FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION
FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
Public Comment Draft Report
March 2013
Prepared For: The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd
FCI template version 1.1 (11/01/12)
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Public Comment Draft Report
March 2013
Authors: Dr Geir Hønneland, Dr Paul Medley and Dr John Hambrey.
Certification Body: Client: Food Certification International Ltd The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN)
Address: Address: Findhorn House Egorova str. 6 Dochfour Business Centre 183038 Murmansk Dochgarroch Russia Inverness IV3 8GY Scotland, UK
Name: Melissa McFadden Name: Olga Pokrovskaya Tel: +44(0) 1463 223 039 Tel: +7 (921) 273-19-10 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 i Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Contents
Glossary...... iv 1. Executive Summary ...... 5 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 7 2.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 8 2.1.2 RBF Training ...... 8 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 9 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 9 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 11 3.2.1 The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) ...... 11 3.2.2 Species and Fishing Practice ...... 12 3.2.3 Administrative Framework ...... 16 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 18 3.3.1 Fishery Resource: Cod (Gadus morhua) ...... 18 3.3.2 Fishery Resource: Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) ...... 19 3.3.3 Status of Stocks ...... 21 3.3.4 History of the Fisheries and Management ...... 26 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 27 3.4.1 The status of the Barents Sea ecosystem ...... 27 3.4.2 Relevant habitats and ecosystem features ...... 28 3.4.3 ETP species ...... 28 3.4.4 Retained and bycatch species ...... 30 3.4.5 Key issues, concerns and management systems ...... 33 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 39 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 44 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 44 4.1.1 Harmonisation Details ...... 45 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 45 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 45 4.3.1 Assessment Tree ...... 45 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 45 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 45 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 46 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 47 5. Traceability ...... 49 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 49 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 49 5.2.1 Evaluation of Risk of Vessels Fishing Outside of UoC...... 50
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 ii Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5.2.2 Risk of Substitution of Mixing Certified / Non-Certified Catch ...... 50 5.2.3 At-Sea Processing ...... 50 5.2.4 Trans-Shipment ...... 50 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 50 5.3.1 Eligible points of landing ...... 50 5.3.2 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate ...... 50 6. Evaluation Results ...... 51 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 51 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 52 Cod, trawl...... 52 Haddock, trawl ...... 52 Cod, longliner ...... 53 Haddock, longliner ...... 54 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 55 6.3.1 Recommendations ...... 55 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 56 7. References ...... 57
Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationale ...... 63 Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 63 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 66 Principle 1: Cod ...... 66 Principle 1: Haddock ...... 81 Principle 2: Cod and Haddock, trawl ...... 95 Principle 2: Cod and Haddock, longline ...... 137 Principle 3: All Units of Certification ...... 174 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 202 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 203 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 210 Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 210 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 250 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions ...... 267 Appendix 3.1 Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation ...... 267
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 iii Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Glossary
AFWG Arctic Fisheries Working Group (ICES) BBTA Barents Sea and White Sea Territorial Administration (under FFA) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals EEZ Exclusive economic zone ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFA Federal Fisheries Agency (Russia) FIUN Fishing Industry Union of the North (Russia) FSB Federal Security Service (Russia) ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) JNRFC Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission MMBI Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (Russian Academy of Science) NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEZ Norwegian Economic Zone NGO Non-governmental organization OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PINRO Knipovich Polar Research Institute for Marine Fisheries Research and Oceanography (Murmansk) PSC Port state control regime (NEAFC) REZ Russian Economic Zone SevPINRO Northern Institute for Marine Fisheries Research and Oceanography (Arkhangelsk) TAC Total allowable catch VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems VMS Vessel monitoring system
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 iv Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
1. Executive Summary
» This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock fishery for The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN). The assessment process began in March 2012 and was concluded (date to be determined). » A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. » The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is 28 September, 2013. » The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Dr Geir Hønneland, who acted as team leader and Principle 3 specialist; Dr Paul Medley, who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and Dr John Hambrey, who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 2. Paul Macintyre was responsible for traceability / chain of custody considerations. Client strengths » FIUN is a well-established fishery actor in Russia, the leading association of vessel owners in the northern basin and the largest union of small and medium sized fishing companies in Russia. » The Union exerts significant influence on Russian fisheries management, through established mechanisms for user-group consultation. » The Union’s vessels have stable quota rights for cod and haddock. » The Union’s vessels have a good track record of fishing in compliance with Norwegian and Russian fishery regulations. » The Union is – unlike Russian fishery management bodies – engaged in widespread consultations with actors outside the country’s traditional fishery complex, such as environmental NGOs. Client weaknesses » FIUN has a bottom-up organization, which reduces the possibilities for top-down management. Determination On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the FIUN be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Rationale » There are a number of areas which reflect positively on the fishery: › The status of the stock for both cod and haddock is excellent. › The Norwegian–Russian management regime is well established and robust. › There is good scientific foundation for management decisions. › IUU fishing has been halted and compliance is generally high.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 5 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
› Fisheries management at national and regional level in Russia is well established, with a firm legal basis and well-equipped institutional mechanisms for research, regulation and enforcement. Conditions & Recommendations » However, a number of criteria which contribute to the overall assessment score scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Section 6.3 and Annex 1.3, but in brief, the areas covered by these conditions are: › the need for a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures for retained species; › the need to demonstrate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm; › the need for the client to continue work with authorities to ensure participation in the management process by all relevant stakeholders. » In addition, the assessment team made an additional recommendation. As this is not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, it is non-binding; however in the opinion of the assessment team, it would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery. Details of this recommendation are provided in Section 6.3.1 of this report. For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 6 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1 Assessment Team
Assessment team leader: Dr Geir Hønneland Responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of Oslo, speaks Russian fluently and has followed the developments of Russian fishery politics and the Barents Sea fisheries management for more than two decades. Among his books are Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia (Manchester University Press, 2003) (including fisheries agreements), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), and Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea (Edward Elgar, 2012). He has also published a number of articles about Russian fisheries management, and the Barents Sea fisheries management more widely, in peer reviewed journals. Geir also has wide range of evaluation experience, e.g. for the FAO relating to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Further, he has produced a country study of Russian fisheries management for the OECD and several consultancies about Russian fisheries management. He was member of the team that performed the first MSC assessment of a Russian Barents Sea fishery in 2010. Geir is based near Oslo in Norway. A more comprehensive presentation can be found at the FNi´s website: http://www.fni.no/cv/cv-geh.html . Expert team member: Dr Paul Medley Responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Dr Paul Medley is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of pelagic stocks (amongst a range of marine fish stocks and ecosystems). He holds a first degree in Biology and Computer Science (1st class honours) from the University of York, and a doctorate from Imperial College, London, based on a thesis “Interaction between Longline and Purse Seine in the South-West Pacific Tuna Fishery”. He has travelled widely and worked with a range of fishery systems and biological stocks, both as principal researcher and as evaluator. He is familiar with MSC assessment procedures, having participated in a significant number of MSC full assessments across a range of fisheries, undertaken a substantial number of pre-assessments and acted as peer reviewer in still others. He is familiar with a wide range of fisheries in the North East Atlantic and other parts of the world, and over the period 2000 to 2005 he has been serving with the Centre for Independent Experts, University of Miami, as an evaluator of various US fishery research programmes. He has been working with the MSC on the development of guidelines for certification of small scale, data poor fisheries. He is based in York (UK). Expert team member: Dr John Hambrey Responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Dr John Hambrey has a first degree in Natural Sciences (University of Cambridge) and a Ph.D. in natural resource management (University of Stirling). He has built up more than 30 years’ experience as a consultant, advising government, international agencies and the private sector on fisheries and aquaculture development and management, and natural resource/environmental management more generally. Clients have included FAO, the World Bank, the Department for International Development, Marine Scotland, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, Danida, NORAD, several NGOs and the private sector. John has been a major contributor to international guidance on environmental assessment in the aquatic environment, environmental risk analysis, and the ecosystem approach to aquaculture and fisheries. Projects have been undertaken relating to economic and environmental impact assessment, analysis of impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services, and development of best practice and codes of conduct.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 7 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant project experience includes for example: Evaluation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries for FAO; facilitation of a series of workshops on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; development of environmental indicators for fisheries and aquaculture for the Kiev Report (European Environment Agency); development of environmental impact and environmental quality indicators for Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Government; advice to a group of major supermarket retailers on sourcing responsibly produced shrimp; and analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of fisheries conservation measures for English Nature. More detailed examples can be found on www.hambreyconsulting.co.uk Expert advisor: Paul Macintyre MSC Chain of Custody and Traceability specialist / Lead Auditor 15 years of management experience within the aquaculture and fish processing sectors. 20 years’ experience auditing ISO, HACCP, BRC, GlobalGAP, organic and conventional farming operations within the aquaculture production and fish processing sectors and including MSC Chain of Custody since 2005. ISO 9001 Lead Auditor (QMI 1991); Registered Organic Inspector (DEFRA); Diploma in Advanced Food Hygiene (Queen Margaret University Edinburgh); BRC v5 Food Manufacturing Auditor BRC (London and Manchester); GlobalGAP IFA Trainer (GlobalGAP Cologne) ; RYA Yachtmaster Offshore (RYA Southport) ; Diploma Photography (Photography Institute)
2.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Ms Helen Davies and Mr Jake Rice. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.
2.1.2 RBF Training RBF has not been used for this fishery assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 8 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3. Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought
Food Certification International Ltd confirm that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought for the assessment as defined. Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of potential 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) and / or individuals pursuing the fish of that stock)”. This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what was included in the assessment, and what was not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if any additional vessels are wishing to join the certificate at a later date. The unit of certification for the fishery under consideration is as set out below. The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as: Table 3.1 - Unit of Certification
UoC 1 Species: Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) Stock: North East Arctic cod Geographical area: Barents and Norwegian seas - ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb: Coastal waters, within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Harvest method: Demersal trawl Client Group: Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) vessels targetting North East Arctic cod in ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb using demersal trawl
UoC 2 Species: Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) Stock: North East Arctic cod Geographical area: Barents and Norwegian seas - ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb: Coastal waters, within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Harvest method: Longline Client Group: Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) vessels targetting North East Arctic cod in ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb using longline
UoC 3 Species: Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Stock: North East Arctic haddock Geographical area: Barents and Norwegian seas - ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb: Coastal waters, within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Harvest method: Demersal trawl Client Group: Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) vessels targetting North East Arctic haddock in ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb using demersal trawl
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 9 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
UoC 4 Species: Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Stock: North East Arctic haddock Geographical area: Barents and Norwegian seas - ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb: Coastal waters, within Norwegian and Russian EEZ and International Waters Harvest method: Longline Client Group: Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) vessels targetting North East Arctic haddock in ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb using longline
Please note that whilst the Unit of Certification details the full extent of what is being assessed, it is the full and complete Public Certification Report that precisely defines the exact nature of certification for this fishery. This Unit of Certification was used as it is compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria for setting the Unit of Certification.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 10 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.2 Overview of the fishery
3.2.1 The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) Fishery Ownership The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) was established in December 1992. The Union has become one of the leading fishing associations in the Russian northern basin, and the largest union of small and medium fishing enterprises in Russia. Today the FIUN includes 88 enterprises of small and medium sized business; 62 of these companies are involved in catch and transport of fish, while 4 are involved in small-scale fish processing. The remaining member companies are engaged in fish breeding, vessel repair and sale of fish.
The companies have 107 fishing vessels, 20 small-sized vessels for in-shore fishing and 12 transport vessels. Modernization and renovation of the fleet has been going on for some years. The total number of employees in the FIUN companies is 6,450. The main fishing ground for the fleet is the Russian economic zone as well as 200-miles zones of other states in the North-East and the North- West Atlantic. From 1993 to 2010, catches increased 6.5 times, and the production of fish increased by 5 times. Catches in 2010 reached more than 224,000 tonnes and made up 37 per cent of the total fishery volume of the Murmansk region.
Significant parts of fishing vessels have been re-equipped in recent years, have sanitary certificates and deliver their products on the European market. Currently around 100,000 tonnes of fish (mainly pelagic species) are annually delivered on the international market. Compared with the 1990s, catches of pelagic fish had in 2010 increased by 12 times and reached 120,000 tonnes. The FIUN participates in improving branch management structure, in carrying out social programmes in the region, supports scientific research and searching work of branch and academic Institutes (PINRO, SevPINRO, MMBI and others).
History of the Fishery The Barents Sea groundfish fishery has a long and important heritage. Coastal longline fishing of cod and haddock dates back to the 16th century, while trawl fishery commenced around 1920. Historically, landings of cod and haddock from the Barents Sea have fluctuated, mainly reflecting stock status. For cod, landings of 900,000t were experienced in the 1970s, but landings dropped considerably as stock status declined (landings fell to 212,000t in 1990), before recovering steadily since then. Landings of haddock have seen perhaps a smaller degree of fluctuation in recent decades when compared with cod, although there have been periods of very low landings, corresponding to poor stock status, notably in the 1980s (landings falling as low as 20,000t in 1984), prior to the more recent recovery. TAC has increased steadily since the turn of the century, with a TAC for cod at 751,000 tonnes and for haddock of 318,000 tonnes set for 2012. See 3.3 for further information.
Organisational Structure
Fishing takes place all year using demersal otter trawl of cod‐end mesh size 130mm. Stocks are managed bilaterally by Norway and Russia through the Joint Norwegian‐Russian Fishery Commission which regulates fishing, determining management measures and setting quotas. Within the Russian EEZ, management is undertaken by the Federal Agency for Fisheries who also provide control and surveillance through territorial fishery offices such as the Murmansk office. Within the Norwegian EEZ, management is undertaken by the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate facilitated by control and enforcement by the Norwegian Coastguard. Management is informed by ICES advice, supported nationally by the Institute of Marine Research (Norway) and PINRO (Russia).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 11 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Area Under Evaluation Geographically, fishing takes place within Russian, Norwegian, and International waters (ICES Sub‐area I and II, beyond 12nm).
3.2.2 Species and Fishing Practice Species type/s The target species for the fishery under certification are cod and haddock. As indicated initially, this report does not intend to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These include: » Fishbase: › http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=69&genusname=Gadus&speci esname=morhua&lang=English › http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?genusname=Melanogrammus&sp eciesname=aeglefinus » ICES Fishmap: › http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Cod › http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Haddock » Descriptions provided by national scientific bodies, such as Norwegian IMR: › http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/torsk/nordaustarktisk_torsk_skrei/111219/en › http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/cod/north_east_arctic_cod/ › http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/hyse/nordostarktisk_hyse/en › http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/haddock/north_east_artic_haddock/ » ICES, 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05.
Management History The Joint Norwegian–Soviet (later Russian) Fisheries Commission was set up in 1975/-76. Cod and haddock were defined as joint stocks, to be split 50-50 between the parties. In 1978, they agreed to also treat capelin as a joint stock, to be shared 60-40 in Norway’s favour. After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, management collaboration between Norway and Russia was extended to include enforcement. A number of technical regulations were harmonized between the parties, and new technical regulations (such as satellite tracking of fishing vessels and mandatory selection grids
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 12 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
in trawl) were jointly introduced. During the first decade of the new century, efforts were primarily directed at IUU fishing. At the end of the decade – in 2009 – a new wave of harmonization followed, when the parties agreed on minimal mesh size and fish size to be used in the entire Barents Sea, and Greenland halibut was defined as the fourth joint stock, to be shared 51 per cent to Norway, 45 per cent to Russia and 4 per cent to third countries. See Section 3.5 for further information. Fishing Practices The majority of vessels in the assessed fleet are demersal stern trawlers able to fish offshore in all conditions with towed demersal gears for a variety of ground fish species - depending on licence and quota entitlements. Both fisheries (cod and haddock UoCs) use the same system of capture – namely the demersal trawl, or bottom otter trawl – a gear designed and rigged to have bottom contact during fishing. A demersal trawl is a cone-shaped net consisting of a body, closed by a cod end and with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. The two towing warps lead from the vessel to the otter boards which act as paravanes to maintain the horizontal net opening. These boards weigh 2 - 4 tonnes and drag across the seabed (with considerable potential to disrupt seabed structure and habitat). The boards are joined to the wing-end by the bridles which herd fish into the path of the net. The net opening is framed by a floating headline and ground gear designed according to the bottom condition to maximise the capture of demersal target species, whilst protecting the gear from damage. On very rough substrates special rock hopper gears are used. The trawl gear used by the certified fleet is designed and rigged to fish for demersal round fish – notably cod and haddock – over a range of grounds, including relatively rocky ground. In areas of relatively smooth seabed (e.g. sand or consolidated mud) the footrope can be relatively light and simple. On hard, rocky seabed, such as is found through much of the Barents Sea, a rockhopper footrope enables the trawl to pass over rough ground without becoming damaged or entangled. The length of the rockhopper and the diameter of the bobbins can and are adjusted according to seabed characteristics. Across the fleet the length of the rockhopper varies between 25 to 30m with rubber discs / bobbins up to 24 inches (610mm) in the central part of the net. The regulations in force in Russian and Norway in accordance with the decisions of JNRFC provide that mesh size in the cod end shall be a minimum of 130mm. Since January 1997, sorting grids have been mandatory for trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. Instruments to monitor gear performance are common in modern bottom otter trawling. Such instruments monitor geometry (door distance, vertical opening, bottom contact, trawl symmetry), trawl depth water temperature and the weight of catch in the trawl is also closely monitored (catch sensors) to give an indication of the appropriate moment to haul. Trawls are typically towed at speeds between 3 to 5 knots, in depths around 400m for around 3 to 5 hours between hauls, although this varies according to fish density and seabed characteristics meaning that tows can last as little as 15 minutes or as much as 12 hours. Long-line Fishery Three of the vessels in the UFN fleet are long liners, 48m in length, 10.5m beam and built in 1986 (1 vessel) and 1993 (2 vessels). The boats are powered by 970kw engines and are equipped with full freezing facilities to store both bait and catch. By way of example, the vessel Gemma carries 12 magazines of 3,000 (No 13 and No 14) hooks – i.e. 36,000 hooks. These are set at 1.8-2m intervals on lines whose total length varies according to weather and fishing grounds, but which are typically many km long. Each hook is automatically baited and the line deployed at 7 knots through a submerged tube. The line is set with an anchor and buoy at each end, and hooks rest on or close to the bottom. Setting the lines takes several hours, and in most cases the boat will steam straight back to the initial shoot position to haul the line.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 13 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Long-liners are obliged to follow the following by-catch regulations: » not more than 45% of Wolfish » not more than 49% of American pollock » up to 12% of halibut » up to 10% other species Loss of gear is rare – skippers avoid areas where hooks may foul, and in any case the line can be hauled from either end and usually fully retrieved. Ghost fishing of any lost gear is likely to be insignificant with only “one-off impacts”. Interaction with seabirds is limited by deployment underwater, and this was not regarded as a problem by the vessel skipper interviewed. Bait is purchased from by the Norwegian company DOMSTEIN FISH, and comprises the following species: » Herring and mackerel caught in Norwegian and Barents Seas according the quotas set by the five-sided commission of fishery based on recommendations of ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). » Pacific saury – delivered from Japan and caught in the Far East. » Squid - caught in and delivered from Argentina. On average 1tonne of bait is used to catch 10tonnes of fish.
Table 1 - List of member vessels Name Vessel Reg. No.
Genichesk M-0108
Osveyskoye K-2165
Kolomenskoye K-1673
Olustvere M-0077
Kepromar М-0113
Briz M - 0149
Arabat M - 0326
Melkart M-0239, 744363
Melkart-2 M-0418, 877090
Melkart-3 M-0350, 887687
Alferas M-0277
Almak M-0270
Andromeda M-0111
Borey M-0264
Sevryba-1 M-0240
Mark Liubovskii M-0347
PERSEY-4 M-ОО52
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 14 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Name Vessel Reg. No.
NEREY M-О185
TOR M-0192
TEZEY M-0268
GEMMA M-0186
VEGA M-0184
KARELIA-II М-0412
Chernigov M-0175
Lehtma M-0129
Yagry M-0328
Arkhangelsk M-0329
Viking M-0337
"OBELIAI" М-0073
"VITYAZ" М-0074
"BOOTES" М-0079
"ROSSYOKI" М-0425
"NEVA" М-0249 Source: client An up to date vessel list can be obtained by contacting FCI using the following details: MSC Fisheries Department [email protected] Contact Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 (FCI main number)
Historical Fishing Levels From a level of about 900 000 t in the mid-1970s, the total cod catch declined steadily to around 300 000 t in 1983-1985. Catches increased to above 500 000 t in 1987 before dropping to 212 000 t in 1990, the lowest level recorded since 1945. The catches increased rapidly from 1991 onwards, stabilized around 750 000 t in 1994-1997, but decreased to about 414 000 t in 2000. From 2000- 2009, the reported catches were between 400 000 and 520 000 t, and in addition there were unreported catches. Catches have increased in the last couple of years, reaching 720 000 t in 2011. In recent years, Norway and Russia have accounted for more than 90% of haddock landings. Before the introduction of national economic zones in 1977, UK (mainly England) landings made up 10–30% of the total. The historical high haddock catch of 320 000 t in 1973 divides the time-series into two periods. In the first period, highs were close to 200 000 t around 1956, 1961 and 1968, and lows were between 75 000 and 100 000 t in 1959, 1964 and 1971. The second period showed a steady decline from the peak in 1973 down to the historically low level of 17 300 t in 1984. Afterwards, landings increased to 151 000 t before declining to 26 000 t in 1990. A new increase peaked in 1996 at 174 000 t. Three strong year-classes (2004-2006) are causing peak catches at the present time.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 15 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.2.3 Administrative Framework User Rights (Legal and Customary Framework) Fisheries management in the Barents Sea is based on the 1975 agreement between Norway and the Soviet Union on joint fisheries management, and the 1976 agreement on mutual fishing rights. The continuation of the bilateral management regime is stated in an annex to the 2010 Barents Sea delimitation agreement between Norway and Russia. Cod and haddock are shared 50-50 between the two parties. 14.15 per cent of the quota is set aside for third countries. Legal / Administrative Status The Russian Federation has signed and ratified relevant international agreements such as the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) and the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Straddling Stocks Agreement). Russia ratified both UNCLOS and the Straddling Stocks Agreement in 1997. The Russian Constitution of 1993 states that the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in December 2004. It contains eight chapters (with 57 articles) on i) general provisions; ii) the right to aquatic biological resources; iii) fisheries; iv) fishing rights to users; v) fisheries management; vi) protection of aquatic biological resources and their environment; vii) dispute settlement; and viii) concluding provisions. Chapter 3 on fisheries is the most extensive, including explicit consideration of industrial, coastal, research, recreational and artisanal fisheries. A major revision of the Federal Fisheries Act was made in 2007. Many of the changes were purely technical, but there were substantial ones as well, notably the introduction of mandatory landing in Russia of catches taken in the Russian EEZ. Several changes were aimed at improving enforcement (see below). Since the Federal Fisheries Act is a framework law, the new provisions could not be implemented directly. In the following years, a number of regulations below the level of federal law were adopted, providing the ‘mechanisms’ for implementation. Most fisheries regulations apply at the level of fishery basin. Since 1965, the Soviet Union/Russian Federation has been divided into a number of fishery basins (currently eight), among which the Far Eastern and the northern are the most important. The current fisheries regulations of the Russian northern fishery basin – the regions bordering on the Barents and White Seas – were adopted in February 2009, providing, among other things, rules for closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species. It is these regulations which are applicable to the fishery under assessment. The Federal Fisheries Act, including its subordinate legislation, does not exist in a legal vacuum. A number of laws and regulations pertaining to other areas regulate important aspects of the fisheries sector. Among these are the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation, the Law on Fauna, the Tax Code and the Customs Code. (See next section for information about the Norwegian system for fisheries management, which is only relevant for the present assessment when it comes to enforcement.) Involvement of Other Entities A significant part of the FIUN fishing activities takes place in the Norwegian Economic Zone (NEZ) and in the Fishery Protection Zone around Svalbard, where Norwegian fishery legislation applies (now largely harmonized with Russian rules) and where Norwegian authorities conduct enforcement. The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs has the overall responsibility of fisheries management in Norway. The main legal basis is the 2008 Act on Marine Resources, which defines the precautionary approach as the main underlying principle for Norwegian fisheries management. The practical regulation of fisheries is carried out by the Directorate of Fisheries, which also
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 16 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
performs control when fish is delivered in port. The Coast Guard, which is administratively a part of the Norwegian navy (Ministry of Defence) but also performs tasks for other ministries, carries out control at sea.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 17 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: 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. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire artic haddock and cod stock - not just the fishery undergoing certification. However, the fishery under certification would be expected to meet all management requirements, such as providing appropriate data and complying with controls, therefore demonstrably not adding to problems even if the problems will not cause the certification to fail. In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined. The primary sources of information on this section are: » Fishbase: › http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=69&genusname=Gadus&speci esname=morhua&lang=English › http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?genusname=Melanogrammus&sp eciesname=aeglefinus » ICES Fishmap: › http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Cod › http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Haddock » Descriptions provided by national scientific bodies, such as Norwegian IMR: › http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/torsk/nordaustarktisk_torsk_skrei/111219/en › http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/cod/north_east_arctic_cod/ › http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/hyse/nordostarktisk_hyse/en › http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/haddock/north_east_artic_haddock/ » ICES, 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. 3.3.1 Fishery Resource: Cod (Gadus morhua) Cod is a benthopelagic species (0 – 600m, but typically 150 – 200m), which is widely distributed in a variety of habitats in Northern temperate waters, from the shoreline down to the continental shelf and from the arctic polar front to a lattitude of around 35°N (up to 20°C). The North East Arctic stock in the Barents Sea, which is the subject of this assessment, is one of the most important cod stocks, along with the Icelandic stock.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 18 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Fig. 1 - Global distribution of Atlantic Cod & the NE Arctic stock
Source: www.fishbase.org (Atlantic) and www.fisheries.no (NE Arctic)
Cod are gregarious during the day, tending to form compact schools that swim between 30 and 80 metres above the bottom, and scatter at night. The earliest reported maturities for the Atlantic cod are at 2 years in its eastern (Oslofjord) and at 4 years in its western distribution. This is one of the world's most fecund fishes, with an average production of 1 million eggs per female. The eggs and the larvae up to 2.5 months are pelagic; subsequently the postlarvae settle to the bottom. The Barents Sea is the main nursery and feeding area for northeast Arctic cod, in sea temperatures above 0°C (south of the polar front). The main spawning takes place along the Norwegian coast March-April. Eggs and larvae are pelagic and drift from the spawning grounds to the Barents Sea, before becoming demersal in late autumn. Cod are important predators in the ecosystem. Strong trophic relationships exist between cod, capelin and euphausiids (krill), although they are omnivorous. Larvae and postlarvae feed on plankton, juveniles mainly feed on small crustaceans, progressively replaced by decapods (e.g. krill) and adults predominantly feed on finfish. The Barents sea cod populations tend to follow the spawning capelin to the Norwegian coast in the spring, whereas in the summer, they leave the coastal area and disperse, feeding on capelin and herring over the Barents Sea. Aside from these core components of the diet, cod are benthic foragers feeding on species such as polychaetes and echinoderms. Feeding occurs at dawn and dusk, but small fish (of less than 20cm) feed continuously. Cannibalism has also been shown to be a very important process in the population dynamics models and food web models that are central to the ICES assessments of Barents Sea cod.
3.3.2 Fishery Resource: Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Haddock is a demersal, marine species, widely distributed in temperate northern waters within the 10-450m depth range (79°N - 35°N, 76°W - 52°E). In the Northeast Atlantic haddock are distributed from the Bay of Biscay to Spitzbergen; the Barents Sea to Novaya Zemlya; (around Iceland); and more rarely, around southern Greenland. In the Northwest Atlantic, haddock is less widely distributed, but important populations occur from New Jersey to the Strait of Belle Isle.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 19 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Fig. 2 - Global distribution of Atlantic Haddock & North East Arctic Stock
Source: www.fishbase.org (Atlantic) and www.fisheries.no (NE Arctic)
The Northeast arctic population is distributed in the Barents Sea and along the Norwegian coast. Adults are most commonly found from 80 to 200m, over rock, sand, gravel or shells, usually at temperatures between 4° and 10°C. The main spawning grounds are located along the Norwegian coast (between 70°30’ and 73°N) and along the continental slope at a depth of 50 to 200 metres (Fig. 2), lasting from about January to June. Relatively little is known about haddock migration patterns although it has been shown that young haddock in the Barents Sea tends to remain within the Barents Sea, whilst larger fish undertake extensive migrations, moving to their spawning grounds in winter. Female haddock produce between 0.1 and 2.0 million eggs. The planktonic eggs are slightly larger than one millimetre and clear. Larvae hatch after one to two weeks and at a length of 5.5mm, begin hunting for tiny crustaceans and other organisms from among the zooplankton. During this phase haddock remain in the open sea, near the surface, often seeking protection beneath the umbrellas of large Medusae (jellyfish). After one or two years, when haddock have reached about 10cm they leave the pelagic habitat and become demersal. On average, the haddock caught today are between 40 and 60cm long and weigh 2 to 4kg. The maximum age of the haddock is around 20 years. Recruitment to the adult population varies, with good years often following bad and vice versa. The reasons for this are poorly understood although it has been associated with the changes in the influx of Atlantic waters to the Barents Sea with water temperature at the first and second years of the haddock life serving as an indicator of year class strength and a steep rise or fall of the water temperature resulting in a marked effect on year class abundance. Juvenile and adult haddock feed mainly on small bottom-living organisms including crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, worms and fishes although they can vary their diet and act as both predator and plankton-eater or benthos-eater. For example, during the spawning migration of capelin, haddock prey on capelin, but when the capelin abundance is low or when their areas do not overlap, haddock can compensate for the lack of capelin with other species, i.e. young herring, krill and benthos, which are common in the haddock diet throughout a year. Similar to cod, annual consumption of haddock by marine mammals, mostly seals and whales, depends on the stock size of capelin which is their main prey. In years when the capelin stock is large, the importance of haddock in the diet of marine mammals is minimal, while under a reduced
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 20 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
capelin stock a considerable increase is observed in the consumption of haddock by marine mammals. 3.3.3 Status of Stocks Both haddock and cod stocks are in excellent condition, well above their biomass limit and trigger reference points (Fig. 3). Both fisheries have had low fishing mortalities in recent years compared to their long term average, and fishing mortalities have been at or below their targets. The reference points have been developed and reviewed for both stocks over a number of years. The biomass limit reference points are used to define stock status and are based upon the stock recruitment relationships. Cod Blim has been estimated from a change point regression based on the time series of recruitment and spawning stock size obtained from stock assessments. An attempt to estimate haddock Blim using the same approach did not work and the current limit is based on “Bloss”. This is the lowest observed biomass for which there is no evidence of a decline in recruitment, which in this case was the lowest biomass observed in the time series (Fig 3). The cod and haddock BMSY reference points are clearly defined as trigger points forming part of the harvest control rule, not a target reference point.
The FMSY target reference points are estimated based on stochastic simulations and represent the approximate proportion of the stocks that can be caught which will maximize the expected long- term yield. The cod and haddock both exhibit density dependent growth and cod cannibalism and predation is an important factor in mortality, and would imply MSY should be found at higher fishing mortalities than would otherwise be the case. Target fishing mortality (used to set quotas) and spawning stock biomass are consistent with maximum sustainable yield and the precautionary approach, as defined by ICES. Fig. 3 - Stock status time series of cod & haddock
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 21 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000
SSB(t) 200000 150000 100000 50000
0
1971 2010 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Year
NB: Cod (top) and haddock (bottom) time series for the estimated spawning stock biomass relative to Blim (thick lower line) and Bpa (dotted upper line). The primary objective for both stocks is to maintain the level of exploitation at a level commensurate with high long term yields through controlling the Total Allowable Catch (TAC). It has been agreed to set the TAC based on indicators which are routinely estimated from annual stock assessments. The stock assessment and scientific advice also include an assessment of the management performance in relation to its stated objectives. Decisions on TACs and other management measures are made at the annual meeting of the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC), which is based on an agreement between Russia and Norway, and is responsible for agreeing management regulations and controls for the shared Barents Sea fish stocks. In addition to TACs, the fisheries are regulated by mesh size limitations, a minimum catching size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish, maximum bycatch of non-target species, closure of areas with high densities of juveniles, and other seasonal and area restrictions. Since January 1997, sorting grids have been mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. The effects of these regulations have not been evaluated, but they should, if applied correctly, decrease mortality on small fish and non-target species. The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, by a requirement to report to catch control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, by VMS satellite tracking for some fleets, and by random inspections of fishing vessels when landing the fish. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on-board is mandatory for most vessels, and large parts of the fleet report to the authorities on a daily basis. There has been non-compliance with the TAC regulations, resulting in a significant amount of unreported landings in the past. The main mechanism used in avoiding quota control seems to have been transshipping of fish from the Barents Sea. This has been identified as the main risk to the harvest strategy, affecting both the accuracy of the stock assessment and effectiveness of the harvest control rule. However, no unreported catches have been detected in recent years and risks to the harvest strategy from illegal fishing have receded. The other potentially significant source of unrecorded mortality is discarding. There is evidence of discarding throughout the Barents Sea for most groundfish stocks, despite discarding being illegal in
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 22 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Norway and Russia. This problem might affect haddock more than cod. Haddock are known to be released by longliners when below the minimum size and may be discarded when caught as bycatch with cod if the haddock quota is being met faster than the cod quota, for example. Beyond a regulation to ban discarding, this has not been addressed by management controls, but is being investigated through scientific observers. Ecosystem factors are considered within the management process, but with the exception of some diet information which is used in the stock assessments, the issues are only considered qualitatively. However, a multispecies model based on the food web including capelin, cod and other species, is used to confirm the single species cod stock assessment. The recent reduction in fishing mortality for both haddock and cod should provide significant protection for the ecosystem as the fishing effort will have been much reduced. Some areas are closed to fishing, although these are relatively small and have only a low impact on the fishery. The intention is to set TACs according to well-defined, agreed harvest control rules (management plans). ICES have evaluated both cod and haddock harvest control rules and concluded that they are in agreement with the precautionary approach. The harvest control rule applied to Arctic cod was agreed at the 33rd meeting of the JNRFC in November 2004 and amended in at the 38th meeting in November 2009:
The Parties agreed that the management strategies for cod and haddock should take into account the following: » conditions for high long-term yield from the stocks » achievement of year-to-year stability in TACs » full utilization of all available information on stock development On this basis, the Parties determined the following decision rules for setting the annual fishing quota (TAC) for Northeast Arctic cod (NEA cod): » estimate the average TAC level for the coming 3 years based on Fpa. TAC for the next year will be set to this level as a starting value for the 3-year period. » the year after, the TAC calculation for the next 3 years is repeated based on the updated information about the stock development, however the TAC should not be changed by more than +/- 10% compared with the previous year’s TAC. If the TAC, by following such a rule, corresponds to a fishing mortality (F) lower than 0.30 the TAC should be increased to a level corresponding to a fishing mortality of 0.30. » if the spawning stock falls below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fpa at Bpa, to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB-levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year, a year before and 3 years of prediction) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC. (Translation from Norwegian)
At the 39th Session of the JNRFC in October 2010 it was agreed that the current management plan should be used ‘for five more years’ before it is evaluated. A harvest control rule similar to Arctic cod was developed in 2004 for Arctic haddock. This harvest control rule was further modified in 2007 from a three-year rule to a one-year rule on the basis of the harvest control rule evaluation conducted by ICES.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 23 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The current harvest control rule for haddock is as follows: » TAC for the next year will be set at level corresponding to Fmsy. » The TAC should not be changed by more than ±25% compared with the previous year TAC. » If the spawning stock falls below Bpa, the procedure for establishing TAC should be based on a fishing mortality that is linearly reduced from Fmsy at Bpa to F= 0 at SSB equal to zero. At SSB-levels below Bpa in any of the operational years (current year and a year ahead) there should be no limitations on the year-to-year variations in TAC. Details are given in Protocol of the 40th Session of the Joint Russian–Norwegian Fisheries Commission, 14 October 2011.
At the 39th Session of the JNRFC in 2010 it was agreed that the current management plan should be used “for five more years” before it is evaluated. Both stock assessments use a virtual population analysis model to estimate fishing mortality and spawning stock size for determination of stock status and application of the harvest control rule. These models require catch-at-age, abundance indices as data and estimates of maturity-at-age, weight-at-age and natural mortality as input. Data are obtained from landings reports, scientific surveys and catch sampling. Landings by species are reported as official landings added to any other sources of mortality known to Arctic Fisheries Working Group. There remains some confusion in designating catches between Arctic cod and Norwegian coastal cod, but this error does not affect the Arctic cod assessment. Estimates of potential unreported landings of cod and haddock have been obtained by Russian and Norwegian specialists. Two series of cod IUU catch were made available to ICES for the years 2002- 2008, and both were used in carrying out stock assessments, but the advice is based on the series with the higher estimate. A single series of haddock IUU catch 2002-2008 was also used for the haddock assessment, although these estimates are considered poor. Before 2002 and for 2009 onwards IUU catch is assumed to have been negligible. Discard estimates are not available and are assumed to be zero in the assessments. The effect of not accounting for discarding is unknown, but attempts are being made to address this issue. Age, lengths and weights are routinely sampled from landings and from within the abundance surveys. These are used to estimate composition of the commercial catch and the stock. Maturity is also routinely sampled within the surveys. There is a routine exchange programme of otoliths among ageing labs to estimate errors and improve methods. Observers are used to collect additional useful information at sea. Haddock and cod use three scientific survey indices and cod also uses a Russian trawl CPUE index. The indices are derived from acoustic and trawl survey data collected during winter and autumn in the Barents Sea and Lofoten. The surveys are designed to be unbiased in estimating the relative abundance of the stock. Surveys also sample age, length and weight data which are used to estimate age specific abundance indices and weight-at-age composition of the stocks. Since 1997 all of the surveys used for model fitting have been affected by an incomplete coverage for some of the years, due to Norwegian vessels not been given access to Russian zone and Russian vessels not been given access to Norwegian zone. All indices affected have been corrected as far as possible, but these procedures still increase uncertainty in the indices.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 24 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Even where surveys have been properly implemented, they do not have a complete coverage of the haddock stock. This affects the coverage of year classes which may well induce errors in the perceived year class abundances. Coverage of the Arctic cod stock is more complete. Base natural mortality is assumed to be 0.2 year-1 for both stocks, which is standard practice although it has not been scientifically justified. However, routine sampling of cod stomachs now allows cod predation to be accounted for and therefore the natural mortality of the younger cod and haddock age groups have been adjusted accordingly. Cod stomach content data is recorded in a joint PINRO-IMR stomach content database. On average about 9 000 cod stomachs from the Barents Sea have been analysed annually in the period 1984- 2012. These data are used to calculate the per capita consumption of cod and haddock by cod for each prey and predator age group. Northeast Arctic cod is an important predator of other species in the ecosystem, notably capelin, but also other finfish. Changes in growth, maturity, and cod predation have been linked to the abundance of capelin. Similarly, annual consumption of cod by seals and whales may be inversely related to capelin abundance. The management of Northeast Arctic cod will therefore have implications on the dynamics of these stocks. Other information on the environment, such as various physical oceanographic indices and biomass of other species, such as capelin, are also collected and made available to the relevant fisheries scientists. Some, but not all, of these data are used. The main analytical model is the Extended Survivors Analysis (XSA) variant of virtual population analysis. Virtual population analysis uses catch-at-age data to back-calculate the size of each age group. The XSA variant is a simple approach to fitting this type of model and is widely used by ICES for a number of stocks. Although it does not attempt to apply more modern computer intensive fitting techniques and lacks statistical rigor, it is still considered by ICES a robust method for stock assessment as long as the data are of good quality. The particular settings applied to the XSA are described in the working group report. The main unusual feature of the assessments is the estimate of natural mortality which is adjusted for cod predation. Estimates of cod cannibalism and predation are included in the natural mortality for the cod and haddock assessments respectively. Natural mortality due to cannibalism is by far the most significant source of mortality in cod ages 1-2, significant for age 3, but for ages 4 onwards a minor component in most years. The main uncertainties in the assessments derive from the biased catch statistics and the inconsistencies in the surveys. Bias in the catch statistics appears to have decreased in recent years. The surveys show some inconsistencies may be explained by the inadequate spatial coverage. Alternatives to the XSA model are routinely applied to Arctic cod. These have included a variant on the VPA approach (TISVPA) and application of an alternative multispecies model (Gadget). The multispecies model is of particular interest as it is beginning to take account of ecosystem effects, but requires much more data. These assessments have broadly agreed with the XSA assessment. A haddock benchmark assessment was carried out in 2011 to consider main uncertainties with respect to the data and setting reference points rather than alternative assessment models. However, this has led to different configurations for the XSA model. Since 2008, the recruitment estimates for the short term projection has included information on environmental indices (ice coverage, temperature and oxygen saturation at the Kola section, air temperature at Murman coast, and capelin biomass) as well as survey indices available for the age 0- 2 year classes.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 25 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.3.4 History of the Fisheries and Management The cod fishery is conducted both with an international trawler fleet and with coastal vessels using traditional fishing gears. Haddock are taken as bycatch in the cod trawl fishery and, to a lesser extent, in targeted trawl fishery and by longline. The haddock is also taken together with saithe. Most of the catch is taken by trawl and the rest by other gears such as longline and gillnet. The ratio between cod and haddock quota and exploitation rate, as well as the size composition and geographical distribution of those stocks, affect the way the fishery is carried out and also influence unreported landings and discards. From a level of about 900 000 t in the mid-1970s, the total cod catch declined steadily to around 300 000 t in 1983-1985. Catches increased to above 500 000 t in 1987 before dropping to 212 000 t in 1990, the lowest level recorded since 1945. The catches increased rapidly from 1991 onwards, stabilized around 750 000 t in 1994-1997, but decreased to about 414 000 t in 2000. From 2000- 2009, the reported catches were between 400 000 and 520 000 t, and in addition there were unreported catches. Catches have increased in the last couple of years, reaching 720 000 t in 2011. In recent years, Norway and Russia have accounted for more than 90% of haddock landings. Before the introduction of national economic zones in 1977, UK (mainly England) landings made up 10–30% of the total. The historical high haddock catch of 320 000 t in 1973 divides the time-series into two periods. In the first period, highs were close to 200 000 t around 1956, 1961 and 1968, and lows were between 75 000 and 100 000 t in 1959, 1964 and 1971. The second period showed a steady decline from the peak in 1973 down to the historically low level of 17 300 t in 1984. Afterwards, landings increased to 151 000 t before declining to 26 000 t in 1990. A new increase peaked in 1996 at 174 000 t. Three strong year-classes (2004-2006) are causing peak catches at the present time. Estimates of unreported catches (IUU catches) of haddock and cod have been added to reported landings for the years 2002 and onwards. Since 2008, IUU catches have been estimated as zero. Catch quotas were introduced in the trawl fishery in 1978 and for the fisheries with conventional gears in 1989. Since January 1997 sorting grids have been mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. Discarding is prohibited. The minimum catching size of haddock is 40 cm in the Russian Economic zone, the Norwegian Economic zone, and the Svalbard area and 44cm for cod caught north of 62oN. It is allowed that up to 15% (by number) of cod, haddock and saithe is below the minimum catching size, and larger proportions of undersized fish leads to closure of areas. The minimum mesh size in trawl cod ends is 130 mm. The fisheries are controlled by inspections at sea, requirement of reporting to catch control points when entering and leaving the EEZs and by inspections when landing the fish for all fishing vessels. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on board is mandatory for most vessels, and large parts of the fleet report to the authorities on a daily basis. There is some evidence that the present catch control and reporting systems are insufficient to prevent discarding and under-reporting of catches. Although since 2007 Port State Control (PSC) has been implemented, these should prevent IUU catches at Barents Sea.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 26 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. The following section of the report highlights some of the key characteristics of the fishery under assessment with regard to its wider impact on the ecosystem.
3.4.1 The status of the Barents Sea ecosystem The Barents Sea Ecosystem encompasses the Northeast Atlantic, the Arctic shelf seas north of the Arctic Circle, the White Sea, the western part of the Kara Sea and the waters surrounding the archipelagos of Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya. It is typified by boundaries: between warm Atlantic and cold polar water; between the relatively flat and shallow shelf area of the Barents sea and the slopes and underwater canyons of the shelf edge; and between ice covered and open water. It is these boundaries and the mixing zones associated with them that to a large measure underpin the exceptional productivity of the area in terms of plankton, fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals. Knowledge and understanding of the fisheries, seabirds and sea mammals is relatively well advanced (see for example Larson et al 2003); knowledge and understanding of the distribution and functioning of benthic habitats is more limited, although this is improving as information emerges from the Mareano Project (Norwegian Waters) and Barents Portal (The Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea).
Key features of the Barents Sea ecosystem may be summarized as follows: » High productivity and biodiversity associated with polar front, sea ice edge, and continental slope; » Relatively pollution free; » Large inter-annual variations in productivity related to variations in the inflow of Atlantic water and/or other oceanographic changes; » More than 2,500 benthic invertebrate species recorded, with decreasing biodiversity from West to East; » Benthos composition highly variable dependent on overlying (Arctic or Atlantic) water; » Knowledge of distribution of benthic animals limited (Hoel et al 2008); » Sea bottom dominated by sponges in certain areas; » Deep water coral reefs along the Norwegian coast including the Røst Reef, the world’s largest coldwater coral reef, located off Loføten; » Relatively short and simple food chains, but complex relationships/feedback between major fish species (cod, haddock, herring, capelin and polar cod) with predator-prey relationships shifting according to opportunity and life cycle stage; » Capelin is a key species serving as major predator of zooplankton and major prey species of other fish, birds and mammals. It has suffered three major collapses in the last 25 years, though the causes are poorly understood; » Important nursery areas for Norwegian spring spawning herring;
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 27 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Cooling favours capelin; warming favours cod and herring; » Uncertain relationships between seabed habitat and fish stock health; » Presence of several alien species, including the introduced Red king crab; » Highly concentrated fishing pressure based on known movement and aggregation of cod and haddock; » Summer population of around 20-25 million seabirds (more than 40 species) that harvest approximately 1.2 million tonnes of biomass annually. Main concentrations of breeding seabirds (more than 80%) are located on the Norwegian mainland, Novaya Zemlya and Svalbard. However there has been a decline in seabird numbers over the last decade. » Seabirds play a significant role in transferring nutrients from sea to land and from North to South » Significant marine mammal populations (minke, humpback and fin whale (which breed further south and forage in the sea)beluga and narwhal (which breed in the area), harp, common, grey, bearded, hooded and ringed seals; » Minke whale are hunted and subject to a quota; » Gas and oil activities are increasing.
3.4.2 Relevant habitats and ecosystem features The main habitat affected by trawling and to a lesser extent long-lining, is benthic. According to MMBI report most of the Barents Sea is dominated by echinoderms, bivalves, polychaetes and crustaceans. The total biomass of the zoobenthos is highly variable – ranging from a few grams up to 500g/m2. Echinoderms, sponges, corals, soft corals, and large clams are the most common benthic organisms found in trawls. Bivalves are more abundant in the east (especially coasts of Novaya Zemlya); echinoderms are more abundant in the western and central parts. Concentrations of epifauna (e.g. sponges, bryozoans, Balanus spp, brachiopods and mussels are more commonly associated with hard substrates and complex hydrodynamic regimes. These animals usually create structural habitat diversity and are often species-rich and associated with high biomass. They are found in particular along the coast of S Spitzbergen, Bear Island and North Cape – areas intensively fished by the FIUN fleet. Mapping of major benthic habitats in the Barents Sea has been undertaken and is on-going under several national and international programmes1 and areas of high biodiversity value/vulnerability have been identified. Particular attention has been paid to deepwater corals such as Lophelia which occur especially on the NW continental slope of Norway.
3.4.3 ETP species Russia and Norway are signatories to a number of conventions on species protection and management, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Norway and Russia have their own “red-lists”
1 E.g. Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (Eds) 2003. A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion WWF; the “Mareano programme” (http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html); the Joint Russian/Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment (Barents Portal); the Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic Moscow (Spiridinov et al 2011)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 28 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
based on IUCN criteria, with 5 status levels ranging from regionally extinct to near threatened, plus a “data deficient” category. Species on the Norwegian and Russian red lists are presented in Table 2. Table 2 - Species on Norwegian and Russian Red lists that may be encountered by FIUN vessels
European eel Anguilla anguilla Critically endangered Blue skate Dipturus batis Critically endangered Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthus Critically endangered, Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Endangered Blue ling Molva dypterygia Endangered Golden redfish Sebastes marinus Endangered Porbeagle Lamna nasus Vulnerable Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella Vulnerable Atlantic salmon ® Salmo salar Arctic cisco ® Coregonus autumnalis
Common guillemot Uria aalge Critically endangered Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Endangered Razorbill (Svalbard) Alca torda Endangered Sabine’s gull (Svalbard) Xema sabini Endangered Black guillemot Cepphus grylle Vulnerable Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica Vulnerable Steller’s eider Plysticta stelleri Vulnerable Common tern Sterna hirundo Vulnerable Brünnich’s guillemot Uria iomvia Vulnerable Ivory gull (Svalbard) Pagophila eburnea Vulnerable Great cormorant ® Phalacrocorax carbo Common eider Somateria mollissima Spectacled eider ® Somateria fischeri
North Atlantic Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Regionally extinct Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Critically endangered Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Endangered Narwhal Monodon monoceros Endangered Common seal Phoca vitulina Vulnerable Walrus (Svalbard) Odobenus rosmarus Vulnerable Fin whale ® Balaenoptera physalus White beaked dolphin ® Lagenorhynchus albirostris Blue whale ® Balaenoptera usculus Atlantic white-sided dolphin ® Lagenorhynchus acutus Whelk ® Pyrulofosus pyrulofosus
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 29 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.4.4 Retained and bycatch species As for the other Barents Sea trawl fisheries, the FIUN fleet appears to have relatively low levels of by-catch. Several factors contribute to this: » 130mm mesh size; » Discard bans in Norwegian, Svalbard and Russian sectors; » Move on rule in Norwegian waters; » Use of separator grids; » High concentrations of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds; » Experienced and knowledgeable skippers and crew.
According to information provided by PINRO specifically for this assessment, the following species are caught by FIUN trawlers in the proportions and quantities indicated: Table 3 - Catch and catch composition of the FIUN Trawl Fleet Species Latin name Total catch Proportion Stock status and management (ICES) 2010-2012 of fleet catch COD Gadus morhua 171,373 61.75% HS, MPM, P HADDOCK Melanogrammus 76,151 27.44% HS, MPM, P aeglefinus SAITHE Pollachius virens 14,828 5.34% HS, MPM, P PLAICE Pleuronectes 5,756 2.07% Shallower water up to 100, 150m. No platessa ICES assessment; main distribution further south GREENLAND Reinhardtius 3,772 1.36% SSB and biomass appear to be HALIBUT platessoides increasing SPOTTED WOLFFISH Anarhichas minor 1,280 0.46% Inadequate information BEAKED REDFISH Sebastes mentella 960 0.35% Total catch should not exceed 47,000t in SAI&II Fishing mortality in decline; recruitment, SSB showing positive trends NORTHERN Anarhichas 840 0.30% Inadequate information WOLFFISH denticulatus ATLANTIC WOLFFISH Anarhichas lupus 816 0.29% Inadequate information LONG-ROUGH DAB Hippoglossoides 576 0.21% Wide depth distribution. Abundant, platessoides esp. in S parts of Barents Sea GOLDEN REDFISH Sebastes marinus 426 0.15% There should be no fishing on this stock. SSB all-time low. Recruitment v. low Fishing mortality all-time high. Norwegian red list, endangered. REDFISHES (NS) 409 0.15%
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 30 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Species Latin name Total catch Proportion Stock status and management (ICES) 2010-2012 of fleet catch YELLOWTAIL Pleuronectes 272 0.10% Primarily NW Atlantic distribution FLOUNDER ferruginea LING Molva molva 58 0.02% Stable? Catch and CPUE appear to be increasing FLOUNDER (NS) 14 0.01% TUSK Brosme brosme 10 0.00% Catch should be no more than 9,040t in sa I and II CPUE does not appear to be in decline. Gadoid and less vulnerable than deep water species WITCH FLOUNDER Glyptocephalus 4 0.00% Seems to be mainly a NW Atlantic cynoglossus species? ROUNDNOSE Coryphaenoides 3 0.00% Subareas I, II, IV, VIII, and IX, GRENADIER rupestris Division XIVa, and Subdivisions Va2 and XIVb2) Fisheries should not be allowed to expand from catches of 120 tonnes unless proven to be sustainable
Note: Stock status and management: HS = harvested sustainably; MP management plan target mortality and SSB above trigger; P= precautionary approach (B pa/B lim)
Fig. 4 - Catch composition of FIUN trawl fleet
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 31 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 4 - Catch and catch composition of the FIUN Long-line Fleet Species Latin name Total Proportion Stock status and management catch of catch 2010- 2012 COD Gadus morhua 45.3% HS, MPM, P 21,885 NORTHERN WOLFFISH Anarhichas 16152 33.5% inadequate information denticulatus SPOTTED WOLFFISH Anarhichas 5556 11.5% inadequate information minor GREENLAND HALIBUT Reinhardtius 2583 5.4% SSB and biomass appear to be platessoides increasing HADDOCK Melanogrammus 3.1% HS, MPM, P aeglefinus 1,518 LONG-ROUGH DAB Hippoglossoides 350 0.73% Wide depth distribution. platessoides Abundant, esp. in S parts of Barents Sea GOLDEN REDFISH Sebastes 89 0.18% There should be no fishing on this marinus stock. SSB all-time low. Recruitment v. low Fishing mortality all-time high. Norwegian red list –endangered. TUSK Brosme brosme 0.12% Catch should be no more than 60 9,040t in sa I and II. CPUE does not appear to be in decline. Gadoid and less vulnerable than deep water species REDFISHES (NS) Sebastes 35 0.07% BEAKED REDFISH Sebastes 22 0.05% Total catch should not exceed mentella 47,000t in SAIⅈ Fishing mortality in decline; recruitment, SSB showing positive trends
THORNY SKATE Amblyraja 14 0.03% Relatively abundant in the Barents radiata sea, but vulnerable life history characteristics. Main concentrations in E and N of Barents Sea. Substantial overlap with main areas of fishing activity ATLANTIC WOLFFISH Anarhichas lupus 10 0.02% inadequate information Total catch 48,274
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 32 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Fig. 5 - Catch composition of FIUN long-line fleet
3.4.5 Key issues, concerns and management systems Norway and Russia have signed several international agreements and conventions on species protection and management of relevance to the Barents Sea Fisheries: » the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), » the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Animals (CITES) » the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), » the Agreement on North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)
Norway is also subject to its agreements under OSPAR Annex V (“on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the maritime area”) The Norwegian Government has established a set of objectives for species management in the Barents Sea – Lofoten area (Report No. 8 (2005-2006) to the Storting). These relate to population viability, genetic diversity, safe biological limits (for harvested species), management of key species in the ecosystem, endangered species for which Norway has special responsibility Fish: main retained species Taking both vulnerability and catch rates into account, the main concerns for both fisheries relate to golden redfish and wolfish, and some on-going caution in relation to Greenland halibut The status of Golden redfish is substantially worse than its relative the beaked redfish. Although the former tend to be more coastal than deep sea, there is some overlap in distribution, and the FIUN fleet catches both species. These are not always distinguished (a proportion of the catch is classified simply as redfish) which makes assessment and management more difficult. The 2009 catch of S marinus was 6,293 t - the lowest since the 1940s. The figures for 2010 showed an increase to 7,744 t but in 2011 landings fell again to 5,829 t. According to the ICES AFWG stock status is “very poor” and “The current level of catches is likely well above the sustainable catch, and will probably lead to a stock collapse (by 2017) without a substantial increase in recruitment”. Between 2008 and 2012 the advice has been “no directed fishery and low by-catch limits”. In 2013 this was hardened up to “no
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 33 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
fishery”. It is unlikely that the fishery can sustain catches above 1,500t. The current annual FIUN catch is probably around 300t – or 20% of this – and is therefore significant in management terms. At the present time up to 15% redfish (both species) is allowable as bycatch. A minimum legal catch size of 32 cm has been set for all fisheries, with the allowance to have up to 10% undersized (i.e., less than 32 cm) specimens of S. marinus (in numbers) per haul. The move on rule means that vessels are required to move to new grounds if these limits are exceeded. It is clear that stronger regulations are required and FIUN fleet will have to play its part. All three wolffish species may be regarded as vulnerable to over-exploitation. They are slow growing and long-lived fish that spawn late in life (5-8 yrs.). Perhaps related to this there is poor relationship between recruitment and stock size index. Breeding behaviour - it deposits its eggs in large clusters on the bottom, where the male guards them until they hatch – also makes it vulnerable to bottom trawling. ICES do not provide an assessment for these species, and data relating to catch (from the fleet and from FAO) appears to be contradictory. Data from the 2012 Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Seas suggest that Atlantic and spotted wolfish are most abundant in shallower waters (50-150m) while Northern wolfish is found between 200 and 400m. This explains the dominance of the latter in the catches of the longline fleet. The data on these species is limited, although of the three spotted wolfish appears to be the most abundant. Given the substantial catch of these vulnerable fish, especially by the long-line fleet, there is an urgent need for improved stock assessment. Given the availability of high quality catch data, this should be possible. Greenland halibut. Although the stock is stable or increasing, there is still limited and uncertain data, and no reference points (although a benchmark is planned for 2012). The stock is probably still below MSY. Although Norwegian vessels dominate total catch of this species, the FIUN catch of over 3,000t/yr. makes up a significant proportion (19%) of the total catch of around 16,000t in SA I&II in 2011. It is arguable that the FIUN fleet should be participating in further management measures to build up the stock. At the present time regulations allow for up to 7% Greenland halibut as by-catch. Discarding of target fish species It is increasingly acknowledged that the high concentrations of target species may result in overfilling of nets, despite the routine use of catch sensors. As a result, some slippage (spilling of excess fish prior to final recovery) and highgrading may be taking place. Indeed there has been a recent conviction of an MSC certified vessel in the Ocean Trawlers group for illegal discard. Clearly there is a need to address this issue as a genuine practical problem. Bycatch and ETP fish species Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) stock in the NE Atlantic is well below BMSY and is fished at or above FMSY (ICES). Porbeagle may be taken by gillnetters and longliners, but the main concentration of population is further south and this is probably not a major issue for the FIUN fleet. The Spurdog, squalus acanthias has widespread distribution in temperate waters – and is at the N end of its range in Barents Sea. Mostly found at 50-200m – shallower than most FIUN fishing activity - usually at the bottom but also mid water and surface. This is (or was) a very abundant species, but has very low resilience and high to very high vulnerability. The catch in Norwegian waters has halved in the last 5 years. Some other elasmobranch species – including the critically endangered ray Dipturus batis - could well be caught occasionally in trawls or on long lines but there are no records. There is a need to have better recording of encounters which may occur.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 34 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
It is likely that significant quantities of Starry ray (Amblyraja radiata) are caught and probably discarded (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011). In trawl survey undertaken by Dolgov et al (2005) thorny skate was caught at a rate of around 10kg / hour of trawl, but the author concludes that ‘the total catch of skates in the Barents Sea is relatively small compared to the stock size, which is as large as 116,000 tons for thorny skate”. More recent work has indicated that skates and rays have relatively high post capture survival (55%) although this will depend critically on the weight of fish in the cod end – which is typically high at the present time. Norway has imposed a temporary ban on commercial fishing of porbeagle, Spurdog and basking shark, though landed bycatch may enter trade. Although most elasmobranch species are regarded as vulnerable, starry ray matures relatively quickly and demographic modelling suggests it is less susceptible to fishing mortality than other larger-bodied skate species. For these reasons starry ray is assessed by IUCN as Least Concern in the Northeast Atlantic region. Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) has a distribution from the Azores to Spitsbergen, and the Barents Sea is an important centre of population. It has low resilience and very high vulnerability. Found at 350- 500m on muddy bottoms there are likely to be encounters with FIUN trawl nets. However, data on retained species by the FIUN fleet do not reveal any catch of this species. Marine mammals Many marine mammals are listed in CITES Appendix 1 as well as the red-lists presented above. However, destructive encounters with marine mammals are relatively unusual in the trawl and long- line fleet, and there is no evidence that this is a significant cause for concern at the present time Seabirds Several types of interaction with red listed seabirds may take place: a. Aggregations of seabirds exploiting fish waste; b. Capture of diving seabirds during hauling of trawls c. Capture or injury to diving seabirds during deployment or recovery of long-lines d. Indirect impacts through reduction of food resources. With regard to d) since these fisheries target larger predators, the effects, if any are arguably beneficial to these species. Unfortunately many seabird species are currently in decline, especially in the south of the Barents Sea, for reasons which are unclear. Decline is especially serious in the case of common guillemot and black-legged kittiwake in the Southern Parts of the Barents Sea and Brünnich’s guillemot and kittiwake in the north. The long line and trawl fisheries are not implicated in this decline, though historic coastal gill-netting may have been a problem. With regard to the trawl fleet of greatest concern are the deep diving common guillemot (critically endangered and dives to >200m), black guillemot (vulnerable, dives to 130m), thick billed guillemot (vulnerable), puffin (vulnerable, typically dives t<30m, but occasionally to 60m), and razorbill (vulnerable, dives to 120m). All these species could become entrapped in trawls, especially during recovery, and there have been periodic instances of heavy catches. However, such encounters seem to be relatively rare especially for the relatively deeper water trawling undertaken by FIUN vessels. The gulls, kittiwakes, fulmar, petrel and tern could interact with long liners or with trawlers during recovery at water surface, but are more likely to benefit from spilled or waste fish than be adversely affected. This is particularly the case given the use of long line deployment tubes by the long line vessels. In both cases, fishermen reported limited negative interaction.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 35 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are significant monitoring initiatives related to seabirds and it is likely that any emerging and significant negative interactions with fisheries will be flagged up. For example “SEAPOP is a mapping and monitoring programme for seabird populations in Norwegian waters. It focuses particularly on the collection of data that make it possible to model the effects of human activity and distinguish between these and natural variations. This will make it possible to improve the management and protection of seabirds. The Norwegian Government is committed to intensify mapping and monitoring of seabirds in Norwegian waters, along the coast and in Svalbard and Jan Mayen through the SEAPOP programme”2 Benthic habitats Impacts Trawling has taken place the Barents Sea since the late 19th century and there is some historic evidence of damage. Fishery statistics for 1955-1985 showed that the areas of Murmansk Banks, Western and Eastern Murman and coastal waters of northern Norway underwent overly intensive trawling and biodiversity was reduced as a result. Thirteen taxa were affected, including filter feeders, echinoderms, worms, and shellfish. After fishing effort decreased in late 1960, the state of many disturbed taxa returned to normal (PINRO 2012). The impact on the most vulnerable communities – deep water coral reefs/sponge gardens – may be limited by the higher risk of gear loss in these areas. On sediment bottoms impacts are likely to be more limited and recovery more rapid. Intensive trawling (10 repetitive passages) can cause significant changes to sediment density and other properties. Main impacted species are echinoderms – shellfish appear to recover rapidly and general recovery was seen after 1 year (PINRO 2012) A more recent study has been conducted as part of the “Mareano” mapping programme and reported by ICES3. This showed that density and diversity of megafauna was significantly lower in areas with high fishing intensity; and even low trawling frequency appeared to have a negative effect. Of 134 taxa 100 showed a negative trend with increased fishing intensity. Nine of these revealed a significant (p < 0.05) response including five sponge species. A few taxa such as large scavenging gastropods responded positively to increase fishing intensity. The wider effects of these changes on other species is hard to gauge, but it is notable that redfish (Sebastes spp) which are often found amongst boulders and sponges showed a strong negative relation to fishing intensity, while the opposite was observed for cod. Areas of high biodiversity value Under the biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea (Larson et al 2003) experts nominated areas of high conservation value for plankton, benthos, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. In the Norwegian sector this work was taken forward under the Barents Sea Integrated Management Plan, using criteria including productivity, number of species, endangered or vulnerable habitats, important/ETP species. As a consequence several areas were selected as closed areas designed mainly to protect coldwater corals and fish nursery areas). These areas closely match the main areas in which FIUN vessels fish, though VMS data show that the vessels respect the closed area
2 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the-storting- white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/7.html?id=682132
3 L. Buhl-Mortensen, K.E. Ellingsen, P. Buhl-Mortensen and K. Skaa Trawling impact on habitat-forming organisms in the Barents Sea: indication of resilience and implications for sustainable management L. Buhl-Mortensen
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 36 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
boundaries. In the Russian sector only special areas of importance to fisheries – such as exclusion zones to protect crab stocks, have been developed. International guidance and vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMES) Following from guidance produced by FAO there has been increasing activity on the parts of governments and RFMOs to define and manage “vulnerable marine ecosystems”. These are typically interpreted as significant aggregations of benthic organisms that create benthic habitats of importance in their own right and as habitat for other organisms. These areas typically have high structural diversity, biodiversity and productivity and may in turn be important for the long term health of commercial fish and shellfish stocks. In the Annex to its guidance FAO lists several VMEs which may need protection or management. These include (of relevance to the Barents Sea) » coldwater corals and hydroids, e.g. reef builders and coral » stony corals (Scleractinia), alcyonaceans and gorgonians (Octocorallia), black corals (Antipatharia) and hydrocorals (Stylasteridae); » some types of sponge dominated communities; » communities composed of dense emergent fauna where large sessile protozoans (xenophyophores) and invertebrates (e.g. hydroids and bryozoans) form an important structural component of habitat; and Drawing on this guidance , NEAFC (in collaboration with NAFO and ICES) has begun to prepare lists of species that meet the criteria for a VME indicator based on traits related to functional significance, fragility, and the life-history traits of component species that show slow recovery to disturbance. For each group it is the dense aggregations (beds/fields) that are considered to be VME in order to establish functional significance. Indicators include for example various species of crinoids, erect bryozoans, large sea squirts, sponges and corals. OSPAR (to which Norway is party, but not (as yet) Russia) also lists threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR agreement 2008-6) in sub-areas I&II and of relevance to these fisheries, including for example Coral gardens, Deep sea sponge aggregations, Lophelia pertusa reefs Modiolus modiolus beds, Seapen and burrowing megafauna communities While some protection is now in place for the less common and more delicate VMEs such as corals (and biogenic reefs more generally), protection remains very limited for more widespread but ecologically important habitats. It is notable that ICES (2009) have developed a list of 25 sponge species which are habitat-forming and can be considered indicators of sponge VMEs in the North Atlantic. These are species that form the sponge grounds, and host a variety of associated smaller sponge species that contribute to the biodiversity of the habitat. There is little doubt that both trawlers and longliners in the FIUN fleet fish intensively in areas where many of these habitats are likely to occur. While some coral gardens are protected in Norwegian waters, there is no protection for other habitats and no management structures in place, although in theory the move on rule could be applied to invertebrate by-catch in Norwegian waters, but this has not been implemented to date. Guidance on encounters with VMEs are being developed by NEAFC, and it is arguable that the Barents Sea trawl fisheries should also adopt some form of avoidance rule. Under NEAFC an encounter with primary VME indicator species is defined as a catch per set (e.g. trawl tow, longline set, or gillnet set) of more than 60 kg of live coral and/or 800 kg of live sponge. Protected areas Several marine protected areas have now been established to protect coral reefs in the Barents Sea- Lofoten area, and the Norwegian Government has set a target for at least 10 % of coastal and
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 37 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
marine areas to be protected by 2020. Four areas have been established just inside the Barents Sea– Lofoten area, and four more are likely to be designated in coming years. Furthermore the Norwegian government is committed to cooperate with Russia on “the establishment of an integrated Norwegian-Russian monitoring programme for the Barents Sea, particularly with the aim of assisting in the development of a Russian management plan for the Russian part of the Barents Sea”4 In the Russian zone there are some closed areas designed to protect commercially important juvenile fish and crab species, but no measures as yet designed to protect vulnerable habitats or species. Possible mitigation Temporary or real time closure of areas coupled with a move on rule is currently implemented under Norwegian law where excessive bycatch is caught. These measures could in theory be extended to encompass encounters with VMEs, though these have not been implemented to date. Several studies (PINRO 2012) suggest that overlapping trawl tracks have a particularly negative effect on benthic biodiversity, and some form of regulation that reduced overlap might therefore also serve to protect benthic biodiversity.
4 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the-storting- white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/7.html?id=682132. First update of the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the-storting- white-papers-2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/4.html?id=682071
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 38 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background
Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: 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. In the following section of the report a brief description is made of the key characteristics of the management system in place to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the fishery under assessment. a. Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls The fishery operates in the Barents Sea, where jurisdiction is split between Norway and Russia. The vessels mainly operate in the Norwegian Economic Zone (NEZ) and in the Protection Zone around Svalbard, where Norwegian fishery legislation is applied and the Norwegian Coast Guard performs inspections. A smaller share of fishing activities takes place in the Russian Economic Zone (REZ). Norway and Russia agreed on a delimitation line in 2010, and the previous Grey Zone, where the parties inspected their own vessels and third-country vessels licenced by them, ceased to exist 7 July 2011. b. Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the fishery Groups with interest in the fishery include the fishing companies based in Murmansk (the larger ones such as Murmansk Trawl Fleet and the smaller ones, most of which are under the FIUN umbrella), various Russian fisheries management authorities (the Federal Fisheries Agency – the FFA – and its regional branch in Murmansk – the BBTA – as well as the Border Service, which performs control in the REZ), research institutes (mainly PINRO, based in Murmansk) and environmental NGOs in the region, among which only WWF-Murmansk has engaged in fishery-related issues. c. Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan The fishery does not have a specific management plan, but instead a set of internationally, nationally and regionally agreed fishery rules. The JNRFC sets TAC and overarching principles for fishing activities, such as rules concerning mesh size, selections grids and closing of fishing grounds. The two countries’ bodies for fisheries management and fishers’ associations, as well as fishing companies (including the FIUN) are represented on the JNRFC. At national level in Russia, the Federal Fisheries Act was adopted by the Federal Assembly (the Russian Parliament) in 2004 and has subsequently been revised several times, first and foremost through a heavy revision in 2007. Interested parties, such as the public fisheries councils (see next section) that have been set up at both federal and regional levels, but also the larger fishing companies, are consulted when the fisheries act is revised. The same is true for the more specific rules set up by the FFA and the BBTA. National TAC is distributed by an inter-ministerial commission under the leadership of the FFA. Regional authorities (the governors) are consulted on issues related to coastal fisheries. d. Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups There is continuous informal dialogue between Russian fisheries management bodies and the fishing industry, including individual ship owners, associations of ship owners and the processing industry. In the northern basin, both the large ‘traditional’ ship owners such as Murmansk Trawl Fleet and the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 39 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
FIUN have direct access to government. As an illustration, the FIUN director headed off to Moscow right after the site visit for the current assessment, for a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev. A more formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies – the so-called fishery councils – found at both federal level, basin level (here: the northern basin) and regional level (here: Murmansk county). At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirements in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Although basin and regional level fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act made them mandatory. These councils advice on a range of fishery-related issues, including fleet operations; control and surveillance; conservation, recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. The councils consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutes and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), among them WWF-Russia, the Russian Union of Workers in the Fishing Industry and the Association of Indigenous Peoples in the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002. Corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council were issued in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonized fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. e. Details of non-fishery users or activities, which could affect the fishery, and arrangements for liaison and co-ordination See description of the public chamber and councils in previous section. f. Details of the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised participants See description in previous sections. g. Objectives for the fishery The Federal Fisheries Act defines the concept of ‘protection and rational use’ of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of Russian fisheries management. This concept was widespread in Soviet legislation for the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ might often be given the upper hand over ‘protection’, but the concept bears some resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The 2009 strategy for the development of the Russian fisheries complex until 2020 defines as its major objectives to ensure social and economic development of the Russian Federation and turn the country into one of the world’s leading fishery nations. A main goal is to reduce export of raw fish and re-build an economically sustainable fish- processing industry in Russia. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, different governmental structures have emphasized different goals and objectives for the country’s fisheries management. The Federal Fisheries Agency tends to stress employment and food independence, with deliveries to Russian ports as its main practical objective, whilst, on the other hand, The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade typically advocates an objective of increased revenues to the federal budget. Typically in recent years, the fisheries agency has had the upper hand. The first indication that a new wave of legislative reform was underway came when the President made his annual speech to the Federal Council (the upper house of the Federal Assembly) in April 2007. For the first
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 40 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
time, fisheries-related issues were given more than a passing mention in the President’s address on the state of the nation, calling on the Government to prioritize objectives which improve customs control, prevent overfishing, restore the shipbuilding industry and ensure quota is taken by Russian companies. Simultaneously the Federal Fisheries Agency used their increased policy influencing role to advocate objectives of social welfare, food security and national independence, including more minor branch objectives such as increasing fish consumption by making fish products more affordable by redirecting Russian catches to Russian ports and reducing the country’s dependence on imported seafood. h. Outline the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery The northern Russian basis currently consists of some 336 vessels – out of which 283 are fishing vessels, down from approximately 800 in Soviet times. There has been a steady reduction in recent years, from 456 in 2006 to 415 in 2008, and further from 394 in 2009 and 366 in 2010. The vast majority of these are trawlers, fishing with bottom trawl in the Barents and the Norwegian Seas. Most vessels are registered in Murmansk, while a few are registered in Arkhangelsk County, Nenets autonomous region and the Republic of Karelia. i. Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery, an particulars of the nature of those rights Fishing rights are given to the ship owners of the vessels outlined in the previous section. From 2000 to 2003 quota auctions were trailed as a method of allocating catches. In 2003, the government introduced a fee on quota shares, with quotas allotted for five years ahead, based on the individual ship owner’s proven catch capacity (track record) over the last three (now: five) years. A minimum threshold level was also established for different categories of vessels, aimed at reducing the number of marginal actors in the Russian fishing industry. If a company received an annual quota lower than the threshold level, it would have to merge with another company with a quota in order to achieve the threshold level and so retain the right to participate in fisheries. Another alternative would be for the company to quit the fishing business and auction off its fishing rights to other fishing companies. The effect was reduced fleet capacity and the removal of older vessels. An inter- ministerial commission under the leadership of the FFA carries out quota distribution of fish stocks that are shared with other states (where TAC is set at the international level, such as in the Barents Sea). For exclusive Russian fish stocks, the FFA distributes TAC. The amendments to the Federal Fisheries Act in 2007 extended the allocation of quota shares to ten years in order to ensure stability for the fishing fleet and spur investments in the renewal of the ageing fleet. j. Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the objectives within a specified period The measures aimed at sustaining ‘protection and rational use’ of aquatic biological resources (see section g.) above) include TAC (with the accompanying harvest control rule; see section xx above) and technical regulations agreed upon in the JNRFC. These include the minimum mesh size of 130 mm, harmonized between Norway and Russia in 2009, and minimum fish size of 44 cm for cod and 40 cm for haddock, harmonized between the two countries in 2010. Conversion factors were harmonized in 1997 and the procedures for closing and opening of fishing grounds in 1999. Mandatory use of selection grids was jointly introduced by the parties in 1997 and satellite tracking of all fishing vessels in 2001.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 41 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
k. Particulars of arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement Traditionally, the federal body for fisheries management (since 2004: the FFA) has been responsible for all fishery-related issues in Russia, including enforcement. In 1997, the President decided to transfer responsibility for enforcement in the REZ to the Federal Border Service, which was incorporated into the Federal Security Service (FSB) in 2003. The Border Service of the Federal Security Service – in the following referred to as the Border Service – inspects fishing vessels at sea during fishery operations (based on spot checks) or transshipment, to see whether the catch log, fishing gear and catch on board are in compliance with the requirements of fishery regulations. The FFA and its regional branches continued to enforce fishery regulations in Russian territorial waters and convention areas – in addition to inland fisheries. It also continues to administer the system for closing and opening of fishing grounds in cases where excessive numbers of undersized fish are detected in the catches. Inspectors from the local enforcement branch of the Agency can close a ‘rectangle’ (a square nautical mile) on site for a period of three days. After three days, the ‘rectangle’ is re-opened if scientists from PINRO make no objections (in practice, if the proportion of undersized fish in catches does not continue to exceed legal limits). Quota control in the northern basin is performed by the BBTA, based on daily catch reports by all fishing vessels, which are also sent to the Border Service. In addition to the Border Service’s inspections in the REZ, the BBTA carries out inspections in port and at sea in Russian territorial waters and outside the REZ (e.g. in NEAFC convention areas and in the Fishery Protection Zone around Svalbard; see section a.)). The VMS data are also collected and analysed by the BBTA. When Russian vessels fish in the NEZ or the Protection Zone around Svalbard, they are inspected by the Norwegian Coast Guard. When they land fish in Norwegian ports, they are inspected by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries. When they land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme. Also of relevance here is the EU IUU regulation, whereby all imports of fish products in to the EU (even in the processed form via import from China) must have documentation from the designated national authority (here: the BBTA), to state it is legally landed. The FIUN vessels undergoing assessment take around 85 % of their fish in waters subject to Norwegian enforcement, and deliver 70 % of cod and haddock outside Russia, either directly to Norwegian ports or through other NEAFC states via transshipment to transport vessels at sea. (Fish caught in the Russian EEZ is since summer 2009 taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but is then transshipped for export.) l. Details of any planned education and training for interest groups The education level of captains and those holding other higher positions on board Russian fishing vessels is generally very high compared to other countries, with most holding university degrees in navigation and/or fish biology. As follows from the above, mechanisms exist for formal and informal consultation between fishery authorities and user groups on current changes in fisheries regulations. The FIUN regularly holds seminars for vessel crews about current challenges in fisheries regulations, in collaboration with WWF-Murmansk, among others. The Union works closely also with scientist organizations such as PINRO and Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI) (under the Russian Academy of Science). Every month FIUN organizes special meetings for all its member companies with representatives of the scientific organizations. m. Date of next review and audit of the management plan As follows from the above, the fishery does not have a management plan, but a detailed set of fisheries regulations, developed over decades at the bilateral level with Norway and at national and
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 42 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
regional level in Russia. Internal review of the management system is performed by the fishery councils at different levels and by the FFA, which in turn reports to the 1st Deputy Prime Minister, who bears the overall responsibility for fisheries management in the Russian Government. The FFA can also report to the President about its activities. In the FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. Regular external review is performed by the Russian Auditor General. The latter in 2005 invited its Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continue to monitor developments in regular follow-up meetings.
References: » Geir Hønneland (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. » Olav Schram Stokke (2012), Disaggregating International Regimes: A New Approach to Evaluation and Comparison, Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press. » Interviews during site visit. » List of inspections of the vessels undergoing assessment from 2010 to mid-2012, provided by the Client. » List of vessels in the Russian northern basin, issued by the BBTA. » Protocols from the sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian on the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries (www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 43 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment
At the time of writing, 8 MSC assessments had already been completed on this stock (detailed below) and findings presented in published assessment reports. In addition 1 MSC assessment targeting this stock are currently underway (also detailed below). These formed an important background resource for the assessment team - collating and reporting on available stock and fishery information, as well as highlighting areas of stakeholder and assessment team concerns. Completed assessments » Norway North East Arctic cod › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic- offshore-cod/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-cod » Comapêche and Euronor cod and haddock › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/arctic- ocean/comapeche_euronor_cod_haddock/comapeche_euronor_cod_haddock » Barents Sea cod and Barents Sea haddock › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/barents-sea-cod-and- haddock/barents-sea-cod-and-haddock » Pescafria-Pesquera Rodriguez Barents sea cod › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/pescafria- pesquera_rodriguez_barents_sea_cod » UK Fisheries/DFFU/Doggerbank Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/uk_fisheries_dffu_doggerbank_northeast_arctic_cod_haddock_saithe » Faroe Island North East Arctic cod › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/gadus-cod/gadus- cod/ » Faroe Island North East Arctic haddock › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/faore_island_north_east_arctic_haddock » Norway North East Arctic haddock › http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/Norway-north-east-arctic- offshore-haddock/Norway-north-east-arctic-offshore-haddock Assessments in progress » AGARBA Spain Barents Sea Cod http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/north-east- atlantic/agarba_spain_barents_sea_cod
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 44 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4.1.1 Harmonisation Details Harmonisation meeting/s None. Meeting Outcomes None.
4.2 Previous assessments
This is the first MSC assessment.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies
This fishery was assessed using version 1.2 of the MSC Certification Requirements and version 1.2 of the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template. 4.3.1 Assessment Tree The Default Assessment Tree has been used for this fishery assessment.
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
4.4.1 Site Visits In September, 2012, 3 members of the assessment team, supported by an FCI staff member, undertook a site visit to Kirkenes, Norway, and Murmansk, Russia. This enabled a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery – including skippers, scientists, fishery protection officers, NGOs, fishery managers and technical support staff. Prior notification of this site visit was issued on the MSC website and in Murmanskiy Vestnik in order that all relevant stakeholders were aware of the opportunity to meet with the assessment team.
Itinerary of field activities
Day 1 – 3 September 2012 – Kirkenes » On day 1, the assessment team visited 3 trawlers from the client group specified under the Unit of Certification and met privately with the vessel skippers and other members of the crew. This was to provide further detail on the fishing methods and practice in use under this fishery assessment and to give the vessel skippers and other crew members an opportunity to provide any feedback or comments they wished in an open and transparent manner. Day 2 – 4 September 2012 – Murmansk » On days 2, the assessment team met with the client to discuss various issues related to the assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 45 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Day 3 – 6 September – Murmansk » On day 3, the assessment team met with 3 stakeholders to discuss the fishery under assessment and provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments, additional information or ask questions of the assessment team. The team also met visited a longliner from the client group that was delivering fish in Murmansk.
4.4.2 Consultations Stakeholder issues No written representations were provided to the assessment team by stakeholders, but a range of views, opinions and concerns were expressed in interviews during the site visit. The team is of the view that matters raised have been adequately debated and addressed as a part of the scoring process for this fishery, and that none of the issues raised, therefore, require separate attention beyond that represented in this report. Interview Programme Following the collation of general information on the fishery, a number of meetings with key stakeholders were scheduled by the team to fill in information gaps and to explore and discuss areas of concern. Meetings were held as follows: Table 5 - Interview Programme Name Position Organisation Anatoliy Smoglienko Skipper M-0347 Mark Liubovskiy Piotr Romanenko Skipper M-0277 Alferas Gennadiy Kokoshin Skipper M-0240 Sevryba-1 A. Maklakov Skipper M-0186 Gamma Vasiliy Nikitin Director General FIUN Olga Pokrovskaya Vice General Director FIUN Anatoliy Svetlichniy Vice General Director Vega JSC Sergey Tarabrin Director General LKT Co. Ltd. Nikolay Demyanenko Head of Fisheries Operations FIUN Dept. Vladimir Zhuravlev Marketing Director Sevryba JSC Ilya Kudrin Director Vega JSC Nikolay Karlin Deputy Director BBTA Dmitriy Bokhanov WWF-Murmansk Stanislav Fomin WWF-Murmansk Yuriy Kovalev Scientist PINRO
Summary of Information Obtained The skippers provided information on their fishing operations and answered questions from the assessment team related to the three MSC principles. The three trawlers land their catches in Northern Norway, the longliner in Murmansk. Most of their fishing operations take place in the Norwegian EEZ. The main message from the skippers was that the cod and haddock stocks are in an
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 46 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
extremely good condition, that ETP species are practically absent in the catches, and that enforcement routines are strict. All the skippers stated that they fully trust the scientists’ ability to conduct good stock assessments and the managers’ ability to conduct sound fisheries management. Likewise, the BBTA representative declared that he has full confidence in the existing management and enforcement system, although he acknowledged that the role of environmental NGOs is not as significant in Russia as it is in European countries. The only critical remarks came from WWF- Murmansk. They were above all concerned about by-catch of juvenile fish and other species, and about discard of fish.
4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Public Consultation A total of 5 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment. The interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website, and by advertising in the regional newspaper Murmanskiy Vestnik. These were felt to be the most appropriate media for making these public announcements as Murmanskiy Vestnik has significant readership / uptake in the primary stakeholder locations for this fishery and the processes used on the MSC website for tracking and announcing the various stages of the assessment as it progresses - from Full Announcement through to Certification - form an ideal tool through which to channel stakeholder interest and keep them abreast of the important stages of the assessment as a whole. Initial approaches were made by email and followed up by phone. Issues raised during correspondence were investigated during research and information gathering activities, and during interviews. Most stakeholders contacted during this exercise either indicated that they had no direct interest in this fishery assessment, or that they had no particular cause for concern with regard to its assessment to the MSC standard. Process The MSC is dedicated to promoting “well-managed” and “sustainable” fisheries, and the MSC initiative focuses on identifying such fisheries through means of independent third-party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries are awarded the opportunity to utilise an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling the MSC works to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management. 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: » MSC Principle 1 - Resource Sustainability » MSC Principle 2 - Ecosystem Sustainability » MSC Principle 3 - Management Systems A fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria and a graphical representation of the assessment tree is presented as Appendix 1a to this report. The MSC Principles and Criteria provide the overall requirements necessary for certification of a sustainably managed fishery. To facilitate assessment of any given fishery against this standard, these Criteria are further split into Sub-criteria. Sub-criteria represent separate areas of important information (e.g. Sub-criterion 1.1.1. requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). These
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 47 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Sub-criteria, therefore, provide a detailed checklist of factors necessary to meet the MSC Criteria in the same way as the Criteria provide the factors necessary to meet each Principle. Below each Sub-criterion, individual ‘Performance Indicators’ (PIs) are identified. It is at this level that the performance of the fishery is measured. Altogether, assessment of this fishery against the MSC standard is achieved through measurement of 31 Performance Indicators. The Principles and their supporting Criteria, Sub-criteria and Performance Indicators that have been used by the assessment team to assess this fishery are incorporated into the scoring sheets (Appendix 1.1). Scoring of the attributes of this fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria involves the following process: » Decision to use the MSC Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Certification Requirements (Annex CB) » Description of the justification as to why a particular score has been given to each sub- criterion » Allocation of a score (out of 100) to each Performance Indicator In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, the Scoring Guideposts are presented in the scoring table and describe the level of performance necessary to achieve 100 (represents the level of performance for a Performance Indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a Performance Indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each Performance Indicator for that type of fishery). The Assessment Tree and Scoring Guideposts for the FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock fishery are shown as Appendix 1.1 to this report. Scoring outcomes There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the Marine Stewardship Council’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery: » The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and Sub-criteria under each Principle. » The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator. A score below 80 at the Principle level or 60 for any individual Performance Indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment. A score of 80 or above for all three Principles results in a pass.
Prior to scoring the fishery, the team determined and documented which component P2 species would be assessed under (See Section 3.4).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 48 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5. Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date
The Target Eligibility Date for this fishery will be 28 September, 2013. This means that any fish caught by the certified fleet following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product if and when certification is ultimately granted. The rationale for this date is that it meets with the client’s wishes, for commercial reasons, for the date to be set at the earliest point at which the Certification Requirements allow. The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – are detailed in the rest of this section.
5.2 Traceability within the Fishery
Traceability up to the point of first landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the systems in place are deemed adequate to ensure fish is caught in a legal manner and is accurately recorded. The report and assessment trees describe these systems in more detail, but briefly traceability can be verified by: » accurate reporting – log books and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross-checked); » verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics; » a high level and sophisticated system of at-sea monitoring, control and surveillance, in Norwegian waters and a complete and improving system in Russian waters, including routine boarding and inspection, spotter planes, reporting to checkpoints when crossing international boundaries, reporting pre and post transhipment, VMS; » close cooperation between Norwegian and Russian regulatory and enforcement authorities and no immunity from prosecution in other jurisdictions, and increasingly close cooperation with EU regulatory and enforcement authorities at the point of transhipment landing; » reporting prior to landing with limited tolerance; » a high level of inspection of landings prior to unloading – in particular for direct landings in Norway; » NEAFC port state control, which came into force in May 2007 and which requires authorisation from the vessel flag state (in this case Russia) to the port state before foreign fishing vessels will be authorised to land frozen fish products in the ports; » the European Union IUU regulation (EC no 1224/2009) which came into force on the 1st January 2010 and which is designed to ensure full traceability of all marine fishery products traded with the European Community and illuminate the prospect of IUU fish entering the European market. This is achieved by means of a catch certification scheme in cooperation with third countries (such as Russia). Fishery products can now only be imported into the European Community when accompanied by a catch certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the flag State (in this instance BBTA in Russia) certifying that the catches concerned have been made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management measures. This applies to both directly landed and transhipped product.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 49 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The above is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery and no specific risk factors have been identified.
5.2.1 Evaluation of Risk of Vessels Fishing Outside of UoC See Section 5.2
5.2.2 Risk of Substitution of Mixing Certified / Non-Certified Catch See Section 5.2
5.2.3 At-Sea Processing All vessels are equipped to carry out some degree of processing at sea, freezing and packaging. This is permitted within the scope of this certificate and has been considered as part of this assessment. However, only identifiable product in the form of fillets or headed (head off) and gutted frozen product is covered by the assessment. These are typically presented block frozen, wrapped and sealed in brown paper packaging, clearly labelled (including the vessel name). Unloading and onward transport is typically on pallets, wrapped in transparent film. Other forms of fish products that may emanate from the certified vessels are not covered by this assessment and are therefore not eligible to carry the MSC logo. These include fishmeal, roe, by catch species.
5.2.4 Trans-Shipment See Section 5.2
5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
Only cod and haddock caught in the manner defined in the Unit of Certification (Section 3.1) under restrictions detailed throughout the body of the final Public Certification Report for this fishery shall be eligible to enter the Chain of Custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing, at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo (under restrictions imposed by the MSC Chain of Custody standard). There are no restrictions on the fully certified product entering further chains of custody. The Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) does not require its own chain of custody certificate.
5.3.1 Eligible points of landing Ports in Norway, Russia and other NFAFC countries.
5.3.2 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate » Fishing Industry Union of the North (FIUN) vessels targetting North East Arctic cod and East Arctic haddock in ICES Areas Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb using demersal trawl and longline » There are no other eligible fishers
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 50 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6. Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores
Table 6 - Final Principle Scores
Cod trawl Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 87.5
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 80.67 Principle 3 – Management System 82.22
Haddock trawl Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 84.17
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 80.67
Principle 3 – Management System 82.22
Cod longliner
Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 87.5
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 85 Principle 3 – Management System 82.22
Haddock longliner
Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 84.17 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 85 Principle 3 – Management System 82.22
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 51 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6.2 Summary of Scores
Cod, trawl
Principle Wt Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. One 1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90 Two 1 Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 70 species 2.1.2 Management 75 2.1.3 Information 80 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 species 2.2.2 Management 90 2.2.3 Information 90 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 60 2.4.2 Management 65 2.4.3 Information 90 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 90 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 90 Three 1 Governance 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 75 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes system 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80 Haddock, trawl
Principle Wt Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. One 1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 52 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle Wt Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. Two 1 Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 70 species 2.1.2 Management 75 2.1.3 Information 80 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 species 2.2.2 Management 90 2.2.3 Information 90 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 60 2.4.2 Management 65 2.4.3 Information 90 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 90 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 90 Three 1 Governance 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 75 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes system 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80
Cod, longliner
Principle Wt Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. One 1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90 Two 1 Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 65 species 2.1.2 Management 75 2.1.3 Information 80 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 species 2.2.2 Management 90 2.2.3 Information 90 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 53 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle Wt Component PI Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 2.4.2 Management 90 2.4.3 Information 95 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 90 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 90 Three 1 Governance 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 75 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes system 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80
Haddock, longliner
Wt PI Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. One 1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85 Two 1 Retained 2.1.1 Outcome 65 species 2.1.2 Management 75 2.1.3 Information 80 Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome 80 species 2.2.2 Management 90 2.2.3 Information 90 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 85 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 2.4.2 Management 90 2.4.3 Information 95 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 90 2.5.2 Management 85 2.5.3 Information 90 Three 1 Governance 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 and policy Consultation, roles & responsibilities 3.1.2 75 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 54 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Wt PI Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score (L1) No. Fishery specific 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes system 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 80 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80
6.3 Summary of Conditions
Table 7: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Indicator number Ensure a partial strategy of demonstrably effective 1 management measures for retained species (with objective 2.1.1/2.1.2 basis for confidence). Demonstrate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would 2 be serious or irreversible harm, or put in place a strategy that 2.4.1/2.4.2 is designed to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to benthic habitat
3 Work with authorities to ensure participation in the 3.1.2 management process by all relevant stakeholders
6.3.1 Recommendations There is one recommendation for this fishery: » Work with the authorities to clarify how questions of risk and uncertainty are approached in management decision-making, in particular in the absence of clear scientific evidence. Strive for such considerations to be given more explicit prominence in future drafts of federal acts or northern basin rules. The rationale for this recommendation is that the precautionary principle is not explicitly laid down in Russian fisheries law (cf. PI 3.1.3). Although the Russian Federation has ratified international agreements which adopt this principle, which are legislatively superior to federal law in Russia, there remains some question over the practical application of the principle of protection and rational use, which is applied in the Russian Federal Fisheries Act and other legislative texts at lower levels. It is unclear to what extent this principle includes a presumption towards more precautionary decision making in the event of scientific uncertainty. Therefore the assessment team would like to see the client encourage Russian fisheries management authorities to explicitly adopt the precautionary principle as such in Russian legislation.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 55 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
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 FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, the determination will be presented to FCI’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 56 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
7. References
» Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O. and Stiansen, J.E. (eds.) (2009), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å. and Marasaev, S. (co-eds.) (2009), Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short Version, IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series 2009(2), 22 pp. » http://arcticgovernance.custompublish.com/norway-and-integrated-oceans-management- the-case-of-the-barents-sea.4651095-142902.html » Auditor General (Norway) (2008), Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document nr. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General. » Auditor General (Norway) (2009), Follow-up Document to the Report from the Parallel Review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document nr. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General). » Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission in 2002. » Blanchard, J.L. Pinnegar J.K. and S. Mackinson (2002) Exploring Marine Mammal Fishery Interactions using Ecopath with Ecosim: Modeling the Barents Sea Ecosystem, CEFAS Science Series Technical Report No 17. » Buhl-Mortensen, L., K.E. Ellingsen, P. Buhl-Mortensen and K. Skaa, Trawling Impact on Habitat-forming Organisms in the Barents Sea: Indication of Resilience and Implications for Sustainable Management. » Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, Twenty- sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 Report on Assessing the Intrinsic Vulnerability of Harvested Sharks. Annex Norway – p. 1 Response from Norway on shark questions. » Denisenko S.G. (2007), Zoobenthos of the Barents Sea under Conditions of Changing Climate and Human Intervention, pp. 418-511 in: Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems and Contemporary Problems of Protection of Biological Potential of Russian Seas, Vladivostok: Dalnauka » Denisenko N.V. and Denisenko S.G. (1991), On Impact of Bottom Trawling on Benthos in the Barents Sea// Environmental Situation and Protection of Flora and Fauna of the Barents Sea, Apatity: Kola Science Centre of USSR Academy of Science, pp. 158-164. » Dolgov, A.V. et al (2002), By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea, NAFO Scientific Council Meeting September 2002. » Dolgov, A.V., A.A. Grekov, I.P. Shestopal and K.M. Sokolov (2005), By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366. » Dommasnes, A., Christensen, V., Ellertsen, B., Kvamme, C., Melle, W., Nøttestad, L., Pedersen, T., Tjelmeland, S. and Zeller, D. (2002), An Ecopath Model for the Norwegian and Barents Sea. In: S. Guénette, V. Christensen and D. Pauly. (eds) Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses, Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). » Drevetnyak K.V., Dolgov, A.V., Sokolov, K.M., Gusev, E.V. and Grekov A.A. (2005), Skates in the Barents Sea: Stock Status and Catch by Fishing Fleet, 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 57 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Enever R., Catchpole T.L., Ellis J.R and Grant A. (2009), The Survival of Skates (Rajidae) Caught by Demersal Trawlers Fishing in UK Waters. Fisheries Research 97: 72-76. » FAO (2009), International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome: FAO. 73p » FAO Fishstat. » Federal Fisheries Agency (Russia), Kontseptsia razvitia rybolognogo khozyaystva, Moscow. » Federal Fisheries Agency (Russia), Ekonomicheskoe razvitie otrasli: investitsii i subsidii. » Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation, 2004. » Fishbase, http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=69&genusname=Gadus&speci esname=morhua&lang=English » Fishbase, http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?genusname=Melanogrammus&sp eciesname=aeglefinus. » Government of Norway, Act of 19 June 2009 No. 100 Relating to the Management of Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity (Nature Diversity Act) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature-diversity-act.html?id=570549 » Government of Norway, http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and- publications/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the-storting-white-papers- 2/2010-2011/meld-st-10-20102011/7.html?id=682132. » Grekov, А.А. (2001), Comparative Analysis of Longline and Trawl Catches during Experimental Fishing of Black Halibut (in Russian), Materials of the conference of young scientists dedicated to PINRO’s 80th anniversary. Murmansk, PINRO, pp. 24-32. » Grekov, A.A. and Pavlenko A.A. (2011) A Comparison of Longline and Trawl Fishing Practices and Suggestions for Encouraging the Sustainable Management of Fisheries in the Barents Sea, Moscow-Murmansk: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. » Hiddink J.G., Jennings S. and Kaiser M.J (2006), Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities, 9: 1190–1199. » Hoel, A.H. (2009), Best Management in Ecosystem based Management on the Arctic, Norsk Polarinstitutt, Report series 129. » Hoel , A.H., von Quillfeldt, C.H. and Olsen, E. (2009), Norway and Integrated Oceans Management – the Case of the Barents Sea. Report Series No. 129, Norsk Polarinstitutt » Hønneland, G. (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. » Hønneland, G. (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. » Hønneland, G. and Jørgensen, A.K. (2003), Implementing International Fisheries Agreements in Russia: Lessons from the Northern Basin, Marine Policy 26: 359–67. » Hønneland, G. and Jørgensen, A.K. (2003), Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. » Hønneland, G. and Nilssen, F. (2001), Quota Allocation in Russia’s Northern Fishery Basin: Principles and Practice, Ocean & Coastal Management 44: 471–88.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 58 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» ICES (2007), Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), Vigo, Spain 18-27 April 2007. ICES C.M. 2007/ACFM:16. » ICES (2008), WGSE REPORT 2008 ICES Living Resources Committee. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE). ICES CM 2008/LRC:05 REF. ACOM, WGECO. » ICES (2009), Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 21 - 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02. » ICES (2010), Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). 22-28 April 2010. Lisbon, Portugal /Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05. » ICES (2010), Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25. » ICES (2010), Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), ICES CM 2010/ACOM:19. » ICES (2010), SGBYC REPORT 2010. » ICES (2010), Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25. » ICES (2011), Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES (2011), Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks (WKBENCH 2011). 24–31 January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38 » ICES (2012), 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp. 1-10. » ICES (2012), 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic Haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES (2012), Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » ICES (2012), Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Greenland halibut in sub-areas I and II. Advice for 2013, June 2012. » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Saithe in sub-areas I and II (Northeast Arctic), Advice for 2013, June 2012. » ICES (2012), Beaked Redfish (Sebastes Mentella) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. 3.4.5. 9p. » ICES (2012), Golden Redfish (Sebastes Marinus) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012. 3.4.5, Book 3. 9p. » ICES (2012), Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 26–30 March 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2012/ACOM: 29 ICES Advisory Committee. » ICES Fishmap, http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Cod » ICES Fishmap, http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/default.asp?id=Haddock » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description. ICES Ecosystem Overviews: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. » ICES Benthic Ecology WG Reports.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 59 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Institute of Marine Research (Norway), http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/torsk/nordaustarktisk_torsk_skrei/111219/en » Institute of Marine Research (Norway), http://www.imr.no/temasider/fisk/hyse/nordostarktisk_hyse/en » Institute of Marine Research (Norway) (2011), Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet, Report to IMR by an international committee. » Institute of Marine Research (Norway) (2012), Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea, Autumn 2012 (monitoring the demersal community). http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/nb-no » Institute of Marine Research (Norway)/PINRO (Russia) (2012), Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the Demersal Community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community_fish.pdf/nb-no » Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (management plan) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Selected-topics/hav- -og-vannforvaltning/havforvaltning/integrated-management-of-the-barents-sea.html?id=87148 » Jennings S., Kaiser M. and Reynolds J.D. (2001), Marine Fisheries Ecology, Blackwell Science Ltd. » Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment, Barents Portal. » Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status 2008, Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem, http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti cle&id=184&Itemid=201&lang=en » Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/ » Jørgensen, A.K. (2009), Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector, in Wilson Rowe, E. (ed.), Russia and the North. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. » Kovalev, V.A. and Korzhev (2004), Is the Inclusion of NEA Cod Cannibalism Cata into Assessment a Step forward or Two Steps Back? Working Document № 9 to the AFWG, May 2004. » Kovalev, Y.A. and Bogstad, B. (2005) Evaluation of Maximum Long-term Yield for Northeast Arctic Cod. 11th Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Science Symposium, Murmansk, Russia 15-17 August 2005: “Ecosystem Dynamics and Optimal Long Term Harvest in the Barents Sea Fisheries”. » Larsen, T. Nagoda, D. and Andersen, J.R. (eds) (2003), A Biodiversity Assessment of the Barents Sea, Ecoregion WWF. » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. (2003), The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A Biodiversity Assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » Lindstrøm, U. Smout, S., Howell, D. and Bogstad, B. (2009), Modelling Multi-species Interactions in the Barents Sea Ecosystem with Special Emphasis on Minke Whales and their Interactions with Cod, Herring and Capelin. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 56: 2068–2079. » List of inspections of the vessels undergoing assessment from 2010 to mid-2012, provided by the Client. » List of vessels in the Russian northern basin, issued by the BBTA.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 60 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Løkkeborg S. (2005), Impacts of Trawling and Scallop Dredging on Benthic Habitats and Communities, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 472, 69 p. » Mareano programme. http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html. » Ministry of Fisheries (Norway), http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/cod/north_east_arctic_cod/ » Ministry of Fisheries (Norway), http://www.fisheries.no/Ecosystems-and- stocks/marine_stocks/fish_stocks/haddock/north_east_artic_haddock/ » MRAG (2009), Barents Sea Cod and Haddock: Control System and IUU Risk Assessment. Final Report HK1228 to Ocean Trawlers, November 2009. » NEAFC Request on Identification of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems, Including Definitions and Assessment of Fishing Activities that May Cause Significant Adverse Impacts on Such Ecosystems. » NEAFC. Consolidated Text of all NEAFC Recommendations on Regulating Bottom Fishing. » NEAFC (2012), Recommendation 5: 2012 on Conservation and Management Measures for Spurdog (Squalus Acanthus). » NEAFC (2012), Recommendation 6:2012. Recommendation for the Conservation and Management of Porbeagle (Lamna Nasus). » NEAFC (2012), Recommendation 7:2012. Recommendation for the Conservation and Management of Deep Sea Sharks. » NOOA (2008), NOAA NE Stocks Data Poor Working Group Meeting 2008. Working Paper: Atlantic Wolffish (Main Report), Woods Hole MA Dec 8-12 2008. » PINRO (2012), Confidential report to FCI by PINRO on the FIUN long-line fleet. » Protocols from the sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian on the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries (www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd) » Regulations for the Conduct of Fishery in the Northern Fishery Basin (Russia), 2009. » Resolution on the Working Order of the Territorial Fishery Council of Murmansk County, 2005. » Schweder, T. (2006), The Scenario Barents Sea Study: a Case of Minimal Realistic Modelling to Compare Management Strategies for Marine Ecosystems, pp. 310-323 in I. L. Boyd, S. Wanless’ C. J. Camphuysen (eds), Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems, Their Role in Monitoring and Management. Conservation Biology (No. 12), Cambridge University Press. » Spiridonov, V. A., Gavrilo, M.V., Krasnova E. D. and Nikolaeva N.G. (eds) (2011), Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic Atlas of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Russian Arctic, Moscow: WWF Russia. » Stokke, O.S. (2009), Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic, Marine Policy 33: 339–349. » Stokke, O.S. (2012), Disaggregating International Regimes: A New Approach to Evaluation and Comparison, Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press. » Stransky, C., Baumann, H., Fevolden, S., Harbitz, A., Høie, H., Nedreaas K. H., Salberg, A., and Skarstein, T.H. (2007), Separation of Norwegian Coastal Cod and Northeast Arctic Cod by Otolith Morphometry. ICES CM 2007/L:10. » Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 61 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Worldbank Worldwide Governance Indicators http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp. » WWF, The Barents Sea – a Sea of Opportunities… and Threats. Petroleum Activities and Fragile Nature, www.panda.org/downloads/arctic/barentsreport.pdf » WWF, The Barents Sea Ecoregion: a Biodiversity Assessment
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 62 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationale Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria
Fig. 6: Graphic of MSC Principles & Criteria
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 63 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over-view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in Appendix 1.1 of this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org). 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. 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 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. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.
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.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 64 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures. » There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species. Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.
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. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 65 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Principle 1: Cod Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing SG Issue Met? Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
See SG100 80 a Y It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. See SG100 b Y The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. See SG100 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The spawning stock biomass is well above Blim, the point where recruitment would be impaired. ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. The SSB has been above Bpa since 2002 and current biomass has recovered to biomass levels observed at the start of the time series (1946). It is therefore highly unlikely that the current level of the spawning stock biomass is impairing recruitment. b Y There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.
The SSB has been above Bpa (BMSY trigger) since 2002 and therefore has been well within the target region over this period. Fishing mortality was reduced from well above Flim in 1999 to below FMSY in 2007. The high biomass can be attributed in part to higher than expected recruitment, and biomass continues to be higher than expected. The fishing mortality is now in the range that is associated with high long-term yield, and if this is maintained, the working group believes that the stock should remain well above Bpa. » ICES, 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES References Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10.
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference Current stock status relative Value of reference point point to reference point
Target reference point BMSY trigger 460 000t SSB SSB2012 = 2 062 626t
SSB / BMSY = 4.48 in 2012
FMSY 0.40 F2011/FMSY = 0.26/0.4 = 0.66 Limit reference point Blim 220 000t SSB SSB/Blim = 9.38 in 2012
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 66 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.2
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. See SG80
80 a Y Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Reference points have been set for fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, which are appropriate for the stock, available data and analyses. They were agreed in 2003 (ICES 2003: ACFM 11). The values are Blim = 220 000 t, Bpa = 460 000 t, Flim = 0.74 and Fpa = 0.40. Calculations based on yield per recruit gave F0.1 =0.11. The reference points have been estimated based on past output from stock assessments. b Y The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.
Blim is based on a “change point regression”. The stock recruitment relationship is weak, but there are a group of lower recruitments at the lowest stock sizes below this limit. These have been used to estimate safe stock levels, where there is no evidence of recruitment decline. Although there is a fishing mortality limit (Flim = 0.74) under the current harvest control rule it does not appear to have any purpose. c Y The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome.
The target reference point is the fishing mortality target (FMSY). Evaluation of the harvest control rule has shown that the target fishing mortality is consistent with high long-term yields and a low risk of depleting the productive potential of the stock. The biomass reference point related to the target (Bpa) is a trigger point for the harvest control rule. Bpa has been set at 460 000 t which is the lowest SSB estimate having >90% probability of remaining above Blim. Although Bpa can be used to set the region containing the target biomass, it is not the target itself. The target biomass depends on the target FMSY which is used to set the total allowable catch as part of the harvest control rule. The reference points have been shown to be consistent with MSY. The JNRFC has agreed that the long-term objective should be maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and a re-evaluation was undertaken which confirmed that the reference points and associated control rule were consistent with this objective. d NA Key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Cod is not a low trophic level species, but it is an important predator in the ecosystem. This is considered under scoring issue c. 100 b N The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. The approach adopted in defining the limit reference point does not indicate that precaution is being applied in relation to any factors beyond the past stock and recruitment time series.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 67 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c N The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. The fishing mortality target reference point is set at a relatively high level. This is justified due to the effects of density dependent growth and mortality. There is empirical evidence of cannibalism, used in the stock assessment, which indicates adult density dependent mortality. There is also some indication of higher weight-at-age at the more recent lower stock densities (although this could be due to other causes besides density). Analyses taking account of density -1 dependent mortality suggest FMSY will be between 0.25 and 0.6 year . Although a relatively high fishing mortality target may turn out to be close to FMSY, there is a lack of scientific evidence confirming this. Therefore, the current reference points are not sufficiently precautionary to meet the SG100. » ICES, 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES (2010) Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG). 22-28 References April 2010. Lisbon, Portugal /Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2010/ACOM:05 » Y. A. Kovalev, V. A. Korzhev (2004) - Is the inclusion of NEA cod cannibalism data into assessment a step forward or two steps back? Working Document № 9 to the AFWG, May 2004 » Kovalev, Y. A., Bogstad, B. (2005) Evaluation of maximum long-term yield for Northeast Arctic cod. 11th Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Science Symposium, Murmansk, Russia 15-17 August 2005: “Ecosystem Dynamics and Optimal Long Term Harvest in the Barents Sea Fisheries”.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 68 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.3
PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe.
80 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
100 a Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe.
b The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock.
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 69 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.1
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. See SG80 b Y The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. See SG80 c Y Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Data is routinely collected and evaluated to check on the performance of the harvest strategy. Reporting by the independent scientific authority, ICES, is in the public domain. (See SG80b) 80 a Y The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The elements for a good responsive harvest strategy are present. There is an agreed harvest control rule which is based on annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice. The management decision making appears well informed and consideration is given to a wide number of issues besides stock size, including wider ecosystem issues. The historic performance of the assessment and harvest strategy is routinely presented and provides an overview of the changes in the perception of the state of the stock in relation to SSB, fishing mortality and recruitment. Since 2010 when the rule was amended, TACs have been set according to the harvest control rule. Although the TAC remains the main control, other technical measures are applied to improve the performance of the fishery. These include minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish and/or non-target species and seasonal or permanent areas closed to fishing to protect juveniles and bycatch species. There is a “move-on” rule related to proportion of bycatch species and undersize fish. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery is limited by licenses. Since January 1997, sorting grids have been mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. The effects of these regulations have not been evaluated, although data exist which might allow an evaluation to take place. b Y The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The catches are well monitored with the exception of the IUU catch and discards (see PI 1.2.3). In addition, age and survey information provide an independent assessment of the performance of the harvest strategy as they give independent information on biomass and the exploitation rates. The harvest strategy is subject to review through the normal management processes. It is monitored by ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group which reports annually on the state of the stock and other issues arising in the fishery important to fisheries management. Parts of this review are made public, such as reports from ICES on management performance. There is evidence that this information is used by national Governments and the JNRFC.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 70 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 a N The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy might be considered to be designed if the objectives and constraints had been used to formulate the various controls on fishing, which has not been the case. The approach adopted has been based more on trial and error, where the controls have been implemented to see whether they achieve the desired outcome or have been reactive to perceived impacts, such as high bycatch rates and capture of small fish. b N The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. The agreed management plan has been followed for the last two years. Given that the current harvest strategy has not been in place long, it cannot be considered to be fully evaluated. However, monitoring is in place and the recent relatively high stock biomass strongly indicates overall objectives are being met as fishing mortality has been reduced to levels more consistent with long-term sustainable exploitation. d Y The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. The harvest strategy is subject to review through the normal management processes. Parts of this review are made public, such as reports from ICES on management performance. No external or special reviews of the overall management strategy have been undertaken. Nevertheless, the bilateral agreement ensures that it is in the interest of both parties to review the performance of the harvest strategy to ensure that it is effective. There is evidence of on-going improvements in the management plan. » ICES, 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. References » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 71 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.2
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generally understood harvest rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. See SG80
c Y There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. See SG80 80 a Y Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. A management plan has been agreed since 2004 with the objectives of maintaining high long-term yield, year-to-year stability, and full utilization of all available information on stock dynamics. The current plan aims to maintain fishing mortality at F = 0.40 year-1 and restrict between-year TAC change to ±10% unless SSB falls below Bpa; in this case the target F should be reduced. The plan was amended in 2009 to try to ensure fishing mortality does not fall below 0.3 unless biomass is below Bpa. The fishing mortality has been below the target level since 2006. Based on evaluations made in 2006 and 2007, ICES considers the management plan to be in accordance with the precautionary approach. If conditions change to outside the range assumed in management plan evaluation (with respect to biological conditions, assessment quality, and implementation error), the management plan would be revised. Further evaluation and revision of the harvest control rule is planned for 2015. The total quota for north-east Arctic cod in 2013 has been set at 1 000 000 t, 60 000 t above the harvest control rule. Although the quota appears safe (F < FMSY), the small departure from the harvest control rule, which has been followed in 2011 and 2012, undermines confidence in the harvest control rule continuing to be “well defined”. b Y The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. The rule has been tested through computer simulation against the main sources of implementation error. The worst levels of implementation error tested in 2007 of around 40% indicated that there was less than 3% chance for which the agreed HCR no longer is precautionary. The evaluation did not take into account models of cod cannibalism in the population model, although this is likely to improve the stability of the rule. Simulations do show that the rule has attributes which should maintain good performance with respect the conservation objectives. The target fishing mortality is considered a reasonable approximation for obtaining maximum sustainable yield in the long term. c Y Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Norwegian and Russian authorities have the administrative mechanisms and enforcement infrastructure to ensure compliance with this rule. The JNRFC agrees the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the North-East Arctic cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The activity and catch
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 72 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year. Although TAC regulations are in place, there has been a significant amount of unreported landings in the past. The main way used to evade quota control seems to have been trans-shipping of fish from the Barents Sea. Unreported landings will reduce the effect of management measures and will undermine the intended objectives of the harvest control rule. It is therefore important that management agencies ensure that all catches are counted against the TAC. The estimates of unreported landings have been reduced considerably from 2006 to 2008, which can probably be attributed to the introduction of port state control in the NEAFC area from 1 May 2007. For 2008, the Norwegian estimate of 15 000 t unreported landings is around 3% of the international reported catch and appears sufficiently low not to undermine the effectiveness of the harvest control rule. Since 2008, IUU catch has been estimated at zero. Assuming that IUU catches in future remain negligible, the evidence indicates that tools are effective in controlling exploitation to the required levels. However, the evidence does not yet clearly show that the HCR works, which is required to meet SG100. 100 b N The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. It is not possible to say that the rule is designed or that it takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. Ad hoc adaptations have been applied without determining beforehand whether they will meet management criteria. Furthermore, there have been several departures from the rule in response to perceived poor performance in practice. A lack of design is demonstrated by the inclusion of an objective (the limits on inter-annual variation) as part of the control, which has presented problems when implemented. c N Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. The evidence does not yet clearly show that the TAC achieves levels required by the HCR. Given the recent history of IUU and an unknown level of discarding, there is room for doubt as to the level of control. » ICES. 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May References 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES 2009. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 21 - 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02. » ICES. 2007. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Vigo, Spain 18-27 April 2007. ICES C.M. 2007/ACFM:16, 651 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 73 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.3
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.
See SG100
b Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. See SG100
80 a Y Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. See SG100 b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The harvest control rule requires accurate estimates of the exploitable biomass, spawning stock biomass, and fishing mortality. These estimates are obtained from the stock assessment (see PI 1.2.4), which requires catches, age composition and abundance indices. The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, i.e. by a requirement to report to control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, VMS satellite tracking, and by random inspections of fishing vessels when landing the fish. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on-board is mandatory for most vessels, and large parts of the fleet report to the authorities on a daily basis. Landings are reported, although enforcement has not been complete, with significant transshipped landings thought to have escaped detection in the past. Age, weight, length and maturity composition data are taken using random sampling from landings and survey catches. Routine otolith exchanges among laboratories are carried out for both cod and haddock to validate ageing. Discrepancies are seldom more than 1 year, and the results show an improvement over time, despite still observing discrepancies for cod in the magnitude of 15-30%. There is some systematic difference between countries. Catches are converted to catch-at-age based on age and length samples. Cod stomach content data is recorded in a joint PINRO-IMR stomach content database. On average about 9 000 cod stomachs from the Barents Sea have been analysed annually in the period 1984-2012. These data are used, among other things, to calculate the per capita consumption of cod by cod for each half-year. One commercial catch-per-unit-of-effort data (cpue) series and three annual survey series are used as indices of stock abundance. The current survey approach has been applied since 1995. A combination of coordinated acoustic and trawl surveys are carried out each year by Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea and by Norway on the Lofoten spawning grounds. In addition, cpue are gathered from various fleets and the Russian trawl data are used as an index in the assessment. Survey data exist for the period 1981-2012, and complete series are available 1994-2012.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 74 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) The area coverage of surveys has been incomplete in 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 mainly due to lack of shared access to the Norwegian and Russian Economic Zones. The survey indices were corrected for the assessment as far as possible, but this problem can only be eliminated by better co-operation between the Norwegian and Russian authorities. The Norwegian survey in 2012 was incomplete due to a technical problem, but otherwise surveys have been more consistent since 2007. The biases in catch estimates and survey indices do not invalidate the stock assessment. c Y There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. At past AFWG meetings it has been recognized that there has been substantial mis/under-reporting of catches and discarding throughout the Barents Sea for most groundfish stocks. There is growing evidence of discarding throughout the Barents Sea for most groundfish stocks, despite discarding of commercial fish being illegal in Norway and Russia. There are currently no estimates of discards for NEA cod, NEA haddock, redfish or Greenland halibut. Estimates in future may be available from observer programs and comparison of at-sea versus port sampling. While attempts to obtain better discard data continue, the lack of information adds to the uncertainty in the assessment. However, there does not seem to be currently any incentive to discard arctic cod. Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) catches have been a problem in the Barents Sea. Since 2002, when the Norwegian and Russian governments reached agreement on a harvest control rule (HCR) and tighter catch reporting, there has been a significant recent improvement. Two series of IUU catch were made available to ICES for the years 2002-2008, but the advice is based on one series only (the higher IUU catch estimate). An IUU catch estimate allows a valid stock assessment to be completed, but contributes to uncertainty in results. The highest risk occurs where controls are likely to be least effective, and most uncontrolled landings are likely to be through transshipment. As implied by the World Bank Governance Indicators, landings and subsequent trade of fish within Russian jurisdiction may also be higher risk of being unrecorded. Although the problems may not be fully resolved and some IUU fishing continued in 2008, the Russian and Norwegian governments have agreed to maintain pressure for full catch disclosure and established a protocol whereby the unreported catches can be estimated and appropriate adjustments made to catch data for stock assessment purposes. The AFWG (2012) reports that no IUU activities have been detected since 2008 and it therefore appears that IUU activity has been eliminated or reduced to a negligible level. Past IUU catches are estimated with sufficient precision for use in a precautionary way in the stock assessment. While this is subject to ongoing monitoring, it is clear that the fishery has met objectives of eliminating significant IUU. 100 a Y A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. There is a comprehensive range of data available for the Barents Sea fisheries, including complete fleet information, biological data on the stocks and extensive environmental indices. These are not all used in the harvest strategy.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 75 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Environmental indices and information on cod diet is used to inform the stock assessment and improve estimates of abundance and status. Estimates of cannibalism are included in natural mortality. In addition, since 2008, the recruitment predictions have included information on environmental drivers (ice coverage, temperature and oxygen saturation at the Kola section, air temperature at Murman coast, and capelin biomass). The life history of cod in the Norwegian and Barents Seas is well known and documented, including spawning ground areas where eggs, larvae and juvenile fish disperse. There is agreement over the separation between the Norwegian coastal cod stock and arctic cod stock. Various oceanographic and ecosystem data, including water temperatures and the abundance of other relevant species. While information may not be directly used in the stock assessment, ecological relationships relevant to management advice have been assessed. The management of Northeast Arctic cod will have implications on the dynamics of prey and predator populations. For example, Northeast Arctic cod is an important predator on other species in the ecosystem, notably capelin. Changes in cod growth, maturity, and cannibalism are linked to the abundance of capelin, whereas annual consumption of cod by seals and whales may be inversely related to capelin abundance. b N All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Although the stock abundance, fishery removals and abundance indicators are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, abundance indices and catches are not monitored accurately enough to meet the SG100. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches has been less precise because a Norwegian port sampling programme ceased in mid-2009. The poor sampling caused problems in estimating Norwegian catches for the oldest ages in 2010. The AFWG reports that a small Norwegian port sampling programme from 2011 and onwards and an expansion of the high seas reference fleet has improved the situation somewhat, but there are still gaps for certain gears and areas. Russian sampling of commercial catches has also shown a declining trend. With discarding and past IUU, decreased sampling of catches (on which the assessment method depends) and surveys having not been consistent enough in recent years, the SG100 is not met. » ICES. 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May References 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES 2009. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 21 - 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02. » ICES. 2007. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, Vigo, Spain 18-27 April 2007. ICES C.M. 2007/ACFM:16, 651 pp.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 76 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » Stransky, C., Baumann, H., Fevolden, S., Harbitz, A., Høie, H., Nedreaas K. H., Salberg, A., Skarstein, T.H. (2007) Separation of Norwegian coastal cod and Northeast Arctic cod by otolith morphometry. ICES CM 2007/L:10 » MRAG (2009) Barents Sea Cod and Haddock: Control System and IUU Risk Assessment. Final Report HK1228 to Ocean Trawlers, November 2009. » Worldbank Worldwide Governance Indicators http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 77 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.4
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 b Y The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. A stock assessment estimates the spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality relative to reference points defined for these indicators. c Y The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. See SG80 80 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. See SG100 c Y The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice. However specific advice is presented as a table of options for fishing mortality (TAC), but does not report outcomes in relation to the uncertainties in the data and assessment. The main uncertainties in this assessment derive from the biased catch statistics and inconsistencies in the surveys. Biased catch statistics have been considered through generating alternative unreported catch figures which have been added to the total catch in the stock assessment and accounts for the IUU catch. The effect of IUU catches has also been assessed with respect to the HCR. It was concluded that at the higher levels of estimated IUU, the HCR may not be delivering precautionary management and therefore the precautionary nature of the HCR is conditional on low IUU catches (see PI 1.2.2). Considerable effort has been spent in recent years decreasing IUU catch making data collection more reliable in estimating catches, thereby decreasing uncertainty in the assessment. The survey results show some inconsistency which may be explained by incomplete spatial coverage of surveys in 2006/2007 and 2012 (see PI 1.2.3). With the elimination of IUU catch, this is the main source of error. Although the sampling bias is unknown, it has been identified by the assessment and should be eliminated as it is only a problem of co-operation between the management authorities. Estimates of sampling error are to a large degree lacking or are incomplete for the input data used in the assessment. However, the uncertainty has been estimated for some parts of the input data, and the harvest control rule has been tested against suspected data error levels, covering the main uncertainties. e Y The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment is subject to internal review through the working group process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. The review is by correspondence, and although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. Because the assessment has been peer reviewed, the SG80 for the fourth scoring issue is met, but the review is not rigorous enough (i.e. separate and substantial internal and external review) to meet the SG100 fourth scoring issue.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 78 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The stock size is estimated on an annual basis and its status relative to biological reference points is assessed. The assessment methodology and level of accuracy is sufficient to apply the harvest control rule effectively. The principal assessment model is the XSA (extended survivors analysis) version of virtual population analysis. The model is suitable for the available data. XSA is a generic age structured stock assessment, and one of the many variants of VPA. It is used by ICES for a number of stocks, has been widely tested and is generally considered robust as long as the catch-at-age and survey data are reliable. Species and stock-specific parameters are used in the model as appropriate. There is a significant body of research and monitoring data on growth and reproduction. The mature fish aggregate along the Polar front to feed in summer where their annual growth increment and fecundity is significantly influenced by the abundance of, primarily, capelin and to a lesser extent, herring. Growth (weight at age) and maturity are estimated each year, taking account of their variability in the assessment. The assessment method also includes an estimate of the consumption of cod by cod, which is thought to be a significant source of mortality particularly of 3 and 4 year old fish. Therefore, significant adult density dependent mortality is accounted for in the assessment. Therefore, this indicates that the assessment is not only appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, but also it takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. c N The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. While the main stock assessment does fit using a likelihood function, the estimates are not treated as probability density functions. Importantly the results are not reported as probabilities and probabilities are not considered as part of the management advice. d Y The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. As well as XSA, alternative software for fitting VPA models has been used over the years. In 2009, TISVPA and a “survey calibration” method were applied to the same data. These give basically the same results as XSA, although XSA continues for the main assessment for consistency. Since 1999, a new assessment model (Fleksibest‐now Gadget) has been used to provide an alternative assessment approach. This is a multispecies model of the cod life cycle, and allows more informed advice based on ecosystem considerations. The results from the GADGET model is in broad agreement with the XSA model in that the current stock size is close to the highest values seen over the last 20 years. There is some indication in the model results that recruitment may now be dropping from the recent high levels. e N The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. See SG80
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 79 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » ICES. 2012. 3.4.1 Cod in Subareas I and II (Northeast Arctic cod). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-10. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. References » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES 2009. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 21 - 27 April 2009. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:02.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 80 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle 1: Haddock Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing SG Issue Met? Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
See SG100 80 a It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. See SG100 b The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. See SG100 100 a There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Based on the 2012 estimate of SSB and 2011 estimate of fishing mortality, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably. The SSB has been above Bpa since 1989. It is therefore highly unlikely that the current level of the spawning stock biomass is impairing recruitment. b There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.
The SSB has been above Bpa since 1989 and therefore has been well within the target region over this period. Fishing mortality was reduced from above Flim in 1988 to below Fpa in 2000-2002. It has since then been kept below Flim and has fluctuated below Fpa in recent years. The high biomass can be attributed in part to higher than expected recruitment. Recruitment at age 3 has been at or above the long-term average since 2000. The year-classes 2004-2006 are estimated to be very strong, although surveys indicate that the year-classes 2007 onwards have weakened and therefore biomass is likely to decline. The fishing mortality is now in the range that is associated with high long-term yield, and if this is maintained, the working group believes that the stock should remain above Bpa. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice References June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11.
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference Current stock status relative Value of reference point point to reference point
Target reference point BMSY trigger 80 000t SSB SSB2012 = 373 646t
SSB / BMSY = 4.67 in 2012
Limit reference point Blim 50 000t SSB SSB/Blim = 7.47 in 2012
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 81 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.2
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. See SG80
80 a Y Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The reference points are based on spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality. These can be estimated from the available data and are appropriate for the harvest strategy. Reference points have been the same since 2000 and are based on spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality estimated from research and stock assessment outputs. These are appropriate for the available data and the type of fishery and species. Blim (50 000 t) is based on Bloss – the lowest biomass observed in the time series for which there is no evidence of recruitment impairment. Bpa (80 000 t) is set so that there is a 95% probability of maintaining the spawning stock biomass above Blim taking into account the estimated uncertainty in the assessments and stock dynamics.
Bpa is also proposed as the BMSY trigger, so that biomass above Bpa is the target biomass to maximise long term yield. More generally, Btrigger should be a biomass that is encountered with low probability if FMSY is implemented (ICES CM 2011/ACOM:33). Flim (0.77 year-1) is estimated based on a spawner-per-recruit calculation, with the geometric mean recruitment (146 million) and Blim. Using the same approach as for Bpa, Fpa (0.47 year-1) is defined so that there is a low probability Flim is -1 exceeded. The target fishing mortality, FMP = FMSY (0.35 year ) was defined based on a long-term stochastic simulation. b Y The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The limit reference point biomass is the lowest biomass estimated from the time series 1950-2008. This is justified based on the lack of any evidence of a reduced recruitment over the range of biomass estimated during this period. c Y The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome.
The target reference point is the fishing mortality target (FMP). The current management plan sets target fishing mortality at 0.35 whilst the SSB is above Bpa. The expected target biomass should fluctuate above the Bpa level with this fishing mortality. Evaluation of the harvest control rule has shown that FMP is consistent with high long-term yields and a low risk of depleting the productive potential of the stock, and has been adopted as the MSY reference point based on evidence from stochastic computer simulations. d NA For key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Haddock is not a low trophic level species. Cod prey on young haddock, but this is accounted for in the assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 82 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 b N The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. The approach adopted in defining the limit reference point does not indicate that precaution is being applied in relation to any factors beyond the past stock and recruitment time series. c N The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. There is no evidence that the target biomass is set following consideration of any precautionary issues or takes account of the ecological role of the stock. Analyses taking account of known population dynamics suggest FMSY will be between 0.25 and 0.45 year-1, with current target mid-way in this range. Overall, the current reference points are not sufficiently precautionary to meet the SG100. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2011a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April – 4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. References » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » ICES 2011b. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic Stocks (WKBENCH 2011). 24–31 January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 83 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.3
PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe.
80 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
100 a Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe.
b The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock.
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 84 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.1
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. See SG80 b Y The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. See SG80 c Y Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Data is routinely collected and evaluated to check on the performance of the harvest strategy. Reporting by the independent scientific authority, ICES, is in the public domain. (See SG80b) 80 a Y The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The elements for a good responsive harvest strategy are present. There is an agreed harvest control rule which is based on annual stock assessment and independent scientific advice. The management decision-making appears well informed and consideration is given to a wide number of issues besides stock size, including ecosystem considerations. The historic performance of the assessment and harvest strategy is routinely presented and provides an overview of the changes in the perception of the state of the stock in relation to SSB, fishing mortality and recruitment. The harvest rule was implemented in 2009 and the TAC set according to the rule. From 2009 to 2012, the TAC has been set in accordance with the harvest control rule (management plan). Note that a departure from the plan has been recommended for 2013 to avoid the biomass falling below Bpa (see PI 1.2.2). Haddock is mainly caught alongside cod and saithe, and controls as far as possible take account of the mixed catch. Although the TAC remains the main control, other technical measures are applied to improve the performance of the fishery. These include minimum mesh size, minimum landing size, a maximum bycatch of undersized fish and/or non-target species and seasonal or permanent areas closed to fishing to protect juveniles and bycatch species as well as a “move-on” rule based on the proportion of bycatch and undersize fish. Since January 1997, sorting grids have been mandatory for the trawl fisheries in most of the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. From 2011, the minimum catch size of haddock is 40 cm in the Russian EEZ, the Norwegian EEZ and the Svalbard area. The minimum mesh size in trawl codend is 130 mm. The number of vessels allowed to operate in the fishery is limited by licenses. The effects of these regulations have not been evaluated, although data exist which might allow an evaluation to take place. b Y The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The catches are well monitored with the exception of the IUU catch and discards (see PI 1.2.3). Discards are potential problem for monitoring haddock, but this is being investigated and there is no indication yet that discarding exceeds acceptable levels. In addition, age and survey information provide an independent assessment of the performance of the harvest strategy as they give independent information
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 85 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) on biomass and the exploitation rates. The harvest strategy is subject to review through the normal management processes. It is monitored by ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group which reports annually on the state of the stock and other issues arising in the fishery important to fisheries management. Parts of this review are made public, such as reports from ICES on management performance. There is evidence that this information is used by national Governments and the JNRFC. 100 a N The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy might be considered to be designed if the objectives and constraints had been used to formulate the various controls on fishing, which has not been the case. The approach adopted has been based more on trial and error, where the controls have been implemented to see whether they achieve the desired outcome or have been reactive to perceived impacts, such as high bycatch rates and capture of small fish. b N The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Given that the current harvest strategy has not been in place long, it cannot be considered to be fully evaluated. However, monitoring is in place and the recent relatively high stock biomass strongly indicates overall objectives are being met as fishing mortality has been reduced to levels more consistent with long-term sustainable exploitation. d N The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. The harvest strategy is subject to review through the normal management processes. Parts of this review are made public, such as reports from ICES on management performance. However, no external or special reviews of the overall management strategy have been undertaken and in contrast to arctic cod, there has been little evidence yet of improvements in the management plan. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May References 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 86 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.2
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generally understood harvest rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. See SG80
c Y There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. See SG80 80 a Y Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. JNRFC has agreed a management plan since 2004 with the objectives of maintaining high long-term yield, year-to-year stability, and full utilization of all available information on stock dynamics. It was modified in 2007 from a three-year rule to a one-year rule on the basis of the HCR evaluation conducted by ICES. The plan aims to maintain F at Fpa = 0.35 and restrict between-year TAC change to ±25% unless SSB falls below Bpa; in this case the target F should be reduced. The target fishing mortality has effectively been achieved 2008 – 2010, but in retrospect may have been exceeded in 2011. A departure from the rule (the restriction of between-year TAC change to ±25%) was applied in 2013 to reduce the risk of the stock falling below Bpa. ICES evaluated the management plan and concluded that it is in agreement with the precautionary approach. If conditions change to outside the range assumed in management plan evaluation (with respect to biological conditions, assessment quality, and implementation error), the management plan would be revised. The overall quota for haddock has been set at 200 000 t for 2013. This is 118 000 t lower than 2012 and 38 000 t lower than the advisory figures based on the management strategy. The haddock quota has been reduced to slow down any further decline in the stock. While a lower quota is clearly more precautionary, departures from the harvest control rule undermine the conclusion that it is “well- defined”. b Y The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. The rule has been tested through computer simulation against the main sources of implementation error. The worst case implementation error/IUU tested in 2007 of around 40% gave an effective F of 0.57 (much higher than the intended target), but still only resulted in less than 3% chance of falling below the biomass limit reference point. More recent stochastic simulations in 2011 show that the target fishing mortality (FMP=0.35) would give a low probability of falling below Bpa. Therefore, the simulations show that the rule has attributes which should maintain good performance. c Y Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Norwegian and Russian authorities have the administrative mechanisms and enforcement infrastructure to ensure compliance with this rule. The JNRFC agrees the TAC and quotas for each nation’s fleet participating in the North-East Arctic cod fishery and the fishery can be closed when quotas are taken. The activity and catch
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 87 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) landing of all fishing vessels is subject to regular monitoring. Catches are monitored and counted against the TAC during the year. Discards remain a source of uncertainty, but are being investigated. Although TAC regulations are in place, there has been a significant amount of unreported landings in the past. The main way used to evade quota control seems to have been trans-shipping of fish from the Barents Sea. Unreported landings will reduce the effect of management measures and will undermine the intended objectives of the harvest control rule. It is therefore important that management agencies ensure that all catches are counted against the TAC. The estimates of unreported landings have been reduced from 2005 (25%) to 2008 (4%), which can probably be attributed to, among other things, the introduction of port state control in the NEAFC area from 1 May 2007. No IUU has been detected since 2008, so the evidence indicates that tools are effective in controlling exploitation to the required levels. 100 b N The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. It is not possible to say that the rule is designed or that it takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. Ad hoc adaptations have been applied without determining beforehand whether they will meet management criteria. Furthermore, there have been several departures from the rule in response to perceived poor performance in practice. A lack of design is demonstrated by the inclusion of an objective (the limits on inter-annual variation) as part of the control, which has presented problems when implemented. c N Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. The evidence does not yet clearly show that the TAC achieves levels required by the HCR. Given the recent history of IUU and an unknown level of discarding, there is room for doubt as to the level of control. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May References 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 88 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.3
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.
See SG80
b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. See SG80
80 a Y Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. There is a more than a sufficient range of data available for the Barents Sea fisheries, including complete fleet information, biological data on the stocks and extensive environmental indices. These are not all used in the harvest strategy. However, information on ecological interactions and life history is not complete for haddock compared to cod, for example, which may have resulted in some problems in the stock assessment. Environmental indices are used to inform the stock assessment and improve estimates of abundance and status. North-east Arctic haddock are known to respond to three principal environmental influences: location of the Polar Front; the strength of the West Spitzbergen and North Cape currents; and the abundance of capelin. Variation in the recruitment of haddock has been associated with the changes in the influx of Atlantic waters to the Barents Sea and water temperature in the first and second years of the haddock life cycle is one of the factors that determine year-class strength. Estimates of cod predation are included in haddock stock assessment natural mortality, but density dependent mortality is not accounted for. Annual consumption of haddock by seals and whales may be inversely related to capelin abundance, although this interaction is not used in the assessment. Much of the life history of haddock in the Norwegian and Barents Seas is well documented, including main spawning ground areas where eggs, larvae and juvenile fish disperse, but the current surveys may not provide complete coverage of the spawning stock. The stock assessment includes the majority of the NEA stock although there may be some overlap with the North Sea stock. b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The harvest control rule requires accurate estimates of the exploitable biomass, spawning stock biomass, and fishing mortality. These estimates are obtained from the stock assessment (see PI 1.2.4), which requires catches, age composition and abundance indices. The fisheries are controlled by inspections of the trawler fleet at sea, i.e. by a requirement to report to control points when entering and leaving the EEZs, VMS satellite tracking, and by random inspections of fishing vessels when landing the fish. Keeping a detailed fishing logbook on-board is mandatory for most vessels, and large parts of the fleet report to the authorities on a daily basis. Landings are reported, although enforcement has not been complete, with significant trans-
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 89 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) shipped landings thought to have escaped detection in the past. Age, weight, length and maturity composition data are taken using random sampling from landings and survey catches. Changes in growth are accounted for by the time series of weight and age observations. Routine otolith exchanges among laboratories are carried out for both cod and haddock to validate ageing. The results show an improvement over time, with haddock age readings showing that the frequency of a different reading (usually ±1 year) has decreased from above 25% in 1996-1997 to about 10% at present. Catches are converted to catch- at-age based on age and length samples. Cod stomach content data is recorded in a joint PINRO-IMR stomach content database. On average about 9 000 cod stomachs from the Barents Sea have been analysed annually in the period 1984-2012. These data are used, among other things, to calculate the per capita consumption of haddock by cod for each half- year. Annual surveys are conducted. Four survey series are used as indices of stock abundance. The current survey approach has been applied since 1995. A combination of coordinated acoustic and trawl surveys are carried out each year by Russia and Norway in the Barents Sea and by Norway on the Lofoten spawning grounds. Survey data exist for the period 1981-2012, and complete series are available 1994-2012. The area coverage of surveys has been incomplete in 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 mainly due to lack of shared access to the Norwegian and Russian Economic Zones. The survey indices were corrected as far as possible. The survey indices were corrected for the assessment as far as possible, but this problem can only be eliminated by better co-operation between the Norwegian and Russian authorities. The Norwegian survey in 2012 was incomplete due to a technical problem, but otherwise surveys have been more consistent since 2007. The biases in catch estimates and survey indices do not invalidate stock assessment. c Y There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. At past AFWG meetings it has been recognized that there has been substantial mis/under-reporting of catches and discarding throughout the Barents Sea for most groundfish stocks. There is growing evidence of discarding throughout the Barents Sea for most groundfish stocks, despite discarding of commercial fish being illegal in Norway and Russia. Discarding is known to be a (varying) problem in the longline fisheries related to the abundance of haddock close to, but below the minimum landing size. While attempts to obtain better discard data continue, the lack of information adds significantly to the uncertainty in the assessment. Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) catches have been a problem in the Barents Sea. Since 2002, when the Norwegian and Russian governments reached agreement on a harvest control rule (HCR) and tighter catch reporting, there has been a significant improvement. The highest risk occurs where controls are likely to be least effective, and most uncontrolled landings are likely to be through transshipment. As implied by the World Bank Governance Indicators, landings and subsequent trade of fish within Russian jurisdiction may also be higher risk of being unrecorded. Although the problems may not be fully resolved and some IUU fishing continued in 2008, the Russian and Norwegian governments have agreed to maintain pressure for full catch disclosure and established a protocol whereby the unreported catches can be estimated and appropriate adjustments made to catch
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 90 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) data for stock assessment purposes. Since 2008, no IUU catches have been detected and the problem has apparently been dealt with. 100 a N A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. See SG80 b N All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Although the stock abundance, fishery removals and abundance indicators are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, abundance indices and catches are not monitored accurately enough to meet the SG100. Norwegian sampling of commercial catches has been less precise because a Norwegian port sampling programme ceased in mid-2009. The poor sampling caused problems in estimating Norwegian catches for the oldest ages in 2010. The AFWG reports that a small Norwegian port sampling programme from 2011 and onwards and an expansion of the high seas reference fleet has improved the situation somewhat, but there are still gaps for certain gears and areas. Russian sampling of commercial catches has also shown a declining trend. With discarding and past IUU, decreased sampling of catches (on which the assessment method depends) and surveys having not been consistent enough in recent years, this scoring guidepost is not met. » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April–4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April References 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. » MRAG (2009) Barents Sea Cod and Haddock: Control System and IUU Risk Assessment. Final Report HK1228 to Ocean Trawlers, November 2009. » Worldbank Worldwide Governance Indicators http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 91 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.4
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 b Y The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points. A stock assessment estimates the spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality relative to reference points defined for these indicators. c Y The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. See SG80 80 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. See SG100 c Y The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The major uncertainties are identified in the annual assessments and their implications examined and reported as part of the management advice. However specific advice is presented as a table of options for fishing mortality (TAC), but does not report outcomes in relation to the uncertainties in the data and assessment. The main uncertainties in this assessment derive from the biased catch statistics and inconsistencies in the surveys. Biased catch statistics have been considered through generating alternative unreported catch figures which have been added to the total catch in the stock assessment and accounts for the IUU catch. Considerable effort has been spent in recent years decreasing IUU catch making data collection more reliable in estimating catches, thereby decreasing uncertainty in the assessment. For haddock, unrecorded discards remain of important concern. The survey results show some inconsistency which may be explained by incomplete spatial coverage of surveys in 2006/2007 and 2012 (see PI 1.2.3). With the elimination of IUU catch, this may now be the main source of error. Although the sampling bias is unknown, it has been identified by the assessment and should be eliminated as it is only a problem of co-operation between the management authorities. Estimates of sampling error are to a large degree lacking or are incomplete for the input data used in the assessment. However, the uncertainty has been estimated for some parts of the input data, and the harvest control rule has been tested against suspected data error levels, covering the main uncertainties. e Y The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment is subject to review through the working group process, which produces a consensus report. The report itself is externally reviewed and reviewers’ comments are published as an annex to the report. The review is by correspondence, and although not in depth (for example, reviewers cannot request sensitivity runs for that year’s assessment), still allows independent assessment of the working group’s results which has a demonstrable impact within the management cycle. 100 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The stock size is estimated on an annual basis and its status relative to biological reference points is assessed. The assessment methodology and level of accuracy is sufficient to apply the harvest control rule effectively.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 92 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) The principal assessment model is the XSA version of virtual population analysis. The model is suitable for the available data. XSA is a generic age structured stock assessment, and one of the many variants of VPA. It is used by ICES for a number of stocks, has been widely tested and is generally considered robust as long as the catch-at-age and survey data are reliable. Species and stock-specific parameters are used in the model as appropriate. There is a significant body of research and monitoring data on growth and reproduction. Growth (weight at age) and maturity are estimated each year, taking account of their variability in the assessment. There is thought to be some density dependent mortality in haddock, but this is not accounted for in the current assessment. Estimates of cod predation on young haddock are included in the natural mortality. The assessment includes estimates of IUU catch for 2002-2008. While the stock assessment model and software are generic, they allow through the use of extensive data available for this stock to account for important attributes its biology and the fishery. c N The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The stock assessment is not probabilistic. Probability has been used to develop trigger reference points, and is implicitly part of the fitting process. It is not however, explicit in the assessment or in the scientific advice. d N The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. It was noted by the review that the diagnostics suggest XSA may not be entirely suitable for the population dynamics and/or the available data. There is a retrospective diagnostic of over estimating stock size and under estimating fishing mortality in the most recent years for reasons which are not fully understood. The problem can be caused by discarding and/or IUU, changes in natural mortality or problems with the consistency of the survey. For example, the working group suspects that the discarding might present a serious problem and possible density dependent mortality is not accounted for. Although some progress was made by a benchmark assessment in 2011, they remain to a large extent unresolved. The problems identified with the diagnostics and issues over the appropriateness of the model for this fishery means that the current approach is not robust enough to meet the SG100. e N The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. See SG80 » ICES 2012. 3.4.3 Northeast Arctic haddock (Subareas I and II). ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. pp.1-11. » ICES. 2011a. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 28 April – 4 May 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:05. » ICES 2011b. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Roundfish and Pelagic References Stocks (WKBENCH 2011). 24–31 January 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:38 » ICES. 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, 20 April–26 April 2012. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 93 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 94 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle 2: Cod and Haddock, trawl Main retained species include saithe (5% of total catch), Greenland halibut (1.4%, commercially important; coincidence of distribution and fishing activity (depth; location), catch roughly 12% of total for SA I&2), wolfish (1.1%, vulnerable, poor data); redfish (0.6%, vulnerable; catch of S marinus roughly 3.7% of catch in SA 1&2, and probably more than 5% assuming S marinus makes up significant proportion of unidentified redfish). Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a P Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue d below). There is good, accurate and verifiable data on the species retained by client vessels provided by PINRO covering the period 2010-2012. 89% of the catch comprises cod and haddock dealt with under P1. Saithe (see 80 guidepost) Y Greenland halibut (see 80 guidepost) Y Three wolffish species are caught: spotted wolfish (Anarhichas minor) (0.5%) northern wolfish (A. denticulatus) (0.3%); and Atlantic wolfish (A. lupus) 0.3%. These species have similar life-history characteristics and are vulnerable to overfishing (slow growing/late maturation) and secondary impacts of trawling on spawning/breeding behavior (male guarding of eggs on the seabed). There has been no stock assessment of these species because of their limited commercial importance, and relatively low catch rates in the fishery as a whole. All three wolffish species are widely distributed throughout the N Atlantic. Of the three, A denticulatus (Northern wolffish) has the greater depth range, and there is significant coincidence in terms of its habitat/depth preference and patterns of fishing effort of the FIUN trawl fleet. However, the FIUN trawl fleet caught only 840 tonnes of this species (2010-2012) compared with 16,152 caught by the FIUN longliner fleet, so that overall relative impact is probably limited. Catch of spotted wolffish at 1280 tonnes (2 years) is higher and more significant when compared with the long-line fleet catch at 5,556 tonnes. While the data is uncertain, anecdotal information from stakeholders suggest that spotted wolfish is most likely not overfished, and catch trend data for this species in the NE Atlantic shows no obvious decline. Data collected under the Ecosystem survey of the Barents Sea suggests abundance and biomass has increased substantially and range possibly extended over the period 2010 to 2012. Catches of this species by the longline fleet are relatively high (at 12%) given the known current abundance of cod, suggesting that they too are relatively abundant. The status of the northern wolfish is less clear. FAO data suggests that landings from the NE Atlantic declined rapidly in the period 2001-2009. However, the Barents Sea Ecosystem survey data suggests significant increase in both abundance and biomass in the period 2010-2012. Furthermore, this species currently makes up 34% of the FIUN long-liner catch also suggesting it is relatively abundant. Atlantic wolfish. FAO catch data shows no clear downward trend for this species, and data from the Barents Sea Ecosystem survey suggests abundance is increasing due to greater numbers of younger fish, though biomass appears to be decreasing.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 95 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) In the case of all the wolfish species, there has been no serious alarm raised by scientists or NGOs in relation to these species. Overall therefore we consider it likely that these species are within biological limits. Y Beaked Redfish (Sebastes mentella). See 80 guidepost Y Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) is fished both in a directed gillnet and longline fishery and as bycatch in trawl fisheries targeting cod and saithe. Main concentrations are found at 150 to 300m and there is significant correspondence between the distribution of this species and the fishing activities of the FIUN trawl fleet. This species has been assessed by ICES, and current landings are considered unsustainable. SSB has been decreasing since the 1990s and is currently at the lowest level in the time-series. Recruitment is very low. Fishing mortality has been increasing since 2005 and currently stands at 0.3 - the highest level in the time- series. This would probably need to be reduced to around 0.05 (year-1) to ensure stock recovery, requiring catches to be reduced to 17% of their current level (i.e. approximately 1000t). ICES advises on the basis of the precautionary approach that there should be no fishing on this stock. Although the most recent Barents Sea Ecosystem survey data is encouraging (abundance has doubled and biomass increased by 60% between 2011 and 2012), the balance of evidence is such that we cannot say that S marinus is likely to be within biological limits. N c Y If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. Norway has the majority of landings of S marinus, making up 80% of the total (5,829t for subareas I and II in 2011); Russian landings were estimated to be 919t, or 16%. The FIUN fleet contributes about 210 tonnes, or just 3.6% of the total. All directed fisheries except by handline are closed between 20 December-31 July and in September. Directed trawl fishery is not allowed. There are regulations on minimum size and on the percentage of allowed bycatch of S. marinus when fishing for other species. For the FIUN trawl fleet there is a bycatch limit for all redfish species of 15%. The FIUN trawl fleet bycatch of redfish (all species) is just 0.6% - well within the required limit. The catch of S marinus together with unidentified redfish comprises 0.3% of the total catch. There are also the usual measures in place designed to minimize catch of immature fish, including mesh size (130mm) and separator grids. Y d Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. As for c
80 a P Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue c below). Saithe comprises 5% of the catch, and is assessed by ICES as harvested sustainably (mortality within precautionary and limit reference points at management plan target levels; SSB at full reproductive capacity, within precautionary and limit
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 96 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) reference points, and above management plan trigger). Y The evidence presented under the 60 guidepost suggests that Saithe is highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Y Beaked Redfish (Sebastes mentella). See rationale at SG 100a Y. Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides). ICES advice is available for this species. The stock size in Norwegian surveys has been constant over the last decade, whereas the Russian survey shows substantial increase. Biomass estimates indicate a stable or increasing trend since 1992. The most recent Barents Sea ecosystem survey data suggests an increase in abundance, with more young fish, but a decrease in overall biomass. A precautionary TAC of 15,000t was put in place for 2010 and 2011, and catches were closely aligned to this amount. ICES advice for 2012 was also 15,000t, but a TAC of 18,000t was set by JNRFC. On balance, we consider that this stock is highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Y Golden redfish (S marinus) the evidence presented under the 60 SG suggests that this species is vulnerable and is currently not highly likely to be within biologically based limits. N Wolffish. The evidence presented for these species under the 60 SG is inadequate to justify a score of 80. Information is limited and somewhat contradictory for these species. N c P If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Wolffish. Beyond the usual measures of grid separator and mesh size to protect young fish, there are no specific measures in place to conserve wolffish, beyond a catch limit of 15% (for wolfish and other non-target species) in the cod and haddock trawl fishery. Overall, given the possible indirect effects of trawling on breeding behavior/success, the absence of specific measures directed at the protection of wolfish, and the limited information on stock status and fishing mortality, it is not possible to state that there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective measures in place for these species, and there is a risk that the fishery could hinder recovery and rebuilding. N For Golden redfish, Sebastes marinus, there is a partial strategy in place as discussed under 60c, which is expected to safeguard redfish stocks. However, the current poor status of this stock means that such measures cannot (as yet) be said to be demonstrably effective, although there are some promising signs. Furthermore, the current bycatch limit of 15% for all non-target species (excl. halibut) would appear to be less than precautionary, and inadequate to specifically protect the more vulnerable S marinus. N 100 a P There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. For the reasons presented above we consider that there is a high degree of certainty that Saithe is within biologically based limits. Y Beaked Redfish (Sebastes mentella). This species has been assessed by ICES. The spawning stock biomass has been increasing since 1992 and slightly decreasing or
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 97 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) stable since 2005. The current SSB is estimated to be around 600 000t. Measures currently in place to protect juveniles have proven successful and the stock is now considered in good condition. The working group advises that catches at or below 47 000t are sustainable. Recorded catches have always been less than this figure and since 2007 catches have been 10-20 000t. The available data and current management indicate that this stock is at low risk. Y Given the limited knowledge of the state of the Greenland halibut stock, and the lack of reference points at the present time, this cannot be scored at 100, though this may change once the anticipated 2013 benchmark is in place. N Given the evidence provided above the other main retained species (Golden redfish, wolffish) cannot be scored at 100. N Several other retained species not considered as “main” should also be considered here. Plaice (P. platessa, 2% of catch and roughly 3% of NE Atlantic landings) is widely distributed in the N Atlantic. It is at the limit of its range in the southern Barents Sea, and is in any case mainly a shallower water species. The main stocks further south are considered by ICES to be well within biological limits. Y Ecosystem survey data shows Long rough dab (Hippoglossoides platessoides (0.2%) to be abundant in the Barents Sea – especially in the central and eastern parts away from the main activities of the FIUN trawl fleet, but target reference points have not been established. So while there are no concerns in relation to this species it cannot currently be scored 100. N. b N Target reference points are defined and retained species. Target reference points are defined for cod, haddock, saithe, but not for other retained species. » FAO Fishstat » Fishbase www.fishbase.org » Institute of Marine Research 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea, Autumn 2012 (monitoring the demersal community). http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Greenland halibut in sub- areas I and II. Advice for 2013 » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Saithe in sub-areas I and II References (Northeast Arctic). Advice for 2013 » ICES AFWG 2012 report » ICES 2012. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. 3.4.5. 9p. » ICES 2012. Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012. 3.4.5, Book 3. 9p. » IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 98 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » NOAA NE Stocks Data Poor Working Group Meeting 2008. Working Paper: Atlantic Wolffish (Main Report). Woods Hole MA Dec 8-12 2008. » PINRO 2012. Confidential report to FCI by PINRO on the FIUN long-line fleet » Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea, Autumn 2012 (monitoring the demersal community)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1: Further measures to protect S marinus; better information on 1 wolffish
5
5 P has been scored at 60a because one of the retained fish species, Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus), cannot be said to be likely to be within biological limits. It has therefore been assessed at 60c, where it passes
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 99 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. The following measures are in place: » Minimum mesh size (130mm) and sorting grids, designed to protect the young of all species » Closed areas in both Norwegian and Russian sectors, but none designed specifically to protect main retained species. » Bycatch limits for some retained fish types are in place for the trawl fleet: Redfish and other species 15%; Greenland halibut 7%), coupled with a move on rule, should bycatch begin to exceed this or other limits set by the authorities. In addition skipper and crew knowledge and experience, effective communication systems between vessels and with the authorities, and advice from PINRO taken together represent significant measures. Given the state of stocks as discussed under 2.1.1 these measures are likely to maintain Saithe, Halibut, and Sebastes mentella at levels highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Although information is limited, the relatively low catch rate of S marinus (213t corresponding to 3.7% of the total for subareas I &II, and together with other redfish species at 0.65% of FIUN catch well below the bycatch limit) suggests that this fishery is unlikely to hinder stock recovery and re-building. Similarly, the catch of wolffish by the FIUN fleet is low (640t for spotted wolffish; 420 tonnes for N Wolffish; 408 tonnes for Atlantic wolfish). Given the generally positive indicators of stock abundance as determined by recent Barents Sea Ecosystem survey trend data, suggests that the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery and re-building of wolfish stocks.
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is strong evidence of implementation of these measures (non-target species limits), reinforced with regular inspections. Statistics confirm that bycatch limits are not exceeded. There is a 7% catch limit for halibut while actual catch is 1.36%. For redfish the bycatch limit is 15% while actual catch is 0.65%. Given these figures, and the small proportion of the overall fishery that the FIUN trawler fleet catch comprises, the existing measures are likely to be adequate to address the risk posed by the fishery with respect to main retained species - although their success in the longer term will be contingent on appropriate measures being taken by those fisheries which target these species.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 100 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. In so far as the existing measures recognize the particular vulnerability of redfish and halibut, and also take account of the relatively insignificant contribution of the trawl fleet to total catch of main retained species, the measures may be considered as appropriate and proportionate – and therefore strategic. However, in so far as the measures do not specifically target the more vulnerable redfish species – S marinus, and there is no specific measure in place to protect wolffish, the measures can only be described at best as a partial strategy. b N There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. In respect of both wolffish and Sebastes marinus, and to a lesser extent halibut, there is limited objective information to support either design of the conservation and management measures, or measure success of these measures. For example, there is no official estimate of fishing mortality for Sebastes marinus and the various wolfish species, nor of the likely impact that the various measures might have on this. The large proportion of unidentified redfish in the redfish catch (23%) is unsatisfactory given the substantial difference in status between the two species at the present time. There is a need to improve knowledge and identification and reporting of species. It would also make sense to introduce more restrictive bycatch limits specifically addressed at S marinus, and this would in turn lever improvements in species identification and recording. There is poor information on the total catch of wolffish in the Barents Sea (and indeed ICES SA I and II) and therefore also of the proportion of wolfish taken by the FIUN trawl fleet. There is no assessment from ICES, and FAO data on total catch does not appear to tally well with known catch rates. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is good verifiable evidence that bycatch limits and other standard measures are being respected, and this is made more likely because of the high concentration of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds.
100 a N There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. There is no clearly articulated strategy to address the issue of the management of all retained species; there is no significant program to generate good information on the status of the stocks of several retained species, including all three wolfish species; and existing measures are not specifically directed at the most vulnerable species.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 101 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. See comments under 80b c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. NA d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. NA » FAO Fishstat » Fishbase www.fishbase.org » ICES 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group 2012 (AFWG) » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Greenland halibut in sub- areas I and II. Advice for 2013 » ICES 2012. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. 3.4.5. 9p. References » ICES 2012. Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012. 3.4.5, Book 3. 9p. » Institute of Marine Research/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea, Autumn 2012 (monitoring the demersal community). http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no » PINRO 2012. Confidential report to FCI by PINRO on the FIUN long-line fleet » Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries: Regulations. http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1 Inadequate information to measure performance of 1 measures
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 102 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See 80a
b Y Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See 80b c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. The information described above, coupled with appropriate analysis, is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species, though only partial identification of redfish species in the commercial catch data is a weakness. 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Accurate and verifiable catch and landings data on main retained species are recorded, checked and passed to appropriate authorities. Good information is available on the retained species and bycatch broken down by species, and this cross checks against similar fisheries. PINRO represents impartial quality control of data. Discards at sea could undermine the quality of this data, but this is more likely to be a problem for the target species than bycatch, since it is probably more usually associated with an overabundance of the target species under present conditions. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. There is excellent catch data on main retained species by the FIUN trawler fleet, as noted under a. Good catch data for main retained bycatch for other fleets is also available. Together with information on abundance and size composition as determined in PINRO/IMR surveys under the Barents Sea Ecosystem Survey, and understanding of life history characteristics, information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to broad biologically based limits for most species. Although data specifically relating to wolffish species or Sebastes marinus is limited, the generally positive indicators of stock abundance as determined by recent Barents Sea Ecosystem survey trend data, suggests that the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery and re-building of wolfish stocks. c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. The information noted above is more than adequate to support a partial strategy d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) As noted above, data on catch, catch composition and landings is relatively comprehensive offering a good basis for assessing pressure and associated risks. Survey data is available on the status of major commercial species, and the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 103 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea (monitoring the demersal community) is specifically designed to flag up emerging problems in terms of population abundance and structure of a range of key species. 100 a N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. While data is generally good there are some important weaknesses: » While there appears to be substantial and verifiable data, synthesis and analysis of this data to generate management information appears to be limited, and certainly such information is not widely available. » The two redfish species are not always distinguished in commercial catch and landings data. This is of some concern given the differences in stock status. » While data on the catch of redfish and wolffish appears to be good, information/trend data on catch size distribution has not been either systematically collected or worked up to allow for good assessment of the consequences for the status of affected populations. b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. For the reasons given under 80a, and also given the limited attention that has been paid to stock assessment for wolffish, it is unlikely that existing information is sufficient to estimate outcome status for all species with a high degree of certainty. Furthermore, there is substantial uncertainty about overall catch of wolffish in the Barents Sea or indeed in SA I&2 (at least from publicly available sources), and the relative impact of this fishery is hard to judge. There is no assessment from ICES, and FAO data appears erratic and contradictory. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. In addition to the limitations noted above, there remain significant uncertainties about life history and population parameters for wolfish and redfish species, and these species are by their very nature difficult to manage because of limited relations between stock biomass and recruitment. d N Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Monitoring of the catch of retained species is good in most cases, but as noted above, data on length weight/size distribution is either not regularly collected or analysed for the purposes of stock management. There is an opportunity here to significantly improve information collection by the commercial fleet in support of better management of retained species.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 104 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 105 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). The fishery is very clean and a discard ban is in place for listed species. As such we do not consider that any discarded fish can be classified as main for this fishery b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. NA
c Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. NA
80 a Y Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). NA b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. NA 100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. A discard ban is in place with respect to listed species (Section 48 of the Norwegian Fisheries legislation) and evidence suggests that this is broadly speaking respected. The only significant discarding of listed species which may be taking place at the present time relates to spillage or discarding of target species which are exceptionally abundant at the present time. This is dealt with under P1. American plaice, blue catfish, rays and Norway haddock are mostly discarded from trawlers (Grekov and pavlenko 2011) There may also be discarding of some non-commercial species, including elasmobranchs (some historic evidence is provided by Drevetnyak et al 2003) though (3) skippers suggested this was now negligible. As a consequence there is no data on species and quantities discarded from the FIUN fleet. Some research is available relating to trawl and long line fisheries in the Barents Sea (Dolgov et al 2002, 2005). Some research is available relating to trawl and long line fisheries in the Barents Sea (Dolgov et al 2002, 2005, Grekov 2007). According to (Grekov 2007) twenty-nine species of fish are harvested by longline in the Barents Sea (compared with 30-50 species for trawls with mesh size 125-135mm).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 106 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Third party data is also generated through the Norwegian reference fleet. This covers a range of vessel types and includes substantial fishing further south (i.e. includes other North Atlantic and North Sea Fisheries) but nonetheless offers some clues as to species that might form a significant discarded bycatch, especially when data is compared with the known distribution and depth preference of these species. Our analysis of these various sources suggests that several species are likely to be caught and may be discarded, including Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) (listed by IUCN as vulnerable, Northern Skate (R Hyperborean), Round skate (Rajella fyllae) (IUCN least concern). Very small quantities of the critically endangered (IUCN) blue skate (Dipturus batis) may also be caught, but the FIUN trawl fishery mainly operates well to the north of the main areas of natural distribution. Other fish species that might be significant in a discarded bycatch include the rough rattail/rough headed grenadier(Macrourus berglax) and the greater argentine (Argentina silus) both of which have centres of distribution in the barents Sea, and have life cycle characteristics that make them highly vulnerable. In trawl survey undertaken by Dolgov et al (2005) thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) was caught at an average rate of around 10kg / hour of trawl, but the author concludes that ‘the total catch of skates in the Barents Sea is relatively small compared to the stock size, which is as large as 116,000 tons”. More recent work has indicated that skates and rays have relatively high post capture survival (55%). However, the critical determinant of survival rate is cod end weight, which is likely to be high given the current abundance of target species. Discussions with vessel captains and PINRO suggests that discards of these and other species are not a significant issue, and no specific concerns were raised in this regard by other stakeholders. Given the very high density and concentration of target species at the present time (implying short trawl times relative to catch), and the knowledge, experience and technology available to modern fishing vessels, the proportion of discards is likely to be relatively low, and the threat of the fishery to these species limited. However, the data is inadequate in respect of the initial catch, abundance and distribution of these species to be sure there is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. N There is also discarded bycatch of benthic organisms but this is dealt with under 2.4 References » Dolgov et al 2002. By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting September 2002. » Dolgov, A. V., A. A. Grekov, I. P. Shestopal, and K. M. Sokolov. (2005). By- catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366 » Drevetnyak K. V., Dolgov, A.V., Sokolov, K.M., Gusev, E.V. and Grekov A.A. Skates in the Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11 » Enever R., Catchpole T. L., Ellis J. R and Grant A (2009). The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research. Volume 97, Issues 1-2, April 2009, Pages 72-76
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 107 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » Fishbase. www.fishbase.org » Grekov, А.А. (2001). Comparative analysis of longline and trawl catches during experimental fishing of black halibut (in Russian). Materials of the conference of young scientists dedicated to PINRO’s 80th anniversary. Murmansk, PINRO, Pages 24-32. » Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A 2011 A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. » IMR 2011. Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet. Report to IMR by an international committee. » Norwegian Government. Act of 19 June 2009 No. 100 Relating to the Management of Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity (Nature Diversity Act) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature- diversity-act.html?id=570549
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 108 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. Given the discard ban we consider that there are no “main” bycatch species b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). NA
80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The fleet operates standard procedures designed to reduce all bycatch, including separator grid and minimum mesh size. A discard ban is in place in relation to listed species, implemented and reinforced through a “move on rule”. Skippers, aided by modern technology, are increasingly knowledgeable about the best places to find good concentrations of target species. This coupled with the current high density of target species should reduce discarding to a minimum. b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Historic and current research, observer programmes, and anecdotal evidence all support the view that the discard ban/move-on rule is working, albeit with occasional infringements. Independent stakeholders (scientific, environmental) have not raised discards as a significant issue (except in relation to excessive catch of target spe3cies, dealt with under P1). Stocks of target species remain healthy, and some limited research suggests that impacts on skates and rays is unlikely to be serious (Dolgov et al 2005). c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is strong evidence to suggest that the discard ban and move on rule are implemented with only occasional infringements, usually in relation to excessive catch of target species. Separator grids and minimum mesh size are standard and used routinely. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch. There is a comprehensive system in place designed specifically to minimize discards of bycatch, including technical measures, handling protocols, inspections, and survey monitoring of key demersal species. This may be regarded as a strategy.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 109 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Additional measures might also be considered, such as hopper grids to allow for immediate separation and return to the sea of living bycatch which can be legally discarded. However the benefits and practicality of such measures needs to be further researched. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is high confidence that the strategy will work in respect of target species (e.g. undersize cod and haddock) but there has been limited testing of the effectiveness of the discard ban in relation to vulnerable species, either directly through analysis of catch and discard data, or indirectly through stock assessment of vulnerable or discarded species. c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There are regular routine inspections, and periodic observer programmes, and overall the evidence suggests that the measures are being implemented. d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Insofar as the strategy is targeted primarily at discarding of target and main retained species there is good evidence from inspections and stock assessments that it is achieving its objectives. However, the strategy does not give adequate weight to the need to conserve non target and non-retained species such as elasmobranchs, and evidence of success is limited with regard to these species. References See 2.2.1 » Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A. 2011. A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 110 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Given the discards policy there are no “main” bycatch species discarded. b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits NA c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. NA 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Given the discards policy there are no “main” bycatch species discarded. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. NA c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. NA d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). NA
100 a Y Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. The discard ban on listed species automatically results in more bycatch being recorded and landed, and results in better data on catch. This is indeed part of its purpose. The FIUN management staff and skippers were of the view that other discarded bycatch was negligible. While this may be the case (and the current abundance of target species should reduce bycatch) historic studies such as those of Dolgov and Drevetnyak suggest that catch of some potentially vulnerable elasmobranch species may be significant (see 2.2.1). At the present time objective opinion and data is not available on what may or may not be a significant discarded bycatch. There is also some uncertainty about the quantity of discards of target species which occurs occasionally because of the very high catch rates and volumes currently achieved. Since in some cases this activity is illegal, data is not available. This is dealt with under P1.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 111 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Existing data is inadequate to estimate outcome status of e.g. skate and ray species with a high degree of certainty c Y Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Information has already been used to develop a comprehensive strategy, and this strategy is working as far as is known. There is good information on catch of non- target retained species (which might previously have been discarded) so that it may be said that the strategy is largely achieving its objective. d N Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. Despite the excellent data generated as a result of the increased retained catch, there remain some small gaps in the information which relate to vulnerable species and illegal discarding. References » Dolgov et al 2002. By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting September 2002. » Dolgov, A. V., A. A. Grekov, I. P. Shestopal, and K. M. Sokolov. (2005). By- catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366 » Drevetnya, K. V., Dolgov A.V., Sokolov K.M., Gusev E.V., and Grekov. A.A. Skates in the Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 112 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. See rationale at 80
b Y Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
There is no evidence that interaction between the FIUN fleet and ETP species are frequent, substantial, or cause significant impact on the species concerned. 80 a Y The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. ETP species are those recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party, including Appendix I of CITES. Russia is signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Both Norway and Russia have developed “red-lists” of threatened species which are recognized in Government policy and legislation. Russia is also a signatory to NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) which along with IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. ICES provide and coordinate knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME). The Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea– Lofoten Area, and the various monitoring initiatives under the Joint Russian Norwegian environmental assessment and status report for the Barents Sea may be regarded as international best practice in this regard. Under Russian Fishery Rules for the Northern Fish Economic basin (2009), the catch of red listed “water bio resources” is forbidden except under license or as part of research. We are aware of no evidence to suggest that the requirements under these agreements and initiatives are not being met, and no specific concern in this regard was raised by any stakeholder (scientists, NGOS). Evidence of actual effects presented below supports the view that the effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. b Y Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
Examination of the Russian and Norwegian red lists (discussed in more detail in the background section) suggests that the following species listed as endangered or critically endangered may be encountered during trawl activities: » Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) » Common or blue skate (Dipturus batis)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 113 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) » Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) Golden redfish has been dealt with under retained species. Very small quantities of the critically endangered (IUCN) blue skate may also be caught, but the FIUN trawl fishery mainly operates well to the north of the main areas of natural distribution. Spurdog is a very widely distributed and in many cases abundant species but is nonetheless vulnerable because of life history characteristics. However, it is more of a temperate species and at the edge of its range in the Barents Sea. The risk to this species from the fishery is therefore assessed as small, and there are no specific legal requirements Blue ling has a distribution from the Azores to Spitsbergen, and the Barents Sea is an important centre of population. Found at 350-500m on muddy bottoms there are likely to be encounters with FIUN trawl nets. This species suffered stock collapse in the 90s and has not recovered. Data on retained species shows a very small catch of Ling (0.02% of catch; 58 tonnes over 2 years), but no blue ling are recorded. Unfortunately this species is not included in the Barents Sea ecosystem survey so its current status is difficult to assess. Although anecdotal and recorded evidence suggests that this species are rarely encountered, this is hard to verify, and knowledge of/recognition some of these species is likely to be limited. In the absence of good data, the risk to this species may therefore be assessed as moderate. Several marine mammals are included on the Norwegian and Russian red lists, and are listed in CITES Annex 1, but direct encounters with cetaceans and seals are recorded as rare, and are avoided, given the potential negative impact on fishing operations. Encounters with cetaceans are normally associated with set nets and pelagic gears rather than deep trawls. Similarly. Encounters with seals and similar species are unlikely in an offshore fishery of this kind. A review of the impact of Norwegian offshore demersal trawl fisheries on marine mammals was undertaken by ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC 2009) and concluded that larger offshore demersal trawl vessels “are regarded as having a relatively low risk for bycatches of marine mammals”. Interactions with ETP seabirds are also possible, especially during hauling. However, the main problem in this regard relates to the use of gill and drift nets in coastal fisheries, and there are no reports of significant interactions with deeper water trawl nets. Based on the above, we conclude that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. c Y Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. See rationale at 100c
100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The evidence presented under 80a suggests that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements. However, given that occasional encounters with ETP species are highly likely, and records of such encounters very limited and/or not routinely synthesized and analysed, this cannot be stated with a high degree of certainty.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 114 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
b N There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. Given the question mark over impacts on blue ling (see 60b), we cannot conclude that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. c Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. Indirect effects might include “ghost” fishing, removal of prey and pollution, as well as e.g. disturbance/interference of feeding or breeding behavior of ETP species. Loss of gear and the danger associated with ghost fishing is kept to the minimum through gear design and knowledge of seabed characteristics. In any case this tends to be a problem in respect of gillnet and drift net fisheries rather than trawl nets. As noted in the Barents Sea Ecosystem Assessment “The factors responsible for the declining trends (in seabird populations) in the western parts of the region probably involve food shortage, predation from an increasing population of white- tailed eagles and lagged effects from previous by-catch in fisheries”. The latter almost certainly refers to historic catches in gill and drift nets in inshore fisheries. In the past, negative impacts of fisheries on small pelagic fish or young fish of other species has been blamed for reducing food availability for seabirds, but this is not an issue at the present time. Indeed, it is arguable that a fishery targeted at cod and haddock (predators of capelin etc.) would indirectly benefit seabirds. Pollution is highly unlikely to be significant from fishing vessels. All vessels are fully MARPOL compliant, with excellent waste and oil handing protocols. PCBs etc. from other sources are of far greater concern in this regard. Discard of fish waste may be seen to be broadly beneficial to several seabird species. Overall, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. References » Barents Portal - The Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/ » Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A. 2011. A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. » Larsen, T, Nagoda D, and Andersen J R eds. 2003 The Barents Sea Ecoregion: A biodiversity assessment. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » ICES SGBYC REPORT 2010 » ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 Copenhagen, Denmark
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 115 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. See 80a
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 80b
80 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) and IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. There are several significant research programmes to monitor marine mammal abundance and distribution in the Barents Sea (Barents Sea Portal) An ICE provides and coordinates knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME). Much of this advice however relates to reducing the catch of marine mammals and seabirds, neither of which is considered to be a significant issue for the FIUN trawl fleet. There are few national and international requirements relating to the catch of other ETP species, although there has been substantial discussion and research especially in relation to bycatch (Grekov and Pavlenko 2011), and catch of elasmobranch species, some of which are threatened. In line with NEAFC recommendations Norway has in place a temporary ban on commercial fishing of Squalus acanthias, Cetorhinus maximus (basking shark) and Lamna nasus (porbeagle), and is in process of developing a national plan of action for sharks. However, landing of bycatch is obligatory and these may enter into trade. Under Russian Fishery Rules for the Northern Fish Economic basin (2009), the catch of red listed “water bio resources” is forbidden except under license or as part of research. At present practical measures to protect threatened species are limited, but reflect the (likely) limited number of damaging encounters, and may therefore be considered appropriate to the scale of the problem. Measures currently in place include standard measures for the reduction of bycatch as discussed in section 2.2. These may be regarded as appropriate to scale of interaction and national/international requirements as described under 2.3.1.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 116 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. In so far as encounters are probably limited, the strategy, as described above may be said to be working. Inspections are fairly regular, and there is no on-board evidence of significant problems related to ETP species. There are longstanding monitoring programmes related to marine mammal abundance and no evidence of significant negative interactions with the trawl fleet.
c Y There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Both Russia and Norway submit periodic reports to both ICES and NAMMCO on ETP issues, and some aspects of the strategy are now explicit in national legislation. Regular inspections of vessels at sea and in port reveal no significant infringements of existing measures. Periodic evidence from observers also reinforces the view that measures are being implemented. 100 a N There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Although the existing set of measures and initiatives can be said to meet international standards, they fall short of best practice in all its dimensions, and cannot be described as comprising a comprehensive strategy (objectives, measures, monitoring, adaptation). Records of encounters with ETP species are limited and/or neither synthesized or analysed. Neither country has as yet an NPOA sharks, though Norway is in process of developing one. Possible measures to maximise survival of bycatch skates and rays (such as hopper grids) appear to have received little attention. There is an FAO sponsored international plan of action relating to shark (elasmobranch) conservation and management, and national management bodies are urged to develop national plans of action. To date neither Russia nor Norway has developed such a plan, though Norway is currently developing one. b N The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. As noted above actual data on encounters with ETP species is limited. While this may reflect the infrequency of such encounters, it is nonetheless inadequate to support a high degree of confidence. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. See 100b
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 117 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d N There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There is a lack of evidence that the broader policy objectives are being achieved. Good information on the status of some red list ETP species is lacking. References » Barents portal: Mammal Monitoring http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_cont ent&view=article&id=289&Itemid=284&lang=en » Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna. Twenty-sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 Report on assessing the intrinsic vulnerability of harvested sharks. Annex Norway – p. 1 Response from Norway on shark questions. » ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 Copenhagen, Denmark » NEAFC Recommendation 5: 2012 on conservation and management measures for Spurdog (Squalus acanthus) » NEAFC Recommendation 6:2012. Recommendation for the conservation and management of Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) » NEAFC Recommendation 7:2012. Recommendation for the conservation and management of deep sea sharks
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 118 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including:
PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. See 80a
b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. see 80b
c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. see 80c
80 a Y Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. The PINRO / IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea ecosystem offers an overview of the ETP species which occur in the Barents Sea including their spatial and temporal distribution and ecology. Marine mammal survey work in the Barents Sea has been undertaken for many years and underpins abundance estimates in the Barents Sea. Methods include mark-recapture, breeding surveys of some species and transect surveys by ship (for whales) or spotter plane (for cetaceans). The surveys are driven in part by ICES advice relating to quotas for commercial harvesting of marine mammals, or species identified as particularly vulnerable. The Norwegian Institute of Marine Research undertakes annual surveys of minke whales and other large baleen whales generating abundance estimates every 6 years. Since 2002 the distribution of marine mammals in the Barents Sea has been recorded by research vessels, aircraft, fishing vessels and coastguard vessels under the Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem survey. VMS data now allows for precise analysis of spatial distribution of fishing effort allowing for potential interactions to be assessed or predicted. The discard ban and species recording requirements generate high quality data on the catch of a wide range of species, although the analysis presented under 2.1 suggests that encounters with ETP species are likely to be rare. The Norwegian reference fleet provides information on catch of all species, though this is unlikely to correspond to catch composition of the trawl fleet in the Barents Sea Norway submits analysis of gear interaction with key ETP species to the ICES SGBYC, for trawl fisheries in the Barents Sea.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 119 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including:
PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. b Y Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. The information and analysis described under 80a is considered sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. The trawl fleet has not been identified in these assessments as representing a particular threat to ETP species. c Y Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. The information and analysis described under 80a is adequate to meet this condition. 100 a N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. Data, and especially trend data on fishery interactions with ETP species is limited – in large part because of their rarity. While understandable this limitation means outcome status cannot be estimated quantitatively with a high degree of certainty. To meet this requirement there would be a need for more representative reference fleet data, and/or more comprehensive data generated by on board observers. More detailed log books and specifically an ETP encounter reporting protocol would also help to address current data limitations. b N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. See 100a
c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. See 100a
» Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Stiansen, J.E. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., and Marasaev, S. (Co-eds.) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(2), 22 pp. References » Blanchard, J.L. Pinnegar J.K. and S. Mackinson 2002 Exploring marine mammal fishery interactions using ecopath with ecosim: modeling the Barents Sea Ecosystem. CEFAS Science Series Technical Report No 17. » http://www.barentsportal.com
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 120 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including:
PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » ICES WGSE REPORT 2008 ICES LIVING RESOURCES COMMITTEE. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE). ICES CM 2008/LRC:05 REF. ACOM, WGECO » ICES 2010. Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 » ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2010. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:19 » WWF. The Barents Sea – a sea of opportunities…and threats. Petroleum activities and fragile nature. www.panda.org/downloads/arctic/barentsreport.pdf
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Observer programme; log book; species id; analysis protocols; event reporting
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 121 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that intensive trawling has caused reduction in biodiversity in S Barents sea in the past (1920s-1960s) (Denisenko &Denisenko 1991, Denisenko 2007, PINRO 2012) and some impact on benthic habitats is to be expected from heavy trawl fitted with rock hopper gear. Of particular concern are those benthic communities known as “vulnerable marine ecosystems or VMEs” which are subject to international guidance from FAO, and which are the subject of much research and policy discussion at the level of NEAFC, ICES and national governments. These include organisms and habitats which contribute to the structural diversity of the environment, such as biogenic reefs, soft and hard corals, and sponge beds. Not only are these habitats bio diverse in their own right, but they may be important in supporting a wide range of commercial and none commercial fish species including ETP species. Broadly speaking recovery from damage is more rapid in dynamic environments which also correspond to areas of high biodiversity. Threatened, declining and vulnerable habitats have been mapped under the Barents Sea Ecoregion Report, the Integrated management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area, and under various Russian research initiatives. Some of these communities (and in particular coldwater corals) are protected through a series of closed areas in the southern part of areas under Norwegian jurisdiction, but there are as yet no such closed areas further north and east – for example close to Bear Island or Svalbard where VMEs are known to occur. However, Norwegian fishery regulations state that “intentional and negligent destruction of known coral reefs is prohibited, and precaution is required when fishing in the vicinity of known cold-water coral reefs”. VMS data on the spatial distribution of fishing effort coupled with the steadily improving information on the distribution of marine habitats being collected under the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and the Mareano project shows there to be significant correlation between fishing locations and high biodiversity (for example the western continental slope/shelf edge in areas of strong hydrodynamic activity). Anecdotal evidence from vessel captains suggests that substantial hauls of benthic organisms are rare (and increasingly so as cod and haddock stocks are abundant, and trawl times shorter and better targeted). In any case, the risk of gear loss represents a fundamental constraint on severe impacts on benthic habitats and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). It is clear therefore that trawling poses a risk to VMEs and vulnerable habitats more generally. However, given that fishing vessels will avoid areas where loss of gear is likely (also associated with biogenic reefs) or areas where substantial hauls of benthic organisms regularly occur, and given the relatively rapid recovery associated with dynamic environments in which cod and haddock thrive…we consider it unlikely that the FIUN fishery would reduce habitat structure and function (across wide areas) to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 122 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 80 a N The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Given: a. the coincidence of fishing patterns and vulnerable/valuable habitat; b. the limited habitat protection (especially sponge fields and biogenic reefs/corals on continental slope); c. the obvious potential of heavy trawl gear to have an impact and known encounters with sponge beds and abundant benthic organisms, and d. the limited recording and analysis of benthic bycatch
It cannot be concluded that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. 100 a N There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. As noted above, while the information relating to marine benthic habitats is steadily improving, that relating to the frequency and nature of encounters between the fleet and different benthic habitats is too limited to allow for us to conclude that harm is highly unlikely to be serious or irreversible. » Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Stiansen, J.E. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., and Marasaev, S. (Co-eds.) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(2), 22 pp. » Denisenko N.V., Denisenko S.G. 1991. On impact of bottom trawling on benthos in the Barents Sea// Environmental situation and protection of flora and fauna of the Barents Sea. Apatity, published by Kola Science Centre of USSR Academy of Science. S. 158-164. » Denisenko S.G. 2007. Zoobenthos of the Barents Sea under conditions of changing climate and human intervention. S. 418-511- In book: Dynamics of marine ecosystems and contemporary problems of protection of biological potential of Russian seas. Vladivostok: Dalnauka. 512 s References » Grekov, A.A. and Pavlenko A.A. 2011 A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p.NEAFC. Consolidated text of all NEAFC recommendations on regulating bottom fishing » Hiddink J.G., Jennings S., and Kaiser M.J (2006). Indicators of the Ecological Impact of Bottom-Trawl Disturbance on Seabed Communities. Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1190–1199 » ICES benthic Ecology WG Reports » Løkkeborg S. 2005. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic habitats and communities. FAO fisheries technical paper 472, 69 p. » PNRO 2012. Confidential report on the FIUN trawl fleet to FCI.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 123 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) » Spiridonov, V. A., Gavrilo, M.V., Krasnova E. D., and Nikolaeva N.G. (Eds) 2011. Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic. — Moscow: WWF Russia, 64 pp. PINRO Report. Confidential report provided to assessors on the activities and impacts of the FIUN fleet.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 124 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. Paragraph 83 of the UN General Assembly Resolution 61/105, among other things, calls on regional fisheries management organizations to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from bottom fishing activities that would have significant adverse impact on such ecosystems. There are measures designed to map and monitor the status of marine habitats under the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment and the Integrated management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area. Some of these communities (and in particular coldwater corals) are protected through a series of closed areas in the southern part of areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. Norwegian fishery regulations state that “intentional and negligent destruction of known coral reefs is prohibited, and precaution is required when fishing in the vicinity of known cold- water coral reefs”. There is also an evolving policy framework emanating from the UNGA (referred to above), FAO (Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) recommendations), NEAFC (bottom fishing regulations; OSPAR VME guidance and species identification); ICES working groups, etc. which is likely to feed into the establishment of measures appropriate the scale of the impact. These are expected to deliver outcome level 80. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). Existing measures (closed areas; avoidance rules) are likely to work, assuming they take account of scale requirements associated with the ecology of the various species involved. 80 a N There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. It may be argued that the measures in place under Norwegian jurisdiction (closed areas; avoidance rule) represent a partial strategy. However, there are as yet no closed areas to the North around Svalbard and Bear Island, and no closed areas directed specifically at benthic habitat protection within the Russian jurisdiction. Nor has a specific strategy based on VMEs as described under FAO and discussed/elaborated as NEAFC and ICES advice been introduced. b N There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is increasing knowledge and mapping of habitats, and the relative value and extent of different areas in terms of supporting fisheries productivity and biodiversity. The closed areas for deep/cold water corals off the NW Norwegian coast, if implemented, are likely to work by their very nature. However, it is unclear that this strategy is adequate to protect vulnerable habitats (and in particular VMEs) more widely, given historic evidence showing that intensive trawling does reduce biodiversity. Until such time as the partial strategy addresses these wider issues, it is unclear that it will work - in terms of preventing
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 125 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. In addition to the need to protect rare/vulnerable deepwater corals and biogenic reefs, there is concern over the destruction of sponges over wide areas, given our limited understanding of the role these may play in providing habitat for a wide array of target and non-target species and ETP species. The overall health of the Barents Sea ecosystem, and in particular the abundant fish stocks, suggests that these wider impacts may be limited, but from a precautionary perspective, it is clear that more needs to be done – at minimum in terms of improved monitoring of the extent of trawl damage to benthic habitats, and understanding the function of these habitats in the wider ecosystem. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
There is substantial and high quality information relating to the spatial distribution of fishing effort. It is clear that fishing boats have in the main respected closed areas, and as such there is objective evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented 100 a N There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.
Given the evidence presented above, the limited measures within the Norwegian Jurisdiction, and the lack of specific measures within the Russian sector, it cannot be said that a strategy is in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. The evidence presented under 80b is inadequate to support a high level of confidence. c N There is clear evidence that that strategy is being implemented successfully.
NA
d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. NA » See reference list at 2.4.1 » FAO 2009 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Rome/Roma, FAO. 73p. » ICES 2012. Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC) 26–30 March 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2012/ACOM:29 ICES Advisory Committee. References » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport » Mareano programme. http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 126 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » NEAFC request on identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including definitions and assessment of fishing activities that may cause significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems » NEAFC. Consolidated text of all NEAFC recommendations on regulating bottom fishing
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 127 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There is basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. See 80a
b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. See 80b
80 a Y The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. There have been substantial efforts in recent years to map the distribution of major marine habitats and assess their vulnerability – under the Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; under the Mareano Programme, and through scientific studies undertaken by PINRO, IMR, in some cases compiled and synthesized by WWF. This provides an excellent baseline, and the detail and scale are relevant to the known distribution of fishing activity. b Y Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey undertakes benthic sampling; and generates benthic composition time series. There is now excellent data on fishing distribution/effort/intensity and spatial extent of interaction, and there is a substantial scientific literature on the impact of trawls on benthic habitats, including specific studies in the Barents Sea (Denisenko et al). Data is also available from the on-going observer programme, and data collected under the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area and the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and monitoring of the Barents Sea. c Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey (benthic sampling; benthic composition) generates time series and trend data. 100 a Y The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. This is largely known, as described above.
b N The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully.
The qualitative impacts have been thoroughly discussed and aired, and substantial research has been undertaken in the Barents Sea and elsewhere. However, quantitative impacts – for example total area of sponge beds destroyed and/or
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 128 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
maintained in an impacted state; volume of benthic organisms destroyed or removed; and longer term impacts on other species, resilience, and productivity are not well understood. While there is fair data on recovery rates of major habitats, understanding of recovery rates of associated species, and especially ETP species is poorly understood. Much of the research conducted to date is limited by the many compounding factors that make impact interpretation difficult. For example, whether vessels fish in areas where benthic biodiversity is low, or whether trawling causes biodiversity to be low, remains in most cases unresolved, and there is still limited understanding of the relationships between benthic habitats and fisheries productivity. These are challenging issues, but more monitoring of benthic catch and damage is required, and more analysis of existing data is required if we are to fully quantify these impacts c N Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. Although some monitoring information is available, there is no routine monitoring of seabed habitat impacted by the trawl fleet and the changes associated with shifting fishing pressure and intensity » See refs in 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 129 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
See 80a SG
80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Two ICES working groups provide annual assessments of the state of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (Arctic Fisheries Working group; WG for Regional Ecosystem Description). This information is supplemented by on-going data collected under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea (which issues annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report, trends, highlights expected future situation) and work undertaken as part of implementing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. All these assessments suggest that broadly speaking the Barents Sea Ecosystem is relatively healthy, and that current fishing activities are not disrupting ecosystem structure and function. There has been a decline in seabird populations (similar to that throughout the NE Atlantic), but the reasons for this are unclear (local food shortage; increased predation; historic bycatch in drift net and long-line fisheries) and are not attributed to current fishing activity. The high stocks of key species at different trophic levels (cod/ haddock and capelin) suggest that the fish related elements of the ecosystem are broadly speaking in good shape. Significant changes are however taking place probably related to climate change. These surveys and assessments are also supported by a several ecosystem modeling studies related specifically to the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic relations between fish species, and links between capelin, cod, seabirds, marine mammals. These include ecopath type studies by Blanchard et al 2002; EcoCod (which seeks to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Gadget (Multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin & minke whale (& krill) in the Barents Sea); Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – addressing primarily cod / capelin dynamics); and various ecosystem modeling studies by Planque and Lindstom at IMR. 100 a N There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Our overall understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, and the impacts of fisheries remains inadequate to score this as highly unlikely. The impacts of the fishery on benthic habitats has been addressed under 2.4, and the knock on effects on the wider ecosystem are not well understood. There remain concerns relating to some fish species – in particular redfish, wolfish and elasmobranchs – and again the wider impacts are not well understood.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 130 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) References » Blanchard, J.L., Pinnegar, J.K., and Mackinson, S. (2002). Exploring marine mammal-fishery interactions using ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’: modelling the Barents Sea ecosystem. Cefas Science Series Technical Report No. 117.52p. » Dommasnes, A., Christensen, V., Ellertsen, B., Kvamme, C., Melle, W., Nøttestad, L., Pedersen, T., Tjelmeland, S. and Zeller, D., 2002. An Ecopath model for the Norwegian and Barents Sea. In: S. Guénette, V. Christensen, D. Pauly. (eds) Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: models and analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group Report 2012 » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working group for Regional Ecosystem Description. ICES Ecosystem overviews: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea » Hoel, A.H. 2009 Best management in ecosystem based management on the arctic. Norskpolarinstitutt. Report series 129. » IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no » Joint Norwegian Russian Ecosystem Survey 2012 » Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_co ntent&view=article&id=184&Itemid=201&lang=en » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » Lindstrøm, U. Smout, S., Howell, D., Bogstad, B. 2009. Modelling multi- species interactions in the Barents Sea ecosystem with special emphasis on minke whales and their interactions with cod, herring and capelin. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography Volume 56, Issues 21–22, October 2009, Pages 2068–2079 » Schweder, T. 2006. The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems pp. 310-323 in Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems, Their Role in Monitoring and Management. Edited by I. L. Boyd, S. Wanless’ C. J. Camphuysen. Conservation Biology (No. 12) Cambridge University Press » WWF The Barents Sea Ecoregion: a biodiversity assessment
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 131 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary.
There are measures in place (already described) to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to cod and haddock, which are important (arguably key) species in the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Closed areas have also been established to protect the young of a variety of other species. There are measures in place (already described) to minimize bycatch of other fish species that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function. Closed areas have been established to protect the most valuable/vulnerable benthic habitats in the Norwegian zone. There is limited interaction with marine mammals and seabirds, and specific measures are not considered necessary. b Y The measures take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The measures described above take into account key fish, seabird and marine mammal elements of the system. Measures designed to protect benthic habitats are more limited, especially in the Russian jurisdiction. c Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). Individual measures have been described under other principles, are likely to work. As cod and haddock stocks are abundant targeting these species and minimizing wider impacts becomes easier. Sorting grids and minimum net size have been demonstrated to work. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary. An ecosystem based management plan is in place for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. This plan includes assessment of threats to ecosystem structure and function and where appropriate identification of measures to address such threats. There are initiatives to extend this to the Russian Barents Sea. The Norwegian plan states that the Norwegian authorities will work to standardise and harmonise Norwegian and Russian environmental monitoring in the Barents Sea. This will include continuing to assist Russia in introducing OSPAR standards, which will facilitate Russia’s entry into the OSPAR cooperation in the long term. The mix of planning initiatives, Russian-Norwegian cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, fishing effort distribution monitoring, ICES advice, and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem ….taken together may be regarded as comprising a partial strategy. Measures to reduce benthic impacts remain limited.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 132 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The implementation of individual measures, and the overall assessment/planning process take into account historic and current information as collected under the Joint-Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem assessment, ICES advice, and scientific advice from IMR, PINRO and the scientific community more widely. It is expected to restrain impacts on most ecosystem elements so as to achieve outcome 80 level of performance. c Y The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). There are no obvious weaknesses in the overall strategy, in so far as it encompasses the key elements of research, objective setting, implementation measures, monitoring of implementation, outcome assessment and review/adaptation. d Y There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. See 100d
100 a N There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place. As described above there is an integrated management plan for the Barents Sea- Lofoten Area. There is as yet no equivalent for areas under Russian jurisdiction. b N The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. The strategy, plan and individual measures have been described above. While together they represent a relatively comprehensive approach, there remain some gaps both in understanding and in implementation – in particular with regard to benthic habitats. Understanding of their role in fishery productivity and the wider ecosystem more generally remains limited, and measures to protect valuable and vulnerable benthic species, habitats and “vulnerable marine ecosystems” remain limited. Until such time as a. the plan is extended to the areas under Norwegian jurisdiction; and b. there is a clear strategy to improve understanding of functional relationships between benthic habitats and ecosystem functioning and/or a precautionary management system is in place, this cannot be scored at 100.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 133 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c N The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. Most of the measures as described above are likely to work but existing measures relating to protection of the seabed are inadequate. d Y There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. There is substantial evidence relating to implementation. This includes: » VMS data relating to the spatial intensity of fishing effort, and compliance with closed area restrictions; » Catch records » Vessel inspections » Observer programmes » Review and analysis of fishing activity by PINRO
» Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (management plan) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Selected-topics/hav--og- vannforvaltning/havforvaltning/integrated-management-of-the-barents- sea.html?id=87148 References » http://arcticgovernance.custompublish.com/norway-and-integrated- oceans-management-the-case-of-the-barents-sea.4651095-142902.html » Hoel , A.H., von Quillfeldt, C.H., Olsen, E. 2009 Norway and Integrated Oceans Management – the Case of the Barents Sea. REPORT SERIES NO 129 Norsk Polar Institutt
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 134 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). As described under 2.5.1 the Barents Sea food web and ecosystem are well researched, a range of models at different levels of complexity have been developed, and key relations analysed. A good deal of biodiversity (location, migrations etc.) has been mapped. Key indicators and parameters are monitored on a regular basis and trend data collected. Nonetheless, relations are complex and unpredictable, requiring a precautionary approach to management b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have not been investigated in detail. See 80b
80 a Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.
Relative to most aquatic systems the Barents Sea is well researched and the key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail. As described in 2.5.1 main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and some have been investigated in detail. c Y The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. The main functions of target, bycatch retained and ETP species are known. There remains some uncertainty over the functions of benthic habitats. d Y Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Survey, monitoring and modeling all support fishery impact assessment studies, and some of the consequences for the ecosystem have been inferred. Thus relations between cod, haddock, capelin and marine mammals are all well researched. Relationships between the fishery and seabird populations are complex and less well understood, although direct impacts of the fishery appear to be limited.
e Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place related to the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated management Plan for the Barents Sea Lofoten Area. A variety of other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 135 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. Risks associated changing populations or relations between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem should be picked up. 100 b Y Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated.
As described in 2.5.1 main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in some detail. c N The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. As described under 80c, impacts on target, bycatch and ETP species have been identified. However, there is limited understanding of the main functions of some of these components in the wider ecosystem. d N Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Although the level of research and understanding is impressive given the complexity of ecosystem studies and assessments, and may be regarded as close to best practice, there remain some significant gaps in understanding, particularly in relation to the role of benthic habitats on the wider ecosystem, and the wider implications of trawl damage to such habitats. e Y Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Although there are some gaps in our understanding, there is more than enough information available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially if a precautionary approach were to be taken to damage to benthic habitats, where there remains some uncertainty as to wider consequences to the marine ecosystem. References » See 2.5.1 and 2.5.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 136 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle 2: Cod and Haddock, longline Main retained species include wolfish (45% of catch, vulnerable, poor data); Greenland halibut (5.4%, commercially important, coincidence of distribution and fishing activity (depth; location), catch roughly 9% of total for SA I&2). Golden redfish are vulnerable, but comprise only 0.2% of catch with total landings of 45 tonnes (0.8% of landings in SA 1&2) and are not therefore classified as main. Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.1: The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue d below). There is good, accurate and verifiable data on the species retained by client vessels provided by PINRO covering the period 2010-2012. 49% of the catch comprises cod and haddock dealt with under P1. Three wolfish species are caught: northern wolfish (A. denticulatus) (33.5% of catch); spotted wolfish (Anarhichas minor) (11.5%) and Atlantic wolfish (A. lupus) (0.02%). These species have similar life-history characteristics and are vulnerable to overfishing (slow growing/late maturation; and secondary impacts of trawling on spawning/breeding behavior (male guarding of eggs on the seabed)). There has been no stock assessment of these species because of relatively low catch rates in the Barents Sea fishery as a whole. The status of the northern wolfish is unclear, although the high catch rates by the longline fleet suggests that they are relatively abundant. FAO data suggests that landings from the NE Atlantic declined rapidly in the period 2001-2009. However, the Barents Sea Ecosystem survey data suggests significant increase in both abundance and biomass in the period 2010-2012. While the data is uncertain, anecdotal information from stakeholders suggest that spotted wolfish is most likely not overfished, and catch trend data for this species in the NE Atlantic shows no obvious decline. Data collected under the Ecosystem survey of the Barents Sea suggests abundance and biomass has increased substantially and range possibly extended over the period 2010 to 2012. FAO catch data shows no clear downward trend for Atlantic wolfish and data from the Barents Sea Ecosystem survey suggests abundance is increasing due to greater numbers of younger fish, though biomass appears to be decreasing. In the case of all the wolfish species, there has been no serious concern raised by scientists (ICES) or NGOs in relation to current fishing levels. Overall therefore we consider it likely that these species are within biological limits. Y Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) see 80 guidepost c If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. NA
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 137 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. NA
80 a P Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue c below). The evidence presented for wolffish under the 60 SG is inadequate to justify a score of 80. Information on both catch and stock status is limited and somewhat contradictory for these species. N Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) comprises 5.4% of catch. The stock size in Norwegian surveys has been constant over the last decade, whereas the Russian survey shows substantial increase. Biomass estimates indicate a stable or increasing trend since 1992. The most recent Barents Sea ecosystem survey data suggests an increase in abundance, with more young fish, but a decrease in overall biomass. A precautionary TAC of 15,000t was put in place for 2010 and 2011, and catches were closely aligned to this amount. The catch of the FIUN longliner fleet comprised roughly 9% of this total. ICES advice for 2012 was also 15,000t, but a TAC of 18,000t was set by JNRFC. According to ICES “biomass estimates are not consistent but give evidence of a stable or increasing stock”. On balance, we consider that this stock is highly likely to be within biologically based limits. Y c N If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Beyond the usual measures of grid separator and mesh size to protect young fish, there are no specific measures in place to conserve wolffish, beyond a catch limit of 45%. All three wolffish species are widely distributed throughout the N Atlantic. There is no evidence that the catch of wolfish in the Barents Sea has declined, and it has been possible to maintain this catch at the legal limit of 45% Overall, given the possible indirect effects of trawling on breeding behavior/success, the absence of specific measures directed at the protection of wolfish (other than relatively high bycatch limit), and the limited information on stock status and fishing mortality, it is not possible to state that there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective measures in place for these species, and there is a risk that fishing at these levels could hinder recovery and rebuilding. N 100 a P There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. Cod and haddock are within biologically based limits and well within target reference points Greenland Halibut and wolffish have been discussed in detail above. There is not a high degree of certainty that they are within biologically based limits and neither have clear target reference points, although this may change for Greenland halibut once the anticipated 2013 benchmark is in place. N
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 138 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Several other species are caught in small quantities and are retained. Long rough dab (Hippoglossoides platessoides) comprises 0.73% of the catch. Ecosystem survey data shows this species to be abundant in the Barents Sea – especially in the central and eastern parts away from the main area of activity of the long-line fleet - but target reference points have not been established. So while there are no concerns in relation to this species it cannot currently be scored 100. N. Tusk (Brosme brosme) is taken primarily by longliners in SA II with only small quantities in I. It accounts for only 0.12% of FIUN longliner catch, and annual landings by FIUN vessels comprise only 0.3% of total landings in SA I&II. There is limited information on the stock, though some suggestion that CPUE has increased in recent years. ICES considers this to be a data limited stock and advises that catches should be no more than 9,040 t. The roughly 30t taken by the FIUN longliner fleet comprises 0.33% of this. While there is no significant threat from this fishery, inadequate information is available to state with a high degree of certainty that the species is within biologically based limits. N Beaked Redfish (Sebastes mentella) has been assessed by ICES. The spawning stock biomass has been increasing since 1992 and slightly decreasing or stable since 2005. The current SSB is estimated to be around 600 000t. Measures currently in place to protect juveniles have proven successful and the stock is now considered in good condition. The working group advises that catches at or below 47 000t are sustainable. Recorded catches have always been less than this figure and since 2007 catches have been 10-20 000t. The available data and current management indicate that this stock is at low risk. Y Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) comprises 0.18% of the catch and 0.8% of total landings of this species as recorded by ICES. All redfish species are slow growing long lived species regarded as vulnerable to over-fishing. Golden redfish are caught as bycatch in trawl fisheries and long-liners targeting cod and saithe. The main concentrations are found at 150 to 300m and there is significant correspondence between the distribution of this species and the fishing activities of the FIUN longline fleet. S. marinus has been assessed by ICES, and current landings are considered unsustainable. SSB has been decreasing since the 1990s and is currently at the lowest level in the time-series. Recruitment is very low. ICES advises on basis of the precautionary approach that there should be no fishing on this stock. Fishing mortality has been increasing since 2005 and currently stands at 0.3 - the highest level in the time-series. This would probably need to be reduced to around 0.05 (year-1) to ensure stock recovery, requiring catches to be reduced to 17% of their current level (i.e. approximately 1000t). Although the most recent Barents Sea Ecosystem survey data is encouraging (abundance has doubled and biomass increased by 60% between 2011 and 2012), the balance of evidence is such that we cannot say that this species is likely to be within biological limits. N Thorny or starry skate (Amblyraja radiata) comprises 0.03% of the catch. There is no ICES assessment for this species and substantial uncertainty about the status and health of these vulnerable fish. N b N Target reference points are defined and retained species. Target reference points are defined for cod, haddock, and partially for Sebastes mentella, but not for the other retained species. A benchmark for Greenland
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 139 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and
does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) halibut is proposed for 2013. » FAO Fishstat » Fishbase www.fishbase.org » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Greenland halibut in sub- areas I and II. Advice for 2013 » ICES AFWG 2012 report » ICES 2012. Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012, Book 3. 3.4.5. 9p. References » ICES 2012Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) in Subareas I and II. ICES Advice June 2012. 3.4.5, Book 3. 9p. » Institute of Marine Research/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea, Autumn 2012 (monitoring the demersal community). http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no » NOAA NE Stocks Data Poor Working Group Meeting 2008. Working Paper: Atlantic Wolffish (Main Report). Woods Hole MA Dec 8-12 2008. » PINRO 2012. Confidential report to FCI by PINRO on the FIUN long-line fleet
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 140 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding.
The following measures are in place: » Minimum mesh size (130mm) and sorting grids for the trawl fleet, designed to protect the young of all species » Closed areas in both Norwegian and Russian sectors, but none designed specifically to protect main retained species. » Bycatch limits for some retained fish types are in place for the long-line fleet: wolffish 45%; American pollock 49%; halibut 12%; other species 10%. These are coupled with a move-on rule, should bycatch begin to exceed this or other limits set by the authorities. In addition skipper and crew knowledge and experience, effective communication systems between vessels and with the authorities, and advice from PINRO taken together represent significant measures. Taking into account the state of stocks as presented under 2.1.1, these measures are likely to maintain both wolffish and halibut at levels highly likely to be within biologically based limits. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). There is strong evidence of implementation of these measures, reinforced with regular inspections. Statistics confirm that bycatch limits are not exceeded. The data suggest that vessels are catching their full allowance of wolfish, and substantially less than their allowance of halibut and other species. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. In so far as technical measures are in place to protect juveniles of all species, and specific bycatch limits for halibut and wolfish are in place and reviewed on a regular basis, the existing measures may be considered as appropriate and proportionate, and as comprising a partial strategy. b P There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. According to ICES “there are signs that the regulations of the last two decades have improved the status of the (Greenland halibut) stock, and measures should be taken to maintain the positive trend”. Y In respect of wolffish there is limited objective information to support either design of the conservation and management measures, or measure success of these measures. For example, there is no official estimate of fishing mortality on the various wolfish species, nor of the likely impact that the various measures might have on this.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 141 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is good verifiable evidence that bycatch limits and other standard measures are being respected, and this is made more likely because of the high concentration of cod and haddock on the fishing grounds allowing for more effective targeting of these species. 100 a N There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. There is no clearly articulated comprehensive strategy to address the issue of the management of all retained species (including halibut, wolfish, redfish and rays). There is no significant program to generate good information on the status of the stocks of several retained species, including all three wolfish species Existing measures are not specifically directed at the most vulnerable species. The strategy is partial, based on response rather than assessment and precaution. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. See comments under 80b Specific testing and evaluation, based directly on long lining and the species involved has not been undertaken c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. NA d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. NA » ICES 2012. Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group 2012 (AFWG) » ICES June 2012. Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea. Greenland halibut in sub- areas I and II. Advice for 2013 References » PINRO 2012. Confidential report to FCI on the FIUN long-line fleet » Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries: Regulations. http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/fisheries/regulations
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 142 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See 80a b Y Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See 80b c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. The information described under 80, coupled with appropriate analysis, is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Accurate and verifiable catch and landings data on main retained species are recorded, checked and passed to appropriate authorities. This information cross- checks against similar fisheries. PINRO represents impartial quality control of data. Discards at sea could undermine the quality of this data, but this is more likely to be a problem for the target species than bycatch, since it is probably more usually associated with an overabundance of the target species. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. There is excellent catch data on main retained species by the FIUN longline vessels, as noted under 80a. Good catch data for main retained bycatch for other fleets is also available. Together with information on abundance and size composition as determined in PINRO/IMR surveys under the Barents Sea Ecosystem Survey, and understanding of life history characteristics, information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to broad biologically based limits. c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. The information noted above is adequate to support a partial strategy d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) The Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea (monitoring the demersal community) is specifically designed to flag up emerging problems in terms of population abundance and structure of key species. Commercial catch and landings data provide critical data on the pressures on these species. 100 a N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. While data is generally good there are some important weaknesses:
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 143 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » While there appears to be substantial and verifiable data, synthesis and analysis of this data to generate management information appears to be limited, and certainly such information is not widely available. » The three wolfish and two redfish species are not always distinguished in commercial catch and landings data. This is of some concern given the differences in stock status. » While data on the catch of redfish and wolffish appears to be good, information/trend data on catch size distribution/length frequency has not been either systematically collected or worked up to allow for good assessment of the consequences for the status of affected populations. b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. For the reasons given under a, and also given the limited attention that has been paid to stock assessment for wolffish, it is unlikely that existing information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. In addition to the limitations noted above, there remain significant uncertainties about life history and population parameters for wolfish and redfish species, and these species are by their very nature difficult to manage because of weak correlation between stock biomass and recruitment. d N Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Monitoring of the catch of retained species is good, but as noted above, data on length weight/size distribution is either not regularly collected or analysed for the purposes of stock management, and fishing mortality has not been estimated for wolffish. There is an opportunity here to significantly improve information collection by the commercial fleet in support of better management of retained species. References » See 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 144 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). The fishery is very clean and a discard ban is in place for listed species. As such we do not consider that any discarded fish can be classified as main for this fishery b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. NA
c Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. NA
80 a Y Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). NA b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. NA
100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. A discard ban is in place with respect to listed species (Section 48 of the Norwegian Fisheries legislation) and evidence suggests that this is broadly speaking respected - though there are occasional infringements. There may be discarding of fish which has been damaged by predators or shellfish scavengers. This is likely to be more of a problem when target stocks are less abundant and gear is left lying for significant periods of time. There may also be discarding of some non-commercial species, and in particular elasmobranchs (some historic evidence is provided by Drevetnyak et al 2003) - although the three skippers interviewed by the assessment team suggested this was now negligible. As a consequence there is no data on species and quantities discarded from the FIUN fleet. Some research is available relating to trawl and long line fisheries in the Barents Sea (Dolgov et al 2002, 2005, Grekov 2007). According to (Grekov 2007) twenty-nine species of fish are harvested by longline in the Barents Sea (compared with 30-50 species for trawls with mesh size 125-135mm).
Third party data is also generated through the Norwegian reference fleet. This covers a range of vessel types and includes substantial fishing further south (i.e. includes other North Atlantic and North Sea Fisheries) but nonetheless offers some
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 145 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) clues as to species that might form a significant discarded bycatch, especially when data is compared with the known distribution and depth preference of these species. Our analysis of these various sources suggests that several species are likely to be caught and may be discarded including Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) (listed by IUCN as vulnerable), Northern Skate (R Hyperborean), Round skate (Rajella fyllae) (IUCN least concern). According to Dolgov et al, 2005, the average by-catch of the Thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) by long-liners is significant at 20.6 kg per 1,000 hooks, i.e. approximately 500 kg per fishing day. According to previous studies cited in Grekov and Pavlenko 2011, from 1996-2005 the unavoidable by-catch of the starry ray within the longline fishery was 6,800 tonnes, of which only 600 tonnes were used. Furthermore, as much as 100 tonnes of the northern ray are reputedly annually thrown overboard by longliners. Although these figures probably do not account for the skills of experienced fishing skippers in targeting valuable species, nor the introduction of the discard ban, there is clearly some cause for concern. It is also likely that some Rough headed grenadier/rough rattail (Macrourus berglax) and the greater argentine (Argentina silus) - both of which have centres of distribution in the Barents Sea and have life cycle characteristics that make them highly vulnerable – are discarded. Grekov (2001) estimated that longline catch of M. berglax may be as high as 350 kg per 1,000 hooks and the share of the total catch may be over 55%. However, this is a relatively deepwater species (>500m) and locally distributed, and it is very unlikely that experienced skippers would be catching significant quantities of this low value fish. Discussions with vessel captains and PINRO suggests that discards of these and other species are not a significant issue, and no specific concerns were raised in this regard by other stakeholders. Given the very high density and concentration of target species at the present time, and the knowledge, experience and technology available to modern fishing vessels, the proportion of discards is likely to be low, and the threat of the fishery to these species limited. However, the data is inadequate in respect of the initial catch, abundance and distribution of these species to be sure there is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. N It is recommended that recording of discards, however limited these may be, be formalized and data made available to scientific institutions for analysis. There is also discarded bycatch of benthic organisms but this is dealt with under 2.4. References » Dolgov et al 2002. By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting September 2002. » Dolgov, A. V., A. A. Grekov, I. P. Shestopal, and K. M. Sokolov. (2005). By- catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366 » Drevetnyak K. V., Dolgov, A.V., Sokolov, K.M., Gusev, E.V. and Grekov A.A. Skates in the Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 146 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
» Enever R., Catchpole T. L., Ellis J. R and Grant A (2009). The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research. Volume 97, Issues 1-2, April 2009, Pages 72-76 » Fishbase. www.fishbase.org » Grekov, А.А. (2001). Comparative analysis of longline and trawl catches during experimental fishing of black halibut (in Russian). Materials of the conference of young scientists dedicated to PINRO’s 80th anniversary. Murmansk, PINRO, Pages 24-32. » Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A 2011 A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. » IMR 2011. Evaluation of the Norwegian Reference Fleet. Report to IMR by an international committee. » Norwegian Government. Act of 19 June 2009 No. 100 Relating to the Management of Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity (Nature Diversity Act) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/Acts/nature- diversity-act.html?id=570549
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 147 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. Given the discard ban we consider that there are no “main” bycatch species
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). NA
80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The fleet operates standard procedures designed to reduce all bycatch, including separator grid and minimum mesh size. A discard ban is in place in relation to listed species, implemented and reinforced through a “move on rule”. Skippers, aided by modern technology, are increasingly knowledgeable about the best places to find good concentrations of target species. This coupled with the current high density of target species should reduce discarding to a minimum. b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Discarding of target species has been dealt with under principle 1. Independent stakeholders (scientific, environmental) have not raised discards as a significant issue. Historic and current research, observer programmes, and anecdotal evidence all support the view that the discard ban/move-on rule is working, albeit with occasional infringements. Stocks of target species remain healthy, and some limited research suggests that impacts on skates and rays is unlikely to be serious because of the relatively large stocks of skate and ray in the Barents sea (Dolgov et al 2005) c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is strong evidence to suggest that the discard ban and move on rule are implemented with only occasional infringements, usually in relation to excessive catch of target species. Separator grids and minimum mesh size are standard and used routinely. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch. There is a comprehensive system in place designed specifically to minimize discards of bycatch, including technical measures, handling protocols, inspections, and survey monitoring of key demersal species. This may be regarded as a strategy.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 148 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Additional measures might also be considered, such as underwater recovery of longlines and immediate separation and return to the sea of living bycatch which can be legally discarded. However the benefits and practicality of such measures needs to be further researched. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is high confidence that the strategy will work in respect of target species (e.g. undersize cod and haddock) but there has been limited testing of the effectiveness of the discard ban in relation to vulnerable species, either directly through analysis of catch and discard data, or indirectly through stock assessment of vulnerable or discarded species. c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There are regular routine inspections, and periodic observer programmes; and overall the evidence suggests that the measures are being implemented. d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Insofar as the strategy is targeted primarily at discarding of target and main retained species there is good evidence from inspections and stock assessments that it is achieving its objectives. However, the strategy does not give adequate weight to the need to conserve non target and non-retained species such as elasmobranchs, and evidence of success is limited with regard to these species. References » See 2.2.1 » Grekov, A.A. Pavlenko A.A. 2011. A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 149 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Given the discards policy there are no “main” bycatch species discarded. b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits NA c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. NA 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Given the discards policy there are no “main” bycatch species discarded. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. NA c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. NA d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). NA 100 a Y Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. The discard ban on listed species automatically results in more bycatch being recorded and landed, and results in better data on catch. This is indeed part of its purpose. The company and skippers were of the view that other discarded bycatch was negligible. While this may be the case (and the current abundance of target species should reduce bycatch) historic studies such as those of Dolgov and Drevetnyak suggest that catch of some potentially vulnerable elasmobranch species and grenadier may be significant (see 2.2.1). At the present time objective opinion and data is not available on what may or may not be a significant discarded bycatch. There is also some uncertainty about the quantity of discards of target and main retained species which occurs occasionally because of the very high catch rates and volumes currently achieved. Since in some cases this activity is illegal, data is not available.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 150 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Existing data is inadequate to estimate outcome status of e.g. skate and ray species with a high degree of certainty c Y Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Information has already been used to develop a comprehensive strategy, and this strategy is working as far as is known. There is good information on catch of non- target retained species (which might previously have been discarded) so that it may be said that the strategy is largely achieving its objective. d N Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. Despite the excellent data generated as a result of the increased retained catch, there remain some small gaps in the information which relate to vulnerable species and illegal discarding. References » Dolgov et al 2002. By-catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. NAFO Scientific Council Meeting September 2002. » Dolgov, A. V., A. A. Grekov, I. P. Shestopal, and K. M. Sokolov. (2005). By- catch of Skates in Trawl and Long-Line Fisheries in the Barents Sea. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 35: 357-366 » Drevetnya, K. V., Dolgov A.V., Sokolov K.M., Gusev E.V., and Grekov. A.A. Skates in the Barents Sea: stock status and catch by fishing fleet. 2005 ICES Annual Science Conference. Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (Session N) CM 2005/ N:11
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 151 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. See rationale at 80
b Y Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
There is no evidence that interaction between the FIUN fleet and ETP species are frequent, substantial, or cause significant impact on the species concerned. 80 a Y The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. ETP species are those recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party, including Appendix I of CITES. Russia is signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Both Norway and Russia have developed “red-lists” of threatened species which are recognized in Government policy and legislation. Russia is also a signatory to NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) which along with IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. ICES provides and coordinates knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME). Under Russian Fishery Rules for the Northern Fish Economic basin (2009), the catch of red listed “water bio resources” is forbidden except under license or as part of research. The Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea– Lofoten Area, and the various monitoring initiatives under the Joint Russian Norwegian environmental assessment and status report for the Barents Sea may be regarded as international best practice in this regard. We are aware of no evidence to suggest that the requirements under these agreements and initiatives are not being met, and no specific concern in this regard was raised by any stakeholder (scientists, NGOS). Evidence of actual effects presented below supports the view that the effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. b Y Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
Examination of the Russian and Norwegian red lists (discussed in more detail in the background section) suggests that the following species listed as endangered or critically endangered may be encountered during longline activities: » Golden redfish (Sebastes marinus) » Common or blue skate (Dipturus batis)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 152 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) » Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) Golden redfish has been dealt with under retained species. Very small quantities of the critically endangered (IUCN) blue skate may be caught, but the FIUN trawl fishery mainly operates well to the north of the main areas of natural distribution. Y Spurdog is a very widely distributed and in many cases abundant species but is nonetheless vulnerable because of life history characteristics. However, it is more of a temperate species and at the edge of its range in the Barents Sea. The risk to this species from the fishery is therefore assessed as small, and there are no specific legal requirements. Y Blue ling has a distribution from the Azores to Spitsbergen, and the Barents Sea is an important centre of population. Found at 350-500m on muddy bottoms there are likely to be encounters with FIUN long-lines. This species suffered stock collapse in the 90s and has not recovered. Data on retained species shows no significant catch of ling or blue ling. Unfortunately this species is not included in the Barents Sea ecosystem survey so its current status is difficult to assess. Although anecdotal and recorded evidence suggests that this species are rarely encountered, this is hard to verify, and knowledge of/recognition some of these species is likely to be limited. In the absence of good data, the risk to this species may therefore be assessed as moderate. N Several marine mammals are included on the Norwegian and Russian red lists, and are listed in CITES Annex 1, but direct encounters with cetaceans and seals are recorded as rare, and are avoided given the potential negative impact on fishing operations. Encounters with cetaceans are normally associated with set nets and pelagic gears rather than deep trawls or long lines. Similarly, encounters with seals and similar species are unlikely in an offshore fishery of this kind. Interactions with ETP seabirds are also possible, especially during deployment and hauling of long-lines. However, the main problem in this regard relates to the use of gill and drift nets in coastal fisheries, and there are no reports of significant interactions with deeper water long line fisheries. As noted in the Barents Sea Ecosystem Assessment “The factors responsible for the declining trends (in seabird populations) in the western parts of the region probably involve food shortage, predation from an increasing population of white-tailed eagles and lagged effects from previous by-catch in fisheries”. The latter almost certainly refers to historic catches in gill and drift nets in inshore fisheries. Based on the above, we conclude that direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. There are some concerns about blue ling but this is not n ICES annex 1 sp. c Y Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. See rationale at 100c
100 a N There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The evidence presented under 80a suggests that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements. However, given that occasional encounters with ETP species are highly likely, and records of such encounters very limited and/or not routinely synthesized and analysed, this cannot be stated with a high degree of certainty
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 153 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
b N There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. Given the question mark over impacts on blue ling (see 60b) and limited routine information on encounters, we cannot conclude that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. c Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. Indirect effects might include “ghost” fishing, removal of prey and pollution, as well as e.g. disturbance/interference of feeding or breeding behavior of ETP species. Loss of gear and the danger associated with ghost fishing is kept to the minimum through gear design and knowledge of seabed characteristics. In the past, negative impacts of fisheries on small pelagic fish or young fish of other species has been blamed for reducing food availability for seabirds, but this is not an issue for current long-lining practice. Indeed, it is arguable that a fishery targeted at cod and haddock (predators of capelin etc.) would indirectly benefit seabirds. Pollution is highly unlikely to be significant from fishing vessels. All vessels are fully MARPOL compliant, with excellent waste and oil handing protocols. PCBs etc. from other sources are of far greater concern in this regard. Discard of fish waste may be seen to be broadly beneficial to several seabird species. Overall, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. References » Barents Portal - The Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/ » Larsen, T, Nagoda D, and Andersen J R eds. 2003 The Barents Sea Ecoregion: A biodiversity assessment. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » ICES SGBYC REPORT 2010 » ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 Copenhagen, Denmark
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 154 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. See 80a
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 80b
80 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. NAMMCO (the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) and IWC advocate measures to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, and accurate recording to inform understanding and abundance estimates. There are several significant research programmes to monitor marine mammal abundance and distribution in the Barents Sea (Barents Sea Portal) ICES provide and coordinates knowledge and advice relating to ETP management through the Study Group on Protected Species (SGBYC) and the working group on marine mammal ecology (WGMME). Much of this advice however relates to reducing the catch of marine mammals which is not a significant issue for the longline fleet. There are few national and international requirements relating to the catch of other ETP species, although there has been substantial discussion and research especially in relation to long-line bycatch, and catch of elasmobranch species, some of which are threatened. Norway has in place a temporary ban on commercial fishing of Squalus acanthias, Cetorhinus maximus (basking shark) and Lamna nasus (porbeagle) and is in process of developing a national plan of action for sharks. Landing of bycatch is obligatory and these may enter into trade. Under Russian Fishery Rules for the Northern Fish Economic basin (2009), the catch of red listed “water bio resources” (which includes ICES annex I species) is forbidden except under license or as part of research.
At present practical measures to protect threatened species are limited, but reflect the (likely) limited number of damaging encounters, and may therefore be considered appropriate to the scale of the problem. Measures currently implemented by the FIUN longliners include standard measures for the reduction of bycatch as discussed in section 2.2. These may be regarded as appropriate to scale of interaction and national/international requirements as described under 2.3.1. The fleet also implements measures to minimize interactions with seabirds (underwater
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 155 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) deployment of the long line) and marine mammals (sonic devices) which may be regarded as best practice.
b Y There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. In so far as encounters appear to be limited, the strategy, as described above may be said to be working. Regular inspections are carried out, and there is no on-board evidence of significant problems related to ETP species. There are longstanding monitoring programmes related to marine mammal and seabird abundance and no evidence of significant negative interactions with the longline fleet. Problems related to ETP interactions with long-lining vessels have not been flagged as an issue by the ICES working group on bycatch and protected species. c Y There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Both Russia and Norway submit periodic reports to both ICES and NAMMCO on ETP issues, and some aspects of the strategy are now explicit in national legislation. Regular inspections of vessels at sea and in port reveal no significant infringements of existing measures. Periodic evidence from observers also reinforces the view that measures are being implemented. 100 a N There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Although the existing set of measures and initiatives can be said to meet international standards, they fall short of best practice in all its dimensions, and cannot be described as comprising a comprehensive strategy (objectives, measures, monitoring, adaptation). Records of encounters with ETP species are limited, not standardized, and not routinely synthesized or analysed. Possible measures to maximise survival of bycatch skates and rays appear to have received little attention. There is an FAO sponsored international plan of action relating to shark (elasmobranch) conservation and management, and national management bodies are urged to develop national plans of action. To date neither Russia nor Norway has developed such a plan, though Norway is currently developing one. b N The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. As noted above actual data on encounters with ETP species is limited. While this may reflect the infrequency of such encounters, it is nonetheless inadequate to support a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 156 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) high degree of confidence.
c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. See b d N There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There is a lack of evidence that the broader policy objectives are being achieved. Good information on the status of some red list ETP species is lacking. References » Barents portal: Mammal Monitoring http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_cont ent&view=article&id=289&Itemid=284&lang=en » Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna. Twenty-sixth meeting of the Animals Committee Geneva (Switzerland), 15-20 March 2012 and Dublin (Ireland), 22-24 March 2012 Report on assessing the intrinsic vulnerability of harvested sharks. Annex Norway – p. 1 Response from Norway on shark questions. » ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2010 Report of the Study Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC). ICES CM 2010/ACOM:25 Copenhagen, Denmark
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 157 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including:
PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. See 80a
b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. see 80b
c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. see 80c
80 a Y Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. The PINRO / IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea ecosystem offers an overview of the ETP species which occur in the Barents Sea including their spatial and temporal distribution and ecology. Marine mammal survey work in the Barents Sea has been undertaken for many years and underpins abundance estimates in the Barents Sea. Methods include mark-recapture, breeding surveys of some species and transect surveys by ship (for whales) or spotter plane (for cetaceans). The surveys are driven in part by ICES advice relating to quotas for commercial harvesting of marine mammals, or species identified as particularly vulnerable. The Norwegian Institute of Marine Research undertakes annual surveys of minke whales and other large baleen whales generating abundance estimates every 6 years. Since 2002 the distribution of marine mammals in the Barents Sea has been recorded by research vessels, aircraft, fishing vessels and coastguard vessels under the Joint PINRO / IMR ecosystem survey. VMS data now allows for precise analysis of spatial distribution of fishing effort allowing for potential interactions to be assessed or predicted. The discard ban and species recording requirements generate high quality data on the catch of a wide range of species, although the analysis presented under 2.1 suggests that encounters with ETP species are likely to be rare. The Norwegian reference fleet provides information on catch of all species, though this is unlikely to correspond to catch composition of the longline fleet in the Barents Sea Norway submits analysis of gear interaction with key ETP species to the ICES SGBYC, for longline fisheries in the Barents Sea.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 158 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including:
PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. b Y Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. The information and analysis described under 80a is considered sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. The long-line fleet has not been identified in these assessments as representing a particular threat to ETP species c Y Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. The information and analysis described under 80a is adequate to meet this condition. 100 a N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. Data, and especially trend data on fishery interactions with ETP species is limited – in large part because of their rarity. While understandable, this limitation means outcome status cannot be estimated quantitatively with a high degree of certainty. To meet this requirement there would be a need for more representative reference fleet data, and/or more comprehensive data generated by on board observers. More detailed log books, and specifically an ETP encounter reporting protocol would also help to address current data limitations. b N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. See 100a
c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. See 100a
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No specific condition, but the limitations in data relating to ETP are relevant to the implementation of condition 1
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 159 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100a
80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100a
100 a Y There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. By its very nature, long line gear is unlikely to cause significant damage to seabed habitat (Jennings et al 2001), other than minor local damage caused where anchors are used, and occasional snags; though some damage might be caused to more delicate organisms during hauling. The cost of long line gear means that skippers will seek to minimize damage to gear and in consequence, damage to seabed habitat. Grekov and Pavlenko 2011 have made some estimates of the total area of seabed that may be affected by long-lines, but it is clear that damage is insignificant when compared with alternative gears such as trawls. No concerns were expressed by stakeholders regarding damage to habitat from longline activity, and indeed, these are widely regarded as benign. Given the nature of the gear and the measures in place to protect vulnerable habitat we consider it highly unlikely that the FIUN long line fleet will reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. » Arneberg, P., Korneev, O., Titov, O., Stiansen, J.E. (Eds.), Filin, A., Hansen, J.R., Høines, Å., and Marasaev, S. (Co-eds.) 2009. Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I – Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(2), 22 pp. » Grekov, A.A. and Pavlenko A.A. 2011 A comparison of longline and trawl fishing practices and suggestions for encouraging the sustainable management of fisheries in the Barents Sea, — Moscow-Murmansk, World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 50p. References » Jennings S., Kaiser M., Reynolds J.D. 2001. Marine Fisheries Ecology, Blackwell Science Ltd. 417 p. » Spiridonov, V. A., Gavrilo, M.V., Krasnova E. D., and Nikolaeva N.G. (Eds) 2011. Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic. — Moscow: WWF Russia, 64 pp.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 160 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) » PINRO Report. Confidential report provided to assessors on the activities and impacts of the FIUN fleet.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 161 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. Given the limited risk of damage associated with the gear there is little need for specific measures. b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). There is widespread agreement that long lining causes little damage to seabed habitats. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. As noted under 2.4.1 the threat posed from long liners to seabed habitat is limited, and the (few) measures in place are expected to achieve 80 level of performance or above. Threatened, declining and vulnerable habitats have been mapped under the Barents Sea Ecoregion Report, the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area, and under various Russian research initiatives. Some of these communities (and in particular coldwater corals) are protected through a series of closed areas in the southern part of areas under Norwegian jurisdiction, but there are as yet no such closed areas further north and east – for example close to Bear Island or Svalbard where VMEs are known to occur. However, Norwegian fishery regulations state that “intentional and negligent destruction of known coral reefs is prohibited, and precaution is required when fishing in the vicinity of known cold-water coral reefs”. b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is increasing knowledge and mapping of habitats, and the relative value and extent of different areas in terms of supporting fisheries productivity and biodiversity. The closed areas for deep/cold water corals off the NW Norwegian coast, if implemented, are likely to work by their very nature. In addition to the need to protect rare/vulnerable deepwater corals and biogenic reefs, there is concern over the destruction of sponges over wide areas, given our limited understanding of the role these may play in providing habitat for a wide array of target and non-target species and ETP species. However, the impact of the longline fleet on this habitat is likely to be limited, and in this sense existing measures are likely to be appropriate. The overall health of the Barents Sea ecosystem, and in particular the abundant fish stocks, suggests that these wider impacts may be limited. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
There is substantial and high quality information relating to the spatial distribution of fishing effort. It is clear that fishing boats have in the main respected closed areas, and as such there is objective evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 162 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.
Paragraph 83 of the UN General Assembly Resolution 61/105, among other things, calls on regional fisheries management organizations to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from bottom fishing activities that would have significant adverse impact on such ecosystems. There is also an evolving policy framework emanating from the UNGA (referred to above), FAO (Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) recommendations), NEAFC (bottom fishing regulations; OSPAR VME guidance and species identification); ICES working groups, etc. which is likely to feed into the establishment of measures appropriate the scale of the impact. Threatened, declining and vulnerable habitats have been mapped under the Barents Sea Ecoregion Report, the Integrated management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area, and under various Russian research initiatives. Some of these communities (and in particular coldwater corals) are protected through a series of closed areas in the southern part of areas under Norwegian jurisdiction, but there are as yet no such closed areas further north and east – for example close to Bear Island or Svalbard where VMEs are known to occur. However, Norwegian fishery regulations state that “intentional and negligent destruction of known coral reefs is prohibited, and precaution is required when fishing in the vicinity of known cold-water coral reefs”. VMS data on the spatial distribution of fishing effort coupled with the steadily improving information on the distribution of marine habitats being collected under the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and the Mareano project shows there to be significant correlation between fishing locations and high biodiversity (for example the western continental slope/shelf edge in areas of strong hydrodynamic activity). Although there are some weaknesses in the overall strategy (for example, there are as yet no closed areas to the North around Svalbard and Bear Island, and no closed areas directed specifically at benthic habitat protection within the Russian jurisdiction; there is no clear strategy based on VMEs as described under FAO and discussed/elaborated as NEAFC and ICES advice) it is more than adequate to address the limited threat posed by the FIUN long line fishery. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is no evidence from scientific studies that longlining poses any significant threat to underwater habitat. Equally there has been no thorough testing to establish the nature and extent of the limited impact assumed to be associated with longliners. c Y There is clear evidence that that strategy is being implemented successfully.
There is clear evidence from VMS data that highly vulnerable/valuable underwater habitat is being protected by closed areas.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 163 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. There is no evidence from scientific studies that long-lining poses any significant threat to underwater habitat. Equally, there is very little evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective » See reference list at 2.4.1 » FAO 2009 International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Rome/Roma, FAO. 73p. » ICES 2012. Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC) 26–30 March 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark ICES CM 2012/ACOM:29 ICES Advisory Committee. » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A References biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport Mareano programme. http://www.mareano.no/english/index.html » NEAFC request on identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, including definitions and assessment of fishing activities that may cause significant adverse impacts on such ecosystems. http://archive.neafc.org/reports/pecmas/oct_08/docs/2008-02- 07_neafc_request_identification_vulnerable_marine_ecosystems.pdf
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 164 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There is basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. See 80a b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. See 80b
80 a Y The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. There have been substantial efforts in recent years to map the distribution of major marine habitats and assess their vulnerability – under the Joint Russian Norwegian Ecosystem Assessment; under the Mareano project, and through scientific studies undertaken by PINRO, IMR, in some cases compiled and synthesized by WWF. This provides an excellent baseline, and the detail and scale are relevant to the known distribution of fishing activity. b Y Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey undertakes benthic sampling; and generates benthic composition time series. There is now excellent data on fishing distribution/effort/intensity and spatial extent of interaction. There is no scientific evidence suggesting significant damage to habitats from longline activities. Data is also available from the on-going observer programme, and data collected under the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area and the Joint Russian-Norwegian Ecosystem assessment and monitoring of the Barents Sea. c Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The annual Joint Russian Norwegian ecosystem survey (benthic sampling; benthic composition) generates time series and trend data. 100 a Y The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. This is largely known, as described above.
b N The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully.
Although it is widely assumed – and is logical to assume – that long line activity has very little impact on benthic habitat, few studies have been undertaken to test this assumption, especially in relation to the most delicate habitats.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 165 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Grekov (see for example Grekov and Pavlenko 2011) has made quantitative assessments of the possible scope and extent of impact of longline gear on bottom habitats, but these studies have not been corroborated by actual studies of seabed impact – in large measure because such impacts may not be measurable. c Y Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. Good baseline data is now available and monitoring surveys are undertaken. References See refs in 2.4.1 and 2.4.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 166 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
See 80a SG 80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Two ICES working groups provide annual assessments of the state of the Barents Sea Ecosystem (Arctic Fisheries Working group; WG for Regional Ecosystem Description). This information is supplemented by on-going data collected under the Joint Norwegian-Russian Environmental Status Report for the Barents Sea (which issues annual Barents Sea ecosystem status report, trends, highlights expected future situation) and work undertaken as part of implementing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area. All these assessments suggest that broadly speaking the Barents Sea Ecosystem is relatively healthy, and that current fishing activities are not disrupting ecosystem structure and function. There has been a decline in seabird populations (similar to that throughout the NE Atlantic), but the reasons for this are unclear (local food shortage; increased predation; historic bycatch in drift net and long-line fisheries) and are not attributed to current fishing activity. The high stocks of key species at different trophic levels (cod/ haddock and capelin) suggest that the fish related elements of the ecosystem are broadly speaking in good shape. Significant changes are however taking place probably related to climate change. These surveys and assessments are also supported by a several ecosystem modeling studies related specifically to the Barents Sea, which have explored for example the trophic relations between fish species, and links between capelin, cod, seabirds, marine mammals. These include ecopath type studies by Blanchard et al 2002; EcoCod (which seeks to estimate cod MSY taking into account a range of ecosystem factors), Gadget (multispecies interactions between cod, herring, capelin, minke whale, krill) in the Barents Sea; Biofrost (multispecies model for Barents Sea – addressing primarily cod / capelin dynamics); and various ecosystem modeling studies by e.g. Planque and Lindstom at IMR. 100 a N There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Our overall understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, and the impacts of fisheries remains inadequate to score this as highly unlikely. In particular, the ecological role of wolfish is poorly understood, as is the role and importance of skates and rays. References » Blanchard, J.L., Pinnegar, J.K., and Mackinson, S. (2002). Exploring marine mammal-fishery interactions using ‘Ecopath with Ecosim’: modelling the Barents Sea ecosystem. Cefas Science Series Technical Report No. 117.52p.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 167 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) » Dommasnes, A., Christensen, V., Ellertsen, B., Kvamme, C., Melle,W., Nøttestad, L., Pedersen, T., Tjelmeland, S. and Zeller, D., 2002. An Ecopath model for the Norwegian and Barents Sea. In: S. Guénette, V. Christensen, D. Pauly. (eds) Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: models and analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(4). » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working Group Report 2012 » ICES Arctic Fisheries Working group for Regional Ecosystem Description. ICES Ecosystem overviews: The Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea » Hoel, A.H. 2009 Best management in ecosystem based management on the arctic. Norskpolarinstitutt. Report series 129. » IMR/PINRO 2012. Ecosystem Survey of the Barents Sea Autumn 2012. 6. Monitoring the demersal community. http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2012/10/monitoring_the_demersal_community _fish.pdf/nb-no » Larsen T., Nagoda D., and Andersen, J.R. 2003. The Barents Sea Ecoregion. A biodiversity assessment. WWF http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/barentsseaecoregionreport.pdf » Lindstrøm, U. Smout, S., Howell, D., Bogstad, B. 2009. Modelling multi- species interactions in the Barents Sea ecosystem with special emphasis on minke whales and their interactions with cod, herring and capelin. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography Volume 56, Issues 21–22, October 2009, Pages 2068–2079 » Schweder, T. 2006. The Scenario Barents Sea study: a case of minimal realistic modelling to compare management strategies for marine ecosystems pp. 310-323 in Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems, Their Role in Monitoring and Management. Edited by I. L. Boyd, S. Wanless’ C. J. Camphuysen. Conservation Biology (No. 12) Cambridge University Press » Joint Norwegian-Russian environmental status 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. http://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal09/index.php?option=com_co ntent&view=article&id=184&Itemid=201&lang=en » Joint Norwegian Russian Ecosystem Survey 2012
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 168 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary.
There are measures in place (already described) to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to cod and haddock, which are important (arguably key) species in the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Closed areas have also been established to protect the young of a variety of other species. There are measures in place (already described) to minimize bycatch of other fish species that may play an important role in ecosystem structure and function. There is limited interaction with marine mammals and seabirds, and specific measures are not considered necessary. b Y? The measures take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. As described above the measures take into account key fish, seabird and marine mammal elements of the system. Measures relating to seabed habitats are not considered relevant to the longline fishery which poses little threat to these habitats
c Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). Individual measures have been described under other principles, which are likely to work. As cod and haddock stocks are abundant targeting these species and minimizing wider impacts becomes easier. Longline fishing has been shown to be relatively selective. 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary. An ecosystem based management plan is in place for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area (updated 2011). This plan includes assessment of threats to ecosystem structure and function and where appropriate identification of measures to address such threats. There are initiatives to extend this to the Russian Barents Sea. The Norwegian plan states that the Norwegian authorities will work to standardise and harmonise Norwegian and Russian environmental monitoring in the Barents Sea. This will include continuing to assist Russia in introducing OSPAR standards, which will facilitate Russia’s entry into the OSPAR cooperation in the long term. The mix of planning initiatives, Russian-Norwegian cooperation initiatives, ecosystem monitoring and assessments, seabed mapping, fishing effort distribution monitoring, ICES advice, and the range of individual measures designed to protect different elements of the ecosystem ….taken together may be regarded as comprising a partial strategy.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 169 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The implementation of individual measures, and the overall assessment/planning process take into account historic and current information as collected under the Joint-Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem assessment, ICES advice, and scientific advice from IMR, PINRO and the scientific community more widely. Given the current state of knowledge this partial strategy is likely to restrain impacts of the fishery so as to achieve ecosystem outcome 80 level of performance. c Y The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). There are no obvious weaknesses in the overall strategy, in so far as it encompasses the key elements of research, objective setting, implementation measures, monitoring of implementation, outcome assessment and review/adaptation. Taken together with the limited impacts identified with respect to the long-line fishery this strategy is likely to work d Y There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. See 100d
100 a P There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place. As described above there is an integrated management plan for the Barents Sea- Lofoten Area. There is as yet no equivalent for areas under Russian jurisdiction. b N The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm. The strategy, plan and individual measures have been described above. While together they represent a relatively comprehensive approach, there remain some gaps both in understanding and in implementation – in particular with regard to benthic habitats and species. Understanding of their role in fishery productivity and the wider ecosystem more generally remains limited, and measures to protect valuable and vulnerable benthic species, habitats and “vulnerable marine ecosystems” remain limited. Until such time as there is a clear strategy to improve understanding of functional relationships and/or a precautionary management system is in place, this cannot be scored at 100. c N The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. Most of the measures as described above are likely to work, but existing measures relating to management of some key elements in the ecosystem, including wolfish
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 170 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) and other less well known benthic species may be inadequate.
d y There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. There is substantial evidence relating to implementation. This includes: » VMS data relating to the spatial intensity of fishing effort, and compliance with closed area restrictions; » Catch records » Vessel inspections » Observer programmes » Review and analysis of fishing activity by PINRO » See 2.5.1. » Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (management plan) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Selected-topics/hav--og- vannforvaltning/havforvaltning/integrated-management-of-the-barents- References sea.html?id=87148 » http://arcticgovernance.custompublish.com/norway-and-integrated- oceans-management-the-case-of-the-barents-sea.4651095-142902.html » Hoel , A.H., von Quillfeldt, C.H., Olsen, E. 2009 Norway and Integrated Oceans Management – the Case of the Barents Sea. REPORT SERIES NO 129 Norsk Polar Institutt
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 171 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). As described under 2.5.1 the Barents Sea food web and ecosystem are well researched, a range of models at different levels of complexity have been developed, and key relations analysed. A good deal of biodiversity (location, migrations, etc.) has been mapped. Key indicators and parameters are monitored on a regular basis and trend data collected. Nonetheless, relations are complex and unpredictable, requiring a precautionary approach to management. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have not been investigated in detail. See 80b 80 a Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.
Relative to most aquatic systems the Barents Sea is well researched and the key elements of the ecosystem are broadly understood. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail. As described in 2.5.1 main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and several have been investigated in detail. c Y The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. The main functions of target species are known. Functions associated with less well known bycatch and ETP species are less well known. There remains some uncertainty over the functions and relative importance of benthic habitats. d Y Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Survey, monitoring and modeling all support fishery impact assessment studies, and some of the consequences for the ecosystem have been inferred. Thus relations between cod, haddock, capelin and marine mammals are all well researched. Relationships between the fishery and seabird populations are complex and less well understood, although direct impacts of the fishery appear to be limited. e Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). There is a relatively comprehensive monitoring programme in place related to the Joint Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea Ecosystem assessment and the Norwegian Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea Lofoten Area. A variety of other related initiatives monitor marine mammals and seabirds. PINRO and IMR collect comprehensive data related to the major commercial fisheries. Risks associated
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 172 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) with changing populations or relations between fisheries and various elements of the ecosystem should be picked up. 100 b Y Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated.
As described in 2.5.1 main impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in some detail. c N The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. As described under 80c, impacts on target, bycatch and ETP species have been identified. However, there is limited understanding of the main functions of some of these components in the wider ecosystem. d N Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Although the level of research and understanding is impressive given the complexity of ecosystem studies and assessments, and may be regarded as close to best practice, there remain some significant gaps in understanding, particularly in relation to the role of some bycatch and ETP species and benthic habitats in the wider ecosystem. e Y Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Although there are some gaps in our understanding, there is more than enough information available to support strategies to manage marine ecosystem impacts, especially if a precautionary approach were to be taken in relation to bycatch, ETP species and damage to benthic habitats, where there remains some uncertainty as to wider consequences to the marine ecosystem. References » See 2.5.1 and 2.5.2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 173 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle 3: All Units of Certification Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified relevant international agreements such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement. The Russian Constitution of 1993 states that the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation was signed in 2004 and revised in 2007. This is a framework law, and a number of supporting legal documents have been issued in recent years to implement the intensions behind the 2007 revision. Specific regulations are given at the level of fishery basins. Current regulations for Russia’s northern fishery basin were adopted in 2009, providing, among other things, rules for closed areas, fishing gear (e.g. mesh size), by-catch and minimal allowable size of different species. It should be noted that these measures by and large reflect decisions made at bilateral level with Norway, in the JNRFC. The JNRFC sets TAC for cod and haddock, which is shared 50–50 between the two countries. A number of specific national fishery rules have been harmonized by the JNRFC, or jointly introduced by the two countries. These include the minimum mesh size of 130 mm, harmonized in 2009, and minimum fish size of 44 cm for cod and 40 cm for haddock, harmonized in 2010. Conversion factors were harmonized in 1997 and the procedures for closing and opening of fishing grounds in 1999. Mandatory use of selection grids was jointly introduced by the parties in 1997 and satellite tracking of all fishing vessels in 2001. b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee. In Russia, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, not requiring judicial treatment. There is a well-established system of consultation with user groups, through fishery councils at different levels (the public chamber at federal level) and directly between user groups and government. Large user groups such as the FIUN have direct access to government, even the Prime Minister on occasion. Quota allocation and other regulatory measures are subject to such consultation. Internal fishery infringements are processed and dealt with by the enforcement bodies in Norway and Russia (depending on where the infringement took place), and fishermen and ship owners have the possibility to bring their case to court instead of accepting a fine.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 174 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c Y Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability of the fishery. Neither the federal management authority – the Federal Fisheries Agency (the FFA) – nor its constituent components at federal and regional level (such as the BBTA in the northern basin) are subject to continuing court challenges. There are no signs of defiance of the law by repeated violations of the same law or regulation for the sustainability of the fishery. d Y The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. As fisheries were assembled in large production entities in Soviet times, ‘fishery-dependent community’ in Russia largely equals big cities with considerable fishing activities. This is particularly the case in the northern basin, with Murmansk as the region’s ‘fishery capital’. Hence, it can be argues that this provision is also implemented in practice, as by far the major share of fish quotas in the Russian northern basin go to vessels registered in Murmansk (although some of the companies, to which the quotas are formally allocated, are located in the other regions of the northern basin, Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous District). The Federal Fisheries Act states that ‘the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’ (ethnic groups with a ‘traditional’ lifestyle and consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It lists ‘fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East’ as one of seven ‘types of fisheries’ (along with, e.g., ‘industrial fisheries’, ‘coastal fisheries’ and ‘fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes’). The Act further states that quotas for such fisheries are distributed by the executive power of Russia’s federal subjects (i.e. regional authorities). In Murmansk County, the indigenous Sámi, consisting of some 2,000 people, live in inland Kola Peninsula and are not engaged in ocean fisheries. A small part of the Russian Barents Sea quota (2-3 %) was from 1998 given to Nenets Autonomous District, located north of Arkhangelsk County. 80 b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee. In Russia, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, not requiring judicial treatment. There is a well-established system of consultation with user groups, through fishery councils at different levels (the public chamber at federal level) and directly between user groups and government. Large user groups such as the FIUN have direct access to government, even the Prime Minister on occasion. Quota allocation and other regulatory measures are
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 175 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) subject to such consultation. The process is transparent for actors within the Russian fisheries complex, and it is considered to be effective. Internal fishery infringements are processed and dealt with by the enforcement bodies in Norway and Russia (depending on where the infringement took place), and fishermen and ship owners have the possibility to bring their case to court instead of accepting a fine. c Y The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion within binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. There are no signs that the management system does not attempt to comply in a timely fashion within binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. d Y The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. As fisheries were assembled in large production entities in Soviet times, ‘fishery-dependent community’ in Russia largely equals big cities with considerable fishing activities. This is particularly the case in the northern basin, with Murmansk as the region’s ‘fishery capital’. Hence, it can be argues that this provision is also implemented in practice, as by far the major share of fish quotas in the Russian northern basin go to vessels registered in Murmansk (although some of the companies, to which the quotas are formally allocated, are located in the other regions of the northern basin, Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous District). The Federal Fisheries Act states that ‘the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’ (ethnic groups with a ‘traditional’ lifestyle and consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It lists ‘fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East’ as one of seven ‘types of fisheries’ (along with, e.g., ‘industrial fisheries’, ‘coastal fisheries’ and ‘fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes’). The Act further states that quotas for such fisheries are distributed by the executive power of Russia’s federal subjects (i.e. regional authorities). In Murmansk County, the indigenous Sámi, consisting of some 2,000 people, live in inland Kola Peninsula and are not engaged in ocean fisheries. A small part of the Russian Barents Sea quota (2-3 %) was from 1998 given to Nenets Autonomous District, located north of Arkhangelsk County. 100 b N The management system incorporates or subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. Disputes between Norway and Russia are solved in the JNRFC, or in its Permanent Committee. In Russia, most disputes are solved within the system for fisheries management, not requiring judicial treatment. There is a well-established system of consultation with user groups, through fishery councils at different levels (the public chamber at federal level) and directly between user groups and government.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 176 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Large user groups such as the FIUN have direct access to government, even the Prime Minister on occasion. Quota allocation and other regulatory measures are subject to such consultation. The process is transparent for actors within the Russian fisheries complex. It is considered to be effective, but the assessment team has not been provided with documentation that makes it possible to conclude that the system is tested and proven to be effective. Internal fishery infringements are processed and dealt with by the enforcement bodies in Norway and Russia (depending on where the infringement took place), and fishermen and ship owners have the possibility to bring their case to court instead of accepting a fine. c Y The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The management system acts proactively – in the JNRFC and in the fishery councils (described for the SG above) at various levels in Russia – to settle any disagreement outside the judicial system. There are no signs that the management system does not attempt to comply in a timely fashion within binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. d Y The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The rights of fishery-dependent communities are explicitly stated in the Federal Fisheries Act. As fisheries were assembled in large production entities in Soviet times, ‘fishery-dependent community’ in Russia largely equals big cities with considerable fishing activities. This is particularly the case in the northern basin, with Murmansk as the region’s ‘fishery capital’. Hence, it can be argues that this provision is also implemented in practice, as by far the major share of fish quotas in the Russian northern basin go to vessels registered in Murmansk (although some of the companies, to which the quotas are formally allocated, are located in the other regions of the northern basin, Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Republic of Karelia and Nenets Autonomous District). The Federal Fisheries Act states that ‘the small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East’ (ethnic groups with a ‘traditional’ lifestyle and consisting of less than 50,000 people) shall be given access to fish resources in order to secure their livelihood. It lists ‘fisheries to protect the traditional lifestyle of small indigenous peoples of the North Siberia and the Far East’ as one of seven ‘types of fisheries’ (along with, e.g., ‘industrial fisheries’, ‘coastal fisheries’ and ‘fisheries for scientific and enforcement purposes’). The Act further states that quotas for such fisheries are distributed by the executive power of Russia’s federal subjects (i.e. regional authorities). In Murmansk County, the indigenous Sámi, consisting of some 2,000 people, live in inland Kola Peninsula and are not engaged in ocean fisheries. A small part of the Russian Barents Sea quota (2-3 %) was from 1998 given to Nenets Autonomous District, located north of Arkhangelsk County.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 177 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation, 2004. » Geir Hønneland (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. » Geir Hønneland & Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2003), ‘Implementing International Fisheries Agreements in Russia: Lessons from the Northern References Basin’, Marine Policy 26: 359–67. » Geir Hønneland & Frode Nilssen (2001), ‘Quota Allocation in Russia’s Northern Fishery Basin: Principles and Practice’, Ocean & Coastal Management 44: 471–88. » Interviews during site visit. » Protocols from the sessions of the JNRFC, available in Norwegian on the website of the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries (www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fkd ) » Regulations for the Conduct of Fishery in the Northern Fishery Basin, 2009.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 178 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood.
A number of bodies of governance, industry organizations and research institutions are involved in the management of Russian fisheries. The formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at both federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. The Rules of Procedures for Basin Scientific and Fishery Councils in the Russian Federation were approved in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. Russia has an extensive system of fisheries research in oceanography, biology of marine organisms, resource assessment, fishing gear and processing technology, among other things. Research institutes subordinate to the Federal Fisheries Agency are highly integrated in the management process and also participate in the fishery councils at different levels. The FFA is the federal body responsible for fisheries management in the Russian Federation. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement in the REZ. The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the northern basin, located in Murmansk. Our interviews during the site visit indicate that the functions, roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals involved in the management system are well understood. b Y The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. There is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder consultation in the management process. The fishery councils at different (referred to above) shall consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organizations, including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonized fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 179 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. A number of bodies of governance, industry organizations and research institutions are involved in the management of Russian fisheries. The formal arena for interaction between the Russian fishing industry and the government are the advisory bodies, the so-called fishery councils, found at both federal, basin and regional levels. At the federal level, the Public Fisheries Council was established in 2008 on the basis of the requirement in the Federal Public Chamber Act to have a public council for most federal bodies of governance. Basin-level and regional fishery councils have existed since Soviet times, and the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act makes them mandatory for all basins and regions located on their territory. The Rules of Procedures for Basin Scientific and Fishery Councils in the Russian Federation were approved in 2008. They state that the councils shall advice on a wide range of fishery-related issues, including conduct of fisheries in the relevant region; control and surveillance; conservation; recovery and harvesting of aquatic biological resources; distribution of quotas and other issues of importance to ensure sustainable management of fisheries. Russia has an extensive system of fisheries research in oceanography, biology of marine organisms, resource assessment, fishing gear and processing technology, among other things. Research institutes subordinate to the Federal Fisheries Agency are highly integrated in the management process and also participate in the fishery councils at different levels. The FFA is the federal body responsible for fisheries management in the Russian Federation. The Federal Border Service (since 2003 part of the Federal Security Service, the FSB) is responsible for enforcement in the REZ. The Barents and White Sea Territorial Administration of the Federal Fisheries Agency (the BBTA) was established in 2007 as the implementing body of the Federal Fisheries Agency in the northern basin, located in Murmansk. The functions, roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals involved in the management system are explicitly defined and seem well understood for all key areas of responsibility and interaction. b Y The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. There is a strong Russian (and previously Soviet) tradition of stakeholder consultation in the management process. The fishery councils at different (referred to above) consist of representatives of the fishing industry, federal executive authorities, executive bodies of the Russian federal subjects (the regions), research institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the indigenous people of the North, Siberia and the Far East. The current regulations of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council were given in 2002 and corresponding regulations for the Murmansk Territorial Fishery Council in 2005, stating, inter alia, that the council shall contribute to a harmonized fishery policy in the region, liaise between the fishing industry, fishery authorities, scientific institutions and NGOs. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained by continuously adapting its policies in accordance with user-group opinion as expressed at the fishery councils at different levels.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 180 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) c N The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. A major shortcoming of the Russian system is that NGOs outside the traditional fisheries complex, notably environmental NGOs, are only included to a very limited extent, in spite of obvious interest and relevant expertise in issues relating to marine management (note the considerable wealth of relevant NGO papers on the Barents Sea). Despite certain recent improvements – notably the inclusion of WWF-Russia in the federal Public Chamber for the fisheries sector – the assessment team did not see evidence that there is any serious opportunity for environmental NGOs, or indeed any other interested parties to contribute as an active stakeholder in the management process. This is notable at the bilateral level with Norway, in the JNRFC and at regional level in Russia’s northern fishery basin. As an example, WWF-Murmansk has engaged actively in issues related to fisheries management in the Russian northern basin, but has no formal interface with fisheries management bodies in the region. Nor have other environmental NGOs. It cannot therefore be concluded that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. 100 a Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction.
b The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.
c The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.
» Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation, 2004 » Geir Hønneland (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. » Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector'. In Wilson Rowe, Elana (ed.), Russia and the North. Ottawa: References University of Ottawa Press, pp. 87-106 » Interviews during site visit. » Resolution on the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council and Working Group of the Northern Basin Scientific and Fishery Council, 2002 » Resolution on the Working Order of the Territorial Fishery Council of Murmansk County, 2005.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 181 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 182 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. The concept ‘protection and rational use’ was widespread in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Federal Fisheries Act, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account approaches the requirements of the precautionary approach, although it might arguably lack the extra margin of precaution prescribed by the approach. According to the 1993 Russian Constitution the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and the JNRFC. The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were adopted. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. 80 a Y Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. The concept ‘protection and rational use’ was widespread in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Federal Fisheries Act, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account approaches the requirements of the precautionary approach, although it might arguably lack the extra margin of precaution prescribed by the approach. According to the 1993 Russian Constitution the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 183 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and the JNRFC. The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were adopted. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. 100 a N Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Russian fisheries law defines protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources as the main goal of the country’s fisheries management. The concept ‘protection and rational use’ was widespread in Soviet legislation on the protection of the environment and exploitation of natural resources, and has remained so in the Russian Federation. ‘Rational use’ bears resemblance to the internationally recognized ideal of sustainability, in so far as the emphasis is on long-term and sustained use of the resource, supported by science for socio-economic purposes. The Federal Fisheries Act states that the protection of aquatic biological resources shall be given priority to their rational use. The precautionary approach is not mentioned explicitly in the Federal Fisheries Act, but the requirement to protect aquatic biological resources and take the best scientific knowledge into account approaches the requirements of the precautionary approach, although it might arguably lack the extra margin of precaution prescribed by the approach. According to the 1993 Russian Constitution the provisions of international agreements entered by the Russian Federation stand above those of national law. The Russian Federation has signed and ratified a number of international agreements which adopt the precautionary approach, including the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement, and works actively in international organizations or arrangements which explicitly adhere to the precautionary approach to fisheries management, such as ICES and the JNRFC. The precautionary approach has been in practical use by the JNRFC since the late 1990s, when ICES’ precautionary reference points were adopted. The harvest control rule established by the JNRFC in 2002 is explicitly founded on the precautionary approach. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. Although the precautionary approach is actively used in these international arrangements where Russia takes part (thus explicit in the management system), it is not required by national Russian law, so SG100 is not met. » Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation, 2004. » Geir Hønneland (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. References » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 184 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) » Geir Hønneland and Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2003), Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. » Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector'. In Wilson Rowe, Elana (ed.), Russia and the North. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 87-106. » Protocols from sessions in the JNRFC. » Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 185 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. Fishing companies and fish-processing plants can apply for support to the FFA for support to cover annual interest on loans taken up to buy equipment. The current targeted programme for the fisheries sector (2009–2013) is directed towards three main issue areas: shipbuilding, port infrastructure and fish restocking plants. The part of the programme which is to be funded via the federal budget will go towards large infrastructure projects, construction of research and inspection vessels and modernization of restocking plants. The projects aimed at renewal and modernization of the fishing fleet and the processing industry are all to be financed by ‘non-budget sources’. The programme does not specify what this means, beyond a sentence mentioning private investors and credit institutions. Both the Russian fisheries authorities and industry organizations have repeatedly called for more state support, including subsidies, for the fisheries sector, but the overall impression is that the Government is not generally in favour of direct subsidies. Despite this, in 2009 the Government introduced a new form of subsidies aimed at fleet renewal and modernization of the processing industry. Starting in 2009, companies which have taken up loans to finance such projects could apply for a 2/3 refund of the annual interest on the loans. The subsidies are aimed at the replacement of old vessels with more cost-effective ones. The FIUN stipulates that one new vessel will replace three old ones, and they present the initiative as a measure to combat overfishing. The number of vessels in the northern fishery basin has steadily declined during the post-Soviet period, from more than 500 in the early 1990s to 200-300 today. According to the BBTA, the total number of vessels registered in Murmansk has gone down from 456 in 2006 to 336 in 2012, of which 283 are fishing vessels. In summary, although some subsidies have been identified, these are mostly in the form of bank loans. For this fleet, they are not thought to contribute to unsustainable fishing. At national level, the management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing. These include: » Penalties for infringements / non-compliance » New system of quota allocation (enhanced by the adoption of clear harvest control rules) is more stable and more akin to a rights-based system. In particular the guarantee of quota share for a 10-year period increases both certainty and commercial flexibility for industry to plan operations in a profitable and economically efficient manner. This greatly reduces the risk of vessels over-capitalizing and being forced to fish illegally following unexpected quota shortages. 80 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise. Fishing companies and fish-processing plants can apply for support to the FFA for support to cover annual interest on loans taken up to buy equipment. The current targeted programme for the fisheries sector (2009–2013) is directed towards three main issue areas: shipbuilding, port infrastructure and fish restocking plants. The part of the programme which is to be funded via the federal budget will go towards large infrastructure projects, construction of research and inspection vessels and
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 186 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) modernization of restocking plants. The projects aimed at renewal and modernization of the fishing fleet and the processing industry are all to be financed by ‘non-budget sources’. The programme does not specify what this means, beyond a sentence mentioning private investors and credit institutions. Both the Russian fisheries authorities and industry organizations have repeatedly called for more state support, including subsidies, for the fisheries sector, but the overall impression is that the Government is not generally in favour of direct subsidies. Despite this, in 2009 the Government introduced a new form of subsidies aimed at fleet renewal and modernization of the processing industry. Starting in 2009, companies which have taken up loans to finance such projects could apply for a 2/3 refund of the annual interest on the loans. The subsidies are aimed at the replacement of old vessels with more cost-effective ones. The FIUN stipulates that one new vessel will replace three old ones, and they present the initiative as a measure to combat overfishing. The number of vessels in the northern fishery basin has steadily declined during the post-Soviet period, from more than 500 in the early 1990s to 200-300 today. According to the BBTA, the total number of vessels registered in Murmansk has gone down from 456 in 2006 to 336 in 2012, of which 283 are fishing vessels. In summary, although some subsidies have been identified, these are mostly in the form of bank loans. For this fleet, they are not thought to contribute to unsustainable fishing. At national level, the management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing. These include: » Penalties for infringements / non-compliance » New system of quota allocation (enhanced by the adoption of clear harvest control rules) is more stable and more akin to a rights-based system. In particular the guarantee of quota share for a 10-year period increases both certainty and commercial flexibility for industry to plan operations in a profitable and economically efficient manner. This greatly reduces the risk of vessels over-capitalizing and being forced to fish illegally following unexpected quota shortages. 100 a P The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. The assessment team has not been provided with documentation that the management system explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. » Geir Hønneland (2004), Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice, Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward References Elgar. » Interviews during the site visit.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 187 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) » Anne-Kristin Jørgensen (2009), ‘Recent Developments in the Russian Fisheries Sector'. In Wilson Rowe, Elana (ed.), Russia and the North. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 87-106. » Kontseptsia razvitia rybolognogo khozyaystva, Moscow: FFA. » Ekonomicheskoe razvitie otrasli: investitsii i subsidii, Moscow: FFA. » List of registered vessels in Murmansk, provided by the BBTA » Interviews during site visit.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 188 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/PN) 60 a Y Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system.
Well-defined and measurable short- and long-term objectives are explicit in the annual protocols and research programmes of the JNRFC. The Commission uses precautionary reference points established by ICES as the basis for establishment of TACs. In the basic principles of the Commission, defined in 2002, it is stated that the Commission will follow the provisions for a responsible fishery as expressed in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As main management objectives are defined: i) to attain high sustainable catches from exploited stocks in the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian seas without decreasing their productivity; ii) to keep exploited stocks within safe biological limits while maintaining the biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems; and iii) to ensure sustainable development of the fisheries industry while exploiting the stocks within safe biological limits. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. 80 a Y Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Well-defined and measurable short- and long-term objectives are explicit in the annual protocols and research programmes of the JNRFC. The Commission uses precautionary reference points established by ICES as the basis for establishment of TACs. In the basic principles of the Commission, defined in 2002, it is stated that the Commission will follow the provisions for a responsible fishery as expressed in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As main management objectives are defined: i) to attain high sustainable catches from exploited stocks in the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian seas without decreasing their productivity; ii) to keep exploited stocks within safe biological limits while maintaining the biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems; and iii) to ensure sustainable development of the fisheries industry while exploiting the stocks within safe biological limits. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. 100 a N Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Well-defined and measurable short- and long-term objectives are explicit in the annual protocols and research programmes of the JNRFC. The Commission uses precautionary reference points established by ICES as the basis for establishment of TACs. In the basic principles of the Commission, defined in 2002, it is stated that the Commission will follow the provisions for a responsible fishery as expressed in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As main management objectives are defined: i) to attain high sustainable catches from exploited stocks in the ecosystems of the Barents and Norwegian seas without decreasing their productivity; ii) to keep exploited stocks within safe biological limits while maintaining the biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems;
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 189 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/PN) and iii) to ensure sustainable development of the fisheries industry while exploiting the stocks within safe biological limits. The 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on marine delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea explicitly states that fisheries management in the area shall be based on the precautionary approach. Among the ‘management obligations’ listed in the Commission’s basic principles is the requirement to apply the precautionary approach and base the Commission’s work on the best scientific data available. However, although some P2 objectives are included, these are less well defined and measurable than the P1 objectives. Therefore the 100 performance indicator is not fully met. » Annual Joint Norwegian–Russian Research Programmes for the Barents Sea, attached to the protocols from the annual sessions in the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission » Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the References Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission in 2002 » Protocols from sessions in the JNRFC. » Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean, 2010.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 190 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. There are established decision-making processes in the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Any potential problem is first raised in direct contact between Norwegian and Russian fishery authority, then possibly referred to further discussion in the Joint Commission, which meets 1-2 a year, or in its Permanent Committee, which meets 3-4 times annually. Decisions by the JNRFC are subsequently implemented in federal and regional fishery regulations in Russia. b Y Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. The JNRFC is governed by the harvest control rule, which in its formulation and assessment takes into account a range of ecosystem considerations of the mixed nature of the fishery. Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of by-catch, endangered species and effects of fishing gear on habitats, and these are taken into account in decision making. 80 a Y There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. There are established decision-making processes in the JNRFC and its Permanent Committee that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Any potential problem is first raised in direct contact between Norwegian and Russian fishery authority, then possibly referred to further discussion in the Joint Commission, which meets 1-2 a year, or in its Permanent Committee, which meets 3-4 times annually. Decisions by the JNRFC are subsequently implemented in federal and regional fishery regulations in Russia. b Y Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The JNRFC is governed by the harvest control rule, which in its formulation and assessment takes into account a range of ecosystem considerations of the mixed nature of the fishery. Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of by-catch, endangered species and effects of fishing gear on habitats, and these are taken into account in decision making. c Y Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. The JNRFC formally states that it uses the precautionary approach (see reference above to the 2002 basic principles of the Commission and the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea) and bases its management on best available scientific information. ICES have evaluated both the cod and haddock harvest control rules as precautionary.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 191 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The protocols from meetings in the JNRFC are distributed within the fishing industry of the two countries and published on the websites of national fisheries management authorities, in Norwegian and Russian, along with press releases further substantiating the decisions. 100 b N Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The JNRFC is governed by the harvest control rule, which in its formulation and assessment takes into account a range of ecosystem considerations of the mixed nature of the fishery. Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of by-catch, endangered species and effects of fishing gear on habitats, and these are taken into account in decision making. However, the assessment team has not been provided with documentation that research on P2 issues is sufficiently taken into consideration in order to combat the shortcomings of the management system on this Principle. d N Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The protocols from meetings in the JNRFC are distributed within the fishing industry of the two countries and published on the websites of national fisheries management authorities, in Norwegian and Russian, along with press releases further substantiating the decisions. This meets the requirement of providing explanations for action, but stops short of being formal reporting to all interested stakeholders. References » Basic Principles and Criteria for Long-term, Sustainable Management of Living Marine Resources in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, issued by the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission in 2002 » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. » Protocols from sessions in the JNRFC.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 192 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. The FIUN vessels undergoing assessment take 85 % of their fish in waters subject to Norwegian enforcement, and deliver around 70 % of cod and haddock outside Russia, either directly to Norwegian ports or through other NEAFC states via trans- shipment to transport vessels at sea. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries inspects all landings by Russian vessels in Norwegian ports, while the Norwegian Coast Guard performs spot checks at sea (in the NEZ and the Protection Zone around Svalbard), including inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the NEZ. In the REZ, the FFA (in the northern basin: the BBTA as the Agency’s regional branch) keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports and accumulated reports each 15th day from all fishing vessels, as well as VMS data. It also administers the system for closing and opening of fishing grounds and inspects fishing vessels in port, in Russian territorial waters and in convention waters outside the REZ, e.g. in the Protection Zone around Svalbard. The Border Service under the FSB inspects fishing vessels within the REZ. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme. Fish caught in the REZ is since summer 2009 taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but is then trans-shipped for export. Before the NEAFC port state regime was introduced in 2007, the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries for several years estimated a Russian overfishing in the Barents Sea. The overfishing is now considered to have been eliminated, and the JNRFC in 2009 agreed on a new joint procedure for calculating total catches from the Barents Sea. b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist in both Norwegian and Russian fisheries management. The Russian system makes wide use of administrative fines, unlike Norwegian fisheries management. Both systems refer serious cases to the judicial system. According to both Russian and Norwegian enforcement authorities, prosecution of offenders on the Russian side has improved markedly the last couple of years, the Border Service largely using evidence provided by Norwegian enforcement authorities to go to court. c Y Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries estimated a Russian overfishing in the Barents Sea after the turn of the millennium, reaching its height at around 100,000 tonnes in the mid-2000s. Since then, through the combined efforts of Norwegian and Russian authorities, and implementation of new measures and regulations by NEAFC, such as port state control, the analysis of estimated IUU landings shows a substantial pattern of improvement. Russian authorities did not acknowledge the Norwegian documentation, nor the concrete figures, although there has been improved cooperation of the methodology used for assessment of IUU, exemplified by the joint method for calculating total catches agreed upon in the JNRFC in 2009.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 193 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The FIUN vessels undergoing assessment take 85 % of their fish in waters subject to Norwegian enforcement, and deliver around 70 % of cod and haddock outside Russia, either directly to Norwegian ports or through other NEAFC states via trans- shipment to transport vessels at sea. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries inspects all landings by Russian vessels in Norwegian ports, while the Norwegian Coast Guard performs spot checks at sea (in the NEZ and the Protection Zone around Svalbard), including inspections at check points that foreign vessels have to pass when entering or leaving the NEZ. In the REZ, the FFA (in the northern basin: the BBTA as the Agency’s regional branch) keeps track of how much fish each vessel and company (quotas are given to companies, not vessels in Russia) has fished at any moment, based on daily reports and accumulated reports each 15th day from all fishing vessels, as well as VMS data. It also administers the system for closing and opening of fishing grounds and inspects fishing vessels in port, in Russian territorial waters and in convention waters outside the REZ, e.g. in the Protection Zone around Svalbard. The Border Service under the FSB inspects fishing vessels within the REZ. When Russian vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme. Fish caught in the REZ is since summer 2009 taken to Murmansk for customs clearance, but is then transshipped for export. Before the NEAFC port state regime was introduced in 2007, the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries for several years estimated a Russian overfishing in the Barents Sea. The overfishing is now considered to have been eliminated, and the JNRFC in 2009 agreed on a new joint procedure for calculating total catches from the Barents Sea. b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist in both Norwegian and Russian fisheries management. The Russian system makes wide use of administrative fines, unlike Norwegian fisheries management. Both systems refer serious cases to the judicial system. According to both Russian and Norwegian enforcement authorities, prosecution of offenders on the Russian side has improved markedly in recent years, the Border Service partly using evidence provided by Norwegian enforcement authorities to go to court. c Y Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries estimated a Russian overfishing in the Barents Sea after the turn of the millennium, reaching its height at around 100,000 tonnes in the mid-2000s. Since then, through the combined efforts of Norwegian and Russian authorities, and implementation of new measures and regulations by NEAFC, such as port state control, the analysis of estimated IUU landings shows a substantial pattern of improvement. Russian authorities did not acknowledge the Norwegian documentation, nor the concrete figures, although there has been improved cooperation of the methodology used for assessment of IUU, exemplified by the joint method for calculating total catches agreed upon in the JNRFC in 2009. Justifying the claim that some evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system, FIUN vessels were inspected on average close to four times per year during the period from 2010 to mid-2012, and no underreporting of catch
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 194 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) was detected. The Russian overfishing in the mid-2000s seems to have been eliminated, and a high stock biomass has been maintained, see PI. 1.1.1. d Y There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. It follows from the discussion under the preceding SG that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries at the moment. The Russian overfishing claimed by Norwegian authorities after 2000 seems to have been eliminated. There is no evidence of the FIUN vessels overfishing their quotas in recent years or of them being engaged in any other kind of systematic IUU fishing. FIUN vessels were inspected on average close to four times per year during the period from 2010 to mid-2012, and only one infringement of fishing regulations was discovered (discard of fish, an issue of controversy in the JNRFC in recent years, pending further clarification of rules). 100 a N A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures. There is, however, some uncertainty with regard to the degree of coordination between the different elements of the Russian enforcement system, and with regard to the independence of the enforcement system from the fishing industry – elements that are specifically mentioned in CB4.9.3. as relevant in the evaluation of the MCS system as ‘comprehensive’. Further, the assessment team has not been provided with documentation (e.g. inspection statistics) that physical control of quantities of fish is actually carried out by Russian enforcement in Russian waters and Russian ports. b N Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied, but the assessment team has not been provided documentation by the Russian enforcement bodies (e.g. inspection statistics) that it demonstrably provides effective deterrence. c N There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. While the level of compliance among the vessels undergoing assessment seems to be high (see above), the assessment team has not been provided documentation by the enforcement bodies that this is the case for the fishery at large. Therefore, the team cannot conclude with a high degree of confidence that this is the case. » Follow-up document to the Report from the Parallel review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document nr. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General), the Norwegian Auditor General, September 2009. References » Geir Hønneland (2012), Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. » Interviews during the site visit
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 195 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » List of inspections of the vessels undergoing assessment from 2010 to mid- 2012, provided by the Client. » Protocols from sessions in the JNRFC. » Report from the Parallel review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document nr. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General) » Olav Schram Stokke (2009), ‘Trade Measures and the Combat of IUU Fishing: Institutional Interplay and Effective Governance in the Northeast Atlantic’, Marine Policy 33: 339–349.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 196 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.4
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The JNRFC produces annual research plans and long-term research strategies, sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This degree of strategic planning of research appears to go beyond the approach of ICES. Given ICES’ pivotal role in these fisheries, it is also important to consider their approach to research planning. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focused on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), etc. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate work. There is good communication between Working Groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. Research / investigation is undertaken in relation to specific requirements, which generally come from the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Working Group. Members of the ICES community keep abreast of developments within the scientific community of relevance to the fishery under consideration. Research contracts are left to other organizations, including universities, to supplement scientific understanding relevant to the fishery and related ecosystem. In Russia, PINRO plays a key role in the work of ICES, and is the formal representative of Russia on ICES working groups and, as such, contributes significant resources and expertise to relevant research. For example, a number of key ICES working / study group have particular bearing on the fishery under assessment. These include (but are not limited to): » AFWG – Arctic Fisheries Working Group » WGRED – Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description Research direction is steered by the money available. Typically it is easier to get national research funding for national projects. As a result many projects are undertaken by national scientific institutes using national fleets. The findings of these studies contribute to ICES findings. b Y Research results are available to interested parties. The JNRFC research plan and research results are publicly available on the internet. The annual reports of ICES working groups and study groups are publically available on the ICES website. In addition they are disseminated to interested parties – in particular, they are disseminated to decision-makers in time for annual fishery allocation negotiations. 80 a Y A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The JNRFC produces annual research plans and long-term research strategies, sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This degree of strategic planning of research appears to go beyond the approach of ICES. Given ICES’ pivotal role in these fisheries, it is also important to consider their approach to research planning. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focused on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), etc. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 197 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
work. There is good communication between Working Groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. Research / investigation is undertaken in relation to specific requirements, which generally come from the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Working Group. Members of the ICES community keep abreast of developments within the scientific community of relevance to the fishery under consideration. Research contracts are left to other organizations, including universities, to supplement scientific understanding relevant to the fishery and related ecosystem. In Russia, PINRO plays a key role in the work of ICES, and is the formal representative of Russia on ICES working groups and, as such, contributes significant resources and expertise to relevant research. For example, a number of key ICES working / study group have particular bearing on the fishery under assessment. These include (but are not limited to): » AFWG – Arctic Fisheries Working Group » WGRED – Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description Research direction is steered by the money available. Typically it is easier to get national research funding for national projects. As a result many projects are undertaken by national scientific institutes using national fleets. The findings of these studies contribute to ICES findings. Taken in combination it can be concluded there is therefore a strategic approach which delivers reliable and timely information. b Y Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
The JNRFC research plan and research results are disseminated to all interested partied in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available on the internet. The annual reports of ICES working groups and study groups are publically available on the ICES website. In addition they are disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion – in particular they are disseminated to decision-makers in time for annual fishery allocation negotiations. 100 a N A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The JNRFC produces annual research plans and long-term research strategies, sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC P1 and P2 (see SG80 for this SI above), but not for P3. The same goes for ICES research plans. b N Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. The JNRFC research plan and research results are disseminated to all interested partied in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available on the internet. The annual reports of ICES working groups and study groups are publically available on the ICES website. In addition they are disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion – in particular they are disseminated to decision-makers in time for annual fishery allocation negotiations. However, this stops short of being widely and publically available, as the results are not presented in an accessible form (easy to find), to enable all interested parties (including the public/consumers) to quickly interpret the findings – without significant prior knowledge or expertise. Nor does the JNRFC website contain links to ICES reports.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 198 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
References » Interviews during the site visit. » Protocols from the sessions of the JNRFC. » Protocols from the AFWG and the WGRED
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 199 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. Internal review of the management system is performed by the fishery councils at different levels and by the FFA in Russia, which in turn reports to the 1st Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for fisheries management in the Russian Government. The FFA can also report to the President about its activities. In the FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. Regular external review is performed by the Russian Auditor General. The latter in 2005 invited its Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continue to monitor developments in follow-up meetings. b Y The fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review.
Internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed by the fishery councils at basin and regional levels in Russia, as well as by the FFA. 80 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system Internal review of the management system is performed by the fishery councils at different levels and by the FFA in Russia, which in turn reports to the 1st Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for fisheries management in the Russian Government. The FFA can also report to the President about its activities. In the FFA, there is regular review of the performance of the Agency’s regional offices. Recommendations from the regional fishery councils are important in the regional offices’ feedback to the federal office. Regular external review is performed by the Russian Auditor General. The latter in 2005 invited its Norwegian counterpart to conduct a parallel audit of the Barents Sea fisheries. After this work was finished in 2007, the two parties continue to monitor developments in follow-up meetings. The parallel audits comprise all major parts of the management system. b Y The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed by the fishery councils at basin and regional levels in Russia. In addition, the fishery- specific management system is subject to various forms of review by ICES, in addition to the parallel audits performed by the Norwegian and Russian Auditors General, mentioned above. For instance, ICES has reviewed the harvest control rules for cod and haddock. There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision making and stock assessment purposes, although not of the management system as such. 100 a N The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. The fishery has in place mechanisms at bilateral, national and regional levels to evaluate key parts of the management system, as outlined above. However, the assessment team has not been provided with evidence that there are mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system, especially at national, basin and regional levels in Russia.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 200 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
b N The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review. Regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system is performed by the fishery councils at basin and regional levels in Russia. Regular review of the Russian system for fisheries management is performed by the Russian Auditor General. The assessment team has not, however, been provided with evidence that this includes regular review of the fishery-specific management system. ICES review measures of the management system per se also stop short of regular external review. » Federal Fisheries Act of the Russian Federation, 2004. » Interviews during the site visit.
References » Report from the Parallel review of the Barents Sea Fisheries by the Norwegian and Russian Auditor Generals (Document nr. 3:2 (2007–2008) from the Norwegian Auditor General). » Reports from the AFWG.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 201 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs
RBF was not used for this fishery assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 202 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
There are 3 conditions for this fishery: Condition 1: Cod and haddock, trawl and longliner P2.1.1: The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Performance Indicator P2.1.2: There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species
Score 65 (2.1.1 longliner), 70 (2.1.1 trawl), 75 (2.1.2 trawl and longliner)
The catch of Golden Redfish (Sebastes marinus) and wolfish (Anarhicas minor, A. denticulatus, and A. lupus) are both significant in the long-line fishery (with the latter comprising 45% of total catch). Although these species are less important in the trawl fishery, the total amount taken is nonetheless significant. The status of the stock of Golden redfish is very poor and that of all three wolfish species largely unknown. All Rationale are vulnerable species with slow growth and low population doubling time. Wolffish are also susceptible to direct interference of trawling with reproductive behaviour. Current knowledge and management strategy are inadequate to ensure that the fishery (trawl and long-line) does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm, and it is possible that current fishing practice may hinder recovery of Golden redfish. Although not necessarily ‘main’ components of the catch, elasmobranch species, including ETP species are also vulnerable and may be at risk. Condition Ensure a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures for retained species (with objective basis for confidence).
By the first surveillance audit: A report on wolffish stock status, using survey data on wolffish biomass trends and size composition to assess risks to stock from the current fishery (useful data may already be available from longliner catch data). Determine an appropriate level of S. marinus fishing mortality which can be taken by the client vessels which will allow the population to rebuild. By the second surveillance audit: If the current contribution of bycatch is too high to allow the stock to recover, Milestones determine a method for the client vessel to reduce bycatch of S. marinus to the target level. By the third surveillance audit: If survey data are unavailable to determine status, obtain longline data and submit these to the assessment team. Note that longliners will be part of another certification, so these data should become available if wolffish status cannot be determined in other ways. The length-weight relationship and size at 50% female maturity would also be required. Develop an assessment and strategy to address retained or discarded bycatch of other vulnerable species. Activities: » 1.1: Generate data on wolfish biomass trends and length-weight/size Client action plan distribution to assess risks to stock from the current fisheries
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 203 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Timeframe: By the first audit, By the second audit, By the third audit
Outcomes: Report on wolfish stock status Activities: » 1.2: Develop and implement measures to keep wolfish by-catch at safety level Timeframe: By the second audit
Outcomes: Evidences of method implementation Activities: » 1.2: Develop and implement measures to keep wolfish by-catch at safety level Timeframe: By the third audit, By the forth audit, By the fifth audit
Outcomes: Evidences of wolfish stock good condition
Activities: » 1.3: Determine an appropriate level of S. marinus fishing mortality which can be taken by vessels which will allow the population to rebuild Timeframe: By the first audit
Outcomes: Report on S. marinus status and fishing mortality level
Activities: » 1.4: Determine a method for vessels to reduce by-catch of S. marinus to the target level (if the current contribution of by-catch is too high to allow the stock to recover) Timeframe: By the second audit
Outcomes: Report on method description
Activities: » 1.5: Implement method for vessels to reduce by-catch of S. marinus Timeframe: By the third audit
Outcomes: Evidences of method implementation
Activities: » 1.5: Implement method for vessels to reduce by-catch of S. marinus
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 204 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Timeframe: By the forth audit, By the fifth audit
Outcomes: Evidences of S.marinus by-catch reduction
Activities: » 1.6: Develop an assessment and strategy to address retained or discarded by- catch of other vulnerable species
Timeframe: By the second audit
Outcomes: Strategy and assessment
Activities: » 1.6: Develop an assessment and strategy to address retained or discarded by- catch of other vulnerable species
Timeframe: By the third audit, By the forth audit, By the fifth audit
Outcomes: Evidences of Strategy implementation
Consultation on condition
Condition 2: Cod and haddock, trawl 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, Performance considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function Indicator 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types
Score 60 (2.4.1 trawl), 65 (2.4.2 trawl)
There are significant concerns about the impact of the FIUN trawl fleet on benthic habitat: » a strong the coincidence of FIUN trawl fishing patterns and vulnerable/valuable habitat, and known encounters with sponge beds and abundant benthic organisms;
Rationale » the obvious potential of heavy trawl gear to have an impact; » historic studies showing negative impacts of trawling on benthic biodiversity ; » limited measures to protect vulnerable/valuable habitat, especially in the North (Svalbard/Bear Island) and within the Russian jurisdiction (especially sponge fields and biogenic reefs/corals on the continental slope). Despite these concerns objective data on the frequency and severity of encounters with important benthic habitat are not available and/or are not rigorously or routinely analysed. As a result, it cannot be concluded that the fishery is highly unlikely to
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 205 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Either: Condition » Demonstrate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm; or
» Put in place a strategy that is designed to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to benthic habitat
By the first surveillance audit: Put in place a system on client trawl vessels to record location and nature of encounters with indicator species of “vulnerable marine ecosystems” as defined by FAO/NEAFC/CITES and including biogenic reefs and sponge fields Milestones By the second surveillance audit: Prepare an analysis of data as collected above to inform the development of a
strategy. Participate in discussions with Russian and Norwegian authorities and other stakeholders to explore the need and opportunity to identify and regulate closed areas and/or low usage areas or areas where only lighter gear may be used. By the third surveillance audit: Meet the condition Activities: » 2.1: Follow the development of lighter/less impacting fishing gears, support such development somehow and implement if any
Timeframe: All period
Outcomes: Evidences of such new fishing gears developments
Activities: » 2.2: Develop and put in practice on trawl vessels a system to record location and nature of encounters with indicator species of “vulnerable marine ecosystems” as defined by FAO/NEAFC/CITES and including biogenic reefs and sponge fields
Timeframe: Client action plan By the first audit
Outcomes: Evidences of such system realization
Activities: » 2.3: Continue recording and analyzing by-catch of sessile benthic species
Timeframe: All period
Outcomes: Reports
Activities: » 2.4: Prepare an analysis of data collected under the system mentioned above
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 206 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Timeframe: By the second audit
Outcomes: Report on data analysis
Activities: » 2.5: Develop a Strategy to reduce trawl impact on seabed habitat
Timeframe: By the third audit
Outcomes: Strategy text
Activities: » 2.6: Put in practice Strategy to reduce trawl impact on seabed habitat
Timeframe: By the forth audit, By the fifth audit
Outcomes: Evidences of Strategy realization
Activities: » 2.7: Participate in discussions with Russian and Norwegian authorities and other stakeholders to explore the need and opportunity to identify and regulate closed areas and/or low usage areas or areas where only lighter gear may be used
Timeframe: All period
Outcomes: Protocols, resolutions, official letters, mass-media publications etc.
Consultation on condition
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 207 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 3: Cod and haddock, trawl and longliner 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to Performance interested and affected parties. The roles and responsibilities of organisations and Indicator individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties.
Score 75
A major shortcoming of the Russian system for fisheries management is that NGOs outside the traditional fisheries complex, notably environmental NGOs, are only included to a very limited extent, in spite of obvious interest and relevant expertise in issues relating to marine management. Despite certain recent improvements, the Rationale assessment team did not see evidence that there is any serious opportunity for environmental NGOs, or indeed any other interested parties to contribute as an active stakeholder in the management process. This is notable at the bilateral level with Norway, in the JNRFC and at regional level in Russia’s northern fishery basin. It cannot therefore be concluded that the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. Work with the authorities to ensure that all relevant consultation processes are open Condition and actively seek and facilitate the participation of all interested parties – including those which may not traditionally have had a role in the consultation process. In
particular those with relevant expertise – including areas relating more to P2 issues should be engaged. Milestones No particular milestones. It cannot be required of the client to actually change the Russian system for fisheries management, just to continue efforts to include all
relevant stakeholders in the management process. Activities: » 3.1: Hold an educational courses “Sustainable fishing” for captains and deck officers
Timeframe: All period
Outcomes: Course programs, protocols, mass-media publications etc.
Activities: » 3.2: Take active part in events devoted to marine environmental issues
Client action plan Timeframe: All period
Outcomes: Recommendations, protocols, mass-media publications etc.
Activities: » 3.3: Other activities to involve relevant stakeholders in fishery management process
Timeframe: All period
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 208 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Outcomes: Recommendations, protocols, mass-media publications etc.
Consultation on [include details of any consultations required to meet requirements in CR 27.11.3] condition
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 209 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewer 1
Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: In all criteria I considered the assessment team to consider all No response appropriate information, and I concur that the information was sufficient to support the evaluations of both the trawl and longline fleets against the MSC Criteria. The assessment team showed a full understanding of the assessment criteria, and applied them in a balanced and consistent way. I did not agree fully with all the evaluations but in the not numerous cases where my evaluation of the fishery was not identical to that of the assessment team, the differences were not large. In almost all cases of minor differences in evaluation, I considered the assessment team to give more rather than less weight to shortcomings that I would have. That makes the assessment quite strict, in my opinion. However I stress that in all cases where the assessment team found the fishery to fail to reach the 80 benchmark on a criterion, I concur fully that the fishery fails to meet the 80 standard, but meets or exceeds the standards of the 60 benchmark. Therefore I consider the assessment team to have arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 210 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Do you think the condition(s) raised are No - but a Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome QUALIFIED within the specified timeframe? No
Justification: I am well aware as an assessor, peer reviewer, and member of While we agree with many of the teams evaluating progress of certified fisheries against conditions, comments, it is also worth noting that to and as a person who follows the MSC process closely, that views on achieve condition closure, an element of what should constitute a Condition have evolved, and that there are harmonization is required in this case with still differences in views on this issue. I have seen first-hand cases other fisheries. In addition, it is difficult to where Conditions were so specific that a very narrowly defined become very prescriptive as this may avoid outcome and an equally specific set of measures to achieve the clients finding an appropriate way to close a outcome were set. Then very reasonable things done by the fishery condition. We have tried to strike a balance were insufficient to close the Condition, because some specified between giving specific requirements and details were done in different ways, and the outcome was not simply stating the problem and letting the exactly what the Condition had specified. However, I have also seen client solve it as they see fit. cases where Conditions were simply too vague and generic. In Condition 1: The species have been those cases first there was extended and frustrated dialog between identified. Clear progress has been made on industry and the assessment body about what actions where this condition by other certified fisheries on necessary and sufficient to meet the condition and later significant this stock. Clearly the partial strategy must and not always harmonious debate among the industry and ENGOs reduce catch. The “ecological issue” is the about whether or not a Condition had been met, with formal possibility of overfishing these stocks or contesting from one direction or the other of any choice by the allowing their recovery. We believe the panel evaluating whether or not a Condition had been met. There is condition meets the requirements and a delicate balance between generality and specificity that has to be strikes a balance between being too found, and I find these conditions too generic. In each case I note prescriptive and not providing clear that much of the information I ask for is at least implicit, and in guidance on requirements to close the some cases explicit in the Rationales and Milestones accompanying condition. each condition. That’s why my “No” is labeled as a qualified one. Clients have some years to close conditions, and rationales fade into Condition 2: The major residual risks to history. It is the wording of each Condition that lasts until it is habitat structure and function are identified closed. A little more content in the Conditions will be useful a in the condition rationale. The gaps in couple years from now. current information could be spelt out in more detail – for example the need to Condition 1 would be more useful it if listed the ecological issues understand the distribution of sponge bed with regard to retained species that the “partial strategy” was to (or other actual/potential VMEs), their address, so the industry would know the gaps that need to be filled. importance in the wider ecosystem, and the This can be done without having to specify how the gaps are to be extent and severity of the impact of the filled. However, I can imagine many types of “partial strategies”, UFN fleet on these sponge beds – but these and I would expect not all of them would be sufficient to close the issues are precisely those that need to be condition. Identifying the gaps that if not filled would result in the explored between UFN operators and the fishery still failing to receive at least an 80 score would benefit both national and regional scientific advisors and the industry and stakeholders, by managing expectations on all regulators. The key point is that the fleet sides. should contribute pro-actively to a wider Condition 2 has a similar problem, although possibly to a lesser process to better understand and manage extent, because it is at least slightly more complete. Nonetheless benthic impacts of fishing activity. At some effort to point out the major residual risks to habitat structure present we cannot be specific about the and function would be valuable. What are the gaps in current nature of current threats, because we lack information that have to be filled, or else current threats to habitat the information or understanding to be able structure and function that need to be managed, so there would be to conclude that the fishery was unlikely to adequate confidence to conclude that the fishery was unlikely to pose a threat of serious or irreversible harm pose a threat of serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure to habitat structure and function. and function. Furthermore…this is currently the norm for all such fisheries and represents a gap in the
existing management regime.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 211 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Do you think the condition(s) raised are No - but a Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome QUALIFIED within the specified timeframe? No The problem with Condition 3 is that the term “relevant Condition 3: Relevant stakeholders should stakeholders” is open-ended. I work in many international fora be identified through a stakeholder analysis where there are drawn-out and divisive debates about who is and is which is beyond the competence of the not a relevant stakeholder. Some industries still do not consider assessment team. This is part of the ENGOs to be legitimate stakeholders, and even within industries management process. there are challenges of legitimacy (and therefore relevance) between large scale and small scale operations, among harvesters, processes, and marketers, and other such debates. If the assessment team feels some groups of relevant stakeholders currently may not have adequate access to governance, identifying those groups will save a lot of debate.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes, but a Certification Body Response close the conditions raised? Qualified Yes
Justification: In this case my answer is Yes with qualifications, because the client Condition 1. The production of a report on responses are built around the rationale and milestones and not the status necessarily implies the intermediate conditions themselves. That gives me much more to work with. step of stock assessment so it is arguable that there is no need to specify such an The only shortcomings I see for the Client proposals are minor. activity. However, from the point of view of Specifically, managing and monitoring progress Condition 1: The first year has an activity “Generate data on wolfish specification of an intermediate activity biomass trends and length-weight/size distribution to assess risks to could prove useful, so we would support stock from the current fisheries” with an outcome of “report on this recommendation. stock status”. Nowhere is the necessary intervening step specified, Condition 2. A good part of the rationale for though. SOMEONE has to take the data generated and DO the this activity is to demonstrate a pro-active assessment of wolfish status. That step should be listed as an and industry led approach to developing a activity; otherwise one can skip from data to conclusions on status better understanding of the impact of UFN without a structured assessment to synthesize all the data sources vessels on bottom habitat, VMEs and the into a single evaluation of stock status. wider ecosystem in parallel with and Condition 2: My concern here is much like my concern with contributing to the emerging “science based condition 1. In this case the relevant activity 2.2 is “Develop and process” recommended by the reviewer. put in practice on trawl vessels a system to record location and This process will undoubtedly require nature of encounters with indicator species of “vulnerable marine collaboration between UFN and scientists ecosystems” as defined by FAO/NEAFC/CITES and including biogenic and this in itself we regard as highly reefs and sponge fields”. I am very familiar with the FAO VME positive. criteria and guidelines. There is no off the shelf cookbook for what species are “indicator species of [VMEs]”. That requires ecosystem- specific evaluation in its own right. I would strongly favour a science-based process to complete the identification of VMEs in the entire area where these fleets fish (I understand the VME identification process has been undertaken in some but not all the area already. Where it has been done already by a suitable expert process, it does not need to be repeated.) and to identify the species that for this system would be good indicators species of the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 212 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes, but a Certification Body Response close the conditions raised? Qualified Yes presence of VMES in those areas where available information leaves significant uncertainty about the presence of VMES. Then the rest of the activities specified for the condition will have a complete scientific foundation on which to build. The Activities under Condition 3 are disappointing. I concur that it is not possible to unilaterally alter national legislation and the rules of the JNRFC to make the inclusion of external stakeholders, particularly ENGOs, mandatory at all levels. However the activities posed look more like public relationships than efforts at improving governance. It is reasonable to ask the industry to formally petition the boards and agencies where these perspectives are currently excluded to consider inviting these other groups to participate in ways appropriate to the procedures of the boards and agencies. Where the industry gets to make up its own delegation to attend governance meetings, the industry itself can include even a few members of these groups in its own delegation. Other options are open, especially since this type of inclusiveness is identified as a best practice by FAO, CBD, and many other intergovernmental bodies to which Russia is a Party.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 213 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Indicator Review
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Strong stock assessment by ICES WG No response with expert peer review by ACFM. Conclusion that stock is well above Bpa and has been for several years is robust to all uncertainties
1.1.2 Yes yes NA Concur that best practices are being No response used to estimate the MSY-related reference points, so the computational basis is sound. However I also agree that using MSY values for F and B as targets is not consistent with application of precaution. Use of an F target below Fmsy and a B target higher than the value consistent with fishign at Fmsy would be needed to justify a higher score on this indicator. Applies to both Cod and Haddock
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 214 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.3 NA Stock not depleted No response Applies to both Cod and Haddock
1.2.1 Yes Yes NA There is a harvest control rule and it No response has all the properties of the 80 benchmark, and many properties that exceed the 80 benchmark. The harvest strategy is well designed to deliver the objectives for the stock and has been partially tested in modelling and proven to be responsive to stock status and move the stock development in directions consistent with the target and limit reference points. At least a score of 85 is justified. Applies to both Cod and Haddock
1.2.2 Yes Yes The main issue of concern for the No response score of 80 seems to be the level of IUU fishing, and hence the effectiveness of the harvest control rule. The control rule itself seems well designed (see 1.2.1), although the ad
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 215 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
hoc adjustments to address uncertainties are acknowledged. The assessment concludes that IUU leels up until 2008 are evidence of less than complete harvest control, and the apparent lower levels of IUU fishing since 2008 may not persist. This is a judgement call, and is conservative. The IUU fishing was discussed for cod. And infer the lack of reference to IUU fishign for haddock reflects an absence of concern or reports of IUU fishign for Haddock. An explicit statement on that point in the assessment would be helpful. The concerns about ad hoc adjsutments to the core HCR tested by ICES applies to both cod and haddock.
1.2.3 Yes yes In terms of quantity and quality of No response information being collected, it is hard to imagine a large scale fishery that could be supported by more streams of information collection than
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 216 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
NorthEast Arctic cod and haddock. I do take note that catch monitoring intensity has declined in recent years, so the rationale for a score less than 100 is sound. However, aside from that gap this is about as good as it can get, especially with the surviellance tools now applied to detect IUU fishing. Applies to both Cod and Haddock
1.2.4 Yes Yes NA There may be more experts working No response on the assessment of the NorthEast Arctic Cod than any other stock in the ICES (or US and Canadian) assessment communities. Several different single- species models are typically explored in any one year, as well as multiple multispecies models. Uncertainties due to species interactions and environmental forcing are explored fully in most years. Problems with uncertainties about catches in the early and middle years of the 2000s is adequate rationale for a score less
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 217 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
than 100. However, as time goes on, the impact of those uncertainties will diminish fairly rapidly. If current levels of data quality and investment in assessment time continue, this score could rise. For haddock there has been much less investment of time and experise in multispecies and environment – popualtion dynamics aspects of the stock assessments. The patterns of stock productivity and occurrence of occasional very strong year-classes suggest that environmental drivers are important to stock productivity but are not included in the stock assessment. However, the processes producing and reviewing the haddock assessments in the Norwegian and Russian labs and ICES Working Groups are the same for haddock as they are for cod, and certainly apply a high level of scientific rigour and thoroughness, justifiying a score above the minimum pass for haddock as well as for cod. The
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 218 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
assessment is fully sufficient to support management of haddock fishing in the area, even though there may be scope for improvement in how environmental drivers of stock productivity are addressed.
2.1.1 Yes Yes possibly The concerns identified in the No response assessment regarding Golden redfish These are important points and should be taken into and wolffish are a valid reason for a account by the client as they further develop their score less than 80. Golden redfish is response and seek to implement the conditions highly likely to be outside safe biological limits, and at least some of the wolffish may be outside safe bioligical limits. Catches of these species are low enough that this fishery is not likely to be a major factor in the status of these species. However, I concur that the measures in place are not sufficiently precautionary to ensure the fishery is not a contibuting factor to slow recovery of these species. For redfish, postcatch survivorship is low, so measures to ensure catch of golden
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 219 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
redfish are very low are necessary, anf this not assurred with catch caps for suites of species or by catch caps as a percent of total catch. More stringent measures targeted particularly at this species, and not allowing the absolute amount of incidental catch of golden redfish to increase as catches of cod and haddock may increase, are necessary. For wolffish, post-release survival has been documented to be high, if moderate care in handling is applied. If the more complete analysis of these wolffish species leads to a conclusion that further reduction in wolffish catches are necessary, the reduction could be achieved by measures that either reduce catch numbers or ensure release in good condition of wolffish that are taken incidentally.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 220 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes I think the summary by the No response assessment team very accurately summarizes the situation. There are measures in place to control bycatches overall, and evidence that that are successful at such control However they are not adequately targetted on the species of greatest concern; golden rockfish and wolffish. Better targetting of existing measures, and possibly use of additional measures as discussed in 2.1.1, would contribute to raise this score to 80 or higher.
2.1.3 Yes Yes I concur that there is adequate No response information to generally determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of management measures. There is scope for substantial improvement in accuracy and precision of these estimates of risk and effectiveness,and based on the improved esitmates, possibly improve the measures being applied as well. But the current program is
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 221 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
certianly good enough for a passing score on this scoring factor.
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA In this case I consider the score of 80 No response to be the minimum score consistent with the information available, and a slightly higher score could be justified. The standard is that main bycatch species are within safe biological limits or the fishery does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species. For the main bycatch species there is some evidence most are within safe biological limits, and for the few where sbl may not be known, these species are not considered depleted. However, I agree there is high uncertainty about these points, and a score as high as 90 would not be justified. Hence our different in evaluation is minor.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 222 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The assessors summary accurately No response reflects both the strengths and the minor weaknesses of bycatch and discard management in this fishery. The mandatory use of grids and the discard ban are strong tools for bycatch management, and demonstrated to be successful when implemented seriously. The assessors are satisfied that these measures are well implimented and I have no cause to question that conclusions, I concur, though that little information is available on bycatch on non- commercial species, some but not all of which are known to have high survival if returned to the sea with proper handling. Although the assessors say no concerns were reported regarding bycatches of non- commercial species, the weak information this aspect of bycatch means the success of the bycatch
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 223 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
management strategy cannot be evaluated fully and warrants a score less than 100.
2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The summary by the assessment team No response accurately reflects the information available. Information is excellent on bycatches of all commercial species, but very weak on bycatches of non- commercial species. Even though the skippers feel bycatches of non- commercial species are very low, many of these species are not abundant and not productive (which is often why they are not of commercial interest) and even low rates of bycatch of some such species could be a conservaton concern. The quality of information on the species comprising the bulk of the bycatch justifies a score above 80, although in my opinion the weak information on bycatch of non- comercial species makes a score of 90 slightly generous.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 224 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA There aer relatively few ETP species No response that are known to have more than marginal range and depth overlaps with these fisheries. The report presents sifficient informaiton to conclude that catches of these species are quite low and not considered by either the assessors here or the experts conducting Red List evalautions to pose threats to status or recovery of these species, I concur that improved informaton on the status of blue ling would justify an even higher score on this criterion but with the information available a score well above 80 is justified, and an 85 is the lowest I would have considered for this criterion.
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA I concur fully with the assessors’ No response evaluation in this case. The suite of regulations and measures in place almost certainly result in the achieving the desired consequence of ensuring the fishery does not pose a threat to
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 225 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
the survival or recovery of ETP species. However, these measures have been planned in only a general way, and they have not been integrated into a comprehensive plan for addressing ETP species. I expect developing such a plan largely if not completely from the reulations and measures already in place should be fairly straightforward and should be encouraged, and could result in a higher score on this criterion.
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Again concur fully with score awarded No response and rationale. A reference fleet with full monitoring and reporting of bycatches of even rarely taken species would be needed for a higher score on this criterion.
2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes, but…. The impacts of bottom trawls on VMEs No response and benthic habitats more generally are well documented, and the need for spatial measures to ensure such fishing avoids VMEs is well establing. I
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 226 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
concur with the assessment that management and prosecution of these fisheries shows awareness of these considerations, but consolidation and application of knowledge of the spatial occurrence of such benthic habitat features is incomplete, I concur that at current stock sizes the spatial distribution of fishing is unlikely to result in serious or irreversible harm to seabed habitats on the scale of the entire area in which the fishery operates, but local harm is likely. Given that cod and haddock abundance and spatial distribution are both known to vary due to environmental drivers, future environmental changes could lead to the fishery expanding its area of impact compared to the present condition. Consequently high priority must be given to completing the assessment of VMEs in the parts of the area where such assessment have not been undertaken,a and should implemented to ensure the fishery
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 227 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
operates only in areas where VMEs are known to not be present. Until such measures are implemented a higher scopre on this criterion could not be a justified. Reservations about the wording of the condition are presented in that section of this review
2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes, but … I concur that the combination of No response measures and policies in place, particularly in the Norwegian zone comprise a partial strategy, and where the measures are in place they are effective. However the large areas where measures are not in place but fishing may occur mean that the score awarded is appropriate. Consolidation of the measures into an integrated strategy and its implementation in the entire area where fishing of the certified fleet may occur is necessary for a higher score.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 228 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
Reservations about the wording of the condition are presented in that section of this review.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA I have not reviewed how extensive the No response coverage of benthic mapping has been throughout the entire area of these fisheries. I do know the methods being used in these programs well, however, and concur that where they hve been applied, the informaton collected will be of excellent quality and fully adequate for informing management with regard to location of VMEs. I also concur that the information on the impacts of these types of fishing gears on the typical benthic habitats in these areas are known. Consequently the information to develop and apply suitable management measures to protect benthic habitats from serious or irreversible harm is fully sufficient, if it were all applied.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 229 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Few marine ecosystems on the planet This is well argued and and there is an argument for have been studied and modeled more increasing the score here. The difference relates to extensively than the Barents Sea. At my concern to be honest to the wording of the current stock sizes of cod and criterion (“evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely haddock, and the health of stocks of to disrupt key elements of ecosystem structure and forage species, exploitation under the function”) on the one hand, and the practical limits current management plans is highly to our understanding of the role of fisheries in unlikely to cause harm to ecosystem ecosystem functioning on the other. While the structure or function. It is true that a rationale for raising the score (do not set score of 100 may not be justified unattainable bars) is strong, most independent because we do not have complete scientists outside the MSC system, and many in the knowledge of the structure and general public would question a score of 100 on this function of any marine ecosystem. criterion for any major fishery, and the credibility of However, I understand the intent of MSC may be diminished if such scores are regularly the scoring system for MSC awarded. To me therefore this is a problem of certification is to be realistic and not criterion wording – which is too demanding given set bars that are unattainable in any the realities of our actual and potential fishery. With regard to this criterion, understanding of ecosystems. Given the opposite these fisheries, at recent stock sizes views of the second reviewer, I suggest the existing and condition of the Barents Sea, are score is a reasonable compromise. as good as it is ever going to get, and a
90 is a conservative score.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 230 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA I concur fully with the evaluation by No response the assessors. The Barents Sea Ecosystem Management Plan is among the most comprehensive regional marine ecosystems management plans developed to date, with regard to bringing ecosystem structure and function considerations into the management of fisheries. The close work between Russian and Norwegian authories gives the Norwegian plan high relevance in this evaluation. However, as the assessors note, the weakness of plan implementation in dealing with benthic habitats justifies the score that was awarded.
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Again I concur fully with the assessors’ No response comments and scoring. Most of the relevant considerations are already presented in my commentary on 2.5.2. The higher score here than in 2.5.2 is justified because knowledge of the impacts of these gears on benthic habitats are fairly well known, aside
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 231 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
form how they are handled in the management plans for these fisheries.
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA All the expected legal and institutional No response pieces needed for a well-managed fishery are documented ot be present, and there is no evidence any main parts of them fail to function as intended. Provisions to protect the needs of indigenous peoples are explict in the legal framework.
3.1.2 Yes Yes Only partially Concur with assessors that the Most relevant stakeholders are included in the inclusion of all groups with an interest management process. Environmental NGOs is an in the fisheries (harvesters, exception. As the reviewer him-/herself notes, there processors, vessel owners etc) is well is widespread discussion about which actors are to structured, and the role of the be considered as legitimate stakeholders in a fishery. government agencies and actors are We maintain our conclusion that the non-inclusion clear and well understood. However, of environmental NGOs does not warrant the fishery also agree that lack of evidence that to fail (to which the reviewer agrees through his/her stakeholders not actually participating two ‘yes’ in the columns to the left, despite his the fisheries have opportunies for comment in the right column that this is a major meaingful input to the governance shortcoming), but that the client is encouraged to processes is a major shortcoming. This work with authorities to improve participation right shortcoming makes the overal also by environmental NGOs. See also our comments
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 232 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
evaluation fall short of MSC standards to this reviewer’s notes on condition 3. for a passing grade. My concerns about the Condition are explained in the part of the review specifically discussing the conditions.
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA IN this case I feel the scaore awarded No response by the assessors is the minimum consistent with the evidence available. The rationale provided by the assessors discusses three potential areas where there could be improvement relative tto this criterion. It is argued that the overarching legislation uses the term “rational use” instead of more contemporary terms like “sustainability”. To be this fully offset by the constitutional requirement where provisions of international agreements to which the Russian Federation has acceeded supercede national legislation. I have been at many international meetings on marine policy, and Russian
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 233 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
interventions with regard to how they interpret “sustainability” and “rationale use” are both fully consistent with international norms for those concepts. With regard to explicit long-term objectives, I am satisfied that the Russian fisheries law gives qualitative long-term objectives for management and the Russian – Norway agreement on fisheries for these stocks has quite explict translations of the qualitative long-term obejctives into operaitonal medium-term objectives. With regard to the extent to which the precautionary approach is entrenched in policy and management, the precautionary approach is explicit in many agreements to which the Russian Federdation is a signatory, and is explicit in the Norway – Russia agreement and in the ICES assessment and advisory practices, on which management is based. To me that makes the system more than a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 234 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
minimum pass on this criterion, although I concur it does not reach the 100 benchmark.
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Concur with assessors that there are No response subsidies in this fishery, and that social and economic incentives for sustainable fishing are present but not strong. Also concur that the subsidies in the form of particualrly low-interest bank loans are not severe, and the vessel replacement program that is benefiting from the subsidies is results in a reduction in overall fleet size, although not necessarily in fishing power. The score awarded balances these considerations appropriately.
3.2.1 Yes Yes Na The assessors’ commentary covers all No response the relevant considerations. The provisions of the Russia – Norway agreement make the necessary provisions explicit, and appears to guide the fishery appropriately.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 235 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The operational and decision-making No response processes of the JNRFC, including the use of harvest control rules reviewed by (and based on work by) ICES result in measures and strategies that are highly likely to achieve the objectives
3.2.3 Yes Yes The evidence of serious over-fishing in No response the first several years of the 2000s raises concerns about the vulnerability of the system to low compliance. Improvements in management, control and surviellance in the past 5 years appear to have largely addressed the previous weaknesses in MCS, but as noted there are still concerns about the possible lack of full independence between surviellance procedures and the industry when operating in the Russian zone. Improvements here could result in a higher score, from the one appropriately given in this assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 236 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The comprehensiveness and No response timeliness of the research plans developed by the JNRFC and ICES is really probably as good as it gets, realistically with both bottom-up (scientist driven through ICES) and “top-down” (JNRFC) inputs to its contents. The criticism that these plans are not “widely and publicly available” I find weak. It is true that a link from JNRFC website to the ICES website would be an improvement, but to anyone interested in marine scientific research anywhere in the North Atlantic. The ICES website is one of the first places one would go. The lack of a research plan for P3 provisiosn is more of a shortcoming and certainly makes the overall evaluation fall short of the ideal. However, to me the situation is better than a minimum pass on this criterion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 237 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.5 Yes Yes Concur fully with the evaluation. All No response parts of the management sytem undergo review by appropriate bodies, and the results of the reviews are available the management authories, the industry and the public. However, these reviewer are not on a regular schedule and the degree to which all components of the reviwe processes are “external” could be better documented.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 238 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Longline Principle 2
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.1 Yes Uncertain Partly I concur that the high bycatch rate The score of 65 results from: a) it is not possible to (nearly 50% of total catch) is a say that wolffish are highly likely to be within concern. I also concur that the biologically based limits (though as noted the absence of stock assessments for surveys suggest likely) , and b) the lack of any partial wolfish species means one cannot strategy to prevent the fishery hindering recovery. conclude with certainty that catches of Given the vulnerability of these species it is hard to these species are sustainable. see how a higher score could be awarded However, even if there are not full stock assessments, there are several indicators of status for wolffish, including a good time series of survey based estimates of stock size, from a conprehensive and consistent survey where wolflish have reasonable catchability and precautionary catch ceilings for the more common wolffish species provided by ICES. These indicators suggest the populations are increasing or stable, and have not undergone an extended period of depletion. I concur that Greenland halibut and other fish other than rockfish are either or both within safe biological
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 239 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
limits or bycatches are so low that as currently prosecuted this fishery is not a factor in either depletion or recovery. I also concur that for golden redfish thereis justificaiton for a conservation concern and that there is insufficient information to evaluate fully the role of the longline fishery for cod and haddock in recovery. Howeveer the bycatch in this fishery is a small fraction of the total catch of golden redfish, so if this fishery is a factor in impeding reciovery, it is likely to be a minor factor. IN light of the situation with wolffish and golden redfish I concur that a score below 80 is justified. However I think the evidence would be consistent with a somewhat higher score than 65. My concerns with the condition are discussed in that section of the report.
2.1.2 Yes Yes Partly In this case I concur with the assessors No response that there is a partial strategy in place for managing catches of retained non-
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 240 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
target species, sound information tha the measures are being , and some but not complete information that the measures may be succeeding. Hence a score just below the minium pass of 80 is appropriate. Improved targetting of measures to address conservation concerns with wolfish and some redfish, taking advantage of the high at-sea survivorship of wolffish if carefully handled and released (if that is found to be necessary when assessmetns of the sustainability of wolffish catches are completed), and better documentation of population trends for these species to allow more robust evaluation of the success of these measures, would result in a score above the passing scale of 80. All of those factors should be straightforward to address.
2.1.3 Yes Uncertain NA Here as with 2.1.1 I feel that the The lack of species disaggregation of wolffish and summary by the assessors covers all redfish is a serious limitation on vulnerable species the amjor points well. My concern which make up a significant proportion of the catch.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 241 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
with the scoring is that as the We would therefore be reluctant to see this score assessors say, the data on amounts of increased. retained species caught and landed is
comprehesive and reliable. It is true that the data are not being used fully to evaluate stock status, but those issues are addressed in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, not here. The only shortcoming pointed out is that there is little recordng of size and age information on the catches of retained species, and that species disaggregation of wolffish and redfish is not done in an unreported - but inferred to be low – portion of the catch. Those shortcomings certainly do not justified a very high score on this criterion. However, to me the overall quality and extent of data on retained species is sufficient to justify a score above an absolute minimum pass.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 242 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.1 Yes Yes I consider the summary and scoring by No response the assessors to be appropriate. The main data on bycatches appear to come from a period before the discard ban was in place and at a time when both target species in the fishery were at lower abundances than in recent years. Hence these data are unlikely to be a reliable guide to current bycatches, with the more likely differences thatbycatches now aer lower than in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Nonetheless, with the information that is available, the most that can be said is that the 80 benchmark has been met.
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The discard ban and move-on-rule, No response with evidence of high (although not perfect) compliance are substantially more than a “partial strategy” to address bycatches, and justify the score given by the assessors.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 243 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The combination of a discard band and No response highly reliable catch and landings monitoring mean that there is substantial high quality information on bycatches in the long-line fishery. However, the potential leaks in the system, although highly likely to be infrequent and small, justify the score given by the assessors.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The evaluation by the assors hits more No response o fhte main points, although explicit acknowlegement tha the longlines are deployed below the surface may be appropriate (bycatches of seabirds in some longline fisheries are an issue, and in those cases sub-surface deployment is often recommended as a mitigation measure. The uncertainty about how complete the recording of the infrequent catches of ETP species justifies a score somewhat above the benchmark for a pass on this criterion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 244 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The fishery is using recommended No response mitigation practices to minimize bycatches of seabirds (sub-surface deployment) and marine mammals (sonic devices), gear loss is minimal and ghost fishing unlikely evne when gear is lost, and bycatches of ETP fish appear to be low. However, the absence of an IPOA under the FAP guidance for elasmobranches makes the score assigned by the assessors well justified.
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA As the assessment narrative notes, No response there is scope for more complete recording of bycatches of ETP species in logbooks and catch monitoring. With a discard ban the existing catch monitoring should be adequate to provide reliable information on bycatches of ETP species, but as the assessment narrative notes, there have been no programs to validate this aspect of the catch monitoring program. The score assigned by the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 245 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
assessors is appropriate, given these circumstances.
2.4.1 Yes Yes Narrative is accurate and scoring Agreed appropriate. However, it would be informative to map the distribution of deployment of longline gear relative to known occurrences of deep-sea coral and sponge beds. As the narrative reports, it is highly likely that skippers avoid deploying longlines in the vicinity of at leas the former, due to the risks of loss of expensive gear from entanglements. However, demonstrating the lack of overlap of the gears and these habitat features that have been shown to occasionally suffer at least some damage from longlines due to their fragility, would strengthen the support for a score at the highest possible benchmark.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 246 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA As the assessment narrative explains, No response there is little justification for a large and highly structured strategy to manage impacts of longlines on seabed habitats,a dn the mesures in place are probably sufficient. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness has not been undertaken, not has the risk of encounters been evaluated throughly through analysis of spatial overlap of gear deployment and corals and sponges, in the places where these features occur in areas not closed to fishing. Hance a score below the 100 benchmark is warranted.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Agree with the assessment that all the informaiton needed to evalaute impacts of the longline fleet on vulnerbale seafloor habitats is available, but a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts using all this informaiton has not been conducted. Therefore the score
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 247 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
slightly below the 100 benchmark is appropriate.
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The comments provided for the trawl While it is true that the longline fishery probably has fishery are all relevant here as well. If less impact on seafloor habitats, its more substantial anything, because of its lower catch and possibly selective impact on wolfish and other than the trawl fishery and species and our lack of understanding of their substanitally lesser impact on seafloor ecosystem role/importance could be argued to habitats, the longline fishery is even balance this up. However, the rationale could less likely to cause serious impacts to probably support a score of 95….and if the rest of ecosystem structure and function, and the team agree I would not be averse to increasing a score equal to or even slightly higher the score. than that of the trawl fishery could be justified.
2.5.2 Yes Uncertain No As highlighted in both the narrative of Notwithstanding the likely greater impact of trawl the assessors and my comments in the gear on benthic habitats, long lining may be having a peer review of the trawl fishery, te greater effect on vulnerable benthic fish species, major shortcomings of the measures and this criterion in any case addresses the question in place for protection of ecosystem as to whether there is a strategy, consisting of a structure from harm by the trawl plan, which contains measures to address all the fishery relate to potential main impacts of the fishery. The answer to this is consequences for ecosystem that the relevant plan remains partial, and does not
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 248 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
processes due to habitat impacts of specifically address all the main impacts of the the trawl gears. Those considerations fishery. As such we maintain that the score is fair. are of much less importance for the longline fishery, and the two gears are otherwise comparable with regard to the nature of risks posed to ecosystem structure and function. Therefore I would consider the adequacy of the strategies and measures for protection of ecosystem structure and function would be somewhat higher for the longline fleet than for the trawl fishery, and correspondingly at least a somewhat higher score would be awarded.
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA I concur with the assessors that the No response information requirements are the same for both the trawl and longline fisheries on this criterion, and the same score is warranted for both fleets. My comments relative to the trawl fleet assessmetn generally apply for the assessment of the longline fleet as well.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 249 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Peer Reviewer 2
Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: On balance yes provided that the conditions are strengthened and Noted broadened. The target stocks are in good condition, they are relatively clean fisheries and governance is improving, however insufficient evidence is presented in relation to impacts on benthic habitats.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are No Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Catch recording is already mandatory for all certified vessels. Vessels are not allowed to The conditions need to be more specific, discarding and highgrading discard. Who discards and how discarding should be included*. More emphasis required on recording and might be occurring is unclear. We have no reporting in relation to P1 and P2. Catch recording should be evidence that this is a problem within the mandatory for all certified vessels. UoC. Any discarding that might be occurring *”There is evidence of discarding throughout the Barents Sea for is well within the uncertainty levels which most groundfish stocks, despite discarding being illegal in Norway the harvest strategy is robust to. and Russia. This problem might affect haddock more than cod.
Haddock are known to be released by longliners when below the minimum size and may be discarded when caught as bycatch with The analysis of wolfish is a first analysis to cod if the haddock quota is being met faster than the cod quota, for see whether there is a problem. example. Beyond a regulation to ban discarding, this has not been Management intervention would only be addressed by management controls, but is being investigated required if fishing mortality would be found through scientific observers” unsustainable. The client will need to find relevant scientists to carry out any analyses “Clearly there is a need to address this issue as a genuine practical that are required. problem.”
Who will do the analysis for wolffish and translate the results into management actions? It is unclear to us that the “measures to reduce bycatch of redfish to zero” would be ICES advice should be followed for redfish S marinus i.e. no fishing. possible. ICES advice effectively is to Measures to reduce bycatch of redfish to zero should be devised minimize catches on S. marinus. The stock and implemented by end of second audit. needs to be rebuilt. The advice implies that the directed fishery needs to close. Reducing bycatch of redfish to zero may not be possible unless all trawl fisheries in the area also closed. Rebuilding should be possible without zero bycatch. We take the view that there should be no directed fishing on S. marinus and bycatch should be minimized by applying appropriate measures.
If included:
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 250 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Partially Certification Body Response close the conditions raised? Close-meet? Justification: The CAP requires that the UFN fleet develop a system to record location and nature of The CAP should meet the current condition as it is worded for encounters with VMEs so that an vulnerable species. No CAP is given for VMEs. It is uncertain if the assessment can be made of the extent of fishery will be able to satisfy the condition for VMEs within the damage. Given the will, there is no reason timeframe. why such a system cannot be put in place. A rigorous assessment will also depend on wider development of an approach to VME conservation which UFN alone cannot control. The CAP includes an action to engage with scientists and regulatory authorities to address this wider issue. It may be that the wording in the action plan could be strengthened to emphasise that UFN will pro-actively engage with scientists and regulatory authorities to develop a strategy to address benthic impacts of all trawling in the Barents Sea. In the meantime, the uncertainties about the outcome of such a wider process should not preclude independent action by UFN to better understand the impacts of its vessels on benthic habitats.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) i. A substantial body of evidence has been cited to support the assessment. Most impacts have been described but negative effects such as habitat damage by trawling have not been given sufficient weight. Little mention is made of the very slow recovery times of long lived species such as cold water corals which often do not recover from physical damage. The overlap between known distributions of VMEs and UFN trawling is not quantified. Cumulative negative impacts on VMEs and ETPs of UFN and non UFN vessels is not assessed. It is uncertain that effective measures to protect VMEs i.e. closed areas for bottom trawling will be designated within the next 5 years in areas outside of Norwegian jurisdiction. ii. Limited measures are in place outside of Norwegian waters to protect ETPs iii. Further evidence of seabird interactions should be given since there are high levels of seabird mortality from longlines in some parts of the Barents Sea (or have been). iv. ICES advise that redfish are likely to become commercially extinct if current levels of fishing mortality continue. Their advice is that no fishing on this species (S marinus) should occur. The report and the conditions do not adequately reflect the status of redfish. v. Levels of current fishing effort are not clear including the nationality of vessels. Recent trends in effort and latent capacity could be better described. It is not clear if unused quota is also covered by the certification. vi. Governance systems and institutions in P3 are well described for Russia, less so for Norway. vii. Fishery specific measures seem to rely on regional/basin level regulations/institutions rather than UFN led actions. viii. The client weakness statement suggests that the applicant has limited management capacity (top down command and regulation) to deliver additional and possibly unpopular, management measures required for certification, which could compromise the implementation of some of the conditions ix. Page 6 - the need to demonstrate that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be NO serious or irreversible harm;
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 251 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Indicator Review
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 yes yes n/a No response
1.1.2 yes yes n/a No response
1.1.3 n/a No response
1.2.1 yes yes n/a No response
1.2.2 yes yes n/a No response
1.2.3 yes yes n/a No response
1.2.4 yes yes n/a No response
2.1.1 yes yes no ICES advise zero fishing for S marinus. It is not for the condition to prescribe the Target level too high. No mention of how mechanism for reduction of catch of S marinus to reduce bycatch of redfish
2.1.2 yes yes no “23% of catch-unidentified redfish”, A condition “to Review and revise if necessary under reporting still an issue. Greenland the halibut target after the outcome of the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
halibut “the FIUN catch of over 3,000t/yr. benchmark exercise is known” will be added. makes up a significant proportion (19%) of the total catch of around 16,000t in SA I&II in 2011.The stock is probably still below MSY.” JNRFC tac exceeded ICES advice. Add in a condition to Review and revise if necessary the halibut target after the outcome of the benchmark exercise is known.
2.1.3 yes no no There are significant gaps in data and A score at least this level is supported by the analysis of retained species. The score other reviewer. The main existing weakness – should be revised down to 70. Full catch the lack of differentiation of redfish species - is documentation should be implemented addressed in the condition by the end of yr. 3 (if not sooner) for all certified vessels.
2.2.1 yes no no Since there is no quantitative The discard ban means that most “bycatch” information on bycatch composition or becomes retained, and data is therefore good, catches (weight) it is difficult to justify a unless vessels are consistently flouting score of 80 regulations. Evidence from the authorities suggests that this is not the case, though there have been occasional infringements. Our score is consistent with other assessments in the area.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.2.2 Partial- no n/a The current measures are designed to A discard ban is in place and all landed fish are observer reduce Fm on target species, reduce recorded including non-target species records? capture of juveniles, discourage highgrading etc. Non target species are not specifically protected. They probably benefit to varying degrees from these measures but since they are not monitored and recorded we don’t know how effective they are and what residual effects fishing is having on them. The justification of no main bycatch species is questionable given that the discard ban only covers fishing in Norwegian waters
2.2.3 yes no n/a/ Non target species are not recorded. SG This criterion addresses information, not issue c Met Y. Disagree, there is no measures or strategy. Our score is consistent comprehensive strategy, there are a with other similar assessments and takes series of unevaluated measures. Refer account of the discard ban and species recording previous comments. The score of 90 systems in place. should be revised down. “there remain some small gaps in the information which relate to vulnerable species and illegal discarding “
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 yes no n/a Interactions with ETPs are not known, Thorny skate is not strictly speaking ETP records from observers (if any) are not There are records of longliners killing seabirds, presented. Thorney skate is said (in the but incidence has been greatly reduced through first part of the report) to have use of underwater deployment, and there is no substantial overlap with fishing activity. evidence that this is a problem with the UFN Catches are recorded at 14 tonnes, fleet. 0.03% of the catch. Longlines are also widely acknowledged to kill seabirds so further evidence should be provide to quantify seabird interactions in the longline fishery
2.3.2 Yes no n/a There are no fishery specific measures There is no evidence of significant interaction implemented to deal with interactions with ETP species and good catch data supports
with ETPs. The latest EC advice for the view that there is v limited interaction with spurdog is not referenced, recommend ETP fish species. The exceptional and rapid that the fishery harmonise measures catches of target species also reduces the rate of with EC, (NEAFC?) and FAO IPOA on encounter with ETP fish species. sharks and rays EC advice is not strictly relevant, and in any case the risk of significant interaction with spurdog is assessed as low because of its distribution. Norway is currently developing IPOA on sharks and rays.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.3 yes yes n/a
2.4.1 yes no No, participating in “…no such closed areas further north We have awarded the minimum score of 60 on discussions about and east – for example close to Bear this criterion. The rationale for allowing a spatial measures to Island or Svalbard where VMEs are minimum score is based primarily on “anecdotal reduce impacts, is known to occur.” evidence from vessel captains suggests that unlikely to yield substantial hauls of benthic organisms are rare Use of rock hopping gear allows access effective measures (and increasingly so as cod and haddock stocks of trawlers to reefs and other VMEs within the are abundant, and trawl times shorter and certification period better targeted); and the risk of gear loss represents a fundamental constraint on severe impacts on benthic habitats and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs). This score is lower than or consistent with assessments of similar fisheries, Meeting the condition within the time period will indeed be a challenge and contingent in part on effective engagement in the development of a higher level strategy.
2.4.2 yes no Possibly, if UFN can Soft law and limited area closures are This has been scored just above the minimum demonstrate unlikely to prevent damage (65) on the basis that there are significant conclusively that concerns but the vessels are broadly operating there is no trawling within an existing regime which is evolving and on VMEs strengthening over time. The condition is designed to reinforce this process and promote
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
greater participation of the fishery in the process.
2.4.3 Mostly, the no n/a The extent of survey coverage (current As pointed out by the other reviewer survey quality of data and predicted up to 2017) in the fished methods are of high quality. Existing mapping on benthic area is not identified. In general, new and survey coverage is referenced. Data is habitats is areas of VME are being discovered on a relatively good by global standards, and some of inferred but regular basis during surveys. Using the the on-going programmes cover the whole area not the extent precautionary approach, the score of 90 fished. However some similar fisheries have of coverage is too high scored 80 on this criterion and a reduction of score here might be appropriate.
2.5.1 no n/a For PI1 species, the following issues This argument has merit, though it is should be addressed within the report. inconsistent with most assessments to date. The “Fisheries also reduce the average fish key issue here relates to the meaning of “serious size, age and age at maturity. The or irreversible harm”. Intensive fishing of an reduced size and age of the cod stock important species is likely to result in changes to may actually have altered the ecological the ecosystem, but not necessarily harm to its role of cod as top predators in the basic functioning (productivity, services etc.). Barents Sea”. AFWG report. Ecosystem The overall assessments of the Barents Sea considerations. suggest that the ecosystem as a whole is broadly healthy, and therefore stand by the score of 90. Given my reservations about the impact on benthic habitats from bottom It is notable that the other reviewer states that trawling, known impacts on PI1 species “with regard to this criterion, these fisheries, at
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
and concerns about retained species recent stock sizes and condition of the Barents such as redfish and wolf fish, I could not Sea, are as good as it is ever going to get, and a agree with the score of 90 for this 90 is a conservative score”. indicator. OSPAR mentioned but not listed as a reference source in the evaluation tables especially wrt to condition assessments. See final comments section for further references
2.5.2 yes no n/a The measures to protect benthic By global standards the measures in place are habitats are not yet in place to cover all relatively comprehensive and this should be areas currently or potentially fished by reflected in the score. The limitations with UFN vessels. This is not adequately regard to benthic habitat protection remain an reflected in the score or 85. issue, but work is underway to address this. “Measures to reduce benthic impacts remain limited. “
2.5.3 yes no The general functions of benthic By global standards the information available habitats is better known. The ecological and understanding of the barents Sea ecosystem niche function occupied by retained, is second to none, and a lower score would raise bycatch and ETPs is largely unknown. the bar to unrealistic levels.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
There are also significant knowledge gaps remaining in the distribution of VMEs. Therefore the score of 90 should be reduced to 80
Cod and yes yes Several retained bycatch species are of No response haddock concern due to their vulnerability and longline lack of data. The low score is justified 2.2.1
2.2.2 yes no n/a Several measures appropriate to the This is true, but the fishery is fundamentally trawl fishery are not applicable to more selective, and the measures required to longliners. The score of 90 is too high address bycatch correspondingly more limited. As noted by the other reviewer, “The discard ban and move-on-rule, with evidence of high (although not perfect) compliance are substantially more than a “partial strategy” to address bycatches, and justify the score”.
2.2.3 yes no n/a Information about the impacts of The fishery automatically scores more than 80 removal of bycatch is very limited. because Information about main bycatch is good Knowledge about the stock assessment and if analysed would certainly contribute to for retained species is limited. The score understanding of stock status. The discard ban
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
of 90 is therefore too high means that data is also good on the amount of all bycatch so that 100a and c guideposts are met ….delivering an overall score of 90.
2.3.1 no no n/a If seabirds can be affected by gill nets Most reports of substantial catches of seabirds and drift nets in these locations then have been in shallower water and/or with these there is no reason why long lines should gears and not by long-liners, especially where not pose a threat. Sharks and rays vary underwater deployment is used. in their survival rates to post capture release according to species, soak times and release methodology. The score of 85 should be revised down to 75
2.3.2 yes no n/a Fishery specific measures are not in Underwater deployment and use of sonic place. There is no evidence that the devices are used and are fishery specific management measures that are in place measures. are effective. Recommendations made Broadly speaking the catch data and fishery within International agreements on independent data both suggest that long-liners sharks should be adhered to including do not pose a threat to ETP species, excepting new EU rules for Spurdog and common possibly Sebastes marinus which needs further skate. Consider revising the score down exploration as required in conditions. Norway is slightly currently developing a national plan of action for sharks. The measures in place may therefore be
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
regarded as broadly appropriate to the scale of the problem and the score of 80 is appropriate.
2.5.1 no no n/a For PI1species, the following issues See response above in relation to the trawl should be addressed within the report. fishery “Fisheries also reduce the average fish size, age and age at maturity. The reduced size and age of the cod stock may actually have altered the ecological role of cod as top predators in the Barents Sea”. AFWG report. Ecosystem considerations. Impacts on retained bycatch and ETPs are not known.
3.1.1 no no n/a little information is provided with This fishery works within the Russian legal respect to Norway. Lack of political will framework, not the Norwegian one. Norwegian to close areas to fishing in order to fisheries management is only relevant when it protect benthic habitats-in Russia. comes to enforcement, which is treated under 3.2.3. Although the fishery scores lower for P2 There is little evidence of than P1 and P3, we maintain that all specific SGs implementation and effectiveness in for this SI are met except SG100 for Issue b). management measures to deal with P2 This is supported by reviewer 1 and harmonized issues outside of Norwegian waters with other Barents Sea assessments.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.2 yes yes no The conditions are weakly worded and See our comments to condition 3 above. We do likely difficult to monitor and enforce. not identify specific NGOs, but note that the Many eNGOs now operate in the Arctic, fishery has extended inclusion of stakeholders WWF for example have a substantial except environmental NGOs. This is harmonized Arctic programme with other assessments of Russian fisheries.
3.1.3 Yes/partial yes n/a/ Little information is provided with The fishery is managed by Russian, not respect to Norway Norwegian authorities (as noted in our comment to 3.1.1. above, Norwegian
management practice is only relevant in enforcement; see 3.2.3). The JNRFC sets TAC. Extensive information is provided in the scoring
table about the objectives of the Commission.
3.1.4 Yes/partial partial n/a Information from Norway lacking. No Information about the Norwegian rules for evidence of subsidies for closures, use of selective fishing gear, MCS systems etc. is not selective fishing gear, MCS systems. Use lacking in the report. As noted in 3.5 j), these of subsidies/government loans to rules are harmonized between Norway and purchase rock hopping and other such Russia; i.e. Norwegian rules are the same as the gear could be said to be contributing to Russian ones. This is, however, not the topic for unsustainable fishing. this PI. Information in the scoring table substantiates how Russian authorities encourage reduction in the number of fishing
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
vessels. Norwegian programmes to the same effect are not relevant for this fishery, as they operate under Russian, not Norwegian law.
3.2.1 yes yes n/a
3.2.2 yes no n/a “FIUN has a bottom-up organization, FIUN is not the management body here. which reduces the possibilities for top- Although in principle the bottom-up down management.” This could be organization could reduce the possibilities to interpreted as a lack of control and enforce conditions and recommendations, this is enforcement by the UFN management not the topic of this PI. Further, we cannot judge which could compromise their ability to in advance that the client will not be able to enforce conditions and enforce conditions and recommendations. This recommendations. is a case for the surveillance audits. “Furthermore, relevant ICES working group reports include consideration of We agree with the second comment made by by-catch, endangered species and the reviewer here that the management effects of fishing gear on habitats, and authority does not sufficiently address P2 issues. these are taken into account in decision Therefore we have reduced the score for this P1 making.” Little evidence is provided on from 90 to 80. how information for P2 is taken into account. ICES have limited capacity to work on P2 aspects. Bodies other than ICES should be actively consulted to fill
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
in gaps in knowledge so that measures can be implemented in a timely fashion. To fully comply, the management authority(s) should provide evidence of research that they have commissioned to support their management of P2 aspects.
3.2.3 yes yes n/a “Russian authorities did not As noted, this was the case in the mid-2000s. acknowledge the Norwegian Since then, Norwegian and Russian authorities documentation”. This suggests a degree have come to agreement on this issue, and IUU of non-co-operation between the fishing has been halted. enforcement agencies. Evidence of MCS of trans-shipment should be provided to combat IUU and other unauthorised catches and improve traceability.
3.2.4 yes yes n/a Are results of national research Information is shared to a high degree. programmes shared between the two Norwegian and Russian scientists at IMR and countries? How effective is information PINRO cooperate tightly both through ICES and sharing between the scientists of the at the bilateral level. two countries, other than through international fora? See also second comment for 3.2.2
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by information and/or rationale improve the referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages used to score Indicator support performance to the if necessary. this Indicator? the given score? SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.5 yes yes n/a Is the performance of the JNRFC and its Yes, to the extent we have scored the fishery on outputs evaluated and fed back into its this PI (80) – see scoring table for details. management systems?
Any Other Comments Comments Certification Body Response “Ghost fishing of any lost gear is likely to be insignificant with only one-off impacts”. We fully accept that bottom trawling causes benthic habitat damage and the extent Ghost fishing by definition does not have one off impacts, they are on-going. and severity of such damage has been well documented, including by studies in the Barents Sea. This is why the fishery only scored at the 60 level against this criterion Contrary to the report, high energy environments do not necessarily or exclusively and generated a condition. We are also of the view that the regulatory regime correspond to areas of high biodiversity. Low energy environments where soft needs to be improved to take greater account of benthic impacts. sediment is found (and the target species), can support species that are highly vulnerable to trawling. Some burrowing megafauna are quite long lived. Large However, the criterion at this (60) level is “the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat specimens for example of bivalves, cannot re-bury themselves if exposed (e.g. by structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm fishing gear). See below. (considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function)”. In concluding that this condition was met we took into account: AFWG report. Ecosystem considerations- “The most serious effects of otter trawling have been demonstrated for hard-bottom habitats dominated by large sessile fauna, a) The extent and complexity of benthic habitats across the Barents Sea; where erected organisms such as sponges, anthozoans and corals have been shown b) The accurate data on the distribution of fishing effort; and the high level of to decrease considerably in abundance. The impacts of experimental trawling have concentration of this effort (affecting a very small proportion of benthic been studied on a high seas fishing ground in the Barents Sea (Kutti et al. 2005). habitats in the Barents Sea); Trawling seems to affect the benthic assemblage mainly through resuspension of surface sediment and through relocation of shallow burrowing infaunal species to the c) The relatively good data on the distribution of benthic habitats;
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
surface of the seafloor”. Sediment substrates d) The existence of protected areas relating to sensitive benthic habitats in the Norwegian sector, in which the majority of fishing takes place; WWF A Biodiversity report of the Barents Sea ecoregion. “Bottom trawling and dredging has caused considerable damage to the ocean bottom in parts of the e) Strong independent evidence of compliance of the fleet with exclusion southern Barents Sea, along the coast of southern Novaja Zemlya, and along the shelf from protected areas and with the regulatory regime more generally; edge from Norway to northern Svalbard. According to a map by Mathisov (1991), f) The relatively short trawl times per unit catch, related to the health of Russian marine scientists have considered these areas "devastated benthic target stocks; biocenoses" (the amount of documentation is not known). Studies of deepwater corals off the Norwegian coast has revealed extensive damage caused by bottom g) The existence of an ecosystem management plan and survey/monitoring trawlers. Fosså et al. (2000) have estimated that one third to half of the coral reefs regime; and current initiatives at international level to strengthen the have been damaged to some extent.” protection of vulnerable marine habitats. Our assessment is consistent with or stricter than those for similar trawl fisheries operating in the Barents sea that have already been certified, and is regarded as strict by the other reviewer. We have proposed relatively demanding conditions relating to this criterion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions a. Written submissions from stakeholders received during consultation opportunities on the announcement of full assessment, proposed assessment team membership, proposed peer reviewers, proposal on the use or modification of the default assessment tree and use of the RBF. None. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits pertaining to issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment3 regarding the specific assessment. See section 4.4.2. c. Explicit responses from the assessment team to submissions described in a. and b. above. None.
Appendix 3.1 Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation
Details to be added at FR (Final Report) stage
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES March 2013 267 Public Comment Draft Report – FIUN Barents & Norwegian Seas cod and haddock Fishery