LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat ( Sprattus sprattus )

PUBLIC CERTIFICATION REPORT

MAY 2017

Prepared by : BUREAU VERITAS IBERIA

Authors: Hans Lassen Steve Devitt Sarmite Zoltnere José Ríos

Contact: [email protected]

Client: LATVIAN FISHERMEN’S PRODUCERS ORGANIZATION –LFPO- (Nacion ālās zvejniec ības ražot āju organiz ācija –NZRO-)

Contents Glossary...... 5 1 Executive Summary ...... 6 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 7 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 10 3.1.1 Final Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 10 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 12 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 13 3.2.1 Fisheries Management in the Baltic sea ...... 13 3.2.2 Latvian fisheries ...... 14 3.2.3 Sprat Fishery ...... 16 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 20 3.3.1 Baltic Sprat Biology and life cycle ...... 20 3.3.2 Assessment of Baltic Sprat ...... 22 3.3.3 Management Plan (Multiannual Plan) ...... 23 3.3.4 Status of Baltic Sprat stock ...... 24 3.3.5 Target Species as Low Trophic Level (LTL) Species ...... 26 3.3.6 Research Plan for BIOR ...... 31 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 32 3.4.1 Baltic Sea: context ...... 32 3.4.2 Sprat fishery: ecosystemic considerations ...... 42 3.4.3 UoA catch composition: species assignment to MSC P2 categories ...... 43 3.4.4 Primary species ...... 44 3.4.5 Secondary species ...... 47 3.4.6 ETP species ...... 54 3.4.7 Habitat Impact ...... 62 3.4.8 Ecosystem Impact ...... 63 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 65 3.5.1 Regulatory framework ...... 65 3.5.2 Institutions involved in the LFPO sprat fishery management ...... 68 3.5.3 Fishing rights and opportunites: mechanisms for allocation ...... 71 3.5.4 Scientific monitoring of the sprat fishery ...... 71 3.5.5 Specific objectives for the fishery: the new management plan ...... 72

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 2

3.5.6 Control, enforcement, and compliance ...... 77 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 79 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 79 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 80 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 80 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 80 4.4.1 Site Visit ...... 80 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 80 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 81 5 Traceability ...... 83 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 83 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 83 5.2.1 Description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems ...... 83 5.2.2 Risks assessment of the fishery traceability system ...... 84 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 85 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 86 6 Evaluation Results ...... 87 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 87 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 87 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 88 6.4 Recommendations ...... 88 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 88 7 References ...... 89 7.1 Paper, Reports, and Proceedings ...... 89 7.2 Regulations, Proposals and Agreements ...... 93 Appendices ...... 95 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 95 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 95 Principle 1 ...... 95 Principle 2 ...... 113 Principle 3 ...... 173 Appendix 1.2 Conditions ...... 199 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports...... 200

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 3

PEER REVIEWER 1 ...... 200 PEER REVIEWER 2 ...... 218 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 223 Submissions received after the announcement of the fishery: ...... 223 Submissions received during the PCDR publish period: ...... 224 Technical oversight received by the MSC ...... 227 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 236 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 237

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 4

Glossary Below are presented the abbreviations and acronyms used in the report. The terms defined were check to not contradict terms used in the MSC-MSCI vocabulary.

Concepts and terms:

BLIM Precautionary reference point. SSB below B lim indicate increase risk of impairment of recruitment BMSY Spawning biomass (equilibrium) when fishing at FMSY BPA Precautionary reference point SSB below B PA indicate that action should be taken to recover the stock Btrigger Biomass level below which fishing mortality should be reduced CAB Conformity Assessment Body (in the case of this particular assessment the CAB is BV) CBH Central Baltic Herring Stock CoC Chain of Custody CFP European Common Fisheries Policy DCF Data Collection Framework (EU program for documentation of fisheries activities and fishing fleets) FCR (MSC) Fisheries Certificacion Requirements GoR Gulf of Riga GoRH Gulfo of Riga Herring Stock ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected f/v Fishing vessel EBC Eastern Baltic Cod stock FLIM Fishing mortality which should be avoided with high probability because it is associated with unknown population dynamics or stock collapse FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY FPA Fishing mortality to ensure that there is a high probability that F lim will be avoided and that the spawning stock biomass will remain above the threshold B lim ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IPI Inseparable or practicably inseparable (catches or stocks) LTL Low Trohic Level MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA Marine Protected Area MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PRI Point where Recruitment would be Impaired UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification WBSSH Western Baltic Spring Spawning Herring Stock

Organizations:

AECID Spanish International Cooperation and Development Agency ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas BI OR Latvian Institue of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment BV Bureau Veritas CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora DIFRES Danish Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations HELCOM Helsinki Commission -Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission- IBSF International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea LFPO Latvian Fishermen’s Producers Organization (NZRO in Latvian) MSC Marine Stewardship Council STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries WWF World Wildlife Fund WGBAST Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group WGBFAS ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 5

1 Executive Summary The Public Certification Report provides details on the assessment process of the LFPO pelagic trawl sprat fishery. The client group covered by the certificate is the Latvian Fishermen’s Producers Organization –LFPO- (Nacion ālās zvejniec ības ražot āju organiz ācija –NZRO-), including their 11 fishing companies comprising a fleet of 22 trawlers (See Table 3-7). Henceforth, the term client will be used to refer to them. The fishery started the MSC certification process in May 2016. The client did not perform a pre-assessment. The official announcement and scheduled timeline for the steps to be carried out along the process were published on the 19 th of May at the MSC website. The assessment team for this fishery was: Steve Devitt as team leader; Hans Lassen as expert for P1, José Ríos as P2 and P3 expert shared with Hans Lassen, and Sarmite Zoltnere providing support in traceability issues as well as with language and local context as established in Annex PC. The assessment team visited Riga and Ventspils between the 20 th and 22 nd of June 2016 where the assessment team met with managers, inspectors, scientists, fishers and fishers’ representatives (both from the LFPO and from other organizations). Also, vessels and processing facilities at the Ventspils harbour were visited. After the site visit, the team compiled and analysed the information collected during the visit and, when necessary, additional information was requested to the stakeholders. Each expert prepared a draft score and justification, and then all the team discussed and weighed up the evidences for assigning the final scores. During the preparation of the report the team asked MSC for a variation in order to allow fish products from IPI herring catches to enter into chains of custody. The variation request was approbed on the 19 th of August 2016 and can be consulted at the MSC website. Finally, on the 23th of August peer reviewers’ nomination was announced at the MSC website. This FR includes the peer reviewers comments, MSC technical oversight and information received by stakeholders during the 30 days of public review. The main strengths of the fishery according to the assessment performed are listed below: ° The target stock (Baltic sprat) is subject to a ‘best practise’ analytical fish stock assessment and the status of the stock is good i.e. at full reproductive capacity and

exploited below F lim but slightly above F MSY ; ° The main by-batch species (Central Baltic herring) is subject to a ‘best practise’ analytical fish stock assessment and the status of the stock is good i.e. at full

reproductive capacity and exploited below F MSY ; ° There are reference points defined for both sprat and herring; ° There is a multiannual management plan for both the sprat and for the herring; ° The fishery is well sampled and by-catches are well documented. There is no significant discards; ° The ecosystem and in particular the role of sprat and herring are well understood and has been subject to extensive investigations; ° The fishery is conducted with trawls with no significant bottom contact; and

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 6

° The fishery is well managed both with respect to control and enforcement but also there are significant involvement of the stakeholder inter alia through the Baltic Sea Advisory Council.

On the other hand, the main weaknesses of the fishery are detailed herein: ° There is no experience with the multiannual management plan as this was only adopted in 2016; and ° Evidence on the efficiency of the by-catch strategy and in particular with respect to ETP species exist but can be improved.

Both the assessment team and the Certification Body, Bureau Veritas, agreed that the LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat Fishery COMPLIES with MSC Principles and Criteria. Therefore, Bureau VERITAS recommends the fishery SHOULD be awarded an MSC Fishery certificate. The CAB has set no conditions for certification.

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers Names, qualifications and affiliation of the AUTHORS are presented below. All team members listed below completed the training required by MSC for becoming part of a fisheries assessment team. STEVEN DEVITT, external assessor and team leader for this assesment. Since 2010 Steve Devitt has been the President of BioResource Stewardship Consultants Inc., a small company focused on providing contracted services to clients requiring trained Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fishery Team Leader or Chain of Custody Lead Auditor services or consultancy services for fishery or traceability improvement projects specific to successful certification within the MSC Sustainable Fishing Certification programme. He has provided services to different CABs during that period and participated in fishery calibration workshops delivered by the MSC to calibrate the Version 2 of the Fishery Certification standard. Prior to this, Mr. Devitt was the Operations Manager and managing partner of TAVEL Certification Inc., an accredited certification body sold to Moody Marine Limited in 2009. Mr. Devitt was responsible for start-up (in 2003) and management of all TAVEL Certification operations inclusive of proposal preparations, client and expert assessor contracting, lead audit functions recruitment of scientific and resource assessors, quality system and accreditation oversight. Mr. Devitt brings a broad environmental and fisheries background to the project, he is a trained ISO 14000 lead auditor. He also has a strong working knowledge of anthropogenic causes of disturbance to coastal zones. HANS LASSEN, external assessor and P1, P2 & P3 expert for this assessment. Hans Lassen holds a cand. scient. (M.Sc.) from Copenhagen University and a HD (B.Sc.) from the Copenhagen School of Commerce. His background is in fish stock assessments, particularly in the application of computers and models. He is author and co-author of more than 30 papers in primary scientific journals and co-author of two FAO manuals in fisheries science. He joined the Danish Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (DIFRES) in 1971. Between 1988 and 1992 he worked in the Greenland Fisheries Research Institute as Deputy Director

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 7

and Director and returned to DIFRES in 1992. Between 1998 and 2003 he was in charge of the Fisheries Group in the ICES Secretariat as Fisheries Adviser and served as secretary to the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. After 2004 he was head of the ICES Advisory Programme within the ICES Secretariat. He retired from the ICES secretariat in 2010 and has since worked on various projects within his expertise in advisory issues. He has been a member and Chairman of numerous ICES committees and groups, has within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization chaired STACFIS and the Scientific Council, been a member of STECF (EC, DG Fish), scientific adviser to Danish delegations to fisheries negotiations and chaired an internal EC expert group to provide input to the EC Multi-annual Guidance Program, within the Nordic Council of Ministers he chaired its Working Group on Fisheries and worked with the FAO/DANIDA project (1982-1998) on teaching fish stock assessment. In 2006 he was awarded the prestigious Swedish prize “Kungsfenan” for contributions to communication between science and the fishing industry. At his retirement from ICES he was awarded a Special Service Award. He has acted as team member (P1) on MSC certification teams for Westgreenland shrimp Barents Sea Demersal trawl fisheries (Greenland) and lumpfish (Greenland). He has served as reviewer of numerous MSC assessments. JOSE RIOS, BV auditor and P2 & P3 expert for this assessment . José Ríos holds a degree in Sea Sciences from the University of Vigo and an MSc in Fisheries and Aquaculture from the University of Wales-Bangor. He has 15 years of experience working in fisheries from different angles and places around the world. Between 2003 and 2010 he was responsible for designing and monitoring fisheries management plans for the exploitation of several marine resources (clams, cockles, barnacles, and octopus) for the Regional Fisheries Authority of Galicia (Spain). In 2008-09 he developed the scientific monitoring scheme for an experimental octopus fishery in the waters of Namibia for a private fishing company. Between 2008 and 2012, as part of different projects funded by the Spanish International Cooperation Agency (AECID), he supported local fisheries and aquaculture management bodies to strengthen organizational and managing capacities of the fishing and rural aquaculture sector in Namibia, Cape Verde, Colombia and Mozambique. Between 2013 and 2016, as part of the fisheries team of WWF Spain, he promoted different initiatives to improve fisheries management in coastal Spanish fisheries. As WWF representative he took part in the daily management of different coastal fisheries in the Spanish Mediterranean (Catalan sandeel, Balearic boat seines, and red shrimp trawling at Palamós). Currently, he is a full-time employee at Bureau Veritas Iberia Fisheries Department. SARMITE ZOLTNERE, BV auditor and traceability assessor for this assessment. Since 2012 Lead Auditor of ISO 9001, 14001, 18001, ISCC, MSC COC, FSC COC; SA8000 in Bureau Veritas Latvia, SIA. She meets the competency criteria concerning current knowledge of the country and CoC Standard and CoC Certification Requirements, language and local context established in Annex PC.

Bureau Veritas nominated the following PEER REVIEWERS for the Public Certification Draft Report. The proposed reviewers were published at the MSC website on the 23th of August and no objections were received from any stakeholder. MIKE PAWSON. Dr Mike Pawson has 46 years experience as a fisheries scientist carrying out biological research and providing expert advice in relation to fish stock assessment and

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 8

fisheries management and regulation to the UK government and the EC. Between 1974 and 1980 Mike initiated and led acoustic surveys on blue whiting and mackerel west of UK and trawl surveys in the North Sea, worked as UNESCO expert with the Libyan fisheries laboratory 1979 to 1981, and from 1980 to 1990 initiated and managed Cefas’s coastal fisheries programme. From 1990 to 2002 Mike led the Western demersal team providing analytical assessments and management advice for 12 finfish stocks in the English Channel, Irish Sea and Celtic Sea. He was chairman of ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment Working Group 1996-98, Sea bass Study Group 2000-04 and Elasmobranch Study Group 2001-02, and initiated and co-ordinated of EC-funded multi-national projects on methods for egg-production stock biomass estimation in Irish Sea (plaice, sole and cod:1995 & 2000), bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish stocks, bio-economic modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for elasmobranchs, marine recreational fishing etc. Between 2002 and 2007 Mike directed and managed monitoring and assessment of England and Wales salmonid and eel stocks. In 2007 Mike retired from Cefas, having published 71 formal papers and 13 book chapters, and contributed to numerous technical and assessment reports. He continues to acts as scientific consultant, including specialist input to MSC assessments (14 to date) and peer review of research papers, project applications and MSC assessments (45 to date). He has the RBF training module. STEN SVERDRUP-JENSEN . Professor Sten Sverdrup-Jensen has more than 30 years’ experience of Danish and international fisheries. In 1978-81, he was the Director of the North Jutland County/Aalborg University Fisheries Research Group that carried out the first EU fisheries research project in Denmark. As founding director of the Danish Institute of Fisheries Technology, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen was involved in various research and consultancy projects focusing on fisheries management and development in both Denmark and abroad between 1981- 87. In 1991, after leading a global evaluation of EU fisheries development aid, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen took up as the role of Planning Adviser to the Director General and Acting Director of Social Science Division at ICLARM (now the World Fish Centre). On returning to Denmark in 1993, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen became the founding director of IFM and carried out research and consultancy work for a range of Danish and international clients, primarily involving the institutional aspects of fisheries management. After serving as Chief Technical Adviser to Danida/Mekong River Commission on the setting up of fisheries R&D institutes in Cambodia and Laos in 1999-2002, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen re-joined IFM and took up the roles of Senior Researcher and Acting Director/Head of Centre. His most recent research work was based on EU fisheries (e.g. Indicators for Fisheries Management in Europe, IMAGE). In 2008, Sten Sverdrup-Jensen was appointed Professor (adj.) at Aalborg University.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 9

3 Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 Final Unit of Certification (UoC) Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that the fishery is within the scope of the MSC fisheries standard. All fisheries are conducted on a native fish stock, no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals are target species. There is no controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement involved; The Client Group has not been prosecuted for violation of laws on forced labour. There is no enhancement of the herring or sprat stocks. Although in 2016 there were a total of 22 Latvian sprat quota holders (owning 41 fishing vessels), only 11 of them (owning 22 vessels) are included in the LFPO. The client expressed his wish to not share the certificate, and therefore there are no other elegible entities. As a result the final UoC ( Table 3-1) and the UoA are coincident. From now onwards the references in the report to UoA refers in the same way to the UoC. Table 3-1. Unit of Certification defined for the LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat Fishery: Target stock Sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) in the Baltic Sea (ICES SD22 – 32) Fishing Area Central Baltic Sea (ICES SD 25-29 and 32, excluding 28-1) Fishing method Single and twin pelagic trawl 11 Latvian fishing companies owning 22 vessels members of LFPO with Fishing operators sprat quota in Baltic (see Table 3-7)

3.1.1.1 Assessment of the IPI scope of the UoC The assessment team proceeded with the following anlysis in order to ensure the UoC meets IPI scope as defined in MSC FCR 7.4.13.1(c). The Eastern Baltic Sea comprises ICES Subdivisions 25-32, and the Latvian sprat fishery is conducted in ICES SD 25-29 and 32, although in the SD 28-1 (Gulf of Riga –GoR-) sprat is caught just as bycatch in the herring fishery, while in the rest of the fishing area it works the other way around (herring caught as bycath in the sprat fishery). Figure 3-1 shows a map of the Baltic Sea indicating ICES Subdivisions.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 10

Figure 3-1. Map showing the ICES Subdivisions in the Baltic Sea (Source: ICES). In the GoR (SD 28-1) the sprat is caught as bycatch in the herring fishery, and therefore this area is excluded of the UoA

Latvian pelagic trawlers targeting sprat or herring have to sample each haul in order to provide an estimation of catches for each species in their logbooks. These estimations are validated when landing through inspections in port. However, there is no physical separation of both species (catches will only be graded and separated by size before processing, not ensuring a complete segregation by species) and therefore they have to be considered as IPI catches according to FCR 7.4.13.1 (b): “When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods”. The proportion of herring bycatches in the Latvian sprat fishery (without considering the sprat catches from the herring fishery inside the GoR) has varied from 4.76% in 2006 to 12.75% in 2015 (see Table 3-2), but in any case it has always been below 15%. Landings from the UoA in 2015 show that the proportion of herring was 12,3% (see Table 3-8). Table 3-2. Proportion of IPI catches in the Latvian sprat fishery (excluding data from herring fishery in the GoR). Source: Fisheries Department, Latvian Ministry of Agriculture Actual Sprat catch 1 Year N companies By-catches of herring (t) % IPI catches 2015 (t) 2006 32 51,943.00 2,597.00 4.76% 2007 31 58,051.00 2,979.00 4.88%

1 Calculated as indicated by MSC in FCR G7.4.13: proportion of IP catches to total target + IPI catches

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 11

2008 30 54,949.00 3,202.00 5.51% 2009 31 46,934.00 3,402.00 6.76% 2010 26 44,433.00 3,594.00 7.48% 2011 23 32,255.00 2,538.00 7.29% 2012 24 29,643.00 2,136.00 6.72% 2013 24 31,929.00 2,258.00 6.60% 2014 23 29,725.00 3,250.00 9.86% 2015 22 29,190.00 4,264.00 12.75%

Further, in 2016 the sprat quota in Latvia has been allocated as follows: ° A main quota for the sprat fishery in SD 22-32 excluding the GoR, with a limit of 14,95% herring bycatch (% of the total combined weights of sprat and herring catches). ° A remaining quota as sprat bycatch in the herring fishery in the GoR. Therefore, the sprat fishery happening in ICES SD 25, 26, 27, 28-2, 29 and 32 does not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of sprat and herring, allowing the candidate fishery to fulfil FCR 7.4.13.1 (c): “The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA”. LFPO comprises 13 fishing companies and a fleet of 25 vessels. 13 of those vessels are licenced for the Baltic sprat fishery, while 9 vessels are licenced for both sprat and herring (in the GoR) and the remaining 3 vessels are licenced only for the herring fishery in the GoR. The client was only interested in certifying the Baltic sprat fishery at this time.

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data The table below presents the TACs set in 2016 and 2015 for the target stock (sprat in the Baltic sea, SD22-32), the Latvian and UoA TAC shares and UoA catches data from previous years. In 2016 the Latvian TAC share (almost 28 kt) represents 13.8% of the total TAC issued by the EU, and almost 60% of it is allocated to the companies included in the UoA (16.5 kt). For more details on the fishery see section 3.2 . Table 3-3. TAC for target stock, UoA TAC shares and UoA catches. Source for UoA data: LFPO. Year Amount (t) 2016 202,320 2 EU TAC for the Baltic sea 2015 213,581 3 2016 27,990 Latvian share of EU TAC 2015 29,548 2016 16,437 UoA/UoC share of EU TAC 4 2015 18,484 5

2 EU TAC 2016, see COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 2015/2072 of 17 November 2015 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulations (EU) No 1221/2014 and (EU) 2015/104. The Russian quota is agreed through the EU-Russian fisheries committee. 3 EU TAC 2015, see COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1221/2014 of 10 November 2014 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulations (EU) No 43/2014 and (EU) No 1180/2013. 4 Figures calculated after excluding the sprat quota allocated as herring by-catch in the Gulf of Riga fishery 5 This was the TAC share established at the beginning of the year. As Quota trading within the Latvian fleet is legal, at the end of the year the UoA TAC share was 20.374,00 t.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 12

2015 19,685 6 Total green weight catch by UoA/UoC 2014 19,457

3.2 Overview of the fishery

3.2.1 Fisheries Management in the Baltic sea Baltic fisheries are managed by EU Member States and the Russian Federation. The EU fisheries, including the Latvian sprat fishery, are regulated under the EU Common Fisheries Policy using a combined TAC and effort management system. In Latvia, the Competent Authority is the Fishery Department (Division of Fishing Management and Fish Resources), under the Ministry of Agriculture. The Russian Federation regulates its fisheries within the Russian zone under the Russian Fisheries Law. The Parties cooperate on fisheries management under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement of 2009. There is also a Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC) which brings together fisheries administrations, representatives from the fishing sector and other interest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy. The LFPO is member of the BSAC Executive Committee.The fisheries statistics is split in subdivisions as shown in Figure 3-2.

6 The excess of the initially assigned quota is balance through quota trading as explained in previous foot note.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 13

Figure 3-2. FAO Fishing Areas (green lines; areas are named 27.III.d.xx where the xx is the subdivision) and Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ) of the Baltic countries. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/baltic_fishing_zones.pdf

3.2.2 Latvian fisheries The Latvian ‘Fishing Law’ distinguishes coastal and offshore fishing. Coastal fishing is in areas shallower than 20 m depth or inside 2 NM from the baseline, and offshore fishing outside those areas. In 2015 the Latvian fishing fleet consisted of 628 vessels below 12m length operating in coastal waters with passive gears and 68 vessels 12-40m long operating with trawls and gillnets offshore (ICES, 2016a). In comparison with 2014 there is a small decrease of both fleet segments due to vessel scraping. The main target species are cod,

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 14

herring, sprat and flounder, all of them managed through annual quotas established by the EU and splitted, at a National level, among coastal and offshore fishing.

Coastal fishery The coastal fleet is comprised of 359 vessels, mainly operating with stationary fishing gears (gillnets, traps and beach seine) as presented in Table 3-4. Major part of boats in coastal fleet is of the overall length not more than 5 m. Catches in these waters depend on the total quota allocated to Latvia. In spite of comprising a large fleet, total catches in the Baltic Sea coastal fishing constitute a reduce proportion of total catches in Latvia (2,165 t in 2015 or 3.6% of the total Latvian fishing fleet catches, see Table 3-4 for more details). Main species are Baltic herring, flounder and cod. No sprat fishery occurs in this zone.

Offshore fishing The fishing fleet that operates offshore comprised 68 vessels in 2015, 90% of them were trawlers and the remaining 10% were vessels using gillnets (see Table 3-4). The number of vessels has decreased during the last few years as a result of a scrapping programme. The fleet capacity reduction was aiming for more efficient operations as well as resonding to rapid drop in fishing opportunities - reduction of available quota. Catches in the Baltic Sea offshore fisheries constituted 58.2 kt in 2015, 99.3% of caught by the trawlers. The main species targeted are sprat, herring in the Gulf of Riga and cod. Herring in Central Baltic and flounder are taken as a by-catch. The gillnet share since 2014 has decreased. Table 3-4 presents the Latvian catches and number of licences issued in 2015 for the main fisheries. Table 3-4. Latvian fishery 2015 Catches, Landings and number of vessels, Source: (ICES, 2016a, page 35). Species Fishery Catch(t) Landing(t) N licences Sprat Offshore(trawls) 31,491.4 30,492.9 49 Offshore (trawls) 19,744.3 19,087.1 26 Herring Gulf of Coastal (trap nets) 1,857.6 1,857.6 58 Riga Coastal catch (gillnets) 43.6 43.6 49 Offshore(trawls) 4,298.1 4,190.6 34 Herring Central Coastal(trap nets) 50.1 50.1 10 Baltic Coastal catch(gillnets) 19.0 19.0 28 Offshore (trawls) 2,406.0 2,085.6 21 Cod Offshore (gillnets) 480.6 413.9 8 Coastal 90.7 90.7 34 (Offshore trawls) 1,909.0 1,932.3 25 Offshore (gillnets) 16.9 16.9 9 Flounder Coastal (Beach seine) 39.2 39.2 11 Coastal catch(gillnets) 34.3 34.3 108 Coastal (trap nets) 27.6 27.6 45 Turbot Coastal(gillnets) 3.1 3.1 16 Coastal Trap nets 1,935.3 1,935.3 113 Coastal Gillnets 190.8 190.8 235 Total Coastal Beach seine 39.2 39.2 11 Offshore fishing Trawls 59,848.9 57,788.4 155 Offshore fishing Gill-nets 497.5 430.8 17 Grand Total 62,511.7 60,384.5

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 15

The Latvian quotas for sprat, herring, cod and salmon fisheries are further allocated by the Fisheries Department to the fishing companies (see section 3.3 for more details on fishing rights allocation). In 2016, 40 companies in Latvia held quotas for different species and areas as shown in Table 3-5. A total of 70 of vessels held licences for the different offshore fisheries. Table 3-5.Number of Latvian companies holding the different licences for offshore fisheries issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. Source: Ministry of Agriculture N companies N vessels Sprat (22-32) 22 41 Herring (28.1) 12 26 Cod (22-24) 19 36 Cod (25-32) 26 45 Flounder (22-32) 34 57 Salmon (22-31) 1 2 TOTAL 40 70

3.2.3 Sprat Fishery Sprat fishery in Latvia is an offshore trawling fishery restricted to northern part of the SD 26 and most of the 28.2 (within the Latvian EEZ, Figure 3-3). Sprat is fished with semi or pelagic trawls using a mesh size of 16 mm in accordance with the technical regulation (Council Regulation EC 2187/2005). The sprat trawlers range between 24 and 40m length (see Figure 3-6).

Figure 3-3. Geographical distribution of sprat catches according to data from logbooks of the Latvian fleet. Catches within the Gulf of Riga were caught as bycatch of the herring fishery. Source: BIOR

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 16

The gear is a light trawl (semipelagic trawl) with large meshed (3-24 m mesh) in the mouth and with a fine meshed (~20 mm) codend. The gear is equipped with a footrope consisting of a chain with small plastic bobbins (see Figure 3-4). During the site visit the interviewed skipper informed the assessment tea that the trawl is operated as far as possible free of the bottom and with 7-10 m off the bottom as a reasonable guess. The gear may occasionally touch the bottom during deployment but this is best avoided because of the soft bottom that is dominating in the fishing area and the gear may stick to bottom. Also because of fuel consumption the trawl is kept in free water dragging the trawl on the bottom is costly. Further, the trawl is operated free of the bottom because there are extensive anoxic areas where the fishery takes place, see Figure 3-16 overlapped with Figure 3-3. Catches at the bottom are not good. Fishing takes place at larger depths where the trawl can be kept free of the bottom.

Figure 3-4. Part of the foot rope used by Glenrose f/v for fishing sprat. Source: José Ríos

Figure 3-5 shows the trend in sprat landings in Latvia since 1992. They increased sharply in the first 90s from 17.4kt to 49,3 kt and then levelled out around 45kt until the beginning of the 00s. Then landings peaked to 64.70 kt in 2005 and quickly dropped down to 30.7kt in 2012, after which time catches have been stable at this level.

Figure 3-5. Total landings of sprat in Latvia

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 17

In 2016 in Latvia there are a total of 41 vessels licenced to fish sprat as target species, 12 of those vessels can also fish sprat as bycatch in the herring fishery inside of the Gulf of Riga (ICES SD28.1). Besides, there are another 13 vessels catching sprat but only as bycatch in the Gulf of Riga (as they are not licenced for the sprat fishery). The client group (LFPO) includes 25 vessels out of the 41 licenced for targeting sprat and 3 out of the 13 targeting herring, comprising about 2/3 of the total Latvian sprat landings in 2015 (20,091 t out of a total landing of 30,491 t).

Figure 3-6. Two of the f/v included in the UoA fleet. Glenrose f/v on the left image (38.63m length and GT554mt) and Stella f/v on the right image (25.5m length, GT112mt). Source: José Ríos

The sprat sprat quota in Latvia is allocated as main quota for the sprat fishery and a remaining quota as bycatch in the herring fishery in the GoR. However, the sprat caught as target species outside of the GoR accounts for 96% of the total sprat caught in Latvia in the last 10 years as shown in Table 3-6. Table 3-6. Landings of sprat in Latvian fisheries: as target species and as bycatch of the herring fishery in the GoR. Source: ICES, 2016a for total Latvian sprat catches, and Latvian Ministry of Agriculture for sprat as target species Sprat caught as % of sprat caught Year Total Sprat (kt) target sp as target sp 2006 54.60 51.94 95.1% 2007 60.50 58.05 96.0% 2008 57.20 54.95 96.1% 2009 49.50 46.93 94.8% 2010 45.90 44.43 96.8% 2011 33.40 32.26 96.6% 2012 30.70 29.64 96.6% 2013 33.30 31.93 95.9% 2014 30.80 29.73 96.5% 2015 30.49 29.19 95.7%

Although some of the sprat is being landed as bycatch of the herring fishery and some of the LFPO members have licences for targeting herring, the UoA had to be restricted to the sprat fishery in order to fulfil FCR 7.4.12.1 (c), otherwise fish products from the fishery could not enter the MSC CoC. Table 3-7 presents the LFPO fishing companies and vessels targeting sprat and therefore included in the UoA.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 18

Table 3-7. LFPO fishing companies targeting sprat. These are the fishing companies and vessels included in the UoA Fishing Companies Vessels Vessels Reg. Nr. “UNDA” Ltd. Kate LVR 0813 Vergi LVR 0829 Urga LVR 0786 “VER ĢI” Ltd. Ulrika LVR 0814 Unions LVR 0805 Stella LVR 0841 Agnese LVR 0711 Grifs LVR 0697 “Z/K GRIFS” Ltd. Priedaine LVR 0837 Sirius LVR 0842 Zane LVR 0518 “A.I. UN KO” Ltd. Sencis LVR 0662 “ERVILS” Ltd. Briedis LVL 2013 “5B” Ltd. Harengus LVV 1551 Glenrose LVV 1555 “BRADAVA” Ltd. Valderoy LVV 1556 Gaisma LVR 0696 “GAISMA AR” Ltd. Kormoran LVR 0831 “L ĪCIS - 93” Ltd. Daugava LVR 1504 Bandava LVV 1507 “HANTERS” Ltd. Broc ēni LVL 2038 “GR ĪVA” Ltd. Gr īva LVR 0744

Herring constitute the main bycatch in the sprat fishery, with both sprat and herring accounting for more than 99.9% of the total UoA catches in 2015 (see Table 3-8). The remaining species accounting for 0.06% of the catches are eelpout, cod, flounder and smelt. Table 3-8. Catch composition of the UoA in 2015. Source: LFPO Company Sprat (t) Herring (t) Cod (t) Eelpout (t) Smelt (t) Flounder (t) „Unda” SIA 436.1 84.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Vergi” SIA 5,202.5 705.7 0.1 7.5 0.5 0.0 „Z/k „Grifs” SIA 3,056.6 447.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 „A.I. un Ko” SIA 24.7 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Ervils” SIA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „5B” SIA 2,371.7 296.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „BraDava” SIA 3,890.6 588.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Gaisma AR” SIA 1,361.0 186.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Licis-93” SIA 881.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Hanters” SIA 2,053.9 302.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 „Griva” SIA 407.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 19,684.9 2,754.2 3.1 7.5 0.5 2.0 % bycatch 87.67% 12.27% 0.01% 0.03% 0.00% 0.01%

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 19

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background The target species is sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) as assessed by ICES as ‘Sprat in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 22-32)’. The assessments are coordinated through ICES in the Assessment Group WGBFAS and the most recent report from this group is ICES (2016a). ICES provides annually advice on the fishing possibilities for the coming years, the advice is found in the ICES advisory Book 8 (Baltic Sea), ICES (2016b). The basis for the advice and the stock status is summarised in Table 3-9. Herring are by-catch in the sprat landings and are not distinguished commercially. There are well established sampling programmes that provide fairly accurate estimates by species, see (ICES, 2015b). The fisheries are managed by distinct TACs by species. BIOR runs a data collection program with 2 BIOR scientists on board a few fishing trips for sampling. These scientists record catch composition, and sample length and age on sprat and herring. From 2017 the sampling procedure will be modified to accommodate EU requirements on random samplings

3.3.1 Baltic Sprat Biology and life cycle (Based on Ojaveer, E, Läänemeri, Tallinn 2014) Sprat is one of the most abundant fishes in the Baltic Sea food chain and is found in almost all areas of the sea (except in the Bay of Bothnia, ICES 31), Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7. Sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. Distribution of Baltic sprat from the acoustic survey (BIAS) in the 4th quarter 2014. The sprat panel include ages between en 0 and 8. Source: ICES, 2015a. Figure 8.3.18.3.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 20

Salinity restricts reproduction to the open part of the sea and in the western part of the Gulf of Riga and in the western and central parts of the Gulf of Finland. Baltic sprat do not form a homogenous interbreeding stock. However, no clear-cut sprat populations have been discerned in the Baltic and the Baltic sprat is by ICES assessed as a single stock. Seasonal distribution of sprat depends on its biological cycle (reproduction, feeding and wintering). For all-the-year-round habitation sprat needs a very large volume of water where the salinity, oxygen and temperature conditions are appropriate. Sprat shoals do not occur below of the 1-1.5 cm 3/dm 3 oxygen concentration. Under normal conditions (at temperatures above 2-3ºC) sprat keeps above the isoline of oxygen concentration of 2 cm 3/dm 3. Sprat avoids regions of vernal diatom bloom and of the blue-green algal bloom in summer. Sprat feeding shoals are mostly the largest in the warm surface water of the high- energy zone with very rich primary and zooplankton production in the zone of coastal slope and upwellings. Sprat reproduction is confined to the same area. Young sprat dwell in the productive near-coast areas. Baltic sprat attains sexual maturity at the age of 1-4 (mainly 2-3) years. It spawns in batches. The eggs are spawned at salinities of at least 5-6 psu and the optimum temperature range for embryonic development is 6-12ºC. The main spawning areas of sprat in the Baltic Sea are the open part of the sea, the western and central parts of the Gulf of Finland, the western part of the Gulf of Riga, the Arkona Basin and the Kiel and Mecklenburg Bights. The spawning season starts in the bottom layer of the SW part of the sea, in the Bornholm and Gdansk area in February-March and lasts till August. In northward areas spawning begins progressively later. In the Gotland area spawning extends from April to August. Sprat eggs are found up to the southern part of the Bothnian Sea but in the Aland Sea and Bothnian Bay no larvae have been caught. After the first wintering young sprats keep into upper water layers than adults, to the depths of 40-50 m in the southern part and to 75 m in the northern part of the sea. In the Baltic Sea food chains sprat transfer energy from zooplankton (Temora spp., Acartia spp. etc.) to predatory fishes, marine mammals, man etc. The most common food items of 30 mm long and longer (incl. adult) sprat are calanoids – especially Temora longicornis throughout the year, Pontoporeia spp and mysids at the beginning of winter, Pseudocalanus mainly in winter, Eurytemora and Acartia mainly in summer and autumn. In summer cladocerans (Bosmina spp, Evadne spp and Podon spp) also occur in the food. There are sexual differences in sprat’s growth. On the average the females are longer and heavier than the males of the same age. In the NE Baltic the difference in the total length ranges from 0.1 cm in the 0-group sprat to 0.4-0.5 cm in the 4-8-year-old individuals. Clear periodic and regional differences occur in sprat growth in the Baltic Sea. During the period 1960-1990 the growth gradually accelerated. The 4-7-year old sprats of the 1975 year class were on the average 1.4 cm longer than the individuals of the of the 1959 year class at the same age. In the Baltic Sea the growth rate of sprat decreases from the western areas towards east and north. Age composition of sprat stock depends on the abundance of its year classes and variation of its mortality rate. In catches the share of 8-year-old sprat rose from 0% in 1961 to 50-60% in 1966-1967 to drop to 5-6% in 1977-1978. The oldest sprat caught in the Baltic Sea SW of the Åland Islands had 21 winter rings on its otolith. The main predator of sprat in the Baltic Sea is cod. It consumes chiefly sprat of the length group from 6 to 12 cm. The impact of cod on sprat stock is clearly different in various parts of the sea.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 21

Variation in the sprat year class abundance is wide but the number of strong generations comparatively limited. Compared with herring, the sprat stock is much more unstable in the Baltic Sea.

3.3.2 Assessment of Baltic Sprat The Baltic sprat is assessed by ICES as a single stock. The sprat assessment was benchmarked in 2013 and the present assessment of sprat in spring 2016 has been conducted following the procedure agreed during the benchmark, i.e. an XSA based analytical assessment based on age compositions from the catches and abundance acoustic survey information. The most recent assessment is presented by ICES (ICES, 2016a) and the corresponding advice on fishing opportunities by ICES (ICES, 2016b), Table 3-9. The benchmark ICES (2013b) reviewed the assessment data and methodology with particular focus on the tuning-series included, the degree of misreporting, natural mortality, weight and age and maturity. As for herring, two assessment models were evaluated, XSA and SAM, and it was decided to run both models in parallel until the next benchmark, using XSA as the primary model and SAM as the secondary model. Area-specific assessments were performed and showed similar trends to the combined area assessment. WKBALT, ICES (2013b) suggested a format for multispecies advice for the eastern Baltic, which included a description of the most important species interactions, advice on natural mortality, biomass by guild, and the proportion of large fish. The assessment methodology was modified to include temporally variable natural mortality in the assessments of herring and sprat. For sprat the Spawning-Stock Biomass (SSB) has declined from a historical high in the late

1990s, but remains above the MSY B trigger and has increased in 2016. The fishing mortality

(F) has fluctuated between F MSY and F lim in recent years, and in 2015 was slightly above

FMSY . Among the recent year classes of 2009–2015 only the 2014 year class is strong. Table 3-9. Assessment, Stock status and Advice basis, Source: ICES, 2016b Reference Assessment points and Managemen Advice ICES SD type status t Plan basis Advice

Analytical Commercial catches (international landings, ages F> F MSY and length Sprat in the frequencies from F< F lim MSY 2016/8.3. 22-32 N/A Baltic Sea catch sampling); approach 18 two acoustic SSB >B Trigger surveys (BASS; SSB > B BIAS); natural pa mortalities from regression with cod SSB accounting for cod predation

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 22

3.3.3 Management Plan (Multiannual Plan) A multiannual plan for the demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea was adopted in July 2016 (Regulation EU 2016/1139). Article 15 prescribes that this plan be evaluated in 2019. Regulation 2016/1139 introduced ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) inter alia for the Baltic sprat stock. Fishing opportunites shall be fixed depending on both intra- and inter-specific stock dynamics. However, in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years TAC variation is limited to not more than 20 %. If, scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, fishing opportunities for the stock concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I of the Regulation. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points. The annexes I and II of this plan define references points for Baltic Sprat as outlined in Table 3-10 . Table 3-10. Reference points as stated in the plan Species TARGET FISHING CONSERVATION MORTALITY REFERENCE POINTS FOR SPAWNING STOCK (as referred to in Article 4) BIOMASS

(as referred to in Article 5)

Part of the Part of the Minimum Limit range of range of spawning stock spawning

FMSY as FMSY as biomass stock referred to referred to reference point biomass in Article in Article (in tonnes) as reference 4(2) and 4(4)) referred to in point (in (3)) Article 5(2) tonnes) as

(MSY B trigger ) referred to in Article

5(3) (B lim )

Baltic sprat 0,19-0,26 0,26-0,27 570 000 410 000

This plan is implemented for 2017 and later years. The references points are in accordance with the ICES calculations see ICES (2016b) Table 8.3.18.5 as reproduced below (the references have been updated to refer to the reference list in this report). Table 8.3.18.5 from ICES (2016b). Sprat in subdivisions 22–32. Reference points, values, and their technical basis.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 23

Framework Reference Value Technical basis Source point

MSY Approach FMSY 0.26 Stochastic simulations ICES (2015d) with segmented regression and Ricker stock recruitment curves from the 1992–2013 time- series.

MSY Btrigger 570 000 t Assumed at Bpa. ICES (2015d)

Multispecies 0.25–0.32 0.25–0.35 constrained to ICES (2013b) FMSY Fpa. Multispecies model SMS. One of several options giving a high sustainable yield of sprat, as well as of herring and cod, because of low to moderate predation from cod.

Precautionary Blim 410 000 t Stock–recruitment ICES (2013b) approach relationship (biomass which produces half of the maximal recruitment in a Beverton–Holt model).

Bpa 570 000 t Blim × 1.4. ICES (2013b)

Fpa 0.32 Consistent with Bpa. ICES (2013b)

Flim 0.39 Consistent with Blim ICES (2013b)

3.3.4 Status of Baltic Sprat stock The text figure below (from ICES 2016 advice) show that the spawning-stock biomass (SSB) remains above the MSY B trigger and has increased in 2016. The fishing mortality (F) has

fluctuated between F MSY and F lim in recent years, and in 2015 was slightly above F MSY . Among the recent year classes of 2009–2015 only the 2014 year class is strong, (ICES, 2016b).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 24

Figure 3-8. Catches, recruitment (age 1), F and SSB for Baltic Sprat Stock. Source: ICES 2016b

Figure 3-9 is from ICES (2013b) Benchmark and shows the SAM (assessment method) output for the sprat assessment for the fishing mortality (average over ages 3-5). The assessment is disputed but illustrates the 95% confidence limits of this parameter in the assessment.

Figure 3-9. SAM (assessment method) output for the sprat assessment for the fishing mortality (average over ages 3-5). Source: ICES 2013b

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 25

3.3.5 Target Species as Low Trophic Level (LTL) Species Baltic sprat are clupeids and as such candidates for classification as Key Low Trophic Level species (LTL) (CR Box SA 1). The ecosystem is described in ICES (2008). A more recent review is presented by JRC (2014) that describes the fish compartment of the Baltic Sea ecosystem: the fish fauna comprises about 70% marine, 20% freshwater and 10% migratory species. The fish and lamprey checklist of the Baltic Sea includes about 239 species, (HELCOM, 2013). The dominating fish species in the pelagic/benthic ecosystem are cod (Gadus morhua), Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras), and sprat (Sprattus sprattus), which together comprise approximately 80% of the total fish biomass. Cod feeds on benthic meio- and macrofauna and fish, and is the main predator of sprat and herring. Large herring feed on zooplankton and nektobenthos (Casini et al., 2004; Möllmann et al., 2004), while sprat and small herring are zooplanktivorous;. In the coastal zone, the distribution of fish species is largely governed by salinity. The predator—prey relationship between cod and herring in subdivision 22 was first demonstrated by Jensen (1929) and later he demonstrated the same relationship in subdivisions 24-32 (Jensen 1962, 1966). Lishev & Uzars (1967) found the same relationship in subdivision 26+28. This was confirmed in a range of subsequent studies, e.g. Sparholt (1994). Lassen (1979) presented an assessment of the sprat stock taking the cod predation into account. Heikinheimo (2011) found using a modelling approach that output was especially sensitive to the functional response in predation by cod on herring and sprat. Sandberg, et al. (2000) analysed carbon flow through the food webs in the three main areas of the Baltic Sea; the Baltic Proper, Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay. The overall carbon flow was highest in the Baltic proper, somewhat lower in the Bothnian Sea and much lower in the Bothnian Bay.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 26

Figure 3-10. Mass balance model of carbon in the Baltic proper ecosystem. The flows of carbon arrows are expressed as g C m year and the stocks inside symbols are expressed as g C m . The vertical arrow at the bottom of each organism compartment represents respiration. For the pelagic producers, DOM and sediment carbon compartments, unbalanced carbon flows are indicated by a question mark. Source : Sandberg et al (2000) Figure 1.

The model presented in Figure 3-10 do not include the top level of birds and marine mammals, however, the diet of many of the birds is from the macrofauna compartment (e.g. mussels). The seal populations are low compared to historical experience around 1900. The Baltic Sea ecosystems are not stable, there have been several regime shifts over the recent 50 years. Whether these are introduced by human impact (Alheit, et al., 2005) or by environmental changes is discussed (Stips & Lilover, 2012, Ojaveer & Kalejs, 2012, Ojaveer & Kalejs, 2010). For the purpose of evaluating whether herring and sprat fill the role as key LTL species, it suffices to note that the relative importance of the pelagic and demersal fish compartments changes over time and any conclusion may be subject to change after yet another regime shift. Figure 3-10 suggests that about 50% of the carbon flow to the demersal fish (as the top predator) is through from the pelagic fishes compartment for the Baltic Proper. While there are other pelagic fishes in the Baltic Sea than herring and sprat, these two species dominate the pelagic fish compartment and for the purpose of judging whether the species qualify as ‘Key LTL’ species, the pelagic fish compartment is assumed to be synonymous with ‘herring-sprat’.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 27

Tomczak et al (2012) presented a detailed model for the species interaction in the Baltic Proper. The cod stock size depends on the size of the sprat stock as demonstrated in Figure 3-11 .

Figure 3-11. Sprat in SD 22–32. The relationship between Eastern Baltic cod SSB and Sprat biomass index from BITS (years 2003–2011). Source: ICES 2016a, figure 7.4b. However, cod recruitment is also dependent on the environmental conditions for successful recruitment and the conditions vary between years as indicated by the depth of the 11 psu isoline. MSC CR Section SA 2.2.9 defines the Key LTL criteria as: It is one of the species types listed in Box SA1 and in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub-criteria i, ii and iii. i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’). Standard ecosystem models of the Central Baltic ecosystem (Casini, et al., 2011; Tomczak, et al., 2012; ICES, 2013a) indicate that the herring and sprat are holding positions in the ecosystem meeting criteria (i) and (ii) as cited above. Hence Central Baltic herring and sprat are classified as Key LTL species and scoring of PI 1.1.1A is applied. The Default MSC criteria for key LTL species are defined in SA 2.2.12-15. SA2.2.12-15 (extract)

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 28

SA2.2.12: When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (a), the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species in a single species context. a. Such point may be analytically determined from ecosystem models, but in any case shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. SA2.2.13 When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue (b), the expectations for key LTL species shall be as given below: a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs shall be 75% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. a. Where fishing mortality rate is used to score stock status, the default fishing mortality required to maintain a stock fluctuating around the level consistent with ecosystem needs shall take the value of 0.5M or 0.5 FMSY , where FMSY has been determined in a single species context. ICES (2013a) presents MSY reference points that are elaborated based on multispecies considerations (Table 8.3.3.1). The ICES advice is specified as values “around” (FMSY ~ 0.3; BMSY ~1 mill tons) as no fixed value for the reference points exist in a multispecies context. These values are embedded in the multiannual management plan as precise ranges ( 0.19-0.27; MSY Btrigger = 570 kt; Blim = 410 kt). To judge if the sprat spawning stock biomass (SSB) is within the limits defined in SA2.2.12- 15 as reproduced above, the assessment team investigated the SSB vs fishing mortality (on a per recruit basis). The fishing mortality is determined based on the Multiannual Management plan. The SSB/R curve for Baltic sprat was calculated by the assessment team based on data from ICES 2015 and is presented in Figure 3-12 . From Figure 3-12 it appears that the Multiannual Plan hence is within the MSC Default criteria (SA 2.2.12-13). The biomass reference points are calculated consistent with the fishing mortality reference points. As noted in the description of the Baltic sprat biology recruitment varies in response to environmental variations (freshwater inflow, saline inflow and temperature) and for this reason, the biomass reference points will need to be reviewed and changed in response to changes in the Baltic environmental conditions over time. This is foreseen in the Multiannual Plan.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 29

Baltic Sprat SSB in % of SSB (F=0) 100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50% 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Fishing mortality

SSB in % of SSB (F=0) Multiannual Plan MP-high

Figure 3-12. . SSB/R for Baltic sprat based on data from ICES 2015. The vertical axis is converted into % of SSB at no fishing (F=0) The Eastern cod is used as the key indicator for the impact of the sprat biomass on the upper parts of the food chain. The Eastern Baltic cod (Subdivisions 25-32) show poor growth and it has been suggested that this is related to the size of the sprat stock, e.g. ICES (2016a) WGBFAS section 1.7, ICES (2013a); see also WWF submission in Appendix 3 and the response to this submission. Stomach data show a decrease in the consumption rate and food intake of Eastern Baltic cod since the early 1990s, both in terms of benthic and pelagic preys in the stomachs. The proportion in weight of benthic vs. pelagic prey in the stomachs also decreased during the same time period. This indicates a decrease in feeding success and a change in the feeding habits of cod during the past 20 years, which could explain the simultaneous decrease in cod condition. Cod is a transport host for two seal parasite species, cod worm ( Pseudoterranova decipiens ) and liver worm ( Contracaecum osculatum ), and infestation of cod especially with Contracaecum osculatum has been increasing in later years. Updated time series from Poland suggest a continuous increase in prevalence of Contracaecum in 2011–2016. Parasite infestation has been suggested to have increased natural mortality of especially larger cod (Horbowy et al. 2016). WGBFAS (2016) discusses the possible causes that have created the reduction in cod condition in detail in section 1.7.3 and concludes that abundance of Saduria entomon and Mysis mixta, especially during the fish fattening, i.e., in the autumn-winter season, is the main biotic driver that influence the physiological state of all cod size groups. These changes are probably related to abiotic factors, warming, and saline/oxygenated water and fresh water inflows.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 30

3.3.6 Research Plan for BIOR Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment - "BIOR" is a public research institution. The Institute was founded as a result of consolidating of former department of the Latvian Food and Veterinary Service: “National Diagnostic Centre” and the State Agency “Latvian Fish Resources Agency.” The Institute has assumed all functions of the National Diagnostic Centre and part of the Latvian Fish Resources Agency functions. BIOR" started its activities in a new status on 1st of January 2010.

The Scientific Advisory Council has approved following areas of responsibility of the Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment - "BIOR":

1. to carry out scientific activities in food, veterinary, environmental and fisheries sectors and in other sectors of biology by developing applied and basic researches to promote progress and integrity of science, higher education and corresponding industries; 2. to provide an expertise, scientific substantiation and risk assessment for sectoral development policy; 3. to implement execution of national data collection programs for fisheries sector, scientific activities and state monitoring needs in the field of food quality and safety, fisheries and animal diseases and zoonoses according to the Institute’s competence; 4. to implement projects to assess the risk in the field of food safety and animal infectious diseases, ensuring cooperation with institutions and organizations from the mentioned areas; 5. to carry out fishery inspections and provide scientific substantiation for environment- friendly, rational and sustainable management of fish resources in the inland and coastal waters of Latvian jurisdiction, territorial waters and waters of the economic zone of the Baltic Sea; 6. to perform functions of the National Reference Laboratory in the areas defined in the legislation; 7. to carry out laboratorial and diagnostic investigations related to state monitoring and food movement control, animal health protection and animal feed and veterinary drugs movement; 8. to implement a state policy on reproductive capacity of fish stocks through the implementation of activities of the Fish Resources reproductive state program; 9. to represent interests of Latvia and to implement an international scientific cooperation by organizing scientific conferences, seminars and other science-related information activities and by participation there; 10. to provide public advices within the competence of the Institute. The strategy of the BIOR is defined by the Scientific Advisory Council, which operates based on 3 years strategic plans, see BIOR home page http://www.bior.gov.lv/en/top-menu/about- us/scientific-council. The specific strategey for the sprat assessment is made in cooperation with other sprat fishing countries through the ICES WGBFAS group and through the EU DCF network. Under the latter annual sampling plans have to be coordinated and agreed through the EU scientific system partly as a precondition for financing these plans.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 31

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1 Baltic Sea: context

3.4.1.1 Oceanographic features The Baltic Sea is the second largest brackish water body in the world after the Black Sea, covering an area of 415,200 km 2 with a catchment area four times as large. The Baltic Sea consists of a number of subsystems (see Figure 3-13 ). The Kattegat (outside the Baltic Sea), the Danish Straits, the Arkona Basin, the Bornholm Basin, the Gotland Sea, the Gulf of Riga, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland. The Gulf of Bothnia can be further divided into the Bothnian Sea and Bothnian Bay. The Archipelago Sea and the Åland Sea can also be distinguished as part of the Gulf of Bothnia. The Arkona Basin, Bornholm Basin and the Gotland Sea are together often known as the Baltic Proper.

Figure 3-13 . The Baltic Sea Ecosystem and its subsystems. Source: Eeva Furman, Mia Pihlajamäki, Pentti Välipakka and Kai Myrberg (eds). 2014. The Baltic Sea Environment and Ecology. Helsinki

The glacial and post-glacial periods have formed the Baltic Sea into its present shape, with numerous large inlets, bays, lagoons and archipelagos located along the coastline.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 32

Changing salinity conditions, with both marine and freshwater phases, have fluctuated over the past 10,000 years. The life of today’s Baltic Sea is less than 4,000 years old. Moreover, the Baltic Sea is an extremely dynamic system. During the past one hundred years, it has undergone decadal variations in salinity, oxygen and temperature. This, and other factors, makes it a unique environment.

Hydrographical conditions of the Baltic Sea Danish straits and the Kattegat form a transition area to the North Sea. The water exchange through the Danish Straits depends on barometric situation between the Kattegat and the western and central part of the Baltic. By consequence, inflow of saline water is mainly caused by persistent westerly winds but also by a deep water current generated by the horizontal salinity gradient between the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The Sea is however nontidal. The Baltic Sea is characterized by large areas that are less than 25m deep, interspersed by a number of deeper basins, with a maximum depth of 459m at the Ladsort Deep (see Figure 3-14 ). At an average depth of 52m, is a very shallow sea. The seabed is shaped into 7 sub- basins separated by shallow sills. Each sub-basin is characterized by a different depth, volume and water exchange, resulting in specific chemical and physical properties.

Figure 3-14 Bathymetric map of the Baltic Sea. Source: http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/environmentalscience/ch5/Fig05_08.gif

Salinity levels The Kattegat, Danish Straits and the westernmost part of the Baltic are meeting points for the high saline water masses from the North Sea (35‰) and the brackish water masses from the Baltic (average of 6-8‰ at the surface). As a consequence, there is a salinity range from

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 33

the western and southern parts to the sea’s semi-enclosed bays situated at the most northern and eastern parts of the Baltic Sea, which has major freshwater inflows, such as the Bothnian Bay (ICES SD31), the Gulf of Finland (ICES SD 32) and the Gulf of Riga (ICES SD 28.2), as shown in Figure 3-15 . A stratification into three different water masses occurs along most of the Baltic Sea: ° Brackish surface layer ° Intermediate layer with low salinity: layer 10-20m thick that can be found at depths that varies from 50-60m at the Bornholm Deep to 80m at the Gothland Deep further north. ° A saline bottom layer: the salinity of this layer varies as we move towards the east and north: 18‰ at the Bornholm Deep, 14‰ at the Gdansk Deep and 11‰ Gothland Deep, but it may decrease in periods with no inflow.

Figure 3-15 . Salinity regime in the Baltic Sea. Source: http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu

As a consequence, there is a permanent stratification of the water column, and this forms a barrier between the less saline surface and more saline bottom, called a halocline. These barriers have a significant effect on seabed life since they prevent the mixing of oxygen rich surface waters with bottom waters, creating hypoxia and anoxia in the Baltic’s deeper areas (see Figure 3-16 ). Sporadic inflows of high saline water occur very irregularly and in the decades several years may pass in between them, as explained in below.

Oxygen As mentioned above, a halocline below a surface layer supplied with oxygen by thermal convection forms an effective barrier to convection. By consequence, oxygen rate of waters

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 34

below halocline is dependent on inflow trough the Danish Straits. Indeed, the only mechanism by which the central Baltic deep water is renewed is the intrusion of saline oxygenated water from the North Sea.

Figure 3-16 . Extent of hypoxis &anoxic botton water Autumn 2013. Source: http://www.smhi.se/en/theme/oxygen-in-the-sea-1.11274

As a result, persistent consumption of oxygen due to sedimentation of organic matter provokes extended but varying oxygen deficiency in the deeps depending on the frequencies of inflows. Oxygen depletion sometimes leads to development of hypoxic regions (see Figure 3-16 ), characterized by the formation of hydrogen sulphide.

Baltic inflows Meteorological and oceanographic conditions both play a role in the occurrence of major Baltic inflows of saltwater from the North Sea. Variations in river runoff to the Baltic also have an impact in the inflow activity. The major Baltic inflow events are known and recorded since the late 1800s (see Figure 3-17 ) , and until the 1980s the major inflows were relatively frequent. The longest periods without an inflow event before the late 1970s lasted only for three to four years (1927/1930, 1955/1960); after 1970, it was the ten year period from 1983 until 1993, and only a few major inflows have occurred since then. Besides increasing salinity and oxygen content, inflows force nutrients from the bottom to the photic zone, stimulating primary production. Therefore, the lower frequency and intensity of the Baltic inflows episodes may lead to lower primary production in the Baltic Sea.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 35

Very strong

Strong

Moderate

Weak

Figure 3-17 . Major saltwater inflows during the 20th century. Source: Matthäus, 2006

3.4.1.2 Habitats There is good information regarding the habitat characteristics of many areas of the European seas, through several international projects and integrated efforts (BALANCE, EUSeaMap, EMODnet, MESH project, HELCOM) that focused on identifying vulnerable habitat types, and that can provide predicted habitats maps for many areas including the Baltic Sea (see Figure 3-18 ).

Figure 3-18 . Baltic Sea substrate types based on Broad-scale habitat map for Europe (EUSeaMap). Source: http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 36

The coastal and offshore zone of the Baltic Sea is in principal comprised of three types of plant and animal habitats: hard and soft bottom and the pelagic community (i.e. open water). Conditions for life in these habitats are shaped by many physical, chemical and geological factors. Hard bottom communities close to the coast, mainly composed of rocky substratum, are the most species-rich habitats in the Baltic Sea. They are mainly found in the Northern and North-Eastern Baltic (Bothnia, Swedish coast and Gulf of Finland). Typically they are comprised of an upper zone of macroalgae inhabited by a rich fauna. Soft bottoms are the most dominant bottom type, consisting of muddy and sandy sediment. Covering most of the Baltic Sea seafloor, soft bottoms are vulnerable to the mechanical stress of wind and wave action. The pelagic community, that is species living in the open water, contains relatively few species, but forms habitat for the main fish species of the Baltic Sea. The primary producers are different phytoplankton species, which provide food for zooplankton such as copepods (e.g. Acartia sp, Pseudocalanus sp, Temora sp ), cladocerans and rotifers. These zooplankton in turn provide food for marine invertebrates and fish species, such as herring and sprat, which in turn are important food sources for larger predatory fish, seabirds and seals.

3.4.1.3 Biodiversity Marine species, including cod, invaded the Baltic Sea some 8,000 years ago after the opening of the connection to the North Sea. Biodiversity is relatively low as few marine and freshwater species have adapted to the brackish water conditions. Therefore biomass is dominated by a small number of species adapted to low salinity and low oxygen conditions. In general, Baltic Sea biodiversity have been argued to follow the salinity gradient, as it is the main environmental factor defining structural and functional characteristics of aquatic biota (Figure 3-19 ). In the Baltic, biodiversity has been shown to increase towards the south, with a 20–40 times higher biomass of both fauna and flora in the Baltic Proper compared to that of the Bothnian Bay. However, recent research challenges the viewpoint of the Baltic Sea as an ocean with low biodiversity, showing that not only does the Sea hosts some 6,000 species, but furthermore that phyto- and zooplankton in the Baltic exhibit an unexpected high diversity (>4,000 taxa), not least in the Gulf of Finland where over 1,500 of the 1,700 known Baltic species of phytoplankton are found. The diversity of bottom dwelling animals and algae are still comparably low, but pelagic species diversity is strikingly high.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 37

Figure 3-19. Sub-regional distribution of (A) marine and (B) freshwater taxa in the Baltic Sea: case of macrozoobenthos. Source: Ojaveer, et al., 2010.

In the hard bottom communities, certain species are of particular importance because they make up forming structures that serve as habitats for many other species. Such key species in the Baltic Sea include: brown algae bladder wrack ( Fucus vesiculosus ), red algae black carrageen ( Furcellaria lumbricalis ), eelgrass ( Zostera marina ), and blue mussels ( Mytilus trossulus and in the Kattegat M. edulis ). The importance of these species is further highlighted by the Baltic Sea Action Plan (HELCOM, 2007a), which states that HELCOM countries will preserve the favorable conservation status of these species and communities. More specifically, that by 2020 “the spatial distribution, abundance and quality of the characteristic habitat ‑forming species, specific for each Baltic Sea sub ‑region, extends close to its natural range”.

3.4.1.4 Food web and ecosystem resilience Only a handful of species dominate the ecosystem in biomass and abundance, this fact means that food webs in the Baltic Sea show relatively few ecological interactions compared to most other marine ecosystems found worldwide. When only a few species are maintaining many functions of an ecosystem, as is the case in the Baltic Sea, the system is characterized with low resilience, referring to the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance and ability to recover after these events (HELCOM, 2009). The simple Baltic Sea food webs are thus more vulnerable to environmental changes. Changes at one end of the chain, such as through the effects of hazardous substances or overfishing affecting top predators, may easily spread through the entire chain (so called cascading effects) and may have unpredictable effects on the other components of the food

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 38

web and ecosystem. Therefore, the maintenance of species diversity is critical to the long term functioning of the whole ecosystem. The models of the Baltic food web predict that top predators at the fourth trophic level, including mammals, large fish and cormorants, control the abundance of small fish species at the third trophic level such as perch, sprat, herring and cyprinid fish (HELCOM, 2010a). The Baltic Sea upper trophic food web is dominated by cod and two competing planktivorous fish species, herring and sprat. There are strong linkages between the abundance of predator (cod) and its preys (herring and sprat) as discussed in further detail in Section 3.4.2 .

3.4.1.5 Regime shifts in the Baltic ecosystem The Baltic Sea is a complex ecosystem with a multitude of physical, chemical and biological interactions functioning on various temporal and spatial scales. The Baltic Sea is under severe stress as a result of the combination of a large human population in the catchment area, the environmental effects of anthropogenic activities and its special geographical, climatological and oceanographical characteristics. The environmental state is thus influenced by both natural and anthropogenic factors. Summer blooms of cyanobacteria are a natural phenomenon of the Baltic Sea, and have been recorded as early as 1885, but as the average biomass production has increased by a factor of 2,5, so has the various impacts on the ecosystem. In the 1950s the effects of eutrophication became clearly evident both close to the large cities, but also in offshore areas with blooms and a decrease in summer water transparency. As eutrophication has both ecological and social consequences, it is one of the major environmental problems in the Baltic Sea. It has resulted in a deterioration of the ecosystem, with effects including increase in filamentous algae, withdrawal of perennial fucoid algae, increased frequency of toxic algal blooms and changes in fish population (see Figure 3-20 ). High fishing pressure by cod in combination with climate change, eutrophication and the lack of salt- and oxygen- rich water inflows from the North Sea reduced the water volume suitable for cod reproduction, led to large-scale changes in the fish community; decreases in the biomass of cod (a high trophic level, commercially high valued and favoured fish), which was replaced by a low trophic level and commercially low valued fish (sprat). The impact of trawl fisheries in the Central Baltic (25-29+32) have been investigated in detail and it has been shown that fishing influenced the regime shifts that has been documented (Casini, et al., 2011), (Tomczak, et al., 2012). However, the regime shift between a cod dominated system and a pelagic dominated system also are partly caused by environmental changes, i.e. saltwater influx from the Northeast Atlantic and freshwater inflow from the rivers to the Baltic Proper (Ojaveer & Kalejs, 2010b) (Ojaveer & Kalejs, 2012) (Adolf & Lilover, 2012). As summary, the largest environmental problems are eutrophication caused by increasing nutrient loads, overfishing, hazardous substances, risk of chemical and/or oil spills, marine litter and invasive species (BalticSTERN, 2013). These environmental problems, together with current and future climate changes are jeopardizing the Baltic Sea’s ability to provide ecosystem goods and services

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 39

Figure 3-20. Changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem during the 20 th Century. The illustration shows changes in major ecological compartments and their interactions, as well as regime shifts in the ecosystem. Source: BalticSTERN, 2013 (Illustration by J. Lokrantz/Azote)

The HELCOM action plan (Minna, 2012) and the holistic assessment of the status of the ecosystem (HELCOM, 2010a) demonstrates that there is a strategy in place for improving the state of the ecosystem and data available such that a qualified overview can be produced based on available data. The reduction in cod condition and the possible link to changes in the sprat stock is discussed in section 3.3.4. WGBFAS (2016) concludes that the direct drivers for the reduction are abiotoc factors and changes in the zooplankton compartment.

3.4.1.6 Marine Protected Areas The Natura 2000 network is based on the Birds Directive adopted in 1979 (and amended in 2009; Directive 2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive adopted in 1992 (Directive 92/43/EEC). These directives provide legal protection to the sites. By 2013, 64% of Natura 2000 sites in the Baltic Sea had also been designated as HELCOM MPAs (former BSPAs) (see Figure 3-21 ). Overlapping HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 sites can be of different shape and size depending on the protection targets. HELCOM MPAs are restricted to the coastal zone and marine area, while Natura 2000 areas may also cover inland areas. The Natura 2000 network protects natural habitats and species deemed important at EU level, whereas the HELCOM MPAs network aims to protect marine and coastal habitats and species specific for the Baltic Sea. HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission) is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention. HELCOM was established about four decades ago to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation. The Contracting Parties are Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 40

HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities. In order to accomplish it HELCOM is not only an environmental policy maker body but also provides information oabout the stae of and trends in the marine environment, develops recommendations, and supervises and coordinate the implementation of policies and strategies. Between HELCOM MPAs and Natura 2000 sites there is an ecologically coherent network of MPAs protecting 12% of the Baltic Sea. The 10% target of the UN CBD for the whole Baltic was attained already in 2010. The HELCOM 2010 Ministerial Meeting set a 10% target for each sub-basin, when scientifically justified. This target has now also been reached in all other sub-basins except the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Bothnia. In the Baltic Proper 8.7% of the total area was covered by BSPAs and in the Gulf of Bothnia 4.8%. In 2013, 33% of the Latvian territorial waters and only 1% of its Exclusive Economic Zone were protected, amounting a total of 7,361km 2 (15% of the total Latvian maritime area).

Figure 3-21. MPAs in the Baltic. HELCOM MPA data is from June 2013 and Natura 2000 data is from December 2011.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 41

3.4.2 Sprat fishery: ecosystemic considerations After reviewing general aspects regarding the Baltic Sea, below can be found some ecosystemic considerations in relation to the sprat fishery developed by the UoA.

Midtrawl gear interaction with the sea bottom In the fishing grounds where the UoA operates the most predominant substrates are mud to muddy sand, sand and mixed sediment (see Figure 3-18 ). Midtrawl gear used for sprat fishery is designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain) any contact with the sea bottom would jeopardize the integrity of the gear. The vertical opening of the gear varies in relation to the size of the gear (which in turn depends on the size of the vessel) but on average is about 24m. Therefore, sprat fishing is conducted in the water column, interacting with the pelagic community described above.

Biological interactions and environmental effects Cod, herring and sprat constitute about 95% of the total landings in the Baltic Sea (ICES, 2016a), but in addition to providing the basis for capture fisheries they are also important component of the Baltic ecosystem and there are also strong biological interactions between them. Cod predate on sprat and herring meaning that the size of the cod stock affects the size of the herring and sprat stocks and vice versa. Therefore, the highest yield which sprat stock can sustain in the long term depends on natural mortality, which is linked to the abundance of cod. In turn, herring and sprat fishery within the cod distribution area will potentially decrease the local prey density, which may lead to food deprivation. This seems to be happening in SD 25-26 as fishing pressure increased on sprat since 2010. leading ICES to recommend the development of a spatial management plan for the clupeid stocks in the SD 25-26 in order to improve cod condition. On the other hand, sprat recruitment is strongly linked to temperature as Baltic sprat is located at the northern limit of the species’ geographic distribution. Low temperatures can therefore be expected to be detrimental to production and survival in the Baltic Sea, and higher temperatures might support increased recruitment. This linkage implies that the occurrence of, for example, two successive hard winters, could have severe consequences for the sprat stock. The unusual climate situation during the 1990s (marked by higher average temperatures) resulted in a change in the circulation pattern and thus a change in the drift pattern of sprat larvae, where retention vs. dispersion in the Baltic deep basins have a strong influence on the recruitment success of sprat. This strong recruitment coupled with low cod predation contributed to the high sprat SSB in the mid-1990s and 2000s. See Section 3.3.5 for more details on the implications of the sprat as a key low trophic level species. In view of the strong influence that biological interactions and environmental effects have on the Baltic stocks of cod, herring and sprat, EU considered appropriate to recently establish a multi-species fisheries plan taking into account the dynamics between these three species (Regulation EU 2016/1139), in line with the ecosystem-based approach.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 42

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

3.4.3.1 Sources of information Before categorizing P2 species is important to indicate the different sources of information used by the team to assess the species impacted by the fishery: i. Fishery dependent information: a. Latvian fleet landing records The Fisheries Department of the Latvian Ministry of Agriculture provided the landings between 2006 to 2015 of the Latvian fleet targeting sprat in ICES SD 25-27, 28.2, 29, 32 (see Table 3-2). Herring bycatch shows an increasing trend both in volume and percentage of the annual landings, from 2.6Kt (4.76%) in 2006 to 4.3kt (12.75%) in 2015. As mentioned in section 3.1.1.1 herring bycatch is limited by law to 14.95% of the total combined weights of sprat and herring landings). As catches of other species are minimal, official records are restricted to sprat and herring, and no other species are recorded. b. 2015 UoA catches The UoA catches for 2015 were provided by the client and presented in Table 3-8 under section 3.2.3 . Herring constitutes 12.27% of UoA, and both sprat and herring constitute more than 99.9% of the catches. The other bycatch species reported by the UoA are: eelpout (0.03% of total catches), cod (0.01%), flounder (0.01%), and smelt (<0.01%). ii. Fishery independent information: a. On board f/v samplings performed by BIOR BIOR provided the assessment team with data collected between 2013 and 2016 by scientists on board fishing vessels targeting sprat in ICES SD 26 and 28.2, within the EU DCF (see section 3.5.4 for more details). A total of 82 samplings were performed casting a 11% herring bycatch (see Table 3-11 ). Other species than sprat and herring are not weighed, but the number of individuals is recorded. The other species were: cod (142 individuals present in 23 hauls), flounder (152 individuals in 20 hauls), lumpfish (only 2 individuals in 1 hauls) and lamprey (2 individuals in 1 haul). Table 3-11 . Catch composition from 82 samplings on board fishing vessels targeting sprat in ICES SD 26, 28.3 between 2013 and 2016. Source: BIOR Total Catch Sprat Herring Cod Flounder Lumpfish Lamprey (kg) (kg) (Kg) (N ind) (N Ind) (N ind) (N ind) 648,550.00 575,969.00 72,583.00 142 154 2 2 88.81% 11.19% - - - -

3.4.3.2 P2 species classification following MSC requirements According to the different sources of information presented above, the assessment team elaborated the most complete list of all species caught by the UoA, and they were classified into primary (main/minor), secondary (main/minor) and ETP species according to MSC requirements (see Table 3-12 ).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 43

Table 3-12. List of all the species caught by the UoA, and classified according to FCR SA3.1.3-3.1.5 and SA3.4.4-3.4.5. # Scientific Name Primary / Main / Name Secondary Minor 1 Herring Clupea harengus Primary Main 2 Cod Gadus morhua 3 Flounder Platichthys flesus 4 Eelpout Zoarces viviparus Secondary Minor 5 Smelt Osmerus eperlanus 6 Lumpfish/Lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus 7 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus ETP N/A The difference between ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species lies on whether management is based on biological reference points (primary) or not (secondary). Herring is the only species in the list whose management within the UoA fishing area is based on reference points. Therefore, herring is the only ‘Primary’ species caught by the UoA. Besides, as its proportion in the catch is higher than 5%, this species shall also be classified as ‘Main’ (FCR SA3.4.4). All other species except the Sea lamprey (ETP species) are classified as ‘Secondary Minor’, as they are all managed without reference points. In all cases their specific catch share represents less than 5% in volume of the total catch. The only species in the list that fall under the MSC definition for ETP species (FCR SA3.1.5) is the Sea lamprey, as this species is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).

3.4.4 Primary species

3.4.4.1 Herring

As seen in Table 3-12 herring is the only species caught by the UoA considered as Primary Main according to the MSC FCR. The Atlantic herring ( Clupea harengus ) is a member of the Clupeidae family of pelagic fishes which includes sprats, pilchards, anchovies and shads. The widespread distribution of Atlantic herring is a result of its considerable adaptability to both temperature and salinity ranges (see Figure 3-22 ).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 44

Figure 3-22. Atlantic herring stocks, Baltic stocks circled in red. Worldoceanreview © after Christopher Zimmermann/ Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. Source: http://worldoceanreview.com

Although recognized as Clupea harengus in World Register of Marine Species (http://www.marinespecies.org ), herring in the Central Baltic Sea, Bothnian Sea and the Gulfs is considered a distinct subspecies ( Clupea harengus membras –Baltic herring-), despite the lack of a distinctive genome. Baltic herring is adapted to the prevailing spatio- temporally vaying heterogeneous environmental conditions of the Baltic Sea.

Assessment units in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak ICES provides separate advice on the following herring stocks (see Figure 3-22 for locating the different stocks on the map): ° In the Central Baltic: o Herring in SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32 (referred as CBH) o Gulf of Riga herring (SD 28.1) (referred as GoRH) ° In the Gulf of Bothnia: o Herring in SD 30 o Herring in SD 31 ° In the SW Baltic: o Herring in SD 22-24 is assessed together with the spring spawners in Kattegat and Skagerrak (Division 3.a.). (referred as Western Baltic Spring Spawning Herring, WBSSH). The Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) is in charge of assessing the Central Baltic and Gulf of Riga stocks, while the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62ºN (HAWG) assesses the herring in the SW Baltic.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 45

Management units in the Baltic Sea Based on previous assessment units, ICES established the following management units. Since 2005 herring is managed by 4 TACS (previously 3): ° SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32 (EC and Russian quotas) ° Gulf of Riga (SD28.1) ° SD 30,31 ° SD 22-24 Coordination between assessment and management has an associated complexity as herring assessed in one area can be caught in a different one. For instance, catches from the SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32 management unit are known to contain a percentage of catches from other stocks than CBH (WBSSH and GoRH), and at the same time CBH is also caught in the Gulf of Riga (see scoring table 2.1.3 for more details).

Stock impacted by the UoA: CBH As explained in section 5.4 the Latvian sprat fishery takes place in ICES SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32, so this fishery (and therefore the UoA) interacts with the CBH. This stock comprises mainly spring-spawning herring and a small autumn-spawning population (ICES, 2016d). Spring-spawning occurs at the coast with a temporal gradient from south to north. After spawning, individuals migrate to the deep basins for feeding. In addition, migrations between subareas of the Baltic have been observed (Aro, 1989).

CBH Status

According to ICES assessment SSB has been above MSY B trigger since 2007, and F remains below F MSY since 2011. According to the latest assessment the stock is considered to be at its full reproductive capacity and being harvested sustainably (Table 3-13 ). ICES advice for 2017 limits catches to 216 kt (ICES, 2016b). This applies to all catches from the stock, including those taken in Subdivision 28.1. Table 3-13 . Herring in sD 25-29 and 32. State of the stock and fishery relative to reference points. Source: ICES, 2016b)

Fishery in the Central Baltic In the central Baltic herring is mainly caught by pelagic trawlers (ICES, 2016b) The total reported catches by country, which also include the fraction of the Central Baltic Herring that is caught in the Gulf of Riga, are given in Table 3-14 . Catches in 2015 amounted to 174 433 t, which is 31% higher than last year. Catches increased for Estonia (22%), Finland (13%), Germany (68%), Latvia (17%), Lithuania (124%), Poland (43%), Russia (32%), Sweden (32%), but decreased for Denmark (-88%). The largest part of the catches in 2015 was taken by Sweden (51%%), followed by Poland (39%) and Finland (32%).The spatial distribution of catches shows that in the last few years most catches were

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 46

taken in 25, 26 and 29. In 2015 the distribution of catches was as follows: 25% in SD 29, 21% in SD 26 and 18% in SD 25. Table 3-14 . Herring in SD 25–29, 32 (excl. GoR). Catch by country and SD and mean weight by SD in 2015. Source: ICES, 2016b

Herring Fishery Management The European Commission sets TACs and national shares consistend with the ICES advice, and establishes other relevant technical measures (Council Regulation 2187/2005). A new multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic have been adopted recently by the EU (Regulation EU 2016/1139).

Herring as IPI catches As explained in section 5.4 , herring catches are considered IPI according to FCR 7.4.13.1 (b) in relation to enter the MSC CoC. Well established sampling programmes provide fairly accurate estimates by species and these data are used ofr quota management. However, the catch is sorted by size and no sorting on species takes place commercially.

3.4.5 Secondary species

The list of secondary species was presented in Table 3-12 .

3.4.5.1 Cod This species comprises, together with herring and sprat, about 95% of total landings from the Baltic Sea (WGBFAS 2016), playing an essential socio-economic role in the Baltic fisheries.

Cod in the Baltic Cod in the Baltic Sea is found on the eastern up to about 63°N and on the western up to the southernmost point of the Kattegat. There are two stocks of cod in the Baltic Sea (Western – SD22-24- and Eastern –SD25-32-) and are quite well separated by a border along longitude 14°30’E immediately west of Bornholm (see Figure 3-23 ). ICES assesses both stocks and provides separate advice.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 47

Cod stock impacted by the UoA: EBC The UoA fishing area overlaps with the Eastern Baltic Cod Stock (EBC). Although this stock extends along the entire eastern Baltic Sea (SD22-32), the distribution of cod is currently mainly confined to subdivision 25 and to a lesser degree in subdivision 26 with very low abundance in northern areas (27-32). This stock declined drastically in 1980s, and in recent year reduced individual growth has also been identified. Several factors seem to be affecting the EBC status, such as food limitation in SD 25-26 and continued poor hydrographic conditions in the northern areas. Two out of three spawning areas (the Gotland and the Gdansk basins) have ceased to significantly contribute to the reproduction of the EBC due to oxygen deficiency (ICES 2012, Figure 3-23 ), implying a considerable reduction in its resilience. HELCOM assessed cod status in the HELCOM area (Baltic Sea and Kattegat) at stock level (HELCOM, 2013c): EBC was classified as Vulnerable (VU).

Figure 3-23 . Changes in the historical main spawning areas of cod Gadus morhua in the western Baltic, eastern Baltic and Danish Belt Sea (redrawn from Bagge et al. 1994 in (HELCOM, 2013a). (a – left-) Cod spawning in the Gotland Deep and Gdansk Deep as it was depicted in the 1980s; (b –right-) cod reproduction still occurs in the Bornholm Deep, but it is nowadays negligible in the Gotland and Gdansk Deeps (from Cadinale & Svedäng 2011 in (HELCOM, 2013a).

EBC assessment and advice Since 1973 EBC has been evaluated by ICES, with the current time-series of stock dynamics from 1966. In 2014, and again in 2015, ICES released only a trends assessment as the analytical age-based stock assessment was considered unreliable for three main reasons: ageing discrepancies, growth reduction and decrease of older larger cod (see Figure 3-24 ).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 48

Figure 3-24. Cod in Subdivisions 25–32. Comparison of fishable biomass versus fish biomass under minimum landing size (MLS = 38 cm), based on survey cpues over time. Left panel: total biomass above versus below MSL. Right panel: the proportion of biomass above versus below MLS, showing that only 20% (7% in numbers) of the fish biomass was available for landing in 2013 (ICES, 2014).

The EBC was managed using biomass reference points until 2007. Since the implementation of the multi-annual management plan introduced in 2008 (Council Regulation EC 1098/2007 7) a discussion on the validity of the reference points used was open until it was agreed to use fishing mortality-based reference point in the benchmark

assessment held in January 2009. As a result, F=0.3 was adopted as F target in the

multiannual management plan and as F MSY in ICES advice for the year 2010. However, this estimate was much disputed in the following years and is no longer accepted. The recently issued multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic (Council Regulation EC 2016/1139) does not establish reference points for EBS cod. The MSC certification of fisheries targeting the eastern Baltic cod stock (see Table 4-1) were suspended in December 2015 as a result of the 2015 ICES benchmark assessment because no reference points were provided.

UoA impacts on EBC The EBC is caught by fleets from different Baltic countries using both active and passive gears, most of the catches are taken in SD 25 and 26 (see Figure 3-25 ). UoA cod catches are negligible compared to total EBC landings. For instance, in 2015 total landings accounted for 37,342 ton, while UoA reported 3.1 tons, representing 0.008% of total landings from the stock.

7 Recently repealed by Regulation EU 2016/1139

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 49

Figure 3-25. Cod in SD 25–32. Landings of eastern Baltic cod stock by SD, including the fraction of landings taken in SD 24. Source: ICES, 2016a

However, EBC condition is considered to be limited due to food availability, and both sprat and herring are important food items for cod. Any fishery based on these species within the main cod distribution area (Subdivisions 25–26) would potentially decrease the local prey density, which may lead to increased food deprivation for cod. The relative catch proportion of sprat in the main cod distribution area has since 2010 increased from 37% of the total catch to 47% in 2014. This increase in fishing pressure on sprat may deteriorate the feeding condition for cod. On the other side, a reduction of clupeid F in Subdivision 25 can possibly improve growth and condition of cod as well as reduce cannibalism. However, as the relative contribution of different factors to poor condition of cod is not fully understood, the effect of reduced clupeid F on cod condition and growth is unclear (ICES, 2016a).

3.4.5.2 Flounder The ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) assesses and provides separate advice for 4 different flounder stocks in the Baltic: ° Flounder in SD 22-23 ° Flounder in 24-25 ° Flounder in 26, 28 (Eastern Gotland and Gulf of Gdansk) ° Flounder 27, 29-32 (Northern flounder) No analytical assessment is performed for any of these stocks, advice provided is based on biomass index comparisons from previous years, according to ICES DLS guidelines (ICES, 2012b). Advice for stocks in SD 22-23 and SD 24-25 was splitted in 2014. The UoA fishing area overlaps with three of the four stocks (those in the Western Baltic, 25- 32). However, its impact is negligible; flounder catches by the UoA were estimated in 2 tonnes in 2015 (see Table 3-8), while total landings in the Baltic from the 3 overlapping stocks were 15,699 tonnes ( Table 3-15 ). Table 3-15 . Landings of flounder in the Baltic from stocks overlapping with the UoA fishing area. Source: ICES, 2016a. Stock Catches (t) SD 24-25 11,090

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 50

SD 26,28 4,433 SD 27, 29-32 176 Total 15,699 Both stocks are managed under the CFP with the global objective to maintain stocks at levels that can support MSY, but no TACs are set for Baltic flounder stocks. In Latvia, a fishing licence is issued for targeting this species with pelagic trawl. The licence is issued for the whole Baltic area (22-32). The new EU Regulation establishing a multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (Regulation EU 2016/1139) also applies to bycatches of flounder caught when fishing for the stocks concerned.

3.4.5.3 Eelpout The eelpout is a widespread species in the coastal waters of the North Sea and Baltic Sea commonly occurring in shallow shores and estuaries down to 40 m depth. It is considered a cold water species and survival is lower during warm summers. Increasing temperature also results in reduced growth and fecundity. Mating takes place in August–September with internal fertilization of the eggs. Due to its viviparous behavior, reproductive impairments can easily be linked to the mother fish and due to its stationary behavior it can also be linked to the environment. Therefore this species has been commonly used in environmental monitoring and toxicology studies. As eelpout is not an important commercial fish species, the data on its population development does not cover the whole Baltic Sea. However, in two of the four Swedish surveys available significant declines of more than 50% have been observed during the last 20 years (see Figure 3-26 ). Despite the species being commonly used for environmental monitoring, index of abundance data is not collected in other regions. Eelpout is commercially fished in Latvia and in the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland fishermen often catch it from ice when hook-fishing smelt in spring time. There are no signals about stock decline in these areas. Eelpout is common also in Estonia and Finland. In Germany it has been considered near being threatened.

Figure 3-26. Catch per unit effort of eelpout in different Swedish fykenet monitoring programs. The assessment period is 1991–2011.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 51

In the HELCOM Red List (HELCOM, 2013c) this species is classified as Near Threatened because of population size reduction. The reasons for the decrease are unknown but since eelpout is a cold water species, increased water temperatures due to changed climate may affect eelpout reproduction and hasten the rate of decline. Reproductive impairment due to pollution may have serious consequences not only for individuals but also for populations. Other perceivable threats may be predation by cormorants and cod and by-catch in fishery. The invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) could also possibly have a negative effect on the eelpout as they overlap in habitat (HELCOM, 2013c). According to data reported by the UoA (see Table 3-8), in 2015 eelpout was the species caught in higher numbers among the secondary species. However, eelpout annual catches (7.5 tonnes) represented just 0.03% of the total UoA catches. No fisheries management measures are considered for this species.

3.4.5.4 Smelt Smelt, a cold-water anadromous fish, has well adapted to the conditions in the brackish Baltic Sea and has formed local populations. The species is common in coastal waters but the most important marine smelt populations are confined to the areas where the water of low temperature and relatively high oxygen content persists year round, in the neighbourhood of large estuaries and lagoons. The abundance of smelt is higher in the northern and eastern Baltic: in the Gulf of Bothnia, eastern Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga, and Curonian Lagoon (see Figure 3-27 ). According to Shpilev et al. (2005) smelt populations of these areas differ in growth rate, maturation, reproduction conditions, abundance and catch dynamics, etc. Smelt reproduction depends on temperature, it starts and finishes earlier in the southern areas than in the north. The growth rate of the fish is higher in the south and decreases towards north.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 52

Figure 3-27 . Main distribution areas of smelt in the Baltic Sea (BB –Bothnian Bay, BS –Bothnian Sea, GoF –Gulf of Finland, GoR –Gulfo of Riga, CL –Curonian Lagoon). Source: (Shpilev, et al., 2005)

The economic importance of smelt is moderate. Usually it is fished on its spawning grounds and as bycatch in fisheries directed to other species. However, in some areas of the Baltic Sea smelt is fished as a traditional item of human food having a circle of consumers established during centuries. At present, a network of coastal fish monitoring areas covering large areas of the Baltic Sea is sampled annually. The network comprises monitoring areas in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. Adjers et al (HELCOM 2006) analysed the results of 22 years of this monitoring programme to describe and elucidate long-term trends in fish populations and fish community development. However, the monitoring methods were not designed to catch pelagic species or small fish, and although some herring, smelts and sprat were caught in significant number during monitoring, but mostly in a random manner, which makes a long-term evaluation of their population development uncertain. No assessments on the status of smelt populations or even abundance indices for this species in the Baltic Sea were found. The UoA reported catches of 0.5 tonnes smelt in 2015 ( Table 3-8), representing <0.01% of the total catches. No fisheries management measures are considered for this species.

3.4.5.5 Lumpfish/lumpsucker

The lumpsucker is distributed and reproducing all over the Baltic Sea. This species is solitary rather than a schooling fish with an epibenthic-pelagic behaviour. It inhabits rocky bottoms but may occur among floating seaweeds.It is targeted in fishery and its roe is highly appreciated. The ICES Baltic International Bottom Trawl Survey (BITS) and also the ICES International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) indicate remarkable declining trends in the last decades (Figure 3-28 ).This has lead HELCOM to classify this species as Near Threatened because of population size reduction (HELCOM 2013).

Figure 3-28. Catch per unit effort (cpue) of lumpsucker in the International Bottom Trawl Survey in Kattegat (ICES SD 21) and in the Baltic International Trawl Survey in the Arkona basin (SD 24) and in the Baltic proper (ICES SD 25–28). Source: (HELCOM, 2013d)

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 53

Fisheries have been identified as the major threat for this species (both recreational and recreational –as target or bycatch species-) (HELCOM, 2013d). No interactions between the UoA and lumpfish were recorded by the client, as expected taking into account that this species does not shows a schooling behavior. BIOR recorded this species in their samplings on board fishing vessels, although only 2 individuals were recorded in a total of 82 samplings along 3 years (see Table 3-11 ). UoA impact is considered negligible.

3.4.6 ETP species According to MSC requirements (SA 3.1.5), the team shall assign ETP species as follows: a. Species that are recognize by national ETP legislation. b. Species listed in binding international agreements given below: ° Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. ° Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), such as the Agreement on the Conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North Sea (ASCOBANS). c. Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). The main Latvian national legislation concerning the protection of biodiversity, including marine biodiversity, are the Law on Specially Protected Nature Territories and the Law on Species and Habitats Conservation. Both laws cover a wide range of regulations and include lists of protected species and habitats, the establishment of marine protected areas as well as general and specifi c rules on the protection and use of protected areas. European Union nature protection legislation includes two directives: the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). These directives are based on the Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats), a binding international legal instrument on the conservation of species and habitats for the EU Member States. These two directives are the the basis of the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, but in addition their annexes include lists of species of special concern that require special conservation efforts. Apart from the global (worldwide) IUCN Red List, the IUCN provides a regional assessment at an European level. The European Red List identifies those species that are theatened with extinction at the European level so that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. The IUCN listings apply only to birds and mammals in the context of the MSC assessment. As seen under section 3.4.3 , different sources of information were analysed in order to elaborate a complete list of species that might be caught by the UoA. The list of species is presented in Table 3-12 and includes 7 fish species. Based on the MSC criteria for ETP species qualification in assessments, potential ETP fish species to consider in the context of

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 54

the Latvian sprat fishery are Atlantic salmon, twaite shad and sea lamprey. Furthermore interactions with harbour porpoise, harbour and grey seals and seabirds are also evaluated. Table 3-16 presents a list of all ETP seabird, marine mammals and fish species that potentially may interact with the Latvian sprat fishery.

Table 3-16. ETP species that potentially may interact with the Latvian sprat fishery . The Habitats Directive annex explanations are: Annex II- Animal and plants species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation; Annex IV- Animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection; Annex V- Animal and plant species of community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures; The Birds Directive Annex explanations are: Annex I: Bird species in danger of extinction, rare, vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat or requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of their habitat, Annex II: Bird species which may be hunted under certain circumstances, Annex III: Bird species which may be traded. The Red Lists categories are: LC- Least Concern; VU- Vulnerable; CR- Critically Endangered

IUCN Scientific Habitats Birds Name European HELCOM Red List name Directive Directive Red List Fish and lamprey species Altantic Salmo salar Annex II* - NA NA Salmon Sea Petromyzon Annex II** - NA NA lamprey marinus Twaite shad Alosa fallax Annex II, V - NA NA Marine Mammals Western Baltic Harbour Phocoena subpopulation (VU); Annex II, IV - VU porpoise phocoena Baltic subpopulation (CR) Southern Baltic Phoca Harbour subpopulation (LC); vitulina Annex II, V - LC Seal Kalmarsund vitulina population (VU) Halichoerus Grey Seal Annex II, V - LC LC grypus Birds Taiga bean Anser Wintering subsp. - Annex II LC goose fabalis fabalis (EN)

Light-bellied Branta VU Wintering subsp. hrota - Annex II brent goose bernicla (NT) Long-tailed Clangula - Annex II LC Wintering (EN) duck hyemalis Red- Gavia throated - Annex I LC Wintering (CR) stellata diver Black- Gavia throated - Annex I VU Wintering (CR) arctica diver

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 55

Velvet Melanitta Breeding (VU); - Annex II LC scoter fusca wintering (EN) Common Melanitta Annex II, - LC Wintering (EN) scoter nigra III Red- Mergus breasted - Annex II LC Wintering (VU) serrator merganser Slavonian Podiceps Breeding (VU); - Annex I LC grebe auritus wintering (NT) Steller´s Polysticta - Annex I LC Wintering (EN) eider stelleri Common Somateria Annex II, Breeding (VU); - LC eider mollissima III wintering (EN) * Only fresh water populations are protected; ** except the Swedish populations

3.4.6.1 Sea Birds As shown in Table 3-16 there are a number of ETP bird species in the Baltic Sea. In HELCOM 2013c, the threats for all endangered seabird species in the Baltic were described and assessed at the species level. The threat of birds being caught as bycatch in the Baltic is strongly linked to the use of gillnets in shallow coastal areas or on shallow offshore grounds, as the fine monofilament nets are nearly invisible to birds and thus they become entangled while diving for food. Several studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea have shown that set net (gillnet) fishery causes the death of tens of thousands of birds every year (see HELCON 2013c and Žydelis et al. (2009) for a comprehensive review). The list of seabirds with high bycatch rates includes several ETP species: the Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus), the tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), the greater scaup, the velvet scoter and the eider are quite often found in gillnet fishing gear. At the southern coast of the Baltic Sea (Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia), the long-tailed duck is the most numerous species caught in gillnets, followed by the black scoter (Melanitta nigra), the velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and the redthroated diver (Gavia stellata). Bycatch appears to be an important problem also for wintering velvet scoters off the Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish coasts. The available studies mainly investigate bird bycatch in near-coastal waters. Information on the bycatch in fishing grounds further offshore is scarce, although it is known that high densities of birds and seasonal high fishing intensity may also overlap in these areas. The total ban of driftnets within the EU in 2008 has probably contributed to reducing bycatch; however, shifting the effort to long-lining in salmon fishing may be having the opposite effect, especially in the southern Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2013c). There are no records of the UoA vessels (or any other vessel fishing sprat) interacting with seabirds. During the site visit, none of the people interviewed (including managers and scientists) considered that the sprat fishery directly impacts seabirds. In general, available information indicates there is no concern for trawl fisheries interacting with seabirds in the Baltic Sea. None of the MSC certified fisheries in the Baltic Sea (see Table 4-1) considered interactions between bottom or midwater trawling and seabirds in their assessments. Based on the above, the assessment team concluded that the Latvian Sprat fishery does not interact with seabirds (ETP or non-ETP species)..

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 56

3.4.6.2 Fish species Out of the three potential ETP fish species found in the area (see Table 3-16 ) only sea lamprey has been recorded in the Latvian sprat fishery (see Table 3-12 ) according to UoA logbooks and BIOR sampling on board.

3.4.6.2.1 Sea lamprey The sea lamprey is an anadromous long distance migrating species. Adults enter freshwater habitats in late winter or spring and migrate upstream to their spawning sites. It is distributed throughout the Baltic but is very rare in most basins, in particular in the northern parts ( Figure 3-29 ). It may have been more common in the past but in the Baltic Proper and the Gulfs it has been very rare at least since the early 1800s. In the ocean, sea lampreys are found from inshore to deep waters, either on rock bottom where they can attach with their sucking disk, or parasitic on their prey. In the northern Baltic Sea it is caught irregularly: in Finland, Russia and Latvia the species is not an annual catch. For example it has been reported only eight times since 1927 in the Russin part of Gulf of Finland (HELCOM, 2013f). A small population with a suspected continuing decline and less than 1,000 individuals in the largest subpopulation lead HELCOM to classify this species as Vulnerable (HELCOM, 2013b). Besides, this species is also included in Annex II of the European Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) in order to ensure protection for core areas of its habitat (under the Natura 2000 network, see section 3.4.1.6 ). This species is considered rare and highly sensitive to human activities according the Helcom (HELCOM, 2013f). However, is not classified as ETP according to MSC criteria (FCR SA3.1.5).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 57

Figure 3-29. Map showing the sub-basins in the HELCOM are where sea lamprey is known to occur regularly. Source: (HELCOM, 2012)

No interactions between the UoA and sea lamprey were recorded by the client. However, BIOR recorded this species within the catch composition in their samplings on board fishing vessels, although only 2 individuals were recorded in a total of 82 samplings over a 3 year period (see Table 3-11 ). The impact by the UoA is considered nelegtible. There are no fisheries targeting this species in the Baltic Sea.

3.4.6.3 Marine Mammals Marine mammals are potentially susceptible to interact with pelagic trawls. In the Baltic Sea, there are 2 seal species included in the annexes II and V of the Habitats Directive (although the grey seal is classified as Least Concern by HELCOM) (see Table 3-16). Another protected species is the harbour porpoise, the most emblematic cetacean in the Baltic Sea. Gislason (2013) finds that overall the risk of bycatch of large mammals is highly unlikely to be significant.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 58

3.4.6.3.1 Harbour porpoise The harbour porpoise is one of the smallest cetacean species and the only year-round resident whale species in the brackish waters of the Baltic Sea. It inhabits temperate and cold coastal and shelf waters throughout the northern hemisphere. In the 19th and early 20th centuries harbour porpoises were widespread throughout the entire Baltic, as far as the northeast part of the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland. Today, their geographical range have been reduced considerably, and currently porpoises are considered to be virtually absent in the north-eastern Baltic ( Figure 3-30 ). Different studies indicate that there are two populations of harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea area, one in the western Baltic Sea encompassing the Kattegat, the Belt Sea, the Sound and the German Baltic and a second one in the proper Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2007f and studies cited herein). Recently, an extensive static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) approach was used for collecting data on population size and spatial and temporal distribution of harbor porpoises in the Baltic (SAMBAH 2016). The results found a clear separation of two population clusters during summer ( Figure 3-30 ). The harbour porpoise population in the Baltic proper has declined dramatically over the past 100 years and there are indications that this population is facing extinction (classified as Critically Endangered (CR C2a(ii)) under the IUCN Red List 2008). The number of mature individuals is estimated to be less than 250 and a continuing decline of at least 25% within one generation is assumed (HELCOM 2007f). The most recent information on abundance of harbor porpoises in the Western Baltic showed a reduction from 28,000 in 1994 to 11,000 individuals in 2005 (this subpopulation is classified as Vulnerable by IUCN and HELCOM). IUCN and HELCOM classifications, however, are based on very uncertain abundance estimates. Results from the most recent acoustic monitoring carried out within the SAMBH project estimated a population of 497 animals (95% CI 80-1,091) in the Baltic proper, and more than 21,390 porpoises (95% CI 13,461-38,024) in the Western Baltic.

(a) August (b) February Figure 3-30 . Porpoise distribution modelled as the probablility of detecting click trains for (a) August and (b) February. Dashed line in (a) indicates the proposed delimitation border between the two summer clusters. Source: SAMBAH 2016

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 59

Porpoises are threatened by a variety of anthropogenic activities and impacts. Among these, bycatch in fisheries is of greatest concern (Berggren 1994, Vinther 1999, Skóra & Kuklik 2003). Gillnets are thought to be responsible for most bycatches, but porpoises are also occasionally taken in trawls (Berggren 1994). Murphy et al. (2010) found indications for a link between higher organochlorine concentrations and lower pregnancy rates in harbour porpoises. Porpoises in the Baltic Sea have been reported to have up to 254% higher mean levels of PCBs than samples from Kattegat and Skagerrak (Berggren et al. 1999, Bruhn et al. 1999). In later years, levels of PCBs in Baltic biota have declined, so the negative impacts of pollution may be reduced in the future. Other threats in the Baltic Marine Area include acoustic disturbances, shipping and prey depletion due to over-fishing. In the EU marine area, harbour porpoises are under strict protection, because they are not only listed in Annex II, but also in Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. Article 12 of the Habitats Directive establishes that Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed on Annex IV. To comply with the provision of Article 12, the EC adopted Regulation 812/2004. This Regulation obliges the use of deterrents (ex. pingers) in specific fisheries to avoid contact with cetaceans (mainly gillnets) and also requires monitoring by observers of incidental catches in specific gears. The species is also part of the ASCOBANS, and the Agreement has specifically focused on the recovery of the proper Baltic Sea population with the enactment of a recovery plan for Baltic Sea, the so called Jastarnia Plan (ASCOBANS 2009), and conservation plans for the Western Baltic, Belt Seas and Kattegat and for the North Sea. They list recommendations and mitigation actions concerning threats to the species and its habitats and state the need for monitoring population trends. The Jastarnia Plan has been reviewed at the 8 th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS in Helsinki between the 30 th august and 1 st September 2016, and the results were issued as the ASCOBANS Resolution 8.3 (ASCOBANS, 2016) which includes a set of actions to be taken. ASCOBANS invites non-party range States (such as Latvia) to implement this Plan fully without delay. The HELCOM Recommendation 17/2 (adopted in 1996 and revised in 2013) recommends that the Goverments of the Contracting Parties to the Convention take action in close cooperation with ASCOBANS and ICES for collection and analysis of additional data on several aspects of the harbor porpoise biology, population and ecology. ASCOBANS has adopted an interim goal of restoring the population of harbor porpoises in the Baltic Sea to at least 80% of its carrying capacity. Berggren et al (2002) incorporated this interim objective into a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) model to estimate an annual “mortality limit” of only one or two harbour porpoises in the surveyed portion of the Baltic Sea

3.4.6.3.2 Harbour Seal Harbour seals occur in all moderately temperate seas of the northern hemisphere. Within the Baltic Sea, harbour seals are very abundant in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Belt Sea area, whereas further east (east of 13ºE) they are restricted to only three small breeding colonies with the Kalmarsund as their easternmost breeding area (Figure 3-31 ). The Kalmarsund population differs genetically from the current Skagerrak/Kattegat and Southwest Baltic populations (Stanley, et al., 1996). It is considered that harbour seal population size and structure within the southern Baltic are still far away from historic abundance and distribution (HELCOM 2013g).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 60

The Kalmarsund subpopulation suffered a dramatic decline in numbers to less than 200 seals in the 1970s but has been slowly increasing more recently. In the 2010 Swedish national assessment, the number of mature individuals was estimated at 425. The area of occupancy is also very restricted, estimated to be less than 20 km2 and the number of locations is low (less than 5). This subpopulation is categorized as Vulnerable (VU) by HELCOM (HELCOM 2013c). In the beginning of the 20th century the population in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Danish Straits exceeded 17,000 but declined to some 2,500 in the 1930s as a consequence of hunting. From the 19th to the 20th century, the population in the western Baltic Proper was about 5 000 compared to ca. 1 000 in 2007 (references cited in HELCOM 2013g). The Skagerrak/Kattegat population has been hit by three mass mortalities caused by epidemics. Despite the past declines and even recent mass mortalities, HELCOM and IUCN categorize these populations as Least Concern (see Table 3-16).

Figure 3-31. Harbour seal occurrence in the Baltic Sea. Source: HELCOM 2013g

3.4.6.3.3 Grey seal Grey seals are found on both sides of the North-Atlantic in temperate and sub-Arctic waters. The actual Baltic Sea population is distinct from the eastern North-Atlantic population (HELCOM 2013h). The Baltic Sea grey seals range widely and no distinct subpopulations

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 61

occur. Most grey seals are found between the Northern Baltic proper and the southern Bothnian Sea ( Figure 3-32 ). Abundance is well known and the Baltic population is monitored annually and has been increasing over the past 30 years and there is no reason to suspect a population decline in the future (HELCOM 2013h). Number of mature individuals exceeds 10,000. This species is categorized as Least Concern both by IUCN and HELCOM, although is listed in Annexes II nd V of the Habitats Directive ( Table 3-16).

Figure 3-32. Grey seal occurrence in the Baltic Sea. Desity grids (N of observations per grid cell) based on GPS tracks. Source: HELCOM 2015, BALSAM Project (http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea- trends/data-maps/biodiversity/seals/)

3.4.7 Habitat Impact The fishery is conducted with trawl designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain) any contact with the sea bottom would jeopardize the integrity of the gear. Therefore, sprat fishing is conducted in the water column, interacting only with the pelagic community. Commonly encountered habitas are defined by MSC Requirements as those preferred by the target species, that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit, and/or make up a reasonable portion of the UoA’s fishing area.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 62

Comparing the geographical distribution of the sprat catches of the Latvian pelagic trawl fleet (see figure 3-3) and the MSFD map of the predominant habitats obtained at the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website (www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu) Figure 3-33 was obtained (with the fishing area contour marked with a black line).

Figure 3-33. European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) and fishing area contour (black line). Source: website (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu)

It can be seen that the fishing area is dominated by soft bottoms. The commonly encountered habitats are shallow and shelf sublittoral mud, shelf sublittoral sand, shelf sublittoral mixed sediment, and shelf sublittoral coarse sediment (according to the MSFD predominant habitat classification).

3.4.8 Ecosystem Impact The following is extracted from Niiranen, 2013 and is a recent summary source describing the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest brackish water ecosystems. It has a semi- enclosed shape with a narrow connection to the North Sea, from where inflows of saline and oxygen rich water intermittently enter the Baltic influencing water salinity, stratification and deep-water oxygen concentration (Leppäranta and Myrberg 2009). The Baltic Sea environmental conditions, e.g., salinity and temperature, have pronounced spatial gradients due to the large North-South climatic gradient, high riverine input and salt-water inflows from the South. The large (1.7 million km2) catchment area has over 85 million inhabitants and large parts of the Baltic Sea suffer from human-induced eutrophication and long-term hypoxia (Zillén and Conley 2010, Conley et al. 2011). Only a handful of species dominate the ecosystem in biomass and abundance, with the consequence that a single or a few species essentially uphold important ecosystem functions. (HELCOM, 2010a; Ojaveer et al., 2010) In addition to the blue mussel and bladderwrack, additional examples of Baltic keystone species are the macrophyte eelgrass and Fucus radicans . Cod (Gadus morhua),

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 63

herring (Clupea harengus membras) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) form approximately 80% of the Central Baltic Sea (CBS) fish biomass and the small pelagic planktivore sprat has dominated the food web since the late 1980s (Casini et al. 2009). Within the fish compartment three species completely dominates: herring, sprat and cod but the relative importance varies between periods. The key elements of the food web in the central Baltic Sea are analysed by Tomzcak et al (2012) based on the general energy flow in the Baltic Proper. They defined the Baltic foodweb as depicted below.

Figure 3-34. The key elements are thus the two pelagic species herring and sprat and the demersal cod. Source: Tomzcak et al (2012)

Simultaneously, the abundances of cod and herring have decreased and are currently relatively low, regardless the recent recovery of the cod stock (Eero et al. 2012). Fishing on these species is intensive and has had a particularly negative effect on the Eastern Baltic cod. The main mesozooplankton groups present are the copepods Acartia spp., Temora longicornis and Pseudocalanus acuspes, all important prey items of sprat, herring and young cod (Möllmann et al. 2000, Möllmann et al. 2004). Climate, nutrient loads and fishing are the main external forces driving the CBS ecosystem (Savchuk and Wulff 2007, Möllmann et al. 2008). Möllmann et al. (2008, 2009) and Casini et al. (2008) describe an ecological regime shift in the CBS at the end of the 1980s. In this shift the ecosystem changed from a cod-dominated into a sprat-dominated state (Casini et al. 2009). Intensive fishing on cod in combination with decreasing cod reproductive volume (RV), i.e, the volume of water where cod eggs can survive (salinity >11psu and oxygen content >2mg l-1, MacKenzie et al. (2000)), resulted in sudden decrease of the cod stock. Meanwhile, sprat was released from the predation pressure by cod. Sprat was further favored by increasing water temperature resulting in sudden increase in sprat biomass.”

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 64

The ecosystem is dynamic and is showing regime shifts at high frequency compared to more stable systems in the Northeast Atlantic. These regime shifts are part a result of human impact and of environmental changes. Recently also warming occurs. It appear highly unlikely that the present fishery is able to disrupt the key elements of the ecosystem structure and functioning.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Regulatory framework As seen in section 3.2.3 (Figure 3-3) the Latvian fleet targeting sprat operates within the Latvian EEZ (SD 28.2 and northern part of SD26). However, the sprat stock in the Baltic is defined as an single for the whole Baltic (SD 22-32). Therefore the sprat stock in the Baltic shall be considered as a straddling stock 8. Baltic fisheries are managed by EU Member States and the Russian Federation. The EU fisheries, including the Latvia Sprat fishery, are regulated under the EU Common Fisheries Policy , while the Russian Federation regulates fisheries within its EEZ under the Russian Fisheries Law. The Parties cooperate on fisheries management under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement of 2009. This agreement set out a set of arrangements on joint management measures, licensing, scientific cooperation and other relevant issues. European fisheries are managed through the European Union Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP started in 1983 and is reviewed every 10 years, with the most recent review coming into force in 1 January 2014 (Regulation (EU) No 1380/20143). This Regulation sets out the strategic aims of the CFP, and includes the application of ecosystem-based management in fisheries implemented, for example, through the introduction of multispecies management plans, banning discards and reducing unwanted bycatches of mammals, birds and untargeted/undersized fish. The CFP is further executed under a number of Regulations covering a wide variety of issues such as monitoring, control and surveillance, fleet structure, overaching technical conservation measures, and TACs, among others. Below other relevant fisheries regulations and recommendations applicable to LFPO sprat fishery are listed (it is not intended to be an exhaustive list): ° Annual Council Regulations fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stock applicable to the Baltic. Through these regulations TACs applicable to Union fishing vessels are set by species and quotas are allocated to the Member States involved in that fishery. Council Regulation 2015/2072 set the TACs and national quotas for 2016. ° Baltic Sea Technical Measures for the conservation of the fishery resources in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound as established in the Council Regulation 2187/2005. Before this regulation anyone wishing to consult all the many different rules applicable to fishing activity in the Baltic had to consult a complex body of European regulations and ISBFC reccomendations. This Regulation sought to summarise all this legislation in a single legislative text, from measures on gears to

8 Straddling stocks: Stock which occurs both within the EEZ and in an area beyond and adjacent to EEZ. Source: MSC Vocabulary. FCR v.2.0.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 65

those on target species, by-catches, minimum landing sizes and geographical and seasonal restrictions. This Regulation have been later amended by other Regulations (landing obligation, multiannual plans established, etc.), but some of the technical measures included in this Regulation are still in place for the whole region. The EC has recently issued a proposal for a new Regulations on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (COM(2016)134) that would repeal Regulation 2187/2005. ° The Landing Obligation (Regulation EU 2015/812). The Regulation 1380/2013 established as one of its objectives the gradual elimination of discards through the introduction of a landing obligation for catches of species subject to catch limits. Certain provisions of existing regulations establishing technical and control measures are contradictory to the landing obligation and oblige fishermen to discard fish, as is the case of the above mentioned Regulation 2187/2005 for the Baltic Sea. In order to remove the incompatibilities and to make landing obligation operational, Regulation 2187/2005 was amended by requiring that all unintended catches of marine organisms of species subject to the landing obligation in the Baltic Sea and caught in excess of catch composition limits be landed and counted against quotas; and by replacing minimum landing sizes for marine organisms of species subject to the landing obligation with minimum conservation reference sizes (also other amendments were made for salmon and trout fisheries but are not relevant here). ° The Multiannual Plan for cod, herring and sprat (Regulation EU 2016/1139). More details on this Regulation are provided under section 3.5.5 . This Regulation repealed a management plan for the cod stocks in place since 2007 (Council Regulation EC 1098/2007). ° General Control Requirements for fisheries and specific control requirements for multiannual plans as set out in Council Regulation (EC) 1224/2009. More details on this Regulation are provided under section 3.5.6 . ° In order to preserve fishery resources and their sustainable exploitation, Regulation 199/2008 establishes a Data Collection Framework for the collection, management and use of fisheries sector data and support for scientific advice, in line with the objectives of the CFP. This Regulation is developed by Commission Regulation 665/2008 and by Decision 2010/93/EU which establishes the contents and methodology to be followed. ° Recommendation on the monitoring and management of the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region (Commission Recommendation EU 2016/688). Provides information on the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain fish species (including herring and sprat) from a certain age, size and geographical region (ICES zone) and in particular as regards their compliance with the maximum level established in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Sprat from SD 22-28 are assumed to be compliant, while sprat larger than 12.5cm from SD 29-32 is suspected to be non-compliant. Other EU environmental legislation and international agreements that are applicable to habitats and species protection, but which are also relevant to fisheries activities are: ° The ambitious Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) came into force on 15 June 2008. This Directive aims to protect more effectively the marine environment across Europe, and requires good environmental status to be achieved by 2020 for several descriptors, including biodiversity (with indicators on species,

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 66

habitat and community level) and the integrity of the sea floor. It is the first EU legislative instrument related to the protection of marine biodiversity, enshrines in a legislative framework the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment, integrating the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable use. ° The Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and fl ora). These Directives (as explained in section 3.4.6 ) are the basis of the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The network is the major EU instrument to fulfi l global commitments of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It is legally enforceable and has strong legal protection. ° The Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, CMS) is an intergovernmental treaty focusing on the protection of migratory species. It has been concluded under the United Nations Environmental Programme (CMS 2003). All Baltic Sea countries, except Russia, are parties in the convention. CMS agreements that have direct relevance in the Baltic Sea area are the Agreement on Conservation of Small Cetaceans in Baltic Sea and in North Sea (ASCOBANS) and the African-Eurasian Migratory Water Bird Agreement (AEWA). These agreements are legally binding treaties which are being executed under Action Plans. For example, three different Recovery Plans for the harbor porpoise have been signed within the ASCOBANS Agreement (North Sea, Western Baltic-Belt Sea- Kattegat, Baltic Sea). The Recovery Plan for Baltic Sea porpoises (known as the Jastarnia Plan) was adopted by the Contracting Parties in 2009 and reviewed in 2016. However, so far Latvia is a non-party range State. ° The Regulation 812/2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans. This Regulation establishes technical measures on the use of acoustic deterring devices (pingers) and also the standards for monitoring systems on incidental catches of cetaceans in European waters, including specific regulations in the Baltic Sea. The EC has recently issued a proposal for a new Regulations on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (COM(2016)134) that would repeal Regulation 812/2004. ° The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, known as the Helsinki Convention . The Contracting Parties are Denmark , Estonia , the European Union , Finland, Germany , Latvia , Lithuania , Poland , Russia and Sweden . The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (known as Helsinki Commission –HELCOM-) is the Governing Body of the Convention.HELCOM was established about four decades ago to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation. HELCOM's vision for the future is a healthy Baltic Sea environment with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable economic and social activities. At a national level, individual Member States are responsible for implementing the CFP and other EU legislation and agreements. EU fisheries legislation is transposed directly to national legislation, while environmental and other agreements are transposed by primary and secondary national legislation, enacted in accordance with the EU legislation. In

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 67

addition, countries can have national conservation legislation that goes beyond the international 38 treaties or the EU Directives. Member States national fisheries administrations are responsible for a range of management and regulatory duties, including: fleet activity management; national quota management; the monitoring and control of all fisheries working within their national jurisdiction; the collection, collation, and communication of key fishery data; and finally undertaking a range of scientific monitoring and development work. Further, fisheries management within 12 NM of its baselines falls under the responsibility of Member States (measures to conserve and manage coastal resources must be at least as stringent as the measures under Union law). In conformity with the EU Pre-accession Agreement, the Latvian fisheries are controlled on the basis of the fishing quota distribution principle that was into force before EU accession. Latvia joined the EU in 2004 and accepted the provisions of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since its entry. Latvian vessels may fish all over the Baltic Sea outside the Russian fishing zone, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland. Based on historical fishing rights, Latvia and Estonia have fishing rights in the Gulf of Riga. The overarching national legal instrument on fisheries is the 1995 ‘Fishing Law’ (12.04.1995), see the following link for the consolidated text: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=34871 . The Fishing Law sets the basis for fisheries legislation in Latvia and institutions responsible for fisheries management and control, as well as rules on fish resources management. Other main Latvian fisheries regulations are listed below: ° Regulations on commercial fishing in the territorial waters and economic zone waters in force since 2007 set out commercial fishing rules, including technical requirements. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=156709 ° Regulations on control of fish landing and fish sales, transport storehouses and production premises in force since 2015 set landing requirements for fishing vessels, including landing declaration and sales note submission requirements. http://likumi.lv/ta/id/273190-zivju-izkrausanas-kontroles-un-zivju-tirdzniecibas-un- transporta-objektu-noliktavu-un-razosanas-telpu-parbaudes-noteikumi ° Regulation on hygiene and freshness and size criteria for the production and placing on the market of fishery products in force sin 2010 lays down common marketing standards (size and freshness categories), as well as hygiene requirements on board vessels and for fish processing enterprises. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=210012 ° Regulation on the lease of water bodies and commercial fishing rights in force since 2009 sets down the lease conditions for public water bodies, and rules on fish resources and management. http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=196472 The LFPO sprat fishery is consistent with EU and national legislation as affirmed in national and European fisheries policies and plans, and the monitoring and evaluation of data returns and management performance.

3.5.2 Institutions involved in the LFPO sprat fishery management

3.5.2.1 Roles and responsibilities The main institutions involved in management of the LFPO sprat fisheries are: Global and European institutions: ° International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) – ICES is a global organization that develops science and advice to support the sustainable use of the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 68

oceans. This institution integrates a network of more than 4000 scientists from over 350 marine institutes in 20 member countries (Latvia included). ICES provides the forum for consolidation of scientific work undertaken by scientists in participating national institutions (through relevant Expert Groups), and the delivery of advice on how best to manage fish stocks. ° Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) of the European Comission - is the Commission department responsible for the implementation of the Common Fisheries policy and of the Integrated Maritime Policy. DG MARE is made up of 6 Directorates dealing with all aspects of both policies, including among others conservation, control, market measures, structural actions and international relations relating to fisheries. ° Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) of the European Comission- the fisheries scientific committee of the European Commission providing advice to the Commission on all aspects of fisheries science and economics. The STECF may set up working groups to examine specific questions on the basis of the terms of reference define. The STECF is the body in charge of compilying and analyzing data from national research institutes (see Figure 3-35 ). ° Baltic Sea Advisory Council (BSAC), former Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC) established in the 2002. The Advisory Councils were created in the previous CFP reform to increase stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management. The BSAC brings together different stakeholders involved in the Baltic fisheries management (fisheries administrations, representatives from the fisheries sector and other interest groups affected by the CFP) from EU Member States. The LFPO os member of the BSAC Executive Committee. ° Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH) . BALTFISH was initiated in 2009 and constitutes (the same as the BSAC) a regional body providing a platform for discussion on important fisheries issues in the Baltic Sea. The BALTFISH forum involves all the eight EU member states bordering the Baltic Sea and functions on two levels: (i) a high-level group (HLG) level consisting of fisheries directors and representatives of the European Commission; (ii) the BALTFISH forum seminar level consisting of officials of the EU Member States and European Commission, as well as representatives from organisations such as BSRAC, ICES and HELCOM. National institutions: ° Fisheries Department of the Ministry of the Agriculture . This is the institution responsible for overall management of the fisheries sector, quota management, sector development, strategies and legislation. The Fisheries Department deals with issues related to fisheries science and restocking of fish resources, fish processing and trading issues, and represents Latvian fisheries interests in the various EU institutions and international organizations (FAO, NAFO, etc.). http://www.zm.gov.lv/en/zivsaimnieciba/statiskas-lapas/fishing- sector?nid=1200#jump ° The State Environmental Service. This institution carries out fishing control in marine waters under Latvian jurisdiction, issues fishing licences, operates a vessel monitoring satellite centre and monitors fish landing at ports. http://www.vvd.gov.lv/eng/about-us/ ° Latvia’s Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment (BIOR) is responsible for the scientific assessment of fish stock, and for analysing biological

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 69

and fishing data on catch levels for key commercial species. BIOR undertakes specific research on fish resources, and participates in internationally coordinated surveys, provides scientific background for the protection and rational use of fish resources in Latvian waters, and ensures implementation of the fisheries data collection within the DCF. It is also responsible for analysing the sector’s economic situation, and for data collection. ° Latvian Fishermen`s Association (LFA) and Latvian Fishermen’s Producer Organization (LFPO) . The LFA was created in 1996 for representing the interests of 22 Latvian fishing companies targeting cod and pelagic species. In 2004, 13 of those 22 fishing companies decided to further create a Producer’s Organization, the LFPO. ° At the national level the Fishing Law provides for the Fishery Advisory Council (FAC) , where government authorities regularly consult with fishermen organizations and other stakeholders (BIOR, NGOs) on fisheries regulations. It is an advisory body comprising between 15 and 23 members (it is not a fixed composition). FAC meetings are held by the Ministry 3-4 times a year, depending on the issues to deal with. The LFA has 3 votes on the FAC, and LFPO has 1 vote. All of these institutions have well established protocols covering their purpose, roles, operation, representation, consultation, and decision-making process, as well as for communicating dissemination of policy, decisions and other information. Their roles are well understood and the interaction between them works efectively.

(i) -(viii)

Figure 3-35. Work flow of the STECF advice to the Comission. The blue circles surrounding are for the different steps: (i) Commission request; (ii) Terms of reference; (iii) Selection of experts; (iv) Expert Working Group meeting; (v) Data analysis; (vi) Finalisation of the report; (vii) discussion by the STECF; (viii) STECF opinion and public report. Source: www.stecf.jrc.es.europa.eu

3.5.2.2 Consultation and dispute-resolution mechanisms Extensive consultative processes are in place at national (FAC) and European levels to debate policy, plans and management, and recent years have seen the introduction of more formal procedures to incorporate a wider stakeholder community within such consultations (mainly through the Advisory Councils such as the BSAC, and other forum such as BALTFISH). All member states have signed up to CFP, and are bound by European legislation. Disputes between Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 70

Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through relevant primary and secondary legislation. Formal procedures apply for the resolution of disputes through the national court systems. Ultimately, any European citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. This is a system that is widely known and has been used when considered necessary.

3.5.3 Fishing rights and opportunites: mechanisms for allocation The European Council establishes TACs for the most important commercial species through annual Regulation. This TAC is based on ICES advice, and allocated in quotas between the Member States targeting those species. The quota allocation is made according to the “Relative Stability” allocation key established at the time of the foundation of the CFP. The commercial species managed through TACs in the Baltic Sea are: sprat, atlantic salmon, plaice, cod, and herring. The Fisheries Department splits first the Latvian quotas between off shore and coastal fisheries, with off-shore companies retaining most of it. The UoA is comprised exclusively of off-shore companies. Off-shore quotas are allocated to companies on a 5-year leasehold basis with annual agreements on the exact quota allocation and lease fee. The companies are entitled to decide themselves which vessels to use, and have to pay for use of a fishing allocation (the fee for fishing rights lease). The allocation is based on historic records of quota utilization and tends to be stable. However, companies are compelled to make use of at least 80% of their quota, otherwise they would lose part of it for the next year. Quotas may be transferred between fishing companies on a temporary (annual) basis. At the end of the year unused coastal fisheries herring quota in the Gulf of Riga may be reallocated to the offshore companies. In 2016 there were a total of 40 off-shore companies in Latvia holding quotas for different species and areas as shown in Table 3-5. A total of 70 of vessels hold licences for the different offshore fisheries. There are 22 off-shore companies entitled to catch sprat, half of those are included in the UoA (11 companies comprising a fleet of 22 vessels).

3.5.4 Scientific monitoring of the sprat fishery The monitoring of the Latvian includes data collection on vessels (vessel register), fleet activity (days at sea, VMS), landings, catches (through observers see below), and operating economics (costs and earnings surveys). BIOR is responsible for the implementation of the Latvian National Programme for the collection of data in the fisheries sector. This contributes to the EC DCF which evaluates the fisheries sector. For establishing the monitoring plan all Latvian fisheries are divided in metiers according to information on fishing gear and landings composition from the logbooks. The sprat fishery in sampled both on-board and on-shore. The sampling data is submitted to FishFrame database. The data collected on sprat, herring and cod fisheries are prepared by the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). The collected biological parameters from the chosen units (fishing vessels) contain enough information to refer it to quarterly catches on certain fishing ground of the whole metier. The selection of the vessels for performing the on board samplings is made on the basis of open procurement procedure in which fishing firms are invited to deliver technical assistance for on-board sampling of the commercial fishery. The selection of the firms which participate in the procurement procedure is performed on the base of the lowest offered price. The price

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 71

of the service includes accommodation services for the observer including feeding, provision of the working place, ensuring the sampling of the catches and assistance in the recording of the biological parameters. The scientists on board (2 per fishing trip) record catch composition, and sample length and age of the target species. In 2015 a total of 10 sampled fishing trips at sea were performed in the sprat fishery. However, with the implementation of new data collection programme this sampling procedure will change in order to accommodate to the EU requirements on random samplings. Although is still under discussion, an agreement between BIOR and Fishers’ Assocations is expected to be signed, so vessels can be randomly selected for sampling. This method is expected to be in place for 2017.

3.5.5 Specific objectives for the fishery: the new management plan The CFP obligues to apply precautionary approach to fisheries management, ensuring that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Furthermore, the CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimized. The CFP aims to gradually eliminate discards, promote the best use of unwanted catches, and provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities, among other measures. The EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) also commits Members States to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, such as the CFP, in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach, in order to meet the following targets by 2020. In Annex I provides qualitive descriptors for determining good environmental status, among them we list the following as relevant for fisheries: ° Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within safe biological limits, exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; ° All elements of the marine food web must occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long ‐term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity; ° Biological diversity must be maintained and the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; and ° Sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structure and functions of the ecosystems. Previously to the adoption of the new management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic, the client fishery had no specific objectives although TACs and quotas for the fishery has been set according to ICES advice based on both precautionary and MSY approaches, and therefore there are implicit objectives within this framework for achieving the objectives laid out within the CFP. Sprat TAC for 2016 was still adopted following this method. However, in July 2016 a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (Regulation 2016/1139) entry into force. This Plan was adopted by the European Comisison in view of the strong influence that biological interactions and environmental

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 72

effects have on the Baltic stocks of cod, herring and sprat. In 2015 ICES advised the implementation of a spatial management plan for the clupeid stocks in Subdivisions 25-26 in order to help improving cod condition. The Commission considered that incorporate all relevant stocks into a single management plan would be a desirable first step towards an adaptive fisheries management in the Region consistent with the ecosystem approach to fisheries laid out within the CFP. In its Article 3 the Regulation establishes that the Plan shall contribute to the achievement of objectives laid out within the CFP by applying precautionary approach, ensuring exploitation levels are appropriate to MSY, and contributing by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches. Also, establishes that the Plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in a coherent manner with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC), in particular ensuring that the first descriptor mentioned above is fulfilled, and also contributing to the fulfilment of the all the others. In order to achieve these objectives, the Plan sets out ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) for most of the cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (with the exception of the EBC and the Bothnian Bay herring). The target values to be used for fixing fishing opportunities for a stock will depend on both intra- and inter-species stock dynamics. Besides, the Plan determines that fishing opportunities shall in any event be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5 % probability of the SSB falling below Blim. Among other technical measures, the plan also establishes a seasonal closure (1 st May – 31 st October) in 3 areas (see Figure 3-36 ).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 73

Figure 3-36. Marked in blue the areas closed for fishing from 1 May to 31 October according to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139

The results of the Plan will be reviewed by July 2019 and every five years thereafter, although provision was made to report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself. Besides, in the case the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges or conservation reference points set out in the Regulation no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. Articles 3 (Objectives), 4 (Targets) and 5 (Conservation Reference Points) are particularly crucial for the ongoing management of the Baltic sprat, cod and herring stocks and are quoted below: Article 3: Objectives 1.The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 74

2.The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies. 3.The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC. In particular the plan shall aim to: (a) ensure that the conditions described in descriptor 3 contained in Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC are fulfilled; and (b) contribute to the fulfilment of other relevant descriptors contained in Annex I to that Directive in proportion to the role played by fisheries in their fulfilment. 4.Measures under the plan shall be taken in accordance with the best available scientific advice. Article 4: Targets 1.The target fishing mortality shall be achieved as soon as possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 for the stocks concerned, and it shall be maintained thereafter within the ranges set out in Annex I and in line with the objectives laid down in Article 3(1). 2.In accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, fishing opportunities shall be fixed in accordance with the objectives and targets of the plan and shall comply with the target fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column A, to this Regulation. 3.Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, fishing opportunities may be fixed at levels corresponding to lower levels of fishing mortality than those set out in Annex I, column A. 4.Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, fishing opportunities for a stock may be fixed in accordance with the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column B, provided that the stock concerned is above the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point set out in Annex II, column A: (a) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 3 in the case of mixed fisheries; (b) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics; or (c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20 %. The application of this paragraph shall be explained by a reference to one or more of the conditions set out in points (a) to (c) of the first subparagraph. 5.Where, according to scientific advice, the MSY exploitation rate is achieved for the stock concerned by 2020, fishing opportunities for that stock may be fixed in accordance with paragraph 4 thereafter. 6.Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan,

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 75

the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. 7.Fishing opportunities shall in any event be fixed in such a way as to ensure that there is less than a 5 % probability of the spawning stock biomass falling below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point (Blim) set out in particular in Annex II, column B. Article 5: Conservation Reference Points 1.The conservation reference points expressed as minimum and limit spawning stock biomass levels that are to be applied in order to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks concerned are set out in Annex II. 15.7.2016 L 191/6 Official Journal of the European Union EN 2.When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column A, to this Regulation, all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, to achieve such levels, fishing opportunities for the stock concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I, column B, to this Regulation, taking into account the decrease in biomass of that stock. 3.When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column B, to this Regulation, further remedial measures shall be taken to ensure the rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY, which may include, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, suspending the targeted fishery for the stock concerned and the adequate reduction of fishing opportunities. 4.Remedial measures referred to in this Article may include: (a) Commission measures in case of a serious threat to marine biological resources in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) Member State emergency measures in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (c) measures pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of this Regulation. 5.The choice of measures referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with the nature, seriousness, duration and repetition of the situation where the spawning stock biomass is below the levels referred to in paragraph 1. 6.Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 76

3.5.6 Control, enforcement, and compliance Fisheries rules and control systems are agreed at EU level, but implemented and carried out by the national authorities and inspectors of EU Member States. To enforce the EU's Common Fisheries Policy rules, there is a European control system in place, designed to ensure that only the allowed quantities of fish are caught, to collect the necessary data for managing fishing opportunities, and to ensure the rules are applied to fishermen across the EU in the same manner. The system is set out in the EU's Control Regulation which entered into force on 1 January 2010 and which thoroughly modernised the EU's approach to fisheries control. This Regulation provides for a series of instruments to assist Member States in implementing the agreed rules, including system auditing and action plans. Data is shared between the Member States of the European Union. Elements of Member State compliance with EC Regulations are captured in the annual EC fisheries compliance scoreboard 9. The recently issued multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic (Regulation 2016/1139) includes some specific requirements for MCS in the case of the sprat and herring fisheries. Below are listed tow of the main requirements affecting the LFPO sprat fishery in terms of inspection: ° Prior notification : Vessels of an overall length of 8 meters or more retaining on board ate least 300 kg of cod or 2 tonnes of pelagic stocks are obligued to send a notification at least 1 hour before the estimated time of arrival at port (to allow inspection). ° Margin of tolerance in the logbook : for catches which are landed unsorted (e.g. sprat and herring) the permitted margin of tolerance in estimates recorded in the fishing logbook of the quantities in kilograms of fish retained on board shall be 10 % of the total quantity retained on board. The activities of the Latvian off-shore cod fishing fleet is comprehensively monitored by the State Environmental Service. In July 2013 The EU adopted an Action Plan to reinforce the control system, ensuring that Latvia sets up an effective administrative structure, with appropriate IT systems and enough resources. The Action Plan was designed jointly with the Latvian authorities following the results of the Comission’s audits. Within this Action Plan a risk-based frameworks was developed and implemented, using the following criteria: gear type, first buyer, first buyer usage of product, and penalty points. The risk assessment team, made up of six experts and a head of the Control Division, is in charge of risk assessment and produces an updated monthly list of vessels graded by risk level. The point system for infringements is being applied and accounted for in the risk assessment. The EU recognized this Action Plan was fully implemented by the end of 2014 (ahead of schedule) (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/latvia-ahead-schedule-improving-fisheries-control_en ). According to the Latvian Administrative Penalty Code in case of violation of the rules of fishing in the territorial waters, the economic zone waters or in international waters legal persons can be fined from 140 € up to 4,300 € (depending on the severity of the infriggement). Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to one year can be applied. In case of repeated violation of fishing regulations during the year legal persons can be fined from 700 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and

9 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 77

suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. For fishing without authorization, in prohibited place, or with prohibited gear, legal persons can be fined from 1,400 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. Inspections in the sprat fishery are focused in controlling that the quota allocated to each company is not exceeded, and in verifying total landings and sprat/herring estimates. Inspections are performed both on shore and at sea. The client recognized that three penalties were issued to their members in 2015, all of them were between 140 € and 700 € (they were shown to the assessment team during the visit). The reasons for imposing the fines were non-compliance with the prior notification requirement and for exceeding the permited margin tolerance in sprat/herrimg estimates recorded in the logbook. The staff from the Ventspils Regional Environmental Board interviewed during the site visit confirmed that they imposed four fines (3 of 140 €, 1 of 700€). Despite these sanctions, compliance of the LFPO fleet is consider to be high by all the stakeholders interviewed by the assessment team during the site visit, and no concerns were raised.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 78

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment Table 4-1 presents all Baltic Sea based fisheries that are MSC certified or engaged in a certification process in 2016. Table 4-1. Other MSC certified (or in assessment) fisheries in the Baltic Sea in 2016 (source: MSC) Location within Fishery MSC Status Fishing Methods Baltic Sea Western Baltic spring spawning Certified since April 2015 Pelagic trawl ICES SD 22-24 herring DFPO, DPPO and SPFPO Skagerrak, Kattegat Skagerrak, Trawl and purse Certified since October 2016 and Western Baltic Kattegat and seine (ICES SD 22-24) Western Baltic Herring Fishery Gillnets; Bottom LFA Latvia Trawl Certified since July 2015 Trawl; Midwater ICES SD 25-32 Eastern Baltic Cod Suspended since December 2015 Trawl DFPO Denmark Certified since April 2011 Otter trawl; ICES SD 25-32 Eastern Baltic cod Suspended since December 2015 Setnets; Longline Seine nets; Germany Eastern Certified since August 2011 Bottom trawl; ICES 25-32 Baltic cod Suspended since December 2015 Midwater trawl Setnets; Poland Eastern Certified since January 2015 Longlines; Bottom ICES 25-32 Baltic Cod Suspended since December 2015 trawl; Midwater trawl Gillnets and seine DFPO Kattegat In assessment (started on March nets; Danish and Baltic plaice 2015) seines; Bottom trawls None of the fisheries shown in the table above include sprat in their UoAs, and the two herring fisheries are restricted to the western Baltic Sea (ICES SD 22-24). The only fisheries happening in the eastern Baltic (ICES SD 25-32) are those targeting cod, which are suspended since 2015 as a result of the 2015 ICES benchmark assessment on that cod stock. Therefore, there is no need to conduct harmonization on P1 or P2. However, as there are other MSC certified and under assessment European managed fisheries in the area, harmonization will be considered for the Governance & Policy Performance Indicators (PIs 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). The 1 st of February 2017 (less than two weeks before the publication of the PCDR of this fishery) it was announced that the Finlad Baltic herring and sprat fishery was also entering into the MSC assessment process. The CAB in charge of its assessment contacted BV to harmonize the interpretation and scoring of PI 1.2.1 SI (a) in accordance Technical Oversight nº26912 raised by MSC, and also with the following MSC answer: “While not explicitly cited, the MSC intent for key LTL target stocks scored under PI1.2.1 scoring issue (a) should be evaluated against management objectives in PI1.1.1A at the SG 80 level and

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 79

not PI1.1.1 SG 80” . After and exchange of emails, a final rationale and score was agreed for this SI and the rationale given in the PCDR of the LFPO sprat fishery was modified.

4.2 Previous assessments This fishery has not been previously assessed or even pre-assessed. However, part of the assessed fleet (11 vessels belonging to 6 different companies) is included in the UoC of the ‘LFA Latvia trawl and gillnets Eastern Baltic Cod Fishery’, certified on the 9 th of July 2015 and suspended later on that year (17 th December) because the results of the 2015 ICES benchmark assessment on the eastern baltic cod stock forced to re-score P1 below 80. The suspension affected the other certified cod fisheries targeting the same stock. The Latvian Fishermen`s Association (LFA) was created in 1996 and comprises 22 Latvian fishing companies. In 2004, 13 of those 22 fishing companies decided to further create a Producer’s Organization, the LFPO. As mentioned above, 11 fishing vessels belonging to 6 companies are included both in the certified LFA cod fishery and the assessed LFPO sprat fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The fishery was assessed against Version 2.0 of the MSC Certification Requirements (1st October 2014), using the Default Assessment Tree. This report was elaborated using the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0, issued by MSC on the 8 th October 2014.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visit BV contacted contacted with the most relevant stakholders in order to elaborate a comprehensive agenda for the site visit. The visit took place between the 20 th and 22 nd of June 2016 in Riga and Ventspils and included interviews with different stakeholders (see Table 4-2) and activities such as visiting the LFPO’s grading facility, 3 fishing vessels (Glenrose, Stella and Ulrika), and the offices of one of the companies (SIA Vergi) at the Ventspils harbor. These inspections allowed the team to collect information on different details of the fishing operations at sea (sampling, handling, storing, logbook records), offloading, inspections at port, grading, selling (sales notes, invoices), transport and processing of the catches. The 4 members of the assessment team (Steve Devitt, Hans Lassen, Sarmite Zoltnere and José Ríos) took part in the site visit.

4.4.2 Consultations Table below details all the people interviewed during the site visit. Table 4-2. Details of the interviews maintained during the site visit Date Location Name Position LFPO’s Viesturs Ulis Project manager 20/06 premises In ārijs Voits Chairman Board LFPO (RIGA) Ministry Janis Laguns Fisheries Department Agriculture Atis Rektins

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 80

premises Santa Jamone Normunds Riekstins Head of Fish Resources Research Dept. at Georgs Kornilovs BIOR BIOR premises Researcher at BIOR and Faculty of Biology Ivars Putnis (University of Latvia) Viktors Osipovs SIA ‘GRIVA’ representative Andrejs Rozefelds SIA ‘GAISMA AR’ representative Ilmars Lielmanis SIA ‘VARITA’ & SIA ‘A.I UN KO’ representative Reinholds Mi ķelsons SIA ‘LICIS 93’ representative Kaspars Udris SIA ‘LICIS 93’ tech.director LFPO’s Yuris Gitusons SIA ‘GRIFS’ representative premises Aleksandrs Blohins SIA ‘BRADAVA’ & ‘SIA 5B’ representative 21/06 Oleg Falievics SIA ‘VERGI’ representative (VENTSPILS) Ingus Ogolins f/v Ulrika’s skipper (SIA ‘VERGI’) Valdis Muilnions f/v Stella’s mechanic (SIA ‘VERGI’) Vadims Ceplajevs SIA ‘NORD STAR FISHER’ representative Aldis Gr īnvalds SIA ‘BRIZE’ representative Regional Environme Regional Environmental Board (State Daina Naumora ntal Board Environmental Service) premises Elvijs Ziemelis LFPO’s 22/06 In ārijs Voits Chairman Board LFPO (RIGA) premises A single written submission was received during consultation period following the the announcement of the fishery entering the assessmen process. This contribution was signed by WWF Baltic Sea and is included in Appendix 3 together with the BV response. After the publication of the PCDR only one contribution from the Fisheries Department under the Ministry of Agriculture of Latvia was received. This contribution and the BV response is attached in Appendix 3.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Email was used for all communications with stakeholders in relation to the assessment process, along with public announcements via the MSC website. BV elaborated a list of stakeholders with potential interested in the assessed fishery. This list included managers and other relevant national agencies, scientists, environmental NGOs, fishermen and fishing companies (including non LFPO members) and producer’s representatives. A total of 52 contacts were included in the mailing list. This list was elaborated by BV based on previous assessments performed in the country and agreed with the team members. Scoring was performed according to the procedure established in Certification Requirement 7.10 (MSC FCR v2.0).The assessment team held three scoring meetings by conference call along November and December 2016. According to MSC guidance, a list of the different scoring elements assessed is presented in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Scoring elements assessed by the team. Component Scoring elements Main/ Not main Data -deficient or not

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 81

Primary Herring (Clupea harengus) Main Not data deficient Secondary Cod (Gadus morhua) Not main Not data deficient Secondary Flounder (Platichthys flesus) Not main Not data deficient Secondary Eelpout (Zoarces viviparous) Not main Not data deficient Secondary Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus ) Not main Not data deficient Secondary Lumpfish/Lumpsucker (Cyclopterus Not main Not data deficient lumpus ) ETP Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) - Not data deficient ETP Harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) - Not data deficient ETP Harbour seal ( Phoca vitulina vitulina ) - Not data deficient ETP Grey seal ( Halichoerus grypus ) - Not data deficient

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 82

5 Traceability

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

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

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

‹ Obligation of the VMS. ‹ Accurate reporting: logbooks and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross- checked). ‹ Special rules for entry into or exit from specific areas. ‹ Use of Designated ports. ‹ Completion and submission of a landing declaration ‹ Prohibition of transiting and transhipping. ‹ Obligation that all fisheries products are first marketed or registered at an auction centre or to registered buyers or to producer organisations. In the case of the assessed fishery there is no auction, but the product is sold to registered buyers and sent to their registered grading sites listed in Table 5-2). ‹ Verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics. ‹ Reporting prior to landing with limited tolerance.

The following explanation summarizes the process carried out by the fleet under assessment.

- Upon haulback, the codend is emptied directly to the vessel hold and is stored in the tubs. After every haul, the skipper estimates the species composition and weight and writes the estimated catch composition in the electronic logbook. - The skipper register the information of their fishing activity in the electronic logbook, including species, estimated catch (kg), ICES area, etc. They send the information to the control unit at least 2h before arriving to port. Once the vessel arrives port, it is inspected (if selected by the State Environmental Board) and the fish is offloaded and weighed, the skipper introduces the confirmed weights in the logbook and closes the fishing trip and sends the landing declaration.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 83

After offloading, there are 2 options: i) LFPO is responsible of the transportation in trucks to the grading and processing facilities owned by the buyer; or, ii) LFPO is in charge of the grading at their facilities at the Ventspils harbor. In this case grading falls under the responsibility of the LFPO.

5.2.2 Risks assessment of the fishery traceability system Table 5-1 provides a default list of traceability factors prepared by MSC that may lead to risks of non-certified fish being mixed with certified fish prior to entering CoC. The CAB analyses the risk associated to each factor for the assessed fishery and, if necessary, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place is given. Table 5-1. Traceability Factors within the Fishery: Traceability Factor Risk Factor and Mitigation Measures Potential for non -certified gear /s to be In Latvia sprat fishery, quota is only issued for trawlers. used within the fishery Further, Latvian regulations do not allow the pelagic trawlers to alternate different types of fishing gears during fishing trips, and technical measures of the gear are well established. Therefore, the CAB found no risk associated to this traceability factor. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish The assessed fleet can also operate in the GoR (ICES SD outside the UoC or in different 28-1), and there is a potential risk of assessed vessels geographical areas (on the same trips or fishing outside of the UoC geographical area in different trips) different trips . However, the Latvian Cabinet Regulation No 296 of 2 May, 2007 established the regulations on commercial fishing in territorial waters and economic zone waters which requires the fishing area to be recorded in different documents (logbook, landing declaration and sales note) on a mandatory basis, so it can be easily traced back. Therefore, the CAB considers there is no risk of mixing non-certified fish with certified fish prior to entering the CoC. Potential for vessels outsid e of the UoC As indicated in section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen or client group fishing the same stock de la referencia. there are other Latvian vessels not included in the UoC fishing the same stock and landing in the same ports . However, the vessel name can be easily traced back as it is recorded on a mandatory basis in different documents (logbook, landing declaration, sales note). Thefore, the CAB considers that there is no risk of mixing non-certified fish with certified fish prior to entering the CoC Risks of mixing between certified and non- No at-sea processing takes place in this fishery. All the certified catch during storage, transport, sprat + IPI catches (herring) are landed chilled as whole or handling activities (including transport fish. There is no risk associated with this factor at sea. at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction) When fish is offloaded it is stored in labelled (vessel names, landing dates) tubs for its transportation to the grading and processing facilities owned by the buyers or to the grading facility owned by the LFPO. Transportation falls under the responsibility of the LFPO and is done in tubs. For each batch, a sales note is filled in by the LFPO and the buyer as explained in section 5.2.1. The vessel logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes and identified tubs provide the necessary information for tracking the fish back to the origin before processing and prior to entering the CoC.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 84

Risks of mixing between certified and non- Most of the time grading happens at the buyers facilities certified catch during processing and therefore there is no processing on land before activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent CoC . subsequent CoC) However, the LFPO has a small grading facility at the Ventspills harbor, and LFPO members have different grading facilities (listed in Table 5-2). In this case, grading happens before subsequent CoC and prior to sale to customer (i.e. prior to change of ownership). However, LFPO can grade catches from both the UoC as well as the non-certified GoR herring fishery. There is some risk of mixture with non-certified catch before subsequent CoC . There is no processing at sea, and therefore no associated risk. Risks of mixing between certified and non- Transhipment at sea is not allowed in Latvia . certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between The CAB did not identify any other risk related to fish from the UoC and fish from outside this traceability different to those stated above. unit before subsequent CoC is required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Only sprat and inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) herring (see Section 5.4 below) caught by trawl by the vessels within the UoC (Section 3.1) shall be eligible to enter the chain of custody. IPI herring shall only be eligible to be sold with sprat as long as herring is less than 15% by weight of the total combined catches of sprat and herring, allowing the candidate fishery to fulfil FCR 7.4.13.1 (c): “The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA” . Chain of Custody should commence following offload prior to grading at either the LFPO grading facility in Ventspils or at any of the member grading facilities listed below. Table 5-2. Grading sites not included in the certicate Fish ing company Addresses of Grading facilities SIA “GAISMA AR” Port Ventspils, Enkuru street 6A, Latvia. SIA “HANTERS” Liepaja, Vanes street 21A, Latvia. Port Skulte, Skultes street 5A, Zvejniekciems, Saulkrastu parish, SIA “A.I. UN KO” Saulkrastu region, Latvia. ‘Freezing complex Muiza’, Ugale, Ugales parish, Ventspils region, SIA “BRADAVA” Latvia. ‘Freezing complex Muiza’, Ugale, Ugales parish, Ventspils region, SIA “5B” Latvia. SIA “Z/K GRIFS” Port Ventspils, Enkuru street 6A, Latvia. ‘Freezing complex Muiza’, Ugale, Ugales parish, Ventspils region, SIA “UNDA” Latvia. SIA “VERGI” Port Ventspils, Sarkanmuizas dambis 29 B, Latvia. SIA “ERVILS” Port Liepaja, Muitas street 6/8, Latvia. SIA “GRIVA” Ports Ventspils, Enkuru street 6A, Latvia. SIA “LICIS - 93” Port Roja, Enkuru street 6A, Latvia.

Eligible landing points Two habours: Ventspils receives about 80% of the UoA sprat landings, while the other 20% happen in Liepaja.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 85

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody As explained under Section 3.1.1 herring is caught coincidently in the Latvian Baltic Sea Sprat fishery and although the catch composition of the fishery is estimated by sampling and verified by inspectors, and the stocks of these species are assessed separately by ICES, they must be considered as IPI catches because both species are look very similar (see Figure 5-1) and there is no physical separation of both species (catches will only be graded and separated by size before processing, not ensuring a complete segregation by species). Therefore, herring catches have to be considered as IPI according to FCR 7.4.13.1 (b): “When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods”.

Figure 5-1. On the left sprat (source: www.fooduniversity.com ), on the right herring (source: www.sharkseafoods.com ) As shown in tables Table 3-2 and Table 3-8 and discussed in section 3.1.1.1 the proportion of herring bycatches is maintained well below the 15% of the combined catches of sprat and herring both when considering the whole Latvian fleet and the UoA fleet. Further, the Latvian fishery specific regulation for 2016 establishes a limit of 14,95% herring bycatch (% of the total combined weights of sprat and herring catches). Therefore, the sprat fishery happening in ICES SD 26, 27, 28-2, 29 and 32 does not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of sprat and herring, allowing the candidate fishery to fulfil FCR 7.4.13.1 (c): “The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA”. Therefore, the fish or fish products from the fishery are considered as IPI catches and allowed to enter into the CoC subject to Annex PA requirements. Annex PA requires that IPI are likely to be above biologically based limits, or if below the limits are measures in place that are expected to make sure that ALL fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of IPI stocks (PA4.2.1). The herring stock in ICES SD 25-29 and 32 is assessed annually by ICES and the fishery is managed by the European Commission. The herring stock status and measures in place are presented and discussed in section 3.4.4.1 , as a result it can be concluded that the IPI herring stock is above biologically based limits and can be considered eligible to enter further certified CoC. However, as indicated in PA4.1.1 the ecolabel is only permitted for use on these catches for a maximum of one certification period. Further, as established in PA3.1 the CAB has included a reccomendation to promote the future P1 assessment of the IPI stock, see Section 6.4 .

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 86

6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Final Principle Scores

Principle Score

Principle 1 – Target Species 96,7

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 92

Principle 3 – Management System 91,3

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores

Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Score

1.1.1 Stock status 100 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 75

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 90 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 95 Management 1.2.3Information & monitoring 100

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95

2.1.1 Outcome 100

Primary species 2.1.2Management strategy 100

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 100

2.2.1 Outcome 95

Secondary species 2.2.2Management strategy 85

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 85

2.3.1 Outcome 85

Two ETP species 2.3.2Management strategy 80

2.3.3 Information strategy 80

2.4.1 Outcome 100

Habitats 2.4.2Management strategy 90

2.4.3 Information 85

2.5.1 Outcome 100

Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 95

2.5.3 Information 100

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 100

Governance and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85

3.1.3Long term objectives 100

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 100

3.2.2Decision making processes 85 Fishery specific management system 3.2.3Compliance & enforcement 85

3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 80

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 87

6.3 Summary of Conditions No conditions have been set.

6.4 Recommendations Bureau Veritas notes that this fishery includes an IPI species which is evaluated appropriately within this report. As per requirements of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements,Version 2.0, as the CAB of record, Bureau Veritas informs the client of the following requirements relative to IPI species and MSC requirements for IPI species at the time of e-Assessment, as described in MSC FCR version 2.0 Clauses PA3 and PA6. PA3.1 Where there are IPI stocks within the scope of certification, the CAB may make recommendations to promote the future Principle 1 assessment of the IPI stock(s), or to promote the development of techniques to effectively separate catches of currently IPI stock(s). PA6.1 IPI stocks are only eligible for the period of one certificate. For continued certification CABs shall inform clients of the following options: PA6.1.1Certify all IPI Stocks against Principle 1 at re-assessment; PA6.1.2 Develop techniques to effectively separate catches of currently IPI stock(s), from target stocks so the ISBF scope criteria are no longer met; or PA6.1.3 Develop measures to reduce the proportion of IPI stocks so as to be able to submit a variation request to the requirements for IPI stocks (7.4.14.2). PA6.2 The CAB shall conduct an assessment of remaining IPI stock(s) against Principle 1 at re-assessment.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement Both the assessment team and Bureau Veritas decision making entity concluded that the Pelagic Trawl Sprat fishery complies with MSC Principles and Criteria. Therefore, the determination reached is that the fishery should be certified according to the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable as set out by MSC .

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 88

7 References

7.1 Paper, Reports, and Proceedings Adolf, S., & Lilover, M. (2012). The Regime Shift in the Baltic Sea area – caused by the change of the NAO sign? . CONFERENCE PAPER · JANUARY 2012 DOI: 10.1109/BALTIC.2012.6249164 . Alheit, J., Moellmann, C., Dutz, J., Kornilovs, G., Loewe, P., Mohrholz, V., & Wasmund, N. (2005). Synchronous ecological regime shifts in the central Baltic and the North Sea in the late 1980s . ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 1205-1215 (2005) doi:10.1016 . Aro, E. (1989). A review of fish migration patterns in the Baltic. . Rap. Proc.-verb. Ré. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, 190: 72–96 . BalticSTERN. (2013). State of the Baltic Sea. Background paper. Havs-och vattenmyndighetens rappor 2013:4. Berggren, P., Wade, P., Carlström, J., & Read, A. (2002). Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises in the Baltic region. Biol Conserv 103:313–322 . Bergströma, U., Olssona, J., Casinib, M., Erikssonc, B., Fredrikssona, R., Wennhagea, H., & Appelberga, M. (2015). Stickleback increase in the Baltic Sea – A thorny issue for coastal predatory fish. . Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Volume 163, Part B, 20 . Börjesson, P., Berggren, P., & Ganning, B. (2003). Diet of the har- bour porpoise in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas: accounting for individual variation and sample size. Mar Mamm Sci 19:38−58. Byström, P., Bergström, U., Hjälten, A., Ståhl, S., Jonsson, D., & Olsson, J. (2015). Declining coastal piscivore populations in the Baltic Sea: Where and when do sticklebacks matter? . AMBIO 2015, 44(Suppl. 3):S462–S471 DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0665-5. Casini, M., Kornilovs, G., Cardinale, M., Möllmann, M., Grygiel, W., Jonsson, P., . . . Feldman, V. (2011). Spatial and temporal density-dependence regulates the condition of central Baltic Sea clupeids: compelling evidence using an extensive international acoustic survey. Population Ecology, 53: 511-523 . Casini, M., Lövgren, J., Hjelm, J., Cardinale, M., Molinero, J., & Kornilovs, G. (2008). Multilevel trophic cascades in a heavily exploited open marine ecosystem. . Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 1793-1801 . Conley, D., Carstensen, J., & Aigars, J. (2011). Hypoxia Is Increasing in the Coastal Zone of the Baltic Sea. . Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 6777-6783. Eero, M., Köster, F., & Vinther, M. (2012). Why is the Eastern Baltic cod recovering? . Marine Policy, 36, 235-240 . Eigaard, O., Breen, M., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Dinesen, G., Sørensen, T., Jonsson, P., . . . Rijnsdorp, A. (2013). BENTHIS. Benthic impact from the perspective of the fisheries. Deliverable 1.1b. Obtenido de https://www.benthis.eu/web/file?uuid=e89c7e3e-a611-4. Heikinheimo, O. (2011.). Interactions between cod, herring and sprat in the changing environment of the Baltic Sea: A dynamic model analysis. Ecological Modelling Vol 222: 1731–1742 . HELCOM. (2007). HELCOM Red list of threatened and declining species of lampreys and fi shes of the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 109. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 41pp. HELCOM. (2007a). HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 103 pp. HELCOM. (2009). Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc No. 116B.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 89

HELCOM. (2010a). Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment, Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 122. HELCOM. (2012). Checklist of Baltic Sea Macro-species. Baltic Sea Enviroment Proceedings No. 130. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 203 pp. HELCOM. (2013a). HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group. Cod Information sheet. Obtenido de www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity > Red List of species HELCOM. (2013b). HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group. Salmon Information sheet. www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity > Red List of species. HELCOM. (2013c). HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt Sea Environ. Proc. No.140. HELCOM. (2013d). HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group. Lumpsucker Information Sheet. Obtenido de www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity > Red List of species HELCOM. (2013e). HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group 2013. Shorthorn sculpin Information sheet. Obtenido de www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity > Red List of species HELCOM. (2013f). HELCOM Red List Fish and Lamprey Species Expert Group 2013. Sea Lamprey Information Sheet. Obtenido de www.helcom.fi > Baltic Sea trends > Biodiversity > Red List of species ICES. (2008). ICES Advice 2008, Book 8. Section 8.1 Ecosystem Overview. ICES. (2012). ICES Advice 2012. Book 8. ICES. (2012b). ICES implementation of Advice for Data-limited Stocks in 2012 in its 2012 Advice. ICES DLS Guidance Report 2012. ICES Advisory Committee. ICES CM 2012/ACOM 68. ICES. (2013a). Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22–32. ICES Advisory Book 8 section 8.3.3, 2013. ICES. (2013b). Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Multispecies Assessments (WKBALT), 4–8 February 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:43. 399 pp. ICES. (2014). ICES Advice 2014, Book 8.8.3.3. Baltic Sea Cod in Subdivision 25-32. ICES. (2015a). Report of the ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB). 9-13 March 2015, Cádiz, Spain. ICES CM 2015/SSGIEA:08. 30 pp. ICES. (2015b ). Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS), 14– 21 April 2015, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. . ICES CM 2015/ACOM:10. 826 pp. ICES. (2015c ). Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), . 9–12 February 2015, London, UK. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:25. 114 pp. ICES. (2015d). EU request to ICES to provide FMSY ranges for selected North Sea and Baltic Sea stocks. . In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 6, Section 6.2.3.1. ICES. (2016a). Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS), 12-19 April 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:11.593pp. ICES. (2016b). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Baltic Ecoregion.ICES Advisory Report 2016, Book 8. Published 31 May 2016.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 90

ICES. (2016c). Second Interim Report of the Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS), 30 March-3 April 2016, Rostock, Germany. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM:07.591pp. Rostock, Germany. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEOM:07.591pp. ICES. (2016d). Stock Annex: Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (central Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Riga). ICES. (2016e). Report of the Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST). 30 March–6 April 2016. Klaipeda, Lithuania. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:09. ICES. . (2015d. ). EU request to ICES to provide FMSY ranges for selected North Sea and Baltic Sea stocks. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 6, Section 6.2.3.1. . Jensen, A. (1929). On the influence of the size of the stock of cod upon the herring fishery in the Kattegat, Bdt Sea and western part of the Baltic, and some other causes of variations in the cod and herring fisheries. Meddr Komm. Havunders. Ser., F . Jensen, A. (1962). Om rovfiskenes indflydelse på fiskebestanden i havet. Skrifter fra D.F.H. 22. (In Danish.) . Jensen, A. (1966). The effect on the fishery of predacious fishes. . ICES C.M. 1966/D: 17. JRC. (2014). Ecosystem Overview of the European Regional Seas Annex 3, Chapter 2.2 The Baltic Sea. Report of DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status. Obtenido de http://www.devotes- project.eu/. Lassen, H. (1979). An assessment of the Baltic sprat stock in Subdivision 26+28 for 1970- 1978, taking changes in the cod stock into account. . ICES CM. 1979/J: 23 . Leppäranta, M., & Myrberg, K. (2009). Physical Oceanography of the Baltic Sea. En Springer PRAXIS Books, 378 pp. Lundström, K., Hjerne, O., Alexandersson, A., & Karlsson, O. (2007). Estimation of grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) diet composition in the Baltic Sea. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 6:177-196. . Mackenzie, B., Hinrichsen, H., Plikshs, M., Wieland, K., & Zezera, A. (2000). Quantifying environmental heterogeneity: habitat size necessary for successful development of cod Gadus morhua eggs in the Baltic Sea. . Marine Ecology Progress Series, 193, 143-156 . Matthäus, W. (2006). The history of investigation of salt water inflows into the Baltic Sea - from early beginning to recent results. Mar. Sci. Rep., 65. pp73 . Minna, P. (2012). HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan: An Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities. En Climate Impacts on the Baltic Sea: From Science to Policy, Springer Earth System Sciences, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642. M. Reckermann et al. (eds.). Möllmann C, D. R.-K. (2009). Reorganization of a large marine ecosystem due to atmospheric and 27 anthropogenic pressure: a discontinuous regime shift in the Central Baltic Sea. . Global Change Biology, 15, . Möllmann C, M.-K. B. (2008). Effects of climate and overfishing on zooplankton dynamics and ecosystem structure: regime shifts, trophic cascade, and feedback loops in a simple ecosystem. . ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65, . Möllmann, C., Kornilovs, G., & Sidrevics, L. (2000). Long-term dynamics of main mesozooplankton species in the central Baltic Sea. Journal of Plankton Research, 22, 2015-2038. Möllmann, C., Kornilovs, G., Fetter, M., & Köster, F. (2004). Feeding ecology of central Baltic Sea herring and sprat. . Journal of Fish Biology, 65, 1563-1581. .

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 91

Nabe-Nielsen, J., Sibly, R., Tougaard, J., J., T., & Sveegaard, S. (2013). Effect of noise and by-catch on a Danish harbour porpoise population Ecological modelling. Obtenido de http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecomodel.2013.09.025 Niiranen, S. (2013). Multiple forces drive the Baltic Sea food web dynamics and its response to environmental change. . En Doctoral thesis in Marine Ecology Stockholm Resilience Centre Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Ojaveer, E. (2014). Ecosystems and living resources of the Baltic Sea, their assessment and management,. Springer, 2017. Ojaveer, E., & Kalejs, M. (2010). Ecology and long-term forecasting of sprat (Sprattus sprattus balticus) stock in the Baltic Sea: a review. . Rev Fish Biol Fish 20:203–217 . Ojaveer, E., & Kalejs, M. (2012). Long-term prediction on Baltic fish stocks based on periodicity of solar activity. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 22 , 683–693. Ojaveer, H., Jaanus, A., MacKenzie, B., Martin, G., Olenin, S., Radziejewska, T., . . . Zaiko, A. (2010). Status of Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea.. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12467.. SAMBAH. (2016). Heard but not seen. Sea-scale passive acoustic survey revewals a remnant Baltic Sea harbour porpoise population that needs urgent protection. Non- technical Report. Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise. Report: LIFE08 . Sandberg, J., Elmgren, R., & Wulff, F. (2000). Carbon flows in Baltic Sea food webs — a re- evaluation using a mass balance approach. Journal of Marine Systems 25 2000 , 249– 260. Santos, M., & Pierce, G. (2003). The diet o harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Northeast Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual review 2003, 41, 355- 390 . Savchuk, O., & Wulff, F. (2007). Modeling the Baltic Sea eutrophication in a decision support system. . Ambio, 36, 141-148 . Seal Conservation Society. (2011). Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina). Obtenido de http://www.pinnipeds.org/seal-information/species-information-pages/the-phocid- seals/harbour-seal. Shpilev, H., Ojaveer, E., & Lankov, A. (2005). Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) in the Baltic Sea. . Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol, 2005, 54, 3, 230-241 . Stips, A., & Lilover, M. (2012). The Regime Shift in the Baltic Sea area – caused by the change of the NAO sign? CONFERENCE PAPER · JANUARY 2012 DOI: 10.1109/BALTIC.2012.6249164. Tomczak, M., Niiranen, S., Hjerne, O., & Blenckner, T. (2012). Ecosystem flow dynamics in the Baltic Proper-Using a multi-trophic dataset as a basis for food-web modelling. . Ecological Modelling, 230, 123-147 . Zillén, L., & Conley, D. (2010). Hypoxia and cyanobacteria blooms - are they really natural features of the late Holocene history of the Baltic Sea? . Biogeosciences, 7, 2567-2580 . Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Osterblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., . . . Garthe, S. (2009). By-catch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation 142: 1269–1281.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 92

7.2 Regulations, Proposals and Agreements AGREEMENT between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fisheries and the conservation of the living marine resources in the Baltic Sea. Oficial Journal of the European Union 28.5.2009 ASCOBANS (2009) Conservation Plan for the Harbour Porpoise Population in the Western Baltic, the Belt Sea and the Kattegat. (Jastarnia Plan) ASCOBANS (2016) Resolution No. 3: Revision of the Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises (Jastarnia Plan). 8th Meeting of the Parties to ASCOBANS. Helsinki, Finland, 30 August - 1 September 2016 DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1098/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing a multiannual plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 779/97 COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1221/2014 of 10 November 2014 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulations (EU) No 43/2014 and (EU) No 1180/2013. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 2015/2072 of 17 November 2015 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea and amending Regulations (EU) No 1221/2014 and (EU) 2015/104. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/688 of 2 May 2016 on the monitoring and management of the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. L 354/22 Official Journal of the European Union. REGULATION (EU) 2015/812 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 REGULATION (EU) 2016/1139 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 July 2016 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, amending Council

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 93

Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1098/2007. L 191/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 15.7.2016.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 94

Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Principle 1

The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree post above the point where stock is above the point of certainty that the serious ecosystem where serious ecosystem stock is above the point impacts could occur. impacts could occur. where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? Y Y Y Serious ecosystem impact by default may occur only if the sprat biomass is below 75% of the unfished biomass (FCR SA2.2.13). The SSB/R plot (Figure 3-8) suggest

that current status (F 2016 =0.22) is well above the 75% criteria. (SG60 is met). The current stock is well above what is expected in equilibrium due to some over- average year classes. It is therefore highly likely (SG80 is met) that the stock is above this reference point. The assessment is of good quality, sampling intensity is high (> 4 times the minimum required by DCF minimum standard) and the retrospective pattern in the estimation of the recruitment is limited. The status of the sprat stock is shown in the SSB graph below.

This demonstrates that the stock has been far above MSY reference points since around 1990 and that the stock is currently fluctuating around 1 mill tons; the SSB estimate for 2016 is 1.3 mill tons. ICES (2013a) informs that the fishing mortality, taking ecosystem consideration into account, should be around 0.3 and that the BMSY would be around 1 million t.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 95

Justifi The Multiannual management plan (2016) sets TACs such that the fishing mortality cation is restricted inside the range (0.19-0.26) and with reference to article 4(4) (0.26- 0.27). The upper limit of this range assures that the stock is expected to remain within the 75% limit also in the future. The sprat stock is well above levels where ecosystem impacts are expected to occur and based on the available data and analysis, this statement can be made with high degree of certainty . Any ecosystem impact is more likely related to changes in the overlap between cod and sprat. SG 100 is met. Cod is a dominating predator on pelagic fish including sprat and therefore ecosystem impact of sprat stock is judged based on the response by the cod stock. A significant part of the seal populations occurs in the Bothian Bight outside the area of occurrence of the sprat and the interaction between the sprat and seals is low. The level of accepted sprat SSB is taken from the default MSC standard and as discussed below the interaction between cod and sprat is likely less strong than what might be assumed when defining the default reference point. Therefore the scoring is based on the default standard while there are arguments that the interaction is weaker and that a lower reference point might be applicable. The eastern Baltic Cod stock is used as indicator for the impact on the upper trophic levels of the ecosystem in the Baltic Proper.The Eastern Baltic cod stock is assessed based on survey trends (figure below) suggesting that the stock has been at a high level in part of the period when the sprat stock is large.

ICES points to a possible link between the sprat and the cod stock. The Eastern Baltic cod (Subdivisions 25-32) show poor growth and it is suggested that this is related to the availability of sprat as food for cod. Cod stomach data show a decrease in the consumption rate and food intake of Eastern Baltic cod since the early 1990s, both in terms of benthic and pelagic preys in the stomachs. The proportion in weight of benthic vs. pelagic prey in the stomachs also decreased during the same time period. This indicates a decrease in general feeding success and a change in the feeding habits of cod during the past 20 years, which could explain the simultaneous decrease in cod condition but does not point to specific interaction between sprat and cod. ICES (2016e) notes also that the overlap between the Eastern Baltic cod and sprat stocks has changed. Cod occurs mainly in Subdivisions 25-26 while the sprat stock has moved its center of occurrence northward and Subdivision 28 is the center today. This suggests that the current link between cod and sprat is weak. Further the sprat biomass is kept at a high level. SG60 is met. The Baltic Sea ecosystems are under pressure from a range of antropogenic impacts among which euthrophication is pointed to as the most important HELCOM (2010), but also fishing is on the top list. The fishery that is seen as having most impact is the cod fishery while the sprat fishery is of less impact.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 96

WGBFAS (2016d) section 1.7.3 discusses the possible causes that have created the reduction in cod condition and concludes that abundance of Saduria entomon and Mysis mixta , especially during the fish fattening, i.e., in the autumn-winter season, is the main biotic driver that influences the physiological state of all cod size groups. Changes in abundance and availability are probably related to abiotic factors, such as warming, saline water and fresh water inflows. Further, cod is a transport host for two seal parasite species, cod worm (Pseudoterranova decipiens ) and liver worm ( Contracaecum osculatum ), and infestation of cod especially with Contracaecum osculatum has been increasing in later years, see Polish data for Contracaecum in 2011–2016. Parasite infestation has been suggested to have increased natural mortality of especially larger cod (Horbowy et al. 2016). The sprat-cod hypothesis is weakened and is highly unlikely that the current sprat stock is the cause of the poor cod growth. SG 80 is met. ICES (2016d) proposes that more sprat in the south (Subdivision 25-26 should be reserved for cod predation). This is to benefit cod growth specifically while ecosystem functioning and structural effects are not considered to be adversely impacted. b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree post fluctuating around a level of certainty that the consistent with stock has been fluctuating ecosystem needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y Justifi See sprat SSB graph under justification PI 1.1.1A (a). Again using the 75% default cation criterion or even a 80% criterion the sprat stock has for more than a decade been at a very high level, more than what is considered required for ecosystem needs (SG 80) and this assessment is reached with a high degree of certainty that the stock has been or has been above ecosystem needs over recent years (SG100) based on the quality of the sprat assessment and the high level of the sprat stock which even with a high CV on the estimated SSB of 30% easily would reach the 95% criterion. The Multiannual management plan (2016) sets TACs such that the fishing mortality is restricted inside the range (0.19-0.26) and with reference to article 4(4) (0.26- 0.27). The upper limit of this range assures that the stock is within the 75% limit also in the future. See sections 3.3.5, 3.4.1.5 and 3.4.2 ICES (2013a) ICES (2016b) References ICES (2015b) WGIAB JRC 2014 Tomczak et al (2012) Niiranen (2013) EU (2016) Multiannual Management Plan for Baltic Stocks Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of Value of reference Current stock status relative reference point point to reference point

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 97

Reference point B50% Measured on the SSB/R plot used in scoring combined with the SSB > stock relative to 3*Blim ecosystem B 410,000 t SSB(2016) 1,343,000 impairment (SIa) lim

Reference point B80% Measured on the SSB/R plot used in scoring combined with the SSB > stock relative to 3*Blim ecosystem needs B MSY 570,000 SSB(2016) 1,343,000 (SIb) trigger OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if rele vant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 98

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced , there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time . For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation N/A b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to post determine whether the There is evidence that There is strong rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding evidence that the effective in rebuilding the strategies are rebuilding strategies stock within the specified rebuilding stocks, or it are rebuilding stocks, timeframe. is likely based on or it is highly likely simulation modelling, based on simulation exploitation rates or modelling, exploitation previous performance rates or previous that they will be able to performance that they rebuild the stock within will be able to rebuild the specified the stock within the timeframe. specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi cation N/A

References [List any references here]

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 99

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionar y harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide post The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state stock management of the stock and the of the stock and is objectives reflected in elements of the harvest designed to achieve PI 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together stock management towards achieving objectives reflected in stock management PI 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation EU and Russia are the Parties involved with the total sprat fishery. The fishery is jointly regulated through the EU-Russian fisheries committee. Overall, based on 2009 Fisheries agreement between EU and Russia, these two agents agree their quotas within sustainable limits and based on advice from ICES. The agreement dictates that the Parties will request ICES to annually advise on the fishing possibilities and the Parties to consults on the total exploitation. The EU-Russian arrangement provides a strategy for the exploitation of the Baltic sprat stock. The strategy is implemented under the EU CFP and the Russian fishing law. The objectives of the CFP are, inter alia, to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable in the long term, to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and to implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The Russian fisheries law implies similar objectives. The tools that are used to implement the strategy includes a package – coordinated between the Parties – of technical measures and the TAC. Both Parties implement a strict management regime with landing control and sea going control. Under the ICES umbrella the Parties cooperate by providing data for the stock assessments and on the assessment and advisory process, in the assessment working groups (inter alia WGBFAS) and the advisory groups (ACOM). The Latvian fishery is regulated under the EU CFP. The EU 2009 multiannual plan for the pelagic fisheries in the Baltic Sea was replaced in July 2016 by a plan that is implemented for 2017 onwards, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139. The plan is based a strategy including multispecies considerations as laid out in the preamble recitals 7,8,13 and 14. The plan includes rules for reduction of the fishing mortality below ranges set in the Regulation in cases when the SSB is below the reference points. An overview of the plan is presented in section 3.3.3 and is further detailed in the justification for PI 3.2.1. This plan is evaluated by ICES to be

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 100

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionar y harvest strategy in place precautionary. Therefore SG60 is met . The plan prescribes that TACs must be set based on scientific advice and the advice be based on fishing mortalities as defined in the Annexes of the Plan. The harvest strategy based on advice from ICES which in turn bases its advice on fisheries data and acoustic abundance data. Based on these data on the actual state of the stock as assessed by ICES, it advises on the catch possibilities in accordance with the Multi/annual Plan. The advice is based on the most recent assessment and is responsive to the state of the stock. Furthermore, the plan (Multiannual Management plan arcticle 5 prescribes “all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY “….”When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point”. Also, the plan dictates in article 4 that the fishing mortality [and hence the TAC] shall take account of “if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics;” …”. These elements work together under the strategy to achieve objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1A ie SG80 is met . The strategy is designed based on CFP objectives to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1A as laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. These objectives are further detailed in the Plan (Regulation 1139/2016). This regulation establishes the rules of the EU CFP in line with the international obligations of the Union. The Russian TAC is set in consultations with EU and is based on similar considerations. Hence SG100 is met . b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide post The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the likely to work based on may not have been fully harvest strategy has prior experience or tested but evidence been fully evaluated plausible argument. exists that it is and evidence exists to achieving its objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The harvest strategy laid down in the EU CFP is based on standard ‘best practise’ approach to fisheries management with sustainable exploitation objectives and hence SG 60 is met . The strategy has been effective for more than a decade and the stock is at a high level ie evidence exist that the strategy is achieving its objectives SG 80 is met .

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 101

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionar y harvest strategy in place

The harvest strategy before the adoption of the multiannual management plan was not fully clear and although ICES in 2009 tested a proposal for management plan this plan was not adopted and implemented. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully tested. The Multiannual Plan has not been seen in function yet and while the plan has been tested theoretically and the general framework is within the EU CFP and therefore is expected to achieve the objectives of CFP (SG80) there is no evidence that this will be so therefore SG 100 is not fulfilled. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide post Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi cation There is extensive monitoring of the fishery (logbooks, VMS, landing control, sampling of the catches). This applies both to the Russian as well as the EU based fisheries. The status of the sprat stock is monitored by annual acoustic abundance surveys. SG 60 is met d Harvest strategy review Guide post The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi cation The harvest strategy was review regularly under the IBSFC regime (1974- 2006). The current regime is discussed at annual meetings between Russia and EU. The technical regulation within the CFP is reviewed at irregular intervals. The CFP itself is reviewed every 10 years latest in 2013 with implementation of the revised Basic regulation for 2014. The Multiannual Plan for Baltic fisheries is expected to be reviewed in 2019 (Article 15) . The BALTFISH forum (an organization of Baltic State governments) reviews the harvest strategy at irregular intervals. SG 100 is met . e Shark finning Guide post It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Just ifi N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 102

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionar y harvest strategy in place cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biannual post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The fishery has no direct discards and very limited slippage during haulback, as reported by a sprat skipper during the site visit. All landings are used either for direct human consumption or used in the fish oil/ meal market. Regulation 2187/2005 requires a minimum mesh size for the sprat trawl fishery set at 16mm and no minimum landing size for sprat. So in theory, sprat passing through 16mm are not desired, yet if caught there is a legal market for them. There are valuable markets for both human food and meal/ oil, such that there are requirements that the fish must go to the human market first (quality dependent). Furthermore, the EU, whose Baltic countries are significant participants in the sprat fishery, has introduced a discard ban (EU Regulation 1396/2014) in the Baltic, however this is not expected to affect the sprat fishery significantly as there is no discards. The team has concluded there is no incentive to discard sprat (regardless of the ban) and no mortality of unwanted catch. There has been a review for discarding (unwanted catch), resulting in the discard ban, SG60 is met. The discard regulation calls for the ban to be implemented for no more than 3 years, thus resulting in a review prior to reauthorization, SG80 is met. ICES (2016a) References ICES (2016b) ICES (2016c) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 COND ITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 103

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide post Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are HCRs are in place or in place that ensure expected to keep the available that are that the exploitation stock fluctuating at or expected to reduce the rate is reduced as the above a target level exploitation rate as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment expected to keep the another more impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating appropriate level taking approached. around a target level into account the consistent with (or ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key stock, most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The harvest strategy is laid down in the Basic regulation of the CFP while the harvest control rule is defined in the Multiannual Plan for the Baltic fisheries. The HCR is expected based on evaluation by ICES and STECF to keep the stock fluctuating at or above MSY , see ICES (2013a). This plan is based on ecosystem considerations as specified in the preamble of the Plan, see in particular recitals 7 & 8, which set the strategic context; and recitals 13 & 14 which set out the strategic basis for the HCRs within the management plan (Article 4 and associated Annexes). The Harvest Control Rule is based on reference points defined in the Management Plan, see Justification for PI 1.1.1A. The HCR is laid down in the multiannual plan for the fisheries in the Baltic Sea, this plan implies that fishing pressure be reduced if the stock falls below predefined reference points. SG60 is met The plan is explicit and well defined based on specified reference points with the objective to keep the stock at a target level consistent with ecosystem needs, see justification for PI 1.1.1A. SG 80 is met. The plan implies reduced fishing mortality compared to MSY taking into account the ecological role of the stock. However, the recruitment is fluctuating because of varying environmental conditions. Furthermore the Baltic ecosystems are subject to regime shifts and the reference points will need to be adjusted over time to reflect environmental driven changes in sprat productivity. The Multiannual Plan prescribes in article 5 “Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 104

PI There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points”, i.e.that a change in the ecosystem e.g. regime shifts, is a cause for revision of the reference points in order to meet the MSY target. SG100 is met b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide post The HCRs are likely to The HCRs take be robust to the main account of a wide uncertainties. range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi cation The main uncertainty in the assessment relate to variation in recruitment where the incoming yearclass strength used in the TAC advice is based on an geometric average consideration. Another issue is the mix of herring and sprat in the catches where the species split is based on sampling. For the Client fleet and the rest of the EU vessels, the data collection framework (DCF) provides for an appropriate programme and the estimates are reliable. There is uncertainty in the survey estimates. This estimation variance is on the same scale as is common for acoustic surveys. The assessment of the status of the sprat stock include an account of the natural mortality based on the cod predation. The low target fishing mortality that is laid down in the HCR make the rule robust to uncertainties. The ICES approach to formulating its advice through committee work is robust to known uncertainties as these are incorporated in the precautionary advice. SG80 is met. There is outstanding work (ongoing) in improving the HCR to become fully ecosystem oriented and until this work is implemented with ecosystem oriented reference points the SG100 is not fulfilled. c HCRs evaluation Guide post There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly evidence that tools indicates that the tools shows that the tools in used or available to in use are appropriate use are effective in implement HCRs are and effective in achieving the appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the exploitation. required under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Y Y Y

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 105

PI There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Justifi cation MSC defines the tools as “Mechanisms for implementing strategies under Principles 1 or 2.” The tools implied by the HCR (TAC) combined with the EU technical regulations – by-catch rules assuring that the sprat catches are fairly clean of herring, have been in force since 2005 and similar regulations applied before that. There is general experience within fisheries management that these tools are (used and available) are appropriate and effective. SG60 is met. The high level of sprat stock – although partly controlled environmentally and a result of the low cod stock that persisted most of the period of the high sprat stock is evidence that the HCR can achieve the objectives. The outcome of previous management approach [a high stock size combined with restricted fishing mortality meeting precautionary objectives] is based on the same tools as the revised (2016 plan. This provides evidence that the tools are effective and appropriate in achieving exploitation level under the HCR in force. SG80 is met The 2016 HCR is more restrictive than previous regulatory schemes. This new HCR represent a change in objectives also to include ecosystem considerations and the target fishing mortalities are inside such restrictions. The evidence with the old management strategy clearly shows that the tools are effective in controlling the exploitation level as required under the HCR. SG100 is met. REGULATION (EU) 2016/1139

References REGULATION (EU) 2013/1380 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2187/2005 ICES (2013a) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION N UMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 106

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide post Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive information related to information related to range of information stock structure, stock stock structure, stock (on stock structure, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet stock productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as

environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The assessment is supported by data from the fishery (species and age compositions) and by results of abundance surveys. There is good understanding of the biology, population dynamics and reproduction strategy for sprat. The fleet is well documented. The natural mortalities from 2012 onwards were based on the regression of M against the SSB of eastern Baltic cod while earlier estimates were based on SMS multispecies model run; these are now uncertain because of the uncertainties in the cod assessment. An ongoing collection of cod stomach contents data will improve the data basis for estimating natural mortality updating information from previous sampling campaigns. Hence, a comprehensive range of information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, removals and other information such as environmental information are available. The strategy of the BIOR is defined by the Scientific Advisory Council, which operates based on 3 years strategic plans, see BIOR home page http://www.bior.gov.lv/en/top-menu/about- us/scientific-council. The BIOR website however only presents this plan (in Latvian) for 2010-2012. (Kornilovs (BIOR) pers. Comm.) informed the team that “The fishery is assessed according to National Fisheries Data Collection Programme. In this programme we indicate the planned number of samples, measured and aged fishes. Besides there are mandatory Research surveys that we perform in relation to fish species that are taken by this fishery. The programme is affirmed by the European Commission and EC also evaluates Annual Reports of Latvia and other member states. The assessment is annually performed at ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group. The document on BIOR webpage is a general document and it does not contain anything about the sprat fishery specifically. The

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 107

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy data collection programme is mentioned”. Hence SG100 is met. b Monitoring Guide post Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information UoA removals are UoA removals are required by the harvest monitored and at least regularly monitored at control rule is one indicator is a level of accuracy monitored with high available and and coverage frequency and a high monitored with consistent with the degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to harvest control rule , there is a good support the harvest and one or more understanding of control rule. indicators are available inherent uncertainties and monitored with in the information [data] sufficient frequency to and the robustness of support the harvest assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation All fisheries targeting sprat in the Baltic Sea are well monitored both through fishery dependent data as well as fishery independent data. There is sampling of the catches, there are data from annual abundance surveys available and data are annually presented to ICES. Removal is recorded continuously ans surveys are annual. The total distribution area is covered. SG 60 and SG 80+ is met. All information required by the HCR is presented, abundance, SSB, and fishing mortality. Furthermore there is good understanding of the quality of the assessment and its inherent uncertainties. The robustness of the assessment is investigated at ICES benchmarks ICES (2013) where the assessment is critically reviewed and alternative formulations are investigated. F. ex. The applicability of the SAM model to the sprat assessment was investigated by WGBFAS (2016) as an input to the next benchmark planned for 2016-2017. Hence SG100 is met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide post There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi cation Other fisheries on Baltic sprat are conducted by EU countries and by Russia. The fisheries are well documented through fisheries statistics (landings), logbooks (effort) and VMS (geographical area of fishing). The fisheries are sampled at comparable levels and the data that are available

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 108

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy ICES. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG80 is met. Latvijas Zivsamniecibas 2015] ICES (2016a) References ICES (2016c) BIOR home page http://www.bior.gov.lv/en/top-menu/about-us/scientific- council. OVERALL PERFORMAN CE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 109

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide post The assessment is The assessment takes appropriate for the into account the major stock and for the features relevant to the harvest control rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justif i cation The Baltic sprat live longer than sprat elsewhere e.g. in the North Sea. Therefore an analytical age-based assessment model is appropriate, see Section 3.3.2. The model covers sprat across the Baltic Sea and based on taggings it has shown that there is no marked separation between the sprat in different subdivisions although the main concentrations are in the Baltic Proper. The species can be aged with reasonable accuracy based on otoliths. The assessment is reviewed at irregular intervals approximately every 5 years at ICES benchmarks. At these benchmarks the robustness of a range of assessment approaches is investigated and a method of ‘best practise’ is adopted, ICES (2013). The assessment is appropriate for the stock and SG80 is met. Sprat is a prey species (key LTL species) with cod as a major predator. The influence is modelled through the natural mortality on sprat which takes account of the predations. The sprat recruitment is in general driven by environment changes and the changes in productivity is accounted for in the projections on which the TAC is based. ICES benchmarked the assessment in 2013 (ICES 2013) and it was found that the assessment takes into account the major features of sprat including the effects of the cod predation. SG 100 is met. b Assessment approach Guide post The assessment The assessment estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the stock species category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The status of the stock is evaluated relative to appropriate and available reference points SG 60 is met. The status of the stock is evaluated relative to appropriate and available reference points, see Scoring Issue a and Section 3.3.2. SG 80 is met.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 110

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide post The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes identifies major uncertainty into into account uncertainty sources of uncertainty. account. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The major sources of uncertainty include the environmental variability and the lack of ability to estimate recruitment at age 0. SG 60 is met. The evaluation of the assessment takes these uncertainties into account through the ICES ACOM SG80 is met. However the assessment is not formulated probabilistic and SG100 is not met. WGBFAS (2016) investigated the use of the SAM model as input to the next benchmark. The current approach (XSA) has been standard practice for more than a decade and the settings within this model have been under constant review in WGBFAS to assure that the model formulation meet quality requirements. The appropriate to allow ICES to provide advice which is a central piece of information for the HCR SG80 is met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide post The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met ? Y Justifi cation The assessment has been benchmarked ICES (2013). This benchmark focused on the possible application of an multispecies model for the advisory assessments, see ICES (2013) ICES advice 2013 section 8.3.3 Multispecies considerations for the central Baltic stocks: cod in Subdivisions 25–32, herring in Subdivisions 25–29 and 32, and sprat in Subdivisions 22– 32. For the next benchmark WGBFAS investigates the possible applicability of the SAM model for the sprat assessment, WGBFAS (2016). At the benchmark the robustness of the various model are investigated and in particular if the models provided unbiased estimates, e.g. through investigation of retrospective patterns. The benchmark process investigates alternative approaches. SG 100 is met. e Peer review of assessment

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 111

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Guide post The assessment of The assessment has stock status is subject been internally and to peer review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The assessment is internally peer reviewed within ICES through WGBFAS and ACOM and there are external reviewers involved in the benchmark process, ICES (2013b). The WGBFAS include scientists from all Baltic states also scientists that are not directly involved with the sprat assessment, ACOM involve scientists from all ICES member states and through the system of Advice drafting groups (ADG) there are external scientist involved in the evaluation of the assessment, the chair of an ADG is normally the chair or a vice chair of ACOM not involved with the sprat assessment.. The benchmark process involves external experts Hence the SG100 is met. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 112

Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The U oA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide post Main primary species Main primary species There is a high degree are likely to be above are highly likely to be of certainty that main the PRI above the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a If the species is below If the species is below level consistent with the PRI, the UoA has the PRI, there is either MSY. measures in place that evidence of recovery are expected to ensure or a demonstrably that the UoA does not effective strategy in hinder recovery and place between all MSC rebuilding. UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Herring is the only P2 species caught by the UoA (see Table 3-12 ) for which biological reference points exist, and hence it is the only P2 species categorized as ‘Primary’ (FCR SA3.1.3.3). Besides, as its proportion in the catch accounts for more than 5% of the total UoA catches it is also categorized as ‘Main’ (FCR SA3.4.4). Of the 4 existing herring stocks in the Baltic the UoA only interacts with the Central Baltic Herring Stock (CBH), which extends through ICES SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 & 32. The ICES WGBFAS provides separate assessment and advice for CBH.

The reference points used are shown in table 2.1.1.1 Blim was set at

Bloss =430 000 t and MSY B trigger was set at B pa =600 kt. The values of F lim and

Fpa were estimated at 0.52 and 0.41, respectively. In 2015 ICES provided

new precautionary F MSY ranges [F lower -Fupper ] that are derived to deliver no more than a 5% reduction in long-term yield compared with MSY. In order to

be consistent with the ICES precautionary approach F upper is capped, so that

the probability of SSB< B lim is no more than 5%. The new estimate of F MSY is 0.22.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 113

The U oA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.

Table 2.1.1.1. CBH. Reference point, values and their technical basis. Source: (ICES, 2016b; ICES, 2016d) Reference Framework Value Technical basis point Stochastic simulations with Beverton, Ricker, and

FMSY 0.22 segmented regression stock– recruitment curve from the full time-series (1974−2013). Two approaches have been 0.22 used to derive the values of the (AR) – cap on Fupper. One conforms to FMSY UPPER 0.28 (no the ICES MSY advice rule (AR), AR) and requires reducing F linearly towards zero when SSB is below MSY Btrigger. The MSY second uses a constant F approach without an advice rule. Although FMSY LOWER 0.16 the first often provides a wider FMSY range, it requires the ICES MSY advice rule to be used.

MSY B 600 kt Bpa trigger Multispecies model (SMS). One of several options giving a high Mutispp 0.25- sustainable yield of herring as

FMSY 0.35 well as of cod and sprat because of low to moderate predation from cod.

Blim 430 kt Bloss

Precautionar Bpa 600 kt 1.4xB lim y approach Flim 0.52 Consistent with B lim

Fpa 0.41 Consistent with B pa

In ICES assessments B lim is used to assess whether the stock status is above PRI. The CBH SSB in 2015 was estimated to be 1,013 kt, almost 2.4

times B lim (430 kt), and predicted value for 2016 is 1,057 kt. As explained above, an F value of 0.22 means that the probability of SSB being lower

than B lim is less than 5%, while in 2015 F age 3-6 was estimated at 0.183. As a result, ICES (2016b) considers the CBH as harvested sustainably and

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 114

The U oA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. at its full reproductive capacity. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that CBH is above PRI. The CBH development over time ensures that it has remained above a level consistent with MSY for several years. Figure 2.1.1.1 displays that SSB

decreased until 2001 and then increased, and it has been above MSY B trigger since 2007. Also, F increased until 2000 and then decreased, remaining

below F MSY since 2011 (ICES, 2016b).

Figure 2.1.1.1 . Herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). Summary of stock assessment (SSB in 2016 is predicted). Source: ICES, 2016b

Therefore, the assessment team concludes that SG 60, 80 and 100 criteria are met . b Minor primary species stock status Guide post For minor species that are below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species OR If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? N/A Justific ation MSC establishes that all other species not considered ‘main’, that means that their specific proportion of the total UoA catches are below 5% (or 2% in the case of ‘less resilient’ species) shall be considered ‘minor’ species (FCR SA 3.4.5). According to the different sources of information analyzed in this assessment (see Section 3.4.3 ) the UoA catches composition does not

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 115

The U oA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. include any other Primary species apart from herring. As there are no minor species to be assessed this SIb is not applicable . References See references in Section 7 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 116

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not h inder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if strategy in place for place for the UoA for necessary, that are the UoA, if necessary, managing main and expected to maintain or that is expected to minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding maintain or to not of the main primary hinder rebuilding of the species at/to levels main primary species which are likely to at/to levels which are above the point where highly likely to be recruitment would be above the point where impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation As discussed in Section 3.4.4 and in previous SI, the only primary species impacted by the UoA is herring, and in particular the Central Baltic Stock (CBH). The by-catch of herring is usually below 10 % with 2015 as an exception, see Table 2-3. According to MSC definition, a ‘strategy’ represents “a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, and understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically” (i.e. CHB). Further, a strategy needs to be “appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of the fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts”. A strategy is in place for managing the CBH based on the ICES approach “…to advice on fishing opportunities integrates the ecosystem and precautionary approach with the objective of achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY). “ (ICES, 2016 Book 1). The European Commission sets TACs consistent with the ICES advice (e.g. Council Regulation 2072/2015 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities in the Baltic), Russian interests are accounted for through the annual bilateral discussion between EU and Russia, ICES, 2016b). The implementation of the strategy is using quotas and technical measures. The Latvian share of the CBH TAC is allocated by the Ministry of Agriculture to the Latvian fishing companies targeting sprat in SD 25-29 and 32, excluding GoR. The herring quotas are allocated as a bycatch of the sprat fishery, fixing a maximum level which in 2016 was set at 14.95% (see

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 117

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not h inder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Section 3.1.1.1 ). Therefore, the Latvian fleet, managers and scientists are integrated into the mentioned CBH management strategy, as landings are reported to ICES and they participate in the EU DCF which feeds ICES assessments and advices. Stocks assessed by ICES are periodically benchmarked in order to determine the quality of the assessments and the performance of the fishery, thus providing a mechanism to modify the strategy if necessary. The CBH was benchmarked in 2013. Compliance and performance of the fishery is also assessed at a European and national level and actions can be taken at both levels. A multiannual management Plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic was adopted on the 6 th of July, 2016 by the European Union (EU Regulation 2016/1139). As expressed in the Regulation: “ The objective of the plan should be to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP, especially reaching and maintaining MSY for the stocks concerned .” This multi-species management plan is expected to be an effective tool to incorporate into management the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also take into account the by-catch species for those fisheries (plaice, flounder, turbot and brill). The results and impacts of the Plan on the concerned stocks will be evaluated by 21th July 2019 and every 5 years thereafter. The above demonstrate that there are measures (SG60) and elements of a strategy (SG80) which are specific to the element being assessed, hence SG100 is met . b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the work, based on confidence that the partial strategy/strategy plausible argument measures/partial will work, based on (e.g., general strategy will work, information directly experience, theory or based on some about the fishery and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved. fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or species involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The measures that are used to implement the strategy include quotas (for herring) and technical measures, based on application in similar fisheries (SG6). In order to set its advice for 2017, ICES performed a catch option analysis for 2017 and 2018 based on their recruitment estimations, the total catch estimated for 2016 (211kt) and the resulting F age 3-6 for 2016 (see Table

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 118

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not h inder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. 2.1.2.1 for basis used). Table 2.1.2.1 Basis used by ICES in the CBH catch options analysis. Source: ICES, 2016b

The catch options are presented in Table 2.1.2.2. Finally, ICES advice for 20 17 is to limit total catches to 2016kt, based on MSY approach. Therefore, predicted SSB values for 2017 (1,082 kt) and 2018 (1,028 kt) would remain very close to present value (predicted SSB value for 2016 is 1,056 kt), and always above MSY Btrigger (ICES, 2016b). Table 2.1.2.2. CBH catch options. Weights in Kt. Source: ICES, 2016b

* SSB 2018 relative to SSB 2017 ** Catches in 2017 relative to 2015 ICES advice for 2016 (201 thousand tonnes) Furthermore, there are by-catch rules that control that effort is directed at sprat and not diverted to targeting herring. These are established through EU regulations which are legal binding for the EU member states. This is a standard setup which is used widely and for long time. experience suggests that the package will, if implemented conscientiously, are effective in achieving the objectives i.e. MSY fishing. The sprat fishery has de facto been managed according to such a plan for several years and experience indicates that the herring stock is within sustainable limits. Testing of options, as conducted in ICES advice provides high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information from the fishery and fishery independent science, thus SG100 is met . c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear evidence evidence that the that the partial measures/partial strategy/strategy is strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and is successfully . achieving its overall

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 119

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not h inder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi The strategy including the associated package of measures described in cation SI(a) (TAC, technical measures) is implemented effectively. The strategy has led to an increase in the herring stock since the early 2000’s. Compliance (see PI 3) is good and the overall objective of a sustainable fishery at MSY level is achieved. Species misreporting of herring has occurred in the past, although this is presently considered to be negligible in accordance with Regulation EU 227/2013 (ICES, 2016b). In relation to an essential part of the management strategy, the scientific monitoring, there is evidence that it is implemented effectively as all countries concerned take part in the data collection through the EU DCF. Most countries provide age composition of their major landings. In ICES (2016a), detailed data on the level and frequency of herring sampling is presented, the overall frequency was 4 samples, 503 fishes measured and 185 fishes aged per 1,000 tonnes landed. The landings for which age composition was missing represented about 15% of the total CBH landings in 2015 (ICES, 2016d). The multiannual management plan was established in 2016, hence it is too early to demonstrate this revised strategy is working effectively. However, there is clear evidence that the management measures set by the European Commission for the last several years have been in accordance with ICES advice. This situation has allowed CBH to remain above a level consistent with MSY for several years as assessed in PI 2.1.1.SI (a) and shown in Figure 2.1.1.1. Hence, SG80 and SG100 criteria are met. d Shark finning Guide post It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation There are no shark catches in the sprat fishery according to both fishery- dependent and fishery-independent sources of information analyzed in this assessment ( Section 3.4.3 ). Therefore, this scoring is not relevant for the assessment and there is no need to score it, according to MSC instructions. e Review of alternative measures Guide post There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of practicality of

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 120

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not h inder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. minimise UoA-related alternative measures to alternative measures to mortality of unwanted minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related catch of main primary mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted species. catch of main primary catch of all primary species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation Both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sources of information (Section 3.4.3 ) confirmed that sprat and herring constitute up to 99.9% of the total catches and discarding is negligible for this stock. Any unwanted parts of catch are sold for fish meal, thus are utilized. Hence, the assessment team is confident that there is no mortality of unwanted catch in the sprat fishery. This scoring issue is not relevant for the assessment and there is no need to score it, as per MSC FCR GSA3.5.3). References See references in Section 7 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 121

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

Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Sprat and herring are caught in mixed fisheries in the Baltic and there are well established sampling programs which are mandatory by law (Regulation EU 227/2013) and that provide fairly accurate estimates by catch by species (ICES 2015b), thus addressing SG60 . Species misreporting of herring/sprat has occurred in the past, but this is presently considered to be negligible (ICES, 2016b). The Latvian vessels fishing sprat have to complete their logbooks including separate estimations of sprat and herring catches. Regular inspections at dockside are performed aiming to verify that sprat and herring composition was correctly estimated by the skipper, a mistake greater than 10% implies sanctions, thus responding to SG80 . Data from the Baltic Pelagic Acoustic survey provide fishery independent data on the herring stock status and these data are used in the herring assessments. Herring stocks mix in overlap zone and there is some uncertainty in relation to the degree of mixing between WBSSH and CBH. ICES does not consider that this is seriously affect the quality of the assessment. There is comprehensive information available to assess with high degree of certainty the impact of all fishery-related mortality on the CBH with respect to its status. As this is the only main primary species impacted by the UoA the assessment team considers that SG100 criteria is met . b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guide post Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 122

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Justifi cation MSC establishes that all other species not considered ‘main’, that means that their specific proportion of the total UoA catches are below 5% (or 2% in the case of ‘less resilient’ species) shall be considered ‘minor’ species (FCR SA 3.4.5). According to the different sources of information analyzed in this assessment (see Section 3.4.3 ) the UoA catches composition does not include any other Primary species apart from herring. As there are no minor species to be assessed this SI is not applicable . c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main primary strategy to manage manage all primary species. main Primary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation In PI 2.1.3 SI(a) it was concluded that the information available is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of all fishing-related mortalities on the CBH with respect to status, while in PI 2.1.2 SI(c) evidences were given that the strategy for managing CBH is being implemented successfully and in PI 2.1.1.1 SI(a) ICES data evidenced that the stock has been above a level consistent with MSY since 2007. As CBH is the only primary species stock caught by the Latvian sprat fishery the assessment team concludes that there is a strategy to manage all primary specie and that information is collected to confirm with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective, the SG60, 80 and 100 criteria are met. See references in Section 7 , plus the following: Gröhsler, T., Oeberst, R., Schaber, M., Larson, N. and Kornilovs, G. References Discrimination of western Baltic spring-spawning and central Baltic herring (Clupea harengus L.) based on growth vs. natural tag information. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2013) 70 (6): 1108-1117. doi:19.1093/icesjms/fst064. Ag OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 123

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide post Main Secondary Main secondary There is a high degree species are likely to be species are highly of certainty that main within biologically likely to be above secondary species are based limits. biologically based limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically If below biologically based limits, there are based limits, there is measures in place either evidence of expected to ensure that recovery or a the UoA does not demonstrably hinder recovery and effective partial rebuilding. strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justifi cation Data on catch composition provided by the UoA (Table 3-8) and BIOR surveys on board Latvian trawlers targeting sprat (Table 3-11 ) indicate that sprat and herring make up at least 99% of the total catches in weight, therefore, the secondary species (cod, flounder, eelpout, smelt, and lumpfish) categorized as secondary represent, all together, less than 1% in

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 124

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. weight of the UoA catches and therefore none of the secondary species identified by the assessment team can be considered as ‘main’ secondary species based on the criteria defined by FCR. As there are no main secondary species SIa is not applicable. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species

post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? See scoring per elements Justifi cation The secondary species (cod, flounder, lumpfish) are all classified as minor secondary species (see section 3.4.3). Information on the status and relevant management history of each of these species (in some cases to stock level) is presented in section 3.4.4. Below is the information strictly necessary to rate this SI for each of the minor secondary species. Cod (SD25-32): The UoA interacts with the Eastern Baltic Cod (EBC). This species has been reported both by in the catch composition reported by the UoA and the sampling carried out by BIOR on board fishing vessels targeting sprat in SDs 26 and 28.2 (see table 2.2.1.1.). ICES provides separate assessment and advice for EBC. This stock has drastically declined since 1980s, and in recent year reduced individual growth has also been identified, besides its geographical distribution is currently limited to SD 25 and to a lesser extend to SD 26. Several factors seem to be affecting the EBC status, such as food limitation in SD 25-26 and continued poor hydrographic conditions in the northern areas, but there is still some lack of understanding of the present situation in the eastern Baltic cod stock (ICES, 2016a). No analytical assessment for EBC is presently available, mainly due to uncertainties in age information, presumed changes in growth and natural mortality (ICES, 2016a). Although in the past there were reference points estimated for EBC, they are no longer considered appropriate for the stock. The assessment is based on trend in BITS survey index. An index of SSB was produced using the combined time-series of BITS Q1 and Q4 surveys. After a steep increase between 2005 and 2010, the SSB index (for cod > 30 cm) abruptly decreased between 2012 and

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 125

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. 2013, and remained relatively stable for 2013–2015 with an average of 140 Kg/h (ICES, 2016a). Although the most recent estimate consisting of surveys in Q4 2015 and Q1 in 2016 shows an increase to around 180 Kg/h, the average CPUE of the last two years (2015–2016) was 8% lower than the average CPUE of the previous three years (2012–2014) (ICES, 2016a). Therefore, it cannot be considered as ‘highly likely’ that EBC is above any biologically based limit . However, total landings of EBC in 2015 amounted to 37,342 (t) (ICES 2016a) and that UoA cod catches in 2015 were just 3.10 t (see table 3-7 in section 3.2.3), representing 0.008% of total EBC landings. Low cod catches by the UoA are confirmed by fishery- independent sources (results from BIOR on-board f/v samplings showed in table 3-10). Therefore, although EBC is not above biological limits it is unlikely that the UoA catches are hindering EBC’s recovery and rebuilding. SG100 criteria is met. Flounder (fle 24-25, fle 26, 28, fle 27, 29-32): The UoA interacts with the 3 stocks of flounder present in the Western Baltic (25-32) (see Section 3.4.5.2 ). This species has been reported both by in the catch composition reported by the UoA and the sampling carried out by BIOR on board fishing vessels targeting sprat in SDs 26 and 28.2 (see table 2.2.1.1.). ICES provides separate assessment and advice for these stocks, however no analytical assessment is performed for any of them, and therefore advice provided is based on biomass index comparisons from previous years, according to ICES DLS guidelines (ICES, 2012b). The trends shown by these 3 stocks differ from each other. The stock trends for flounder in SDs 24-25 have been increasing during the last 10 years, even though the landings are also increasing (figure 2.2.1.1.). The stock of flounder in SD 26-28 shows a decreasing trend from the beginning of the century although the estimated index for 2015 was insignificantly higher than 2014. The stock abundance is estimated to have decreased by 57% between 2011-2013 and 2014-2015 (figure 2.2.1.2). This implied also a decrease in landings by at least 20% in relation to landings in 2015. In the case of the flounder stock in SD 27, 29-32 the advice procedure was applied first time in 2015 (ICES 2016a). For the last four years consistent increase in all survey biomasses is evident (stock size indicator was estimated to increase 74%). In summary, is highly likely that both flounder in SD 24-25 and flounder in SD 27, 29-32 are above their biological limits, but that is not the case of flounder in SD 26, 28. However, in 2015 total landings in the Baltic from these three stocks were estimated by ICES in 15,699 tonnes (11090 t fle24- 25, 4433 t fle 26,28, 176 t fle 27, 29-32, see table 3-15). While UoA catches in 2015 were just 2 tonnes, representing 0.013% of total landings of impacted flounder stocks. Low flounder catches by the UoA are confirmed by fishery-independent sources (results from BIOR on-board f/v samplings showed in table 3-10). Therefore, it is unlikely that the UoA catches are hindering the recovery and rebuilding of flounder in SD 26, 28. SG100

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 126

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. criteria is met. Figure 2.2.1.1 . Flounder in subdivisions 24–25. Biomass index (green line) and landings (blue line). Source: ICES 2016a

Figure 2.2.1.2 . Flounder in SD 26, 28. Catch per unit of effort (kg per hour) from BIT Survey in 1st and 4th Quarters, subdivisions 26 and 28. Source: ICES 2016a

Eelpout : Although a commercial species in some areas of the Baltic, its commercial importance is very limited. ICES does not provide assessment for this species, the only index of abundance available for this species come from Swedish fykenet monitoring programs in Kattegat, Western Gotland basin and the Sound ( Section 3.4.5.5 ). These surveys show declines of more than 50% in the last 20 years (see Figure 3-26 ). In the HELCOM red list (HELCOM, 2013c) this species is classified as Near Threatened because of population size reduction. Total UoA catches of eelpout in 2015 were 7.5 tonnes (see table 3-7). Despite the low eelpout catches reported

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 127

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. by the UoA, as the information available on eelpout populations and catches in the Baltic is very scarce, the assessment team cannot conclude that UoA catches are not hindering the recovery and rebuilding of this species. Hence, SG100 criteria is not met . Smelt : The economic importance of smelt is moderate, and it is fished as a traditional item of human food consumption in some areas of the Baltic. No assessment on the status of smelt populations or abundance indices were found. And results from the coastal fish monitoring program coordinated by COBRA (see section 2.4.5.6) cannot be used to assess pelagic or small fish such as smelt, as recognized in HELCOM 2006. The abundance of smelt is higher in the northern and eastern Baltic: in the Gulf of Bothnia, eastern Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga, and Curonian Lagoon (see Figure 3-27 ). Therefore, most of the UoA fishing activity does not overlaps with the main distribution areas of this species. Total UoA catches of smelt in 2015 were 0.5 tonnes (see Table 3-8). Although information on smelt populations is scarce, the mismatch between the geographical distribution of this species and the UoA fishing grounds coupled with the low catches reported by the UoA allows the assessment team to conclude that UoA catches are not hindering the recovery and rebuilding of this species. Hence, SG100 criteria is met. Lumpfish/Lumpsucker : This a commercial species targeted because of its highly appreciated roe. In the Baltic proper (ICES SD 25-28) the ICES Baltic International Bottom Trawl Survey (BITS) shows no decline from 1988 to 2010 but in the Southern Baltic (Arkona Sea, ICES SD24) the survey indicates a 60–70% decline the last 20 years (see Figure 3-28 ). In Kattegat (ICES SD21) the International Bottom Traw Survey (IBTS) shows a 90% decline from the end of the 1980s to today. This has lead HELCOM to classify this species as Near Threatened because of population size reduction (HELCOM 2013d). Fisheries have been identified as the major threat for this species (both recreational and recreational –as target or bycatch species-) (HELCOM, 2013d). No interactions with this species were recorded by the UoA in 2015, its presence in the catches was recorded by BIOR during the sampling performed on board fishing vessels (only 2 individuals were recorded in a total of 82 sampling along 3 years). Hence, SG100 criteria is met References See references in Section 3.4.5 . The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different Scoring scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign the overall score for summary this PI: All species (scoring elements) meet SG80; most elements (cod, flounder, smelt and lumpfish) achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few (eelpout) fail to achieve SG100. Scoring element 1 (Cod) 100

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 128

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring element 2 (Flounder) 100 Scoring element 3 (Eelpout) 80 Scoring element 4 (Smelt) 100 Scoring element 5 (Lumpfish) 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 129

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, strategy in place, if place for the UoA for which are expected to necessary, for the UoA managing main and maintain or not hinder that is expected to minor secondary rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main

levels which are highly secondary species at/to likely to be within levels which are highly biologically based limits likely to be within or to ensure that the biologically based limits UoA does not hinder or to ensure that the their recovery. UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y See scoring per elements Justifi cation As explained in PI2.2.1 SI(a), none of the secondary species identified by the assessment team ( table 2.2.1.1 .) can be considered as ‘main’ secondary species. As there are no main secondary species SG80 is met by default . In PI2.2.1 SI(a) can be found a detailed description of the terms ‘measures’ ‘partial strategy’ and ‘strategy’ according to MSC definition. Cod : The EBC has been managed since 2008 with a multi-annual management (Council Regulation EC 1098/2007). However, in 2014 and again in 2015, ICES released only a trends assessment as the analytical age-based stock assessment was considered unreliable (section 3.4.5.1 ). This situation has not changed with the recently issued (6 th June 2016) multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic (Council Regulation EC 2016/1139), as it does not establish reference points for this particular cod stock. As expressed in the Regulation: “ The objective of the plan should be to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the CFP, especially reaching and maintaining MSY for the stocks concerned .” This multi-species management plan is expected to be an effective tool to incorporate into management the dynamics between the stocks of cod, herring and sprat, and also take into account the by-catch species for those fisheries (plaice, flounder, turbot and brill). The results and impacts of the Plan on the concerned stocks will be evaluated by 21th July 2019 and every 5 years thereafter. The Latvian fleet targeting sprat will be affected by the new multi-species plan for managing cod, herring and sprat

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 130

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. in the Baltic. Besides, there is another measure affecting the UoA in relation to the management of cod catches. The Council Regulation 2187/2005 establishes that cod by-catches may not exceed 3% of total catches. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing EBC. SG100 is met . Flounder : ICES provides separate assessment and advice for the 3 stocks impacted by the UoA. However, as these stocks are considered as data poor, no analytical assessment is provided. The advice is based on a comparison of the average from two most recent index values with the 3 preceding values (trends assessment). No TACs are issued for this species. The Council Regulation 2187/2005 establishes that the authorized species (in this case sprat) must make up to at least 90% of the catch (allowing a higher proportion just in the case of herring), determining some technical rules to achieve (minimum mesh sizes according to the gear type and area, and other provisions on active gears) . As indicated above, the new EU Regulation establishing a multiannual management plan for cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (Regulation EU 2016/1139) also applies to bycatches of flounder caught when fishing for the stocks concerned. In its Article 6 provides specific conservation measures for bycatch species (plaice, flounder, turbot and brill). The Latvian fleet targeting sprat will be affected by the new multi-species plan for managing cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic. Therefore, the assessment team considers that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing flounder. SG100 is met. All the other minor secondary species : The Council Regulation 2187/2005 establishes that the authorized species (in this case sprat) must make up to at least 90% of the catch (allowing a higher proportion just in the case of herring), determining some technical rules to achieve (minimum mesh sizes according to the gear type and area, and other provisions on active gears). Besides, BIOR performs annual samplings on board fishing vessels targeting sprat in order to collect detailed information of the fishery. BIOR samplings confirm that the proportion in the UoA by-catches (excluding herring) is negligible (<0.03%) (Table 3-11 ). This sampling program allows detecting if the UoA is catching a species at a level in which it would be necessary to take measures. However, it is not made explicit that measures will be established and the assessment team does not considered that a ‘strategy’ as defined by MSC is in place. Therefore, SG100 is not met . b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the work, based on confidence that the partial strategy/strategy plausible argument measures/partial will work, based on

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 131

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. (e.g. general strategy will work, information directly experience, theory or based on some about the UoA and/or comparison with similar information directly species involved. UoAs/species). about the UoA and/or species involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Based on the experience of other multi-annual management plans, the recently issued plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic (Council Regulation EC 2016/1139) is expected to be valuable tool for achieving an integrated management of these stocks and also to take into account the by-catch species for those fisheries. The annual BIOR sampling on board fishing vessels, is considered appropriate to the scale of the catches corresponding to species other than sprat and herring. Between 2013 and 2016 a total of 82 samplings were performed. Besides, this sampling program is integrated within the EU DCF, meaning the data collected are sent to ICES for its analysis together with data from other countries fishing in the Baltic. Therefore, the assessment team considers that in the case of detecting a species which is being caught at a level that may compromise its status, it is likely to work and actions would be taken. SG60 is met . The different sources of information analyzed in this assessment (both fishery-dependent and fishery –independent) coincide in indicating that more than 99.9% of the catches in the Latvian sprat fishery are comprised by sprat and herring and therefore the impact of the UoA on other species very limited ( section 3.4.3 ). The assessment team considers that these results provide objective basis for confidence that the different measures explained will work. SG80 is met. To meet SG100 a strategy or partial strategy must be tested. Despite the measures in place aiming to limit other catches than sprat and herring (those laid down in Council Regulation 2187/2005) and the monitoring program in place, the assessment team considers that these elements do not achieve to conform a ‘strategy’ or even ‘partial strategy’ 10 to manage all secondary species. The new multispecies management plan constitutes a ‘strategy’ in the case of cod and flounder, but so far there is no testing. SG100 is not met .

10 A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically”. Source: MSC Table SA8. FCR v2.0

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 132

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear evidence evidence that the that the partial measures/partial strategy/strategy is strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and is successfully . achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi cation Member States are providing data (landings and samplings) to ICES through the EU DCF and ensuring compliance with management measures (e.g. technical regulations laid down in Council Regulation 2187/2005). Besides, the catch composition reported by the Latvian fleet targeting sprat (included the UoA) provides evidence that the impact of the UoA on other species than sprat and herring is very limited. SG80 is met . As explained in previous SI, it cannot be considered that a ‘strategy’ or even a ‘partial strategy’ is in place for managing all secondary species. Therefore, SG100 is not met. d Shark finning Guide post It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree finning is not taking shark finning is not of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi cation There are no shark catches in the sprat fishery according to both fishery- dependent and fishery-independent sources of information analyzed in this assessment ( section 3.4.3 ). Therefore, this scoring is not relevant for the assessment and there is no need to score it, according to MSC instructions. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the cation There is a regular There is a biennial potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of practicality of minimise UoA-related alternative measures to alternative measures to mortality of unwanted minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related catch of main secondary species. mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted catch of main catch of all secondary secondary species and species, and they are

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 133

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. they are implemented implemented, as as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guide post Both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sources of information analyzed in this assessment ( section 3.4.3 ) confirmed that sprat and herring constitute up to 99.9% of the total catches. Besides, all landings are used either for direct human consumption or for fish meal and fish oil. Further, the EU landing obligation (in force since January 2015 for the pelagic species) requires all European fleets to land all catches from species managed through quotas (in this case it would affect cod, flounder, salmon). Hence, the assessment team is confident that there is no unwanted catch in the sprat fishery. This scoring issue is not relevant for the assessment and there is no need to score it, according to MSC instructions References See references in Section 3.4.5 The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different Scoring scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign the overall score for summary this PI: all species (scoring elements) meet SG80; a few elements achieve higher performance (cod and flounder) but most do not meet SG100. Scoring element 1 (Cod) 85 Scoring element 2 (Flounder) 85 Scoring element 3 (Eelpout) 80 Scoring element 4 (Smelt) 80 Scoring element 5 (Lumpfish) 80 OVE RALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 134

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide post Qualitative information Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to information is available is available and estimate the impact of and adequate to adequate to assess the UoA on the main assess the impact of with a high degree of secondary species with the UoA on main certainty the impact of respect to status. secondary species with the UoA on main respect to status. secondary species with

respect to status. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justifi cation As explained in PI2.2.1 SI(a), none of the secondary species identified by the assessment team ( table 2.2.1.1 .) can be considered as ‘main’ secondary species. As there are no main secondary species this SIa is not applicable . b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide post Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? See scoring per elements Justifi cation Cod and flounder : ICES provides advice for Cod and flounder on their population status. SG100 is met. All the other minor secondary species : There are no population estimates or abundance indexes for any of the other minor secondary species (eelpout, smelt and lumpfish). Hence, SG100 is not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to support a partial to support a strategy to manage main strategy to manage manage all secondary secondary species. main secondary species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 135

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. its objective . Met? Y Y N Justifi cation As explained in PI2.2.1 SI(a), none of the secondary species identified by the assessment team (table 2.2.1.1.) can be considered ‘main’ secondary species. As there are no main secondary species SG80 is met by default . There are few catch records of the UoA detailing other catches than sprat and herring ( Table 3-8). It is compulsory for the fleet to record in the logbook detailed information on catch composition of sprat and herring, but they are not obligued to record all incidental catches. It is not possible to evaluate the information with a high degree of certainty. Therefore, SG100 is not met . References See references in Section 7 . The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different Scoring scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign the overall score for summary this PI: all species (scoring elements) meet SG80; a few elements achieve higher performance but most do not meet SG100. Scoring element 1 (Cod) 90 Scoring element 2 (Flounder) 90 Scoring element 3 (Eelpout) 80 Scoring element 4 (Smelt) 80 Scoring element 5 (Lumpfish) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 136

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide post Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international international international requirements set limits requirements set limits requirements set limits for ETP species, the for ETP species, the for ETP species, there effects of the UoA on combined effects of is a high degree of the population/stock the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the are known and likely to population/stock are combined effects of be within these limits. known and highly the MSC UoAs are likely to be within these within these limits. limits. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Subsequent to the assessment team’s analysis provided in Section 3.4.6, the ETP species which may possibly interact with, or have been identified to interact with the UoA and areto be evaluated and scored are: - Sea lamprey - Harbour porpoise - Harbour seal - Grey Seal. Section 3.4.6 provides details for all considered ETP species. There are no limits set is set internationally for sea lamprey and and the two seal species. These are evaluated below in Scoring Issue b. The ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (2015), reported, “For harbour porpoises, there is evidence of a precautionary population split between the Belt Sea and porpoises in the Baltic proper (Wiemann et al., 2010; Galatius et al., 2012). In the Baltic proper, a large population decline has been observed during the past 50–100 years (Skòra et al., 1988; Koschinski, 2002) and this population is listed as critically endangered under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list. This population was estimated at 447 (95% CI: 90–997) animals by the Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Harbour Porpoise (SAMBAH) project using static acoustic monitoring at 304 locations in the Baltic (SAMBAH, 2014). Based upon spatial monitoring, during May-December, the porpoise population in the Bal-tic Proper was clearly separated from that in the Western Baltic, with a major breeding area identified around the Midsjô offshore banks southeast of Ôland (Sweden). In the Baltic Proper, acoustic detections were highest in the south, but the species was also detected further east and north off the coasts of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Finland (I. Carlén, pers. comm.).” For harbour porpoise , ASCOBANS advises that the overall take remain

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 137

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species below 1.7% of the population. The population east of Bornholm is counted in the hundreds (ASCOBANS) which implies that the take should be restrict to 10-20 individuals annually. WGBYC (2016) reports no catch of harbor poise in trawl. The major fishing threat to the harbor population is from gillnets and catches of harbor porpoise in pelagic trawl is very rare and none have been reported from the Latvian fishery over several years. It is confirmed at the site visit that harbor porpoise are not seen in the Latvian catches. Reports under the EU regulation 812/2008 (cited from ICES WGBYC 2016) suggests that the total take in all fisheries is limited within the ASCOBANS limits, Overall the risk of bycatch of large mammals is highly unlikely to be significant (Gislason, 2013). Information on cetacean bycatch and monitoring effort in 2012 was summarized from ICES (2014) and national reports used in preparing ICES (2014). It was reported that observations were made in Latvian pelagic trawls for small pelagic fish on nine vessels, four of which are in the >15 m category but the size of the remaining vessels was not reported. Coverage of the pelagic trawl fleet was high, with 1096 days observed in the >15 m pelagic fleet. A further 135 days of the static net fleet (unknown length) was also monitored. No cetacean bycatch was observed. On this basis, the assessment team concluded SG60 is met . As of December 2016, there were two certified herring fisheries and five suspended cod fishery certificates issued for fisheries in the Baltic Sea. All of these assessments were conducted using MSC FCR version 1.3 and did not consider combined effects of all MSC UoAs. Based on MSC interpretation information provided to the CAB, (MSC Interpretations Date: 18/07/2016 ID: 2347), the team’s understanding is that it is not obligatory to consider the comined effects of MSC UoAs as there are differing versions of the FCR applied. As such, the team concludes that the effect of this UoA is known and highly likely to be within national/ international limits. SG80 is met . b Direct effects Guide post Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree the UoA are likely to the UoA are highly of confidence that there not hinder recovery of likely to not hinder are no significant ETP species. recovery of ETP detrimental direct species. effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Harbour porpoise was evaluated in SI (a) above and is not considered here.

Sea lamprey : From HELCOM (2013f). Sea lamprey is a very rare species

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 138

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species in the HELCOM area. In the northern Baltic Sea, it is caught irregularly but almost annually in Estonia but in Finland, Russia and Latvia the species is not an annual catch. For example, it has been reported only eight times since 1927 in the Russian part of Gulf of Finland. In Poland, there may be a spawning population in the Oder River but this has not been verified yet (Psuty et al. 2010). Sea lamprey is caught regularly in the Arkona Basin but there is no reproduction in German rivers and no trend in reporting frequency of the species in the southern Baltic Sea (Thiel et al. 2009). A small population with a suspected continuing decline and less than 1000 individuals in the largest subpopulation results in HELCOM vulnerable (VU) status (C2a(i)). Immigration from outside the HELCOM area is unlikely to have any significant effect on the threat status since Sea lamprey is very rare also in the adjacent area. No interactions between the UoA and sea lamprey were reported by the client. However, BIOR recorded this species within the catch composition in their at-sea fishery samplings on board fishing vessels, although only 2 individuals were recorded in a total of 82 samplings of 648.5mt of total catch over a 3 year period (see Table 3-11 ). Further, there were no recorded catches in the fish catch statistics for the Baltic Sea fishery-independent ICES SD 26N and 28. Latvian-Polish BIAS survey conducted by R/V "Baltica" in 2015 (G. Kornilovs, Pers. Comm. Unpublished Data, 2016). There are no fisheries targeting this species in the Baltic Sea. The assessment team concluded that SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met .

Harbour Seal : From ICES WGMME (2015). The harbour seal is found in two populations in the Baltic, one around Kalmar Sound on the Swedish east coast and one in the southwestern Baltic with haul outs in south-ern Sweden and Denmark (Stanley et al. , 1996). The Kalmar Sound population has suffered a dramatic decline from an estimated 5000 to about 200 seals in the 1970s, caused by hunting and probably impaired reproduction caused by pollutants (Härkönen and Isakson, 2010). Since the mid-1980s, the population has grown at an annual rate of ca. 9%. In 2013, 900 seals were counted during the moult, a number that does not include seals at sea during the survey (T. Härkönen, pers. comm .). In the southwestern Baltic the historical abundance is unknown, but definitely much greater than the 168 seals counted in the first systematic survey in 1988 (Olsen et al. , 2010). In that year and in 2002, the population was hit by the Phocine Distemper Vi-rus epizootic. The impact of the 1988 epizootic is unknown and approximately one third of the population died in the 2002 epizootic (Olsen et al. , 2010). Except for this, the population has grown by a rate of around 10% since 1988 and 1563 seals were counted in 2013, a number that does not include seals at sea during the survey (A. Galatius, pers. comm .). The threat matrix prepared in ICES WGMME (2015) indicates that high threats

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 139

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species to harbour seals result from contaminants and habitat degradation, while removal of target and non-target species (prey depletion), removal of non- target species (bycatch) and deliberate killing and hunting are all considered moderate threats. Given that Gislason (2013) finds that overall the risk of bycatch of large mammals is highly unlikely to be significant and there are no UoA fishery dependent or independent (BIOR) reports of interactions with harbour seals, the assessment team concludes that the SG60, 80 and 100 are met.

Grey Seal : From ICES WGMME (2015). The grey seal is regarded as a single population, which used to have a distribution covering the entire Baltic Sea area (Graves et al. , 2007). Bounty hunting campaigns (starting in 1889) and pollution with organochlorines (from the 1960s onward) caused a reduction to a few thousand individuals in the late 1970s (Boedeker et al. , 2002). Reduced hunting pressure and contaminant loads have allowed the population to recover and more than 30 000 individuals were counted during the moult in 2014, a figure that does not include seals at sea during the survey. This is still lower than the estimated abundance of 80 000–100 000 before the bounty hunting campaigns (Harding and Härkönen, 1999) and grey seals have not spread to all suitable habitat in the southwestern Baltic and Kattegat where recolonization is very slow in Germany and Poland (Schwarz et al. , 2003; von Nordheim, 2011). Pollutants may still affect the population as well as overfishing, coastal development and bycatch. The threat matrix prepared in ICES WGMME (2015) indicates that high threats to harbour seals result from contaminants and habitat degradation, while removal of target and non-target species (prey depletion), removal of non- target species (bycatch) and deliberate killing and hunting are all considered moderate threats. Given that Gislason (2013) finds that overall the risk of bycatch of large mammals is highly unlikely to be significant and there are no UoA fishery dependent or independent (BIOR) reports of interactions with grey seals, the assessment team concludes that the SG60, 80 and 100 are met. c Indirect effects Guide post Indirect effects have There is a high degree been considered and of confidence that there are thought to be are no significant highly likely to not detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the fishery on impacts. ETP species. Met? Y N Jus tifi cation Sea lamprey : From HELCOM (2013f). No interactions between the UoA and sea lamprey were reported by the client. However, BIOR recorded this

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 140

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species species within the catch composition in their at-sea fishery samplings on board fishing vessels, although only 2 individuals were recorded in a total of 82 samplings of 648.5mt of total catch over a 3 year period (see Table 3-11 ). Further, there were no recorded catches in the fish catch statistics for the Baltic Sea fishery-independent ICES SD 26N and 28. Latvian-Polish BIAS survey conducted by R/V "Baltica" in 2015 (G. Kornilovs, Pers. Comm. Unpublished Data, 2016). There are no fisheries targeting this species in the Baltic Sea. Given the very low possible interaction opportunities by the commercial fishery, indirect effects on sea lamprey are thought to be highly likely not to create unacceptable impacts The assessment team concluded that SG80 is met but there is not sufficient fishery specific information to demonstrate that SG100 was met .

Marine Mammals : Indirect effects on marine mammals from fishing activities include food competition (prey depletion) and noise (harbour porpoise only). The threat matrix from ICES WGMME (2015c), presented below displays the working group’s evaluation of current threats on Baltic Sea marine mammals. Threat levels are classified as high, medium or low (i.e. following a traffic light system), for each species-region combination, using the following criteria: High (red) = evidence or strong likelihood of negative population effects, mediated through effects on individual mortality, health and/or reproduc- tion; Medium (yellow) = evidence or strong likelihood of impact at individual level on survival, health or reproduction but effect at population level is not clear; Low (green) = possible negative impact on individuals but evidence is weak and/or occurrences are infrequent. Noise from ships has a low frequency range, i.e. less than 1kHz, although small pleasure vessels generate higher frequency sounds due to propeller cavitation. There has been a large increase in ambient noise in recent years, particularly in the northern hemisphere. There is no evidence of direct mortality but concern on the individual fitness and population consequences of displacement and change of behavior. (SAMBAH, 2016). The commercial exploitation of fish & shellfish stocks, including smaller scale harvesting, angling and scientific sampling are threats to marine mammals. Ecological consequences include the sustainability of stocks, impacting energy flows through foodwebs and the size and age composition within fish stocks. Prey depletion is probably a major determinant of spatio- temporal variation in species distributions. Population consequences more difficult to determine. (SAMBAH, 2016).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 141

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Harbour Porpoise : From SAMBAH (2016). Although small schooling fish like herring, Clupea harengus, and sprat, Sprattus sprattus , are important prey, demersal foraging is characteristic in many areas. In the Baltic Sea region, herring, sprat and small specimens of cod (Gadus morhua ) are the main prey items (Read, 1999; Börjesson and Read, 2003; Lockyer and Kinze, 2003). In the Belt Seas, herring and cod are the most important prey, measured as consumed weight, whereas gobies were the most frequently found prey, but since they are so small, the consumed weight was only 5% of the total intake (Sveegaard et al., 2012). In the Baltic Sea the dramatic reduction of the piscivorous cod ( Gadus morhua ) since the 1980ies has directly benefitted its main prey, the sprat (Sprattus sprattus ), which currently occurs in historically high abundance levels (Casini et al., 2008a), even though the quotas for the Baltic Proper, decided by the EU Commission, have been slightly reduced during the last

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 142

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species five year. The herring stocks decreased steadily since the 1970-ies, but this trend changed at the turn of the century and they are now increasing (Casini et al., 2008b); during the last five years the Baltic herring stock quotas for the Baltic Proper have increased by over 100% (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm). This suggests that prey should not be a limiting factor for the harbor porpoise in the Baltic Sea. SG 80 is met. Santos and Pierce (2003) finds that harbor porpoise diet is similar to many piscivorous fish and that harbor porpoise predate on a wide range of species including herring and sprat. Börjesson et al 2003, consider food competition between cod fishery and porpoises as possible concern. SG100 is not met. Grey Seal : Lundström et al (2007) examined the digestive tract contents from 145 grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) collected be- tween 2001 and 2004 in the Baltic Sea. A total of 24 prey taxa were identified but only a few species contributed substantially to the diet. The estimated diet composition was, independently of the prey number estimation method and diet composition estimation model used, dominated by herring ( Clupea harengus ), both by numbers and biomass. In addition to herring, common whitefish ( Coregonus lavaretus ) and sprat ( Sprattus sprattus ) were important prey, but cyprinids ( Cyprinidae ), eelpout ( Zoarces viviparus ), flounder ( Platichtys flesus ) and salmon ( Salmo salar ) also contributed sig- nificantly. Their results indicated dietary differences between grey seals of different age as well as between seals from the northern (Gulf of Bothnia) and the southern (Baltic Proper) Baltic Sea. Given the current stock status of sprat in SD 22-32, and that reference points for sprat (and herring) have been set taking into account that they are LTL species and therefore their role in the trophic web has already been considered, the team concludes that SG80 is met but not SG100. Harbour Seal : From Seal Conservation Society, accessed 2016. Harbour seals are opportunistic foragers, feeding in coastal shallow waters on locally and seasonally abundant prey, mostly fish, but also shrimps and small cephalopod molluscs. The seals forage mainly close to the seabed, mainly on small groundfish including gadoid fish (such as whiting, pollock, poorcod) flatfish (such as plaice and flounder), sandeels, herring and sprat. They usually select small fish which can be swallowed whole. Harbour seals are opportunistic predators, able to switch prey according to annual and seasonal variability (e.g. Härkönen, 1987b; Payne and Selzer, 1989; Hall et al., 1998; Brown et al., 2001). The diet of the harbour seals in the Moray Firth in Scotland is dominated by clupeids (herring and sprat) when these are available. However when they have to switch from clupeids to the locally abundant gadoid fish, there was evidence of widespread macrocytic anaemia. Gadoid fish have a lower calorific content than clupeids or

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 143

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species sandeels, but the reason for the anaemia is because the gadoid fish apparently contain an antimetabolite which reduces iron absorption (Thompson et al., 1997). This finding has serious implications for the health of harbour seal populations in areas where the seals' energy-rich prey such as herring and sandeels have been commercially over-fished, and they are having to substitute gadoid fish as their diet staple (e.g. Wilson et al., 2002) . Given the current stock status of sprat in SD 22-32, and that reference points for sprat (and herring) have been set taking into account that they are LTL species and therefore their role in the trophic web has already been considered, the team concludes that SG80 is met but not SG100. Börjesson P, Berggren P, Ganning B (2003) Diet of the har- bour porpoise in the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas: accounting for individual variation and sample size. Mar Mamm Sci 19:38−58. ICES. 2015c. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 9–12 February 2015, London, UK. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:25. 114 pp. Lundström, K., Hjerne, O., Alexandersson, A. and Karlsson O. 2007. Estimation of grey seal ( Halichoerus grypus ) diet composition in the Baltic Sea. NAMMCO Sci. Publ . 6:177-196. SAMBAH, 2016. Heard but not seen. Sea-scale passive acoustic survey revewals References a remnant Baltic Sea harbour porpoise population that needs urgent protection. Non-technical Report. Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Harbour Porpoise. Report: LIFE08 NAT/S/000261. 44 pages. Santos, M.B. and Pierce, G.J. 2003. The diet of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 41: 355–390. Seal Conservation Society, 2011. Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina ). Retrieved from: http://www.pinnipeds.org/seal-information/species-information-pages/the-phocid- seals/harbour-seal . December 2016. The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with Scoring comprised of different scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign summary the overall score for this PI: all species (scoring elements) meet SG80; a few elements achieve higher performance but most do not meet SG100. Scoring element 1 (Harbour porpoise) 80 Scoring element 2 (Sea lamprey) 90 Scoring element 3 (Harbour seal) 90 Scoring element 4 (Grey seal) 90 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 144

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide post There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP strategy in place for ETP species, and are species, including managing the UoA’s expected to be highly measures to minimise impact on ETP species, likely to achieve mortality, which is including measures to national and designed to be highly minimise mortality, international likely to achieve which is designed to requirements for the national and achieve above protection of ETP international national and species. requirements for the international protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Harbour Porpoise: The EU has a legal and political obligation to protect cetaceans. The habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) grants strict protection to all species of cetacean, with Article 12 requiring Member States to monitor the incidental capture and killing and take further research or conservation measures as necessary. In parallel, Article 2 of the basic CFP Regulation 1380/2013 further sets out obligations to minimise the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems. The Basic regulation in its Preamble states (11) The CFP should contribute to the protection of the marine environment, to the sustainable management of all commercially exploited species, and in particular to the achievement of good environmental status by 2020, as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (13) An ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management needs to be implemented, environmental impacts of fishing activities should be limited and unwanted catches should be avoided and reduced as far as possible. There are a number of gear restrictions in effect in the Baltic fisheries to avoid cetacean by-catch among which the most noticeable are the driftnet ban and the requirement to using pingers on gillnets. None of these affect the sprat fishery.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 145

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Under Annex II of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive), the harbour porpoise are listed as animal species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). These obligations are met through the Natura 2000 program (EU) and the HELCOM program for protected areas. However, there are no specific areas identified for harbour porpoise and no SAC with these objectives are defined. Hence there is a strategy for avoiding by-catch and for avoiding ETP species in particular. The measures that are used to implement this plan is gear modifications and closed areas. Overall the technical measures identified in the various EU directives protect against unwanted by-catch. The operational practise does not lead to such by-catch and therefore there is no specific national regulation in place. Management keeps the situation under observation through the ICES WGBYC (harbour porpoise) and the BFOR observer programs. the assessment team concludes that SG80 is met. The HELCOM action plan and the EU regulations that are the basis for the strategy to avoid ETP species are defining international standards and therefore by definition not attempting to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, ie SG 100 is not met . The ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Baltic Harbour Porpoises, also known as the Jastarnia Plan (ASCOBANS, 2016) constitutes a strategy to manage the impact of the fishery on harbour porpoises, to meet the requirements in the EU habitat directive and 812/2004. The Jastarnia Plan serves as a framework for international collaboration towards achieving ASCOBANS’ interim goal of restoring the harbour porpoise population to at least 80 per cent of carrying capacity, and, ultimately, a favourable conservation status for Baltic harbour porpoises. Latvia is not a Party to the ASCOBANS convention but many organisations of which Latvia is a Party to, thus has obligations to provide information relevant to harbour porpoise. Examples of some of these instruments include the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) through it’s Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). b Management strategy in place (alternative)

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 146

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Guide post There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a place that are expected place that is expected comprehensive to ensure the UoA does to ensure the UoA does strategy in place for not hinder the recovery not hinder the recovery managing ETP species, of ETP species. of ETP species. to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Sea Lamprey and seals : There are measures in place which are expected to ensure that UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. The measures include the mid-water trawl fishing gear currently in use which have no significant impact on lamprey and no recorded impact on seals. Lamprey simply do not typically occupy the same habitat as sprat. Other measure include the seasonality, when there are significant other prey species available for seals to target. Fishermen have an obligation to report all bycatch including other fish and marine mammals. Vessel inpections at sea and at-sea observers are also measures which monitor the ongoing fishing activities. The team concludes the SG60 requirement is met. Latvian scientific authorities monitor and report annually on a host of different fishery information including bycatch. This information collection and analysis form part of the strategy to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery. Annual scientific surveys throughout the fishery also provide a means of verification of any changes in sea mammal distribution. Given that there has been no recorded/ report seal bycatch and very low lamprey bycatch, the obligation to report, ongoing inspection and scientific surveys to monitor changes, significant other scientific studies which evaluated impacts to these ETP species and on-going evaluation throughout the Baltic, the team concluded there is a strategy is to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. There is no comprehensive strategy focused on these species (nor an identified need for) to achieve this, SG80 is met but not SG100. c Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is an objective The considered likely to basis for confidence strategy/comprehensiv work, based on that the e strategy is mainly plausible argument measures/strategy will based on information (e.g. , general work, based on directly about the experience, theory or information directly fishery and/or species comparison with similar about the fishery and/or involved, and a

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 147

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. fisheries/species). the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The fishing operations, gear, seasonality of fishery and past performance with regards to the identified ETP species provide an objective basis for confidence that the measures/ strategy works. Latvia is a member state and participating member of the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). The 2016 WGBYC report confirms that Latvia provides various data packages as part of its obligations and has provided observed effort data for 2009, 2011 – 2014 (last year analysed), see WGBYC 2016 Tables 1, 2. Under the DCF program (Table 3), 15911 days of trawling at sea were reported under the DCF program for the Baltic member states (Latvia included) with no protected species or seal bycatch report, further another 377 trawling days at sea also recorded no protected species of seal bycatch. The SG80 is met . However, the analysis does not provide high confidence that the strategy will work in particular taking the precarious state of the harbor porpoise stock into account where even minute numbers taken will be of significance. SG100 is not met d Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear evidence that the evidence that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensiv being implemented e strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N Justifi cation There is clear evidence that measures/ strategy are being implemented successfully, fishing gear use, location is reported and monitored; harvesters have a regulatory obligation to report catch, for which sanctions can be raised if significant variation or misreporting is discovered, BIOR continues to provide annual reports on behalf of Latvia under the DSF. SG80 is met . There is no specific programs designed to explicitly confirm that the strategy for this UoA is achieving its objectives , hence SG100 is not met .

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 148

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide post There is a review of the There is a regular There is a biennial potential effectiveness review of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of practicality of minimise UoA-related alternative measures to alternative measures to mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP mortality ETP species, species and they are and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The fishery UoA potentially interacts with four ETP species including harbour porpoise, harbour seal, grey seal and sea lamprey. With the exception of two sea lamprey caught in research trawling surveys, there are no recorded catches of any of these species. There is ongoing Baltic wide monitoring of protected species through the WGBYC and data collection by the DCF. Latvia has participated in dedicated studies and is an active member of the ICES WGBYC and WGMME. There are regular reviews through these groups on potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA related mortality of ETP species. None have been deemed necessary or prescribed for the UoA fleet. The SG60 and SG80 is met . There is no biennial review established and SG100 is not met. ICES WGBYC 2015, 2016. ICES WGMME 2015, 2016. References EU Regulation 1380/2013 EU Directive 92/43/EEC EU Regulation 812/2004

Scoring The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different summary scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign the overall score for this PI: all species (scoring elements) meet SG80. Scoring element 1 (Sea lamprey) 80 Scoring element 2 (Harbour porpoise) 80 Scoring element 3 (Harbour seal) 80 Scoring element 4 (Grey seal) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE : 80

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 149

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 150

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide post Qualitative information Some quantitative Quantitative information is adequate to information is is available to assess estimate the UoA adequate to assess with a high degree of related mortality on the UoA related certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact magnitude of UoA- and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may mortalities and be a threat to protection injuries and the and recovery of the consequences for the ETP species. status of ETP species.

Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Information sources from the fishery are considered applicable to all ETP species. There is significant attention given to harbour porpoise and seal species research and ICES WGBYC partly based on the EU regulation 812/2004 provides annual overviews of the status. There are studies using passive acoustic mapping of harbor porpoise abundance. Although WGBYC express reservations on the accuracy of its by-catch estimates; with respect to the Latvian sprat fishery and other UoA related impact there is high degree of certainty of the magnitude of the UoA related impacts ie that these are very small. In 2012, observations were made in Latvian pelagic trawls for small pelagic fish on nine vessels, four of which are in the >15 m category but the size of the remaining vessels was not reported. Coverage of the pelagic trawl fleet was high, with 1096 days observed in the >15 m pelagic fleet. No cetacean bycatch was observed (ICES, 2014). Harvesters have an obligation to report porpoise encounters in logbook. BIOR observers do monitor fishing activities at sea each year (10 sampled fishing trips in 2015) which would encompass all encountered ETP species. Further there is monitoring in relation to implementation of EU Regulation 812, which addresses landing obligations for discard speces. However, there are no data on encounters (not leading to catch) and injuries although these are believed to be minimal. SG60 and 80 are met but SG100 is not met . b Information adequacy for management strategy

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 151

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to support measures to to measure trends and to support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive ETP species. manage impacts on strategy to manage ETP species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Given the information cited in PI 2.3.1 and 2.3.1, it can be stated that information collected on the UoA fleet, other Latvian fishing fleets and from Baltic member states in general is sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy for harbour porpoise and strategy for seals and sea lamprey to manage impacts on ETP species. The SG60 and 80 are met. There is insufficient information collected support a strategy which minimizes injury of ETP species and evalutate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objectives, the SG100 is not met. ICES. 2014. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species References (WGBYC), 4–7 February 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:28.

Scoring The assessment team followed MSC FCR 7.10.7 to score PIs with different summary scoring elements. FCR 7.10.7.4 was used to assign the overall score for this PI: all species (scoring elements) meet SG80. Scoring element 1 (Sea lamprey) 80 Scoring element 2 (Harbour porpoise) 80 Scoring element 3 (Harbour seal) 80 Scoring element 4 (Grey seal) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMB ER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 152

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly function of the structure and function unlikely to reduce commonly encountered of the commonly structure and function habitats to a point encountered habitats to of the commonly where there would be a point where there encountered habitats to serious or irreversible would be serious or a point where there harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The fishery is conducted with trawl designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain) (see Figure 3-4) any contact with the sea bottom would jeopardize the integrity of the gear. Therefore, sprat fishing is conducted in the water column, interacting only with the pelagic community. UoC client member vessels all fish with net sounder technology, allowing captains to evaluate the performance of fishing nets during operations, thus ensuring gear/ bottom interactions are minimal. This has also been confirmed by BIOR representatives interviewed during the site visit, claiming that in the 227 days at sea performed in 2016 they did not record any interaction between the gear and the seabottom. Eigaard et al (2013) concluded during the BENTHIS evaluation of benthic impacts from the perspectives of fisheries in EU waters; when considering the physical gear-seabed interaction as the primary impact mechanism, the contribution to the overall benthic impact from pelagic fisheries is assessed to be marginal. Commonly encountered habitas are defined by MSC Requirements as those preferred by the target species, that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit , and/or make up a reasonable portion of the UoA’s fishing area. Comparing the geographical distribution of the fleet (see Figure 3-3) the MSFD map of the predominant habitats obtained at the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) website ( www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu ) the following map is obtained (with the fishing area marked with a black line):

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 153

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management.

It can be seen that the fishing area is dominated by soft bottoms. The commonly encountered habitats are shallow and shelf sublittoral mud, shelf sublittoral sand, shelf sublittoral mixed sediment, and shelf sublittoral coarse sediment. Given the gear configuration in the UoA, the identified fishing areas and known habitats, the assessment team concludes that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Further, as per MSC FCR Clause SA3.2.1, the team concludes that the UoA has no impact on habitat, thus is awarded a score of 100 . b VME habitat status Guid e The UoA is unlikely to post reduce structure and The UoA is highly There is evidence that function of the VME unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly habitats to a point where structure and function unlikely to reduce there would be serious or of the VME habitats to structure and function irreversible harm. a point where there of the VME habitats to would be serious or a point where there irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation For the purpose of this assessment the biotopes and biotopes complexes red-listed in HELCOM 2013 (tables 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.2) has been considered as VME.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 154

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management.

The HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat classification (HELCOM HUB) defines a total of 328 benthic and pelagic habitats. Of these HELCOM HUB biotopes, a threat assessment was made for 209 biotopes of which 59 were red-listed (HELCOM 2013). In table below are listed those red-listed habitats present in the area of the Baltic Sea where the UoA operates or next to it. According to the maps provided by the on-line HELCOM MPA database, only the Baltic Sea Seasonal Ice (AC) is overlapping with the area where the UoA operates. All other biotopes (muddy, coarse and sandy sediments dominated by Charales, Najas marina or Zostera marina) are present only in the periphere as they are more coastal biotopes. Table 2.4.1.1 . Red-listed biotopes present in the area of the Baltic Sea where the UoA operates. Source: (HELCOM 2013) HELCOM Code/s Description Classification AC Baltic Sea Seasonal Ice VU (Vulnerable) Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales; AA.H1B4; Baltic photic coarse sediment AA.I1.B4; NT (Near threatned) dominated by Charales; AA.J1B4 Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas AA.H1B5; marina); NT (Near threatned) AA.J1B5 Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina) Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina); Baltic photic coarse sediment AA.H1B7; dominated by common eelgrass AAI1B7; (Zostera marina); NT (Near threatned) AA.J1B7; Baltic photic sand dominated by AA.M1B7 common eelgrass (Zostera marina); Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina) The ten biotope complexes recognized in HELCOM HUB, also listed in the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 155

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. EU Habitats Directive Annex 1, were all red-listed. The table below presents the biotope complexes red-listed in HELCOM 2013 that are present in the the Baltic Sea according to maps provided in the HELCOM MPAs map service ( http://mpas.helcom.fi/apex/f?p=103:17 :::::: ). According to the maps provided by the on-line HELCOM MPA database (see figure 2.4.1.1) these red-listed biotope complexes are present only in the periphere of the area where the UoC operates there is little overlapping with the UoA operational area (see Figure 3-3). Table 2.4.1.2. Red-listed biotope complexes present in the area of the Baltic Sea where the UoA operates. Source: (HELCOM 2013) Code Description HELCOM Classification 1110 Sandbanks VU (vulnerable) 1140 Mudflats CR (Critical Endangered) 1150 Costal lagoons EN (Endangered) 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays VU (Vulnerable) 1170 Reefs VU (Vulnerable) Figure 2.4.1.1. Identified Red-listed biotope complexes in the Baltic Sea where the UoA operates. Source (http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html)

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 156

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management.

Based on the nature of the fishing gear used (which is designed to not touch the seabottom), the use of net sounders during fishing activities by UoC members to monitor net performance during fishing activities, the assertion of BIOR’s representatives that there is no interaction with the seabottom, and the low overlapping with the red-listed benthic biotopes (table 2.4.1.1) and biotopes complexes (table 2.4.1.2) evidenced by comparing figure 3-3 (UoA fishing area) and the maps provided by the HELCOM MPA database, SG60, 80 and 100 are met . Further, these biotopes and biotope complexes are protected by 3 different HELCOM MPAs( former BSPAs): Irbes saurums, Akmensrags, Nida- Perkone. Plus several Red Natura 2000 sites, mainly integrated in the BSPAs. c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 157

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Justifi cation Minor habitats are defined by MSC as those which do not fall within the classification of Commonly Encountered Habitats or VMS (SA3.13.3). Comparing figures 3-14 (habitats) and 3-3 (geographical distribution of sprat catches according to logbooks), minor habitats are shelf sublittoral coarse sediments, shallow sublittoral sand, and shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef (according to the MSFD predominant habitat classification). The fishery is conducted with midwater trawls designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it. As the ground rope is not equipped with rubber bobbins (only chain) any contact with the sea bottom would jeopardize the integrity of the gear. Therefore, sprat fishing is conducted in the water column, interacting only with the pelagic community. Hence, SG100 is met. Eigaard et al, 2013 HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138

References Other resources used was the on-line Baltic Sea data and map service provided by HELCOM (http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html) and the European Marine Observation and Data Network website ( http://www.emodnet- seabedhabitats.eu/ ) that were used to elaborate maps of the biotopes and biotopes complexes mentioned in this PI. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 158

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in p lace that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to necessary, that is impact of all MSC achieve the Habitat expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 fisheries on habitats. performance. level of performance or above. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The use of pelagic gear with net sounder equipment is key to avoid benthic habitat impact, by avoiding physical impact with the bottom. As concluded in other studies that pelagic gear/ seabed interaction contributions to the overall benthic impact was assessed to be marginal (Eigaard et al, 2013), and noted above in PI2.4.1 that there is no impact on habitat, it is deemed that SG60 and SG80 are met . There are measures (offshore trawlers prohibition to operate in less than 20m depth, use of gear deemed to have only marginal impacts) and partial strategies (measures, plus understanding of potential gear impacts (BENTHIS project, an EU-FP7 project on the integration of marine benthic ecosystems in fisheries management, 2012- 2017), plus an awareness to change, as generated by outcomes of the Benthis Project, whose objectives include, among others, ‘develop sustainable management plans that reduce the impact of fishing and quantify its ecological and socio-economic consequences, together with the fishing industry and other stakeholders on a regional scale’. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is an ambitious strategy to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. The Plan, adopted by all the coastal states and the EU in 2007, incorporates the latest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation, and stimulates goal-oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region.Under the umbrella of the BSAP several actions are being implemented, as for example the network of HELCOM MPAs established in the Baltic Sea for protecting marine habitats and species. The network of HELCOM MPAs are currently covering 11.8% of the total marine area of the Baltic Sea, above the 10% target established by UN CBD (HELCOM 2016). Although in its latest assessment HELCOM (HELCOM 2016) finds the network is not yet ecologically coherent and improvements are needed (see SIc), the Contracting Parties (including Latvia) have commited with this objective through the HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 in 2014. Thus, 100 requirements are met. b Management strategy evaluation

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 159

There is a strategy in p lace that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Guide post The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the work, based on confidence that the partial strategy/strategy plausible argument measures/partial will work, based on (e.g. general strategy will work, information directly experience, theory or based on information about the UoA and/or comparison with similar directly about the habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). UoA and/or habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There is an objective basis that fishing with gears that are not designed to touch the bottom will work as a measure likely to prevent adverse sea bottom habitat impacts. SG60 is met. VMS data can confirm the location of fishing activities, demonstrating that there is no overlap with VMEs. Further, there are studies which demonstrate that pelagic gears have a negligible impact on the benthic habitat (Donaldson et al., 2010). SG80 is met . However, no specific testing for the assessed fishery has been performed in relation to the possibility to impact on habitats. Actions for reaching the objectives of HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 are in progress, but yet only partly accomplished. For example, the goal to ensure that HELCOM MPAs provide specific protection to HELCOM Red Listed species, habitats, biotopes and biotope complexes has not been reached, since many threatened features are not protected in any of the HELCOM MPAs, at least not according to information reported by the Contracting Parties. Based on the above, SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the that the partial measures/partial strategy/strategy is strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and is successfully. achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Me t? Y N Justifi cation The use of pelagic gear in the fishery, and the knowledge that these type of gear do not have adverse impacts on habitats, can be considered as an evidence that the measures to not cause adverse impact on habitats has

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 160

There is a strategy in p lace that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. been implemented successfully. Further, use of net sounder equipment on UoC member vessels and VMS data provides evidence of the spatial range where the fleet operates. Since the designation of the first HELCOM MPAs in 1994, there has been a substantial increase in the areal coverage of MPAs: in 2004, the protected marine area of the Baltic Sea was 3.9%, in 2010 it was 10.3%, and today, in 2016, it is 11.8%. Thus, the target of conserving at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, set by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, was reached in 2010 in the Baltic Sea. (HELCOM 2016). Three new BSPAs were established in Latvia since 2010, and a fourth was enlarged encompasing EEZ waters. In 2013, there are 7 HELCOM MPAs in Latvia, covering 33% of the Latvian territorial waters and 1% of its Exclusive Economic Zone, amounting a total of 4,364km2 (15% of the total Latvian maritime area). Based on the above, SG80 is met . However, the 10% target has still not been reached in the areas where the UoA operates (8.7% Baltic Proper just 4.8% Gulf of Bothnia). Further, in its latest assessment, HELCOM has recognized that that the network of HELCOM MPAs is not yet ecologically coherent (HELCOM 2016). Improvements are needed in adequacy (quality of the network) and connectivity (how well the network supports migration and dispersal of species). Further, HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 also emphasizes the development and implementation of management plans for MPAs, as well as assessing the effectiveness of management plans, or other measures, to ensure protection. One of the commitments was to develop and apply management plans, or measures, for all existing HELCOM MPAs by 2015, and to establish a management plan, or measures, for every new MPA within five years after its designation. However, this agreement has not been met; currently only 67% of the HELCOM MPAs have management plans (HELCOM 2016). Regarding the assessment of the effectiveness of the plans, this has not yet taken place and joint guidelines still remain to be developed on how to carry out such assessments. At present, monitoring within MPAs, a prerequisite for the assessment of effectiveness, occurs in 64% of HELCOM MPAs (HELCOM 2016). Given the above, the team concludes the SG100 is not met . d Compliance with management requi rements and other MSC UoAs’/non -MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is some There is clear post There is qualitative quantitative evidence quantitative evidence evidence that the UoA that the UoA complies that the UoA complies complies with its with both its management with both its management management requirements and with requirements and with protection measures protection measures requirements to protect afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other VMEs. MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 161

There is a strategy in p lace that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The fishery is conducted with trawls without bottom contact and hence SG60 is met . There are no specific management requirements imposed to the Latvian sprat fishery to protect VMEs as these gears have no significant impact on the habitats. VMEs present in the area of the Baltic Sea where the UoA operates are listed in tables 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.2. According to the geographical distribution of the sprat catches of the Latvian fleet (see Figure 3 3) and the map showing the distribution of the Helcom Red-listed biotpes (figure 2.4.1.1) and the finer scale maps on Helcom Red-listed Biotopes (provided by the on-line HELCOM MPA database), any of these VMEs are overlapping with the UoA operational area. All vessels included in the UoA have a VMS installed so that the locations of their fishing operations can be traced. The Baltic cod fisheries which are MSC certified occurs mainly in Subdivision 25 and 26 and are largely distinct from the sprat fishery. Hence there is little cumulative impact on the habitats There is fisheries targeting herring in the Baltic proper conducted with trawl similar to those used for sprat and with gillnets. Also, these fisheries do not represent significant cumulative impact on the habitats. These herring fisheries are not MSC certified. There is clear evidence based on fishing without bottom contact and because of the minimal overlap between VME and the fishing grounds that SG80 and 100 are met. See references in Section 7, plus the following: BSAP- HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. Krakow, Poland, 15 November 2007 Donaldson, A., Gabriel, C., Harvey, BJ, and Carolsfeld, J. (2010). Impacts References of Fishing Gears other than Bottom Trawls, Dredges, Gillnets and Longlines on Aquatic Biodiversity and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/011. vi + 84 p. HELCOM 2016. Ecological coherence assessment of the Marine Protected Area network in the Baltic. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 148 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 162

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide post The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all distribution of the main and vulnerability of habitats is known over habitats are broadly the main habitats in the their range, with understood . UoA area are known at particular attention to a level of detail relevant the occurrence of to the scale and vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation There is good information regarding the habitat characteristics of many areas of the European seas, through several international projects and integrated efforts (BALANCE, EUSeaMap, EMODnet, MESH project, HELCOM) that focused on identifying marine habitat types, and that can provide predicted habitats maps for many areas including the Baltic Sea. EMODnet website ( http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu ) integrates different databases, including EUSeaMaps for the whole European coastal and marine range. One specific target included as agreed in 2014 by the HELCOM Contracting Parties through Recommendation 35/1 was to modernize the HELCOM MPA database. This task was accomplished resulting in an updated free- access on-line database recently launched (end of 2015): (http://mpas.helcom.fi/apex/f?p=103:16 ::::::) . Information on biotopes, biotopes and pressures can be consulted and plotted on maps. Maps obtained with this database provide a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG60 and 80 are met. HELCOM (2013) has assessed 209 out of the 328 benthic and pelagic habitats defined at the HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat classification (HELCOM HUB). 59 of those biotopes were red-listed and classified as Critical Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatned. Also, the ten biotope complexes recognized in HELCOM HUB, also listed in the EU Habitats Directive Annex 1, were all red-listed. SG100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical impacts of to broadly understand to allow for the gear on all habitats the nature of the main identification of the have been quantified impacts of gear use on main impacts of the fully. the main habitats, UoA on the main including spatial habitats, and there is

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 163

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. overlap of habitat with reliable information on fishing gear. the spatial extent of interaction and on the

timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There is sufficient data on the fishing operations, namely on effort, time and area fished trough VMS and catch data, to determine the impacts of the fishery on the habitat. As explained in previous SI, the distribution of all habitats is known over their range with a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA activity . SG60 and 80 are met . However, the physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types has not been investigated in detail and quantified fully for the seabed habitats associated with the fishery, so SG100 is not met . c Monitoring Guide post Adequate information Changes in habitat continues to be distributions over time collected to detect any are measured. increase in risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi cation The fishery continues to be monitored through the Data Collection Framework, but also trough regular scientific monitoring and research. The seabed habitat continues also to be monitored and mapped at a finer scale. SG80 is met . However, the seabed habitat is not systematically monitored and therefore changes in habitat distributions over time may not be detected. Collecting information on the temporal variation of biotope distribution is one of the specific improved data and information needs underlined in HELCOM 2013. SG100 is not met . See references in Section 7, plus the following:

References HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138 On-line resources for maps already indicated in the rationale of the SI(a) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 164

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide post The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the the UoA is highly elements underlying key elements unlikely to disrupt the ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem key elements and function to a point structure and function underlying ecosystem where there would be a to a point where there structure and function serious or irreversible would be a serious or to a point where there harm. irreversible harm. would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The Ecosystem of the Baltic Proper is summarized in section 3.4.1 . Biodiversity is dominated of rather few species and that the fish compartment is completely dominated by sprat, herring and cod. The Baltic ecosystem is divided into a number of more or less isolated subsystems (Ojaveer 2017) but herring sprat and cod migrates between these subssystems. Cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus membras) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) form approximately 80% of the Central Baltic Sea (CBS) fish biomass. The planktivore sprat has dominated the food web since the late 1980s. The key elements are thus sprat, herring and cod and how these are linked together in the foodweb. The Baltic Sea is one of the world’s largest brackish water ecosystems. and there are significant environmental impacts on the functioning of the system with two major processes: inflows of saline and oxygen rich water intermittently enter the Baltic influencing water salinity, stratification and deep-water oxygen concentration (Leppäranta and Myrberg 2009). The freshwater outflow from the Russian rivers and the large catchment area is another determining factor. The Baltic Sea environmental conditions, e.g., salinity and temperature, have pronounced spatial gradients due to the large North-South climatic gradient, high riverine input and salt-water inflows from the South and these gradients impact biodiversity.. Climate, inflow (both salt water and fresh water), nutrient loads and fishing are the main external forces driving the Central Baltic Sea Ecosystem. The fishery on the sprat stock is within limits that is not expected to affect ecosystem function and structure, e.g. the cod stock. This judgement is based on the fact that the sprat stock is within the MSC default limits on impact on the target species, SG60 is met. The MSC default limits are defined so it highly unlikely that the fishery will

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 165

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. disrupt the key element of the ecosystem. There are strong variable environmental effects on the system, eutrophication and cod fishing is expected to have a direct impact on the system SG 80 is met. The ecosystem is dynamic and is showing regime shifts (shift between dominance of pelagic and demersal fish) at high frequency compared to more stable systems in the Northeast Atlantic. These regime shifts are partly a result of human impact and partly caused by environmental changes. Recently warming also occurs and this is a further impact. It appear highly unlikely that the present fishery is able to disrupt the key elements of the ecosystem structure and functioning. SG 100 is met. References See section 3.4.1 for references. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 166

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a ris k of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide post There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that place, if necessary strategy in place, if consists of a plan , in which take into account necessary, which takes place which contains the potential impacts into account available measures to address of the fishery on key information and is all main impacts of elements of the expected to restrain the UoA on the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on ecosystem, and at least the ecosystem so as to some of these achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The sprat fishery is regulated through the multiannual management plan EU Regulation 2016/1139. The objective is defined in Article 3, Clause 3 of : ‘The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised….”. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.’ This plan, only regulating the EU fisheries but including the Latvian sprat fishery, is defined based ecosystem objectives, see also ICES (2013b). This plan restricts sprat exploitation within limits that are equivalent to the default MSC impacts on the sprat stock. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) Baltic Sea Action Plan, (November 2007), defines a strategy and is the basis for the implementation plan. The strategy is explicitly based on the Ecosystem Approach. The Action Plan is structured around a set of Ecological Objectives used to define indicators and targets, including effect-based nutrient input ceilings, and to monitor implementation. The Action Plan strongly links Baltic marine environmental concerns to important socio-economic fields such as agriculture and fisheries and promotes cross-sectoral tools including marine spatial planning. Due to complementarities with the European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Action Plan is in essence a pilot for this process without neglecting the important role of the Russian Federation - the only HELCOM member country not a member of the EU. This plan is implemented by the HELCOM member states and each state establishes appropriate measures that regulate all impacts including fisheries. SG 60 is met The HELCOM Action Plan defines a full strategy including a plan with

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 167

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a ris k of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. measures that address all main antropogenic impacts including fisheries. Furthermore, under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive work at the EU level to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ is ongoing and directed specific at the fisheries. There are therefore measures including closed areas (NATURA 2000 and HELCOM VME areas), in the coastal zone but outside the sprat fishing area there are RAMSAR zones for the protection of birds and the fishery is restricted (TAC). Potentially also seasonal closures could be introduced e.g. for the protection of seal nurseries. General experiences with the combination of limited access (licenses), technical measures (selective gears and light gears), closed areas and by-catch regulations suggest that the measures are likely to work (SG60 is met). The EU multiannual plan and the HELCOM Action plan defines a strategy for management of the the Baltic Sea ecosystems. These plans are built on scientific input through ICES and directly to HELCOM These plan are reviewed regularly with a view to establish if antropogenic activities continiues to be detrimental to the Baltic Ecosystems. This is done at HELCOM and ICES, SG 80 is met. The HELCOM Action Plan defines a full strategy including a plan with measures that address all main antropogenic impacts including fisheries. Furthermore, under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive work at the EU level to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ is ongoing and directed specific at the fisheries, SG100 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide post The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the work, based on confidence that the partial strategy/strategy plausible argument measures/partial will work, based on (e.g., general strategy will work, information directly experience, theory or based on some about the UoA and/or comparison with similar information directly ecosystem involved fisheries/ ecosystems). about the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Measures, such as protection of key habitats (PI 2.4.2) and species (cod, herring sprat) are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument and comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems, SG60 is met. The information on the status of the Baltic ecosystem suggests that antropogenic influence is a major factor but also that the more importantcomponents are eutrophication and bottom trawl fishing (for cod in particular). Information on the effects of the sprat fishery suggests that this activity is not causing structural or functional disruption supported by that

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 168

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a ris k of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. the fishing gear is pelagic (no habitat effects), that the coastal zone is not affected and that the direct effect (fishing pressure) is below the standard impact defined by MSC (biomass > 80% of virgin biomass based on equilibrium considerations). SG 80 is met. Direct testing of the lack of impact can only be evaluated through theoretically ecosystem modeling, there are a number of publications that summarize the status and identify the threats to the Baltic Ecosyste (BALTIC Stern, HELCOM HOLAS). There is a substantial literature on theoretical modelling studies for the fisheries compartment (e.g. Tomczak et al 2012) that suggests that the current sprat fishery is not detrimental to the functioning and structure of the Baltic ecosystem. SG 100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guide post There is some There is clear evidence evidence that the that the partial measures/partial strategy/strategy is strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and is successfully . achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi cation The theoretical studies suggest that the there is no need for a very strict measures beyond current practice as related to the UoA, SG80 is met. This fortunate situation prevents the evidence that if the strategy is implemented successfully – as there is no experience with a situation where ecosystem function is affected. Such an effect would be on top of the environmental drivers (warming, saline/oxygenated inflow and freshwater inflow) and other antropogenic impact (eutrophication, bottom trawl fishing) and would be difficult to clearly identify. Hence there is not clear evidence available and SG100 is not met. See section 3.4 for references. EU Regulation 1139/2016 ICES (2013b) References Backer H, Leppänen J-M, Brusendorff AC, Forsius K, Stankiewicz M, Mehtonen J, Pyhälä M, Laamanen M, et al. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan: A regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2010;60:642–649. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.11.016. OVERALL PE RFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 169

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide post Information is adequate Information is adequate to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The Baltic ecosystem and the fish compartment is thoroughly studied, see Niiranen, 2013 and references in section 3.4.8. HELCOM (2009, 2010a) provides a holistic assessment of the key elements of the ecosystem are well understood (SG60 is met). The information is adequate – and beyond – for broad understanding of the key elements of the ecosystem (Tomczak et al., 2012). SG 80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide post Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions UoA on these key UoA on these key between the UoA and ecosystem elements ecosystem elements these ecosystem can be inferred from can be inferred from elements can be existing information, but existing information, inferred from existing have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail . been investigated in detail . Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Studies of the functioning of the fish compartment, (e.g. based on Ecopath modelling based on a comprehensive dataset on the ecosystem compartments), identify the main Baltic Sea ecosystem impacts, including the impact of the sprat fishery and the fisheries impacts have been studied in detail (SG 60 and SG80 are met). Furthermore, there are several studies (e.g. Tomczak et al , 2012; Niiranen et al , 2013; Meier et al , 2013) that investigate the interactions between fishing (including sprat fishing) and the ecosystem and provide details of this interaction. SG100 is met. c Understanding of component functions Guide post The main functions of The impacts of the UoA the components (i.e., on P1 target species, P1 target species, primary, secondary and primary, secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the and the main functions ecosystem are known . of these components in the ecosystem are

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 170

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. understood . Met? Y Y Justifi cation The main functions of the components are known from ecosystem modeling (Tomczak et al , 2012; Niiranen et al , 2013). Furthermore, the role of ETP species (particular harbor porpoise is discussed in detail in relation the the recommendation from ASCOBANS). The ETP species are not significant in an ecosystem context. SG80 is met. The impact of the sprat fishery on sprat (PI 1 target), herring (PI 2 main retained species) and the habitats (sprat is pelagic and the fishing gear is pelagic) is understood (Tomczak et al, 2012). SG100 is met. d Information relevance Guide post Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the available on the impacts of the UoA on impacts of the UoA on these components to the components and allow some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be the ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi cation As demonstrated in Tomczak et al, (2012), there is substantial information on impacts by the sprat fishery available and as demonstrated in this report and argued above the main consequences for the ecosystem are inferred. SG80 is met. The information is detailed allowing studies of the effect of sprat stock abundance as distinct from the pelagic component. SG100 is met. e Monitoring Guide post Adequate data continue Information is adequate to be collected to detect to support the any increase in risk development of level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y Justifi cation The Baltic ecosystem is under constant scrutiny through a number of ICES and HELCOM coordination monitoring programs (acoustic surveys, environmental mapping programs, coastal mapping of fish stocks, sea bird observer programs, counting of seals). SG80 is met. HELCOM provides holistics assessment on which the HELCOM Action plan and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive– aimed at management of the Baltic ecosystem and achieving Good envirnmental status - demonstrates the information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. SG100 is met.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 171

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

References See section 3.4 for references

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 172

Principle 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system national legal system organised and effective and a framework for and binding cooperation with other cooperation with other parties, where necessary, procedures governing parties, where to deliver management cooperation with necessary, to deliver outcomes consistent with other parties which management outcomes MSC Principles 1 and 2. delivers management consistent with MSC outcomes consistent

Principles 1 and 2 with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation At level of international law, Latvia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 2004. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and P2 (wider ecosystem impacts). Inter alia the regulation states: 1) “The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies”. 2) “The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield”. 3) “The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment.” Underneath the umbrella of the EU CFP, there are many binding regulations

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 173

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. A list of the most relevant fisheries Regulations and Recommendations applicable to Baltic fisheries are listed in section 3.5.1. In addition, the EU Marine Strategy Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) commits Members States to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, such as the CFP, in order to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the marine environment, through the development and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach. In Latvia the EU CFP is enacted in the “Fishing Law” (12.04.1995 with later amendment 17.02.2000) which sets the basis for fisheries legislation and institutions responsible for fisheries management and control, as well as national rules on fish resources management. In the case of the Baltic fisheries, the EU cooperates with the Russian Federation under the EU-Russian fisheries agreement signed on 2009. The agreement lays down the principles and procedures to ensure that “the exploitation of the straddling, associated and dependent stocks in the Baltic Sea provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions” , and it also establishes that “ the Parties shall base their cooperation on the best scientific advice available and on anu relevant data, shall apply the precautionary approach and shall agree to develop an eco-system based approach to fisheries management” . Based on the above, through Latvian implementation of the CFP, there is an effective national legal system, cooperation with other parties through various international commissions which deliver outcomes consisitent with MSC Principles 1 and 3, thus the assessment team concludes that SG80 requirements are met. The legal system described above includes binding procedures governing cooperation among all the Parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC P1 and P2. One example is the annual consultations with third parties resulting in the setting of TACs and other regulations pertaining to the exploitation of shared fish stocks. Since 2011 the TAC set for Baltic sprat stock and Central Baltic Herring stock incorporates EU shares and the Russian autonomouns quota. Thus, SG100 requirements are met . b Resolution of disputes Guide post The management The management The management system incorporates or system incorporates or system incorporates or is subject by law to a is subject by law to a is subject by law to a mechanism for the transparent transparent

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 174

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within resolution of legal resolution of legal the system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the effective in dealing context of the fishery with most issues and and has been tested that is appropriate to and proven to be the context of the UoA. effective . Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation There are disputes on three levels national, EU and between EU and Russia Federation. National disputes are resolved using two mechanisms: political through the ministry and through, potentially, court cases. Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through relevant primary and secondary legislation. Formal procedures apply for the resolution of disputes through the national court systems. In practise disputes are resolved through discussions with stakeholders and at the political level, there are no court cases. Fines and other punishments based on fisheries infringement can appeal to the full judicial process by fishermen, or industry representatives representing a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 80 is met. At the EU level conflict resolutions are through the European legislation, ie CFP in this case. Disputes between Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers. Ultimately, any European citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. At European level there is also the possibility of appealing to the Ombudsman, which investigates complaints about maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union. There are also a wide range of institutional solutions to dispute resolution – through trade organisations, professional associations, and a range of decision-making bodies (at local, regional and national levels). The Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) rules on cases brought before it concerning, amongst others, the application of Community legislation. Although some cases are referred to the Court from national courts, most cases are brought by the Commission because Member States have failed to transpose and/or implement EU legislation. Individuals have very limited possibility to bring cases directly to the Court, but must rely instead on complaining to the Commission or bringing cases at the national level. Although the role of the CJEC is less visible, it is far from insignificant

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 175

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. in the development of the CFP. For example, the Court has been called to judge on catch quotas, free circulation of capital, and the EC’s authority regarding relations with third countries. SG 80 is met. In case of disputes between Russia Federation and EU member states the EU-Russian fisheries agreement signed in 2009 established a Joint Baltic Sea fisheries Committee which shall “serve as a forum for the resolution of disputes which might arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement”. There is no major outstanding conflicts indicting that the mechanism is effective, SG 80 is met. Hence the management system incorporates transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes. The few court cases suggest that the main conflict resolution mechanism (discussions with stakeholders and at the political level) is effective. Both Russian-EU, European and national systems have been tested. The EU legal system have been activated in several court cases. For example, infractions procedures have been made in the past by the EC against several MS for quota overshooting or lack to provide required fisheries data. Occassionally national court cases mainly over punishmen related to fisheries regulations infringement occur. Therefore, SG100 requirements are met. c Respect for rights Guide post The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to mechanism to observe mechanism to formally generally respect the the legal rights created commit to the legal legal rights created explicitly or established rights created explicitly explicitly or established by custom of people or established by by custom of people dependent on fishing custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent for food and livelihood a manner consistent with the objectives of in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation The EU CFP sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks): “In view of the precarious economic state of

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 176

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • PI 3.1.1 Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by allocating fishing opportunities among Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.” Quota allocation at National level falls under the responsibility of each MS. In Latvia the Fishing Law prescribes a default ratio for quota allocation between off-shore and coastal fisheries, with off-shore fisheries taking 97% of the quota and coastal fisheries taking the remaining 3%. Based on the above the assessment team concludes that the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2, thus that SG100 requirements are met.

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 177

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The man agement 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 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide post Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals involved in individuals involved in individuals involved in the management the management the management process have been process have been process have been identified. Functions, identified. Functions, identified. Functions, roles and roles and roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood . explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for well understood for key areas of all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation In Section 3.5.2 a list of the main Regional and National institutions involved in fisheries management in the Baltic is provided, including a description of their functions, roles and responsibilities. They are summarized in table below (see section 3.5.2 for more details): Table 3.1.2.1 . Institutions involved in the management of the Baltic fisheries Roles and Institution Scope Web site Responsibilities Fisheries scientific ICES http://www.ices.dk research and advice To reach agreements EU-RUSSIA Global on management fisheries actions between EU Committee and Russia http://ec.europa.e Implementation of the DGMARE u/dgs/maritimeaff CFP airs_fisheries/ https://stecf.jrc.ec. EU Technical advice to STECF europa.eu/web/st the EC ecf/ Multi-stakeholders’ http://www.bsac.d BSAC advisory body to the k/

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 178

The man agement 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 EC Inter-Gov’t organization under BALTFISH HELCOM Framework Multi-stakeholders’ advisory observers Fisheries Dept. of Legislation and https://www.zm.g the Ministry of fisheries Management ov.lv/en/ Agriculture State Licencing, Control and http://www.varam. Environmental Nationa Inspection gov.lv/eng/ Service l Scientific assessment http://www.bior.go BIOR and advice v.lv/en/ Multi-stakeholders’ FAC advisory body The assessment team concludes that functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility for all the institutions presented in the table above (both for those with statutory and non-statutory roles). Also, interaction between them is well defined. Thus, SG100 requirements are met. b Consultation processes Guide post The management The management The management system includes system includes system includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that obtain relevant that regularly seek that regularly seek information from the and accept relevant and accept relevant main affected parties, information, including information, including including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform management system management system the management demonstrates demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used . Met? Y Y N Justifi cation When drafting and proposing legislation, the DGMARE shall consult a wide range of stakeholders from public online consultations to meetings with the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 179

The man agement 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 ACs, MSs, industry representatives and environmental NGOs. As seen on previous SI there are 3 multi-stakeholders’ consultations bodies involved in Baltic and Latvian fisheries: 2 at an European level (BSAC and BALTFISH) and 1 at a National level (FAC). BSAC : The creation of Advisory Councils (ACs, BSAC is one of them) was one of the outcomes of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in response to the EU and stakeholders ʼ desire to increase the latter ʼs participation in the CFP process. The ACs prepare recommendations and suggestions on fisheries aspects in the area they cover and transmit them to the Commission or to the relevant national authorities. Submissions may be in response to a request from these bodies or on the ACs own initiative. The ACs are made up of representatives of the fisheries sector and other groups affected by the CFP. At this moment there are 7 ACs: North Sea, North Western Waters, South Western Waters, Pelagic Stocks, Mediterranean Sea, Long Distance, and Baltic Sea (BSAC). Once they are all up and running, there will be 11 Advisory Councils. The BSAC was created in 2006. Its main function is to advise the European Commission and Member States on matters relating to management of the fisheries in the Baltic Sea. At this moment there are 43 BSAC members, 60% of its Executive Committee is comprised by representatives of the fisheries sector, ensuring that their knowledge, interestests and concerns are taken into account. (LFPO being a member of the Executive Committee). The BSAC meets regularly, for example in 2016 the General Assembly met once, while the Executive Committee met 3 times and there were another 6 more meetings of the different Working Groups. At their website can be found the Statutes and rules of procedure, WG procedures, Work programme for 2016-2017, and the Annual Reports since 2007. The consultation process to be followed with the ACs is stated in the CFP, and they perform an important role in debating fisheries policy, plans and management measures. BALTFISH constitutes a MS forum for exchange of ideas, views and information to facilitate joint actions and various concrete projects aiming at achieving sustainable fisheries in the Baltic Region. BALTFISH works on two levels (High-level group –HLG-, and Forum Seminar) as explained in Section 3.5.2.1 . The Latvian Fishery Advisory Council (FAC) is recognized by the Latvian ‘Fishing Law’ as an advisory body of the Fisheries Department. FAC is the forum for the managers to consult with fisheries representatives and also other stakeholders (BIOR, NGOs) on fisheries regulations. It is an advisory body comprising between 15 and 23 members (it is not a fixed composition). FAC meetings are held by the Ministry 3-4 times a year,

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 180

The man agement 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 depending on the issues to deal with. The LFA has 3 votes on the FAC, and LFPO has 1 vote. These 3 bodies have regular meetings and constitute an effective conduit for incorporating local knowledge into the management system (in particular BSAC and FAC). Therefore, SG80 is met . However, although consultation is intense there is not always a clear explanation provided on how the information received from the stakeholders is used or not used and therefore SG100 is not met . c Participation Guide post The consultation The consultation process provides process provides opportunity for all opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y N Justifi cation As explained in previous SI, extensive consultative processes are in place at European levels to debate fisheries policy, plans and management measures. The introduction of the BSAC in 2006 provided a structure and formal procedures to incorporate a wider stakeholder community within a regular consultation process. 40% of the seats at the BSAC Executive Committee and General Asembly are allotted to representatives of interest groups affected by the CFP other than the fisheries sector. In the BSAC Executive Committee for the period 2015-2018 are included the following environmental NGOs: OCEANA, World Wide Fund (WWF), Coalition Clean Baltic, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Baltic Sea 2020, and The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. Also, there are other stakeholders representing other interests appart from fishers and environmental NGOs, such as: the Federation of National Organisations of Inporters and Exporters of Fish, the European transport worker’s Federation, and the Dains Active Consumers Association. Also, the BALTFISH forum seminar level allows representatives from organisations such as ICES and HELCOM to discuss relevant fisheries issues with officials of the MS and EC. At a National level the FAC also provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. However, the participation and involvement of other stakeholders than the fisheries sector seems to be low. and they

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 181

The man agement 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 have no statutory role. Based on the information presented above SG80 requirements are met. At an European level it is clear that BSAC provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved in the Baltic Sea fisheries management, and facilitates their effective engagement. However, it is less clear how other maritime and marine organisations are brought into more routine fisheries management consultation. For example the degree to which marine recreation, aquaculture, aggregate extraction and offshore industries are actively facilitated (perhaps as part of an ICZM or marine spatial planning forum) is not obvious. This together with the lack of involvement of environmental NGOs in the national FAC consultations are reasons for considering that SG100 requirements are not fully met.

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if rele vant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 182

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

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 183

The management policy has clear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. and implementation of national level policies based on an ecosystem approach, in order to meet the following targets by 2020. In Annex I provides qualitive descriptors for determining good environmental status, among them we list the following as relevant for fisheries: ° Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within safe biological limits, exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; ° All elements of the marine food web must occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long ‐term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity; ° Biological diversity must be maintained and the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; and ° Sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structure and functions of the ecosystems. Therefore, SG100 requirements are met.

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVE RALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 184

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide post Objectives , which are Short and long-term Well defined and broadly consistent with objectives , which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with long-term objectives , expressed by MSC’s achieving the outcomes which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are expressed by MSC’s consistent with implicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes fishery-specific explicit within the expressed by MSC’s management system. fishery-specific Principles 1 and 2, are management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation Previously to the adoption of the new management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic, the client fishery had no specific objectives although TACs and quotas for the fishery has been set according to ICES advice based on both precautionary and MSY approaches, and therefore there are implicit objectives within this framework for achieving the objectives laid out within the CFP. Sprat TAC for 2016 was still adopted following this method. In July 2016 a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (Regulation 2016/1139) entered into force. In its Article 3 the Regulation establishes the following long-term objectives for the Plan: 1. “The plan shall contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy (CFP) listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, in particular by applying the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce MSY”. 2. “The plan shall contribute to the elimination of discards by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and to the implementation of the landing obligation established in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for the species which are subject to catch limits and to which this Regulation applies”. 3. “The plan shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in order to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. It shall be coherent with Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC”. Regarding this objective the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 185

The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Plan shall ensure that the first descriptor mentioned in the previous SI is fulfilled, and also contributing to the fulfilment of the all the others. In order to achieve these long-term objectives, the Regulation establishes

target fishing mortalities (F MSY ) to be achieved as soon as possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis, by 2020 for the stocks concerned

(including the sprat stock in the Baltic Sea). Once F MSY has been achieved the “it shall be maintained thereafter” within the ranges set out in the Regulation (see Section 3.3.3 for a brief description of the plan, PI 1.2.1 for more details relative to sprat objectives, and PI 3.2.2 relative to specific objective decision making processes). Further, as it is a multi-species management plan, the target values to be used for fixing fishing opportunities for a stock will depend on both intra- and inter-species stock dynamics. Therefore, the multiannual management plan regulating the sprat fishery in the Baltic Sea has well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. SG100 is met.

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERF ORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 186

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide post There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific the fishery-specific objectives. objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi cation Up to present year (2016), strategies to achieve fishery specific objectives have been based on the process leading to the establishment of the TAC (based on ICES and STECF advice) and further quota allocation. SG60 is met. Regulation 2016/1139, adopted in July 2016, introduced new decision making processes for the sprat fishery. In its Articles 4 and 5 (and Annexes I and II) the Plan sets out ranges of fishing mortalities (targets) and conservation reference points for SSB (safeguards) for most of the cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic (with the exception of the EBC and the Bothnian Bay herring) and details a decision-making process for fixing fishing opportunites of the concerned stocks (sprat, herring and cond) depending on both intra- and inter-specific stock dynamics. The process is detailed in the following points quoted from its Article 4: 2. In accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, fishing opportunities shall be fixed in accordance with the objectives and targets of the plan and shall comply with the target fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column A, to this Regulation. 3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, fishing opportunities may be fixed at levels corresponding to lower levels of fishing mortality than those set out in Annex I, column A. 4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, fishing opportunities for a stock may be fixed in accordance with the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I, column B, provided that the stock concerned is above the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point set out in Annex II, column A: (a) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary for the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 3 in the case of mixed fisheries; (b) if, on the basis of scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics; or

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 187

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

(c) in order to limit variations in fishing opportunities between consecutive years to not more than 20 %. The application of this paragraph shall be explained by a reference to one or more of the conditions set out in points (a) to (c) of the first subparagraph. 5. Where, according to scientific advice, the MSY exploitation rate is achieved for the stock concerned by 2020, fishing opportunities for that stock may be fixed in accordance with paragraph 4 thereafter. 6. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the fishing mortality ranges set out in Annex I no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. Further, it continues in Article 5, where the following process is detailed: 1. The conservation reference points expressed as minimum and limit spawning stock biomass levels that are to be applied in order to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of the stocks concerned are set out in Annex II. 2. When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the minimum spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column A, to this Regulation, all appropriate remedial measures shall be adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY. In particular, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, to achieve such levels, fishing opportunities for the stock concerned shall be fixed at a level consistent with a fishing mortality that is reduced below the range set out in Annex I, column B, to this Regulation, taking into account the decrease in biomass of that stock. 3. When scientific advice indicates that the spawning stock biomass of any of the stocks concerned is below the limit spawning stock biomass reference point as set out in Annex II, column B, to this Regulation, further remedial measures shall be taken to ensure the rapid return of the stock concerned to levels above the level capable of producing MSY, which may include, by way of derogation from Article 4(2) and (4) of this Regulation and in accordance with Article 16(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, suspending the targeted fishery for the stock concerned and the adequate reduction of fishing opportunities. 4. Remedial measures referred to in this Article may include: (a) Commission measures in case of a serious threat to marine biological resources in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (b) Member State emergency measures in accordance with Article 13 of

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 188

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; (c) measures pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of this Regulation. 5. The choice of measures referred to in this Article shall be made in accordance with the nature, seriousness, duration and repetition of the situation where the spawning stock biomass is below the levels referred to in paragraph 1. 6. Where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may, as a matter of urgency, submit a proposal for the revision of those conservation reference points. This set of procedures constitutes a established decision-making process resulting in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives . SG80 is met . b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide post Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to serious issues serious and other all issues identified in identified in relevant important issues relevant research, research, monitoring, identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation evaluation and research, monitoring, and consultation, in a consultation, in a evaluation and transparent, timely and transparent, timely and consultation, in a adaptive manner and adaptive manner and transparent, timely and take account of the take some account of adaptive manner and wider implications of the wider implications take account of the decisions. of decisions. wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation The ICES working group structure, and the consultative structure built into the decision-making process (STECF / ACFA / AC / DG MARE working groups/DG environment etc. at the EU-level), and the consultation requirements at the regional/national levels does mean that serious and other important issues are considered. Certainly latest scientific advice, and industry and social implications play key roles in shaping decisions. Decision making processes respond to intra- and inter--species stock dynamics. Hence, SG 60 and SG80 requirements are met . However, this perhaps stops short of being all issues. In particular some of the P2 criteria (including environmental effects of stocks and spatial management) receive less consideration in a timely, adaptive and transparent manner.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 189

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

The Plan makes provision to established some closed areas between 1 May to 31 October but there is no clear decision making process established for achieving a responsive and adaptive spatial management. Althouhg in its Article 8 establishes that “The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts (…) regarding the following technical measures: (…) (c) limitations or prohibitions on the use of certain fishing gears and on fishing activities, in certain areas or periods to protect spawning fish, fish below the minimum conservation reference size or non-target fish species, or to minimise the negative impact on the ecosystem” . Therefore, SG100 requirements are not met c Use of precautionary approach Guide post Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi cation Both targets, F (and safeguards) and SSB have been above their respective targets for at least the past 10 years and have been calculated using precautionary and MSY approach, and they are based on ICES assessments and advice. Hence , SG 80 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide post Some information on Information on the Formal reporting to all the fishery’s fishery’s performance interested stakeholders performance and and management provides management action is action is available on comprehensive generally available on request , and information on the request to explanations are fishery’s performance stakeholders. provided for any and management actions or lack of action actions and describes associated with findings how the management and relevant system responded to recommendations findings and relevant emerging from recommendations research, monitoring, emerging from evaluation and review research, monitoring, activity. evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 190

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justifi cation ICES reports and advice are publicly accesible, as well as STECF recommendations. It is also possible to see the outputs of the commissions’ deliberations (Agreed Records/Communications / Regulations). All these records describe how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation, and review activity. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met . Although there is very clear formal reporting of both management and scientific actions from those two processes there is little ‘non technical’ reporting to the public or industry, making difficult to derive clear explanation of the decisions that take place during the process. Therefore, SG100 requirements are not fully met . e Approach to disputes Guide post Although the The management The management management authority system or fishery is system or fishery acts or fishery may be attempting to comply in proactively to avoid subject to continuing a timely fashion with legal disputes or rapidly court challenges, it is judicial decisions implements judicial not indicating a arising from any legal decisions arising from disrespect or defiance challenges. legal challenges. of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi cation At the EU and national level management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges. There are a number of mechanisms in EU and Latvian fisheries management which act proactively to avoid legal disputes, and these are much improved in recent years. Following the review of the CFP in 2002, much increased emphasis was placed on stakeholder engagement in the management process as a means of proactively avoiding disputes. Stakeholder consultation through Advisory Councils (AC) is with the CFP reform in 2013 an integral part of the functioning of this system. For the sprat fishery under assessment the BSAC plays an important role in bringing parties together (industry – across all sectors, science, NGO) early on in the management process, thereby reducing the likelihood of management measures which trigger dispute. Additionally in Latvia, the Ministry of Agriculture through the FAC acts proactively with the industry to discuss management proposals, address industry concerns and inform of up-coming regulations. There are regular meetings between the industry and the Ministry which have done much to foster proactive dialogue.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 191

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

The Agreement between the EC and the Russian federation on cooperation in fisheries in the Baltic Sea establishes a Joint Baltic Sea Fisheries Committee. The Agreement establishes that the Committee shall: “Serve as a forum for the amicable resolution of disputes which might arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Agreement” . So far, concerns have been raised in the annual bilateral consultations between EU and Russia on TACs, but this has not impeded reaching consensus on terms of fishing and MCS actions and upholding the ongoing collaboration of the members. SG100 is met

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 192

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide post Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control A comprehensive surveillance and surveillance monitoring, control and mechanisms exist, system has been surveillance system and are implemented in implemented in the has been implemented the fishery and there is fishery and has in the fishery and has a reasonable demonstrated an ability demonstrated a expectation that they to enforce relevant consistent ability to are effective. management enforce relevant measures, strategies management and/or rules. measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Just ifi cation Fisheries rules and control systems are agreed at EU level, but implemented and carried out by the national authorities and inspectors of EU Member States. An EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) was established in 2007 to strengthen and coordinate controls across all national enforcement authorities to bring about improved uniformity and effectiveness of enforcement. This is further reinforced by the new EU control regulation which came into force on 1st January 2010, and aims to foster a new culture of compliance (1224/2009). In July 2013 The EU adopted an Action Plan to reinforce the control system, ensuring that Latvia sets up an effective administrative structure, with appropriate IT systems and enough resources. The Action Plan was designed jointly with the Latvian authorities following the results of the Comission’s audits. In 2014 the EU announced in its website (https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/latvia-ahead-schedule-improving-fisheries- control_en ) that since the adoption of the plan Latvia had taken a number of steps to improve its control system: ° Fisheries control funding had increased by approximately 900,000 EUR. ° The administrative capacity had increased by 31%, including 12 new inspectors' posts, and by organising regular training for inspectors. ° The technical capacity had been strengthened with a 29% increase in the number of cars as well as a new vessel for marine inspectors. ° The catch data system had been restructured and a new IT system (Latvian Fisheries Integrated Control and Information System) is operational.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 193

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.

° Through the development of an IT application allowing access to ERS and VMS data and their validation, fisheries inspectors now have access to relevant data. The technical means for inspectors to access the data has also been improved ° A risk-based work plan with targeted inspection benchmarks had been adopted and the benchmarks achieved ° A risk assessment framework had been established, allowing for more targeted and efficient inspections. The risk assessment team , made up of six experts and a head of the Control Division, is in charge of risk assessment and produces an updated monthly list of vessels graded by risk level. The point system for infringements is being applied and accounted for in the risk assessment. The activities of the Latvian off-shore cod fishing fleet is comprehensively monitored by the Fisheries Control Department (FCD), under the State of Environmental Service. The FCD supervises the work done by the control Units of the 4 environmental Regional Boards existing along the Latvian coast (Lielr īga, Valmiera, Ventspils and Liepaja). Besides, the FCD has a mobile Marine Control Unit that can also perform inspections (normally tackling the more complicated cases). Inspections in the sprat fishery are focused in controlling that the quota allocated to each company is not exceeded, and in verifying total landings and sprat/herring estimates. Inspections are performed both at quay side and at sea. The inspections are scheduled by the FCD based on the risk- based assessment and the prior notifications sent by the vessels. When a company reaches a point where only 3-4 tonnes of the quota are left it is not allowed to go fishing again, the remaining quota must be sold or it can also be transferred to the following fishing year. During the site visit the assessment team visited the Control Unit at Ventspils and interviewed staff members. The staff explained the protocols and showed the reports and information gathered during the inspections. This Control Unit inspects 3 ports (Ventspils, Roja and M ērsrags) with a total of 7 inspectors (4 at Ventspils and 3 for the other 2 harbours). In 2015 they performed a total of 793 inspections (60 of them at sea and the rest on shore), plus 150 inspections at customers (buyers). As described in previous SI, a series of actions to strengthen the mechanisms in Latvia have been taken most recently since 2013. The control and monitoring system has been strengthened over the last decade throughout the Baltic and demonstrate a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, the SG100 is met . b Sanctions Guide post Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, non-compliance exist,

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 194

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. and there is some are consistently are consistently applied evidence that they are applied and thought to and demonstrably applied. provide effective provide effective deterrence. deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation According to the Latvian Administrative Penalty Code in case of violation of the rules of fishing in the territorial waters, the economic zone waters or in international waters legal persons can be fined from 140 € up to 4,300 € (depending on the severity of the infringement). Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to one year can be applied. In case of repeated violation of fishing regulations during the year legal persons can be fined from 700 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. For fishing without authorization, in prohibited place, or with prohibited gear, legal persons can be fined from 1,400 € up to 14,000 €. Also confiscation of fishing gear and suspension of the fishing license up to three year can be applied. Three penalties were issued to Client members in 2015 based on a total of 4,556 sprat fishing trips of all Latvian vessels. All of them were between 140 € and 700 € based on non-compliance with the prior notification requirement (i.e. notification prior to arrival in port) and for exceeding the permited margin tolerance in sprat/herrimg estimates (i.e. within 10% of landed weights) recorded in the logbook (see section 3.5.6 for more details). The staff from the Ventspils Regional Environmental Board interviewed during the site visit reported 4 fines to the fleet targeting sprat in 2015 (3 of 140 €, 1 of 700€), one them went to court. Besides, the risk-based framework recently developed for the MCS system (see previous SI) includes penalty points (1 penalty implies the vessel will be classified as high risk) and a list of vessels graded by risk level is updated on a monthly basis. The EU recognized that the point system for infringements is being applied and accounted for in the risk assessment (see previous SI). Based on the above, SG60 and 80 are met. During the site visit the assessment team had access to the LFPOs record of sanctions, and also visited and received information from the Ventspils Regional Environmental Board. However, data from the other Control Agencies in the country were not reviewed, although requested, and therefore it can not be stated that sanctions provide demonstrably effective deterrence at a national level for the whole Latvian fleet targeting sprat. Therefore the SG100 is not met . c Compliance Guide post Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree thought to comply with to demonstrate fishers of confidence that the management comply with the fishers comply with the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 195

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. system for the fishery management system management system under assessment, under assessment, under assessment, including, when including, when including, providing required, providing required, providing information of information of information of importance to the importance to the importance to the effective management effective management effective management of the fishery. of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Despite sanctions mentioned on previous SI, compliance of the LFPO fleet was confirmed through interview by fishermen, managers and compliance officials to be high and no concerns were raised. During the site visit BIOR representatives interviewed confirmed good understanding with the fleet in relation to the sampling procurement and procedure as described in Section 3.5.4 . However, the current procedure has to be changed in order to accommodate to the EU requirements on random sampling. Conversations between BIOR and the fishing industry are now taking place, and a new agreement is expected to be in place for 2017. Based on the above, SG 60 and 80 requirements are met. However, sanctions were imposed to LFPO members in 2015, preventing the fishery to meet SG100. d Systematic non-compliance Guide post There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi cation From the information gathered during the meeting held with representatives of the Fisheries Department during the site visit, the assessment team concluded that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance with rules and regulations for the LFPO Sprat fishery in recent years. This meets the SG80.

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if releva nt): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 196

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide post There are mechanisms There are mechanisms There are mechanisms in place to evaluate in place to evaluate key in place to evaluate all some parts of the parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system system. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision-making and stock assessment purposes. Each MS monitors landings, fishing effort and compliance. Besides, scientific monitoring programs are also established feeding the EU DCF. All the information gathered is further compiled and analysed by STECF and ICES. Regulation 2016/1139 also establishes that where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the Fs or SSBs ranges set out in Annexes I and II respectively no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, the Commission may as a matter of urgency submit a proposal for revision of those ranges. Hence, SG 60 and 80 requirements are met . However, the mechanism stops short of evaluating all parts of the management system. There is not yet a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the new Landings Obligation for this fishery, and although bycatch is low and the incentive for discarding or slipping is also low, as explained in several P2 indicators, a lack of monitoring and evaluation system for the Landings Obligation means the SG100 level is not reached for this Scoring Issue”. b Internal and/or external review Guide post The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and internal and external occasional external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation Regulation 2016/1139 makes provision in its Article 15 for an internal review of the results achieved by the Plan every 5 years: “By 21 July 2019, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall report to the European

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 197

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Parliament and to the Council on the results and impact of the plan on the stocks to which this Regulation applies and on the fisheries exploiting those stocks, in particular as regards the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 3”. However, the possibility for an earlier review is also considered: “The Commission may report at an earlier date if this is deemed necessary by all Member States concerned or by the Commission itself” . ICES performs regular internal reviews and benchmarks of its stock assessments and advices. Besides, ICES work brings together a wide range of national scientists, and in so doing builds external perspectives into the assessments and advice. The CFP is subject to 10-years revisions. The technical regulation is reviewed at irregular intervals. The national parliaments reviews the fishing law at irregular intervals and similarly are economic incentives reviewed. These reviews involve both the fishing sector as well as external agent such as the ministry of justice, the EU and Latvian parliaments. However, the sprat fishery management system is not subject to a regular external review, and therefore SG100 is not met .

References See references in Section 7.2 for a comprehensive list of applicable Regulations, Proposals and Agreements OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 COND ITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 198

Appendix 1.2 Conditions No conditions set for this fishery

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 199

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

PEER REVIEWER 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Justification: Thank you, the team has revised the report in consequence of the comments The evidence presented in the report does justify most of the provided within. marks given, though there are a number of areas where either additional information (e.g. on the ICES sprat stock assessment outcome) is necessary to support the score given (P1 seems to high), or the team should reconsider and more closely focus on what information is actually required to address the PI criteria. Overall, however, the conclusion that the Latvian pelagic sprat fishery passes all three MSC Principles is sound.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are NA CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses]

Justification:

There are no conditions raised for this fishery.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 200

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 201

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.1 No No NA The link between the pelagic species in the The team has decided to score 1.1.1 against Baltic and the cod is well established, e.g. the criteria for key LTL species (though this Tomczak et al (2012), Sparholt (1994), going is not proven, as shown by the comments back to Jensen (1929). Section 3.3.5 has about a possible link between the sprat and been expanded with a more detailed account the cod stock) and to use a SSB/R plot of the literature, see also JRC (2014). (Figure 3-8) to estimate what proportion the The link between sprat and cod is demonstrated by Tomczak et al (2012). current level of sprat biomass represents of Scoring under PI 1.1.1A is in relation to the un-fished biomass. However, there is no “ecosystem impact” and “ecosystem needs” explanation given of the basis for this not in relation to MSY. These needs are relationship (what data and analyses were evaluated relative to MSC default standards. used?), nor how the well the current value of fishing mortality (F 2016 =0.22) is estimated in The accuracy of the sprat assessment is relation to the rest of the time series (in fact F judged based on the benchmark, ICES (2013b) where both the deterministic XSA has been >Fmsy since 1994). Apart from the results and and estimates with confidence 2014 year class, recruitment has been below limits (SAM) are estimated.Th.e SAM result average since 2010, and neither CVs (the that are indicative of the accuracy of the assessment is deterministic) nor assessment is inserted in section 3.3.2 retrospective patterns of variables are shown The four panel (Landings, Recruitment, (though the stock has been > MSYBtrigger Fishing mortality and SSB) is inserted in the since 1990). The ICES four-plot would be text, section 3.3.4. Currently the biomass (SSB) of sprat and useful here. herring (Central stock open Sea) are each In summary, whilst the stock might be above about 1 mill tons. about equal. the point where serious ecosystem impacts The score is unchanged. could occur, this is not proven by the evidence provided, and may just as well be LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report because the sprat is notpage so202 ecologically important as herring, say.

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.2 Not scored Not scored NA Stock considered not to be depleted. No response needed.

1.2.1 No No NA The introduction to the Management Plan is The score of 90 seems too high. The expanded in section 3.3.3. Responsiveness information provided mainly concerns the of the HCR is assured through the obligation objectives of management and there are no laid down in the management plan to remain details of how the harvest strategy is within the limits defined in Annexes I and II of responsive to the state of the stock nor how the Regulation and hence the corresponding its elements work together to achieve these calculation of the fishing possibilities as objectives. It is clear, for example, that most provided by ICES/STECF. The text in the justification is modified to clarify this point. TACs set in the last 10 years exceed the ICES advice, and that F has been > Fmsy The score remains unchanged. (though how well Fmsy is estimated is not known). The new multi-annual management plan (for cod, herring and sprat) is now the main management tool, and it includes a harvest control rule, details of which should be presented at this stage (rather than for the first time at PI 3.2.2).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 203

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.2 No No N A See answer to 1.2.1 above. The tools have Again, we need to see the elements of the been improved as per Management plan, multiannual plan for the Baltic fisheries in also the target have been revised. relation to sprat (which is said to be explicit The HCR is of course untested. and well defined based on specified reference points). Bearing in mind that F is The score has not been changed. estimated to have been >Fmsy since 1994, the tools are not effective in controlling the exploitation level as required under the HCR, and the 2016 HCR is as yet untested. The evidence is that SG100 is not met.

1.2.3 Yes No NA See ICES (2013b), apparently the experts Surely, the uncertainty about natural involved with the assessment and the mortalities and hence stock removals and benchmark is satisfied. The consideration of abundance undermines the SG100 scores. uncertainty in the assessment is considered under PI 1.2.4 while this PI evaluates the sources and quailty of available information to evaluate the stock status through the assessment process. The team agrees after review that the SG100 has been met and the score remains unchanged.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 204

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.2.4 No Yes NA The reference points are advised by ICES SG80 requires that reference points are and the management plan is evaluated as appropriate to the stock and can be precautionary based on these reference estimated. Nowhere in the report is there an points, ICES (2013b) and ICES (2015d). The information is given in the ICES advice adequate explanation of their derivation, (2016b), Table 8.3.18.5. This Table is copied which should be here. into the report, section 3.3.3. The score remains unchanged.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA You state that Blim is used to assess whether Information reletive to reference points for the CB Herring stock status is above PRI, so sprat has been added. The information on why present other information on reference CBH while perhaps extraneous, is helpful in points (and not for sprat!)? the discussion on the cod-herring-sprat dynamic.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA As with sprat, if the new multi-annual Additional information on the management management plan (for cod, herring and plan has been added in Section 3.3 of the sprat) is to be the main management tool, its report. details with respect to herring should be summarised in the report. The contrast between the comprehensive information (much of it irrelevant to PI 2.1) on the herring assessment and catch forecasts and the lack for the target species (sprat) is puzzling.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 205

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Table 3-15 in Section 3.4.4 displays the It would be useful to show what proportion overall Latvian catch of CBH, demonstrating the landings from the UoA represent of total that Latvia lands the fourth smallest catch. CBH catches, in order to put the impact into perspective. Again, details of the multi- annual management plan would help us to understand whether information is adequate to support the management strategy.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 206

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.2.1 No ?? NA Given that there is good data on UoC Given the Peer Reviewer’s comment, the catches (which are all landed, unless team agrees on considering that species slipped), there is no requirement for composition from research surveys not inferences derived from BIOR research conducted on board fishing vessels (and vessel surveys that are not conducted on therefore subject to a different fishing board UoC fishing vessels. Consequently, operative) may not be significative of the species such as stickleback, salmon, smelt, catch composition obtained under ‘real’ shorthorn sculpin and sandeel should not be fishing conditions. Although the species considered here. The Team should re-score mentioned by the peer reviewer were already this PI, based on the relevant species, and fully assessed in the PCDR the team has explain how the final PI score has been decided to withdraw them from the arrived at, presumably using Table C2 in the assessment. The team has reconsidered the CR (27.10.7.4). list of evaluated species and has aligned text in Section 3.4.5. Besides, scoring tables for secondary and ETP species have been modified in order to consider the different scoring elements, according to CR 7.10.7.4

2.2.2 No ?? NA See comments above, and need for Explanation of the new management plan explanation of new management plan in has been revised in Section 3.3.3 (sprat) and relation to cod (which seems to be the most 3.4.5. vulnerable species).

2.2.3 No No NA See comments above on relevant species. A The team has revised scoring rationales in higher score might be justified accordance to the considered secondary species and has rescored this PI.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 207

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

2.3.2 Yes No NA Some comment is required supporting the Additional comment has been provided. decision that SG100 is not met

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

2.4.1 No Yes NA Habitat detail is provided in 2.4.1 SIb Why, if the team concludes that the UoA has primarily to provide context to the required no impact on habitat (because it always scoring of PI 2.4.2, for which scoring is operates in mid-water), is the habitat detail mandatory. Possibly not necessary, presented at 2.4.1b necessary? Some however, useful. Additional information information about how skippers avoid sea including confirmation from the UoC client bed contact (use of sonar, net sounders e.g.) that its members use net sounder equipment, and information from the BENTHIS project would provide the necessary evidence for which concluded that pelagic gear/ seabed SG100. interactions contributions to the overall benthic impact from pelagic fisheries was assessed to be marginal.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 208

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.4.2 No No NA Additional information supporting measures The statement in the body of the report that and partical stategy have been added. semi-pelagic gear is used in the sprat fishery, Quantified evidence was provided, in the and the absence of quantitative evidence form of the conclusion of the extensive work that the there is no seabed contact at all of the BENTHIS project which determined times (see above, and comments against PI that pelagic gear/ seabed interactions 2.4.3), suggests that SG80 is not met unless contributions to the overall benthic impact was assessed to be marginal. VMS data clearly show no overlap with VMEs.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The score is justified. No comment.

2.5.1 Yes No NA The Peer Review comment is more Given that the Baltic ecosystem is dynamic appropriately addressed under PI 2.5.2 as and has frequent regime shifts (whatever the related to ecosystem management. See cause), how does management of the sprat team’s response there. fishery adapt to this? For example, in the 1960s and 1970s cod predominated and No changes were made to the rationale or sprat were relatively scarce, so would score of this PI. exploitation of sprat be reduced if this scenario re-appeared?

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 209

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.5.2 No Yes NA The rationale has been revised to address Surely, the management plan that addresses the Reviewer’s concern with regards to the exploitation of sprat, herring and cod is cod/ herring/ sprat management plan and its important here, particularly as the UoA has objectives. The score remains unchanged. negligible or no impact on habitats or ETP species. This should be explained.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 210

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.1 Yes No NA Additional information addressing concerns Finally, you explain something about the raised with respect to the multiannual cod/ multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring/ sprat management plan have been herring and sprat in the Baltic added to Section 3.3.3 and as necessary in PI 1.2.1. The sentence instruction readers to Sea (Regulation 2016/1139), and direct the descriptions of the plan has been revised to reader to PI 1.2.1 for more details . include Section 3.3.3, PI 1.2.1 and PI 3.2.2). Unfortunately, these are not there. In fact, There has been no change made to the most of what is required seems to be in 3.2.2 score. (though it could be summarized for the reader’s benefit).

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA The score is justified, though somewhere the The scoring rationale of Scoring Issue C has scoring should reflect the obsrvation that been revised to reflect the Review’s most TACs set in the last 10 years exceed comment. The score remains unchanged. the ICES advice, and that F has been > Fmsy.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 211

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.3 Yes No NA Additional context has been added, In case of violation of the fishing rules, specifically, that those violations relate to a sanctions of up to 14,000 € (depending on total of 4,556 sprat fishing trips by the the severity and frequency of the Latvian fleet. The team considers that the infringement) can be applied (plus SG80 has been met and the score remains confiscation of fishing gear and suspension unchanged. of the fishing license up to three years). The UoA has incurred 4 fines in 2015, between 140 € and 700 € (at least one for exceeding the permitted margin tolerance in sprat/herring estimates recorded in the logbook), which does not seem sufficient to provide effective deterrence. It is not obvious that SG80 is met.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The score is justified No comment.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 212

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

General comments : The chief problem with this MSC assessment report is the varying level of detail applied to different sections, ranging from a scarcity of relevant information on ICES’ assessment of sprat stock status (P1) to very comprehensive cover of ETP interactions and far too much information on habitats and ecosystems from the view point of scoring PIs. The authors’ task is to evaluate all information available and present that which is relevant to scoring against MSC criteria in such a way that the reader can easily understand the outcome. In this context, it is insufficient just to put “See references in Section 7” after each Principle 3 PI in the scoring table: the readers needs to know the specific references that are relevant. An overall (English UK) spelling scan would be useful: there are a few typos that could be misleading. BVI Assessment Team Response: The report has been generally cleaned up to address most of these comments. The following comments point out some of these deficiencies. It is very important to accurately define the Unit of Assessment , which in Table 3-1 is stated to involve the sprat stock in the Baltic Sea (ICES SD22 – 32, essentially the whole of the Baltic and presumably the ICES stock assessment unit) and that the LFPO Pelagic Trawl Sprat Fishery operates in the Central Baltic Sea (ICES SD 25-29 and 32, excluding 28-1), which Figure 3-1 shows to be the central Baltic off Poland, Sweden, Finland, Latvia and Estonia, excluding the Bothnia Bay. Later, however, section 3.2.3 Sprat Fishery states that the sprat fishery in Latvia is an offshore trawling fishery restricted to northern part of the SD 26 and most of SD 28.2 (within the Latvian EEZ) and Figure 3-3 indicates that the UoA has not operated outside this area since 2004. Why are SDs 25, 27, 20 and 32 included in the UoA? BVI Assessment Team Response: Table 3-1 is showing the different elements that integrate the UoA definition, the target stock and the fishing area are among those elements. The target stock presented is as defined by ICES (Sprat in the Baltic Sea –ICES 22-32-) keeping with the MSC requirements. While the fishing area is defined according to the area where the assessed fleet operates. It is true that according to figure 3-3- the UoA normally operates in a more restricted area, but the client wanted to include other SDs because they are authorized to fish in those areas and they may be interested in doing it.

You state that 41 Latvian vessels are licensed to fish sprat as target species (12 of which can also fish sprat as by catch in the herring fishery inside of the Gulf of Riga (SD 28.1), plus another 13 vessels catch sprat only as by catch in the Gulf of Riga (as they are not licensed for the sprat fishery). The client group (LFPO) includes 25 of the former 41 vessels, and 3 out of the latter 13 vessels, which sums to 28 vessels of which only 22 are listed in the UoC (Table 3-7) and fishing only outside SD28-1). To avoid confusion, I suggest that you focus only on the sprat-directed fishery, and only mention the by-catch (herring-directed) fishery or client group where absolutely necessary. Nowhere can I find an explanation why only 11 of the 22 off-shore companies entitled to catch sprat are included in the UoA. BVI Assessment Team Response: These 11 are the member companies of the client group who have chosen to participate in the UoC.

Herring by catch : note that the % herring in the sprat fishery has increased over the last 10 years. Why is this, and is there a chance that the 15% level could be exceeded during the 5-year certification

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 213

period? What happens if catches in the sprat fishery exceed the limit of 14.95% herring by catch - slipping? BVI Assessment Team Response: IPI levels will be monitored on a yearly basis. Should the herring bycatch amount exceed 15%, MSC FCR requirements will be followed at that time.

Table 3-4: I suggest that important information: e.g. that there is quota trading within the Latvian fleet, which is why the UoC catch can exceed the UoC share of EU TAC; is presented in the main body of the report. BVI Assessment Team Response: Neither the EU nor Latvian share of the TACs were exceed for the years presented in Table 3-3. The green weight of landed sprat by UoC vessels exceeded the initial share apportioned to them as a results of quota trading. This is domestically legal and within the limit established for Latvia.

Table 3-4. Latvian fishery 2015 catches, Landings and number of vessels. I can see the value of explaining Latvian fisheries to a wider audience, but it is unnecessary and potentially confusing to provide catches of species not taken by the UoC and/ or with gears outside the UoC (unless these species and gears are relevant to Principle 2). We are only concerned with non-target species taken by mid-water trawls directed at sprat. BVI Assessment Team Response: This is a valid point, however, the intention is demonstrate that Latvia has a comprehensive information collection system on its major fisheries. Although the information may be seen as extraneous, it is within context. The fishing gear is said to be a light semi-pelagic trawl equipped with a chain footrope bearing small plastic bobbins (which Fig. 3-4 does not show). If the gear is usually fished in mid-water, why “semi- pelagic” and why the bobbins? Later, under 3.4.2, you say that the mid (water?) trawl gear used for sprat fishery is designed to not touch the sea bottom but to ‘fly’ 8-10 m above it, the ground rope is equipped only with chain, and sprat fishing is conducted in the water column. Which is true? BVI Assessment Team Response: Nomenclature of the gear among the fishers and the companies are confusing. The phrases semi-pelagic and mid water trawl are used intermingled and describing the same gear. The design of the footrope is to protect accidental bottom contact while the operation is in midwater.

Table 3-8. What are “Vergi” and “Z/k Grifs” doing differently that enables only them to catch demersal species in the sprat fishery, and how representative is this of the rest of the UoA? BVI Assessment Team Response: The team did not specifically investigate the fishing operations of each company. The catch appears consistent with the research vessel catches conducted by BIOR.

3.3.2 Assessment of Baltic Sprat : in contrast to the rather comprehensive information supplied on Baltic sprat biology (is it important to know that a sprat of 21 years has been caught?), the evidence supplied for stock status is inadequate. It is at least essential to show the ICES assessment output charts for SSB and F time-series, in relation to reference points, and explain the derivation of the latter. Why does herring feature in Table 3-9 (though it would be useful to contrast herring and sprat Biomass – not just SSB – in relation to the LTL question)? What is presented provides absolutely no evidential basis for scoring PI 1.1. For example, in 3.3.4 Status of Baltic Sprat stock , you say that SSB remains above the MSYBtrigger but do not show how this is derived, and F has recently

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 214

fluctuated between Fmsy and Flim (no values), which suggests to me that the stock is not being managed sustainably (given that only one year classes since 2009–2015 is strong). BVI Assessment Team Response: Output charts are presented in section 3.3.4. Additional information has been added to Section 3.3.4 as well as PI 1.1.1A. The comment on presenting Herring in Table 3-9 is valid, it has been removed. Table 8.3.18.5 from ICES (2016b) including references to the basis for the reference points has been added to the text.

3.3.5 Target Species as LTL species : how is Fig. 3-8 meant to explain the position of sprat in the ecosystem, particularly when the model presented does not include the top level of birds and marine mammals? Is it intended to blind the reader with science (it brings no elucidation to this reader)? BVI Assessment Team Response : Sprat is an essential part of the pelagic compartment – dominated by herring and sprat. Therefore the first step is to establish if the fish compartment of the ecosystem is representing key LTL function (that a high proportion of the energy transfer is parsing the pelagic fish compartment). The second step is to establish if the species sprat has a significant role in this energy transfer. The biomass of herring and sprat are about equal and Figure 3-11 demonstrates directly that cod and sprat are interlinked. The following three paragraphs qualify this relationship but do not invalidate the conclusion that sprat is deemed as ‘Key LTL’ species in the Baltic Proper ecosystem.

The Y/R curve for Baltic sprat is not presented in Figure 3-10 . This is a SSB/R curve shown as % unexploited SSB in relation to F. You need to explain the analytical basis for this (it is used solely to score PI 1.1.1) and how it shows that the Multiannual Plan is within the MSC Default criteria (as there is no information on actual F values), and why the biomass reference points are considered to be consistent with the F reference points. BVI Assessment Team Response: The comment now refers to Figure 3-12 (not 3-10). The Eastern cod is used as the key indicator for the impact of the sprat biomass on the upper parts of the food chain. This comment is addressed in the commentary added to this section.

Earlier, you claim that the Eastern Baltic cod stock size depends on the size of the sprat stock ( Figure 3-9 shows only an association), that cod recruitment depends on the environmental conditions, that there has been a decrease in feeding success and a change in the feeding habits of cod during the past 20 years, and that parasite infestation of cod especially has been increasing in later years, which WGBFAS (2016) conclude is the main biotic driver that influence the physiological state of all cod size groups. So, is there any evidence for an effect of sprat abundance on cod stocks, and is sprat by itself a key LTL species? Note that models of the Baltic food web predict that top predators control the abundance of small fish species such as sprat and herring, rather than the other way round, and that WGBFAS (2016) concludes that the direct drivers for the reduction in cod are abiotoc factors and changes in the zooplankton compartment. The linkages between the abundance of cod and herring and sprat as also discussed in detail in Section 3.4.2 , so why duplicate this? BVI Assessment Team Response: The discussion in this section is relative to sprat’s impact on cod, section 3.4.2 is specific to ecosystem considerations over and above cod.

Principle 2 : by-catch species. Given that there is good data on UoA catches (which are sampled at sea and at landing (no discards), there is no requirement for inferences derived from BIOR research vessel surveys that are not conducted on board UoC fishing vessels. Consequently, species such as stickleback, salmon, smelt, shorthorn sculpin and sandeel ( Table 3-12) are not relevant to PI 2 unless there is evidence that the UoA fishery actually takes them.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 215

BVI Assessment Team Response: Table 3-12 has been revised to address this. You state here (re-iterated in section 5.4 ) that the Latvian sprat fishery takes place in ICES SD 25- 27, 28.2, 29 and 32 (so the UoA interacts with the C B Herring), whereas earlier you say that the sprat fishery in Latvia is restricted to northern part of the SD 26 and most of SD 28.2 (see Fig. 3-32 ). Which is it? BVI Assessment Team Response: The Latvian fishery can legally fish within SD 25-27, 28.2, 29 and 32. The fishing operations demonstrate that the UoC harvesters fish in SD26 and 28.2. There is nothing useful in providing data on catches of central Baltic herring by country ( Table 3-15): all we need to know is the stock’s status and what proportion is taken by the UoC. BVI Assessment Team Response: Herring is the main primary species, information is presented to inform the reader of the overall Baltic fishery context.

Also, it is clear that the only cod stock relevant to the UoC is Eastern Baltic Cod (EBC), so information on other cod stocks only serves to potentially confuse. Similarly, Fig. 3-21 is redundant. The history of management of EBC against reference points is irrelevant if the most recent ICES Benchmark Workshop could not agree on an analytical stock assessment, no specific reference points are currently available and the harvest strategy enshrined in the 2007 management plan is no longer applicable. Why not just say that? And refrain from speculating on how sprat abundance might affect cod in future (you have already said that it’s unclear). BVI Assessment Team Response: Comment noted, the information is clearly presented, readers can draw their own conclusions.

The UoA only appears to potentially impact on flounder in DS 26 & 28, and the other flounder stocks and Table 3-16 are irrelevant. BVI Assessment Team Response: Comment noted, the information is clearly presented, readers can draw their own conclusions.

3.4.6.1 Sea Birds: gill-net catches of sea birds have no relevance to this assessment. BVI Assessment Team Response: It is relevant to demonstrate that the impact has been considered and this fishery is not the primary impact.

If you say that sea lamprey is not classified as ETP according to MSC criteria, why comment on it under ETP species (should be under secondary spp)? BVI Assessment Team Response: There are no doubts about the sea lamprey as an ETP species, in the report it is stated that: “The only species in the list that fall under the MSC definition for ETP species (FCR SA3.1.5) is the Sea lamprey, as this species is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC)”. Harbour porpoise is an ETP species, for which an annual “mortality limit” of only one or two harbour porpoises has been estimated. Is there any evidence that the UoA catches them and, if so, any mitigation actions? Ditto for seals. BVI Assessment Team Response: This is addressed under the scoring of ETP species.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 216

3.4.8 Ecosystem Impact : there is no need to present an extract from Niiranen, 2013 describing the Baltic Sea ecosystem as you have already done that at 3.4 Ecosystem Background, 3.4.1 Baltic Sea: context. You present little evidence one way or the other whether that the fishery does or does not disrupt the key elements of the ecosystem structure and functioning. BVI Assessment Team Response: Additional information has been added to Section 3.4.8 to address this comment.

Management: (page 66) Latvia joined the EU in 2004 and accepted the provisions of the CFP. Did you then mean to say that Latvian vessels are restricted to fishing in the Baltic Sea only outside the Russian fishing zone, the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland and the territorial waters of other EU Member States. That is, off Latvia’s coastline out to the median line of other EU states? If so, it’s not exactly “all over the Baltic Sea”. BVI Assessment Team Response: Comment noted and small change was made to the sentence and it was not correct. Latvian vessels are entitled to fish within the territorial waters of other EU member states. Figure 3-33. Why is ICES missing from the flow of fisheries management advice to the Commission, since ICES is mainly responsible for compiling data, expert Working Group meetings with data analysis and reporting, whilst STECF tends to provide opinion and the public report? BVI Assessment Team Response: That work flow was downloaded from the STECF website (as stated in the title of figure 3-35) and it is focused on illustrating STECF’s work. The figure is not intending to depict the whole fisheries management flow. ICES tasks and responsibilities are covered in detail in other parts of the report. No need to modify the text or the figure.

It is rather worrying that selection of the vessels for performing the on board samplings is on the base of the lowest offered price. This could bias the data considerably (probably recognised in the “new” DCR). BVI Assessment Team Response: Comment noted, the information is clearly presented, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Even if there is a new management plan cod, herring and sprat stocks in the Baltic, it does not set ranges of F targets and SSB reference points for EBC herring and there are no reference points for EBC cod. So, how does it work with respect to the UoA? Do any of the area closures shown in Figure 3-34 impact on the UoA? BVI Assessment Team Response: Additional information has been added to further describe the Management Plan

In Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions , Elina Kol āte of WWF Latvia suggests that restrictions on sprat catches taken in the main cod area should be established (echoing ICES’ concerns), to which the Team responds (finally) that cod management is not part of the sprat assessment. If this is taken to mean the MSC assessment of the Latvian sprat fishery, then why is there so much discussion of cod in this report? BVI Assessment Team Response: The discussion on cod has been added since there is raised concerns in relation to sprat harvest and cod stock health, as this is seen as a major perceived ecosystem impact.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 217

PEER REVIEWER 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CA B Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Yes

Justification: The conclusion is based on comprehensive and well documented evidence on all PI’s. All scores are well justified.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? NA [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses]

Justification:

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 218

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

1.1.2 NA NA NA No comments

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 219

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 220

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 221

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comments

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comments

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 222

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

Submissions received after the announcement of the fishery: 1) E-mail received on the 17 th July 2016 from Elina Kol āte (Pasaules Dabas Fonds, WWF- Latvia) The sprat stock is within safe biological limits, meaning that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is above the target level (Btrigger) and has increased in 2016. - Fishing mortality (F) has fluctuated between sustainable level (Fmsy) and overfishing (Flim) in recent years, and in 2015 was slightly above FMSY meaning that the fishing mortality was not at sustainable level. The TAC (total allowable catch or fishing quota) for 2016 was set above Fmsy-level. - For 2017 ICES recommends that fishing mortality can be increased significantly but at the same time recommends that a spatial management plan is developed for the sprat fisheries. Any increase in fishing pressure on sprat in the main cod distribution area may deteriorate the feeding condition for cod as prey availability decreases. The abundance of cod in subdivisions 25–26 is high compared to other areas in the Baltic and the cod condition is considered to be limited due to food availability. Sprat and herring are important food items for cod (especially sprat), but the present high biomass of the two prey stocks is mainly distributed outside the distribution area for cod. Any fishery on the two prey species in the main cod distribution area (subdivisions 25–26) will potentially decrease the local sprat density, which may lead to increased food deprivation for cod. The relative catch proportion of sprat in the main cod distribution area has since 2010 increased from 37% of the total catch to 45% in 2015. - Therefore restrictions on sprat catches taken in the main cod area should be established. Decreasing fishing effort on sprat in SD 25 and 26 would make more sprat available as feed for cod, improving cod condition. Increasing effort northward in the Baltic to SD 27–32 would also optimize the yield and growth of sprat and herring by reducing competition within these stocks for prey. Research conducted on cod dynamics in the Canadian Northeast Atlantic further indicates that cod biomass dynamics are driven by food availability and fisheries rather than predation. While a different stock and fishery, the evidence can be suggestive of similar dynamics in the Baltic, we support the prioritization of cod stock improvement and recovery and urge the consideration of a spatial management plan for sprat. BV Assessment Team Response: The WWF comment is an echo of the ICES (2016a) advisory text: If there is a desire to take actions that may improve cod condition, then ICES recommends that a spatial management plan is developed for the clupeid fisheries. The abundance of cod in subdivisions 25–26 is high compared to other areas in the Baltic and the cod condition is considered to be limited due to food availability. Sprat and herring are important food items for cod (especially sprat), but the present high biomass of the two prey stocks is mainly distributed outside the distribution area for cod (Figure 8.3.18.3). Any fishery on the two prey species in the main cod distribution area (subdivisions 25–26) will potentially decrease the local sprat density, which may lead to increased food deprivation for cod. The relative catch proportion of sprat in the main cod distribution area has since 2010 increased from 37% of the total catch to 45% in 2015. Any increase in fishing pressure on sprat in the main cod

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 223

distribution area may deteriorate the feeding condition for cod as prey availability decreases. Restrictions on sprat catches taken in the main cod area should be established. The ICES recommendation is a concern for the cod fishery with no demonstration of adverse effects to the structure of the functioning of the Baltic Sea ecosystems. The scoring of 2.5 (Ecosystem effects) are therefore not affected by these concerns. The growth of the cod is reduced-compared to growth rates seen a decade ago. The explanation is sought in changes in the ecosystems in the Baltic Proper. WGBFAS (ICES (2016b) documents both abiotic as well as biotic changes during the most recent decade. ICES (2016b) WGBFAS section 1.7.2 using the Gotland Basin as the main area for its analysis finds (i) The decrease of condition factor is determined by regime changes in the Eastern Baltic that depends from water exchange with North Sea; (ii) Main factors affecting condition factor from these analyses is hypoxia area and oxygen content; (iii) Although the sprat abundance is increasing the utilization of sprat may be insufficient due to prey and predator distribution (overlap) differences in time and space in the Gotland Basin (iv) There were no stock density effects revealed on cod growth and condition. Sprat in the Central Baltic Sea is recognised as a key Low Trophic Species (key LTL) and scoring PI 1.1.1A takes into account that the HCR accepts the need to constraint the exploitation rate on the sprat stock within limits that takes ecosystem needs into account. This limit is defined by MSC FCR SA2.13(a) as 75% of the virgin biomass and the HCR is expected on average to keep the sprat stock above such a level. The current level is much higher based on above average strength year classes. Cod management is not part of the sprat assessment.

Submissions received during the PCDR publish period: 1) E-mail received on the 15 th March 2017 from Jānis Lag ūns (Ministry of Agriculture . Fisheries Dept. Head of Fisheries Strategy Division. Latvia) Dear Jose,

I would like to send you some comments regarding the Draft report on LFPO Pelagic Trawl Fishery:

1. On the page 63 under the section 3.5.1 it is mentioned Latvian EEZ (SD 28.3 and northern part of SD26) it’s a typing error as there is no SD 28.3. but 28.2; 2. On the page 66 it is mentioned: “The overarching national legal instrument on fisheries is the 1995 ‘Fishing Law’ (12.04.1995), with the amendments (17.02.2000). The Fishing Law sets the basis for fisheries legislation in Latvia and institutions responsible for fisheries management and control, as well as rules on fish resources management. Other main Latvian fisheries regulations are listed below: Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers (11.01.2005) “Regulations on commercial fishing in the territorial waters

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 224

and economic zone waters” sets out commercial fishing rules, including technical requirements. Regulation No. 85 of the Cabinet of Ministers (27.02.2001) “On control of fish landing and fish sales, transport, storehouses and production premises” sets landing requirements for fishing vessels, including landing declaration and sales note submission requirements. Regulation No.89 of the Cabinet of Ministers (17.03.1998) “On hygiene and freshness and size criteria for the production and placing on the market of fishery products” lays down common marketing standards (size and freshness categories), as well as hygiene requirements on board vessels and for fish processing enterprises. Regulation No. 433 of the Cabinet of Ministers (12.12.2000) “Regulations on the lease of water bodies and commercial fishing rights” sets down the lease conditions for public water bodies, and rules on fish resources and management.”

- Fisheries Law – since 1995 there has been 16 amendments of the Law - http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=34871 - Regulations on commercial fishing in the territorial waters and economic zone waters is in force since 2007 - http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=156709 - Regulation on control of fish landing and fish sales, transport .. there are new rules in force since 2015– http://likumi.lv/ta/id/273190-zivju-izkrausanas-kontroles-un-zivju-tirdzniecibas- un-transporta-objektu-noliktavu-un-razosanas-telpu-parbaudes-noteikumi - Regulation on hugiene and freshness and size criteria for the production and placing on the market of fishery products there are new rules in force since 2010 - http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=210012 - Regulation on the lease of water bodies and commercial fishing rights there are new rules in force since 2009 - http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=196472

3. On the page 67 it is mentioned: “National Board of Fisheries of the Ministry of Agriculture. This is the institution responsible for overall management of the fisheries sector, quota management, sector development, strategies and legislation. The National Board of Fisheries deals with issues related to fisheries science and restocking of fish resources, fish processing and trading issues, and represents Latvian fisheries interests in the various EU institutions and international organizations (FAO, NAFO, etc.). Marine Environmental Board of the Ministry of Environment. This institution carries out fishing control in marine waters under Latvian jurisdiction, issues fishing licences, operates a vessel monitoring satellite centre and monitors fish landing at ports.”

There is no National Board of fisheries any more but the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture. The responsibilities are more or less the same. http://www.zm.gov.lv/en/zivsaimnieciba/statiskas-lapas/fishing-sector?nid=1200#jump As well there is no Marine Environmental Board but The State Environmental Service responsible for the fisheries control. http://www.vvd.gov.lv/eng/about-us/ 4. On the page 69 section 3.5.3. – it is also mentioned National Board of Fisheries;

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 225

5. On the page 69 section 3.5.3. – it is mentioned – days-at-sea allocation – there is no days at sea allocations since 2016. 6. On the page 69 section 3.5.3. – it is mentioned - The TAC share allocated to coastal fisheries can only be purchased by offshore companies at the end of the year (November/December) in case it was not used. Please delete this sentence – quotas may not be purchased! At the end of the year unused coastal fisheries herring quota in the Gulf of Riga may be reallocated to the offshore companies ; 7. On the page 73 section 3.5.6 – The activities of the Latvian off-shore cod fishing fleet is comprehensively monitored by the Department of Fisheries Control, under Marine Environmental Board of the Ministry of Environment. As noted before – fisheries control is the responsibility of the State Environmental Service. 8. On the page 73 section 3.5.6 – it is mentioned that an Action Plan to improve fisheries control was adopted in 2013 . Please note that the action plan by Latvia was fully implemented already in 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/latvia-ahead-schedule- improving-fisheries-control_en 9. On the page 74 section 3.5.6 – it is mentioned – Control Agency at Ventspils. The correct name of the organization is Ventspils Regional Environmental Board. http://www.is.vvd.gov.lv/eng/contacs/ 10. On the page 74 section 4.4.2. – Georgs Kornilovs was head of the Fish Resources Research department in BIOR but Ivars Putnis was a researcher. 11. On the page 74 section 5.2.1. - They send the information to the control unit a minimum 24h before arriving to port. Once the vessel arrives port, it is inspected (if selected by the Control Agency) and the fish is offloaded and weighed, the skipper introduces the confirmed weights in the logbook and closes the fishing trip and resends the landing declaration. -The logbook information is not sent at least 24h before arriving port . It is in accordance with the national regulations – at least 2h before entering port. -As already mentioned before there is no such institution as Control Agency in Latvia. -The Landing declaration is sent only once – it is not resent.

BV Assessment Team Response: Thank you very much for your comments on the PCR. We will make the appropriate modifications to incorporate them to the Final Report.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 226

Technical oversight received by the MSC

MainID SubID Page Grade Requirement Oversight PI CABComment Reference Version Description

22262 26902 79 Guidance FCR_7.12. Table 5 - 1 Row 4 Latvian regulations require recording of the 1.3 v2.0 fishing area in different official documents Please provide further (logbook, landing declaration and sales description of how LFPO note), so each shipment is easily traced segregate certified and back. Row 4 of Table 5.1 has been non-certified product at revised. Further, it has been stated that offloading to prevent tubs used during offloading are labelled mixing. (indicating vessel name, landing date...).

22262 26903 78 Guidance FCR- If the eligibility date is Section 5.1 has been revised to remove 7.6.1.1 v2.0 from the certification of reference to 'Actual' Eligibility Date and the fishery, then under- under-assessmet product. assessment product is not eligible to be sold as certified upon certification of the fishery, and handling requirements and description are not relevant.

Also, in FCR v2.0 there is only the 'Eligibility Date' - there is no longer the Actual and Target

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 227

Eligibility Dates.

22262 26904 80 Minor FCR- Please indicate the point Table 5-1 has been revised to include a 7.12.1.5b of intended change of note on the change of ownership. v2.0 ownership of product graded by LFPO The reference to 'auction' in Section 5.2.1 facilities. is in relation to measures outlined in European Council Regulation 1224/2009, It is also unclear whether new text has been added to clarify it. There product goes through an are no auctions used in the Latvian sprat auction, as mentioned in fishery and auctions were not consider as section 5.2.1 (p78). part of the Section 5.2 Traceability Please confirm whether information. product passes through an auction and include the relevant traceability information, as well as whether the auction(s) is intended to be included in the fishery certificate or whether auctions will require separate CoC.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 228

22262 26905 80 Minor FCR-7.12.2 Section 5.3, Eligibility to Section 5.3 has been revised to address v2.0 Enter Further Chains of the issue of IPI catch eligibility. Custody, does not reference eligibility of the IPI stock (herring) including its ineligibility should catch volumes exceed the stated 15%. Please amend the description of 5.3 to include relevant details on the IPI stocks.

22262 26906 108 Major FCR- PI2.1.2 scoring issue c: It 2.1.2 SI c - The rationale has been revised to 7.10.6.1 is unclear which strategy clearly demonstrate that both current and v2.0 is being refered to in this recent past strategies were successfully scoring issue, particularly implemented. as the multi-annual plan has only been in place since mid-2016.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 229

22262 26908 123-129 Minor FCR- PI2.3.1 - It is not clear in 2.3.1 Some clarification has been added. In the 7.10.6.1 scoring rationale what rationale, it is stated that data from BIOR v2.0 fishery dependent observers on board the UoA vessels (table information is used to 3-11) have recorded no interactions with determine that the UoA sea lamprey, cetaceans or seals. Further, does not have a SI(a) states that the cetacean bycatch significant direct impact monitoring programme performed to fulfill on ETP species. EU Reg 812/2008 (summarized in ICES 2014 from national reports) found no cetacean bycatch reported from observers on board Latvian pelagic trawlers. Although no details are given on the specific vessels participating in the programme, it is very likely these included some UoA vessels. In any case the coverage of the pelagic trawl fleet was considered to be high.The score remains unchanged.

22262 26909 137-139 Minor FCR- PI2.4.x (VMEs): PI 2.4.1 2.4.1 SIa - Information was added to clearly 7.10.6.1 scoring issue b: identify what the team considered as v2.0 Rationale does not VMEs. demonstrate what the SId - Additional information and a graphic assessment team have been added to show where VMEs are consider as a VME. located. In addition, PI2.4.2 scoring issue d states that "VME are identified north and south of Gotland and in the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 230

coastal areas". This is not referenced in PI2.4.1b.

22262 26910 145-151 Major FCR- PI2.5.1 scoring issue a: It 2.5.1 Information added to section 3.4.5 to 7.10.6.1 is not clear what the 2.5.2 clearly identify the key fish species (cod, v2.0 assessment team has 2.5.3 herrring sprat) as the key ecosystem identified as the key elements. ecosystem elements. In particular, it is not clear how the impact of the UoA on top predators (seabids, marine mammals) is considered in the ecosystem context. PI2.5.3: References are not provided to substantiate rationale for the scoring issues. i.e. what ecosystem model(s) have been developed for this ecosystem?

22262 26911 90-92 Major FCR- PI1.1.1A scoring issue a: PI Information has been added to address the 7.10.6.1 It is not clear how 1.1.1 first issue, the multiannual management v2.0 fluctuations in F are A plan describes the control range of fishing considered in this scoring mortality. SSB estimate has been added. issue. Cod is considered the dominant ecosystem PI1.1.1A scoring issues a element. The default ecosystem and b: Estimates of requirement of 75% has been addressed. biomass are not presented and such, the

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 231

rationale does not justify the score. It is unclear how ecosystem needs are fully accounted in the assessment. I.e. cod is referenced in detail, but there is no reference to how how other ecosystem impacts (scoring issue a) and ecosystem needs (scoring issue b) (e.g.marine mammal and seabirds) are accounted for in the assessment.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 232

22262 26912 94 Major FCR- For PI 1.2.1 scoring issue 1.2.1 Section 3.5.5 and SI a has been revised, 7.10.6.1 a: The rationale the Multiannual Management plan v2.0 mentions that the harvest prescribes, through Article 5, all strategy is responsive to appropriate remedial measures shall be the state of the stock in adopted to ensure rapid return of the stock that the plan gets concerned to levels above the level information from ICES capable of producing MSY “….”When which in turn gets scientific advice indicates that the information from fisheries spawning stock biomass of any of the and acoustic data, but it stocks concerned is below the minimum is not clear as to how spawning stock biomass reference point”. this is truly responsive to Also, the plan dictates in article4(4) that the state of the stock and the fishing mortality [and hence the TAC] how the new multi-annual shall take account of “if, on the basis of planwill ensure this. scientific advice or evidence, it is necessary to avoid serious harm to a stock In addition, PI1.2.1 caused by intra- or inter-species stock scoring issue a the dynamics;” assessment team reference PI1.1.1 in the scoring rationale. In this scoring issue, the team should ensure that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1A at the SG80 level as it is a key LTL stock.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 233

22262 26913 97-98 Major FCR- For PI 1.2.2 scoring issue 1.2.2 SIa - As described above, Articles 4(4) and 7.10.6.1 a: The rationale provided 5 describe how HCRs will be adjusted over v2.0 does not justify the score. time. It is not clear from SIc - Additional information has been rationale provided how added to the scoring rationale to the HCRs will be demonstrate that the prevous management adjusted over time to approach were successful at achieving the respond to changes in exploitation objectives expressed by the stock associated with HCR. changes in the ecosystem. For PI1.2.2 scoring issue c: The scoring mentions a new plan that is expected to perform better than previous regulatory schemes, but at this time there is no actual evidence to support this, as such the rationale provided does not justify the score.

22262 26914 99 Major FCR- For PI1.2.3 scoring issue 1.2.3 Section 3.3.6 and SIa have been revised to 7.10.6.1 a: The rationale does not demonstrate that inforrmation is clearly v2.0 support the score at the directed by a reseach planning process SG100 level, it is inclusive of ICES working groups and expected there is a Latvian BIOR. strategic research plan in place (SA2.6.3 and SA

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 234

2.6.3.1).

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 235

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors

1 On-site audit 2 auditor on-site No conditions were opened but the assessment team considers that for the first year will be more efficient to gather information and interview the main stakeholders on-site.

2, 3, 4 Off-site 2 auditors off-site The information needed can be provided remotely.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit

1 May 2019 May 2019 Anniversary date. 2 May 2020 May 2020 3 May 2021 May 2021 4 May 2022 May 2022 5 May 2023 Before May 2023

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level

Level 2 On-site Off-site Off-site Review surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit information & re- certification site visit

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 236

Appendix 5 Objections Process

No objections received.

LFPO PELAGIC TRAWL SPRAT –Public Certification Report page 237