spatial Pattern of IMR Bergen biological factors affecting Migration and Recruitment of Northeast Atlantic mackerel project; Shelf Edge Advection, Mortality and (site visit) distribution, survival and year class Recruitment (SEAMAR). This information has been fed, as appropriate, into the stock assessment strength. Some information is process. sufficiently robust for use in the stock assessment process. Environmental factors are considered during the stock assessment process, particularly in relation to

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 54 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 Comprehensive knowledge of recruitment and natural mortality, but are not specifically factored into the assessment. Observed physical and biological factors changes in the distribution of mackerel have led the assessment Working Group to the hypothesis that affecting distribution, survival and there has been an overall shift to the north over the period 2005 -2007. There has also been a westerly year class strength. Key shift of the spawning and feeding areas in the northern part of the distribution. Such changes, if information is sufficiently robust confirmed, may have substantial consequences for the abundance, spawning, growth and recruitment of for use in the stock assessment North East Atlantic mackerel. One possible reason hypothesised for such changes could be found in process. changes in the hydrographic conditions linked to the strength of the sub-polar gyre.

The ICES working group on the development of the integration of environmental information into fisheries management strategies and advice (ICES, 2007a) did not consider mackerel specifically but did address general aspects in relation to all pelagic species.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 55 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2 There should be sufficient information on the fishery to allow its effects on the target stock to be evaluated 16.7 1.1.2.1 Are all major sources of fishery related mortality recorded/ estimated, including landings, discards, 29.1 incidental mortality and mortality of juveniles? 60 Sufficient information is available The Norwegian fishery occurs exclusively within the Norwegian Economic Zone mainly in ICES ICES (2006) PS 75 on the fishery to allow accurate Divisions IIa and IVa with the North Sea being the most important area. ICES (2007b) PT 75 estimates to be made of landings, Lockwood et al HL 90 broken down as required for an Catch estimates are based on official landings statistics and are augmented by national information on (1977; 1983). evaluation to be made. Estimates misreporting and discarding. For Norway this catch information is processed through a single sales Pawson and of discards and incidental organisation and is available on a vessel by day basis. Because of the way that Norway monitors its Lockwood mortality are available. catches by vessels on a daily basis under-reporting of the catch is unlikely to occur within their fleets. (1980) 80 Landings are accurately recorded. Norges Discards and incidental mortality Recent analyses carried out by ICES suggests that, over the fourteen year period up to 2001, there has Sildesalgslag are well estimated. Mortality on been under-reporting of the total international catch by between 60% and 240%, over and above the (site visit) juveniles is monitored and ACFM estimate of catches. Since then various enforcement measures have been taken which have IMR Bergen recorded separately. improved the situation. These include vessel monitoring systems, designated landings ports and mor (site visit) 100 Landings, discards and incidental inspections of EU landings. However, overshooting of the TAC has continued and this is still a cause mortality are accurately recorded for some concern in the management of this international fishery. In 2006 the overshoot was 29,000t and monitored. Mortality on (6%) based on the ICES estimation of actual catch. Because of the way that Norway monitors its catches juveniles is monitored and by vessels on a daily basis serious underreporting of the catches are unlikely to appear within their recorded separately fleets.

Discarding by the Norwegian, Russian and Faroese fleets (and slippage by the Norwegian trawl fleets) is illegal. However, there is evidence that slippage of catch does occur within the Norwegian purse- seine fleet although the industry does not regard this as mortality and therefore not illegal and it is not recorded. All scientific information to date confirms that mackerel slipped from a purse seine will die within a few days. No slippage would be anticipated in the hand-line fishery.

The catches are recorded for all sizes and sampled for size composition. Catch information by size category is also available from the sales organisations.

Landings are recorded with total accuracy through the single sales organization and further reported to the Directorate. Mortality is recorded by size category. Other sources of mortality are estimated by the ICES working group. Although discarding is illegal in Norway there are some sources of mortality that is poorly estimated in the purse-seine fishery.

Condition 1 has been raised to address this for Purse-seine and pelagic trawl fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 56 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.2 Are fleet descriptions, fishing methods and gear types known throughout the fishery? 24.4 60 Main fishing methods and gear Knowledge of the national pelagic fleets participating in the mackerel fishery is extensive. The Norges 100 types are known for the fishery. information is monitored and reviewed by the ICES working group. The bulk of the catches are taken by Sildesalgslag Information is available on the size large midwater trawlers or purse seiners operating in the offshore fisheries. There are observer (site visit) and composition of the fleets, but programmes on some of the pelagic fleet (although percentage coverage may be relatively low) and at- ICES (2007b) is not regularly updated sea inspections by the Coastguard are carried out. The numbers, type and size of the vessels in the 80 Main fishing methods and gear Norwegian fleet is comprehensively detailed, and the Norges Sildesalgslag database is updated on a types are known and information is daily basis. available on the geographical areas of use. Recorded information is available on the size and composition of the fleets. This is updated at irregular intervals.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 57 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 All fishing methods and gear types employed in the fishery are known. In-situ observations are made of fishing practices. Comprehensive knowledge is recorded and regularly updated, on the size and composition of the fleets.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 58 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.3 Is gear selectivity known for the fishery? 22.8 60 Appropriate information is Trawl mesh and purse seine net selectivity for the large pelagic offshore fisheries is well described and ICES (2006) 85 available on selectivity and has remained consistent for a number of years. The same gear is used consistently over all fishing ICES (2007b) qualitative changes in selectivity. locations. The mesh size is targeted at compliance with the minimum landing sizes of 30cm in the North 80 Selectivities of gear types are well Sea (Sub-area IV) and 20cm in all other areas. While changes would be identified through the stock estimated by size. Information is assessment, there is no specific programme to monitor changes in gear selectivity. However, issues of sufficient to determine any changes gear selectivity are not critical in a largely mono-specific pelagic fishery. in selectivity over time. 100 Full selectivities have been accurately estimated for all gears, locations and times of fishing over time.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 59 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.2.4 Is the target species taken in other fisheries in the area that are not subject to this certification, and are 23.8 such catches recorded or estimated? 60 There is some information relating The North East Atlantic mackerel stock is fished over its entire distribution, from the coast of Spain to ICES (2006) 70 to other fisheries in the area that the Northern North Sea (ICES Areas IIa to IXa). Mackerel fishing over this area is predominantly by ICES (2007b) are not subject to this certification, purse seiners (Norway, Scotland, Iberia) and midwater trawlers (Scotland, Germany, France, Holland, Norges although these are not fully Ireland). Sildesalgslag identified. The catches are (site visit) estimated in the stock Other sources of fishing mortality are known and recorded and used by the Assessment Working Groups Fiskeridirektorat assessments.. in the Stock Assessments process. For an example mackerel are taken as a by catch in other pelagic et (site visit) 80 The main fisheries not subject to fisheries, in particular the herring fisheries, throughout the area, including the central and southern North IMR Bergen certification are identified. The Sea where directed mackerel fisheries are banned. It is also taken as a by-catch in the horse mackerel (site visit) catches of the target species are fishery to the south and west of the British Isles. either recorded or estimated in the stock assessments. Catch estimates are based on official landings statistics and are augmented by national information on

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 60 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 All fisheries (and other sources of misreporting and discarding. Catches are also taken in International Waters beyond 200 miles by non human-induced mortality) in the EU/Norway countries, e.g. Russian vessels. These are reported to ICES but may be underreported. The area that are not subject to this ICES Working Group considers that their best estimate of the catch is likely to be an underestimate. certification are identified and monitored. All the catches are Recent analyses carried out by ICES suggests that, over the fourteen year period up to 2001, there has recorded and used in the stock been under-reporting of the catch by between 60% and 240%, over and above the ACFM estimate of assessment. catches (see 1.1.2.1) Since then various measures have been taken which have improved the situation. However, overshooting of the TAC has continued and this is still a cause for some concern in the management of this fishery. Confidential information suggests that reliance on log book figures has generated under estimates of the catch of 18% up to 2004 and around 11% since then. Some under- reporting can occur legally within current legislation. The working group report that, where inspections are not carried out, the under-reporting of EU catches can be as high as 56% and the EU catches account for about 65% of the total landings. Because of the way that Norway monitors its catches by vessels on a daily basis under-reporting of the catch is unlikely to occur within their fleets.

In addition to the misreporting problem there is a major problem of unrecorded discarding in the mackerel fishery which is difficult to quantify. Discarding of small mackerel has historically been a problem in the mackerel fishery and was largely responsible for the introduction of the south west mackerel box. In the years prior to 1994 there was evidence of large-scale discarding and slipping of small mackerel (high grading) in the fisheries in Division IIa and Sub-area IV, mainly because of the very high prices paid for larger mackerel (>600 g) for the Japanese market. This factor was put forward as a possible reason for the very low abundance of the 1991 year class in the 1993 catches in numbers at age. The price difference between large and small mackerel has decreased in recent years. Reliability of the information on discarding is still considered to be a problem. In 2006 discard estimates based on data from the Dutch, German and Scottish fleets, which represent about 40% of the total landings, were approximately 7,265t, 959t and 10,932t respectively. It should be noted that such estimates are likely to be imprecise and that comparisons across fleets cannot be made. Discarding by the Norwegian, Russian and Faroese fleets is illegal although slippage of some catches, which is legal, almost certainly occurs.

All other fisheries are identified. Landings are recorded and other sources of mortality are estimated. However, the estimation of other sources of mortality does not appear to encompass all of these; e.g. discards, slippage, misreporting.

Condition 2 has been raised to address this.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 61 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.3 Appropriate reference levels have been developed for the stock 16.7 1.1.3.1 Are there appropriate limit and precautionary reference points based on stock biomass and fishing 100 mortality? 60 Limit and precautionary reference Target reference points are set based on a precautionary approach. The Fpa was set at 0.17 in 1999 ICES (2007b) 85 points have been chosen and are following an agreement between the EU, Norway and the Faroes that TAC.s should be consistent with an ICES (2007c) justified based on standard F between 0.15 and 0.20 for appropriate age groups. The ACFM subsequently opted for the 0.17 as. Fpa international practice. and 0.26 as Flim which is the fishing mortality estimated to lead to potential stock collapse. ICES 80 Limit and precautionary reference considers that the agreement is consistent with the precautionary approach and provides a 95% probability points are justified based on stock of avoiding exploitation of the stock above Flim taking into account the uncertainties in the assessment. biology (e.g. a stock recruitment Bpa has been set at 2.3 million tonnes for this stock but there is currently no biological basis for defining relationship) and take account of Blim. likely factors affecting abundance. Reference points are regularly reviewed during the Working Group assessment process. There is some 100 Limit and precautionary reference concern that current biomass reference points may not be applicable to current levels of SSB estimated in points are justified based on the assessment, because of the changes in method in 2004 whereby the egg survey estimate of SSB is statistical and model structure used a s a relative index rather than as an absolute value (described in section 1.1.1.4) uncertainty over a wide range of All reference points have now been re-visited by ICES following a request from NEAFC . The results are hypotheses of factors affecting published in the ICES advice in 2008. changes in abundance.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 62 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4 There is a well-defined and effective harvest strategy to manage the target stock. 16.7 1.1.4.1 Is there a mechanism in place to contain harvest as required? 33.3 60 Mechanisms exist to monitor and The advice on the Northeast Atlantic mackerel stock is firmly based on the precautionary approach with ICES (2007b) 75 (if necessary) contain harvest, but reference points for biomass and fishing mortality. The mechanisms exist through international ICES (2007c) do not fully contain harvest, or agreements between EU and Norway, Faroe Islands and NEAFC to implement measures to ensure that Norges have not been tested. Measures the SSB remains above 2.3 million tonnes. ICES considers the agreement (and harvest rules contained Sildesalgslag provide a reasonable degree of within it) to be consistent with the precautionary approach. Fishing mortality is sufficiently well (site visit) confidence in stock management. monitored and measures to close the fishery are well established and tested. Fiskeridirektorat 80 Appropriate mechanisms are in et (site visit) place to contain harvest as and The primary control mechanism starts with the annual agreement on total quota, based on ICES advice, IMR Bergen when required to maintain, or allow through the EU/Norway and subsequent national allocation of the quota. Rigorous national monitoring (site visit the target stock to return to, of the landings at specified ports and some observer programmes, ensure that there is a concurrent productive levels. These have been knowledge of total quota uptake during the period of the fishery. National legislation ensures that the tested if/as appropriate for fishery can be stopped once the allocated quota has been reached. robustness against uncertainties in the assessment and management In Norway the system is particularly well controlled through a single sales organisation which monitors process. catch by vessel on a daily basis. Quotas are allocated annually to the three main vessel types which have 100 Mechanisms are in place to contain to be licensed to participate in the fishery. All vessels regardless of size are regulated by an individual harvest as and when required to quota. There is a programme of shipboard observers and regular boarding by the enforcement agency to maintain (or allow the target stock monitor catches. to return to) productive levels. Measures are robust to uncertainty In spite of this, well established international mechanisms to control harvest it is known that the quota in data inputs or stock biology. has been regularly exceeded The ICES estimate of actual catch regularly exceeds the TAC and in 2006 Specific measures to demonstrate there was a 6% overshot (28,000t). However, because of the very strict and timely controls of the effectiveness are in place and their Norwegian quota uptake, the overshoot of their quota is insignificant. In 2006 their quota was overshot robustness has been examined by 2,400t (2%) and preliminary estimates for 2007, given to the assessment team during the site visit, against a wide range of indicate an under-shoot of around 500t. uncertainties. Condition 3 applies.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 63 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4.2 Are clear, tested decision rules set out? 33.3 60 It can be demonstrated that Management of the fishery is carried out jointly by the EU, Norway and the Faroes. The agreed decision ICES (2007b) 85 decision making, though not rules for management were set up and well documented in 1999 as follows: ICES (2007c) documented, is logical and “Fishing would be restricted on the basis of a total TAC constraint consistent with a fishing mortality in Norges appropriate. Decision-making rules the range 0.15 to 0.20 for appropriate age groups, unless future scientific advice requires modification Sildesalgslag exist, are consistent with the of the fishing mortality rate. (site visit) reference levels, but have not been Should the SSB fall below 2.3 million tonnes (Bpa) the fishing mortality should be adjusted to ensure a Fiskeridirektorat tested. safe and rapid recovery of the SSB to above Bpa. et (site visit) 80 Clear decision-making rules are The parties shall as appropriate review and revise these management measures and strategies on the IMR Bergen fully implemented and basis of any new advice provided by ICES.” (site visit documented. Decision rules have ICES considers the agreement and rules to be consistent with the precautionary approach if fishing been tested against likely future mortality is kept on average below Fpa = 0.17. However, testing of the decision rules through factors affecting abundance. management strategy evaluation, taking into account the full uncertainty within the biological, fishing 100 Decision rules have been fully and management systems, has not yet been performed. evaluated and have been shown to be robust to the data and Rules on quota management are implemented nationally and compliance monitored. assessment limitations, and a wide Data assessment limitations are reviewed annually by the ICES working group and a re-evaluation of the range of projections covering all stock assessment process in 2004 led to considerable reductions in the TAC because of a change in the likely scenarios. perception of SSB. The rules are clear, tested, are reconciled with reference points and are under regular review.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 64 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.4.3 Are appropriate management tools specified to implement decisions in terms of input and/or output 33.3 controls? 60 Management tools exist to The input controls are all specified within the agreement between EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands as ICES (2007b) 90 implement decisions of input fishing mortality and SSB reference limits (section 1.1.4.2). Annual quotas are then negotiated based on ICES (2007c) and/or output controls specifically advice from ICES which in turn is formulated in the context of the management agreement. Decisions Norges related to the fishery and consistent are implemented through TACs, licensing and technical regulations. Sildesalgslag with attaining reference levels (site visit) (1.1.3.1). Some evidence exists to Within the Norwegian mackerel fishery there are appropriate tools to implement all aspects of the Fiskeridirektorat show that tools can be effective in management plan plus the additional tool of a complete ban on all discarding. Individual vessel quotas, et (site visit) achieving management goals. daily reporting to a single management body, public availability of the information on a daily basis are IMR Bergen 80 Management tools, appropriate to all measures which ensure national compliance with all controls. (site visit the species and fishery, have been specified to implement decisions of The Norwegian management of their component of the fishery, through TAC, licensing and technical input and/or output controls. The regulations, has been shown to be effective (2% overshoot of quota in 2006, small undershoot in 2007). effectiveness of the management Overshoots of quota in other components of the fishery are taken into account in the stock assessment of tools is actively monitored, and the following year. This will likely result in reductions in total TAC in the subsequent year on the basis evidence exists to show that tools of that assessment. The Norwegian component of that reduced TAC will, based on the historical are effective. evidence, be effectively managed using the tools available. 100 Management tools have been specified to implement decisions of This PI has been scored in relation to the existence of the tools and their appropriateness rather than the input and/or output controls. Tools effectiveness of their implementation. are responsive, relevant and timely. Performance of the tools has been evaluated and evidence exists to show clearly that tools achieve their objectives.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 65 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5 There is a robust assessment of stocks. 16.7 1.1.5.1 Are assessment models used and are they appropriate to the biology of the target species and the type of 16.7 fishery? 60 Robust assessment models are The model used is ICA (Integrated Catch Analysis) widely applied by ICES to pelagic stocks and Patterson and 90 used. These are generic and do not regarded as the most suitable model available. The key model parameters for mackerel are; natural Melvin (1996) account for specific characteristics mortality, vulnerability, fishing mortality and catchability. The model incorporates an evaluation of ICES (2005) of either the biology of the species uncertainty but no retrospective evaluation is directly available within ICA. Major deficiencies are ICES (2006) or the nature of the fishery. recognised and listed. The key model input parameters are: Stock weights at age; Natural mortality at ICES (2007b). 80 Assessment models are used. age; Maturity at age; Catch weights at age; proportions of natural and fishing mortality before spawning; Lockwood Major criteria are related to the Fishing mortalities by age; and numbers of fish at age. (1978) species and/or the fishery, but Lockwood et al. there are some areas of the Other assessment models are kept under review by the assessment working group by exploratory (1981) assessment that are generic. assessments (e.g. Bayesian assessment approaches) and examining the performance criteria. Lockwood 100 Assessment models are used and (1988) capture all major features In 2004 there was a major change in the way that the fishery independent triennial egg survey was used appropriate to the biology of the in the assessment model. Instead of using it as an absolute measure of SSB it is now used as an index of species and the nature of the SSB based on five triennial data points. This is considered to be a scientifically more acceptable way of fishery and the nature of the using these data in view of the unreliability of the catch data (see also section 1.1.1.4). management questions being asked. ICA is considered to capture all major features appropriate to the biology of the species, the nature of the fishery and the nature of the management questions being asked. The model has the advantage of being able to incorporate assumptions about errors both in the survey data and in the catch at age data set. These data sets are known not to be error free but the most important sources of error and assumptions are well documented and evaluated

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 66 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.2 Does the assessment take into account major uncertainties in data and have assumptions been evaluated? 16.7 60 Major uncertainties are identified. The most important aspect here is that the assessment takes into account all the available information, Patterson and 80 Some attempt has been made to official, anecdotal and confidential, in order to get the best possible estimate of the actual annual catch of Melvin (1996) evaluate these in the assessment. mackerel and thus total fishing mortality. Some information on discarding is available from observer ICES (2006) 80 The assessment takes into account coverage of some fleets although it is not possible to extrapolate these observations to estimate ICES (2007b). major uncertainties in the data and discarding from all the fleets. ICES working group members are also able to provide confidential functional relationships. The most information on the extent of misreporting and underreporting of landings which are used in the annual important assumptions have been stock assessment process. evaluated and the consequences are known. As a result of uncertainties in the landings data, a major change was made, in 2004, to the way that the 100 The assessment addresses all fishery independent triennial egg survey data was used. significant uncertainties in the data and functional relationships and Maximum likelihood estimates of parameters and 95% confidence limits are provided by the working evaluates the assumptions in terms group. Total variance for the model and model components are also given, both weighted and un- of scope, direction and bias relative weighted. Several test statistics are given (skewness, kurtosis, partial chi-square). Historic uncertainty to management-related quantities. analysis based on Monte Carlo evaluation of the parameter distributions is also carried out The assessment model has been shown to meet sufficient levels of The major data deficiencies are described and listed in the annual working group report. precision and accuracy to allow the management process to achieve its objectives.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 67 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.3 Are uncertainties and assumptions explored and reflected in management advice? 16.7 60 Major uncertainties are recognised Management advice is based on the stock assessment and interpretation by advisers in the context of the Patterson and 80 and are reported in management management plan. The advice is then formulated in a table of options which clearly states the Melvin advice, as well as possible consequences of various scenarios to the SSB in the short term. The table also clearly indicates which (1996) implications of those uncertainties options are consistent with the management plan and therefore with a precautionary approach. Because ICES (2006) on the management advice. the advice is proffered during the year when current fishing mortality is not known the advice assumes ICES 80 Major uncertainties and status quo F and incorporates estimates of likely overshoot of the TAC. The ICES ACFM advice has (2007b). assumptions are addressed in the historically been closely followed for this stock. ICES management advice and through (2007c) the appropriate decision rules to Although the ICA model does not provide retrospective analysis, retrospective analysis is now carried address those limitations. out using an alternative model. The historic performance of the assessment is routinely presented and 100 All significant uncertainties and provides an overview of the changes in the perception of the state of the stock in relation to SSB, fishing assumptions are addressed and mortality and recruitment. reflected in the management advice, including appropriate The EU/Norway/Faroes agreement (see 1.1.4.2) provides agreed decision rules for management of the decision rules. stock. As a result of a request from the EU, ICES are now considering a multi annual TAC for this stock in the form of a coastal states agreement. Implementation of any multi-annual TAC rule would require modification of the 1999 agreement.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 68 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.4 Does the assessment evaluate current stock status relative to reference points and make forecasts for the 16.7 future? 60 The stock status is estimated Stock status is annually evaluated against the reference points for SSB and F. Precautionary reference Patterson and 80 relative to reference points. points are developed taking into account the probabilistic uncertainty within the system. The stock is Melvin 80 The assessment makes an currently just below the biomass reference point (Bpa) and is also well above the fishing mortality (1996) evaluation of the stock status reference point (Fpa) and close to Flim. The current advice takes account of that and recommends a ICES (2006) relative to the reference points. harvest strategy based on reducing fishing mortality to the precautionary level or below. The harvest ICES Data and methodology are applied strategies take account of short and medium term predictions and the estimation of the size of year (2007b) to develop short and medium term classes coming into the fishery. ICES forecasts that are credible and to (2007c). which are attached expressions of The general unreliability of the catch data does generate problems in relation to the robustness of the the confidence that may be placed stock assessment and as a consequence the SSB cannot be accurately evaluated in relation to Bpa. in them. Forecasts for the future are based on the estimation of the strength of year classes entering the fishery. In 100 The assessment makes a reliable that context the above average year class of 2001 and the very strong 2002 year class are projected to probabilistic evaluation of the increase SSB to around Bpa by 2009. stock status relative to the reference points and projects these into the future over appropriate timescales.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 69 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.5 Does the assessment include the consequences of current harvest strategies? 16.7 60 The assessment makes an initial Models used are based on predicted future stock status incorporating current harvest strategies. ICES (2006) 80 approximation of the consequences Uncertainties are identified and the consequences of management options according to standard ICES (2007b) of current harvest strategies. ACFM/ACOM practice. The current advice provides a series of options with fishing mortality expressed ICES (2007c) 80 The assessment includes a robust in relation to the management plan option of F=0.17. Listed options vary from zero F to F management approximation of the consequences plan x 2 (F=0.34). Predicted landings and subsequent SSB in 2008 and 2009 are given for each scenario of current harvest strategies. (although this is not a longer-term evaluation). All the predicted scenarios do have to take into account Uncertainties in the model are the likely F during the year in which the assessment is carried out. This is normally the F based on the considered in harvest strategy catch constraint related to the quota for that year and includes an estimate of likely discarding mortality. evaluations. 100 The assessment includes the The assessments performed include a two-year projection to evaluate the consequences of current consequences of current harvest harvest strategies. This is considered reasonably robust. Uncertainties in the model (e.g. estimates of strategies, forecasts future discarding) are included. However, specific decision rules are not incorporated, nor are all uncertainties consequences of these and fully examined (e.g. uncertainty in the estimation of current status). evaluates stock trajectories under decision rules.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 70 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.5.6 How reliable has the stock assessment been historically using retrospective analysis? 16.7 60 Annual estimates of SSB and F In the past there have been no major problems with the quality of the assessment in terms of the ICES (2006) 75 have been reviewed. Where estimation of current SSB, F and the prediction of future trends. ICES (2007b). estimates have been found to be unreliable, efforts have been made Uncertainties in the assessment are reviewed regularly. Recent changes in the perception of SSB and F, to improve the performance. and the reasons for those changes, are documented in sections 1.1.1.4 and 1.1.5.1 As a result of the 80 Uncertainty in the estimates of improvements, historical perceptions of SSB were found to be an over-estimate. In turn, retrospective SSB and F and known to occur and analysis and the use of the egg survey data were changed. are regularly reviewed and corrected. Investigation of the Until the re-evaluation, the SSB remained above the precautionary level since it was set at 2.3 million associated problems has led to tonnes for the combined stock. It now appears that SSB has been below Bpa since 2000 and was as low significant improvement. as 1.63 million tonnes in 2002. Historically the triennial egg survey provided a robust and reliable age 100 Retrospective analysis shows aggregated index of SSB and is still the only reliable fishery independent source of information on this excellent agreement historically for stock. The absolute estimate of SSB from this survey in 2001, 2004 and 2007 gives values of 2.90. 2.75 the assessment of both SSB and F. and 2.89 million tonnes respectively.

Retrospective analysis of the assessment from 1992, since when the egg survey estimates have been used as a relative index, shows large fluctuations in the recent trends for SSB dependant on the last egg survey result. Confidence intervals of +/-30% are shown for the egg survey. All the indications are of a long term trend downwards in SSB (also indicated by the egg survey data) although the current trend is upwards because of the two good year classes (2001, 2002) now fully recruited to the SSB which is expected to increase to near Bpa by 2009.

Condition 2 applies.

1.1.6 The stock(s) is/are at appropriate reference level(s). 16.7 1.1.6.1 Is the stock(s) at or above reference level for SSB? 54.5 [If below SG80 then Criterion 2 must be scored; if SG80 or above, then Criterion 1 is complete] 60 The stock is likely to be above the The most recent assessment, in 2007, indicates an SSB at spawning time in 2006 of 2.23 million tonnes ICES (2007b) 75 limit reference level. which is just below the Biomass precautionary level of 2.3 million tonnes. No biomass limit reference ICES (2007c) 80 The stock is likely to be above point has been estimated for this stock. precautionary reference levels. This situation has now changed as a result of the most recent assessment and re-evaluation of the 100 The stock is significantly and reference points. SSB is now above Bpa and a Blim of 1.67Mt has been established. consistently above appropriate reference level. Condition 3 has been raised to address this.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 71 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.1.6.2 Is the stock(s) at or above reference level for F ? 45.5 [If below SG80 then Criterion 2 must be scored; if SG80 or above, then Criterion 1 is complete] 60 Fishing mortality is at or below the The most recent assessment, in 2007, estimated fishing mortality at F=0.258 which is well above Fpa of ICES (2007b) 60 limit reference level. 0.17 and only marginally below Flim of F=0.26. Fishing mortality in this fishery has remained above ICES (2007c) 80 Fishing mortality is below the Fpa for the past thirty years and has been as high as 0.46 in 2002. precautionary reference level. Fishing mortality reference points have now been re-visited and F lim is now 0.42 and Fpa is 0.23 100 Fishing mortality is significantly and consistently below the Condition 3 has been raised to address this. appropriate reference level.

1.2 (MSC Criterion 2) Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to 33,3 occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long- term potential yields within a specified time frame. 1.2.1 If the stock is below the precautionary reference points, are measures to rebuild the stock specified? 100 60 Appropriate rebuilding measures Up and until the 2004 assessment, the triennial egg survey was used as an absolute estimate of SSB. Since ICES (2005) 75 through reduction in exploitation then the egg survey results have been used as a relative index going back to 1992 to cover the minimum ICES (2006) exist and are being implemented. requirement of five data points. There are valid reasons why this change was made and why it is ICES (2007b) Rebuilding measures other than considered to be a better assessment strategy. As a result of the changed perception, the TAC was reduced ICES (2007c) reduction in exploitation are being significantly to promote recovery. considered. Measures have not been tested. The effect of using the egg surveys as a relative estimate is equivalent to using the catch data only to Although untested these measures provide the absolute levels of the population. The NEA mackerel catch data indicate SSB’s lower than have been shown to work in those measured by the egg surveys (the last egg survey being in 2007), used as an absolute estimate, similar fisheries. would have indicated a combined area SSB of 2.89 million tonnes. 80 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote As a consequence of the changed perception of both SSB and F strong measures have been put in place to recovery within reasonable time ensure that the north east Atlantic mackerel stock returns to precautionary levels in the short term. frames. The TAC in recent years has been consistently set at levels appropriate to fishing mortality rates within Measures have been tested and the precautionary approach levels which would ensure that SSB remained above the Bpa of 2.3million can be shown to be rebuilding the tonnes. However the TAC has been regularly overshot and the resultant fishing mortality has been too stock. high.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 72 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 Appropriate rebuilding measures are being implemented to promote The current management options are to operate within the agreed EU/Norway/Faroes strategy which is recovery as quickly as is possible. firmly embedded in the precautionary approach. Based on a catch constraint of 499,000t (the TAC + Additional measures are being 18,000t for discards – 21,000t penalty for UK and Ireland), F should reduce to 0.22 and SSB should implemented to prevent increase to 2.23 million tonnes at spawning time in 2007. Based on this advice for 2007 the management problems in the future. options show that at Fpa (0.17) the SSB should further increase to 2.25 million tonnes in 2008 and to 2.37 Additional measures are being by 2009. This should be backed by strong internationally agreed control measures, enacted at the national implemented to prevent problems level, in an attempt to eliminate misreporting, underreporting, discarding and slippage. in the future. Based on current management options, SSB is expected to recover to Bpa in 2009, and since the plan came into force in 2005, the decreasing trend in fishing mortality that began in 2002 has continued.

The strong year classes of 2001 and 2002 both fully recruited to the SSB in 2006 and will play a big part in any subsequent recovery to above Bpa. Unfortunately the 2003 year class is predicted to be very weak and the effect of this on recovery must be monitored.

The revised stock assessment should provide more reliable indications of future stock status.

Any certification would require on-going monitoring of stock recovery and achievement of Bpa within the timescale of that certification.

Condition 3 applies.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 73 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3 (MSC CRITERION 3) Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex 33,3 composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity. 1.3.1 Fishing activity maintains the age, genetic structure or sex composition of the stock to a degree 100 that does not impair reproductive capacity. 1.3.1.1 13 Is the age/sex/genetic structure of the stock monitored so as to detect any impairment of reproductive 50.0 capacity? 60 There is some information The age, sex and maturity structure of the stock is well sampled from the commercial catch and ICES are ICES (2006) 90 available on the sub- generally satisfied with the overall level of sampling. In 2006, 85% of the total catch was covered during ICES (2007b) population/sex/age structure of the sampling – the highest in recent years. This notwithstanding, there is still felt a need for some countries Molloy (2004) stock, and the relationship of these to improve the coverage of their landings. to reproductive capacity. Age determination for mackerel is considered robust, and regular workshops are held to ensure Some monitoring of sub- consistency in age determination between institutes. Determination of the age structure is therefore populations is available as considered reliable. necessary. 80 Estimates are available of the sex Additional sampling is carried out every three years as an integral part of the triennial egg surveys which and size structure, based on began in 1977. This has provided an extensive and comprehensive additional database on age, sex, adequate sampling and verification maturity and fecundity, over the past thirty one years. In relation to fecundity, the related research has for this stock, and the relationship led to a huge increase in the knowledge of the behaviour, biology and physiology of spawning in of these to reproductive capacity. mackerel. Current research is investigating area differences in fecundity and atresia and relating this to Genetic or sub-population studies fish condition. Over the period of the egg survey, no impacts of fishing on fecundity have been observed. have been carried out as Changes in the egg survey results would feed into management decisions through the stock assessment. appropriate. However, the fecundity data are not regularly evaluated to examine the implications of any changes to reproductive capacity.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 74 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 There is comprehensive and reliable information on the sub- Population structures are considered well known as a result of tagging experiments. The stock comprises population/sex/age structure of the three components – North Sea, southern and western. The North Sea component is relatively discrete. stock, and the relationship of these The remaining two components frequently overlap in space and time in their migration. Genetic research to reproductive capacity as well as to date has shown no detectable differences between the three spawning components, southern, western evaluations of the implications of and North Sea. These studies were performed over 10 years ago. However there have been no strong shifts in these parameters on drivers for these studies to be updated. productivity and management quantities.

Population structure is well estimated with only insignificant errors. Genetic studies have been conducted.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 75 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

1.3.1.2 Does information indicate any changes in structure that would alter reproductive capacity? 50.0 60 Changes is stock structure have As a result of the extensive monitoring and research, changes in the reproductive capacity of mackerel ICES (2005) 90 been detected but there is no have been noted. These are well documented in the reports of the ICES Mackerel and Horse Mackerel ICES (2006) evidence of negative effect on Working Group and the Egg Survey Working Group. There is no evidence that the changes have ICES recruitment of the stock. affected the overall reproductive capacity in terms of affecting year class strength. A range of (2007b) Or potentially adverse changes in recruitment from good year classes through to poor ones is a feature of this stock, but the mechanisms structure are identified and generating this variability remain largely unexplained. The current stock and recruitment relationship remedial measures are under gives no indication of any detrimental effect of the observed lowest SSB levels on subsequent consideration with an appropriate recruitment. The Northeast Atlantic mackerel stock currently has a large number of year classes present timescale for implementation. (with individuals as old as 10 years present in samples) and in that context is considered to be in a 80 Evidence exists that the fishery has sufficiently robust state which would not compromise reproductive capacity. The North Sea spawning not caused changes in stock component has been severely depleted in the past but there are now indications of a slow recovery. structure that would affect recruitment. No threats to sub-populations or genetic structure are anticipated to arise from fishing activities, but the Or potentially adverse changes in genetic structure of the stock or sub-populations has not been explicitly examined in recent years. structure are clearly identified and effective remedial measures are in . place. 100 Data strongly indicate a robust age, sex and genetic structure in the stock, such as would maintain reproductive capacity.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 76 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the 33.3 ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends 2.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to 33.3 trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 2.1.1 There is adequate understanding of ecosystem factors relevant to the distribution and life history strategy of the target 19.2 species. 2.1.1.1 Are the nature, sensitivity and distribution of habitats relevant to the fishing operations known? 21.7 60 Appropriate information exists Distribution of fishing vessel positions (although not necessarily fishing effort, in particular in relation to REGNS; ICES NoS 95 but may not be comprehensive specific habitat types) is recorded via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). In waters under the fishery 2005 NS 95 or up to date. The seasonal jurisdiction of Norway, all vessels above 24 metres length are required to have and operate tracking distribution of fishing equipment. This will be extended to cover all vessels above 21 metres from January 1st 2008, and all operations is mapped. vessels above 15 metres from January 1st 2009. Currently, vessels over 13m record fishing positions in logbooks, vessels below 13m (inshore vessels) are not required to complete logbooks. However, all landing records record the grid-square within which catch is taken for all vessel sizes and relevant effort. The grid- square system has squares of finer spatial scale closer to the coast. Information is continually updated.

The nature, sensitivity and the distribution of main and some related habitats relevant to the fishing operations are known in detail. Information is recent. The distribution of fishing operations and their effort is monitored, and an appropriate time series of information is available through IMR and ICES studies. Norges Sildesalgslag On the basis of this it is understood that fishing takes place Principally in the Norwegian EEZ. interview & documents 80 Nature, sensitivity and Norwegian Sea (Fiskerioversikt distribution of all main habitats The characteristics of the marine ecosystem of the Norwegian Sea are relatively well known. Numerous 2004-2007) are known in adequate detail. Norwegian research and ecosystem cruises have been performed in this area, examining oceanographic Information is recent. The characteristics, as well as plankton, benthos, fish, bird and mammal distributions and abundance. Some of distribution of fishing these data sets, particularly those examining temperature and salinity, for example, extend back to the operations is monitored. 1930s. In turn, the area is the focus of a large amount of research by IMR on habitats, oceanography, biological distributions, and trophic interactions.

Through these studies, areas of vulnerable seabed habitat have been identified and assessed, including the determination of habitat sensitivity (notably cold water corals and sponge communities) have been identified in detail have been identified and closed areas put in place to protect them. In addition, programmes are underway (MAREANO programme) to perform studies of the seabed’s physical, biological and chemical environment, and identify further key areas in greater detail. Information is recent and ongoing for all areas (MAREANO and other programmes underway through IMR and Polar Institute).

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 77 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 The nature, sensitivity and the North Sea distribution of all habitats The North Sea ecosystem is well studied, with the North Sea Task Force (NSTF), produced a Quality Status relevant to the fishing Report (QSR) for the North Sea ecosystem in 1993. Knowledge is continually updated using available operations are known in detail. information on oceanography, plankton, fish distribution and abundance, and the interactions between these Information is recent. The fish components gathered during annual scientific research survey cruises. Certain types of data, notably distribution of fishing those related to fisheries, physical oceanography, plankton and nutrients, are measured typically throughout operations and their effort is the North Sea, with many programmes covering several decades of observation. Other data, including monitored, and an appropriate biological effects (ecotoxicology), sediment chemistry (contaminants), species introductions, hazardous time series of information is algal blooms in coastal waters and benthos surveys, tend to be more localized (for example in coastal available. waters) or cover years rather than decades. These processes are being linked within the ICES regional ecosystems group, OSPAR and SAHFOS into an Integrated Ecosystem Approach.

Catching operations of these pelagic gears take place within the upper and mid-water column. The pelagic habitat can be characterised by the nature of (i) the physico-chemical (i.e. water movement, mixing, temperature, salinity and nutrient content), the (ii) non-motile plankton component and (iii) the nekton component (i.e. free-swimming organisms). Of these, (i) and (ii) are highly variable and their dynamics within the North Sea well understood through physical measurement and oceanographic modelling. The impacts of fishing activities on these components on pelagic habitat are negligible and transient. Impacts on the nekton component are considered further as both (a) non-target species (see 2.1.1.2) and (b) where the species are protected and/or considered threatened or endangered, under 2.2.1. A critical habitat type is gravel spawning beds, which are located over three broad areas in the North Sea. Their distribution is well known from larval surveys, and have been surveyed relatively recently in the southern North Sea and the Eastern English Channel. Direct observational studies of the actual substrate during the spawning season have not been carried out for some time, however, although this information may become available as these habitats are increasingly targeted for marine aggregate extraction.

Distribution of fishing vessel position (although not necessarily fishing effort, in particular in relation to specific habitat types such as gravel substrates) is recorded via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). For Norwegian vessels engaged in fishing in international waters and in the EEZs of other countries (for example in the North Sea), VMS is required and logbooks record fishing locations and effort.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 78 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.2 Is information available on non-target species directly affected by the fishery? 26.1 60 The main non-target species Generally, targeted mid-water fisheries such as mackerel are virtually mono-specific. Nevertheless there Pierce et al., 2002 PS 90 affected have been identified. is the potential, particularly with large mid-water trawls, to incur incidental captures of other species. Norges PT 90 The main by catch species in the Norwegian mackerel fisheries are herring, horse mackerel, and blue Sildesalgslag HL 90 whiting. All these by-catch species are retained on board, landed and the quantity set against the vessel interview and national quota for that species. All by-catches of commercial species, namely those listed in 80 Information is available on non- Regulation 48, must be retained on board and will be counted against the quota for those species on target species directly affected by landing. the fishery including their distribution and/or ecology. The distribution and ecology of by-catch species such as herring and horse mackerel is very well established.

Purse seine By catches of other species are less common in the purse seine fishery which tends to identify and target single species shoals. However small bycatches of herring and horse mackerel are sometimes taken, 100 Information is available on all non- along with limited saithe and blue whiting. These are counted against quotas. target species directly affected by the fishery including Pelagic trawl the distribution and ecology. The most common by-catch species is the horse mackerel but herring and blue whiting may also be taken, along with limited saithe and blue whiting. Skippers are aiming all the time to make a clean catch and in this context they benefit from modern developments of the multi frequency sonar systems. These bycatch are counted against quotas.

Independent observations of by-catch are limited. A recent study for a related (Scottish) pelagic trawler fishery estimated that the mean per haul percentage by-catch was 0.9% (although one haul containing other species was slipped during the observations of that fishery). Horse mackerel was the main bycatch (approx two thirds), while boarfish (Capros aper) and ling (Molva molva) were also present in the samples. By-catches of blue whiting, saithe (Pollachius virens), herring, haddock and pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) were observed elsewhere in the hauls.

Handline Handline catches are expected to be relatively monospecific. Small bycatches of herring and horse mackerel may be taken, along with limited saithe and blue whiting. Any small bycatch of commercial species would be counted against relevant quotas.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 79 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.3 Is information available on the trophic position, status and relationships of the target species within the 26.1 food web? 60 Key prey, predators and Daskalov and No 95 competitors are known. Norwegian Sea Mackinson, S 95 Knowledge of the food web related to mackerel is reasonably well advanced, with good quantitative 2004 NS information as a result of stomach content research and other investigations. The predation on, and prey Iversen, 2004 of, mackerel is also reasonably well described in the Norwegian Sea. Mackerel feed on copepods such as Prokopchuk Calanus finmarchicus, which can comprise 53-98% of total stomach weight at particular times of the and Sentyabov, year. Other species, such as sprat Sprattus sprattus, sandeel Ammodytes marinus and krill 2006 Meganectyphanes norwegicus are also consumed. Pelagic species such as mackerel form a key food ICES 2007 species for predators. These studies have included the consumption of mackerel by marine mammals. Blanchard et al., 2002 Multispecies models have been applied within the region (e.g. GADGET) but their ability to derive Wassmann et al., multispecies fisheries advice is currently limited (as in almost all fisheries) by the need for further 2006 biological information. Detailed mass-balance trophic models of the Norwegian and Barents Sea have Temming et al., been developed using the Ecopath methodology. This allows the temporal and spatial simulation of 2002 alternative fishing and environmental change scenarios to be examined on ecosystem components. 80 Information is available on the position, relationships and North Sea importance of target species in the environment at key life stages. The prey of mackerel has been well described through data collected during annual research surveys and during the two ‘years of the stomach’ programmes (1981, 1991). Diet of mackerel is dominated Calanus finmarchicus and Limacina retroversa. Other species, such as sprat Sprattus sprattus, sandeel Ammodytes marinus and krill Meganectyphanes norwegicus are also consumed. Feeding follows the migratory patterns of the species, with a larger proportion of the NEA mackerel stock using the Norwegian Sea as their primary feeding area in recent years, due to high experienced primary and secondary production and favourable physical conditions with increased temperatures over larger areas in this vast ecosystem. 100 Quantitative information is available on the position and The food web (primarily predator prey relationships) related to mackerel has been well described, importance of the target species although these food webs are generally on a gross-scale. Mackerel has been considered as one of 12 key and their relationships within the species within a multi-species Virtual Population Analysis (MSVPA) for the North Sea (ICES Area IV). food web at key life stages. This includes quantitative information on mackerel as a prey at different life stages. While the MSVPA is still being developed, it is considered to be appropriately robust. Detailed mass-balance trophic models of the North Sea have also been developed using the Ecopath with Ecosim methodology. This allows the temporal and spatial simulation of alternative fishing and environmental change scenarios to be examined on ecosystem components.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 80 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.1.4 Is there information on the potential for the ecosystem to recover from fishery related impacts? 26.1 60 Key elements of the functioning of The impact of commercial fishing on the spawning stock is studied through the stock assessment. Recent ICES 2007 90 the ecosystem, relevant to the reductions in fishing mortality, and hence landings, have led to an improvement in the NEA mackerel Blanchard et al., fishery, are identified and stock, which suggests that the ecosystem has not been unduly impacted by fishing on this species. The 2002 understood, allowing some impacts of mackerel fishing on ecosystem interactions have not been examined directly. However, position to be taken on the models have examined the impacts of capelin abundance on the ecosystem, suggesting negative potential for recovery. relationships between capelin and mackerel abundance. 80 The main elements of the functioning of the ecosystem, Further potential ecosystem impacts of fishing, namely physical disturbance (section 2.1.3.1), ghost relevant to the fishery, have been fishing (section 2.1.3.2) and impacts on key vulnerable species (section 2.2) are considered elsewhere. documented and are understood, Trophic impacts may be determined through ECOPATH/ECOSIM analysis. allowing assessment of potential for recovery. Benthic sensitivities are established and as a result particularly sensitive habitat areas are closed to 100 Detailed information is available bottom gear. It is noted that a Management Plan for the Norwegian Sea is to be commissioned soon, on the potential for affected which would standardise this knowledge across the whole Norwegian EEZ area. elements of the ecosystem to recover from fishery related For the North Sea, further information on the potential trophic impacts of stock biomass removal is also impacts. available from the MSVPA analysis.

Mackerel are pelagic spawners, and hence impacts on habitat are limited to those in the water column. This habitat isnot considered particularly sensitive to localised impacts of pelagic trawls, relative to the extensive area subject to spawning and the size of eggs.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 81 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2 General risk factors are adequately determined. 22.2 2.1.2.1 Is information available on the nature and extent of the by-catch (capture of non-target species)? 35.3 60 The main non-target species Generally, targeted mid-water fisheries such as mackerel are virtually mono-specific. Nevertheless there Pierce et al., PS 90 affected have been identified and is the potential, particularly with large mid-water trawls, to incur incidental captures of other species. The 2002 PT 90 qualitative information is main by catch species in the Norwegian mackerel fisheries are herring, horse mackerel, and limited saithe Norges HL 90 available on significant by-catch. and blue whiting. All these by-catch species are retained on board, landed and the quantity set against the Sildesalgslag 80 Information is available on non- vessel and national quota for that species. All by-catches of commercial species, namely those listed in interview target species directly affected by Regulation 48, must be retained on board and will be counted against the quota for those species on Norges the fishery including their landing. By-catch of non-commercial species is not recorded but is considered to be extremely low. On Sildesalgslag distribution and/or ecology. this basis the score is 90. data Quantitative information is Directorate of available on significant by-catch. The distribution and ecology of by-catch species such as herring and horse mackerel is very well Fisheries and If obtained by sampling, this is established. Institute of considered sufficient to provide Marine Research adequate information. Purse seine interview 100 Information is available on all By catches of other species are less common in the purse seine fishery which tends to identify and target non-target species directly single species shoals. However small by catches of herring and horse mackerel are sometimes taken, affected by the fishery including along with limited saithe and blue whiting. These are counted against quotas. the distribution and ecology. Accurate records are kept on the Pelagic trawl nature and extent of all by-catch The most common by-catch species is the horse mackerel but herring and limited saithe and blue whiting species including species size and may also be taken. Skippers are aiming all the time to make a clean catch and in this context they benefit sex composition. from modern developments of the multi frequency sonar systems. These bycatch are counted against quotas.

Handline Handline catches are expected to be relatively monospecific. However small by catches of herring and horse mackerel may be taken, along with saithe and blue whiting. These are counted against quotas.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 82 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2.2 Is information available on the extent of discard and slippage (the proportion of the catch not 35.3 landed)? 60 Appropriate information is Napier et al., 2002 PS 70 available of the extent of PURSE SEINE & TRAWL: By-catches are very low as discussed above. However, slippage does Napier et al. 1999 PT 70 discarding and slippage, including occur so could include by-catch species. The Norwegian purse seine fleet may occasionally slip Pierce et al., 2002 HL 90 an assessment of the main species catches of pelagic species, even though this is against regulations. Slippage is a potentially serious Punzon et al., 2004 represented. issue, since research suggests that once the purse seine has been pursed beyond a particular extent, IMR interview, caught fish will suffer total mortality post-slippage. The point at which this occurs has been the Report from subject of IMR study, and management/industry discussions on the issue have occurred. While Norwegian slippage is expected to be uncommon, appropriate information is not available to precisely derive Government to the estimates of its frequency or quantity. Estimates of slippage for the total international fishery have Parliament –page been developed within ICES working groups through observer programs and levels have declined 46 since 2001. (Stortingsmelding 32 2006-2007), The full extent of discarding of commercial species is not well known because there is no observer ICES 2007 programme in Norwegian waters, but inspection reports suggest that discarding is rare. There are no statistics on the extent of catches and discarding of non-commercial species. 80 Appropriate information is available to allow estimates of A number of direct-observer surveys have been conducted for mackerel pelagic trawl fisheries around discard and slippage to be Scotland. The discard rate from pelagic trawlers of 6.6% was substantially higher than that from calculated and interpreted.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 83 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 Accurate and verifiable pursers (0.6%). For pelagic trawlers targeting mackerel, 15 hauls catching 3,465 tonnes fish were information is available on the observed. One observed Scottish trawl was slipped, apparently due to containing a high proportion of extent of all discards and slippage other species. Some discarding in the form of wastage (i.e. fish left meshed in the net or in the cod- (by age/size), and the end of trawls) was associated with almost all pelagic catches but the quantities of fish involved were consequences of these. Or the low. entire catch is landed. From the study of Pierce et al. (2002), boar fish and ling, which are not specified under Norwegian regulation 48, were identified in the catches of pelagic trawls by observers in the mackerel fisheries. However, quantities were low. Despite this, it is difficult to extrapolate from this information to the Norwegian fleet without considerable uncertainty.

Condition 4 has been raised to address this for purse-seine and pelagic trawl fisheries.

HANDLINE: Direct observations are not available on discarding in the handline fisheries in Norway. They are expected to be negligible based on information from IMR and experiences with similar fisheries, due to the nature of fishing. Indeed, in related fisheries (e.g. handline fisheries for mackerel in Spain), bycatch is below 1% in number. Discarding of specific species is prohibited within the fishery under Directorate regulation #48. Survival of any discarded individuals from other species will depend upon the depth of fishing, rate of hauling, and hook damage. The overall impact on stocks is expected to be minimal.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 84 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.2.3 Is information available on other unobserved fishing mortality on target or other species? 29.4 60 Sources of potential unobserved Purse seine Misund and PS 80 mortality have been identified. The main source of unobserved mortality for purse seine vessels will be through the process of slippage. Beltestad, 2000 PT 80 80 Information is available to allow IMR has undertaken a study of the mortality rates of pelagic species slipped from different levels of net Vecchio and HL 90 estimates to be made of pursed levels, as well as observing the level of dead fish on the seabed subsequent to fishing operations, Wenner, 2007 unobserved mortality. using submarines. The general perception is that once the net has been pursed to any degree, mortality is Chopin et al., 100 Information is available to allow likely to be total. It is considered by Napier et al. that once caught in the net a significant proportion may 1996 quantitative estimates to be made. die following release, largely though scale-loss and an increased susceptibility to predators. Mortality rates are therefore high.

However, without improved knowledge of the level of slippage within the pelagic fishery, the actual levels of unobserved mortality cannot be quantitatively estimated to a high degree of certainty.

Pelagic trawls Unobserved mortality will primarily be through subsequent mortality of those fish that escape through the trawl. Given the susceptibility of mackerel to mortality following pursing, mortality is likely to be high. Observations and experiments of the effect of sorting grids in trawls suggests mortality, while varying notably, can be as high as 82% (more frequently ~50%). While these figures cannot be extrapolated directly to the impacts of trawling activities, they demonstrate the level of mortality that may occur, and can be used to develop quantitative estimates.

Handlines Unobserved mortality through handline fishing would occur through damage to individuals who take the hook but are not caught. The level of mortality is dependent upon the types of hook used. The level of fishing and escape from hooks is relatively low and research on other hook and line fisheries suggests levels of unobserved mortality are likely to be low (e.g. <1%) or none, dependent upon the species.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 85 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.3 There is adequate knowledge of the effects of gear-use on the receiving ecosystem and extent and type of gear losses. 18.2 2.1.3.1 Is there adequate knowledge of the physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear? 45,5 60 Main impacts of gear use on the The gear used principally affects the upper and middle water column. Impacts on the water column would IMR web page NoS 90 habitat are identified including be negligible and extremely short termed and reversible. NS 90 extent, timing and location of use. 80 All impacts of gear use on the Compared to current demersal fishing and other anthropogenic sources of disturbance, impacts on sea bed habitat are adequately identified from pelagic fishing gear are considered are considered negligible and transitory. including extent, timing and location of use. Habitat All positions are recorded accurately through VMS and logbook/landing declaration records. perturbations are shown to be stable. 100 The physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear have been studied and quantified, including details of any irreversible changes.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 86 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.3.2 Is any gear lost during fishing operations and can ‘ghost fishing’ occur? 54.5 60 Some recording of gear losses Purse seine DGFISH PS 90 takes place and an assessment can The loss of purse seine gear could result from the breaking of the main line. However, the fishing Report/2004/20 PT 90 be made of ecosystem impacts, method means that both ends of the line would need to break, meaning a catastrophic failure of the gear. HL 90 including possible ‘ghost fishing’. This is therefore a very rare event, and is highly unlikely to occur. 80 There is knowledge of the type, quantity and location of gear lost Pelagic trawl during fishing operations. Gear loss can potentially be caused through either (i) an excessive catch (although this usually results in Estimates can be made on the the cod-end bursting rather than loss of the trawl) or (ii) through the gear snagging on the bottom after an extent of adverse effects, including engine failure or some other power loss. Complete gear loss is very rare and all efforts to avoid it are ‘ghost fishing’. taken, due to the expense of the gear itself. 100 There is detailed knowledge of the type, quantity and location of gear The ability of an abandoned gear to continue to capture fish is limited as fishing effectiveness is only types lost during fishing enabled by it working under powered tow. Under this scenario, some localised damage to benthic operations. The impact of gear loss structures and communities may be possible through smothering. on target and non-target species has been measured and shown to have negligible effects on habitats, Handlines ecosystems or species of concern Loss of handlines is unlikely, unless snagged on seabed features. Hooks are unlikely to ghost fish once through for example ‘ghost released from the main line. fishing’.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 87 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.4 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant 18.9 negative impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem 2.1.4.1 Are management strategies in place to address impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 100 60 Management strategies include In general strategies are in place which would address significant impacts however there is no ICES 2007 NoS 85 some appropriate consideration of systematic review of sources of impact. However it is noted that a Norwegian sea management is in Directorate of NS 85 ecosystem impact identification and development and North Sea management plan would follow in future which would address these issues Fisheries avoidance/reduction, but may not and raise the scores. regulations 2008 be tested. Norwegian Sea Control comes through the EU/Norway/Faroes agreement of 1999 for this migratory stock (see below). Objectives for sustainable precautionary management of mackerel are in place through the Norwegian controls on fishing.

Specific objectives for the sustainable precautionary management of the mackerel stock are in place through the Norwegian management system, with associated controls and reference point levels (although not yet harvest control rules, which are being tested by ICES). 80 Management strategies are in place to detect and reduce ecosystem The impact of commercial fishing on the spawning stock is studied through the assessment, which impacts, although these may not indicates that the reductions in fishing mortality have allowed the SSB to recover. Significant trophic have been fully tested. These are impacts due to removal of the target and commercial by-catch stocks can be detected through designed to adequately protect key Ecopath/Ecosim analyses. aspects of the ecosystem within main fishing areas. Discarding is prohibited in Norwegian waters for specified commercial species (reportedly the main component of the by-catch), and levels of bycatch of commercial species are counted against quota. Other measures are in place to protect target and other species, such as temporary closures of areas of high juvenile fish concentrations. However, levels of non-commercial bycatch have not been studied in detail and so their significance has not been fully evaluated (and so strategies not considered. Impacts on seabirds and PET species are examined separately (section 2.2.1).

100 Management strategies are in place North Sea to monitor, detect and reduce Objectives for the sustainable precautionary management of mackerel are in place through the impacts. These are designed to EU/Norway/Faroe Islands agreement of 1999, with associated controls and reference point levels. adequately protect ecosystems, Objectives for mackerel biomass are implemented through a TAC system. Under agreed advice from the habitats and populations of target ICES ACFM, a precautionary management regime resulted in the spawning stock biomass exceeding a and non-target species and keep precautionary biomass level in 2002. In turn, evaluation of a management plan for NEA mackerel has impacts within determined begun. However, in 2007 ICES classified the stock as being at risk of having reduced reproductive acceptable levels. capacity and at risk of being harvested unsustainably and was expected to remain below Bpa. Similar management objectives exist for the main by-catch species within the fishery as for mackerel.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 88 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Discarding is prohibited in Norwegian fisheries, and levels of commercial species bycatch are counted against quota. Levels of non-commercial bycatch within the Norwegian fishery have not been studied in great detail, but bycatch in other North Sea trawl fisheries can be identified through observer programme data, annual surveys (although commercial gear is not commonly used), and specific programmes such as the UK Fisheries-Science partnership. However, levels of non-commercial bycatch have not been studied in detail and so their significance has not been evaluated nor strategies considered, albeit records of catches could be made available from the reference fleet. Impacts on seabirds and PET species are examined separately (section 2.2.1).

EC Regulations require high target species percentages. As discussed earlier, the fishery is easily expected to exceed these requirements.

ICES’s Working Group on the Assessment of Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy (WGMHSA) has investigated the impact of migration and relation to food sources, and the impact of mackerel mixing with other scombrids.

Specific Norwegian regulations are in place with respect to purse seine and pelagic trawl gear.

Purse seine Within Norwegian regulations, protective measures include the prohibition of the use of drainage grids that can be used as sorting equipment in the water separator or chutes leading from the water separator (drainage system) in fisheries for herring and mackerel. Norwegian authorities also have the potential to close areas reactively if information suggests that juvenile or bycatch levels within catches are above acceptable limits, or close fishing during the daytime. It is also prohibited to discard fish waste when fishing for mackerel, Norwegian spring-spawning herring, North Sea herring and herring. It is prohibited to fish for mackerel, herring and sprat using purse seines in the Skagerrak from Saturday at 24.00 hours to Sunday at 24.00 hours inclusive.

Pelagic trawls Within Norwegian regulations, protective measures include the prohibition of the use of drainage grids and graders in fisheries for herring and mackerel. Norwegian authorities also have the potential to close areas reactively if information suggests that juvenile or bycatch levels within catches are above acceptable limits. There are also spatial limitations on fishing areas.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 89 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5 Assessments of impacts associated with the fishery including the significance and risk of each impact, show no 21.5 unacceptable impacts on the ecosystem structure and/or function, on habitats or on the populations of associated species. 2.1.5.1 Does the removal of target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and function? 22.1 60 The removal of target stocks could Norwegian Sea Daskalov and 90 lead to impacts upon ecological Mackerel and their larvae provide important food components for many predatory fish species. This has Mackinson, 2004 systems (applying the precautionary been modelled as part of the ICES multi-species VPA model for the North Sea. Other models (e.g. Sparre, 1984 approach where necessary). A GADGET) concentrate on herring and their interaction with marine mammals. Detailed mass-balance Blanchard et al. program is in development to trophic models of the Norwegian and Barents Sea have been developed using the Ecopath methodology. 2002 identify these and, if appropriate, This allows the temporal and spatial simulation of alternative fishing and environmental change Norges reduce these to acceptable, defined scenarios to be examined on ecosystem components. Sildesalgslag limits. interview The status of the mackerel stock, although considered over-exploited at present, seems not to affect the level of its predators. However, the level of coupling between predator- prey relationships, and opportunities for prey-switching, is less well known and are likely to increase uncertainty over the response of predators to diminished prey availability.

North Sea Mackerel and their larvae provide important food components for many predatory fish species. This has been modelled as part of the ICES multi-species VPA model for the North Sea. The status of the 80 Sufficient information is available mackerel stock seems unlikely to affect these predators. However, the level of coupling between on consequences of current levels predator- prey relationships, and opportunities for prey-switching, is less well known and are likely to of removal of target species to increase uncertainty over the response of predators to diminished prey availability. Further development suggest no unacceptable impacts of of the MSVPA model, including incorporation of new stomach content data, should allow the the fishery on ecological systems interrelationships between herring and other key North Sea species to be better established. within major fishing areas. Detailed mass-balance trophic models of the North Sea have been developed using the Ecopath with Ecosim methodology. This allows the temporal and spatial simulation of alternative fishing and 100 The ecological consequences of environmental change scenarios to be examined on ecosystem components, which include herring. current levels of removal of target stocks has been quantified and Impacts on critical areas (inshore areas as nursery grounds) are unlikely to be affected by the Norwegian documented to be within fleet, given the concentration of its activities to the north of the North Sea, while impacts on spawning acceptable, pre-determined, limits. areas offshore are expected to be minimal from the gears operated and regions fished (see section 2.1.3.1).

For both areas and all gears, no unacceptable impacts have been identified, despite the stock assessment indicating overexploitation and that the stock is being exploited unsustainably (SSB being slightly below Bpa, F being just above Flim). The same score is therefore awarded to all.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 90 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.2 Does the removal of non-target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and function? 20.9 60 The removal of non-target stocks Mackerel and their larvae provide important food components for many predatory fish species, as well as IMR interview NoS 90 could lead to impacts upon birds and mammals. This has been modelled as part of the ICES multi-species VPA model for the North Blanchard et al., NS 90 ecological systems (applying the Sea. The current status of the mackerel stock, while viewed as overexploited, seems unlikely to affect 2002 precautionary approach where these predators. However, the level of coupling between predator- prey relationships, and opportunities Daskalov and necessary). A program is in for prey-switching, is less well known and are likely to increase uncertainty over the response of Mackinson, 2004 development to identify these and, predators to diminished prey availability. Further development of the MSVPA and/or GADGET models, if appropriate, reduce these to including incorporation of new stomach content data, should allow the interrelationships between acceptable, defined limits. mackerel and other key species to be better established. Multispecies models for the key species have 80 Sufficient information is available been applied within the regions, but their ability to derive multispecies fisheries advice is limited by the on consequences of current levels need for further biological information. Knowledge of the bycatch of key non-target commercial species of removal of non-target species to is considered well known, given the restrictions on discarding and the inclusion of these catches against suggest no unacceptable impacts of specific species quotas. Such species are included in Ecopath assessments and are the subject of separate the fishery on ecological systems (much larger) directed fisheries. within major fishing areas. 100 The ecological consequences of Norwegian Sea current levels of removal of non- The fishery will have a negligible impact upon the structure and function of the pelagic habitat and no target stocks has been quantified unacceptable impacts have been demonstrated for the benthic habitats. Capture of non-target species is at and documented to be within a very low level and these are subject to separate, specific, management measures. Therefore, sufficient acceptable, pre-determined, limits. information is available to examine the consequences of current removal levels on ecological systems, if not explicitly examined.

North Sea The fishery will have a negligible impact upon the structure and function of the pelagic habitat and no unacceptable impacts have been demonstrated for the benthic habitats. Capture of non-target species is at a very low level and these are subject to separate, specific, management measures. Therefore, sufficient information is available to examine the consequences of current removal levels on ecological systems, if not explicitly examined.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 91 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.3 Does the removal of target and non-target stocks have unacceptable impacts on the populations / stocks 19.9 of non-target species? 60 Impacts of the fishery on the Commercial by-catch species are subject to separate detailed stock assessments and related to biological ICES, 2007 PS 80 populations / stocks of non-target reference points. All by-catch of these species in the mackerel fishery is counted against relevant quotas. ICES 2007Norges PT 80 species have been considered, Regulations and management plans are in place to mitigate any impacts. Sildesalgslag HL 90 assessed, and programs considered interviewIMR to mitigate such impacts, but may Knowledge of the capture of other non-commercial non-target species remains limited, and the impacts interview not have been tested. on the population cannot be defined. Available information suggests by- catch levels are low and hence impacts on the eco-system would be expected to be low. The impacts on affected non commercial by- catch populations have not been determined but are not expected to be significant.

Purse seine No unacceptable impacts have been identified due to the highly selective nature of the fishery. Capture of non-target species is at a very low level and these are subject to separate, specific, management measures. Therefore, sufficient information is available to examine the consequences of current removal levels on ecological systems, if not explicitly examined.

Pelagic trawl No unacceptable impacts have been identified due to the highly selective nature of the fishery. Capture 80 Impacts of the fishery on the of non-target species is at a very low level and these are subject to separate, specific, management populations / stocks of non-target measures. Therefore, sufficient information is available to examine the consequences of current removal species have been considered, levels on ecological systems, if not explicitly examined. assessed, and programs in place and tested to mitigate such impacts. Handlines No unacceptable impacts have been identified due to the highly selective nature of the fishery. Capture of non-target species is at a very low level and these are subject to separate, specific, management measures. Therefore, sufficient information is available to examine the consequences of current removal levels on ecological systems, if not explicitly examined.

100 Impacts of the fishery on the populations / stocks of non-target species have been considered, assessed, and tested remedial actions taken and their impact monitored.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 92 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.4 Does the fishery have unacceptable impacts on habitat structure? 16.1 (Management measures related to habitat are considered under Principle 3) 60 There is no evidence that the Norwegian Sea Norges NoS 95 fishery is having unacceptable The fishery will have negligible and transient impacts upon the structure and function of the pelagic Sildesalgslag NS 95 impacts, although the issue has not habitat. Near-shore fishing off Norway is in relatively deep water, and benthic impacts are expected to interview been directly studied. be minimal. IMR interview

North Sea 80 No unacceptable impacts of the The fishery will have negligible and transient impacts upon the structure and function of the pelagic fishery on habitat within major habitat. fishing areas

100 Effects on habitat structure are well documented and are within acceptable tested/justified limits.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 93 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.1.5.5 Are associated biological diversity, community structure and productivity affected to unacceptable 20.9 levels? If there is evidence of depletion of non-target species, then Criteria 2.3 should also be addressed. 60 There is no evidence that the Norwegian Sea Blanchard et NoS 90 fishery is having unacceptable Biological diversity, in terms of rare, protected or threatened species is considered in Section 2.2. al. 2002 NS 90 impacts, although the issue has not Daskalov and been directly studied. The development of Ecopath/Ecosim ecosystem models for the Barents Sea allow the overall community Mackinson 80 Appropriate information is level impacts of the fishery to be determined. Mackerel, being a transitory planktivorous fish in the 2004 available on the effects of the Norwegian and Barents Sea, form a marginal, if temporally key component of the ecosystem. While it is fishery on biological diversity, difficult to identify causal effects of mackerel abundance and that of other species in the food web, it community structure and seems certain that small pelagic fish biomass – as a whole – will have a strong influence on trophic productivity. This does not indicate interactions, while interactions can also occur between capelin and mackerel abundance. The level of any unacceptable impacts. mackerel in recent years has not suggested direct impacts on other fish species. 100 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community As discussed under Indicator 2.1.3.1, no significant impacts of the fishery upon benthic habitats or structure and productivity have communities have been identified. been quantified and are within acceptable tested/justified limits. North Sea Biological diversity, in terms of rare, protected or threatened species is considered in Section 2.2.

The development of Ecopath/Ecosim ecosystem models for the North Sea allow the overall community level impacts of the fishery to be determined. Mackerel, being one of the key planktivorous fish in the North Sea, are a key component of the ecosystem. While it is difficult to identify causal effects of mackerel abundance and that of other species in the food web, it seems certain that small pelagic fish biomass – as a whole – will have a strong influence on trophic interactions. For key fish species, including mackerel, this is also examined through MSVPA. The level of mackerel in recent years has not suggested direct impacts on other fish species.

As discussed under Indicator 2.1.3.1, no significant impacts of the fishery upon benthic habitats or communities have been identified.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 94 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2 (MSC Criterion 2) The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity (at the genetic, species or population 33.3 levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 2.2.1 Fishing is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on recognised protected, endangered or 50.0 threatened species. 2.2.1.1 Is there information on the presence and populations of protected, endangered or threatened (PET) 33.3 species? 60 There is a program in place to The taxa included within the IUCN Red List are “the bearers of genetic diversity and the building DEFRA 2003 NoS 95 identify protected, threatened and blocks of ecosystems, and information on their conservation status and distribution provides the Pierce et al. NS 95 endangered species directly related foundation for making informed decisions about conserving biodiversity from local to global levels”. (2002) to the fishery. There is periodic Information available from the Norwegian red list indicates 21 marine species that are considered PET. Northridge et al. monitoring of the main population 2003 trends and status of protected, The majority of PET species (but not necessarily all), which may directly or indirectly interact with the Northridge et al. endangered and threatened species. fishery, are identified. Populations are monitored and threats to populations, and measures necessary to 2007 promote conservation are identified. Critical habitats are understood. http://biology.st- andrews.ac.uk/sc Sea mammals. ans2/ NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission), along with IWC and ICES, have Beckby 2001 recommended that member countries, including Norway, should monitor and report by-catches of Bjorge and 80 Key protected, threatened and marine mammals and seabirds. For the coastal and inshore fisheries, vessel owners have provided Kovacs endangered species directly related information on effort, catch and by-catch over the period October-December 2005, in return for Bjorge et al 2006 to the fishery have been identified. financial compensation. These concentrated on gillnet and trap fisheries. Further information on some OSPAR 2003 The populations of key protected, by-catches is also collected by the ‘reference fleet’ operating in Norwegian waters. www.ascobans.or threatened and endangered species g directly related to the fishery are ASCOBANS, the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas, Luque et al. 2006 monitored on a regular basis. operates in the North Sea. Norway is not a member of this group, but is a ‘range state’. The results of the two abundance surveys for harbour porpoise (SCANS-I and now SCANS-II) led this body to call for a conservation plan for this species within the North Sea at the end of 2006. further moitoring is ongoing through the CODA study.The populations of seals in the North Sea are monitored by a number of organisations. This includes NERC’s Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) and the Sea Mammal Research Unit, which since 2000 has carried out investigations of the level of bycatch of sea mammals in UK fisheries. In addition to these studies, harbour seals are surveyed annually in the Kattegat/Skagerrak by Swedish scientists and in the Wadden Sea by Dutch scientists. Elsewhere surveys are less frequent but data are relatively complete for most harbour seal populations in the region of the

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 95 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 There is knowledge of all North Sea. Grey seals are also surveyed intermittently along the Norwegian coast and in the Baltic but populations of protected species there are no systematic surveys of abundance. directly or indirectly related to the fishery including their dynamics. Fish Regular monitoring of protected, The angel shark (Squatina squatina) is now extinct in the North Sea and has been declared critically endangered and threatened species endangered elsewhere, while the common skate (Raja batis) is now extremely rare in Area IVc. Skates is undertaken, supported by and rays are of critical concern due to their long-lived life histories and limited reproductive potential research programmes to assess and information on the status of stocks is available. Bycatch of demersal cod in pelagic gears is threats and promote their expected to be highly minimal. Pelagic sharks such as porbeagle are not currently classified as PET by conservation. The type and the Red List, but their status on this list should be monitored over the period of certification. These distribution of critical habitats have species are considered within the ICES Working Group on elasmobranch species (WGEF). Bluefin tuna been identified. (Thunnus thynnus) is considered to be ‘data deficient’ by the Red List. Population levels of this species are considered within the ICCAT assessment process.

Seabirds Seabirds at sea are monitored by the seabirds at sea unit of JNCC. The ICES Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE) reviews of current approaches for identifying offshore seabird aggregations and delineating Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), develops recommendations for a comprehensive monitoring programme for seabirds and details of dietary studies in seabirds. Interactions of seabirds with gears are also anecdotally reported. The Norwegian Government has also contributed to the development of the SEAPOP (Seabird Population Management and Petroleum Operations) programme, the focus of which is further north than the North Sea.

Other Species Surveys of the sea bed through specific side-scan sonar surveys and benthic surveys have provided information to identify vulnerable areas and species such as cold water corals within the North Sea. Areas of strong tidal currents are associated with coarse sediments characterised by sessile epibenthic communities dominated by suspension-feeders. Gravel substrates important for spawning are outside the fishing areas for this fleet and gear.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 96 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.1.2 Are interactions of the fishery with such species adequately determined? 33.3 60 The main interactions directly Napier et al., 2002 PS 75 There are several programmes of data collection and review in the North and Norwegian Seas, related to the fishery are known. particularly for marine mammals the NAMMCO annual reviews and for birds the ICES Working Group Northridge, 2003 PT 75 on Seabird Ecology, as well as studies and monitoring carried out by IMR specifically for the Norwegian DEFRA 2003 HL 80 Pierce et al. Sea. The majority of studies on cetacean by-catch in the North Sea have been performed by the UK, (2002) Germany and Denmark. Several EU fleets have observer programmes that monitor seabirds and cetacean Northridge et al. interactions in addition to fish by-catch. 2007 EU regulations currently require the reporting of mammal catches (Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004) Luque et al. 2006 and are likely to require reporting of seabird deaths from 2009. Sufficient information on sensitive/rare sea bed communities (cold water corals) is available to identify no areas of significant interaction with fishing gear in areas where the Norwegian fleet operates in the North Sea.

Pelagic gear operations have the potential to interact with both sea mammals and birds.

Sea mammals While observations are not available directly from the Norwegian fleet, information on the incidence of interactions with marine mammals is available for other related fleets. Since 2000, the 80 Appropriate quantitative estimates Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) has carried out a number of surveys to estimate the level of are made of the effects of bycatch of sea mammals in UK pelagic fisheries. SMRU, in collaboration with the Scottish Pelagic interactions directly related to the Fishermen’s Association, placed observers on board thirteen UK vessels for a total of 190 days at sea, fishery. covering 206 trawling operations around the UK. In contrast with other pelagic trawl fisheries elsewhere in the Eastern Atlantic, to date no cetacean or seal bycatch has been observed by independent observers in the herring pelagic fishery in the North Sea.

Seal bycatch in pelagic trawls appears to be an issue to the northwest of the UK, and likely to be mainly grey seals (Halichoerus grypus, which are not considered threatened). Northridge (2003) observed 49 seals taken in 312 pelagic trawl tows throughout UK. By-catch rates in the North Sea are likely to be substantially less than off the NW Scottish coast, due to the distribution of this species. Luque et al. (2006) noted interactions between Scottish commercial trawlers and seals, but these were mainly during the herring fishery (June-Sept), when several mortalities were noted, rather than the mackerel fishery.

UK observer programmes have monitored cetacean by-catch rates in pelagic trawl fisheries, which confirm that cetacean by-catch in the pelagic trawl fishery is negligible. It also reports that no by-catches of marine mammals were observed over 69 studies hauls and considers that the underlying rate for 100 Reliable quantitative estimates are marine mammals in the pelagic fisheries studies (pelagic trawls in IVa and VIa) is low. However, there made of the interactions of all is no evidence that seal / cetacean catch is logged and reported to a third party.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 97 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

populations directly related to the fishery, and qualitative information Fish. Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays) are also not considered an issue for pelagic gears, is available on indirect impacts. although sharks may be occasionally caught in the North Sea. In other pelagic trawl fisheries, this is felt Incidental mortalities are recorded to be rare. Survival rates are reasonably expected to be high, with sharks being released during or after and reported. the cod-end is being emptied. Interactions of the fishery with bluefin tuna are anticipated to be extremely rare, and no evidence of interactions was identified in the available information. However, this does not mean that the event does not occur.

Seabirds. Interactions of seabirds are anecdotally reported as being very rare, with occasional birds getting caught in nets (this being more an issue to the West of Scotland). Gannets (Morus bassanus), which frequently dive at and around nets, have been observed by entangled in fishing nets in the northern North Sea and NW Scotland. Actual mortality rates of caught gannets have not been assessed in detail, and some have been observed alive after release from the gear. Seabird by-catch in the North Sea is considered to be comparatively rare compared to the NW Scotland where 1-3 birds may be caught per haul. However, data to confirm this are lacking.

Purse Seine Little information is known on the catches of PET species in the Norwegian purse seine fishery, which has the potential to accidentally catch both marine mammals and birds. In general the method is felt reasonably species-specific. However, there are incidences of marine mammals being caught within nets on initial pursing. However, the method of fishing allows these to be released relatively easily, before they damage equipment. Studies in purse seine fisheries (NAMMCO) have not identified any obvious interactions with marine mammals and, in general, the method is felt reasonably species-specific. The level of interaction is not known, however. Reports of seabird interactions with gear do not identify purse seines as having significant interaction with PET seabirds but records of interactions with PET fish species is not established.

Pelagic trawl Little information is known on the catches of PET species in the Norwegian pelagic trawl fishery, which has the potential to accidentally catch marine mammals, and birds on hauling. In general the method is felt reasonably species-specific, but the lack of information to support this is a concern. Handline Little information is known on the catches of PET species in the Norwegian handline fishery, however the potential to accidentally catch marine mammals and birds is remote. In general the method is felt reasonably species-specific.

Condition 4 has been raised to address this for purse-seine and pelagic trawl fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 98 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.1.3 Do interactions pose an unacceptable risk to such species? 33.3 60 Known effects are within Based upon the information available, the very low rates of interactions with the species discussed Beckby 2001 NoS 85 acceptable limits of national and above suggests that the fishery does not pose a risk to protected, endangered or threatened species. Bjorge and Kovacs NS 85 international legislative Daan et al. 2005 requirements and are believed to ECOSIM modelling of indirect effects is possible, this suggests that there are no major trophic www.ascobans.org create no biological threats to the consequences (notably on cetaceans) of changing harvest rates of pelagic species within the STECF (2002) species concerned. boundaries of established sustainable limits. Current low levels are of some concern, but there is no Tasker et al. 2002 80 Critical interactions, including evidence of declines in marine mammal populations from current monitoring. Walker et al. 1996 direct and indirect effects that could pose an unacceptable risk, The Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas are well estimated and do not (ASCOBANS) has adopted 1.7% as the maximum allowed removal rate for harbour porpoises and threaten protected species. this was also adopted by both EC (2001) and ICES. However, potential impacts with this fishery are Acceptable incidental take levels such that a requirement to set specific mandatory levels has not yet been identified. are clearly defined. 100 It is established that the direct and indirect effects of fishing on threatened and endangered species are within acceptable pre-defined limits.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 99 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

2.2.2 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts 50.0 of the fishery on protected, endangered or threatened species. 2.2.2.1 Are management objectives and accompanying strategies in place in relation to impact identification and 100 avoidance/reduction? 60 Management systems are in place Norway has ratified a number of conventions on species protection and management, including the http://www.ascoba 90 to address key areas of impact Convention on Biological Diversity, Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions, these establish overarching ns.org/ identification and objectives for PET species conservation. The Norwegian Red List is updated regularly. OSPAR 2010 avoidance/reduction. 80 Management objectives are set to Regulations for non-commercial fish by-catches appear more limited (including fish, mammals and detect and reduce impacts. birds), although there is also a division of IMR working on the development of technical measures to Accompanying strategies are address by-catch etc. issues. designed to adequately protect recognised protected, endangered If issues relating to protected, endangered or threatened species are identified, various mechanisms have or threatened species. been developed to detect and reduce their impact. This includes i) the ASCOBANS Agreement that sets 100 Tested management objectives are the 1.7% maximum allowed removal rate for harbour porpoises; (ii) Biodiversity Action Plans that set to detect and reduce impacts. provides action plans for the protection of key and threatened species and habitats; (iii) the OSPAR Accompanying strategies are Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime designed to adequately protect Area that has identified a number of key species and habitats in the North Sea considered as ‘threatened recognised protected, endangered or declining’. or threatened species. In general, where there is an identified requirement for strategies to be enacted, appropriate actions appear to be put in place, including monitoring of potential interactions with PET species. For example, areas of cold water coral have been identified as an issue in Norwegian waters and then appropriate protection measures rapidly implemented and enforced. Norway could implement EU designed measures as part of the EU-Norway agreement or on its own volition (although there are no obvious examples of this arising).

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 100 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and 33.3 standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

3.A Management System Criteria 50.0 3A.1 (MSC Principle 3 Intent and Criterion A management system containing an institutional and operational framework exists with clear lines of responsibility. 16.7 3) 3A.1.1 Are organisations with management responsibility clearly defined including areas of responsibility and 25.0 interactions? 60 Organisations with management The mackerel fisheries take place in a very large area ranging from the Bay of Biscay in the South to the St.meld. nr 32 90 responsibility are known. Northern Norwegian Sea. The fishery therefore occurs in the waters under the jurisdiction of several (2006-2007) Responsibilities and interactions states bordering the Atlantic, as well as at the high seas beyond areas of national jurisdiction. All member require clarification and states in the European Union are subject to the Common Fisheries Policy, which effectively leaves the Sak 26/07 occasional issues may arise. authority to manage fisheries with the Community. Reguleringsmøte 80 Organisations with management t 5 og 18 juni responsibility have been defined The mackerel fisheries are managed under three arrangements: a tripartite agreement between Norway, 2007 including key areas of EU and the Faroe Islands, the bilateral cooperation between Norway and the EU, and in the Northeast responsibility and interaction. In Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) for the international waters. general, interactions are effective and operate without serious The tripartite agreement between EU, The Faroe Islands and Norway was established in 1999, and has difficulties. been renewed annually since.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 101 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

100 Organisations with management responsibility are clearly defined The bilateral cooperation with the EU is based on a 1978 Agreement, which lays out the foundations for including all areas of the cooperation and commits the parties to cooperate on the management of fish stocks that are shared responsibility and interaction. between the two. Annual meetings are held under the agreement to agree on management measures for Interactions are demonstrably the shared stocks for the following year, as well as on quota exchanges on other stocks outside the North effective. Sea. While 6 shared stocks are explicitly divided by a fixed percentage to each party, the EU and Norway has not been able to agree on a division of the mackerel stock.

Since the EU and Norway do not agree on the division of the stock, the quotas agreed to between the two are annual, ad hoc arrangements (stm 32:18). Quotas are now set for 3 management areas: the North Sea and Skagerrak, Norway´s EEZ North of 62N and international waters, and EU waters.

Although the management responsibilities are divided between several international arrangements, they are defined within the three core areas of resource management: developing the knowledge base, preparing and implementing regulations, and enforcing them. Interactions are however not always effective in the sense of decisions being promptly followed up upon or abided by. The regulation of the fisheries in the NEAFC area, for instance, is not accepted by all NEAFC parties.

Organisations interactions are clear and effective although the complex international interactions may prevent rapid interventions, should these be necessary. The score, therefore, is only 90.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 102 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.1.2 Is the management system consistent with the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery? 25.0 60 Inconsistencies arise in some key The management system in Norway is comprehensive and encompasses the entire mackerel fishery in I1, I2, I3 95 areas but a programme is in place Norwegian waters and those participating in it, including participation of fishers from other nations. Also to address these. the activities of Norwegian vessels in international waters are regulated and enforced upon by 80 The system is consistent with key Norwegian fisheries authorities. Management is considered to be consistent with the cultural context, elements of the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery. scale and intensity of the fishery. 100 The system is entirely consistent with the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery.

3A.1.3 Is the management system subject to internal review? 25.0 60 There are mechanisms in place to It is common practice for international fisheries cooperation to review the experience of previous years´ Sak 26/07 90 allow for internal review. regulations and their implementation. In the bilateral cooperation between Norway and the EU, their Reguleringsmøtet 80 The management system is subject annual meetings review developments in fisheries and their management over the past year. Similar 5 og 18 juni 2007 to regular internal review. practices take place in NEAFC and in the tripartite cooperation EU – Faroes – Norway. Recommended changes have been reviewed and implemented as The management system at the domestic level in Norway is subject to several annual internal reviews. appropriate. Regulatory meetings (2-3 per year) are hosted by the Directorate and attended by industry and other 100 The management system is subject stakeholders. Significant preparatory documents are made available to stakeholders on the web prior to to regular and frequent internal the meeting. At these meetings, the regulatory program – quota and technical regulations - (for each review. This includes evidence that fishery individually, e.g. mackerel fisheries) that is implemented in any one year is subject to review by the assessment methodology has the Regulatory meeting the following year. Recommendations on modifications to regulation are been evaluated extensively and that proposed to the Ministry and subsequent decisions are subject to ongoing testing and monitoring. any recommended changes have been made. Monitoring and Regulations are also subject to continuous public debate and review. This applies to rules regulating evaluation are ongoing and access, output, and technical regulations. improvements quickly tested and implemented. Data and assessment methodology is subject to continuous internal scientific review within ICES, with participation by scientists from many countries. Methodologies are subject to continuous development, such as ICES Study Group on Management Strategies (SGMAS). There is no established stock assessment quality control procedure within Norway, outside of the ICES framework.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 103 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.1.4 Is the management system subject to external review? 25.0 60 There are mechanisms in place to At the level of international or bilateral cooperation between the two countries, no systematic reviews Riksrevisjonen 90 allow for external review. are performed. The bilateral cooperation as well as the NEAFC has however been examined in some Dokument nr 3:13 80 The management system is subject scientific publications, which can be said to constitute external reviews. Regular and frequent external (2003-2004) to external review at appropriate review of regulations and enforcement aspects occurs annually (since 1995) through a report to intervals. Recommended changes Parliament addressing the outcomes of international agreements and their implementation in fisheries St.meld. nr 32 have been reviewed and policy. The parliamentary committee review and comment upon the ministerial report and the minister (2006-2007 implemented as appropriate. will act on comments made. 100 The management system is subject to regular and frequent external The management system at the domestic level in Norway is subject to thorough external review, review. Monitoring and evaluation although the depth of the review varies. Reviews apply to the scientific basis, regulatory approach as are ongoing and improvements well as enforcement aspects. quickly tested and implemented A major review of the management system was carried out by the National Audit Office in 2003-2004. This was a review of the effectiveness of the management system (in terms of resource management, capacity handling, enforcement and Ministerial management of subsidiary bodies – Directorate, IMR etc), and was reported to Parliament. The overall aim of these reviews is to ensure that the executive is achieving the overall policy objectives adopted by Parliament.

The Institute of Marine Research has been subject to two major scientific reviews over the last decade or so by independent committees (one commissioned by the Research Council covering a number of institutions, one specifically commissioned by IMR itself). In additions, the research is published in scientific journals and is subject to regular peer review processes there.

ICES involves external scientists in reviews of its methodologies on a regular basis. In particular, the management strategies for a number of stocks, including mackerel, have been reviewed externally by ICES and STECF to confirm conformity with the precautionary approach.

Norway reports bi-annually on the performance of its management system to the Committee of Fisheries of FAO, which reviews countries performance relative to the standards set in the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 104 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 A.2 (MSC Criteria 1, 2, 4) The management system has a clear legal basis. 16.7 3A.2.1 Is the fishery consistent with International Conventions and Agreements? 40.0 60 An evaluation is being undertaken The mackerel fisheries are subject to a management system that is basically compliant with relevant St.meld. nr 32 100 to show compliance with relevant international conventions and agreements. The management system are based on the 1982 Law of the Sea (2006-2007) international agreements. There is Convention, the fisheries-related provisions of which states that fisheries are to be managed sustainably, no evidence that the fishery is not that they should be optimally used, and that states shall cooperate on the management of shared stocks. Ot.prp. nr. 20 consistent with agreements. These provisions are basically complied with by the management system in question. (2007-2008) 80 An evaluation has been undertaken and fishing appears to The fisheries are managed according to the principles set out in the FAO Code of Conduct for comply with international Responsible Fisheries, which includes the application of a precautionary approach. Also, the requirements agreements. in the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement regarding reference points and application of the precautionary 100 An evaluation has been approach are complied with for the mackerel fisheries. Norway has implemented actions against IUU undertaken which clearly shows fishing in accordance with the FAO Global Plan of Action against IUU fishing. that the management system is compliant with all relevant The mackerel fisheries are generally considered to be consistent with relevant provisions of international international agreements. nature conservation agreements.

There are no controversial exemptions to international agreements.

The mackerel fisheries are managed under three cooperative agreements between EU, the Faroe Islands and Norway, between Norway and the EU, and under the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission and are in compliance with those agreements. Third country fishing also occurs according to agreements with the coastal states.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 105 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.2.2 Is the fishery consistent with EU and national legislation 40.0 60 An evaluation is being undertaken Fisheries in Norway are subject to comprehensive legislative/regulatory framework. The management St.meld. nr 32 95 to show compliance with relevant system is demonstrably compliant with national legislation, and has a clear legal basis. Secondary (2006-2007) EU and national agreements. There legislation providing for actual regulations and enforcement provisions builds on overarching fisheries is no evidence that the fishery is laws (notably the Participation Act and Saltwater Fisheries Act). These laws are in the process of being not consistent with EU and replaced with a new Oceans Resources Act, adopted by Parliament 8 May 2008. The new Act will enter national legislation. into force when secondary legislation providing for its implementation has been developed, probably late 80 An evaluation has been undertaken 2008 or early 2009. and fishing is shown to be fully compliant with EU and national The management system is subject to legal reviews in court cases, for example when regulations are legislation as it relates to Principles contested by fishermen or others. Such court cases usually result in the resource management being 1 & 2. found to be consistent with legislation. 100 An evaluation has been undertaken which clearly shows that the There is an international agreement between Norway, Faroe Islands and the EU within which the fishery management system is compliant operates. with all relevant EU and national legislation.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 106 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.2.3 Accepting the primacy of ecological sustainability in management, does the system also observe the 20.0 legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing? 60 Accepting the primacy of Rights are clearly codified in the legislation concerning participation in fisheries. The legislation has Ot.prp. nr. 20 100 ecological sustainability in been developed through legally based, democratic processes whereby draft legislation is prepared by (2007-2008) management, the customary and expert committees with broad representation, also from various stakeholder groups. When the Ministry legal rights of the people of Fisheries have prepared draft legislation, comprehensive written hearings are conducted and the dependent upon fishing are known results taken into consideration, before the new legislation is submitted to Parliament for adoption. The and no major conflicts have been review of new legislation in parliamentary committees can be result in changes to what is proposed by recorded. Government. 80 Accepting the primacy of ecological sustainability in management, the system observes the legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing but does not necessarily have a formal codified system. 100 Accepting the primacy of ecological sustainability in management, the system observes all legal and customary rights of people dependent upon fishing under a formal codified system.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 107 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3 (MSC Criteria 2, 5, 7) The management system includes strategies to meet objectives including consultative procedures and dispute 11.1 resolutions.

3A.3.1 Does the management system contain clear short and long-term objectives? 16.7 60 Short and long-term resource and Long-term, overall goals for fisheries management are set out in legislation and in white papers to the Ot.prp. nr. 20 90 environment objectives are Parliament. These objectives are based upon sustainable management, economic efficiency, regard for (2007-2008) implicit within the management regional objectives (e.g. specification of landing points), as well as concern for work conditions and system safety. St.meld. nr 32 80 The management system contains (2006-2007) clear short and long-term resource Environmental objectives are also in place and observed, e.g. in relation to protection of coral reefs and and environment objectives. geographically defined sea-based management plans (e.g. Barents Sea Management Plan and other 100 The management system contains forthcoming plans). Ecological quality objectives are also developed through the OSPAR cooperation, but clear and explicit short and long- fully developed measures to measure environmental performance are not yet in place. term resource and environment objectives that can be measured The new Oceans Resources Act generally places more emphasis on environmental objectives. Enabling by performance indicators. legislation to implement the Act is in the process of being prepared. Once effective, this will lead to a higher score in the future.

Long-term objectives for fisheries management are set out in the management plan for the mackerel stock developed under the EU – Faroe Islands – Norway cooperation. Short-term objectives are represented by annual TACs, the performance against which can be measured on an annual basis. The TACs are based on ICES advice, which build on the precautionary approach. Specific environmental control measures are in place (e.g concerning prevention of discarding of many species and protection of coral areas), but do not yet fully address all potential interactions of the fisheries.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 108 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.2 Do operational procedures exist for meeting objectives? 16.7 60 Appropriate operational procedures At the international level, allocation of quotas is negotiated every year in three different contexts: the EU St.meld. nr 32 90 exist which are applied to the – Faroes – Norway cooperation, the bilateral cooperation between Norway and the EU, and in the (2006-2007) meeting of objectives. Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission. 80 Transparent operational procedures Sak 26/07 are applied to the meeting of At the domestic level in Norway, the national TACs are allocated to fleet groups according to an Reguleringsmøtet objectives. These procedures can elaborated distributional scheme based on vessel groups defined by gear and length of the vessels. 5 og 18 juni 2007 be shown to support the objectives. Within each vessel group, the quota is allocated according to set procedures. Vessels record catches in 100 Operational procedures are logbooks, and catches and landings are recorded and checked against the quota of each vessel (where transparent and clearly applied. vessel quotas exist) and/or group quotas. The fisheries authorities can close a fishery where by-catch There is a feedback mechanism levels are too high (this is subject to continuous monitoring), or when the total quota for a particular testing effective application. group of vessels is reached. The procedures for doing so is well understood in the industry, and closure of areas in practice constitutes almost real-time management.

Relevant environmental objectives are applied through regulation and enforcement activities as for fishery controls.

Operational procedures exist although environmental procedures are less transparent and well tested than stock based procedures and this is reflected in the scoring.

The regulations of fisheries activities are reviewed annually in the Regulatory Meeting, ensuring transparency of management operations and providing for testing and review of regulatory mechanisms. Regulations are clearly communicated to operatives and fishers are required to be aware of relevant regulations.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 109 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.3 Are there procedures for measuring performance relative to the objectives? 16.7 60 Operational procedures exist which Performance relative to resource and fishery-related environmental objectives in Norway is closely I1, I2, I3 90 can be used to measure monitored through landing records and enforcement of regulations. Through procedures, with performance relative to the cooperation between sales organizations and the Fisheries Directorate, exist for checking vessel landings objectives. against fishing rights. 80 There are procedures used for measuring performance relative to The overall performance of the management regime for the resource is measured annually by assessing the objectives. the status of stocks. This is a tested procedure that is repeated annually under the purview of ICES, 100 Tested procedures are used for resulting in new stock assessments and scientific advice for the following year. regular measurement of performance relative to the Monitoring activity of overall ecosystem status is also carried out through comprehensive objectives. implementation of management plans (for Barents Sea), Ministerial declarations (for North Sea) etc. IMR carry out ecosystem surveys annually and fishery independent stock surveys in cooperation with its counterpart in other countries. Some measures are difficult to fully enforce, however, such as the ban on discarding, which can influence the meeting of objectives. Also overfishing is measured by means of various methods and is included by ICES in the statistical material that constitutes the basis for scientific advice.

The economic performance of the fleet (against the objective of economic efficiency) is monitored annually through a survey (“Lønnsomhetsundersøkelser” – profitability survey) of a representative sample of vessels in the fleet.

Well tested and documented procedures are applied by ICES to relate current stock and fishery status to reference points in order to provide management advice.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 110 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.4 Do objectives and operational procedures follow the precautionary approach? 16.7 60 Some objectives and procedures The precautionary approach is formalised in the management of all major commercial fish stocks in I1, I2, I3 75 implement a precautionary Norwegian fisheries, including mackerel. ICES advice is based on established precautionary and limit approach. reference points. This is supported by an additionally precautionary management strategy, which would 80 Key objectives and procedures be applied should the stock fall below Blim. explicitly implement a precautionary approach. Some ecosystem interactions, such as by-catches of non-commercial species (areas where information is 100 All objectives and procedures lacking in some respects), do not however appear to be constrained by formalised precautionary explicitly implement a procedures. This is the reason for a score lower than 80. precautionary approach. Condition 4 has been raised to address this.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 111 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.5 Does the system include a consultative process including relevant and affected parties? 16.7 60 The system includes a consultative The management system in Norway includes a comprehensive consultative process where stakeholders Mikalsen, K. and 100 process including key stakeholders can have their say regarding the regulatory approach. The key arena for this is an open Regulatory S. Jentoft, 2003 within the fishery. meeting (previously the Regulatory Council) chaired by the Directorate of Fisheries, where the 80 The system includes an appropriate regulatory measures for the previous year are reviewed and proposals for regulatory measures the consultative process including all coming years are discussed. Meeting papers are posted on the web in advance of meetings. The meetings main public and private are open and all relevant stakeholders have an opportunity to attend and make representations. stakeholders and can demonstrate consideration of representations When new legislation is developed, comprehensive hearings is mandated by Norwegian law, providing made. the industry as well as other stakeholders with an opportunity to comment upon and influence new 100 The system includes an appropriate legislation. The views presented in commentary to draft legislation would be reflected in the Ministries consultative process including all comment to draft legislation presented to Parliament. affected stakeholders. Decisions specifically discuss and/or address Also, annual meetings of fishers´ organisations are important venues for presentation of science and stakeholder concerns. policy developments and debate between fisheries and scientists and administrators.

Stakeholders also have the opportunity to participate in preparatory meetings before the annual negotiations with other countries. Representatives from the fisheries organizations can also participate in the delegations to the talks.

Decisions regarding management of the stocks thus specifically address stakeholder concerns.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 112 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.3.6 Is there an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes within the system? 16.7 60 Mechanisms are theoretically Disputes can be resolved in the first instance by negotiations within the system (e.g. in preparations I1, I2, I3 100 adequate but have not been before or in regulatory meetings). Following representations, the Minister would make a decision on a consistently applied or tested. particular issue. Further dispute could then be resolved through law. 80 There is an appropriate and established mechanism for the Disputes over resource allocation between groups in the industry are normally resolved within the resolution of disputes within the industry, by way of negotiation of compromises in the Norwegian Fishers Union. For most species, the system. industry has negotiated a key for allocation of fishing rights between various vessel groups. 100 There is an appropriate and tested mechanism within the system for More serious disputes between parties in the industry are also usually resolved in the courts. Legal the documentation and resolution systems have been well tested in this regard. of disputes of varying magnitude. Ultimately, any Norwegian citizen or organisation can take legal action to the European Court.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 113 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.4 (MSC Criterion 6) The management system operates in a manner appropriate to the objectives of the fishery. 11.1 3A.4.1 Does the system include subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing? 50.0 60 Subsidies exist that may contribute The system has no subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. I1, I2, I3 90 indirectly to unsustainable fishing. Subsidies were terminated in 1990 through an agreement between the European Free Trade Area These are short-term and are in the signatories, negotiated in preparation for the EEA agreement. process of being removed within acceptable timescales. 80 The system includes no subsidies There is some funding from within the fishery for the transportation of the landings of fish by small and that contribute to unsustainable disparate fleets to enable them to market their small catches. This is consistent with the scale and culture fishing. context of the fishery ref- 3A.1.2 100 The system is not subsidised to any extent.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 114 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.4.2 Does the system include economic/social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing? 50.0 60 A program is being developed to All major fisheries in Norway are closed, in the sense that access to the fishery is limited to vessels that Sak 26/07 90 promote sustainable fishing have a permit to participate in the fishery. A system of sanctions is designed to deter illegal activities and Reguleringsmøtet 5 practices. promote sustainable fishing practices. Ultimately, temporal removal of permits, in the event of recurrent og 18 juni 2007 80 The system has some economic serious breaches of management requirements, provides an incentive to promote sustainable fishing. and social incentives that Forskrift av 22. contribute to sustainable fishing. All quotas are allocated to specific groups of vessels. Quotas are allocated to vessels, or there is a Desember 2004 nr 100 The system has established maximum quota for what a single vessel can take of its group quota. In addition to the regulations of 1878 om utøvelse av economic and social incentives that access and output, technical regulations also contribute to the achievement of the goals of fishery fisket i sjøen contribute to sustainable fishing. management: sustainable use and economic efficiency. Procedures to allow for a managed reduction in No subsidies are offered for capacity are established and tested. purchase of vessels or vessels targeting fully exploited or Some ecosystem concerns are taken into account for example regulations that prevent discarding of Forskrift om depleted resources (by FAO specified species. Economic gain of landing quota overshoots is also removed (values are taken through fastsetting av definitions). the sales organizations). kvotefaktor i fisket etter makrell i 2008 Overfishing and fishing in breach of regulations results in economic penalties. Such breaches are generally negatively considered within the industry. Over the last two decades the level of understanding for the need for resource conservation and effective measures to achieve that has increased much, and today fishers are generally supportive of government regulations, although they may disagree with their actual design and implementation.

Also, the perception of fisheries as an environmental issue has brought fisheries under the attention of the “public eye”, which may also provide an incentive to sustainable fishing practices.

These measures will indirectly contribute to sustainable fishing and ecosystem management.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 115 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5 (MSC Criterion 8) A research plan exists in line with the management system to address information needs. 11.1 3A.5.1 Have key research areas requiring further information been identified? 33.3 60 Some major areas requiring further The Norwegian Research Council plays an important role in developing strategies for research in I1, I2, I3 95 research have been identified. Norway in general, and have a number of research programs that are geared at following up on these. A 80 The key areas requiring further number of research programs, where grants are awarded on the basis of competing project proposals, research have been identified. provide important contributions to the understanding of a number of aspects of fisheries management, 100 A comprehensive review of including economic, political and social. necessary information requirements has been undertaken. More specifically to fisheries management, the strategic plan of the Institute of Marine Research, which is an independent body funded in part the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, points to critical areas for marine research for fisheries management. This is followed up upon with annual research plans that are developed in consultation with the Ministry. The Ministry review the issue of research needs in a relatively detailed manner in its annual budget propositions to the Parliament. On the basis of this, a detailed set of instructions on research priorities is communicated to the Institute of Marine Research. These priorities are arrived at in dialogue between the institute and the fisheries authorities. As an example the issue of slippage has been identified and research is ongoing.

In general, the demands by management for scientific information that is relevant for the development of annual regulations tend to set the agenda for IMR research in this regard.

Also, the fishing industry has its own research fund, funded by a levy on exports. These funds are governed by the industry itself and target more immediate applied research needs identified by the industry itself.

Additionally research is undertaken by ICES with Norwegian co-operation and through EU funded research projects.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 116 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5.2 Is research planned/undertaken by the scientific advisers to meet the specific requirements of the 33.3 management plan? 60 Research is planned for highest Research is planned and undertaken to collect the data that are needed to perform stock assessments and http://www.imr.no 95 priority information needs. provide scientific advice. There is a long-term commitment to fisheries research and related ecosystem /english/about_imr 80 Research is planned and undertaken science in the Research Council as well as in the Institute of Marine Research. to provide necessary scientific Substantial resources are committed to this over time. The annual budget of the IMR is about USD 100 support to the plan. There are million. The activities of IMR are closely related to the needs of the management system, including demonstrable resources to allow routine research surveys etc and addressing more particular scientific questions related to management implementation of the programme. plans. The science funded by the Research Council is also directed towards both applied and 100 There is an ongoing, funded, developmental marine science. Clear research programmes are implemented to address the identified comprehensive and balanced research requirements. research programme, linking research to the management plan. Major fisheries, including mackerel, have substantial research time and resources committed to them in order to fulfil the needs of management for scientific based information.

Additionally research is undertaken by ICES with Norwegian co-operation and through EU funded research projects.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 117 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.5.3 Is relevant research carried out by other organizations (e.g. Universities) and is this taken into 33.3 consideration? 60 The management system is aware of Relevant research is also carried out by other organizations, and there is some coordination of activities I2, I3 95 research carried out by other between the researchers of the Institute of Marine Research and those at the universities and other organisations and elements of this research institutions both within and outside Norway. The use of research vessels is coordinated among are taken into consideration. institutions, and PhD students from universities often work in periods with the IMR. Relevant research 80 Appropriate research carried out by is taken into account in management. Research Council plans and projects provide important platforms other organisations is taken into for cooperation between institutions. consideration, although there is not necessarily any proactive co- The Technical Institute in Trondheim undertakes a considerable amount of fisheries based ordination between organisations. technological research. 100 Relevant research carried out by other organisations is taken into Increasingly, research is executed through large plans and programs wherein a number of institutions account for management participate, but with central coordination, tied in with management system requirements (e.g. considerations. This research is MAREANO and NSMP). often co-ordinated with existing research plans of the management ICES also provides a forum for integration of research from a variety of sources. Norwegian system. researchers are fully engaged with ICES working groups and the ACFM.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 118 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6 (MSC Criteria 7, 9, 10) The management system includes measures to achieve objectives for the stock 11.1 3A.6.1 Are the resource and effects of the fishery monitored? 33.3 60 A monitoring programme is in The resource is closely monitored annually through fishery dependent and independent indices (as Presentations at PS 90 place that addresses some aspects described under Principle 1). This includes the reference fleet which generates information on by- Norges PT 90 of resource and effects and which catches and associated species and is coordinated by research organisations. The recording of all effects Sildesalgslag, the HL 100 can be extended. may be compromised by the lack of quantitative information on slippage. Institute of Marine 80 A monitoring programme is in Research and place that addresses all key aspects Logbook and/or landing records are kept at close geographical and temporal scales and are immediately Fiskeridirektoratet of resource and effects at transmitted to management and research organisations. VMS data etc is held by the Directorate, and 1-2 April 2008 appropriate intervals and results are data are available to research institutions and management bodies. recorded. 100 The resource and effects of the fishery are closely monitored over appropriate geographical areas and time periods. Full records are kept of monitoring results and these are made available to relevant research and management bodies.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 119 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6.2 Are results evaluated against precautionary target and limit reference points? 33.3 60 Target and limit reference points Monitoring results are evaluated quantitatively within the stock assessment process, on an annual basis I1, I2, I3 100 exist and some level of evaluation against the precautionary target and limit reference points within ICES. against these is possible. These take account of the precautionary approach, but this may not be explicit. 80 Results of monitoring are regularly interpreted in relation to precautionary, target and limit reference points. 100 Results of monitoring are quantitatively evaluated against precautionary target and limit reference points on a regular and timely basis.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 120 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.6.3 Do procedures exist for reductions in harvest in light of monitoring results and how quickly and 33.3 effectively can these be implemented? 60 Appropriate procedures exist to The fisheries are continuously monitored. At sea, a service for surveillance of the fisheries can close an Presentations at 90 reduce harvest. Programmes to link area for fisheries should the amount of undersized fish or by-catch be to high on very short notice Norges these with monitoring results are (hours). Such areas closures are frequently used. Areas are re-opened when by-catches and other Sildesalgslag and underway. incidences are at acceptable levels. Fiskeridirektoratet 80 Appropriate procedures exist to 1-2 April 2008 reduce harvest in the light of Landings data, almost all of which are electronic, is transmitted to the Fisheries Directorate within few monitoring results and provide for days. The authorities, and the sales organizations in their districts, therefore have almost real time stock recovery to specified levels. overview over the development of fisheries and can stop them when quota limits are approached. This Measures can be implemented applies also to vessels in fisheries where vessel quotas are used. speedily. 100 Practical procedures exist to reduce In Norway well documented and tested procedures exist to implement changes in regulations rapidly. harvest in light of monitoring results and provide for stock recovery to specified levels within specified time frames. There are well documented procedures to implement changes and these can be introduced with immediate effect.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 121 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.7(MSC Criterion 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the affected ecosystem. 11.1 3A.7.1 Are measures in place to address (avoid or minimise) significant environmental impacts? 66.7 60 Significant environmental impacts A number of measures are in place to address significant environmental impacts of the fishery although Presentations at 85 are known and measures are being some of these are not relevant for pelagic gears. Examples of measures are prohibition of discarding of Norges applied to reduce key impacts. commercial by-catches, protection of areas of cold water coral communities, exclusion of larger vessels Sildesalgslag, the 80 Environmental impacts are known. and mobile gear from inshore areas and retrieval programs for lost gear to prevent ghost fishing. Institute of Marine Measures are being applied to Research and minimise all significant ones and Some areas of potential significance have not been fully investigated such as by-catches and potential Fiskeridirektoratet there is evidence that the measures impacts on PET species, as discussed under Sections 2.1 and 2.2. 1-2 April 2008 are working. 100 Measures are in place to avoid all When implemented, measures are all subject to regular review and monitoring as to their effectiveness significant environmental impacts and are expected to be effective in avoiding or minimising impacts. and are subject to monitoring and periodic review. As described in Section 2.1, a review of the environmental impacts of fishing has been carried out through various mechanisms such as ICES, OSPAR, and internal programmes within Norwegian institutions. A number of measures are in place to address significant environmental impacts of the fisheries. Notably, discarding of commercial by-catches are prohibited in the Norwegian fleet, larger vessels and mobile gear are excluded from inshore areas. Some areas of potential significance have not been fully investigated such as by-catches and potential impacts on PET species, as discussed under Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

These measures are all subject to regular review and monitoring as to their effectiveness and are expected to be effective in avoiding or minimising impacts.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 122 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.7.2 Are no take zones, Marine Protected Areas or closed areas for specific periods appropriate and, if so, are 33.3 these established and enforced? 60 Suitability of no-take zones and/or No requirement for permanently closed areas specific to the mackerel resources has been identified. Forskrift av 22. 95 closed areas / seasons has been Desember 2004 nr reviewed against objective Fishing for mackerel is prohibited in ICES div IIIa and IVb, c at any time of the year and in division Iva 1878 om utøvelse av biological criteria. Plans are in between the 15th of February and 31st of July. These measures are in place to protect the severely fisket i sjøen. place to implement some or all of depleted North Sea stock. The consequences of these closures are monitored on a triennial basis with an these as appropriate. egg survey to estimate SSB. 80 Suitability of no-take zones and closed areas / seasons has been A network of proposed MPA’s have been identified within Norwegian coastal waters for general reviewed and these have been or conservation purposes to protect biodiversity (resulting from OSPAR). are currently being implemented and enforced if and where Closed areas to mobile gear are in force to protect areas with coral reefs and numerous permanent and appropriate. temporary closures are put in place for specific gear in specific areas. With some exceptions, trawl gear 100 No-take zones and closed areas / are limited to the waters outside 12 nautical miles. seasons are established and enforced if and where appropriate and, if implemented, the consequences are being monitored.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 123 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 A.8 (MSC Criterion 11) There are control measures in place to ensure the management system is effectively implemented. 11.1 3A.8.1 Are information, instruction and/or training provided to fishery operatives in the aims and methods of the 33.3 management system? 60 Mechanisms exist for the Fishery operatives would in Norway in most cases be fishers, as the participation act requires vessel Presentations at 95 dissemination of information, owners to be active fishers (loosely interpreted, so a land-based operative would also fall under the Norges instruction and training of fishery definition). Sildesalgslag, the operatives. Implementation of Institute of Marine these mechanisms may not be Information on the management system and its functioning is communicated to fishery operatives in a Research and universally implemented. number of ways. Generally, there is considerable interaction between the fishing industry and the Fiskeridirektoratet 80 Information, instruction and authorities on a number of arenas as the Regulatory meeting, annual meetings of the fisheries 1-2 April 2008 training are provided to fishery organizations, preparations to international negotiations, hearings to documents preparing for new operatives in the aims and legislation or policy developments, etc. methods of the management system allowing effective Generally, the level of understanding of how the management system works and the grounds for its management of the system. structure and functions are high in the Norwegian fishing industry. This is important given the number 100 Information, instruction and and complexity of regulations applying to the fishery, and to a fishery operative it is actually an asset to training are provided to fishery be well informed about the management system, as this facilitate his operations. Fishers therefore have a operatives in the aims and strong incentive to have comprehensive knowledge about the aims and methods of the management methods of the management system. system allowing effective management of the fishery and Information on regulations is communicated to operatives directly through Directorate and Sales operatives demonstrate Organisations, through Fishermen’s organisations, through two fishery newspapers, radio broadcasts and comprehensive knowledge of this the websites of the Directorate, Sales Organisations and Fishermen’s Organisation. Fishers are considered information. to be well aware of the management requirements and regulations.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 124 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.8.2 Is surveillance and monitoring in place to ensure that requirements of the management system are 33.3 complied with? 60 An enforcement system has been A comprehensive enforcement scheme is in place, with inspections at sea as well as at landings. Also Presentations at 90 implemented; however, its post-landing checks of reported landings against quotas are performed for each vessel. Norges effectiveness and/or compliance Sildesalgslag, the has not been fully demonstrated All vessels above 25 meters (currently, although this is to be extended to smaller vessels in future) are Institute of Marine relative to conservation objectives. part of a satellite based vessel monitoring system. All vessels >13m are required to keep detailed Research and 80 An effective enforcement system logbooks, which are checked upon during inspections. Vessels < 13 meters have less detailed reporting Fiskeridirektoratet has been implemented and there is requirements. 1-2 April 2008 an appropriate degree of control and compliance. Enforcement As a result of the national audit from 2004, 5 vessels are targeted annually, based on a risk analysis, for Forskrift om systems include measures to continuous observation of fishing operations during the fishery. endring av control misreporting. forskrift om 100 An effective enforcement system The key document in landings control is the contract note, which is completed for each landing. The satelittbasert has been implemented and there is contract note contains a significant number of items of information relating to the landing. All contract overvåking av a high degree of control and notes are checked against the central register of landings in the Fisheries Directorate. Almost all contract fiske- og compliance. Robust enforcement notes are submitted in electronic form. fangstfartøys systems are in place to control aktivitet misreporting. Misreporting is subject to strict penalties, and there is generally a high degree of compliance with regulations.

Enforcement systems are in place involving Directorate staff in inshore waters and on landing. The Coastguard enforces regulations in offshore waters. Sales Organisations also have an enforcement role regarding landings, checking contract notes against vessel quotas. Control and enforcement activities are coordinated between the Directorate, the Coastguard and the Sales organizations. There is some variation among sales organizations of other fisheries as to participation in control activities. In the case of mackerel, most landings are in the area of Norges Sildesalgslag, which has a strict approach in this regard.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 125 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3A.8.3 Can corrective actions be applied in the event of non-compliance and is there evidence of their 33.3 effectiveness? 60 Mechanisms exist or are being In cases of non-compliance, a range of penalties can be applied by the authorities, with temporary loss of I1, I2, I3 95 developed which can be fishing license and heavy economic sanctions as the most severe measures. For minor infringements a implemented or applied to deal series of warnings can be issued. Corrective actions are consistently applied and severe infractions are with non-compliance, and are tried in the courts, which over time have developed a consistent practice in this regard. Corrective subject to evaluation as to their actions are well established, codified, understood and tested. effectiveness. 80 There are set measures that can be Also, prosecutors dealing with fishery cases are specifically trained in fishery issues. applied in the event of non- compliance although these may not be included in a formal or codified system. These have been tested if/as appropriate and have been shown to be effective. 100 Agreed and tested corrective actions can be applied in the event of non-compliance.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 126 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3 B Operational Criteria 50.0 3B.1(MSC Criterion 12) There are measures that include practices to reduce impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon 18.1 target species. 3B.1.1 Do measures, principally through the use of gear and other fishing practices, include avoidance of impacts 100 on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target species? These would include by-catch, discard, slippage and high grading. 60 Appropriate measures have been In all fisheries there is a ban on discarding which imposes penalties for discarding of specified Forskrift av 22. 75 implemented that are intended to commercial by-catch species and high-grading of the target species (but not all by-catch species). Desember 2004 reduce the major impacts on non- However, there is an indication that unrecorded slippage may take place within the Norwegian fleet. This nr 1878 om target species and inadvertent would be and additional and avoidable source of mortality on the target stock. utøvelse av impacts on target species, but fisket i sjøen. their effectiveness has not been Minimum mesh sizes are specified, with strong enforcement and good compliance. For some gears, demonstrated. measures can be taken to avoid by-catches such as the avoidance of setting gillnets in areas of porpoise 80 Measures have been implemented activity. There are closures of coastal waters to specific gear. as and when appropriate to avoid or reduce the major impacts on Levels of non-commercial by-catch have not been studied in detail but are expected to be extremely low. non-target species and inadvertent Hence measures have not been considered necessary for this fishery. impacts on target species and there is evidence that they are Condition 4 has been raised to address this. having the desired effect. 100 Measures have been implemented to avoid or reduce the major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species, and their effectiveness is clearly demonstrated.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 127 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.2 (MSC Criterion 13) There are systems in place that encourage fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat. 18.1 3B.2.1 Do fishing operations implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on 100 habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas? 60 Fishing operations use measures The fishery in operation is pelagic and would therefore not interact with benthic habitat. I1, I2, I3 100 to reduce major impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are effective in avoiding significant adverse effects on the environment, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations implement appropriate methods to avoid significant adverse impacts on all habitats.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 128 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.3 (MSC Criterion 14) The management system incorporates measures that discourage destructive practices. 2.2 3B.3.1 Does the fishery employ destructive fishing practices (such as poisons or explosives)? 100 60 The fishery does not allow any Destructive fishing practices, such as the use of explosives, are prohibited in Norwegian fisheries. I1, I2, I3 95 such destructive fishing practices. 80 The fishery does not employ any such destructive fishing practices and enforcement is considered sufficient to prevent their use. 100 The fishery does not employ any destructive fishing practices. There is a code of conduct for responsible fishing, prohibiting these, that is fully supported by fishers.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 129 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.4 (MSC Criterion 15) The management system incorporate measures that reduce operational waste. 18.1 3B.4.1 Do measures exist to reduce operational waste? 100 60 Measures/facilities are in place to Discarding is prohibited of specified species, and measures exist to reduce catches of juvenile fish. Forskrift av 22. 90 reduce sources of operational waste Some offal is returned to shore for processing into meal and roe and livers are landed. Six factory Desember 2004 nr that are known to have detrimental trawlers also have on-board meal plants. 1878 om utøvelse environmental consequences, but av fisket i sjøen. further reductions may be possible. Garbage must be returned to shore and waste reception facilities are in place in ports. There is an 80 Measures/facilities are in place to obligation to retrieve lost gear, which also has economic benefits to fishers. This is supported by gear reduce all sources of operational recovery programs. waste that are known to have detrimental environmental NOx emissions are under consideration with a view to control these through levies, contributing to consequences, and there is evidence research programmes to further address this issue. CO2 is also subject to a levy (refunded to date as they are effective. Kyoto targets are considered to have been met through fleet reductions). Refrigerant gases are 100 Measures/facilities are in place to controlled by regulation (CFC’s are not allowed). Fleet reductions have already accounted for many reduce all sources of operational CFC and NOx reductions. waste that are known to have detrimental environmental Measures are put in place and/or supported by many fishers. consequences, and there is evidence they are effective and these measures are supported by the fishers.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 130 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5 (MSC Criterion 16) Fishing operations are conducted in compliance with the management system and legal and administrative requirements. 25.5 3B.5.1 Are fishers aware of management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 60 Fishers are aware of key The 10.000 fishers in Norway are generally well aware of the various aspects of the management system Presentations at 95 management and legal and its legal requirements to conduct. Regulations are developed in close cooperation with the fishers´ Norges Sildesalgslag, requirements. organizations, and regulations are a very important operational parameter for fisheries. For that reason the Institute of 80 Fishers are aware of management there is an intimate understanding of the rules that the industry is expected to play by. Marine Research and and legal requirements upon them Fiskeridirektoratet 1- and are kept up to date with new A lot of effort is put into communication of regulations to fishers: the Fisheries Directorate post them on 2 April 2008 developments. their website and publish them in the industry newspaper that has three issues per week. Also the 100 All fishers are aware of fishers´ organizations communicate regulations to their members. management legal requirements through a clearly documented and Regulations that are to apply immediately, as for example the closure of a fishery, are also communicated mechanism such as communicated by the Norwegian broadcasting company in conjunction with news. a code of conduct.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 131 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5.2 Do fishers comply with management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 60 Fishers comply with some, but not The level of compliance is relatively high. Data from inspections at sea and upon landings indicate that Presentations at 85 all, requirements. the number of serious infractions is relatively low. The management system in general has a high level Norges Sildesalgslag, 80 Fishers are fully compliant with of legitimacy among fishers, and the need to manage resources through restrictions on access and the Institute of relevant management and legal execution of the fishery is well understood. On the other hand, the number of infractions is not Marine Research and requirements. insignificant, indicating that even though the need for management is well understood, rules are not Fiskeridirektoratet 1- 100 Fishers are fully compliant with, and always abided with, albeit with no indication of consistent violation. 2 April 2008 fully supportive of, legal, and administrative requirements.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 132 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.5.3 What is the record of enforcement of regulations in the fishery: quota control, by-catch limits, MLS, 33.3 mesh regulations and closed areas? 60 There is information on breaches of The mackerel fisheries are relatively strictly controlled. All vessels above 25 meters are obliged to carry Presentations at 95 regulations and on corrective action satellite transponders. Operations at sea are subject to inspections by the Coast Guard, and nearshore Norges Sildesalgslag, to prevent or curtail. operations and landings are inspected by the Fisheries Directorate in cooperation with Norges the Institute of 80 Evidence of rigorous monitoring of Sildesalgslag. Buyers of fish have to be recognized by the sales organization. Of coastguard inspections Marine Research and all the enforcement measures and in 2006 (1,847 inspections), 44 (2%) were reported to the police and 21 involved bringing a vessel to Fiskeridirektoratet 1- evidence of effective actions taken port. In addition, 104 warnings were issued. These statistics include foreign vessels. Similar statistics 2 April 2008 in the event of breaches is available. are available from Directorate inspections in inshore waters and port inspections. 100 Strong evidence of rigorous Forskrift om endring monitoring and control of the The various parties involved in enforcement coordinate their activities in several meetings annually. av forskrift om enforcement measures through for Increasingly, a strategic approach is taken where enforcement activities are directed towards areas satelittbasert example satellite monitoring, where the effect is expected to be largest. overvåking av fiske- shipboard observers and nominated og fangstfartøys landing ports. Strong evidence of In the event of infractions, there is a standard set of penal actions that apply, corresponding to the aktivitet firm and effective action taken in severity of the breaches. the event of breaches.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 133 INDICATORS AND GUIDEPOSTS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score

3B.6 (MSC Criterion 17) The management system involves fishers in data collection. 18.1 3B.6.1 Do fishery operatives assist in the collection of catch, discard and other relevant data? 100 60 Fishery operatives are involved in Fishery operatives assist in the collection of data from the fisheries. All catches and landings are I1, I2, I3 75 the collection of some catch, reported. Fishers may assist in identifying areas of high juvenile fish densities. With some variation discard and other information. according to the type of fishery, a number of data items are registered. Discards of specified commercial 80 Fishery operatives are regularly species are banned in Norway. However there appears no consistent fishery derived data on slippage of involved in the collection and mackerel and other species and discarding of non-commercial species. recording of relevant catch, discard and other information. A “reference fleet” consisting of a representative group of vessels is engaged in more comprehensive 100 Fishery operatives assist collection of data for research purposes. There were 600 samples of mackerel taken by the reference significantly in the collection and fleets in 2005. recording of all appropriate catch, discard and other information. Condition 4 has been raised to address this.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 134 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

Appendix B: Peer Review Reports

Peer Review Report 1

Norwegian Mackerel Fishery

General comments

ICES considers this stock as “being harvested at increased risk”, due to F in the last year being above Fpa. The advice from 2007 had classified the stock as “being harvested unsustainably”, with F in 2006 estimated to be at Flim. Although stricter catch limitations in recent years have somewhat improved the biomass of the stock, the North Sea component of the NEA mackerel is still very low and there is evidence of a reduced proportion of larger fish in the population. Fishing mortality on older fish remains high, well above the precautionary limit and there are the added problems of substantial underreporting of catches by some countries (by as much as 240% of the reported total catch in some years!) and failure to adhere to TACs, together with unaccounted mortality in the form of discards (high grading and slipping being common, albeit poorly quantified, for mackerel). As a consequence of the various uncertainties, ICES considers the current stock assessment to be of poor quality. In this situation we do not believe the Norwegian NEA mackerel should be awarded the MSC certification. Moody Marine: These points have now been addressed within the relevant sections and scoring comments.

Even if the Norwegian vessels of the client follow all the regulations, they are harvesting a stock which is at risk and that is also shared with other countries which may not be following the regulations so closely. Recruitment variability for this stock has increased and although a strong 2002 year class has contributed to the increase in SSB, there is no evidence of further above average year classes, hence no guarantee of a rapid recovery of SSB. Moody Marine: Again a good point and one that we always stress that P1 looks at the whole stock and all the fisheries impacting on it and as a consequence the certification can fail irrespective of good performance of the client fishery and no problems in P2 and P3.

There are clearly outstanding issues about by-catch, discards and slippage in the mackerel fishery and by- catches of mackerel in other fisheries. More generally, the Norwegian commitment to reducing unintentional negative impacts on cold water corals “as much as possible” by 2010 is discouragingly non- specific.

The conditions set for certification, on slippage and by-catches in the mackerel fishery, slippage and discards of mackerel in other fisheries, and on stock rebuilding/sustainable harvest strategy plans are certainly necessary. However, all should arguably be pre-conditions and condition 3 (rebuilding/sustainable harvest strategy) is in any case not something to which the client can significantly contribute. It is frankly incongruous to offer certification for a fishery which is presently being harvested unsustainably and for which a satisfactory sustainable harvest strategy has not been implemented. Moody Marine: These points have been addressed as appropriate under specific comments and in the context of the scoring.

Specific comments

The definition of the fishery (page iv) is a bit misleading, since on the one hand it occurs within the Norwegian EEZ, yet on the other extends into ICES areas V, VI and VII. Moody Marine: The report clearly states that the fishery effectively takes place within the Norwegian EEZ. The reference to the other ICES sub-areas is clearly in the context of defining the species and the whole geographical area of distribution of the species. It is not clear what the authors wish to convey by describing mackerel as “ectothermic” (P9). This is surely a characteristic of teleosts generally. Moody Marine: As the author understands it the mackerel is different in that the body temperature is above the ambient sea temperature. Regarding seal by-catch in mackerel fisheries, Luque et al (2006, Aquatic Living Resources) includes some data from the Scottish fleet. The by-catches were observed in the Orkney and Shetland area and it was not clear which seal species was involved.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 135 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

Moody Marine: This reference has now been considered within the text. Several pieces of text in the tables appear to have come from one of the herring reports, in that, for example, they apparently refer to herring or to by-catches of mackerel:  P30. Purse seine: “By catches of other species are less common in the purse seine fishery which tends to identify and target single species shoals. However small bycatches of mackerel and horse mackerel are sometimes taken, along with limited saithe and blue whiting. These are counted against quotas.”  P30 & P34. Handline catches are expected to be relatively monospecific. Small bycatches of mackerel and horse mackerel may be taken, along with limited saithe and blue whiting.  P31. The food web (primarily predator prey relationships) related to herring has been well described, although these food webs are generally on a gross-scale. Moody Marine: These have been addressed within the text. Several sections of the report have a cut-and-paste feel and the report contains many typographical errors (e.g. on page 11, “peninsular” instead of “peninsula” and “coats” instead of “coast”. Reference 3 has no title, references 10 and 14 are the same. Moody Marine: These have been addressed within the text.

We have not listed further individual typographical errors for this report.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 136 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

Peer Review Report 2

Moody Marine Assessment of Norges Sildesalgslag purse-seine and trawl

North-East Atlantic Mackerel Fishery

Overall Assessment There is either a fundamental flaw in the approach to this assessment or a failure to make an adequate case. The overall score for Principle 1 exceeds 80 and therefore meets the criteria for accrediting a sustainable fishery. Throughout the report and analysis, however, more than once it repeats the official ICES view that this stock is being fished unsustainably. If this is the case, by definition, no fishery contributing to the international catch can be deemed a sustainable fishery. Nevertheless, the assessment team may believe that they have sufficient expertise or more recent data to reach a different conclusion to that of ICES. If this is so, this reviewer failed to see the case made. Moody Marine: We believe the case to be made here and for the several other mackerel fisheries, targeting the same stock assessed by this and other assessment teams. Further explanation is provided below.

Client Report The main body of the client report is very comprehensive and exceptionally detailed – arguably, unnecessarily so. This provides a very firm basis against which to review the analytical assessment against the MSC Principles. Nevertheless, there are a few points in the Client Report that are worth picking up.

At the trivial end of the scale, it is inevitable in a report such as this that there will be numerous typographic errors, some of which the authors may wish to correct. For example, page 9, a ‘dependant’ is a person (sic) who is dependent on another for their wellbeing and has nothing to do with fish weight. Moody Marine: amended

Is it a typing error, or are there really Norwegian purse seiners only 5 m in length (p 12) i.e. 1 m shorter than the smallest hand-line vessels (6 m; p 13)? Moody Marine: amended to 15m.

The section on §2.6 Rare, Protected and Iconic Species covers the usual suspects, birds, mammals and large elasmobranchs – including the blue (common) skate Dipturus batis. One assumes that the inclusion of large skates in a pelagic fishery assessment is to provide evidence of a job well done but the failure to make any reference to blue-fin tuna Thunnus thynnus is an unexpected omission from this section. Moody Marine: blue-fin Tuna has now been addressed within the text.

The Atlantic blue-fin tuna is listed as threatened by the IUCN. Between WW1 and WW2 there was a targeted sport fishery in the North Sea associated with the late summer-autumn herring fishery. Although the sport fishery was never revived following WW2, there was a

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 137 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

targeted Norwegian commercial fishery in the Northern North Sea until the late 1960s,1 early 1970s, when the species ceased recruiting to the North Sea (for non-fishery reasons).2 Despite the collapse of this fishery, they were taken, albeit rarely, in the UK SW mackerel purse-seine fishery (pers. obs). It would seem reasonable, therefore, to assume that the same might be true in northern North Sea pelagic fisheries and the specific question should be put to the client. If the occasional blue-fin tuna still reaches Norwegian waters it seems far more likely that they could be taken than skates and rays. Similarly, porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) is probably more likely to be taken than blue shark (Prionace glauca). Moody Marine: This has now been considered within the text.

The most telling point for the entire exercise, however, is found towards the end of §4.2 Monitoring of Stock Status on page 28. In the very earliest of days of MSC assessments, and still today, the question was asked how an individual fleet that is contributing to the international effort exploiting a stock can be assessed independently from other fleets. The key point has always been that if the stock as a whole is in a healthy condition and is being exploited at a sustainable level, then it is possible to assess the sustainability of one component within the international total. The converse of this is the presumption that no matter how effectively an individual fleet is being managed, it cannot meet the MSC criteria for accreditation if the stock as a whole is deemed to be in a less than satisfactory condition.

On page 28 of the Client Report it states that: Based on the most recent estimates of fishing mortality ICES classifies the stock as being harvested unsustainably.

The text then goes on to say: Because of the unknown levels of under-reporting of the catch, SSB cannot be accurately evaluated in relation to Bpa. However all the indications are that SSB has increased since 2003 and has been stable for the last three years. The absolute values of the last three triennial egg survey estimates confirm this trend with SSB estimates of 2.90, 2.75 and 2.89 million tonnes in 2001, 2004 and 2007 respectively (ICES, 2007b).

From this latter text we might be expected to infer that the ICES classification is wrong and the harvest is sustainable. But the text cites ICES 2007b, without saying explicitly that ICES has revised its view and finds the stock is being harvested sustainably. If ICES has not explicitly revised its view and its official position is still that the NE Atlantic mackerel stock is still being harvested unsustainably, this fishery cannot be given MSC accreditation. If the assessment team believe that they can overrule ICES, as it were, they need to make a far more convincing case in this text than simply relying on the readers’ inferences. Moody Marine: The general issues regarding certification are dealt with under the specific scoring of the performance indicators which is where the objective outcome of the assessment process is decided. In that context it should be noted that this assessment process was dealt with under the old assessment tree.

With regard to the current sustainability of the harvest it should also be noted that the report and advice on which this assessment was based was the ICES 2007 WG report and advice for 2008. That advice does classify the stock as being harvested unsustainably with SSB below Bpa and fishing mortality above Flim. That 2007 report and advice was in part based on a provisional estimate of the results of the 2007 triennial egg survey. At the time the working group met the surveys had only just been completed, the plankton samples had not been fully analysed and the new fecundity data was not available from the surveys. (It is perhaps questionable as to whether a benchmark assessment should have been carried out that year although ICES concedes that had the provisional egg survey estimate not been included, the result would have been an overestimate of SSB in 2006). At the same time there was a request in place from NEAFC to re-visit the reference points for the stock.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 138 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

In the 2008 WG assessment the results of the complete analysis of the 2007 egg survey were available and used. As a result the SSB for 2006 was revised upwards by 18% and F similarly revised downwards. Instead of SSB being just below Bpa in 2006, it was in fact well above at 2.59Mt and at 2.53Mt in 2007.

The reference points have now been re-visited by ICES using a substantially greater range of data than previously and after careful statistical analysis they have been revised. Blim which was not previously defined is now set at 1.67Mt. Bpa remains the same. Flim has increased to 0.42 and Fpa is now 0.23

ICES again does concede that, in the past, because of the uncertainty surrounding the total catch, the absolute levels of SSB were uncertain and could not be classified with regard to biomass reference points. However after the re-evaluation of the reference points ICES is now able to classify the stock status in relation to the new points. ICES now classify the stock as being harvested at increased risk, because fishing mortality is still just above Fpa. The stock is considered to have full reproductive capacity.

Condition 1 & 2 It is right and proper that everything should be done to encourage fishing practice that minimises the risk or need to slip catches in pelagic fisheries. Nevertheless, the proposition that skippers should be expected to record all instances of slipping and estimate the quantity involved is barely credible.

In the first instance, as was decided with respect to the UK mackerel fishery in the 1970s; if there is any restriction on slipping, there must always be a clause that allows a skipper to slip the catch if he believes the safety of his vessel is at risk. Unless there is an independent master mariner present at the time, who is to say the skipper was wrong or exaggerating when he invokes the ‘safety’ clause?

Even without other penalties, if slipped catches must be recorded and reported, such catches must be incorporated in future stock assessments. In other words, they will be treated exactly the same as landed catch except the skipper will gain no financial benefit from the catch. This being the case, skippers will seek to slip catches when there is least likelihood of being observed. Once slipped, the mackerel will swim down or sink almost instantly.

Realistically, the emphasis of these two conditions should be placed on cooperation “with scientists in the investigation of slippage mortality by active support of research programmes and observer coverage”. Moody Marine: Observer data on discarding and slippage has improved and current estimates from sampled fleets indicate that discarding forms a small percentage of the total catch. Nevertheless it is important to have as much information as possible on the practice as it is difficult to extrapolate data from one fleet to another.

Yes it is always accepted that there are instances where the skipper needs to slip a catch for safety reasons. There is no suggestion that reporting slipped catches will be set against the quota but the data would be very valuable for the WG assessment. We could add a sentence to the condition which emphasises the requirement to cooperate with scientists in the investigation of the extent of discarding and slippage. Mortality through slippage of mackerel can be regarded as 100% so no point in research projects to look at mortality!

Condition 3 This is another example of an inherent weakness in the MSC assessment procedure; i.e.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 139 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

due to a perceived shortcoming in the stock assessment or fishery management process the client is expected to take action in a sphere that is beyond their direct control. In this instance, however, the requirements are modest enough and evidence of compliance should not be difficult but, in reality, it may prove no more than a paper-shuffling exercise.

Condition 4 Slipped catches apart, bycatch and discarding are rarely a significant problem in pelagic fisheries and there should not be a problem in expecting skippers to record non-target species, particularly of PET species which one would expect to be a rare occurrence.

Principle 1 1.1.1.3 If ‘the North Sea spawning area is sufficiently distinct to be clearly identified as a separate spawning component’ I continue to find it difficult to understand its distinction from a stock. The score of 100 implies that we know all there is or we need to know which is not the case. For example, we know nothing about the reasons why the abundance of mackerel has increased in Icelandic waters in recent years nor the origins or migratory route of these fish. Indeed, this whole topic of mackerel off Iceland is ignored! Moody Marine: The decision to combine the three stocks into a single NEA mackerel stock with three components was made by ICES after many years of deliberation. The main reason for doing so was the difficulty in separating the catches from each stock in the landings data. This results from the seasonal mixing of the three stocks in the northern North Sea where they may be taken together in the mackerel fishery. The most compelling evidence for this mixing comes from tagging data which showed that even fish tagged in southern Biscay could be found feeding off the Norwegian coast during the summer. There is a similar situation with North Sea herring which is treated as one stock in spite of there being very clearly identifiable spawning grounds for the Buchan, Banks and Downs components of the North Sea stock.

The quantity of mackerel now being taken in Icelandic waters is a recent issue and is dealt with in the most recent ICES advice. At the time that the 2008 WG met it was already known that over 100,000t had been taken by Iceland in 2008. I have included a comment in this section and have also added a comment about the knowledge of juvenile distribution. Taking the above into consideration, the score is reduced to 90.

1.1.1.4 Originally, natural mortality was estimated by tagging (Hamre, 1976?) at ~0.13 and rounded up to 0.15 as a precautionary measure. Thus, the value of 0.15 is based on more than just age-span modelling. Why is the fishable biomass twice the female biomass? The reason will not always be as blindingly obvious to the reader as it is to the authors. If the ‘survey area was not good enough’, it implies a shortcoming in the quality of the work. If the ‘survey area was insufficient’, that is another matter. Which was it? Again, the reason will not always be as blindingly obvious to the reader as it is to the author. Moody Marine: This has now been explained further within the text, dealing with natural mortality and explaining that male to female ration in the stock is 1:1 therefore total biomass = females x2. Further explanation that the pre 1992 survey area coverage was not as extensive and therefore not sufficiently comparable to be included in a time series has also

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 140 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

been provided.

1.1.1.5 Now be honest, we still have no clear idea as to what influences mackerel recruitment – but the assessment criteria for a score of 80 are met. Moody Marine: The 80 scoring guidepost IS met, there is ongoing research, good time series data are available but the stock and recruitment relationship (now included as a Figure in the report) is not sufficiently well understood for predictive purposes. Score is 80.

1.1.1.6 Despite my reservations about whether the North Sea spawners comprise a ‘component’ or a stock (see 1.1.1.3 above) they are reinstated here as a stock, separate from the western spawning stock. Are they stocks or merely politically convenient components? Is the ‘westerly shift of the spawning and feeding areas in the northern part of the distribution’ the move to Iceland or is it something different. As far as I can tell from this text it could be referring to the shift that occurred in the 1960s.

Do we know for an absolute fact that the ‘reason for such changes could be found in changes in the hydrographic conditions linked to the strength of the sub-polar gyre’ or is this still hypothesis? Clarify. Moody Marine: This comment is made in an historical context and it is not a re-instatement of the North Sea stock! At the time being described, both the North Sea and western components were considered to be separate stocks. Regarding the hydrographic conditions linked to the sub-polar gyre, this has now been clarified that this is currently only a hypothesis.

1.1.2.1 Is the Norwegian fishery ‘exclusively’ within their fishery limit; do they never fish UK (Shetland) waters? Whether or not the Norwegian industry consider purse-seine slippage a source of mortality is irrelevant – for all practical purposes, all pursed mackerel that are slipped will die over the next 2–5 days. Para 3: There are official landing statistics (accurate in Norway, less so elsewhere); the working groups (ACFM?) then include an estimate of unrecorded catches in the assessment; ‘there has been under-reporting of the total international catch by between 60% and 240%, over and above the ACFM estimate of catches. Where does this fit into the assessment process? Clarify. Irrespective of the accuracy of Norwegian statistics or where the 60–240% unreported catches fit into the equation (see also 1.1.2.4: The ICES Working Group considers that their best estimate of the catch is likely to be an underestimate.), this alone rings alarm bells about the validity and reliability of the stock estimate. If the stock estimate is not credible, how can any fishery exploiting the stock can be deemed ‘sustainable’? If one substitutes ‘catch’ for ‘landings’ in the guideline criteria, the 60 guideline describe the situation perfectly. Moody Marine: We are informed that the Norwegian fishery is entirely within the EEZ. The catch underreporting and misreporting estimate of 60% to 240% was up to 2001 since when various enforcement measures have led to a considerable improvement. I have added a comment to this effect and also included the TAC overshoot figure of 29,000t (6%) based on WG estimates of catch for 2006. I have added a comment re mortality being the norm for slipped mackerel. All the relevant references are also quoted. Regarding the score, non- Norwegian fleet-induced mortality is considered under 1.1.2.4 and so the score is unchanged here.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 141 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

1.1.2.4 ‘Discarding by Norwegian, Russian and Faroese fleets is illegal’ – so is misreporting and not maintaining accurate log books by EU fleets. Are we supposed to accept that one (discarding) does not occur while the other, no less illegal activity is described in some detail? To suggest that the Norwegian fleet does not discard is naïve. Moody Marine: There is an extensive observer and seagoing enforcement programme in the Norwegian fleet. We were give a fairly convincing talk on this and other measures in place by an enforcement officer as a part of our site visit. I have added some explanatory text accepting that there is almost certainly slippage discarding in the Norwegian fleet. 1.1.4.1 The score of 80 is based on a too generous interpretation of the criteria. There is no doubt that the Norway has ‘Appropriate mechanisms are in place to contain harvest’ these mechanism alone, however are insufficient to ‘maintain, or allow the target stock to return to, productive levels’. If the Norwegian landings (i.e. not catches) accounted for the overwhelming greater part of the international catch (as they once did for the North Sea ‘stock’, it might be true to say that this fishery met these criteria and merited a score of 80. As it is, the fishery is a minority part of the whole and no matter how strict the Norwegian regulations, they cannot make good the shortcomings elsewhere and ensure

the stock returns to levels above Bpa. A score of 75 might be more appropriate. Moody Marine: amendments to the text have been made to address these comments and as a result the score is reduced to 75. Condition 3 applies. 1.1.4.2 How does NEAFC fit into this scheme? If Russian (and Icelandic) catches are cause for concern and are outside the management agreement something needs to be said not least because the uncertainties associated with their fisheries are (probably) a significant contribution to uncertainty about the stock assessment as a whole. Moody Marine: Because some of the catches are taken in the NEAFC administrative area they are a party to the discussions on management of the stock. It was NEAFC who requested that the basis for the reference point for the stock be re-examined. ICES have for many years been commenting in their advice that the agreed TAC should apply to catches of NEA mackerel in all areas. These catches and those of the Russian fleet are included in the total catches used by the assessment WG but are not subject to a TAC.

1.1.5.2 The major uncertainty is the degree of discarding, slipping and unreported catches in the fishery. In view of what has been said earlier in this assessment, it would be helpful of there was a sentence or two here that clarifies how these are covered by the ICES working group. Moody Marine: Further text has now been added to explain the sources of the WG information on discarding and misreporting. 1.1.5.6 The text here is clear enough; for a period of time the SSB has been below, and

continues to be below Bpa. The implication of this is that the total international fishery is exploiting the stock at an unsustainably high level – and ICES has said as much (Client Report, §4.2 Monitoring of Stock Status on page 28). So long as this is, and continues to be the case, it is difficult to see how this fishery can fully meet the Principle 1sustainability criteria. Moody Marine: Please see the general comments above relating to the 2007 assessment and the current perception of the status of the stock in relation to the current reference points. Nevertheless I accept that this performance indicator does not reach all the SG 80 criteria and the score should be reduced to 75 and linked to a condition on underreporting of catches.

1.1.6.1 Ditto

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 142 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

Moody Marine: As explained in the general comments at the beginning, the situation has now changed considerably in the SSB is well above Bpa and there is now a Blim of 1.67Mt. The score should remain. 1.2.1 This score is too high – ‘measures’ have not been ‘shown to be rebuilding the stock’. Catches still exceed the TAC and F = Flim (if one ignores the nonsense of attaching any significance to a third place of decimals in an estimate of F). Moody Marine: Accepted, this is re- scored at 75 and linked to Condition 3 requiring the client to press, through appropriate authorities, for the implementation and enforcement of all regulations to ensure that SSB remains above the precautionary level and that the agreed TAC’s to cover mackerel caught in all areas.

Principle 2 2.1.1.4 I was interested to see that mackerel spawn on gravel beds; is this well documented? MM: amended in text 2.1.2.2 A score of 70 is an honest assessment of the current state of knowledge on the extent of slipping and must, therefore, have significant implications for the overall assessment of Principle 1. If a trawler takes by-catch species, e.g. horse mackerel, is it all pumped aboard and then (illegally) pumped (dead) overboard or can the trawlers slip a catch without bringing it aboard? This should be specified. MM: Agreed on score and a condition has been raised in this regard. 2.1.4.1 Yet again the point is made ‘in 2007 ICES classified the stock as being at risk of having reduced reproductive capacity and at risk of being harvested unsustainably and was expected to remain below Bpa‘, which raises the question once more – how can the sustainability criteria for Principle 1 be met? Moody Marine: In terms of ecosystem impacts, there is no indication of any related impacts, despite investigation. 2.1.5.2 ‘Mackerel and their larvae provide important food components for many predatory fish species’ – and birds and mammals. MM: amended in text 2.2.1.1 No mention of pelagic PET fish – blue-fin tuna. MM: amended in text 2.2.1.2 No mention of pelagic PET fish – blue-fin tuna. MM: amended in text

Principle 3 3A.8.2 If everything in the garden was as rosy as this claims there would be no problems or concerns with respect to IUU and, or discarding. In view of concerns expressed earlier and the potential implications for overestimating SSB, a score of 95 is too high. Moody Marine: Feel the score is justified based upon the evaluation of the fishery at the particular time of assessment.

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 143 Moody Marine Ltd Norwegian NEA Mackerel Fishery: Certification Report

Appendix C: Client Action Plan

FN 07/019 018-013 R00 Page 144