Report for the Norway Sandeel, Pout and North Sea Sprat Fishery

SURVEILLANCE AUDIT NO. 1 Report for the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery

Norges Fiskarlag, Pirsenteret, 7462 TRONDHEIM

Report No.: 2019-007, Rev. 0 Date: 2019-05-09 Certificate number: F-DNV-251453

Project name: Surveillance Audit No. 1 DNV GL - Business Assurance Report title: Report for the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Norges Fiskarlag, Pirsenteret, Norway AS 7462 TRONDHEIM, Veritasveien 1 Contact person: Tor Bjørklund Larsen 1322 HØVIK, Norway Date of issue: 2019-05-09 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 Project No.: PRJC-557210-2016-MSC-NOR http://www.dnvgl.com Organisation unit: ZNONO418 Report No.: 2019-007, Rev.0

Certificate No:

Objective: The objective of this report is the first surveillance audit of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v 2.0, Certification process version 2.0

Prepared by: Verified by:

Gudrun Gaudian Sigrun Bekkevold P2 expert Principal specialist

Hans Lassen P1 and P3 expert

Stefan Midteide Project Manager

Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: Keywords: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL Marine Stewardship Council ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by 0 2019-05-09 First issue

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page i MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v1.0 Template approval date:

Table of contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6

2 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 6 2.1 Team members 9

3 BACKGROUND ...... 10 3.1 Stock Status Sand eel 10 3.2 Impact on the ecosystem 19 3.3 Changes to the management system 20 3.4 CoC considerations 20 3.5 Catch data 21

4 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 27 4.1 Scope of the assessment 30 4.2 Summary of the original assessment 30 4.3 First annual surveillance – 2019 31 4.4 Harmonisation 31

5 RESULTS ...... 33 5.1 Summary and Update of Assessment Conditions 33 5.2 Condition 1 PI 1.2.2 34 5.3 Condition 2 PI 2.4.1 35 5.4 Condition 3 PI 2.4.2 36 5.5 Recommendation 39

6 CONCLUSION ...... 40

7 REFERENCES ...... 41

8 APPENDICES ...... 42 Appendix 1. Re-scoring evaluation tables – PI 1.1.1 and PI 1.1.2 (Sandeel in area 1r) 42 Appendix 2. Stakeholder submissions (if any) 46 Appendix 3. Surveillance audit information (if necessary) 47 Appendix 4. Additional detail on conditions/ actions/ results (if necessary) 48 Appendix 5. Revised Surveillance Program (if necessary) 49 Appendix 6. List of member vessels 49

Figure 1 North Sea Sand eel stock areas. Source: ICES sand eel advice ...... 11 Figure 2 Distribution of Sand eel catches by Norwegian vessels 2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 12 Figure 3 North Sea Sandeel area 1r. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019a) ...... 13 Figure 4 North Sea Sandeel area 3r. Stock status and stock trends. Source ICES (2019b) ...... 14 Figure 5 Sand eel in Divisions 4.a-b area 4. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019d) ...... 15 Figure 6 Norway pout Distribution of offort in 2018 by NOrwegian vessels. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet 16 Figure 7 Norway pout in Subarea 4 and Dicision 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat). Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2018c) ...... 17 Figure 8 North Sea Sprat. Effort distribution for 2018. Source Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 18 Figure 9 North Sea Sprat. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2018d) ...... 19

Table 1 General information ...... 6 Table 2 Units of Certifications ...... 8

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page ii MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v1.0 Template approval date:

Table 3 Catch composition (% wt) for sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries for Norwegian vessels 2016-2018, Source: Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 19 Table 4 Quotas (t) and Catch (t) for the Norwegian fisheries for 2016, 2017 and 2018 ...... 21 Table 5 Sand eel, Norway pout and North Sea sprat. Catch (kg) by Norwegian vessels, gear and ICES area 2016-2018 ...... 21 Table 6 Sandeel. Catch composition (tons) in Sand eel landings by Norwegian vessels 2016-2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 22 Table 7 Norway pout. Catch composition (tons) of Norway pout landings by Norwegian vessels 2016- 2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 23 Table 8 Sprat. Catch composition (tons) of sprat landings by Norwegian vessels 2016-2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet ...... 25 Table 9 Principle scores - Original assessment ...... 30 Table 10 Meetings held under the surveillance audit 18-19/2/2019 in Bergen Norway ...... 31 Table 11 Summary of Conditions and recommendations ...... 33 Table 12 Conclusion ...... 40

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page iii MSC Surveillance Reporting Template v1.0 Template approval date:

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

ACOM Advisory Committee on fisheries Management (ICES) BT Bottom trawl CAB Conformity Assessment Body CFP Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species o f Wild Fauna and Flora DFPO Danish Fishermen’s Producers Organization DPPO Danish Pelagic Producer Organization DNV GL Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EMODnet European Marine Observation an d Data Network ERS Electronic Recording and Reporting System ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GT Gross Tonnage HCR Harvest Control Rule HERAS International acoustic survey in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Malin Shelf is collectively known as the HERAS survey program IBTS International Bottom Trawl Survey. Bottom trawl survey covering the North Sea and adjacent waters ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICJ International Court of Justice IESNS International Ecosystem Survey in the Nordic Seas ISBF Introduced Species Based Fisheries ITQ Individual Transferable Quota ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea IUCN International Uni on for Conservation of Nature IWC International Whale Commission LTMS Long -Term Management Strategy MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance IMR Marine Research Institute (of Norway) NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC The North E ast Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North -East Atlantic NE North East NFA Norwegian Fishermen’s Association NGO Non -Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo -Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) PCA Permanent Court of Arbritation PS Purse seine PT Pelagic trawl RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SAM State -Space Assessment Model [ICES fish stock assessment model] SESAM Seasonal SMS stock assessment method [ICES fish stock assessment model] SFSAG Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group STECF EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries TAC Total Allowable Catch TBC To be confirmed UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCLOS Unite d Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 4

VMS Vessel Monitoring System WGNSSK (ICES) Working Group on North Sea and Skagerrak Demersal fisheries WWF World Wildlife Fund

STOCK ASSESSMENT ACRONYMS AND REFERENCE POINTS Blim Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown. BMSY Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve. Bpa Precautionary biomass below which SSB should not be allowed to fall to safeguard it against falling to Blim. Btrigger Value of spawning stock biomass (SSB) that triggers a specific management action. CI Confidence Interval Cpue Catch per unit effort: The quantity of fish caught (in number or in weight) with one standard unit of fishing effort; e.g. number of fish taken per 1000 hooks per day or weight of fish taken per hour of trawling. Cpue is often considered an index of fish biomass (or abundance). Sometimes referred to as catch rate. F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality Fcap Maximum fishing mortality accepted for calculation of advised TAC Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality (mean over defined age range) Fpa Precautionary buffer to preclude true fishing mortality being at Flim when the perceived fishing mortality is at Fpa. Fmax F where total yield or yield per recruit is highest (biological reference point) FMSY F giving maximum sustainable yield (biol ogical reference point) HCR Harvest Control Rules MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSY B escapement Minimum biomass required to produce MSY with high probability MSY B trigger Precautionary biomass level at which the management plan initiates specific harvest control rules to minimise the risk of further decline in biomass and concomitant risk to recruitment. SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch yr Year MSC ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAB Conformity Assessment Body CR Certification R equirements ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements LTL Low Trophic Level (species) MSC Marine Stewardship Council PI Performance Indicator P1 Principle 1 P2 Principle 2 P3 Principle 3 SG Sc oring Guidepost SI Scoring Issue UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The first Surveillance audit of Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery was conducted 18- 19 February 2019 with an on-site visit in Bergen, Norway. The surveillance team found that the sandeel stock in area 1r is (UoC-1) now depleted while the status for other stocks are unchanged compared to previous years.

Norway is not currently fishing in the depleted sandeel in area 1r stock which is under EU management. The certificate for UoC-1 is suspended.

The fisheries have continued without major changes, fishing grounds, fishing gears management and compliance is unchanged.

Conditions were found to be ‘on target’ for Condition 1 and condition 2) while condition 3 is found to be ‘behind target’.

The scoring Table for PI 1.1.2 Sandeel in area 1r is included for information concerning the status of the rebuilding plan for UoC-1.

2 GENERAL INFORMATION This report contains the findings of the 1 st annual MSC Fisheries surveillance audit conducted for the NFA Norwegian sand eel, pout and North Sea Sprat fisheries during 18-19 February 2019.

The purpose of this annual Surveillance Report is: 1. To establish and report on any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. To monitor the progress made to comply with any Conditions raised and described in the Public Certification Report of 2 February 2018 and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. To monitor any actions taken in response to any Recommendations made in the Public Report; 4. To re-score any Performance Indicators (PI) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of Conditions raised.

The primary focus of this surveillance report is to review the changes occurred since the previous year. For a complete picture of the fishery, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report available for download at www.msc.org. This report contains the findings of the first annual MSC Fisheries surveillance audit conducted for the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery during Feb 18-19 th 2019

Table 1 General information Fishery name NFA Norwegian Ling & Tusk fishery and NFA Norwegian Lumpfish fishery Units of Assessment (UoA) Norwegian sand eel fishery

Species: Sand eel (Ammodytes marinus) Stock s: North Sea sand eel area 1r North Sea sand eel area 3r North Sea sand eel area 4

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 6

Geographical area : North East Arctic Ocean within FAO Area 27 in Division 4.a, 4.b and 3.a.20 Harvest method: Trawl (bottom and midwater), purse seine Management : Norwegian and EU authori ties in accordance where appropriate with EU-Norway agreement Client group: Norges Fiskerlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet Other eligible No other eligible fishers fishers: Norwegian Norway pout fishery

Species: Norway pout (Trisopterus esma rkii) Stock: North Sea Norway pout Geographical area : North East Arctic Ocean within FAO Area 27 in North Sea ICES 4 and Skagerrak ICES 3.a.20 Harvest method: Bottom Trawl Management : Norwegian and EU authorities in accordance where appropriate with EU-Norway agreement Client group: Norges Fiskerlag on behalf of the entire Norwegian fleet Other eligible No other eligible fishers fishers: Norwegian North Sea Sprat fishery

Species: Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) Stock: North Sea Sprat Geographical area : North East Arctic Ocean within FAO Area 27 in North Sea ICES Subarea 4 Harvest method: Trawl (Bottom and midwater), Purse seine Management : Norwegian Authorities based on arrangements with EU where appropriate Client group: Norges Fiskerlag on beha lf of the entire Norwegian fleet Other eligible No other eligible fishers fishers:

Date certified 23 February 2018 Date of expiry 22 February 202 3 Surveillance level and type Surveillance level 6, on -site surveillance audit, according to FCR v2.0 Dat e of surveillance audit 18 -19 February 2019 Surveillance stage 1st Surveillance X 2nd Surveillance 3rd Surveillance 4th Surveillance Other (expedited etc) Surveillance team Lead assessor: Stefan Midteide Assessors: Hans Lassen, Gudrun Gaudian CAB name DNV GL Business Assurance CAB contact details Address Veritasveien 1 1322 HØVIK, Norway http://www.dnvgl.com Phone/Fax +47 908 30 545 Email [email protected]

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 7

Contact name(s) Stefan Midteide Client contact details Address Norges fiskerilag, Pirsentret, N-7452 Trondheim, Norway Phone/Fax +47 980 33 041 Email [email protected] / [email protected] Contact name(s) Tor Bjørklund Larsen

Table 2 Units of Certifications UoA Target Method of Description Location of Fishing fleet (see Management Species Catch of stock fishery below) Common and scientific name Sandeel Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea , (Ammodytes (including Sandeel Sandeel marinus) midwater management trawl) 1 area 1r, within ICES IVb and IVc.

Sandeel Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea , (Ammodytes (including Sandeel Sandeel The fishing fleets or marinus) midwater management trawl) groups of vessels or 2 area 3r, individual fishing within ICES operators pursuing IIIa, IVa and that stock including The fishery is IVb. those client group managed under members initially Norwegian and EU Sandeel Bottom tra wl North Sea North Sea , intended to be jurisdiction and (Ammodytes (including Sandeel Sandeel covered by the systems for marinus) midwater management certificate: Fishing fisheries trawl) 3 area 4, within operators are management. The Norwegian vessels ICES IVa and fisheries fishing under IVb. management is quotas issued by now codified in the Norway pout Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea Norwegian fisheries 2008 Marine (Trisopterus Norway ICES IV and management. Resources Act. 4 esmarkii) pout Skagerrak, ICES IIIa. There are no other Norway pout Midwater trawl North Sea North Sea eligible fishers. (Trisopterus (including Norway ICES IV and 5 esmarkii) purse seine) pout Skagerrak, ICES IIIa. Sprat Bottom trawl North Sea North Sea , 6 (Sprattus Sprat ICES IV. sprattus) Sprat Midwater trawl North Sea North Sea , 7 (Sprattus Sprat ICES IV. sprattus) Sprat Purse seine North Sea North Sea , 8 (Sprattus Sprat ICES IV. sprattus)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 8

2.1 Team members Stefan Midteide (Project manager) Stefan Midteide is principle consultant and project manager within MSC Fishery at DNV GL. His core competencies are project management, sustainability assessments, risk assessment responsible supply chain management, responsible investment and implementation of sustainability policies. He has 9 years’ experience as sustainability consultant and project manager. He has participated and managed project across a wide range and industries, seafoods and aquaculture, power, telecom, food retail, finance, technology, defence, pharmaceutical retail, public sector. Stefan holds degrees from the Nottingham University Business School (MBA), London School of Economics (M.Sc. Development Studies) and the University of Oslo (Cand Polit, Economic Geography).

His qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC. Midteide has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoAs under his responsibility

Hans Lassen (Assessment expert and team leader)

Hans Lassen is an independent consultant with a M.SC. degree from Copenhagen University and a B.Sc. from Copenhagen Business School. He is the author or co-author of more than 30 scientific papers in prime peer reviewed publications of fisheries related topics. He has more than 40 years’ experience with fish stock assessment, formulating and communicating scientific advice for fisheries. He has participated since 2009 as team member in more than 25 MSC assessments and surveillance audits of North Atlantic and Baltic Sea including shrimp, pelagic and demersal fisheries. He carries a MSC certificate as Team leader/Fisheries auditor for FCR v1.3, v2.0 and v2.1. Furthermore, the certificate includes training as RBF assessor. Also, he carries a certificate as Team leader ISO 19011:2011. Hans Lassen has no conflict of interests in relation to the UoAs/UoCs under his responsibility.

Gudrun Gaudian (Assessment expert) Gudrun Gaudian is primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Dr Gudrun Gaudian is an experienced marine ecologist and taxonomist, including coastal and marine surveys, EIA’s for development and tourism, and research projects in tropical and temperate seas. Work experience also includes coastal and marine management issues, such as identifying sustainable coastal development projects, as well as addressing conservation issues, including selection and planning of marine parks and reserves, sustainable utilisation of natural resources and community-based management programmes. Projects have been undertaken in temperate, polar and tropical marine regions. Gudrun holds an LLM degree in Environmental Law and Management, giving a deeper understanding of law and policy dealing with such relevant issues as the Common Fisheries Policy, water and waste management, and international environmental law including EU environmental policy. Gudrun carries MSC certificates as Team leader for FCR v1.3, v2.0 and v2.1, as well as Team leader ISO 19011. Gudrun Gaudian has no conflict of interests in relation to the UoAs under her responsibility.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 9

3 BACKGROUND The fisheries were certified based on PCR Revenga et al (2018). For details the reader is referred to this report available at the MSC.ORG website.

The assessment was based on considerations of several group of stocks and fisheries as summarised below:

Norwegian stocks: The Sandeel stock NS-3r is managed by Norway. The Norwegian sand eel fisheries are subject to a management plan. The Norwegian fisheries management system is designed to meet objectives laid down in “Havressurslova ” objectives corresponding to MSC P1 and P2 objectives.

Joint EU-Norway stock: Norway pout is a joint stock between EU and Norway but not currently jointly managed. The strategy is for both Parties to achieve MSY fisheries and to do so they base their regulations on advice from ICES and for EU also from STECF. The TACs are set autonomously after annual consultations under the EU-Norway fisheries agreement. The Parties agree in wishing for joint management of the Norway pout stock, see Agreed record of the fisheries consultations between EU and Norway December 2018 and is thus designed to achieve stock status objectives laid down in PI 1.

EU Stocks: The sprat stock and sandeel stocks NS 1r, NS-2r, NS 4r and NS 7r are managed under the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The total TACs are set by the EU Council of Ministers. There is no multiannual management plan for either of these stocks. The EU annual TACs are is set based on scientific advice from ICES and STECF. This advice includes provision for reduction of the exploitation rate if the stock falls below precautionary reference points. The advice is based on the ICES advisory scheme ICES advice (2016) Book 1. For sand eel, in addition to area based TACs the fishery is regulated by a limited fishing season (approx. 1 April – 1 July). The ICES advice reflects stock development and status for each of the stock areas. Past decisions on sandeel (NS- 1r, NS-4r) and sprat quotas generally have not exceeded TACs advised by ICES and the CFP requires the EU member states to regulate fisheries consistent with CFP objectives, (i.e, sustainable fisheries, see preamble to CFP).

3.1 Stock Status Sand eel The sand eel stocks considered include sand eel in areas 1r, 3r and 4, see Figure 1 below. Status of the individual stocks are presented in the subsequent sections. The stock assessments are based on ICES coordinated work and include fisheries statistics and data from R/V abundance surveys, see Revenga et al (2018) for details.

Reference points were defined in 2017 and have not been changed.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 10

The Norwegian sandeel fishery exploited the stock in area 3r only in 2018, Figure 2.

Figure 1 North Sea Sand eel stock areas. Source: ICES sand eel ad vice

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 11

Figure 2 Distribution of Sand eel catches by Norwegian vessels 2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet

3.1.1 Sandeel in area 1r (Northern and Central North Sea) - UoC-1 This stock is managed by EU under the CFP COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2019/124. The Norwegian fisheries only have access to this fishery if EU exchanges quota with Norway. The stock is at a low level and no such arrangements are made for 2019.

The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) was below B lim and B pa = MSY B escapement at the beginning of 2019. Recruitment (R) in 2018 was slightly above the geometric mean of the time-series, following the lowest historical recruitment in 2017. Fishing mortality (F) has fluctuated, showing a declining trend since the mid-2000s followed by an increase in 2017 and 2018 to approximately the long- term average, Figure 3. Catch data are given in section 2.5.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 12

Figure 3 North Sea Sandeel area 1r. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019a)

This sand eel stock is now depleted, at reduced reproductive capacity and PI 1.1.1 are rescored for this stock, see sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. There is no Norwegian fishery in 2019 on this stock. EU set a provisional zero quota for this stock, Council regulation 2019/124; the subsequent ICES advice in February 2019 based on the ICES MSY approach advised a 2019 quota of no more than 91 916 tonnes. EU decision is pending.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 13

3.1.2 Sandeel in area 3r (Northern and Central North Sea) – UoC-2

The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above Bpa = MSY B escapement since 2015. The recruitments (R) in 2016 and 2018 were among the five highest on record, whereas recruitment in 2017 was very low. Fishing mortality (F) declined in the early 2000s and has been low since then. The stock is at full reproductive capacity and at a high level. Stock status is generally unchanged compared to recent years, Figure 4.

Figure 4 North Sea Sandeel area 3r. Stock status and stock trends. Source ICES (2019b)

3.1.3 Sandeel in area 4 (Northern and Central North Sea) This stock is managed by EU under the CFP COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2019/124. The Norwegian fisheries only have access to this fishery if EU exchange quota with Norway. The stock is at a low level and no such arrangements are made for 2019.

Fishing mortality (F) has been low since 2006 but increased in 2018. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has increased from the time-series low in 2009 to levels well above precautionary reference points (B pa = MSY B escapement ) and has remained at this level since 2016. The 2016- and 2017-year classes are estimated to be above the long-term average, but the 2018 year class is estimated to be the second lowest on record. Stock status has remained as in previous years.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 14

Figure 5 Sand eel in Divisions 4.a -b area 4. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2019d)

There is no Norwegian fishery in 2019 on this stock.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 15

3.1.4 Norway pout in the North Sea and Skagerrak The fishery for Norway pout took place both inside the Norwegian zone as well as in the EU zone.

Figure 6 Norway pout Distribution of offort in 2018 by NOrwegian vessels. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet

The stock size is highly variable from year to year, due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above Bpa since 2007. Fishing mortality (F) has been fluctuating at a lower level since 1995. Recruitment in 2018 was high, while recruitment in 2017 was slightly below the long-term average, Figure 7. The stock is at full reproductive capacity and stock status is unchanged compared to recent years.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 16

Figure 7 Norway pout in Subarea 4 and Dicision 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat). Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2018c)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 17

3.1.5 North Sea Sprat The Norwegian fishery for sprat took as in previous year place in the EU zone, Figure 8.

Figure 8 North Sea Sprat. Effort distribution for 2018. Source Fiskeridirektoratet

The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been at or above MSY B escapement since 2013. Fishing mortality (F) has been higher than average for the last three years. Recruitment (R) in 2017 is estimated to be above average, but with substantial uncertainty. ICES assesses that the size of the spawning stock is above MSY B escapement , B pa , and B lim .

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 18

Figure 9 North Sea Sprat. Stock status and stock trends. Source: ICES (2018d) 3.2 Impact on the ecosystem There have been no changes to the ecosystem with implications on the scores.

Table 3 presents the % catch composition (wt) for the Norwegian landings. The data demonstrate that compared to the original assessment there are no changes. There are no reports of any ETP species in the catches.

Table 3 Catch composition (% wt) for sandeel, Norway pout and sprat fisheries for Norwegian vessels 2016-2018, Source: Fiskeridirektoratet Target species Sandeel Norway pout Sprat Species 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 Sand eel 98.99 99.36 99.10 0.15

Norw. Pout 0.00 0.01 77.86 76.27 77.85 0.00

Sprat 0.01 99.24 99.59 95.31 Whiting 0.09 0.18 0.11 1.29 1.02 3.26 0.14 0.03 0.06 Mac kerel 0.08 0.13 0.33 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.03 0.06

Grey gurnard 0.06 0.13 0.16 0.03 Haddock 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Saithe 0.00 0.04 0.01 2.12 1.53 0.90

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 19

Target species Sandeel Norway pout Sprat Species 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 Herring 0.28 0.03 0.16 0.90 1.97 5.43 0.30 0.26 3.66 Blue whiting 0.34 0.01 9.72 9.16 5.17 0.00 0.02 0.32

Silvery pout 0.03 0.55 0.73 0.77 0.01

Cod 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.00

White hake 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.48 0.13 0.13

Pilchard 0.00 Witch 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.35 0.40 0.63 0.02 0.01 0.17 flounder Ar gentines 0.09 0.00 2.50 2.05 3.69 0.12

Ling 0.05

Plaice 0.00 0.00

Velvet belly 0.13 0.12

Hake 0.06 0.04

Picked 0.00 dogfish Squid 0.00 0.00

Horse 3.52 5.98 1.64 0.07 0.05 0.00 mackerel Monkfish 0.03

Amer. Plaice 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lumpsucker 0.00 0.00

Blackmouth 0.00 catshark Grey gurnard 0.13 0.00 0.22

Anchovy 0.06

Dogfish 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.37 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3 Changes to the management system Sand eel: The management system remained as in previous years: Areas 1r, 2r and 4 are under EU CFP management while area 3r is managed by Norway. Issues are discussed at the annual consultation held under the EU-Norway fisheries agreement. The split of the North Sea sand eel, ICES (2019a), is presented in Figure 1. There are no changes.

Norway pout: A long-precautionary term management strategy has been worked out ICES (2018a,b). The proposal is implemented under the EU-Norway fisheries consultations for 2019.

North Sea sprat: The management system remained as in previous years. There are no changes.

3.4 CoC considerations The status, with regard to the Chain of Custody has remained unchanged since the initial audit in 2018.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 20

There are no changes in landing points from earlier years and the catch that is landed by foreign vessels cannot be mixed with certified catch based on the traceability system described in the public certification report.

The systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery are still considered sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery.

3.5 Catch data Table 4 Quotas (t) and Catch (t) for the Norwegian fisheries for 2016, 2017 and 2018 2016 2017 2018 Quota Catch Quota Catch Quota Catch Sprat 20,000 20,152 10,000 9,744 10,000 9,776 Sand eel 40,000 40,867 120,000 120,205 70,000 69,531 Norway pout 210,000 362,89 204,235 21,433 90,978 25,479

Table 5 Sand eel, Norway pout and North Sea sprat. Catch (kg) by Norwegian vessels, gear and ICES area 2016-2018 ICES Gear 2016 2017 2018 IIA2 Shore seine coastal vessel 24 IVA Bottom trawl 13,482,778 25,473,533 42,448,526 Sand IVA Midwa ter trawl 31,000 531 eel IVB Bottom trawl 27,353,579 94,731,284 27,082,226 Total 40,867,357 120,205,372 69,530,752 IIA2 Midwater trawl 303,591 45,000 IIIA Bottom trawl 32,000 IIIA Midwater net 51,293 8,694 50 IVA Bottom trawl 30,826,134 17,621,355 21,712,354 IVA Midwater trawl 5,077,352 3,713,298 3,759,437 Norway IVA Purse seine coastal vessel 2,000 602 Pout IVA Purse seine 19,739 700 6,812 IVB Bottom trawl 1,372 10,000 IVB Midwater trawl 6,016 IVB Purse seine 3,941 Total 36,289,438 21,433,047 25,479,255 IVA Shore seine coastal vessel 1,380 IVA Purse seine 4 IVB Bottom trawl 11,444,899 3,585,987 2,006,929 IVB Midwater trawl 6,777,357 5,024,515 6,431,225 Sprat IVB Purse seine 1,379,460 1,131,961 IVC Bottom trawl 550,337 IVC Purse seine 770,576 Total 20,152,053 9,743,847 9,208,730

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 21

Table 6 Sandeel. Catch composition (tons) in Sand eel landings by Norwegian vessels 2016-2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet

Total green weight catch taken by the client Client group share of UoC share of the total Fishing year TAC the TAC total O TAC Gill Hoo Purs t Danish - ks e Pelagic h seine net and Sein trawl e s lines e r 2016 No quota 40,867 - - - - 40,867 - Mixed fishery (less than 50 % sandeel in 167 - - - - 167 - each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 % sandeel 40,700 - - - - 40,700 - in each landing) Bycatch of: Blue whiting - - - - 141 -

Herring - - - - 117 -

Argentines - - - - 37 -

Whiting - - - - 36 -

Mackerel - - - - 33 -

Grey gurnard - - - - 25 -

Witch flounder - - - - 15 -

Haddock - - - - 5 -

Sprat - - - - 3 -

White hake - - - - 2 -

Saithe - - - - 1 -

Norw. Pout - - - - 1 -

Cod - - - - 0 -

Other ------2017 120,000 120,205 - - - - 120,205 - Preliminary Mixed fishery (less than 50 % sandeel in 27 - - - 27 - each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 % sandeel 120178 - - - - 120,178 - in each landing) Bycatch of: Whiting - - - 216 -

Mackerel - - - 161 -

Grey gurnard - - - 153 -

Haddock - - - 97 -

Saithe - - - 53 -

Herring - - - 31 -

Blue whiting - - - 15 -

Cod - - - 14 -

Norw. Pout - - - 10 -

White hake - - - 7 -

Witch flounder - - - 5 -

Argentines - - - 5 -

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 22

Amer. Plaice - - - 3 -

Lumpsucker - - - - 0 -

Other ------2018 70,000 69,531 - - - - 69,531 - Preliminary Mixed fishery (less than 50 % sandeel in 50 - - - - 50 - each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 % sandeel 69,481 - - - - 69,481 - in each landing) Bycatch of: Mackerel - - - - 232

Grey gurnard - - - - 113

Herring - - - - 111

Whiting - - - - 78

Witch flounder - - - - 52

Silvery pout - - - - 18

Haddock - - - - 14

Saith - - - - 6

Cod - - - - 3

Amer. Plaice - - - - 0

Picked dogfish - - - - 0

Squid - - - - 0

White hake - - - - 0 Lumpsucker - 0- - 0 0.013 Other - - - - -

Table 7 Norway pout. Catch composition (tons) of Norway pout landings by Norwegian vessels 2016-2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet

Total green weight catch taken by the client group Client Fishing UoC share of share TAC year the total TAC of the Purs Danis Hook Botto total Gill- e Pelagi Othe h s and m nets Sein c trawl r seine lines trawl e 2016 210,000 36,356 - - 24 30,891 5,438 2 Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 8,695 - - - 24 4,222 4,447 - Norway pout in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 % 27,660 - - - - 26,669 991 - Norway pout in each landing)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 23

Horse mackerel - - - - 1,202 48 -

Argentines - - - - 854 34 -

Saithe - - - - 754 - -

Whiting - - - - 455 1 -

Herring - - - - 313 7 -

Silvery pout - - - - 160 37 -

White hake - - - - 156 15 -

Witch flounder - - - - 123 0 -

Cod - - - - 54 - -

Velvet belly - - - - 45 - -

Haddock - - - - 37 0 -

Hake - - - - 21 - -

Ling - - - - 19 - -

Mackerel - - - - 15 - -

Grey gurnard - - - - 9 3 -

Monkfish - - - - 11 - -

Other - - - - 37 0 - 2017 - 204,235 21,517 - 0 - 3 17,745 3,767 2 Preliminar Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 8,171 - 0 - 3 5,041 3,125 2 y Norway pout in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 % 13,346 - - - - 12,704 642 - Norway pout in each landing) Bycatch of: Blue whiting - - - - 1,361 242 -

Horse mackerel - - - - 954 93 -

Argentines - - - - 329 29 -

Herring - - - - 327 17 -

Saithe - - - - 268 1 -

Whiting - - - - 178 - -

Silvery pout - - - - 109 20 -

Witch flounder - - - - 70 - -

Sandeel - - - - 27 - -

White hake - - - - 19 4 -

Velvet belly - - - - 22 - -

Cod - - - - 19 - -

Other - - - - 53 12 -

2018 - 90,978 25,504 - 0 7 21,736 3,759 2 Preliminar Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 9,322 - 0 - 7 5,554 3,759 2 y Norway pout in each landing)

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 24

Total green weight catch taken by the client group Client Fishing UoC share of share TAC year the total TAC of the Purs Danis Hook Botto total Gill- e Pelagi Othe h s and m nets Sein c trawl r seine lines trawl e Targeted fishery (more than 50 % 16,182 - - - - 16,182 - - Norway pout in each landing) Bycatch of: Herring - - - - 1,128 - -

Blue whiting - - - - 1,075 - -

Argentines - - - - 768 - -

Whiting - - - - 678 - -

Horse mackerel - - - - 341 - -

Saithe - - - - 188 - -

Silvery pout - - - - 161 - -

Witch flounder - - - - 130 - -

Mackerel - - - - 32 - -

Whitte hake - - - - 28 - -

Cod - - - - 20 - -

Haddock - - - - 9 - -

Pollack - - - - 8 - -

Other - - - - 37 - -

Table 8 Sprat. Catch composition (tons) of sprat landings by Norwegian vessels 2016- 2018. Source: Fiskeridirektoratet

Total green weight catch taken by the client Client group Fishi share of UoC share of ng TAC the the total TAC year total TAC Hooks Pelagi Danish Gill- Purse Bottom Othe and c seine nets Seine trawl r lines trawl

2016 - 20,000 20,828 1,379 6,839 11,995 - Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 65 - - - - 62 3 - sprat in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 20,763 - - - 1,379 6,777 11,992 - % sprat in each landing) Bycatch of: Herring - - - - 21 40 -

Whiting - - - - 14 14 -

Grey gurnard - - - - 4 21 -

Mackerel - - - - 9 11 -

Horse - - - - 9 5 - mackerel Witch flounder - - - - 3 1 -

Norway pout - - - - 1 - -

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 25

Plaice - - - - - 0 -

Haddock - - - - - 0 -

Blue whiting - - - - - 0 -

Dogfish - - - - - 0 -

cod - - - - - 0

Other ------2017 - - 9,744 1,133 5,025 3,586 - * Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 2 - - 1 - - - sprat in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 9,742 - - 1,132 5,025 3,586 - % sprat in each landing) Bycatch of: Herring - - - 18 6 2 -

Horse mackerel - - - - 5 - -

Mackerel - - - - 3 0 -

Whiting - - - - 3 - -

Blue whiting - - - - 2 - -

Witch flounder - - - - 1 - -

Silvery pout - - - - 1 - -

Grey gurnard - - - - 0 - -

Haddock - - - - 0 - -

Other - - - 1,150 5,045 3,588 - 2018 - 10,000 10,569 771 7,685 2,113 - * Mixed fishery (less than 50 % 859 - - - 753 106 - sprat in each landing) Targeted fishery (more than 50 9,710 - - - 771 6,932 2,007 - % sprat in each landing) Bycatch of: Herring - - - - 286 87 -

Blue whiting - - - - 33 - -

Grey gurnard - - - - 17 5 -

Witch flounder - - - - 14 3 -

Argentines - - - - 12 - -

Anchovy - - - - - 6 -

Whiting - - - - 5 1 -

Mackerel - - - - 3 3 -

Pilchard - - - - 0 - -

Amer. Plaice' - - - - 0 - -

Blackmouth - - - - - 0 - catshark Haddock - - - - 0 - -

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 26

Plaice - - - - - 0 -

Horse mackerel - - - - - 0 - Other ------

4 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The first surveillance audit was done as an integrated audit on-site with the following fisheries:

1. Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery

2. NFA Norwegian Ling & Tusk and NFA Norwegian Lumpfish

The first surveillance audit for the fisheries was done on-site in accordance with the surveillance program. The audit was announced on the MSC website and by stakeholder notification of Jan 7 th 2019. The on-site visit took place on Feb 18th-19th, 2019 in Bergen and meetings took place according to the schedules presented in the table below.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 27

Time Activity Participants Monday Meeting with client DNV GL Feb. 18 th assessment team 12.00 Focus on verification of any changes and new information Hans Lassen Gudrun Gaudian 1. Review of basic info about the company: Stefan Midteide • Changes in ownership or organizational structure • Roles and responsibilities in the MSC Fishery Client certification process representative • Updated vessel/certificate member list Tor Bjørklund Larsen, Norges 2. Review of fishing operations: Fiskarlag • Changes in fishing season, allocation of fishing days, Svanhild fishing areas and gear used (specifications) Kambestad. • Changes in recording of catch and effort data Sildelaget

3. Review of impact on ecosystem: • Changes in recording of bycatch of fish and shellfish species, marine mammals, ETP species and birds • Changes in discarding practices • Changes in the overlap of the fishery with sensitive habitats and closed areas

4. Compliance with rules and regulations • Disputes with national/ international authorities during the recent year • Records of sanctions and penalties (if any) for during the recent year.

5. Chain of Custody start. Changes in: • Traceability system on board and at landing • Labelling of products/changes in labeling of products • Landing sites during the recent year • First point of landing • First point of sale • Main products/change in product range • Main markets 6. Review of progress against conditions and recommendations (Annex 1).

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 28

Tuesday, DNV GL Marine Resarch Institute February assessment team th 19 Focus on verification of any changes and new information Hans Lassen 09.00 Gudrun Gaudian • Function, role and responsibility of the institution Stefan Midteide

• Role in stock assessments Marine Resarch Institute : Espen • Update on sampling programmes and surveys Johnsen, Aage Høines, Cecilie including observer programmes Kvamme • Integration of national data collection programmes and stock assessments with ICES assessments.

• Update on stock status, stock structure and recruitment of the fisheries of the assessment Changes in monitoring programmes for bycatch, discard, and ETP species

• Changes in impact of the fishery on marine habitats and the ecosystem.

• Update on research programmes for the fisheries of the assessment.

Tuesday, Directorate of Fishery Directorate of February Fishery th 19 Fishermen’s compliance with laws and regulations. 09.00 Modulf Overvik • Significant discrepancies found at landing control for the onwards Robert Midsund fisheries of the assessment in the last year • Catch data for the most recent fishing season • Changes in observed fishing pattern (gear used, fishing area, number of boats, fishing season) • Updated VMS data for the fisheries of the assessment

Remote DNV GL Meeting with NINA assessment team Focus on fishery impact on birdlife and mammals Hans Lassen Gudrun Gaudian Stefan Midteide

Research Kim Bærum (NINA) Signe Christensen- Dalgsgaard

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 29

Remote Contact with Government DNV GL The team exchanged written material to confirm any material assessment changes related to the management of the fisheries of the team: assessment. Hans Lassen Stefan Midteide • Changes in harvest strategy for the fisheries of the assessment, including regulations limiting fishing effort and harvest control rules Ministry of • Changes in short-term and long-term management Fisheries objectives for the fisheries of the assessment Martine Werring- • Changes in consultation and decision-making process for Westly the stocks of the fisheries of the assessment Changes in

mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes

• Changes in regulations for the fisheries of the assessment in the relevant geographical area

4.1 Scope of the assessment

The MSC Fisheries CR and guidance v2 define the Unit of Certification (UoC) (i.e., the unit entitled to receive an MSC certificate) as follows:

“The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”

The fisheries covered by this certification are defined as described in Table 2.

4.2 Summary of the original assessment

The intent of the Norway sand eel, pout and North Sea sprat fisheries to become MSC certified was announced on 17 December 2017, and the fishery received its certification on 23 February 2018. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences from point of sale/landing.

The default assessment tree, set out in the MSC Certification Requirements, version v2.0, was used for the initial assessment. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. In the initial certification the scores of the three Principles were, Table 9:

Table 9 Principle scores - Original assessment UoC Description of the Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3 UoC Target Ecosystem Management species system Sandeel UoC 1 BT Sandeel area 1r 89.2 85.7 95.4 (Bottom trawl) UoC 2 BT Sandeel area 3r 92.5 85.7 95.4 UoC 3 BT. Sandeel area 4 89.2 85.7 95.4 Norway pout UoC 4 Bottom trawl 89.2 83.7 95.4 (all gears) UoC 5 Midwat er trawl 89.2 87.0 95.4 Sprat (all UoC 6 Bottom trawl 89.2 86.7 95.4 gears) UoC 7 Midwater trawl 89.2 90.0 95.4

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 30

UoC 8 Purse seine 89.2 90.0 95.4

The fisheries achieved a score of below 80 against three scoring indicators (PI 1.2.2 for the 3 stocks and PI 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 for the bottom trawl fisheries), therefore assessment team has set three conditions for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team. There is one recommendation for the fishery.

4.3 First annual surveillance – 2019 The assessment team (Stefan Midteide, Gudrun Gaudian and Hans Lassen) met with the Client, relevant Norwegian authorities and scientist from IMR. Furthermore, the team held a telephone conference with scientists from NINA on impact on sea birds, Table 10 Table 10 Meetings held under the surveillance audit 18-19/2/2019 in Bergen Norway Date Topics Place Present

Monday Client Sildesalgslaget Slottsgaten Tor Bjørklund 18/2/2019 3 Bergen Larsen

Tuesday Management and Modulf Overvik statistics 19/2/2019

Tuesday Stock assessment Sand Espen Johnsen eel, Norway pout, Sprat (IMR) 19/2/2019 Fiskeridirektoratet Strandgade 229 Tuesday Stock assessment Ling Kristin Helle (IMR) and Tusk Bergen Aage Høines (IMR), 19/2/2019 Cecilie Kvamme (IMR)

Tuesday Stock assessment Lumpfish 19/2/2019

Kim Bærum (NINA) Tuesday Fisheries impact on Sea Skype birds Signe Christensen- 19/2/2019 Dalgsgaard (NINA)

4.4 Harmonisation

At the date of the assessment no other comparable fisheries were assessed according to FCR v 2.0. Still, the DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Sandeel, Norway Pout, and Sprat fisheries is very similar to the fishery under assessment and directly comparable but was not assessed against FCR v 2.0. Hence, harmonization is formally not required (ref Annex PB PB1.2.1). A comparison is provided in the Public Comment Draft report.

The results of this surveillance (and the suspension) has been notified to MRAG (the CAB of the overlapping fishery) by email May 3 rd , 2019. MRAG has confirmed by e mail May 5 th , 2019 that the

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 31

information is received and that they are open for discussions regarding the outcome of the two assessments

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 32

5 RESULTS

5.1 Summary and Update of Assessment Conditions Table 11 Summary of Conditions and recommendations Condition and Performance Condition Time -scale Initial SA1 recommendation indicator for score PCR number compliance 2018 2019 Condition 1 1.2.2 The Client should 4 years 65 65 (applies to all UoCs work with relevant except for sandeel authorities and On in Norwegian industry colleagues to target waters) develop appropriate HCRs and to have these HCRs evaluated (e.g. by ICES) and shown to be precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. Condition 2 2.4.1 Conservation and 4 years 70 70 (applies to UoC 4 management and UoC 6) measures for all On vulnerable marine target habitats in the UoC fishing grounds shall be in place and implemented, such that the UoC does not cause serious or irreversible harm to structure and function of VME habitats. Condition 3 2.4.2 Conservation and 4 years 70 70 (applies to UoC 1- management 4 and UoC 6) measures directed to Behind the protection of VME target shall be in place and implemented, such that the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance is achieved. Besides, the client shall present some quantitative evidence of the compliance with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 33

Recommendation 2.3.3b The assessment team Not Not On 1 (applies to all recommends that applicable applicable Target UoC) systems are put in place to ensure that all interactions with ETP species are recorded on log books irrespective of whether they are landed or discarded and that the captures of all ETP species are mapped.

5.2 Condition 1 PI 1.2.2 PI numb er(s) Scoring issue/ scoring Score Performance guidepost text Indicator(s) & 1.2.1a and 1.2.2.b 1.2.2a (SG80) Well defined HCRs Sand eel Score(s) are in place that ensure that the UoC 1 and exploitation rate is reduced as UoC 3 65 the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock Norway fluctuating around a target level pout UoC4 consistent with (or above) MSY, and UoC 5 : or for key LTL species a level 65 consistent with ecosystem Sprat needs. 1.2.2b (SG80) The HCRs UoC6,7,8 65 are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Rati onale There is no multiannual management plan for Norway pout, Sandeel stocks in the EU zone and sprat. There are Generally understood HCRs are in place that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. There is no well-defined HCR for the stock mentioned (Norway pout, sprat, and EU sand eel stocks) These plans should be investigated and shown to be robust to the main uncertainties in the input to the Harvest Control Rule. Condition The Client should work with relevant authorities and industry colleagues to develop appropriate harvest control rules and to have these evaluated (e.g. by ICES) and shown to be precautionary and robust to the main uncertainties. Milestones Year 1: The client should present evidence that he has approached relevant authorities and asked for the required HCRs. Interim score: 65. Year 2: The Client should present evidence that such HCRs are under development. Interim score 65. Year 3: The Client should present evidence that the HCRs are being developed and are evaluated by competent organisations. The Client should present evidence that the plans are discussed with a view for adoption at the relevant levels. Interim score 65. Year 4: The Client should present evidence that the HCRs are being implemented. Interim score: 80 Client action Action 1.1 NFA (Client) will engage with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and plan Fisheries (hereby referred to as “the Ministry”) to evaluate the current status and progress towards implementing a HCR in the fishery. Action 1.2 In year 2 NFA will provide an evaluation of options for potential HCRs Action 1.3 In year four, NFA will cooperate with stakeholders and management authorities and urge them to implement HCRs. Consultation on None. The relevant party here is primarily the Ministry, secondarily the IMR and Condition Directorate of Fisheries. As all scoring under principle 3 for these fisheries

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 34

confirms, these three parties have close cooperation with NFA, as well as the larger Norwegian seafood industry. Through both formal and informal channels during the year, NFA provides input on management priorities, research projects. Although successful outcomes cannot be guaranteed, NFA input has heavy emphasis, and there is vast empirical evidence of this. This standing practice in Norwegian management gives the largest degree of credibility to the action plan possible. Also, the absence of HCRs and reference points was thoroughly discussed at site visits and pre-assessments, and all parties were well aware in advance that this condition would be placed on the fishery. Progress on There is a management plan established for the Norwegian sand eel stock in Condition [Year area 3r. Management plan for the joint Norway pout stock is established. 1 2019] There is no progress reported for the North Sea Sprat. Status of On target. condition

5.3 Condition 2 PI 2.4.1 Applies to UoC 4 (Norway pout with bottom trawl) and UoC 6 (Sprat with bottom trawl)

PI SI Scor e Performance 2.4.1 b) The UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of 70 Indicator(s) the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible & Score(s) harm. Condition The SG80 requirements for SI b) must be met. By the fourth surveillance audit necessary conservation and management measures for all vulnerable marine habitats in the UoC fishing grounds shall be in place and implemented, such that the UoC does not cause serious or irreversible harm to structure and function of VME habitats (as described by OSPAR). The fishery will also need to provide overlapped maps of bottom trawling activity and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats.

Milestones Year 1: There shall be evidence of the Client’s plan to evaluate potential damage to seapens, deep-sea sponge aggregations or corals, appropriate to these UoCs. There shall be evidence of engagement with research institutions with the goal of evaluating potential damage to all vulnerable habitats by fishing activities of these UoCs. If research institutions are unable to provide support for the implementation of the plan, the fishery shall prepare the plan on the basis of other means (e.g. independent consultants or scientists or other means as appropriate). The plan may include an Environmental Impact Assessment or other similar analysis. The score is unchanged. Year 2: By the end of Year 2 there shall be evidence of ongoing work towards the implementation of the plan; i.e. developing options for conservation and management measures to all VME habitats affected by the UoC, such that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. These options may be developed with the support of research institutions, or may be developed within the client group, as appropriate. Options may include closed areas, move on thresholds or other actions as appropriate, but should be sufficient to ensure that there serious and irreversible harm to seapens, sponges, and coral gardens is highly unlikely. The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats. Score unchanged.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 35

Year 3: Evaluate the options developed in year 2. Consider suggested modifications if needed and finalise and agree on conservation and management measures for the protection of seapens or other VME species overlapping with the fishery. These measures can be taken either at client group level or at a higher level. Score unchanged. Year 4: Implement the agreed measures necessary to show that the UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. A formal commitment to the agreed upon conservation and management measures shall remain in place for the duration of the certification period. The client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and OSPAR threatened or declining habitats, to show avoidance on VME. Score 80.

Client action Action 2.1 plan NFA will approach the IMR and/or the Directorate of Fisheries in year 1 to propose a comprehensive evaluation of the potential damage to deep-sea sponge aggregations, corals and sea pens with regard to principle 2 of the MSC standard. If the IMR and/or the Directorate of Fisheries is unable or unwilling to perform this analysis, NFA will approach a third party such as independent consultants or scientists. Action 2.2 By the end of year 2, the analysis, which will include overlapped maps of the UoC VMS activity and VME habitats, should have provided output that allows the NFA to analyse the results, bring them forward to the Directorate of Fisheries and develop management options to mitigate damage, if necessary, according to the MSC standard. The goal will be to have the measures integrated into official Fisheries management. However, if the authorities are unwilling or unable to do so, voluntary codes of conduct will be considered. Action 2.3 Potential management measures, if necessary, will be evaluated and implemented in year 4. Updated maps of the UoC VMS activity and VME habitats will be provided, to show avoidance of VME

Progress on The client has been engaging with the Directorate of Fisheries which is currently Condition engaging in a research project to collect more detailed trawl information in certain [SA1 2019] areas, including benthos bycatch. 500mx500m grid sampling is being planned and rolled out (Per Finne, Directorate of Fisheries, pers.comm ). Some data has been mapped and can be seen on Geonorge: https://kartkatalog.geonorge.no/search?text=korall

These mapped areas do not necessarily overlap with the areas where the Norway pout and sprat fisheries operate, as can be seen from VMS plots provided by the Directorate of Fisheries. The grid sampling programme is ongoing, and more details will be available by the next audit.

Status of On target condition

5.4 Condition 3 PI 2.4.2 Applies to UoC 1,2,3,4 and 6 (all bottom trawl UoCs), for sandeel, sprat and pout PI SI Score

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 36

Performance 2.4.2 a) There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to 70 Indicator(s) & achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Score(s) d) There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. Condition The SG80 requirements for PI2.4.2 SI a) and SI d) must be met. There shall be evidence of implemented management measures directed to the different VME which are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome SG80 level of performance. The client shall present some quantitative evidence of the compliance with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant.

Milestones Year 1: There shall be evidence of the Client’s plan to evaluate the establishment of

potential management measures directed to the protection of identified VME by the relevant authorities (such as seapens , deep-sea sponge aggregations or corals) appropriate to this UoC. There shall be evidence of engagement with research institutions with the goal of evaluating potential measures to avoid such damage by the bottom trawl fleet. If research institutions are unable to provide such support, the fishery shall prepare the potential measures on the basis of other means (e.g. independent consultants or scientists or other means as appropriate). There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70.

Year 2: As the Condition is ‘Behind Target’ at the Surveillance Audit at Year 1 the milestones for Year 1 shall be met at Year 2 in addition to the milestones requirements for Year 2, FCR v2.0 7.23.1 b(i). By the end of Year 2 there shall be evidence of ongoing work towards the election and implementation of the most appropriate management measures to protect identified VME by the relevant authorities in the UoC (i.e. developing options for conservation and management measures to all identified (by the relevant authorities) VME habitats affected by the UoC, such that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, on a regional or bioregional basis, and function). These management measures may be developed with the support of research institutions, or may be developed within the client group, as appropriate. The measures shall be sufficient to ensure that serious and irreversible harm to seapens, sponges, and coral gardens is highly unlikely). There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70. Year 3: Evaluate the options developed in year 2. Consider suggested modifications if needed and finalise and agree on conservation and management measures for the protection of seapens or other identified VME (by the relevant authorities) overlapping with the fishery. These measures can be taken either at client group level or at a higher level. There shall be evidence of activities undertaken in order to comply with voluntary protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. Score 70. Year 4: Implement the agreed measures necessary to show that the UoA is highly unlikely (<30%) to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 37

there would be serious or irreversible harm. A formal commitment to the agreed upon conservation and management measures shall remain in place for the duration of the certification period. There shall be some quantitative evidence of the compliance with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non MSC fisheries, where relevant. By the 4th surveillance audit the client shall provide overlapped maps of VMS records and: - OSPAR threatened or declining habitats overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. - designated MPA overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. Besides, the client shall provide evidence of the accomplishment of voluntary measures undertaken by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries in the same fishing grounds directed to the protection of VME. Score 80.

Client action plan Action 3.1 NFA will engage with IMR and the Directorate of Fisheries to evaluate measures to mitigate bottom damage in the relevant VME areas. Internal discussions will be held to decide how other UoAs voluntary protection of central Fladen or other areas could be protected by a corresponding Norwegian code of conduct if governmental protective measures remain absent. Action 3.2 NFA will follow up on the results from the consultations under 3.1 and work towards the election and implementation of the most appropriate management measures. Preferably this will be in the form of expected official protective regulation by the EU. In the absence of this, work will be continued to set up voluntary measures afforded to these VMEs by other UoAs. Action 3.3 Options will be evaluated and NFA will finalize and agree on conservation and management measures and begin their implementation. Action 3.4 Protective measures will be implemented at governmental or private jurisdiction level to show that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The measures will be evaluated with available data, and overlap maps will be provided of VMS records and: -OSPAR threatened or declining habitats overlapping the UoA fishing grounds. -Designated MPA overlapping the UoA fishing grounds.

Progress on The client informed that they will be undertaking a review of relevant MSC Condition [SA1 certified fisheries (relevant as to gear and location overlap with sprat/ 2019] Norway pout/ sandeel), and to note any voluntary closures, including location and reason of these. This was to form part of the work to evaluate measures to mitigate damage to relevant VMEs (see Action 3.1 above). Also, the Client informed that he has engaged consultants to assist with the evaluation of potential measures. However, no information on progress with the evaluation was presented. As these actions were part the client commitments for the Year 1 milestone – it has not yet been met. The Client further informed that discussions with research institutions would be fruitful only based on the evaluations and these therefore has not yet been initiated.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 38

The milestones for Year 1 shall be met at Year 2 in addition to the milestones requirements for Year 2.

Status of Behind target condition

5.5 Recommendation Recommendation 1 (applies to all UoC):

PI 2.3.3.b: Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Recommendation: The assessment team recommends that systems are put in place to ensure that all interactions with ETP species are recorded on log books irrespective of whether they are landed or discarded and that the captures of all ETP species are mapped.

Update on Recommendation: On 8 th May 2018, the client met with NINA (Norwegian Institute of Nature Research) as part of the ‘seabird reference group’ – a group which looks specifically at the bycatch and interactions of seabirds associated with particular gear types. A further focus of the bycatch data collection discussion was on a possible additional development of the existing app for general data collection from the various fisheries (all the coastal fishing app, the fisheries directorate, or the app for the reference fleet of HI). And to include a species identification option as part of the app. It was recognised at the meeting that a good working relationship needs to be in place with the fishers, based on trust, meaning that the data the fishers collect is not held detrimental to the fishers. It was thought that the ‘bycatch project’ could be elevated to a ‘monitoring project’ to be continued for years, thus providing the data to understand bycatch of non-target species including ETPs and to develop and implement the necessary mitigation measures.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 39

6 CONCLUSION The fishery continues to be within the scope of the MSC fisheries standard (MSC FCR v2.0 § 7.4) according to the following determinations (MSC FCR v2.0 § 7.4):

• The target species is a fish and the fishery does not use poisons or explosives;

• The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement;

• The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years;

• The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery;

• The fishery is not enhanced or based on an introduced species.

Further the surveillance audit found:

• The stock status for sand eel in area 1r has changed and the stock is now classified as depleted. Hence PI 1.1.1 is rescored (section 7.1.1). The resulting scores are PI 1.1.1 below 60 and the UoC1 fails.

• Stock status for the other stocks are unchanged;

• Fishing operations, fishing grounds, fishing gears are as in previous years and by-catch composition is unchanged. Hence ecosystem impacts are unchanged;

• Management is unchanged;

• MCS concerns are unchanged there are no reported major non-compliance;

• Conditions 1 and 2 were ‘On target’ while condition 3 is ‘Behind target’.

Table 12 Conclusion Fishery Status of Comment certification UoC 1: The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for the fishery Suspended in UoC 1 shall be suspended.

UoC 2-8: The assessment team concludes that the MSC Certificate for the fishery Certified in UoC 2-8 shall remain active, subject to the agreed annual surveillance schedule and progress on the remaining conditions.

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 40

7 REFERENCES ICES. 2019a. Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.b–c Sandeel Area 1r (central and southern North Sea, Dogger Bank). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea ecoregion Published 22 February 2019 ICES Advice 2019 – san.sa.1r – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4720

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters

ICES. 2019b. Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a–b and Subdivision 20, Sandeel Area 3r (northern and central North Sea, Skagerrak). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea ecoregion Published 22 February 2019 ICES Advice 2019 – san.sa.3r – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4722,

ICES. 2019c. Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.a–b, Sandeel Area 4 (northern and central North Sea). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea ecoregion Published 22 February 2019 ICES Advice 2019 – san.sa.4 – https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4723

ICES. 2018a. EU/Norway request to ICES on evaluation of long-term management strategies for Norway pout in ICES Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Division 3.a (Skagerrak–Kattegat). ICES Special Request Advice, Greater North Sea Ecoregion, sr.2018.07. Published 29 May 2018. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4374 .

ICES. 2018b. Report of the Workshop for Management Strategy Evaluation for Norway Pout (WKNPOUT), 26–28 February 2018, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2018/ACOM:38. 96 pp.

ICES. 2018c. Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii) in Subarea 4 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 9 October 2018 nop.27.3a4 https://doi.org.10.17895/ices.pub.4564

ICES. 2018d. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 12 April 2018 spr.27.4 http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4257

Revenga L., Lassen H., Hønneland G, and Midteide S., 2018. PUBLIC CERTIFICATION REPORT Initial assessment of the Norway sandeel, pout and North Sea sprat fishery Norges Fiskarlag Report No.: 2017-008, Rev 4.1 Date: February 2nd 2018 Certificate code: F-DNV-251453

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 41

8 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Re-scoring evaluation tables – PI 1.1.1 and PI 1.1.2 (Sandeel in area 1r)

8.1.1 Scoring Table for PI 1.1.1 Stock status for target species PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guidepost It is likely that It is highly There is a high the stock is likely that the degree of above the point stock is above certainty that where the PRI. the stock is recruitment above the PRI. would be impaired (PRI).

Met? No

UoC-1 (Sand eel 1r)

Justification Sand eel NS-1r: ICES advice (2019) Sand eel 1r concludes “ICES assesses that the spawning stock size is below MSY Bescapement and below Bpa and Blim.”

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

Guidepost The stock is at or There is a high fluctuating around degree of a level consistent certainty that the with MSY. stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? UoC-1 Yes No (Sand eel 1r)

Justification Sand eel NS-1r: The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is fluctuating at or above MSY Bescapement for most years

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 42

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

since 2008 fishing mortality have not been excessive for this stock but is in 2018 above is below Fcap. The large change in the advice from year to year is a reflection of the marked interannual variability of biomass and recruitment as well as the early maturation, both of which are typical for a short-living species. SG80 is met.

The stock SSB (2019) and the confidence limits for this estimate is below MSY Bescapement and rather fluctuate around MSY Btrigger, with two peaks as the exception. SG 100 is not met.

Sand eel Stock Status Type of Value of Current stock NS-1r relative to reference point reference point status relative Reference Points to reference point

PRI Concerns Blim 110 kt SSB (2019) = 97,696 kt MSY Approach MSY 145 kt

Bescapement /B pa CI= [60;137] kt Fcap 0.49 F(2018) = 0.63

Overall Performance score <60

8.1.2 Scoring Table for PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding for target species PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

a Rebuilding timeframes

Guidepost A rebuilding The shortest timeframe is practicable specified for the rebuilding stock that is the timeframe is shorter of 20 specified which years or 2 times does not exceed its generation one generation time. For cases time for the where 2 stock. generations is

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 43

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years

Met? Yes Yes

UoC-1 (Sand eel 1r)

Justification Sand eel NS-1r: The stock is under ICES advice (MSY Approach) nwhich aim at a speedy recovery. The generation time is estimated around 3 years and the large variations which are characteristics for this stock indicates a speedy recovery in response to appropriate management. SG100 is met.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Monitoring is in There is evidence There is strong Guidepost place to that the evidence that the determine rebuilding rebuilding whether the strategies are strategies are rebuilding rebuilding stocks, rebuilding stocks, strategies are or it is likely or it is highly effective in based on likely based on rebuilding the simulation simulation stock within the modelling, modelling, specified exploitation rates exploitation rates timeframe. or previous or previous performance that performance that

they will be able they will be able to rebuild the to rebuild the stock within the stock within the specified specified timeframe. timeframe.

Met? UoC-1 Yes Yes No (Sand eel 1r)

Justification Sand eel NS-1r: The stock is well monitored through detailed fisheries statistics and through annual abundance surveys. SG60 is met.

Rebuilding is likely based on experience with the ICES MSY Approach. SG80 is met .

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 44

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe.

Scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 Issue

The stock is highly variable in response to environmental conditions and management has no influence beyond attempting to secure an appropriate SSB. The natural high variability escapes ‘highly likely’ conclusions. SG100 is not met.

Overall Performance score 90

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 45

Appendix 2. Stakeholder submissions (if any)

There are no stakeholder submissions

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 46

Appendix 3. Surveillance audit information (if necessary) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 47

Appendix 4. Additional detail on conditions/ actions/ results (if necessary) NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 48

Appendix 5. Revised Surveillance Program (if necessary) There are no changes to the initial surveillance program as specified in the Public Certification Report

Appendix 6. List of member vessels Member vessels includes all Norwegian vessels fishing with Norwegian quotas for the species as specified in the Units of Certification . List of vessels is published on https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/norway-sandeel-pout-and- north-sea-sprat/@@view

DNV GL – Report No. 2019-007, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com Page 49

About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.