Announcement Comment Draft Report NAFO 3M FLEMISH CAP COLD WATER PRAWN Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB): DNV Business Assurance Assessment team Jodi Bostrom, Julian Addison, and Geir Hønneland Fishery client Reyktal Ltd, Reval Seafood Ltd, P/R Ocean Prawn, and UAB Marlinas Assessment Type Initial Assessment Date 28 April 2021 NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 2

1 Contents

1 Contents ...... 2 2 Glossary ...... 5 2.1 Abbreviations & acronyms ...... 5 2.2 Stock assessment reference points ...... 5 3 Executive summary ...... 6 3.1 Main strengths ...... 6 3.2 Main weaknesses ...... 6 3.3 Draft Determination ...... 7 4 Report details ...... 8 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 8 4.1.1 Assessment team ...... 8 4.1.2 Peer reviewers ...... 9 4.2 Version details ...... 9 5 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification and results overview ...... 11 5.1 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification ...... 11 5.1.1 Unit of Assessment ...... 11 5.1.2 Unit of Certification ...... 12 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 12 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 12 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 13 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 13 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 13 6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 15 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 15 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 15 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 16 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable stock to enter further CoC ...... 16 6.5 Risk- based methods for data-deficient fishery ...... 16 7 Scoring ...... 18 7.1 Principle scores ...... 18 7.1.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 18 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 19 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 19 7.2.2 Catch profiles ...... 27 7.2.3 TAC and catch data ...... 28 7.2.5 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales...... 29 ...... 29 ...... 31 ...... 32 ...... 35

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 3

...... 37 ...... 39 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 42 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 42 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 50 ...... 50 ...... 52 ...... 54 ...... 56 ...... 58 ...... 60 ...... 62 ...... 64 ...... 67 ...... 69 ...... 71 ...... 73 ...... 75 ...... 76 ...... 78 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 80 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 80 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 84 ...... 84 ...... 88 ...... 91 ...... 93 ...... 94 ...... 97 ...... 101 8 Appendices ...... 103 8.1 Assessment information ...... 103 8.1.1 Small-scale fisheries ...... 103 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 103 8.2.1 Site visits ...... 103 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 105 8.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 105 8.3 Peer Review reports ...... 106 8.3.1 Peer Reviewer A: ...... 106 8.3.2 Peer Reviewer B: ...... 106 8.3.3 Peer Reviewer C: ...... 106 8.4 Stakeholder input ...... 106 8.5 Conditions – delete if not applicable ...... 107 8.6 Client Action Plan ...... 107

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 4

8.7 Surveillance ...... 108 8.8 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 108 8.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable ...... 111 8.10 Client Agreement ...... 112 8.11 References ...... 113 8.12 Vessel list ...... 115 8.13 Landing sites (if applicable) ...... 116 9 Template information and copyright ...... 117

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 5

2 Glossary 2.1 Abbreviations & acronyms AIS Automatic Identification System CAB Conformity Assessment Body CFP (EU) Common Fisheries Policy CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species COE Catch on entry COX Catch on exit CPUE Catch per unit effort Defra (UK) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DG MARE (EU) Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) HCR Harvest Control Rule ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, unreported, unregulated (fishing) MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance) MMO (UK) Marine Management Organisation MSC Marine Stewardship Council NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIPAG NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group PI Performance Indicator RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization SFPA Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement SG Scoring guidepost SI Scoring issue SSB Spawning stock biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMS Vessel Monitoring System

2.2 Stock assessment reference points

Blim Minimum biomass below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown. Bmsy Biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point); the peak value on a domed yield-per-recruit curve. F Instantaneous rate of fishing mortality. Fmsy F giving maximum sustainable yield (biological reference point). MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 6

3 Executive summary To be completed at Public Certification Report stage The CAB shall include in the executive summary:

- Date and location of site visit. - The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation. - From Public Comment Draft Report reporting stage only - the draft determination / determination reached with supporting justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.12, 7.18, 7.21

This report provides information on the assessment of the NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn fishery against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. The report is prepared by DNV (recently renamed from DNV GL) for the clients Reyktal Ltd, Reval Seafood Ltd, P/R Ocean Prawn, and UAB Marlinas. The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2. For the assessment, the default assessment tree in Annex SA from the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, without any changes, was used.

The assessment covers one Unit of Assessment (UoA) targeting northern prawn (Pandalus borealis) with bottom otter trawl within the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Division 3M (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO] Area 21) of the Northwest Atlantic. Northern prawn is indigenous to this area, and no enhancement takes place.

The assessment process was initiated by the announcement on the MSC website on 28 April 2021, and the site visit will take place remotely during the week of 28 June 2021. A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations will be carried out during this period as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. A rigorous assessment of the MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and detailed and fully referenced scoring rationales are provided through the assessment tree scoring tables provided in Section 7 of this report.

If certified, the scope of the MSC fishery certification will be up to the point of landing, and Chain of Custody (CoC) will commence from the point of landing and sale. The eligibility date for this assessment is expected to be the date when the Public Comment Draft Report is published on the MSC website. See Tables 1 and 2 for the main strengths and weaknesses.

3.1 Main strengths Table 1. Main strengths Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 1.1.1 The stock has successfully been rebuilt following the closure of the fishery from 2011 to 2019. 1.2.3 There is an annual fishery-independent stock survey, which provides estimates of female biomass used to evaluate stock status. Principle 2 2.1.x, 2.2.x, The UoA has negligible amounts of non-target catch and no interactions with ETP 2.3.1 species. Principle 3 All PIs The fishery takes place within a well-established and effective management framework in NAFO, the EU, and the UK.

3.2 Main weaknesses Table 2. Main weaknesses Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 1.2.2 There are no well-defined harvest control rules. 1.2.4 There is no biomass reference point related to MSY or fishing mortality-based reference points. Principle 2 2.3.2, 2.3.3 It is unclear currently if the UoA has a strategy that considers impacts on ETP species and limiting unwanted catch. 2.4.x, 2.5.3 Without Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data, the team cannot determine the UoA’s impacts adequately. Principle 3 NA No weaknesses have been identified.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 7

3.3 Draft Determination To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage and completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

The principle scores are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3. Principle scores Principle Score Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 8

4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details 4.1.1 Assessment team Table 4. Assessment team Name Jodi Bostrom Role Team leader, Principle 2, and traceability expert Qualifications: Jodi Bostrom is a senior assessor and team leader for MSC Fisheries at DNV Business Assurance. She earned an M.Sc. in Environmental Science from American University and a B.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Wisconsin. She has over five years of experience in MSC fisheries assessment services. Prior to that, she worked for five years at the MSC as a Senior Fisheries Assessment Manager. Among other things, she developed the MSC’s benthic habitats policy and the Consequence Spatial Analysis (a risk-based framework for assessing habitat impacts in data-deficient situations) as part of the MSC Standard revision. Prior to the MSC, Jodi spent 11 years with the US National Academy of Sciences’ Ocean Studies Board where she worked on various projects from fisheries management and policy to bycatch and dredging impacts to eutrophication and sea level rise.

Jodi’s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in Annex PC for the Team Leader, Principle 2, and traceability responsible: • Has an appropriate university degree and more than three years’ experience as a team leader. • Has over three years’ experience in research in the impact of fisheries on aquatic ecosystems. • Has passed the MSC team leader training and is up to date on all trainings regarding modifications. • Understands the CoC standard and CoC certification requirements and has passed the MSC’s Traceability training in the last five years. • Has undertaken two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years. • Has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and various stakeholder groups. • Meets ISO 19011 training requirements. • Has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Jodi meets the Principle 2, RBF, and team leader requirements of FCP v2.2. She will participate in the site visit remotely. Name Julian Addison Role Principle 1 expert Qualifications: Julian holds a Ph.D. in population ecology and modelling from Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London, and also a BSc in Zoology from Kings College, University of London. He has 30 years’ experience of stock assessment and provision of management advice on shellfish fisheries and scientific research on crustacean biology and population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Until December 2010 when he left the organisation to become an independent consultant, he worked at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in Lowestoft, England where he was Senior Shellfish Advisor to Government policy makers, which involved working closely with marine managers, legislators and stakeholders, Government Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). He has also worked as a visiting scientist at DFO in Halifax, Nova Scotia and at NMFS in Woods Hole, Massachusetts where he experienced shellfish management approaches in North America. For four years he was a member of the Scientific Committee and the UK delegation to the International Whaling Commission providing scientific advice to the UK Commissioner. He has worked extensively with International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and most recently was Chair of the Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs, a member of the Working Group on Crangon Fisheries and Life History and a member of the Steering Group on Ecosystems Function. He has extensive experience of the MSC certification process primarily as a P1 team member but also as a P2 team member and team leader. He has undertaken approximately 30 MSC full assessments of crustacean and mollusc fisheries worldwide.

Julian meets the team member qualification competence criteria defined in Annex PC for the team member with expertise in Principle 1 and local knowledge: • Has a degree in a relevant subject. • Passed MSC’s online training for fisheries team member within the last five years. • Passed new versions of the compulsory online training modules.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 9

• Has three years’ or more experience of applying relevant stock assessment techniques being used by the fishery under assessment. • Has three years’ or more experience working with the biology and population dynamics of the target species or species with similar biology. • Has local knowledge because he worked on the Estonian North East Arctic cold water prawn and cod fishery’s assessment, which is identical vessels/clients to this assessment. • Has no conflict of interest in relation to the fisheries under assessment.

Julian meets the Principle 1, RBF, and team member requirements of FCP v2.2. He will participate in the site visit remotely. Name Geir Hønneland Role Principle 3 expert Qualifications: Geir Hønneland holds a PhD in political science from the University of Oslo and an LL.M. in the law of the sea from the Arctic University of Norway. As a researcher, he has studied international fisheries management (with main emphasis on enforcement and compliance issues), international environmental politics and international politics in Polar regions. He was affiliated with the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo for more than 20 years, as PhD student and research fellow (1996-2006), research director (2006-2014) and director (2015-2019). Among his fisheries- related books is Making Fishery Agreements Work (Edward Elgar, 2012; China Ocean Press, 2016). Before embarking on an academic career, he worked five years for the Norwegian Coast Guard, where he was trained and certified as a fisheries inspector. Geir has been involved in MSC assessments since 2009 and has acted as Principle 3 expert in more than 50 full assessments and re-assessments, as well as a number of pre-assessments and surveillance audits. His experience from full assessments includes a large number of demersal, pelagic and reduction fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Ocean, including crustaceans, as well as inland, bivalve and enhanced salmon fisheries. In the Northeast Atlantic, he has covered the international management regimes in the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Baltic Sea, and the national management regimes in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Russia, Poland, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as the EU level.

Geir meets the team member qualification competence criteria defined in Annex PC for the team member with expertise in Principle 3 and local knowledge: • Has a degree in a relevant subject. • Passed MSC’s online training for fisheries team member within the last five years. • Passed new versions of the compulsory online training modules. • Has three years’ or more experience a practising fishery manager and/or fishery/policy analyst/consultant. • Has local knowledge because he speaks Danish fluently, studied Polish language and East European studies (covering the Baltic states), had three research stays at Danish academic institutions (two of them at fisheries research institutes) in the last 10 years, and conducted a number of MSC assessments of Danish and Polish fisheries. • Has no conflict of interest in relation to the fisheries under assessment.

Geir meets the Principle 3 and team member requirements of FCP v2.2. He will participate in the site visit remotely.

4.1.2 Peer reviewers Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage

4.2 Version details Table 5 provides a list of MSC program document versions used in this assessment.

Table 5. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 10

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

Assessment tree Version 2.01

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 11

5 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification 5.1.1 Unit of Assessment

The fishery is, to the knowledge of the assessment team, within the scope of the MSC Fisheries standard according to the following determinations: • The target species is an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal. • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives. • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years. • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been convicted for a shark finning violation in the last 2 years. • The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery. • The fishery is not enhanced or based on an introduced species.

The UoA defines the full scope of what is being assessed and includes the Unit of Certification (UoC) and any other eligible fishers. The UoA includes the target stock(s); the fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices; and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the UoC. The proposed UoA for this fishery assessment is specified in Table 6.

Table 6. Proposed UoA

UoA 1 Description

Species Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)

Stock NAFO Division 3M

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Bottom otter trawl type(s) Estonian companies Reyktal Ltd and Reval Seafood Ltd represented by the vessels Steffano, Merike, and Dagö (owned by Reyktal Ltd) and Reval Viking (owned by Reval Seafood Ltd)

Danish company P/R Ocean Prawn represented by the vessel Ocean Tiger

Lithuanian company UAB Marlinas represented by the vessels Taurus and Lokys Client group UK company Onward Fishing Company Ltd represented by the vessel Norma Mary

Polish company Arctic Navigations represented by the vessel Polonus

Latvian companies SIA Batterfisa, Arctic Trawler Ltd, and SIA North Star represented by the vessels Dorado 2 (owned by SIA Batterfisa), Auseklis (owned by Arctic Trawler Ltd), and Laima (owned by SIA North Star) For the Estonian fishery, there are currently no other identified eligible fishers than Merike, Steffano, Reval Viking, and Dagö, as there are no other vessels fishing for cold water prawns (Pandalus borealis) licensed under Estonian fisheries management in the UoC. If at a later date more Estonian vessels are added to the Estonian fishery, their eligibility to Other eligible fishers share the certificate will be considered upon the application. New vessels owned by the Estonian client will automatically (subject to full compliance with MSC requirements) be part of the certification and the vessel list updated accordingly.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 12

For the Danish, Lithuanian, UK, Polish, and Latvian fisheries, there are currently no vessels other than Ocean Tiger, Taurus, Lokys, Norma Mary, Polonus, Dorado 2, Auseklis, and Laima. If at a later date the client group adds more vessels to their fleet under their respective countries’ regulation, they will automatically (subject to full compliance with MSC requirements) be part of the certification and the vessel list updated accordingly. Vessels outside the client group are not eligible to share the MSC certificate. FAO area: 21 Common name of the body of water: Northwest Atlantic, NAFO 3M Flemish Cap Geographical area Local fisheries management area: NAFO 3M Stock region: Northwest Atlantic NAFO, EU Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), and UK Management Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

5.1.2 Unit of Certification The UoC is the unit entitled to receive the MSC certificate. The proposed UoC includes the target stock(s); the fishing gear type(s); and, if relevant, vessel type(s) and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including entities initially intended to be covered by the certificate. The proposed UoC is provided in Table 7.

Table 7. Proposed UoC

UoC 1 Description

Species Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis)

Stock Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Division 3M

Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Bottom otter trawl type(s) Estonian companies Reyktal Ltd and Reval Seafood Ltd represented by the vessels Steffano, Merike, and Dagö (owned by Reyktal Ltd) and Reval Viking (owned by Reval Seafood Ltd)

Danish company P/R Ocean Prawn represented by the vessel Ocean Tiger

Lithuanian company UAB Marlinas represented by the vessels Taurus and Lokys Client group UK company Onward Fishing Company Ltd represented by the vessel Norma Mary

Polish company Arctic Navigations represented by the vessel Polonus

Latvian companies SIA Batterfisa, Arctic Trawler Ltd, and SIA North Star represented by the vessels Dorado 2 (owned by SIA Batterfisa), Auseklis (owned by Arctic Trawler Ltd), and Laima (owned by SIA North Star) FAO area: 21 Common name of the body of water: Northwest Atlantic, NAFO 3M Flemish Cap Geographical area Local fisheries management area: NAFO 3M Stock region: Northwest Atlantic

Management NAFO, DG MARE (the EU) and Defra (the UK)

5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 13

The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.

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

Reference(s): FCP v2.2, 7.20.3.h and Section 7.21

5.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

The CAB shall include in the report the scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17

Table 8 - Principle level scores

Principle UoA 1

Principle 1 – Target species

Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts

Principle 3 – Management system

5.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

The CAB shall include in the report a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the CAB shall include in the report a statement confirming this.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18

Table 9 – Summary of conditions

Carried Related to Condition Performance Exceptional over from previous Condition Deadline number Indicator (PI) circumstances? previous condition? certificate? Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA

5.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 14

If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section.

Table 10. Summary of recommendations Recommendation Recommendation Performance number indicator

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 15

6 Traceability and eligibility 6.1 Eligibility date Products from the certified fishery will be eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel from the date when the Public Comment Draft Report is published on the MSC website. The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery will be implemented by the eligibility date.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery The CAB shall include in the report a description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery and how these systems will allow any products sold as MSC certified to be traced back to the Unit of Certification.

The CAB shall include in the report an evaluation of the robustness of the management systems related to traceability.

The CAB shall include in the report any traceability references, including hyperlinks to publicly available documents.

The CAB shall include in the report a description of the factors that may lead to risks of non-certified seafood being mixed with certified seafood prior to entering Chain of Custody using the table below. For each risk factor, there shall be a description of whether the risk factor is relevant for the fishery and, if so, a description of the relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems in place.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.5.7, 7.9, 7.10, 7.20.3

The systems of tracking and tracing within the fishery should ensure that there are no substitution risks that can be caused by vessels using non-certified gears, fishing outside the UoA/UoC, other non-certified fisheries fishing the same stock or any other risk of substitution that may occur between point of harvest and point of sale, such as transhipment, sale via auctions, etc. Traceability within the fishery is outlined in Table 11. There is a sufficiently effective system of tracking, tracing and segregation in the NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn fishery so as to ensure that all products originating from the certified fishery and sold as certified could be identified prior to or at the point of landing. These details will be discussed in more detail and verified with the client before or at the site visit.

Table 11. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)?

If Yes, please describe: Never - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated.

Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area?

Never If Yes, please describe: - If this may occur on the same trip; - How any risks are mitigated. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-certified products during any of the activities covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at- sea activities and on-land activities. Never

- Transport - Storage - Processing

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 16

- Landing - Auction

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Does transhipment occur within the fishery?

If Yes, please describe: - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or Never both; - If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated. Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? Never

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

The CAB shall include in the report a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.

The CAB shall include in the report the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.

If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9

6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable stock to enter further CoC There are no inseparable or practicably inseparable stocks within this fishery so this is not applicable.

6.5 Risk- based methods for data-deficient fishery The assessment team determined that the RBF is not applicable to this fishery. Table 12 provides the appropriate rationale for each relevant PI.

Table 12. Criteria for triggering the use of the RBF and rationale for not needing to use the RBF. Performance Indicator Criteria Consideration Notes 1.1.1 Stock status Stock status reference points Yes There is a direct measure of stock are available, derived either status (i.e., biomass index, which

from analytical stock is used as a proxy for BLIM). assessment or using empirical No Use Annex PF (RBF) for this PI. approaches. 2.1.1 Primary species Biologically based limits are Yes A recent stock assessment (2029) outcome available, derived either from was done for the only primary analytical stock assessment or species, deepwater redfish. using empirical approaches. No Use Annex PF (RBF) for this PI. 2.2.1 Secondary Biologically based limits are Yes Use default Performance Indicator species outcome available, derived either from Scoring Guideposts within default assessment tree for this PI.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 17

analytical stock assessment or No There are only minor secondary using empirical approaches. species, and the status of these species are unknown. Therefore, the RBF would need to be used to score scoring issue (SI) b. However, the team has elected not to assess minor species, and as per PF5.3.2.1, if the team has only considered “main” species, the final PI score shall not be greater than 80. (See the scoring table for this PI for more details.) 2.3.1 ETP species Can the impact of the fishery in Yes Catch data are available to show that outcome assessment on ETP species no ETP are impacted by the fishery. be analytically determined? No Use Annex PF (RBF) for this PI. 2.4.1 Habitats outcome In line with the MSC Fisheries Yes Mapping data exist to provide Standard habitats guidance information on the relevant habitats (GSA3.13.1.1), are both of the within the fishing area, and following applicable? information from studies show how 1. Information on habitats the gear impacts these habitats. encountered is available. No Use Annex PF (RBF) for this PI. 2. Information on impact of fishery on habitats encountered is available. 2.5.1 Ecosystem Is information available to Yes Various studies have been done to outcome support an analysis of the show how the fishery impacts the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. ecosystem? No Use Annex PF (RBF) for this PI.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 18

7 Scoring 7.1 Principle scores 7.1.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores

Principle Component Weight Performance Indicator (PI) Weight Score

1.1.1 Stock status 1.000 ≥80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.000

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.250 ≥80 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.250 60-79 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.250 ≥80

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.250 60-79

2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80

Primary species 0.200 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80

2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Secondary 0.200 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80

2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80

Two ETP species 0.200 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 <60

2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 60-79

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 60-79

Habitats 0.200 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 60-79

2.4.3 Information 0.333 <60

2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80

Ecosystem 0.200 2.5.2 Management 0.333 ≥80

2.5.3 Information 0.333 60-79

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 ≥80 Governance 0.500 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 ≥80 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 ≥80

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.250 ≥80

Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.250 ≥80 management 0.500 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.250 ≥80 Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 0.250 ≥80 evaluation

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 19

7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background Taxonomy and geographic range

The Northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis (Krøyer, 1838) is a caridean shrimp of the family Pandalidae. Pandalus borealis is also known as the pink shrimp or cold water prawn, and is distributed across the North Atlantic around Greenland, Iceland, the Barents Sea and Svalbard, and south to Massachusetts in the Northwest Atlantic and to the North Sea in the Northeast Atlantic (Figure 1), and across the North Pacific from the Bering Sea south to Japan and Oregon (Holthuis, 1980). In all these areas there are important commercial fisheries for Pandalus borealis.

Figure 1. Distribution of Pandalus borealis in Atlantic waters. (Source: www.fao.org/fishery/species/3425/en)

Stock structure

As noted above, Pandalus borealis is distributed over a wide geographical area in the Northwest Atlantic from Greenland south to the Gulf of Maine. Migration of egg-carrying females into shallower waters in connection with egg- hatching has been observed in Pandalus borealis (Horsted, 1978), and juveniles may migrate from shallower to deeper water (Smidt, 1981). In addition, the larvae of Pandalus borealis may be transported as far as 300 km during the pelagic phase as revealed by particle tracking models in the Barents Sea (Pedersen et al., 2003) suggesting some connectivity between populations across large geographical areas. Genetics of stock structure of Pandalus borealis in the Northwest Atlantic from Hudson Strait south to the Gulf of Maine and out to the Flemish Cap has been studied using DNA microsatellites. Whilst the samples from Gulf of Maine and Flemish Cap appeared to be genetically distinct from other areas, within the area covered by Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the populations appeared genetically homogeneous (Jorde et al., 2014). A similar lack of genetic divergence over wide geographical scales was observed in the Northeast Atlantic; there was no significant genetic variation observed among shrimp samples from the Barents Sea and Svalbard (Martinez et al., 2006) or between oceanic samples from Skagerrak and the eastern North Sea (Knutsen et al., 2014), although both studies identified elevated levels of genetic differentiation between Norwegian and Skagerrak fjord samples. Whilst shrimp larvae may be transported several hundred kilometres in the plankton and ocean currents on Canada’s Atlantic shelf, principally the Labrador current, are generally from north to south, it seems reasonable to assume that Pandalus borealis on the Flemish Cap can be considered as a single stock.

Biology and life history

Northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, is found primarily in areas with soft, muddy sediments on the continental shelves in the North Atlantic, usually at depths between 50 and 500 m (Shumway et al., 1985) but can also be found in depths over 800 m in the Barents Sea. Off west Greenland northern shrimp are caught in waters from 130 m to deeper than 400 m (Kingsley, 2011), while in Canadian waters most catches of northern shrimp occur in depths of 300-500 m (DFO, 2015). Highest densities of shrimps are found in the temperature range 1 to 6º C but shrimp can be found in temperatures ranging from 0 to 14º C, and temperature seems to be closely correlated with changes in abundance (Shumway et al., 1985). Temperature, together with depth, substratum and salinity, are all major physical determinants of the distribution of Pandalid shrimps (Bergström, 2000).

Northern shrimp are protandrous hermaphrodites – maturing as males at age 2-5, mating for two or three years before changing sex and then spending the rest of their lives as females. Large shrimp tend therefore to be females and can

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 20 reach lengths of over 18 cm (Bergström, 2000) and generally live up to 8 years. Offshore individuals are larger than those caught inshore. Sex transition to females can be influenced by temperature, density and total mortality rates. Shrimps spawn in autumn, and the ovigerous females carry their eggs attached to their abdomen until April-May when the larvae are hatched. The larvae go through five pelagic larval stages over a period of 3-4 months before settling to the ocean floor, although particle tracking models reveal that the larvae of Pandalus borealis may be transported as far as 300 km during the pelagic phase (Pedersen et al., 2003). Shrimp are crustaceans that have a hard outer shell, which they must periodically shed (molt) in order to grow. Young benthic individuals are typically found at shallower depths than older adults. During the day time, shrimp feed on or near the bottom whereas, at night, they can migrate vertically and feed on zooplankton (Shumway et al., 1985).

Shrimp are important prey for several species such as cod, Greenland halibut, skates and wolffish as well as harp seals (Parsons, 2005) and predation mortality is thought to be an important factor in shrimp stock dynamics. Cod in particular can consume large amounts of shrimp. Decreases in all these fish species during the 1990s may have contributed significantly toward observed increases in many shrimp populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine mammals are also known to prey on northern shrimp, although this relationship has not been quantified. Temperature may be the single most important driving factor in Pandalus stock dynamics. In the Gulf of Maine, sea surface temperatures have been correlated with changes in the shrimp populations with higher surface water temperatures leading to decreased shrimp abundance.

Detailed descriptions of shrimp biology and life history are provided by Shumway et al (1985), Koeller (1996) and Hardie et al (2018).

Pandalus borealis is not a key low trophic level (LTL) species in the Flemish cap area and in the Newfoundland / Labrador ecosystem, as they are not one of the species listed in Box SA1 and do not meet all the criteria set out in paragraph SA2.2.9 of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01 (MSC, 2018). Whilst the Flemish Cap fishery operates in international waters, there is good information on the relationship between shrimps and their predators in adjacent Canadian waters. Shrimps are prey for cod, Greenland halibut and other predators such as seals in this area, and a number of other forage species are also found in the diets of these species (Hammill and Stenson, 2000) and diet composition of key groundfish predators has changed over time along with changes in the environment (DFO, 2014). For all species of seals in NAFO areas 2J3KL, shrimp made up 17% of the diet in 1996, with 72% being made up of fishes (Hammill and Stenson, 2000). Shrimp made up 5-50% of the diet of four important groundfish species (Atlantic cod, American plaice, redfish and Greenland halibut) in NAFO 2J3KL in 2008-2013 (DFO, 2014). Available evidence suggests that whilst shrimp are an important prey item for a range of species in areas where they are abundant, consumption is highly variable depending on predator species, predator size, and area, and therefore they are not necessarily a main or essential component of the diet of predators (Parsons, 2005). Although northern shrimp are widely distributed within the Northwest Atlantic waters, catches are low on an ecosystem scale and northern shrimp are unlikely to play an important role in energy transfer in the ecosystem as shrimp predators will consume other prey species. In conclusion, Pandalus borealis does not meet any of the criteria in SA2.2.9a, i-iii of the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01.

Harvest strategy

General harvest strategy

The fishery for Pandalus borealis on the Flemish Cap takes place within Division 3M of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) Regulatory Area, and the harvest strategy is therefore underpinned by the NAFO Convention and the overarching management regulations of Estonia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and the UK.

NAFO has adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework, which requires fisheries under its management authority to be managed according to that approach. All the countries participating in this fishery, except for the UK, are members of the European Union and therefore the overarching legislation governing their fishing activities is the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which was revised under EU Regulation No. 1380/2013 and came into effect on 1 January 2014. One of the key objectives of the CFP is that:

“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.”

Implementation of the CFP at a national level is carried out through the individual Member States with the provisions of the CPF transposed into national fisheries legislation. The objectives of the Estonian Fisheries Management System are focused at achieving a balance between fishing capacity and fishing possibilities and minimising impact of fisheries on the ecosystem through increasing the selectivity and other relevant measures. The Estonian Fisheries Strategy for 2014-2020 states: “In order to prevent the harmful environmental impact of fishing, several protection

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 21 measures are applied: closed areas, closed seasons, establishing minimum fish sizes and catch limitations as well as various requirements and restrictions for fishing gear. In addition, technical supervision of fleet is conducted constantly. Training and dissemination of information have contributed considerably to raising environmental awareness among fishermen as well as people living near water bodies” (Paragraph 1.1.4 of the strategy). In addition, fisheries are included in the Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs Development Plan for the period 2018-2021.

In Denmark the main enabling legislation is the 2014 Fisheries and Aquaculture Act which was revised in 2017. The Act makes provision for the management of fisheries for purposes of protection and enhancement of living resources in marine and freshwater and for the protection of other marine animal and plant life, and to safeguard the basic foundations of commercial fishing and related commercial activities and possibilities for sport fishing.

The Lithuania Law on Fisheries (2000, revised 2016) regulates fishing, aquaculture, processing and marketing of fish. The objective of the Law is “to ensure sustainable fishing, protection of fish resources and their restocking, fishing control, with account of the ecological conditions, economy of fisheries and the interests of the fishermen, fish producers, processors and consumers.” There is also a Fisheries Management Plan for 2014-2020.

In Latvia the overall objectives for fisheries management are formulated in the Fisheries Law of 12 April 1995 with the following amendments (last on 29 May 2014). Section 2 of the Fisheries Law describes the purpose and scope of this law:

(1) Purpose of this Law is such management of inland waters, territorial marine waters (hereinafter - territorial waters) and economic zone waters of the Republic of Latvia, which, by taking into account the necessity of biodiversity preservation, ensures sustainable use of fish resources, protection, propagation and research thereof for the long- term development of the State fishery sector.

(2) This Law regulates the catching, use, research, conservation, propagation and monitoring of fish resources in inland waters, territorial waters and economic zone waters of the Republic of Latvia.

(3) Catching of fish resources in the waters of other Member States of the European Union and international waters in which the Republic of Latvia has been allocated a catch quota, or in the waters of third countries with which Latvia has entered into agreements in the field of fisheries, shall be regulated by relevant European Union legislation and international agreements which the Republic of Latvia has entered into.

Management objectives are also formulated in Latvia’s EMFF Operational Plan (OP). Latvia aims to invest in selective and smart fishing gear and to ensure a balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.

In Poland the objectives of fisheries management are formulated in the Fisheries Law of 19 December 2014. Article 9 section 4 states that the Minister can regulate the fishery with the aim of adapting the fleet to available fishing opportunities, as well as rational and sustainable exploitation of living sea resources. Objectives concerning sustainable fisheries are further formulated in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 2014-2020 Operational Programme for Poland: “The Polish programme focuses on maintaining equilibrium between fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities, making innovative use of unwanted catches, enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises, and improving fishing port, auction or landing site infrastructures. Moreover, measures for protecting and restoring marine biodiversity and boosting technological development will also receive support. Key result: Sustainable exploitation of fisheries, and increased sector profitability with sustained employment.”

Following the departure of the UK from the EU, the UK Fisheries Act 2020 includes sustainability, precautionary, ecosystem and scientific evidence objectives. In the United Kingdom the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 sets out a “General Objective” with respect to the achievement of sustainable development. The joint Fisheries Administrations’ document ‘Securing the Benefits’ has long term objectives which include securing the management of fish stocks as an important renewable resource, harvested to optimise long term economic returns; ensuring that stocks are fished at biologically sustainable levels and discards are minimised and promoting sustainable fisheries consistent with a diverse and resilient marine environment. Defra document Fisheries 2027 includes the following vision statements: stocks are plentiful and sustainably harvested; a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is delivering sustainable fisheries and management is responsive and based on agreed criteria for assessing impacts on stocks and the environment more widely.

Elements of the harvest strategy

There is no explicit management plan or management objectives defined by NAFO for the shrimp stock in Division 3M, although NAFO Convention general principles are applied in terms of managing the stock. The NAFO Convention’s objectives for fish stocks are to restore stocks to or to maintain stocks at BMSY, eliminate overfishing, apply the Precautionary Approach, minimise harmful impacts on living marine resources and ecosystems and to

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 22 preserve marine biodiversity. The harvest strategy also consists of a series of management regulations designed to safeguard the stock and to minimise the impact of the fishery on the wider ecosystem, a monitoring programme with both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent components and a control and enforcement regime.

Management regulations

As with all fisheries within the NAFO Regulatory Area, the shrimp fishery in Division 3M is regulated through the distribution of catch quotas and fishing effort to Contracting Parties determined from historical catches. For the shrimp fishery, there are no formal setting of catch quotas but each Contracting Party with a track record of fishing between 1 January 1993 and 31 August 1995 is allocated 400 fishing days per year. If a Contracting Party does not have a track record, then shrimp fishing in 3M must be restricted to a single vessel for a maximum of 100 fishing days per year.

All vessels within the UoA are required to hold licences from their respective national authorities who limit the number of licences issued.

There is no formal total allowable catch (TAC) agreed for this fishery. However, the NAFO Scientific Council advises the maximum recommended catch annually. Upon the reopening of the fishery in 2020, the Scientific Council recommended that the catch should be set at the level observed in 2009.

There is a minimum mesh size for shrimp vessels of 40mm, and separator grids which are highly effective in reducing the bycatch of non-target fish species are mandatory in the fishery. NAFO regulations state that the separator grid must have a maximum bar spacing of 22mm. There is no minimum landing size for shrimps in the NAFO region. There are also NAFO regulations relating to the use of codend strengthening bags and the use of toggle chains.

There are “move-on” rules in place if catches of groundfish species exceed 5% of the total catch. There are no seasonal restrictions in the fishery but there is a large closed area which was implemented to minimise the catch of small shrimps in the shallow areas of Division 3M. NAFO has also implemented closed areas for trawling for the protect of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) habitats.

Monitoring, data, and information

Fishery-dependent data

All trawling vessels are fitted with a satellite VMS which records fishing position every hour allowing monitoring of fishing days in relation to NAFO’s prescribed limits and monitoring compliance with any areas closed to trawling. Under EU regulations all vessels over 15m must also have an automatic identification system (AIS) on board.

Under NAFO regulations, all UoA vessels must complete and submit logbooks (either paper or electronic) recording catch of shrimps and all bycatch species whether retained or discarded and fishing effort for each tow. Only limited recent data are available since the fishery was reopened in 2020. EU regulations also require all UoA vessels to complete logbooks. Initial information from the only UoA vessel fishing in 2020, the Lithuanian vessel Taurus, showed that the daily discard rate of small shrimps varied between 0.6% and 4%.

NAFO has a formal observer programme for the collection of biological information on catch, effort, size composition and bycatch composition. However as the fishery has been closed for many years until 2020, and there was only a very low level of fishing effort in 2020, it is not clear whether or not the observer programme was fully functional following the reopening of the fishery in 2020.

When entering or leaving the NAFO Regulatory Area, vessels must report their catch on entry (COE) and catch on exit (COX) of all species and complete a catch report (CAT) of the quantity of catch retained and quantity discarded by species for the day preceding the report, by Division, including nil catch. Within the NAFO Regulatory Area shrimp vessels are inspected under the NAFO At-Sea Inspection and Surveillance Scheme. Vessels may be boarded by inspection vessels from any of the Contracting Parties of NAFO, and the flag state will be informed within 24 hours of any infringement. NAFO also operates a Port State control scheme whereby a minimum of 15% of all landings must be inspected including cross-checking of landings with logbook records and fishing activity reports, checking of fishing gear including mesh sizes and compliance with any minimum size regulations. The EU’s Control regulation also requires inspection of vessels and their gear, mandatory implementation of a VMS and an AIS on vessels above 12 and 15 meters respectively, mandatory completion of log books for all vessels over 10 m and electronic log books for vessels over 12m, and cross checks of landings to ensure that such landings do not vary from log book returns by more than 500 kg or 10%. The most recent NAFO Compliance Review concluded that compliance was good in the NAFO Regulatory Area.

Full details of all of NAFO’s Conservation and Enforcement Measures are set out in NAFO (2021).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 23

Fishery-independent surveys

Stock status is evaluated annually through the EU Bottom Trawl Research Survey which has conducted stratified random trawl surveys on the Flemish Cap in July each year from 1988 to 2020. The survey provides estimates of both total and female stock biomass using a swept area method. Full details of the survey design and fishing protocols are outlined in Casas (2008) and the results from the latest annual survey in 2020 can be found in Casas (2020). A new vessel was used for the survey in 2003, although the same trawl has been used since the start of the time series. There were also differences in cod end mesh sizes used in the surveys in 1994 and 1998 which could have biased estimates of total biomass in those years, but the time series of data points prior to 2003 have been converted into comparable units for the new vessel and the time series is considered to provide an accurate description of changes in stock biomass since 1988. A small mesh juvenile bag is attached to the main net to provide an index of recruitment.

In conjunction with recorded landings from the fishery, the estimate of stock biomass permits the calculation of an exploitation index.

Stock assessment approaches and methods

There is currently no analytical assessment of the shrimp stock in NAFO Division 3M. Evaluation of stock status is undertaken by interpretation of commercial fisheries data and data from annual research surveys. Advice is based on qualitative evaluation of biomass indices in relation to historic levels and provided in the context of the precautionary approach framework. Prior to 2011 when the moratorium was implemented, commercial catch per unit effort (CPUE) data were available and from 1993 to 2005 a time series of size and sex composition was available from the Icelandic and Faroe Islands fleets. Since 2011 in the absence of commercial fishing, the assessment of stock status has been based solely upon the results from the annual EU Bottom Trawl Research Survey. Fishing commenced at a very low level in the first half of 2020 and as yet there is no new data on sex and size compositions of catches and only minimal data on CPUE since the fishery reopened.

There is no formally agreed limit reference point for the shrimp stock in Division 3M. However, the Scientific Council has set a value of female survey biomass index of 15% of its maximum observed level as a proxy for BLIM. At present there is no value or proxy set for BMSY. NAFO has managed the fishery throughout the history of the fishery through limits to fishing effort, but there are no fishing mortality reference points in place. There are no explicit harvest control rules (HCRs). Nevertheless, NAFO has in the past agreed limits to fishing effort based upon the evaluation of stock status by the Scientific Council including closing the fishery in 2011 following a major decline in stock biomass and then reopening the fishery in 2020 following a significant recovery of stock biomass and evidence of recent good recruitments.

Stock assessment and the advisory process

The stock is assessed annually by the NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (NIPAG) and reviewed by the NAFO Scientific Council, who in conjunction with NIPAG formulate management advice.

Stock status

The most recent assessment of stock status for Pandalus borealis in NAFO Division 3M was undertaken at the NIPAG meeting held by WeBex in September 2020 (NAFO, 2020a). The female biomass index estimated from the EU stock survey was stable for a ten year period from 1998 to 2007, but then declined sharply and in 2009 dropped below the BLIM proxy, and after the 2010 season, the fishery was closed (Figure 2). Female biomass remained very low until 2014 after it steadily increased year on year until reaching a peak well above BLIM in 2019 (Figure 2). Estimated female biomass from the EU survey in 2020 was 6,038 tonnes (Casas Sánchez and Álvarez, 2020) which is slightly lower than in 2019, but it is still well above BLIM. The probability of the female biomass being below BLIM is <2.5% (NAFO, 2020a). The survey also estimates recruitment (defined as abundance of shrimp at age 2) from both the main survey net and from the small mesh juvenile net attached to the main net. Shrimp age is estimated from the length distributions and assumed growth rates which allows the identification of cohorts. Recruitment has been very poor from 2012 to 2017 but has been increasing in the last few years with a very large year class observed in 2020 suggesting that the stock biomass will continue to increase in the next two years (Figure 3). The exploitation rate in the shrimp fishery declined to zero when the moratorium was imposed, and with very low fishing effort following reopening of the fishery in 2020, there was not sufficient information available at the last assessment to estimate exploitation rate for 2020 (Figure 4). However, the very low level of fishing suggests that the exploitation rate was also very low in 2020. Although there are no agreed formal exploitation rate or biomass reference points for the fishery, NAFO Scientific Council have defined a proxy BLIM as the female biomass of 2,546 tonnes which is equivalent to 15%

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 24 of the maximum observed level. A plot of exploitation rate index against female biomass index shows that the fishery is well above the BLIM proxy (Figure 5).

Figure 2. Female biomass index of Pandalus borealis in NAFO Division 3M estimated for the EU Bottom Trawl Surveys from 1988 to 2020. Error bars are 2 standard errors. (Source: NAFO, 2020).

Figure 3. Abundance indices of shrimp age 2 in NAFO Division 3M from both the main net and the juvenile bag. Each series is standardised to its mean. (Source: NAFO, 2020)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 25

Figure 4. Exploitation rate of shrimp in NAFO Division 3M from 1993 to 2019 calculated as the total catch divided by the biomass index estimated from the EU stock survey. (Source: NAFO, 2020).

Figure 5. Shrimp in NAFO Division 3M – plot of exploitation rate against female biomass index as estimated from the EU stock survey. Vertical line is the BMSY proxy of 2,546 tonnes. (Source: NAFO, 2020)

The shrimp stock in NAFO Division 3M is assessed at the annual NIPAG meeting along with assessments of other Pandalus stocks in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic. There is therefore an inherent peer review by the various members of NIPAG, including scientists from Norway, Russian Federation, Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Sweden, Spain, France and Estonia, and the NAFO Secretariat. In addition, the assessment of stock status is reviewed jointly by NIPAG and the Scientific Council of NAFO before management advice is given to NAFO. Shrimp stocks overseen by NIPAG also undergo periodic benchmarks in which the aim is to reach a consensus agreement on an assessment methodology that is to be used in future assessments and the process is reviewed by independent experts and is open to stakeholders. It is likely that the shrimp stock in Division 3M will undergo a benchmark at the same time as

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 26 the Pandalus stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep scheduled for 2021. Previously NIPAG has recommended that various assessment approaches used in other Pandalus fisheries, e.g., Bayesian stock-production models and length-based models such as Stock Synthesis, should be evaluated for their application to the stock in Division 3M.

In addition to fishing, shrimp stock biomass and recruitment is strongly influenced by both environmental factors and predation pressure. In particular, declining shrimp stocks have been linked to increases in water temperature and increases in predator abundance. it is not known to what extent climate change affects shrimp abundance, distribution or overall ecological conditions, including predator-prey relationships. NIPAG notes that the major decline of shrimp biomass around 2008-2010 correlates with an increase of both cod and redfish in Division 3M, but it is uncertain whether this represents a causal relationship and/or covariance as a result of some environmental factor. Similarly, the increase in shrimp stock biomass in the last few years may be driven by reductions in cod and redfish abundance and hence reduced predation on shrimps. As with other Pandalus stocks, it is possible that with increasing water temperatures and general recovery of predator stocks, that the high levels of shrimp stock biomass observed previously may never be attained again. In addition to an annual evaluation of shrimp stock status in Division 3M, various ecosystem indicators are monitored on an annual basis. In the last few years, the ocean climate index in 3M was normal, the timing of the spring bloom was normal in 2019, although the magnitude of the bloom was lower than in previous years, copepod and non-copepod biomass was above normal, but zooplankton biomass was below normal in 2019. Trends in these indicators may provide some explanation for changes shrimp biomass. NIPAG has recommended that further exploration of the relationship between shrimp, cod and the environment be continued.

History of the fishery and management

The fishery commenced in 1993 and has been managed throughout the history of the fishery by NAFO through effort regulation based upon agreed fishing days, although the Scientific Council has made annual recommendations on total catches since 1999. Following a major decline in stock biomass, the agreed number of days was reduced by 50% between 2009 and 2010, and in 2011 a moratorium on direct fishing was implemented (Table 13). Stock biomass started to increase again in 2016 and a decision was made to lift the moratorium in 2020. NAFO Commission set the agreed level of fishing effort for 2020 at 2640 days. In the light of uncertainties of how the stock might respond to the resumption of exploitation and around future recruitment, the Scientific Council recommended a precautionary approach on the reopening of the fishery and that catches in 2020 should not exceed the level in 2009 of 5448 tonnes.

Table 13. Pandalus borealis fishery in NAFO Division 3M. Landings, agreed fishing effort (days), and NAFO Scientific Council recommended catches (ndf = no directed fishery) from 2009 to 2020. (Source: NAFO, 2020).

As described above, NAFO manages the Division 3M shrimp stock through limits on fishing days, whereas the Scientific Council provides recommended catch limits. The NAFO Commission had therefore requested the Scientific Council to advise on the possible sustainable management methods for northern shrimp in Division 3M, including quota, fishing effort, periods, reporting or other technical measures (Commission request #15, Com. Doc. 19-029). In response the Scientific Council recommended that the management of Division 3M shrimp be converted from the existing “effort regulation” to “catch regulation” in line with all other stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area, and that If management aims to include reduction of catches of small shrimp, closure of the shallow area could be beneficial to achieve this. The detailed response of the Scientific Council is shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Response of the Scientific Council to NAFO Commission request on sustainable management methods for northern shrimp in Division 3M. (Source: NAFO, 2019a)

Harvest control

Catch/effort regulation

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 27

The 3M shrimp fishery was managed by effort control prior to the moratorium and will be reopened in 2020, initially on the same basis. SC does not consider that the management procedure initiated some 25 years ago constitutes effective means of managing the stock. This is in particular for four reasons: 1. Fishery efficiency improves over time because of new bigger vessels, better gear, more advanced instruments, etc. It is not uncommon to estimate an average efficiency increase of up to 5% per year in trawl fisheries, which would imply that the annual effort limit of 12 175 fishing days introduced in 1996 would now (in 2019) equal an effective effort of 37 396 days, i.e. more than three times the original effort limit. 2. Over the period of this fishery the overall effort allowed has always been high and has not posed much constraint on fishing activity and, as such, it has not been an effective tool for the management of this fishery. 3. It is difficult to standardize “effort units” (e.g. fishing days) in terms of pressure on the stock due to creep in fishing efficiency (see item 1 above) and the diversity of the individual vessels participating in the fishery (a fishing day with one vessel might equal 1.5 days with another and vice versa). 4. SC delivers advice in terms of catch, not effort, and the conversion from catch to effort is not straightforward for the reasons listed under item 3.

As a consequence of these uncertainties, Scientific Council is unable to advise on the number of fishing days in 2020 that would result in a total catch equivalent to the recommended TAC of 5448 tonnes.

SC therefore recommends that the management of 3M shrimp be converted from the existing “effort regulation” to a “catch regulation” in line with all other stocks in the NRA.

Fishing pattern

Season, area closures

Since 2002, the Fisheries Commission implemented a closure of the shallow area (depths less than 140 fathoms approximately) for the period of June to December. The objective of this temporal closure was to protect the juvenile fraction of the stock from some fleets that extended their activity to shallower waters. Information from the Flemish Cap and from fisheries in other areas (Gulf of Maine, Greenland, Norway) indicates that juvenile shrimps are distributed in shallower water. Analysis of Icelandic observer data from the Flemish Cap by Skuladottir and Nicolajsen (2002) showed a strong relationship between size and depth in male shrimps, with the smaller individuals being found in shallower water. The relationship was less strong for females and this was believed to be due to mature females migrating back to shallower areas to release eggs during the month of March. If management aims to include reduction of catches of small shrimp, closure of the shallow area could be beneficial to achieve this. However, SC does not have sufficient information to propose appropriate depth or seasons for closure.

Technical measures

Size limits, sorting grids, mesh size

Others measures (technical) to protect the small shrimp, such as modifications of the present gears (40 mm mesh size) and sorting grids (22 mm), should be investigated.

7.2.2 Catch profiles The fishery for Pandalus borealis in NAFO Division 3M started in 1993 and catches were initially around 30-40,000 tonnes (Figure 6). Catches peaked at over 60 000 tonnes in 2003 but then declined rapidly possibly due to a combination of high predation by cod and redfish and fishing (Pérez-Rodríguez and González-Troncoso, 2018), and in 2011 a moratorium was imposed on directed fishing (NAFO, 2020). Following an increase in stock biomass and good recruitments, the fishery was re-opened in 2020. No figures are yet available for the total catch in 2020, but NAFO report that the fishing effort directed to the shrimp fishery and catches in the first half of 2020 were very low (NAFO, 2020). Of the vessels in the UoA, only the Lithuanian vessel Taurus has fished in 2020 with recorded landings of 79 tonnes (Client, pers. comm.)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 28

Figure 6. Catches of Pandalus borealis on the Flemish Cap in NAFO Division 3M and recommended catches from 1993 to 2020. (In 2008 and 2009, the Scientific Council recommended catches within a range.) (Source: NAFO, 2020)

7.2.3 TAC and catch data

Table 15. TAC and catch data

TAC Year 2020 Amount 5448 tonnes*

UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount NA**

UoA share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount NA**

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2020 Amount 79 tonnes recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount 0*** most recent) *There is no formal agreed TAC – this figure is the Scientific Council’s recommended catch. **Olympic system in operation. ***Fishery was closed until 2020.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 29

7.2.5 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI). Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Although NAFO have not formally defined a limit reference point for the shrimp stock in Division 3M, the Scientific Council considers that a female survey biomass index of 15% of its maximum observed level provides a proxy for BLIM. Since 2015 the estimate of female biomass from the EU Bottom Trawl Survey has been increasing and the most recent estimate in 2020 was 6,038 tonnes which is slightly lower than in 2019, but it is still well above BLIM. The probability of the female biomass being below BLIM was estimated to be <2.5%. In addition estimates of recruitment (defined as abundance of shrimp at age 2) from both the main survey net and from the small mesh juvenile net attached to the main net have been increasing in the last few years with a very large year class observed in 2020 suggesting that the stock biomass will continue to increase in the next two years. There is evidence that the stock is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and therefore the scoring guidepost (SG) 60 and SG80 are met. Although the probability of the stock being above BLIM is in line with a score of 100 for this SI, there is still some uncertainty around recruitment patterns in the fishery following the long period of closure of the fishery, and therefore the assessment team have taken a precautionary approach and concluded that the SG100 is not met.

Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has b Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a post level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is no formally defined upper or target reference point, and the NAFO Scientific Council has not set a value or proxy for BMSY for the shrimp fishery in Division 3M. In other Pandalus fisheries where both limit (LRP) and target (TRP) reference points have been set based upon historical biomass estimates (as opposed to analytical estimates), the upper or target reference point is usually set at 2-3 times the LRP. The female survey biomass index in 2019 was 8,486 tonnes and in 2020 the index was 6,038 tonnes, which represent 3.33 and 2.37 x BLIM respectively. In addition, the 2020 EU survey showed a large recruitment in pulse in 2020 which should ensure that the stock is maintained at the current or higher level over the next two years. These most recent estimates of female biomass suggest that the stock is likely to be at or fluctuating around a level consistent with BMSY. As with all Pandalus fisheries, the strong influence of environmental factors and predator abundance on shrimp population dynamics in comparison with fishing pressure means that a fixed value of BMSY may well be inappropriate. Perhaps more appropriate is to set the fishing mortality rate at or below FMSY on the basis that consistent exploitation rates at that level should ensure that the stock is maintained at level consistent with MSY. For the shrimp stock in Division 3M, the exploitation rate has been zero from 2011 to 2019, and is expected to be very low (well below any estimate of FMSY) in 2020 and therefore the stock should currently be at a level consistent with MSY. The SG80 is met. In the absence of any defined value for BMSY, there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock is at a level consistent with MSY, or that it has been above that level in recent years. The SG100 is not met.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 30

References

Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138.

Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102.

MSC. 2018. MSC Fisheries Standard, v.2.01, 31st August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 289 pp.

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22.

NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point BLIM proxy defined as the 2,546 tonnes Female biomass in 2020 = used in scoring female survey biomass index 6,038 tonnes stock relative to of 15% of its maximum PRI (SIa) observed level. B2020 / BLIM = 2.37 Reference point There is no defined reference NA NA used in scoring point relative to MSY. stock relative to MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on likely values for BMSY proxy could warrant a higher score.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 31

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

Rationale

The stock is not currently considered to be depleted and PI 1.1.1 scores ≥80 and therefore this PI is not scored.

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

Rationale

The stock is not currently considered to be depleted and PI 1.1.1 scores ≥80 and therefore this PI is not scored.

References

MSC. 2018. MSC Fisheries Standard, v.2.01, 31st August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 289 pp.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range NA

Information gap indicator NA

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 32

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to Guide a reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is no explicit management plan or management objectives defined by NAFO for the shrimp stock in Division 3M, although NAFO Convention general principles are applied in terms of managing the stock. The NAFO Convention’s objectives for fish stocks are to restore stocks to or to maintain stocks at BMSY, eliminate overfishing, apply the Precautionary Approach, minimise harmful impacts on living marine resources and ecosystems and to preserve marine biodiversity. The harvest strategy is based upon limiting fishing effort in line with the status of the stock, implementing a minimum mesh size which should ensure that catches of small shrimps are minimised, closure of the fishery if stock biomass indices drop below a certain level, measures to minimise the bycatch (mandatory use of a separator grid and move-on rules if high levels of fish bycatch are encountered), assessment of the status of the stock in relation to a proxy for BLIM, a monitoring programme with both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent components and a control and enforcement regime. In general the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock as evidenced by the closure of the fishery from 2011 to 2019, and the various elements should work together to ensure that recruitment is not impaired and that the stock should in the long term fluctuate around a level consistent with MSY. The SG60 and SG80 are met.

There are concerns that the shrimp fishery in Division 3M is based upon “effort regulation” as opposed to “catch regulation”, and there is not a well-defined harvest control rule in place, so it cannot be concluded that the harvest strategy is designed to meet stock management objectives and therefore the SG100 is not met.

Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is b post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The harvest strategy for the shrimp stock is based upon limiting fishing effort, a minimum mesh size to minimise the catch of small shrimps and the closure of the fishery if the stock biomass drops significantly. The harvest strategy is therefore likely to work based on experience in other Pandalus fisheries and the SG60 is met. Fishery-independent stock surveys provide evidence that stock biomass has recovered and recruitment has increased in the last few years following the closure of the direct fishery providing evidence that the harvest strategy is generally working and has achieved its short term objective of rebuilding the stock and its long term objective of maintaining the stock well above BLIM. The SG80 is met. The harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated through, for example, a management strategy evaluation (MSE) and therefore SG 100 is not met.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 33

Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is c Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale

Stock status is monitored through the annual fishery-independent EU Bottom Trawl Survey which provides an index of female stock biomass and recruitment, and when the fishery is open, fishery dependent data are collected. A comprehensive monitoring programme is in place which includes mandatory submission of log books recording catches and hours fished, recording of fishing activity through a mandatory VMS, an observer programme, surveillance of recorded landings at ports which can be cross-checked against log book records and boarding and inspection of vessels to ensure compliance with regulations. This range of monitoring allows determination of whether the harvest strategy is working. The SG60 is met.

Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? No

Rationale

Whilst NAFO undergoes periodic Performance Reviews and the EU CFP has been regularly reviewed and recommendations implemented, there is no evidence that the harvest strategy for the shrimp fishery in Division 3M has been fully reviewed. In 2019 the NAFO Scientific Council made recommendations on changes to the harvest strategy following a request from the NAFO Commission, but to date there is no evidence that these recommendations have been taken up by the Commission. The SG100 is not met.

Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of e Guide not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Sharks are not a target species and therefore this SI is not scored.

Review of alternative measures There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 34

Unwanted catch of Pandalus borealis occurs primarily through the discarding of small non-commercial-sized prawns. There have been regular reviews of the effectiveness of various measures for minimising such unwanted mortalities including the use of a 40mm mesh size in the trawl, a review of the closure of the shallow areas where high densities of small shrimps are found and move-on rules if high catches of small shrimps occur. However the most recent data from the single UoA vessel fishing in 2020 showed that the daily discard rate of small shrimps varied from 0.6% to 4% of the total catch and given the development of markets now for the smallest shrimps, the assessment team concluded that there is currently minimal unwanted catch of the target stock and therefore there is no requirement to score this SI. If future catches of small shrimps increase, there is some evidence that a regular review of alternative measures has taken place.

References

Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138.

Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102.

MSC. 2018. MSC Fisheries Standard, v.2.01, 31st August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 289 pp.

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22.

NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147.

NAFO. 2021a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2021.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on current rates of discarding of small shrimps could warrant a higher score.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 35

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Although there are no formally defined harvest control rules, the fishery is managed through a series of regulations including effort limitation and technical conservation measures (mesh size and sorting grid regulations, closed areas, move-on rules). Exploitation rate can be reduced through a reduction in fishing effort when the PRI is approached, and when the stock declined significantly in 2009 and 2010, the fishery was subsequently closed in 2011. It can be concluded therefore that there is a generally understood harvest control rule in place which will safeguard the stock if the PRI is approached or exceeded. There is evidence from a range of other NAFO stocks that HCRs are available which are well-defined and can control exploitation rates if stock status declines. The SG60 is met. Whilst there is evidence that generally understood HCRs have been triggered in the past, it cannot be concluded that these HCRs are well-defined and therefore the SG80 is not met.

HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role b of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? No No

Rationale

As there are currently no formal well-defined HCRs in place to trigger the reduction of exploitation rates if stock levels decline below reference points, it cannot be concluded that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. The SG80 is not met.

HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes No No

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 36

Rationale

The harvest strategy is based upon effort regulation to control exploitation rates in the fishery, and the closure of the fishery if stock biomass declines below a certain level. There is therefore some evidence that the tools in use to implement the generally understood HCRs are appropriate and effective at controlling exploitation. The SG60 is met. Concern has been expressed by the NAFO Scientific Council that effort regulation is not a sufficiently robust tool to manage the fishery and that NAFO should move to a catch-regulated fishery, and indeed the Scientific Council provides an annual recommendation on catches to supplement the effort-based strategy currently employed by NAFO. There is not therefore sufficient available evidence that the tools in use are appropriate and effective at controlling exploitation levels. The SG80 is not met.

References

Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138.

Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102.

MSC. 2018. MSC Fisheries Standard, v.2.01, 31st August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 289 pp.

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22.

NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147.

NAFO. 2021a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2021.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought More details on HCRs to determine if they are Information gap indicator well-defined, sufficiently robust, and/or appropriate and effective.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 37

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock Guide support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals a the harvest strategy. and other information such as post environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information on stock biomass, stock structure and distribution are available from the annual fishery-independent stock surveys and information on the stock and the fishery will become available again from CPUE indices from commercial fisheries logbook data now that the fishery has reopened. In addition, an observer programme will provide information on the size composition of all shrimps caught in the trawl and bycatch species composition. There is therefore good information on stock structure and productivity. Fleet composition is well understood in this limited entry fishery and fishing activity is monitored through VMS, stock abundance is monitored through the fishery-independent trawl survey, and UoA removals are monitored through logbooks, landings declarations and the observer programme. The estimate of stock biomass from the stock survey and rigorous monitoring of catches and landings therefore provide sufficient data to support the harvest strategy including the HCR. The SG60 and SG80 are met. There is some additional information available on environmental and other indices which are not directly related to the current harvest strategy, but it cannot be concluded that the range of information is comprehensive particularly in view of the lack of recent fishery-dependent data caused by the closure of the fishery from 2011 to 2019. Therefore, the SG 100 is not met.

Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree b Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Stock abundance and biomass is accurately and regularly recorded through the annual fishery-independent bottom trawl survey, and indices of abundance have in the past been available (and will be again in the future) through the commercial fisheries CPUE indices. The key harvest control rule is the revision of the annual number of fishing days and the potential closure of the fishery in response to changes in estimates of female biomass index and recruitment from the fishery-independent surveys. Landings are rigorously monitored through logbooks, landings declarations and an observer programme. Cross-checks of landings declarations with logbook returns are available to ensure landings are accurately recorded for all vessels. The mesh size in the shrimp trawl ensures that primarily large shrimps are

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 38 caught and there is minimal discarding of small shrimps. Stock abundance and fishery removals are therefore monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. The SG60 and SG80 are met.

There is however a lack of understanding of the inherent uncertainties in some of the data such as current factors influencing CPUE indices (due to the closure of the fishery in recent years) and the robustness of assessment and management to the uncertainties is not well understood. SG100 is not met.

Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale

Pandalus are rarely caught in other fisheries primarily due to the large mesh size used in the trawls in other finfish fisheries. However, any bycatch of shrimps in other fisheries should be recorded in logbooks and any shrimps landed should be declared. There is no recreational fishery in Division 3M. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. The SG80 is met.

References

Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138.

Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102.

Jorde, P.E., Søvik, G., Westgaard, J.I., Orr, D., Han, G., Stansbury, D. and Jørstad, K.E. (2014). Genetic population structure of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3046: iv + 27 p

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22.

NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147.

NAFO. 2021a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2021.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Details on observer programmes and levels of Information gap indicator discarding of small shrimps could warrant higher score.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 39

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

An assessment based upon a fishery-independent bottom trawl survey which provides an estimate of female stock biomass is considered an appropriate approach for a shrimp stock, and in the absence of an analytical estimate of BLIM, a proxy based upon historical levels of female biomass is considered appropriate and is an approach used in other shrimp fisheries where an analytical assessment is not available. The assessment has previously also considered trends in CPUE from the commercial fishery, but the closure of the fishery for many years has created a hiatus in any time series of CPUE. However, it is expected that CPUE data will provide an alternative index of stock biomass in future years. The fishery is managed through effort regulation, but the key harvest control rule is that the fishery will be closed if the stock biomass drops below a certain level and recruitment declines. The robust method of estimating female biomass and recruitment from annual fishery-independent stock surveys ensures that the assessment method is appropriate for the generally understood harvest control rule. The SG80 is met.

The lack of both a single species analytical stock assessment and an assessment approach including predator abundance for a stock which is clearly strongly influenced by variations in predator abundance means that the SG100 is not met.

Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

The annual fishery-independent EU Bottom Trawl Survey provides an estimate of female stock biomass relative to the BLIM proxy, which is the female survey biomass index equivalent to 15% of its maximum observed level. The SG60 is met. There is no formally defined upper or target reference point related to a level consistent with MSY, and although NAFO has managed the fishery throughout the history of the fishery through limits to fishing effort, there are no fishing mortality reference points in place. The SG80 is not met.

Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 40

Genetics studies show that the stock on the Flemish Cap is genetically distinct from other shrimp stocks in the region, so there is no uncertainty surrounding stock structure. The main uncertainty driving the dynamics of the Pandalus borealis stock is variable recruitment due to environmental influences and variable levels of predation. Stock biomass estimates are provided through the annual fishery-independent stock surveys so any variation in recruitment to the fishable stock is intrinsically taken into account in the estimates of stock biomass which are presented with confidence intervals. As the fishery has been closed for many years, there is a lack of recent fishery-dependent data in the form of trends in CPUE from participating vessels. However, it is expected that any CPUE data will be standardised for any vessel, season, year, area or other effects. The SG80 is met. Whilst the latest stock assessment provided an estimate of the probability of the stock being below BLIM, there is not sufficient evidence that all uncertainties are taken into account because of the lack of fishery-dependent data following the closure of the fishery. The SG100 is not met.

Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? No

Rationale

The assessment has not been fully tested and shown to be robust. There is no analytical assessment of the stock although a range of assessment methodologies have been used for other Pandalus stocks, but not applied yet to the Division 3M stock. The SG100 is not met.

Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The shrimp stock in NAFO Division 3M is assessed at the annual NIPAG meeting along with assessments of other Pandalus stocks in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic. There is therefore an inherent peer review by the various members of NIPAG, including scientists from Norway, Russian Federation, Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Sweden, Spain, France and Estonia, and the NAFO Secretariat. In addition, the assessment of stock status is reviewed jointly by NIPAG and the Scientific Council of NAFO before management advice is given to the NAFO Commission. Shrimp stocks overseen by NIPAG also undergo periodic benchmarks in which the aim is to reach a consensus agreement on an assessment methodology that is to be used in future assessments and the process is reviewed by independent experts and is open to stakeholders. It is likely that the shrimp stock in Division 3M will undergo a benchmark at the same time as the Pandalus stock in the Skagerrak and Norwegian Deep scheduled for 2021. The assessment is internally and externally peer reviewed. The SG80 and SG100 are met.

References

Casas, J. M. 2008. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2007. NAFO SCR Doc.08/ 68, Serial No. N5600.

Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138.

Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 41

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22.

NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147.

NAFO. 2021a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2021.

Pérez-Rodríguez, A. and D. González-Troncoso. 2018. Update of the Flemish Cap multispecies model GadCap as part of the EU SC05 project: “Multispecies Fisheries Assessment for NAFO”, NAFO SCR Doc.18/024, serial No. N6808

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on potential additional reference points based upon MSY or fishing mortality.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 42

7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background Primary and secondary species

MSC (2014) defines primary species as a species that is caught but is not the target species, that is within scope of the MSC program (i.e., not an amphibian, reptile, bird, or marine mammal), and that has management tools and measures in place. MSC (2014) defines secondary species as a species that is caught but is not the target species and is not considered primary or is out of scope but not an endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species. (See more on ETP species below.) MSC (2014) states that a “main species” is one where the catch of that species by the UoA is 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA or where that species is classified as less resilient and its catch is 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA. Further, “less resilient” is when the productivity of the species indicates that it is intrinsically of low resilience (which can be determined by the productivity part of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis) or when its resilience has been lowered by anthropogenic or natural changes to its life history. Non-ETP out-of-scope species are always considered main secondary.

Based on observer and catch data provided by the client, the only non-target species caught by the UoA are deepwater redfish (beaked redfish; Sebastes mentella), roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris), metallic lanternfish (Myctophum affine), and sandeels (Ammodytes spp.). Deepwater redfish is managed within the NAFO 3M Division so is considered a primary species for this assessment. The UoA does not have a quota for the species, and the data show that what were caught were discarded (Table 16). Deepwater redfish appear to have high post-capture mortality; however, given that they make up less than 1% of the total average catch, the UoA’s impact on the species is likely negligible. Roundnose grenadier, metallic lanternfish, and sandeels are secondary species because they are not managed within the NAFO 3M Division. These species, which were also discarded, each make up less than 1% of the total average catch so are minor species. The UoA’s catch of non-target species will be reviewed in more detail at the site visit.

Table 16. Catch (in kg) from three of the UoA’s trips. Trips 1 and 2 were made by the vessel Taurus, and Trip 3 was the vessel Ocean Tiger. Source: client catch data Target, Primary, Trip 1: Trip 2: Trip 3: % of Total Secondary, or 06 Oct to 24 08 Jan to 01 4 Feb to 4 Trip Average Species ETP Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Mar 2021 Average Catch Northern prawn Target 47,687 430,006 463,588 313,760 99.35% Deepwater redfish Primary 440 800 500 580 0.18% Roundnose grenadier Secondary 0 480 2,900 1,127 0.36% Metallic lanternfish Secondary 0 150 500 217 0.07% Sandeel nei Secondary 0 0 400 133 0.04% Total catch 48,127 431,436 467,888 315,817

Cumulative impacts

MSC (2014) requires consideration of the cumulative impact on primary and secondary species. That is, in a full assessment, this UoA would need to consider any other MSC UoAs1. If a main primary species is below its point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI), there needs to be evidence of recovery or an effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs that categorize the species as main. If a main secondary species is below its biologically based limit and the catch of that species is “considerable”2, there needs to be evidence of recovery or an effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs that have considerable catch of the species. At this time, the team is not aware of any relevant MSC UoAs, but this will be reviewed in more detail at the site visit.

ETP species

1 MSC UoAs are those “that are in assessment or certified at the time the UoA announces its assessment or reassessment on the MSC website” (MSC 2014). 2 Considerable refers to “more than 10% of the catch by weight of the UoA” (MSC 2014).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 43

According to the MSC (2014), an ETP species is one that is recognized by national ETP legislation; a species listed in a binding international agreement (refer to MSC 2014 for the list of relevant binding international agreements); or an out-of-scope species that is listed in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. Of the binding international agreements listed by the MSC, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is the only one relevant to this UoA. CITES is a multilateral treaty established to protect endangered plants and animals. It was drafted at a meeting of members of the IUCN and became effective in 1975. It aims to ensure that the international trade of wild animals and plants does not threaten the survival of these species, and it extends varying degrees of protection to more than 35,000 animal and plant species. Each CITES-protected species is assigned an appendix, which specifics the extent of the threat and the trade controls applied to that species. CITES Appendix I, the highest level, includes the species that are threatened with extinction and are, or may be, affected by trade. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species was introduced in 1994 with the goal of providing information and analyses on the status, trends, and threats to species in order to inform and catalyze conservation action. To achieve this goal, The IUCN Red List aims to: • Establish a baseline for monitoring species status changes • Provide a global context for the establishment of local level conservation priorities • Monitor, on a continuing basis, the status of a representative selection of species that covers all major ecosystems

Marine mammals and seabirds

According to the client, the UoA utilises a sorting grid on the net opening, which means there is no chance of marine mammals or seabirds entering the codend. Observer and catch data provided by the client indicate that the UoA has not had any interactions with or catch of marine mammals or seabirds. This will be reviewed in more detail at the site visit.

Fish

Catch data show that the UoA does not catch any fish species listed in CITES Appendix I. While roundnose grenadier is listed on some species protection lists (e.g., IUCN Red List, Canada’s Species at Risk Act), none of the lists are relevant to the UoA.

Cumulative impacts

MSC (2014) requires consideration of the cumulative impact on ETP species. That is, where there are national and/or international limits for ETP species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population/stock need to be considered. Since there are no national and/or international limits relevant to this UoA, the team does not consider any cumulative impacts.

ETP species management

The vessel captain has several options to record interaction with marine mammals or seabirds in an electronic logbook. It can be recorded under “discards”; alternatively, the captain can use a “free text message”, which appears as a separate logbook entry next to catch message of the day. Also, the captain follows the procedure prescribed by a respective regulatory area, which usually requires the captain to fill in a particular declaration indicating in detail the unwanted interaction. This will be reviewed in more detail at the site visit.

Habitats

Commonly encountered habitats

Based on Murillo et al. (2015), the commonly encountered habitats appear to be soft bottom: fine substratum (i.e., sand, silt), flat geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota. Figure 7 shows the common assemblages in the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap. The relevant assemblages are: • II.a (white) – sandy bottom to the depth of 200 m • II.b (light blue)– silty-sand bottom at a depth of 200-340 m • II.c (medium blue) – silty-sand bottom at a depth of 300-500 m

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 44

Figure 7. Common assemblages in the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap. Source: Murillo et al. 2015

Vulnerable marine ecosystems

Based on information from NAFO (Figure 8), the VMEs (i.e., scoring elements) present in the NAFO 3M Division are: 1. Sponges 2. Corals (large gorgonian) 3. Seapens 4. Seamounts

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 45

Figure 8. The VMEs and protection areas present within NAFO. Source: NAFO 2021b

Habitat management

Gear loss

Gear loss and ghost fishing are important factors to consider when looking at the overall management of the habitat. NAFO’s Conservation and Enforcement Measures directly speak to these factors as well as gear retrieval:

10. Each Contracting Party shall ensure that: (a) vessels fishing in the NRA entitled to fly its flag have equipment on board to retrieve lost gear; (b) the master of a vessel that has lost gear or part of it shall make every reasonable attempt to retrieve it as soon as possible; and (c) no master shall deliberately abandon fishing gear, except for safety reasons.

11. If the lost gear cannot be retrieved, the master of the vessel shall notify the flag State Contracting Party within 24 hours of the following: (a) the name and call sign of the vessel; (b) the type of lost gear; (c) the quantity of gear lost; (d) the time when the gear was lost; (e) the position where the gear was lost; and (f) the measures taken by the vessel to retrieve the lost gear.

12. Following retrieval of lost gear, the master of the vessel shall notify the flag State Contracting Party within 24 hours of the following: (a) the name and call sign of the vessel that has retrieved the gear; (b) the name and call sign of the vessel that lost the gear (if known); (c) the type of gear retrieved; (d) the quantity of gear retrieved; (e) the time when the gear was retrieved; and (f) the position where the gear was retrieved. Source: NAFO 2020b

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 46

VME management

Figure 9 shows the VME closed areas. As reflected in Article 17 of the NAFO CEM, no vessel shall engage in bottom fishing activities in any of these areas” (NAFO 2021c). Figure 10 shows management measures within the NAFO 3M Division (as well as some surrounding Divisions), as per the FAO VME Database – a global inventory of measures adopted in areas beyond national jurisdictions. In addition to closed areas, NAFO has delineated the current fishing footprint and established access regulations in other areas to limit bottom fisheries’ impact on VMEs.

Figure 9. The blue areas represent seamount closures. Red areas represent the sponge, coral, and seapen closures. Source: NAFO 2021c

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 47

Figure 10. VME area closures and management measures. Solid red areas denote seamount closures, areas with red hatch are coral closures, and red-outlined areas denote high sponge and coral concentration areas. The brown area is where access-regulations exist, and the green area shows the current bottom fishing footprint. Source: FAO 2021

NAFO’s Conservation and Enforcement Measures also include encounter thresholds where “an encounter with VME indicator species is defined as catch per set (e.g. trawl tow, longline set, or gill net set) of more than 7 kg of sea pens and/or 60 kg of other live coral and/or 300 kg of sponges” (NAFO 2020b). The vessel captain fishing in NAFO Regulatory Areas must abide by the following rules relevant to VME encounters: • Determine the amount of VME indicator species caught • If amount is more than the above-noted thresholds, immediately report the encounter and cease fishing and move at least 2 nm away.

To help fishing vessel crew with the identification of coral and sponge species, NAFO published guides as well as data collection form. The guides also include VME indicator species “and adopted a new list of VME elements in line with the FAO International Guidelines” (NAFO 2021d).

Ecosystems

The UoA operates in the Northwest Atlantic’s NAFO 3M Division, which includes the Flemish Cap area where the Labrador Current from the north mixes with warmer and saltier the North Atlantic Current from the south (Figure 11). South of the Flemish Cap, the North Atlantic Current flows in a northeast direction around the southern areas. Without strong wind forcing the circulation over the central Flemish Cap, the area is dominated by a topographically induced clockwise gyre (Colbourne et al. 2018).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 48

Figure 11. Water currents dominating the Flemish Cap area within the NAFO 3M Division. Source: Colbourne et al. 2018

NAFO utilises an ecosystem-based approach “to plan, develop, and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems” (NAFO 2021b). By utilising this approach, NAFO aims to ensure that the northwest Atlantic’s capacity to produce food and provide essential services and livelihood continues indefinitely. This approach also considers the ecosystem’s variability, uncertainty, and natural changes.

NAFO also requires advice regarding VMEs and established the Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment, which identifies VMEs and assisted in modifying NAFO’s Conservation and Enforcement Measures to close sensitive areas to bottom fishing where VME indicator species exist in high densities, given the important role they play in the overall ecosystem. Recent focus has been on encounter thresholds for sponges and corals and ecological interactions between cod, redfish, and shrimp (NAFO 2021b).

Principle 2 scoring elements

Table 17 shows the Principle 2 scoring elements within this fishery. There is one primary species and three secondary species, all which are minor. There are no ETP species. There five main habitat and one ecosystem scoring element.

Table 17. Scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient

Deepwater redfish Primary Minor No

Metallic lanternfish Secondary Minor Yes

Roundnose grenadier Secondary Minor Yes

Sandeels Secondary Minor Yes

Main (commonly Habitat Soft bottom No encountered)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 49

Habitat Sponges Main (VME) No

Habitat Corals Main (VME) No

Habitat Seapens Main (VME) No

Habitat Seamounts Main (VME) No

Trophic structure and Ecosystem Main No function

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 50

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be PI 2.1.1 impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the a Guide in place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence post ensure that the UoA does not of recovery or a hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Based on catch data, there are no main primary species. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.

Minor primary species stock status Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI.

Guide OR b post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? No

Rationale

According to a 2019 stock assessment, the deepwater redfish stock is declining after recovery in 2002-2003. There are not reference points for this stock, and it is not known how the status relates to its PRI level. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

References

NAFO 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 51

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 52

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 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

Management strategy in place There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or to necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary Guide not hinder rebuilding of the maintain or to not hinder species. a main primary species at/to rebuilding of the main primary post levels which are likely to be species at/to levels which are above the PRI. highly likely to be above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Based on catch data, there are no main primary species. Therefore, measures and a partial strategy are not necessary. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since the UoA does not have a strategy in place for managing main and minor primary species.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial Guide plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, b general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly post comparison with similar information directly about the about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). fishery and/or species species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no testing to support a strategy.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is post achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

There are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear evidence that a strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in SI a.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 53

Shark finning d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The UoA does not catch any shark species so this SI is not scored.

Review of alternative measures There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary catch of main primary species catch of all primary species, species. and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The UoA catches a negligible amount (<0.5%) of deepwater redfish, which is in turn discarded. Therefore, the team concludes that there are no unwanted catches of primary species, and this SI is not scored.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 54

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and is adequate available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the to assess the impact of the assess with a high degree main primary species with UoA on the main primary of certainty the impact of the respect to status. species with respect to status. UoA on main primary species with respect to status. a Guide OR OR

post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary attributes for main primary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

While this fishery only resumed in 2020 and limited fishing trips have occurred, there is sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to support the statement that there are no main primary species in the UoA. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Some quantitative information Guide is adequate to estimate the b impact of the UoA on minor post primary species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

Catch data show that a small amount of deepwater redfish is caught and that it is <1% of the total average catch. The team concluded that the UoA’s impact on these species is negligible. However, the UoA’s impact with respect to the species’ status is not known so SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to c support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 55

Catch data show that there are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no strategy to manage all primary species.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 56

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder a Guide recovery and rebuilding. post 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 have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – No

Rationale

Based on catch data provided by the UoA, there are no main secondary species so SG60 and SG80 are met. As per PF5.3.2.1, if the team has only considered “main” species, the final PI score shall not be greater than 80. See SI b for more details.

Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

Guide OR b post If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? All – No

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 57

Since the status of the minor secondary species are not known, the RBF would need to be used to score this SI. The team has elected not to assess minor species; therefore, SG100 is not met.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

PI 2.2.1 scoring by element Secondary species 2.2.1 a b Metallic lanternfish 80 80 Roundnose grenadier 80 80 Sandeels 80 80 Final PI score 80

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 58

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary 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 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. a Guide secondary species at/to levels rebuilding of main secondary post which are highly likely to be species at/to levels which are above biologically based highly likely to be above limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to UoA does not hinder their ensure that the UoA does not recovery. hinder their recovery. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – No

Rationale

Based on catch data, there are no main secondary species. Therefore, measures and a partial strategy are not necessary. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not a strategy in place for managing main and minor secondary species.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial b Guide plausible argument (e.g. measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, post general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly comparison with similar information directly about the about the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. involved. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no testing to support a strategy.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? All – Yes All – No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear evidence that a strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in SI a.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 59

Shark finning d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The UoA does not catch any shark species so this SI is not scored.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary catch of main secondary catch of all secondary species. species and they are species, and they are implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The UoA catches a negligible amount (<0.5%) of metallic lanternfish, roundnose grenadier, and sandeels, all which are in turn discarded. Therefore, the team concludes that there are no unwanted catches of secondary species, and this SI is not scored.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

PI 2.2.2 scoring by element Secondary species 2.2.2 a b c d e Metallic lanternfish 80 80 80 NA NA Roundnose grenadier 80 80 80 NA NA Sandeels 80 80 80 NA NA Final PI score 80

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 60

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 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 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and adequate to available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the assess the impact of the UoA assess with a high degree main secondary species with on main secondary species of certainty the impact of the respect to status. with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary attributes for main secondary species. species. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – Yes

Rationale

While this fishery only resumed in 2020 and limited fishing trips have occurred, there is sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to support the statement that there are no main secondary species in the UoA. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information Guide is adequate to estimate the b impact of the UoA on minor post secondary species with respect to status. Met? All – No

Rationale

Secondary species include metallic lanternfish, roundnose grenadier, and sandeels. The UoA catches of these species are a negligible amount (individually <0.5%). These species are all discarded, but their post-capture mortality is unknown. Since the UoA’s impact with respect to these species’ status is not known, SG100 is not met.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main secondary species. manage main secondary all secondary species, and c species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – No

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 61

Rationale

Catch data show that there are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no strategy to manage all secondary species.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

PI 2.2.3 scoring by element Secondary species 2.2.3 a b c Metallic lanternfish 80 80 80 Roundnose grenadier 80 80 80 Sandeels 80 80 80 Final PI score 80

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 62

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set a Guide limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the is a high degree of certainty post population/ stock are known MSC UoAs on the population that the combined effects of and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly the MSC UoAs are within limits. likely to be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, this SI is not relevant.

Direct effects Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of b Guide UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental post direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

ETP species found within the area are likely to include marine mammals, seabirds, and some fish species. ETP species have not been caught by the UoA; therefore, the known direct effects are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met. Given that the UoA has recently resumed fishing and catch data exists from only three trips, SG100 is not met since it cannot be said with a high degree of confidence that the UoA has no significant detrimental direct effects.

Indirect effects Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of Guide considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no c are thought to be highly significant detrimental post likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, SG80 is met. Indirect effects of the fishery are possible (e.g., food-web impacts). Since not enough is known about the potential indirect effects, a high degree of confidence does not exist so SG100 is not met.

References

None

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 63

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on NAFO and EU regulations will be used to reinforce these statements

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 64

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2 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 Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that minimise the UoA-related for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for mortality of ETP species, and impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact a Guide are expected to be highly including measures to on ETP species, including likely to achieve national and minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise post international requirements for designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed to the protection of ETP species. to achieve national and achieve above national and international requirements for international requirements for the protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, this SI is not relevant.

Management strategy in place (alternative) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for b Guide the UoA does not hinder the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to post recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The vessel captain follows the procedure prescribed by the respective regulatory area, which usually requires the captain to fill in a particular declaration indicating in detail the unwanted interaction. The UoA utilises otter trawl with sorting grid and operates in specific areas. Given that the UoA does not catch any ETP species, the team concludes that these constitute measures; therefore, SG60 is met. SG80 and SG100 are not met since this is not considered a strategy.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible measures/strategy will work, information directly about the c Guide argument (e.g.,general based on information directly fishery and/or species post experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the involved, and a quantitative comparison with similar species involved. analysis supports high fisheries/species). confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 65

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The vessel captain follows the procedure prescribed by the respective regulatory area, which usually requires the captain to fill in a particular declaration indicating in detail the unwanted interaction. The UoA utilises otter trawl with sorting grid and operates in specific areas. Based on information directly about the fishery and species involved, there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures will work; therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no quantitative analysis to support high confidence.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive d Guide being implemented strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes No

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The vessel captain follows the procedure prescribed by the respective regulatory area, which usually requires the captain to fill in a particular declaration indicating in detail the unwanted interaction. The UoA utilises otter trawl with sorting grid and operates in specific areas. Therefore, there is some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully, and SG80 is met. SG100 is not met since there is not clear evidence.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness Guide practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of ETP related mortality of ETP related mortality ETP species, species. species and they are and they are implemented, as implemented as appropriate. appropriate. Met? No No No

Rationale

There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The team is unaware of any such review; therefore, SG60 is not met. More information is needed at the site visit to assess this SI effectively.

References

None

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range <60 More information sought Details on NAFO and EU regulations and on possible management strategies. Information gap indicator Evidence of a review of potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 66

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 67

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 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a UoA related mortality on ETP UoA related mortality and high degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related whether the UoA may be a impacts, mortalities and OR threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP species. consequences for the a Guide If RBF is used to score PI status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information ETP species. is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

ETP species found within the area are likely to include marine mammals, seabirds, and some fish species. However, ETP species have not been caught by the UoA. SG60 and SG80 are met. Given that the UoA has recently resumed fishing and catch data exists from only three trips, SG100 is not met since the quantitative information is not sufficient to support a high degree of certainty.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, b Guide species. impacts on ETP species. minimise mortality and injury post of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The information is adequate to confirm that there are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The UoA has recently resumed fishing, but the catch data from three trips confirm that ETP species are not encountered. Therefore, there is adequate information to support measures. SG60 is met. Since there is not a strategy in place, SG80 and SG100 are not met.

References

None

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 68

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on NAFO and EU regulations and on possible management strategies

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 69

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to Guide of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function a habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Based on Murillo et al. (2015), the commonly encountered habitat (i.e., scoring element) appears to be soft bottom: fine substratum (i.e., sand, silt), flat geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota. Several studies show stable, muddy, or structurally complex habitats recover more slowly than sandy sediment. Additionally, the NAFO 3M area has been harvested by an international trawling fleet for a very long time (started before WWII). Therefore, it can be concluded that the UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Therefore, SG60 is met.

VMS data will be needed to compare the habitat types to the fishing area to ensure that no other habitat types should be considered commonly encountered. Therefore, at this time, it cannot be said that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function. SG80 and SG100 are not met. Additional details will be gathered during the site visit.

VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious harm. or irreversible harm. Met? All – Yes All – Yes All – No

Rationale

The four VME habitats within the UoA’s fishing area are: 1. Sponges 2. Corals (large gorgonian) 3. Seapens 4. Seamounts

These VMEs are protected by closed areas and other regulations (e.g., move-on rules), which are followed by the UoA. Catch data provided by the client confirm that no VME species have been caught. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the UoA reduces structure and function of VME habitats so SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since it cannot be said that there is evidence.

Minor habitat status c Guide There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to post reduce structure and function

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 70

of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? No

Rationale

There is not sufficient evidence with regard to minor habitats so the UoA does not meet SG100.

References

Murillo et al. 2015, NAFO 2020b, 2021b, 2021c

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Information gap indicator VMS data is needed to confirm UoA’s fishing area and impacted habitats.

PI 2.4.1 scoring by element Habitats 2.4.1 a b c Soft bottom 60 Sponges 80 Corals 80 Seapens 80 Seamounts 80 Final PI score 70

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 71

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for Guide place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all a expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? All – Yes All – No All – No

Rationale

There are NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, which are followed by the UoA, to deal with gear loss and retrieval, gear requirements and restrictions, closed areas, and number of fishing days. Such measures are based on scientific assessments, utilising expert knowledge. The team concludes that SG60 is met. It is not known if there are any UoA-specific measures/strategy so more information will be gathered at the site visit. SG80 and SG100 are not met since there is no evidence of a partial strategy or strategy in place for managing habitat impact.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. involved. Met? All – Yes All – No All – No

Rationale

Based on plausible argument, the measures are considered likely to work. The commonly encountered habitat range extend beyond the areas where the UoA operates. Therefore, the scale and intensity of the UoA’s fishing and an understanding of the vulnerability of the habitat types allow the team to conclude that SG60 is met. SG80 and SG100 are not met since there is no objective basis for confidence that the measures will work.

Management strategy implementation There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being post being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? All – Yes All – No

Rationale

The commonly encountered habitat range extend beyond the areas where the UoA operates. The measures in place (e.g., closed areas, fishing days) limit the UoA’s habitat impacts. Additionally, the NAFO 3M area has been harvested by an international trawling fleet for a very long time (started before WWII). Therefore, there is some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear quantitative evidence.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 72

Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative d evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its

Guide management requirements to management requirements management requirements and post protect VMEs. and with protection measures with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? All – Yes All – No All – No

Rationale

The VMEs are protected by closed areas and other regulations (e.g., move-on rules), which are followed by the UoA. Catch data provided by the client confirm that no VME species have been caught. Therefore, there is qualitative and some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with management measures. SG60 is met. SG80 and SG100 are not met since the team has not seen evidence that the UoA complies with any relevant protection measures instituted by non-MSC fisheries.

References

NAFO 2020b, 2021b, 2021c

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Details on NAFO and EU regulations and on Information gap indicator possible UoA-specific management strategies. Details on overlapping non-MSC fisheries and their relevant protection measures.

PI 2.4.2 scoring by element Habitats 2.4.2 a b c d Soft bottom 60 60 80 60 Sponges 60 60 80 60 Corals 60 60 80 60 Seapens 60 60 80 60 Seamounts 60 60 80 60 Final PI score 70

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 73

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range, understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable OR relevant to the scale and habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? All – Yes All – No All – No

Rationale

Benthic habitats within the NAFO Division 3M have been mapped, and the commonly encountered habitat is soft bottom. The VME habitats are sponges, corals, seapens, and seamounts. The habitat mapping allows the types and distribution of the main habitats to be broadly understood. Therefore, SG60 is met. The nature, distribution, and vulnerability of the main habitats are not known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA so SG80 and SG100 are not met. Additional details will be gathered during the site visit.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing b Guide OR gear.

post If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative information attributes of the main is available and is adequate habitats. to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? All – No All – No All – No

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 74

Benthic habitats within the NAFO Division 3M have been mapped, and the commonly encountered habitat is soft bottom. The VME habitats are sponges, corals, seapens, and seamounts. The impacts of the gear used are well established, but the spatial overlap of the habitat with the fishing gear is not known since the assessment team has not obtained VMS data from the client. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are not met. Additional details, including VMS data, will be gathered during the site visit.

Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? All – No All – No

Rationale

The assessment team has not been provided evidence that information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are not met.

References

FAO, 2021, Murillo et al. 2015, NAFO 2020b, 2021b, 2021c

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range <60 More information sought VMS data to understand spatial overlap and Information gap indicator information to understand if any increase in risk can be detected.

PI 2.4.3 scoring by element Habitats 2.4.3 a b c Soft bottom 60 <60 <80 Sponges 60 <60 <80 Corals 60 <60 <80 Seapens 60 <60 <80 Seamounts 60 <60 <80 Final PI score <60

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 75

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to Guide underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements a structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The key ecosystem element (i.e., scoring element) within the UoA is trophic structure and function. There is a clear relationship between between cod, redfish, and shrimp. NAFO utilises an ecosystem-based approach “to plan, develop, and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems” (https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/science/Ecosystem-Approach.pdf). By utilising this approach, NAFO aims to ensure that the northwest Atlantic’s capacity to produce food and provide essential services and livelihood continues indefinitely. This approach also considers the ecosystem’s variability, uncertainty, and natural changes.

NAFO has done stock assessments on northern prawn and established catch quotas to limit impact. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the UoA is disrupting the key element underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm so SG60 and SG80 are met. This fishery was recently reopened so there is a lack of long-term information. Therefore, SG100 is not met since more specific research about the ecosystem’s key elements and UoA would be needed to constitute “evidence”.

References

NAFO 2021b

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 76

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to a Guide impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

NAFO utilises an ecosystem-based approach “to plan, develop, and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems” (https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/science/Ecosystem-Approach.pdf). By utilising this approach, NAFO aims to ensure that the northwest Atlantic’s capacity to produce food and provide essential services and livelihood continues indefinitely. This approach also considers the ecosystem’s variability, uncertainty, and natural changes. The team concludes that there is a strategy in place that constitutes a plan, but it is not clear that it contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. It is also unknown if there is a UoA-specific management strategy. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met, but SG100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial Guide based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, b (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Based on plausible argument, there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. The strategy appears to limit impact on the target species, non-target species, habitats, and the overall ecosystem. Therefore, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not a high confidence based on testing.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 77

Rationale

There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Based on catch information, the strategy appears to limit impact on the target species, non-target species, habitats, and the overall ecosystem. Therefore, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not clear evidence.

References

NAFO 2021b

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on possible UoA-specific management strategies and VMS data

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 78

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 Information quality a Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements of broadly understand the key post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The UoA operates in the Northwest Atlantic’s NAFO 3M Division, which includes the Flemish Cap area where the Labrador Current from the north mixes with warmer and saltier the North Atlantic Current from the south (Figure 11). South of the Flemish Cap, the North Atlantic Current flows in a northeast direction around the southern areas. Without strong wind forcing the circulation over the central Flemish Cap, the area is dominated by a topographically induced clockwise gyre.

The key ecosystem element (i.e., scoring element) within the UoA is trophic structure and function. There is a clear relationship between between cod, redfish, and shrimp. NAFO utilises an ecosystem-based approach “to plan, develop, and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystems” (https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/science/Ecosystem-Approach.pdf). By utilising this approach, NAFO aims to ensure that the northwest Atlantic’s capacity to produce food and provide essential services and livelihood continues indefinitely. This approach also considers the ecosystem’s variability, uncertainty, and natural changes. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key element of the ecosystem so SG60 and SG80 are met.

Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and not been investigated in some have been have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The main impacts of the UoA on the key ecosystem element can be inferred, and some have been investigated in detail. Catch data and stock assessment details show that the target stock is stable, non-target species bycatch is negligible, and habitat impacts are minimal. Additionally, benthic habitats have been mapped, and some impacts within the ecosystem have been investigated. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since all main interactions have not been investigated in detail.

Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, Guide species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species c and ETP species and and Habitats are identified post Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? No No

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 79

Rationale

As described above, the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known, and the impacts of the UoA have been identified. SG80 is met. Since VMS data and other information were not, it is not clear that the main functions of these components are understood so SG100 is not met.

Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of d Guide the UoA on these the UoA on the components post components to allow some of and elements to allow the the main consequences for main consequences for the the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? No No

Rationale

More evidence is needed to determine if there is adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA since VMS data were not provided. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are not met

Monitoring Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to e Guide collected to detect any support the development of post increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? No No

Rationale

More evidence is needed to determine if there are adequate data being collected to detect any increase in risk since VMS data and other information were not provided. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are not met

References

Colbourne et al. 2018, NAFO 2021b

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Information gap indicator Details on possible UoA-specific management strategies and VMS data

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 80

7.4 Principle 3 7.4.1 Principle 3 background Legal and management framework

The UoA consists of vessels from Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the UK, which are hence flag states in the fishery. All these, except the UK, are members of the EU and subject to the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The fishery takes place within the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization’ (NAFO) Regulatory Area, which is the part of the Convention Area that lies outside of national jurisdiction.

According to the 2017 amended NAFO Convention, the Organization consists of the Commission, the Scientific Council and the Secretariat. The Commission distributes quotas and effort units among Contracting Parties in accordance with historical catches. In the shrimp fishery in Division 3M, each Contracting Party that conducted a shrimp fishery in the period beginning 1 January 1993 and ending 31 August 1995 is permitted a minimum of 400 fishing days per year. A Contracting Party without such track record may authorize only one vessel to fish shrimp in Division 3M for a maximum of 100 fishing days per year. Conservation and Enforcement Measures are updated annually.

The main management body at EU level is the EU’s DG MARE and the main regulatory basis is the 2013 CFP Basic Regulation. The CFP has four main policy areas: i) fisheries management; ii) international policy (dealing with ocean governance, tuna and non-tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organization [RFMOs]; illegal, unreported, unregulated [IUU]; and Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements [SFPAs]); iii) market and trade policy; and iv) funding of the policy. It covers the management and conservation of marine biological resources and the fisheries that exploit them within the waters of member states and by EU vessels also outside EU waters.

The provisions of the CPF are transposed into national fisheries legislation in the member states. In Denmark, the basic act underpinning fisheries management in the country is the 2014 Fisheries and Aquaculture Act (revised 2017). The Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for fisheries management at the national level in Denmark and the interrelationship between Danish national law, EU law and international agreements. The executive power in Danish fisheries management is the Ministry of Environment and Food, which has a Minister of Food, Fisheries and Equal Opportunities and Nordic Cooperation, and its subordinate Fisheries Agency. The Office of the Fisheries Control is an integral part of the Fisheries Agency, responsible for fisheries enforcement at sea and in port. In Poland, fisheries management falls under the purview of the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation, which has a department for fisheries. The Ministry/Fisheries Department has the overall responsibility for implementing the CFP in Poland, including distribution of national quotas, issuing of licenses and permits and technical regulation of the fisheries. The current Marine Fisheries Act came into force in 2015. It specifies, inter alia, regulations for the entry of vessels into the fishing vessel register, allocation of fishing quotas, management bodies involved in fisheries control, and the system for preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The Act also provides the ministerial basis for issuing fishing regulations, and for specifying the detailed conditions that fishing is subject to. In Latvia, a general Fisheries Act was adopted in 1995, covering all types of fisheries within internal waters, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The executive body is the Fisheries Department under the Ministry of Agriculture. In Estonia, the responsibility for fisheries management is split between five agencies: the Ministry of the Environment (policies on protection and use of marine resources), the Ministry of Rural Affairs (commercial aspects of the fishing industry), the Veterinary and Food Board (permits for commercial fishing and control of quota uptake), the Environmental Board (recreational fishing) and the Environmental Inspectorate (monitoring of fishing activities). The main legal instrument is the 2015 Fisheries Act. In Lithuania, fisheries management is the responsibility of the Fisheries Service under the Ministry of Agriculture.

In the UK, the regional distribution of responsibilities is fixed in a 2012 agreement between the Fisheries Administrations of England (Defra), Northern Ireland (the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)), Scotland (Marine Scotland) and Wales (the Welsh Government). Marine Scotland is the implementing body under the Scottish Government, responsible for all components of fisheries management, from science to management and enforcement. In England, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) under Defra, which delivers legal, monitoring and enforcement functions.

At EU level, the CFP requires stakeholder participation through Advisory Councils, which are stakeholder-led bodies that provide the Commission and EU member states with advice on fisheries management. At national level in the flag and coastal states involved in the management of the fishery, there are a number of consultation mechanisms for authorities to seek relevant information from stakeholders, for instance throughout the producer organizations (POs). For example, in Poland, as one of the flag states in the fishery, the Ministry consults with fishing industry organisations prior to the distribution of national quotas, the three most important being Krajowa Izba Rybacka (Polish Fisheries Chamber), Stowarzyszenie Armatorow Rybackich (Fishing Shipowners Association) and Zrzeszenie Rybakow

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 81

Morskich (Marine Fishermen’s Union). Similar mechanisms exist in the other national management systems in the UoA. In Estonia, management authorities consult with stakeholders in the Council of Environmental NGOs. Likewise, in the UK, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations and other stakeholders are actively involved in consultations with national authorities.

Management objectives

In 2004, NAFO adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework, which requires fisheries under its management authority to be managed according to that approach. This is also a requirement in the 2017 amended NAFO Convention (Art. III(c)).

The CFP Basic Document requires that member states, in accordance with international treaties such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and 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 (Recital (6), Art. 2). It is specifically mentioned that when targets relating to the maximum sustainable yield cannot be determined, multiannual (management) plans shall provide for measures based on the precautionary approach, ensuring at least a comparable level of protection for the relevant fish stocks (Art. 9). 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 (Art. 2).

In connection with the UK leaving the EU, a new UK fisheries act (Fisheries Act 2020) was adopted on 23 November 2020. Its main objectives are the sustainability objective (Art. 1(1)(a)), the precautionary objective (Art. 1(1)(b)), the ecosystem objective (Art. 1(1)(c)) and the scientific evidence objective (Art. 1(1)(d)).

In the EU, member states are obliged, according to the 2013 CFP, to include social and economic dimensions in their criteria for allocation of quota rights, among them the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels (Art. 17). Protection of the interests of coastal communities dependent on fisheries is also one of the rationales for the principle of relative stability in fishing rights between the member states (Recital (35)). Among the objectives of the CFP (which are not legally binding, but an aid to interpretation) is to foster job creation and economic development in coastal areas (Recital (12)) and to contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects (Art. 2 f)). Marine biological resources in the outermost parts of the Union shall be secured special protection due their importance to the local economy, and certain types of fishing activities shall be limited to fishing vessels registered in the ports of those territories (Recital (21)).

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS)

Enforcement

Inspections at sea in the NAFO Regulatory Area are conducted under the NAFO At-Sea Inspection and Surveillance Scheme, which is currently founded in Chapter VI of the 2021 Conservation and Enforcement Measures. A Contracting Party with more than 15 fishing vessels operating at any one time in the Regulatory Area shall during that time: (a) have an inspector or other competent authority present in the Regulatory Area; or (b) have a competent authority present in the territory of a Contracting Party adjacent to the Convention Area; and (c) respond without delay to every notice of infringement in the Regulatory Area by a fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag (Art. 31(3)). Inspectors in the NAFO Regulatory Area are not limited to inspecting fishing vessels flying the flag of their own state but can board and control vessels from all Contracting Parties. Inspection procedures are detailed in Arts. 31-40 of the Conservation and Enforcement Measures. Infringements shall be reported by the inspecting state to the flag state within 24 hours (Art. 37(2)(a)). In the case of an infringement by a vessel flying its flag, the flag State Contracting Party shall: (a) investigate fully, including as appropriate, by physically inspecting the fishing vessel at the earliest opportunity; (b) cooperate with the inspecting Contracting Party to preserve the evidence and the CoC in a form that will facilitate proceedings in accordance with its laws; (c) take immediate judicial or administrative action in conformity with its national legislation against the persons responsible for the vessel; and (d) ensure that sanctions applicable in respect of infringements are adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance, deterring further infringements or their repetition and depriving the offenders of the benefits accruing from the infringement (Art. 39(1)). Additional procedures exist for a list of serious infringements, including directed fishing for a stock that is subject to a moratorium, fishing in a closed area or with irregular fishing gear (Art. 38).

In addition to the At-Sea Inspections and Surveillance Scheme, the Conservation and Enforcement Measures contains a Port State Control regime in its Chapter VII. The regime applies to landings, transhipments and use of ports of Contracting Parties by fishing vessels entitled to fly the flag of another Contracting Party, conducting fishing activities in the Regulatory Area. The provisions apply to vessels carrying fish caught in the Regulatory Area, or fish products originating from such fish, that have not been previously landed or transhipped at a port (Art. 42). The port

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 82

State Contracting Party shall carry out inspections of at least 15 % of all landings or transhipments of fish from the Regulatory Area during each reporting year (Art. 43(10)). An inspection of a landing or transhipment in port shall involve the monitoring of the entire landing or transhipment of fish. During an inspection, the port State Contracting Party shall, at a minimum: (a) cross-check against the quantities of each species landed or transhipped, the quantities by species recorded in the logbook; catch and activity reports; and all information on catches provided in the prior notification; (b) verify and record the quantities by species of catch remaining on board upon completion of landing or transhipment; (c) verify any information from inspections carried out in accordance with Chapter VI; (d) verify all nets on board and record mesh size measurements; (e) verify fish size for compliance with minimum size requirements; (f) where relevant, verify species for compliance with accuracy of catch declaration (Art. 43(13)).

The EU system for fisheries control is laid out in the Control Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Regulation applies to all activities covered by the CFP carried out on the territory of member states or in EU waters, and by EU fishing vessels or nationals of a member state (Art. 2). It requires all member states to adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring control, inspection and enforcement of activities under the CFP (Art. 5). The Regulation contains Titles (‘sections’ above chapter level) on, among other things, access to waters and resources (Title III), control of fisheries (Title IV), control of marketing (Title V), surveillance (Title VI), inspections and proceedings (Title VII), enforcement (Title VIII) and common control programmes (Title IX). Among the substantial requirements are that member states operate a VMS and an AIS, to be generally applied by vessels above 12 and 15 meters, respectively (Art. 9, 10), and that they make the use of fishing logbooks mandatory for all vessels above 10 meters (Art. 14) and electronic logbook for all vessels above 12 meters (Art. 15). The Regulation also introduces an obligation of member states to employ real-time closure of fisheries (Art. 51-54). Further, member states are obliged to carry out monitoring of fishing activities by inspection vessels or surveillance aircraft (Art. 71) and physical inspections of fishing vessels (Art. 74-77); in addition to national inspectors, a pool of Community inspectors shall also be set up (Art. 79). Procedures are established for situations where infringements are detected (Art. 82-88), including enhanced follow-up when infringements are serious, such as mis-recording of catches of more than 500 kg or 10 % of what is reported in the logbook (Art. 84). Further, provisions are given for proceedings (Art. 85-88) and sanctions (Art. 90-93).

Sanctions

As mentioned above, the NAFO Management and Enforcement Measures’ At-Sea Inspection and Surveillance Scheme require Contracting Parties to ensure that sanctions applicable in respect of infringements are adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance, deterring further infringements or their repetition and depriving the offenders of the benefits accruing from the infringement (Art. 39(1)). Judicial or administrative action and sanctions may include, but is not limited to, depending on the gravity of the offence and in accordance with domestic law: (a) fines; (b) seizure of the vessel, illegal fishing gear and catches; (c) suspension or withdrawal of authorization to conduct fishing activities; and (d) reduction or cancellation of any fishing allocations (Art. 39(2)).

In accordance with the EU Control Regulation, member States are required to ensure that appropriate measures are systematically taken when violations of fishing regulations are detected, including administrative action or criminal proceedings, in order to provide effective deterrence (Art. 89). For serious infringements, a point system is to be applied (Art. 92), whereby fishermen are given a specified number of points for different kinds of violations. When a specific number of points is reached, the fishing licence shall be automatically suspended for a period of at least two months, increasing with repeated violations.

Five fishing vessels were detected in apparent infringements in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 2019. Three Faroese vessels were in the end fined, two with rather minor sums while the only serious infringement (misrecording of catches) was fined with DKK 350,000 and DKK 733,000 in confiscation of fish (approx. EUR 135,000).

Compliance

In 2019, inspectors from Canada, the EU and the USA were deployed onboard of patrol vessels of Canada and the EU. Five patrol vessels were deployed with inspection presence. In all 358 patrol-days were spent in the NAFO Regulatory Area. The total length of time each patrol vessel exercised its patrol duties varied between 12 and 177 days. There were 105 days with no patrol vessel, 175 days with one vessel, and 85 days when there was more than one patrol vessel present in the Regulatory Area. In addition, in 2019 Canada deployed surveillance planes, collectively flying 202 hours with 698 vessel sightings in the NRA. No vessel from non-Contracting Party suspected of conducting IUU fishing activities was spotted.

A total of 106 at-sea inspections were conducted at sea. In five of these inspections, 11 apparent infringements were detected – two serious and nine non-serious as per Article 38 definition; see above. According to the Annual Report for the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), six infringements were detected by EU inspection vessels in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 2019, related to fishing with illegal gear, fishing without observer, reporting errors and

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 83 violation of stowage/capacity plan rules. The NAFO 2020 Compliance Review (for the fishery year 2019) concludes that: ‘Overall compliance with reporting obligations is high and has continued to improve in recent years. Contracting Parties are providing the required compliance indicators necessary to complete the compliance review process.’

Review of the management system

At its Annual Meeting in September 2017, NAFO agreed to launch its second Performance Review. The first Performance Review (PR-1) took place in 2011. Since then, all 225 recommendations arising out of this 2011 Performance Review have been implemented or addressed. The second Performance Review, which took place from October 2017 to September 2018, addressed issues regarding conservation and management; compliance and enforcement; governance; science; international cooperation; finance and administration. It also assessed how NAFO had addressed the recommendations of its first Performance Review in 2011.

The EU CFP is reviewed in connection with the major revisions of its basic regulations every tenth year. In 2009, the Commission analysed the functioning of the CFP based on the Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission concluded that despite progress since the 2002 reform, the objectives to achieve sustainable fisheries in all its dimensions (environmental, economic and social) had not been met, and the Green Paper identified a series of structural shortcomings of the current CFP. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers supported this conclusion. Numerous contributions from EU citizens, organizations and governments during the public debate between April 2009 and November 2010, as well as specific studies and evaluations, also confirmed the overall assessment in the Green Paper and helped to identify the weaknesses to be addressed through the reform. The proposals resulting from the original evaluation on the reform of the CFP included the implementation of multiannual management plans, banning discards, restoring fisheries to MSY levels, decentralising governance, financial assistance for sustainability purposes (resulting in the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF)), beneficial measures for small scale fisheries, and a system of transferable fishing concessions. Furthermore, Article 49 of EU Reg. No 1380/2013 details that: ‘The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022. ’Further, Article 50 states that: ‘The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress on achieving maximum sustainable yield and on the situation of fish stocks, as early as possible following the adoption of the yearly Council Regulation fixing the fishing opportunities available in Union waters and, in certain non-Union waters, to Union vessels.’

Enforcement in member states is reviewed by the EFCA, which in turn was audited by the Internal Auditing Service (IAS) in September 2018. The scope of the audit engagement was to assess the adequacy of the design and efficiency and effectiveness of the management and control system set up by the EFCA for the planning, budgeting and monitoring of its activities. The IAS concluded that the three audited processes were effective and efficient and did not identify any critical or very important risks that may affect the achievement of the objectives for the processes audited. However, notwithstanding the overall positive conclusion, a limited number of issues were identified, and five recommendations were issues, all rated as ‘important’. For each recommendation, EFCA drafted a comprehensive action plan that was considered by IAS as adequate to mitigate the risks identified. The recommendations would be addressed by 2020.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 84

7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - 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 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing a Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The UoA consists of vessels from Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the UK, which are hence flag states in the fishery. All these, except the UK, are members of the EU and subject to the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The fishery takes place within the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization’ (NAFO) Regulatory Area, which is the part of the Convention Area that lies outside of national jurisdiction.

According to the 2017 amended NAFO Convention, the Organization consists of the Commission, the Scientific Council and the Secretariat. The Commission distributes quotas and effort units among Contracting Parties in accordance with historical catches. In the shrimp fishery in Division 3M, each Contracting Party that conducted a shrimp fishery in the period beginning 1 January 1993 and ending 31 August 1995 is permitted a minimum of 400 fishing days per year. A Contracting Party without such track record may authorize only one vessel to fish shrimp in Division 3M for a maximum of 100 fishing days per year. Conservation and Enforcement Measures are updated annually.

The main management body at EU level is the EU’s DG MARE and the main regulatory basis is the 2013 CFP Basic Regulation. The CFP has four main policy areas: i) fisheries management; ii) international policy (dealing with ocean governance, tuna and non-tuna RFMOs, IUU and SFPAs); iii) market and trade policy; and iv) funding of the policy. It covers the management and conservation of marine biological resources and the fisheries that exploit them within the waters of member states and by EU vessels also outside EU waters.

The provisions of the CPF are transposed into national fisheries legislation in the member states. In Denmark, the basic act underpinning fisheries management in the country is the 2014 Fisheries and Aquaculture Act (revised 2017). The Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for fisheries management at the national level in Denmark and the interrelationship between Danish national law, EU law and international agreements. The executive power in Danish fisheries management is the Ministry of Environment and Food, which has a Minister of Food, Fisheries and Equal Opportunities and Nordic Cooperation, and its subordinate Fisheries Agency. The Office of the Fisheries Control is an integral part of the Fisheries Agency, responsible for fisheries enforcement at sea and in port. In Poland, fisheries management falls under the purview of the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation, which has a department for fisheries. The Ministry/Fisheries Department has the overall responsibility for implementing the CFP in Poland, including distribution of national quotas, issuing of licenses and permits and technical regulation of the fisheries. The current Marine Fisheries Act came into force in 2015. It specifies, inter alia, regulations for the entry of vessels into the fishing vessel register, allocation of fishing quotas, management bodies involved in fisheries control, and the system for preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The Act also provides the ministerial basis for issuing fishing regulations, and for specifying the detailed conditions that fishing is subject to. In Latvia, a general Fisheries Act was adopted in 1995, covering all types of fisheries within internal

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 85 waters, the territorial sea and the EEZ. The executive body is the Fisheries Department under the Ministry of Agriculture. In Estonia, the responsibility for fisheries management is split between five agencies: the Ministry of the Environment (policies on protection and use of marine resources), the Ministry of Rural Affairs (commercial aspects of the fishing industry), the Veterinary and Food Board (permits for commercial fishing and control of quota uptake), the Environmental Board (recreational fishing) and the Environmental Inspectorate (monitoring of fishing activities). The main legal instrument is the 2015 Fisheries Act. In Lithuania, fisheries management is the responsibility of the Fisheries Service under the Ministry of Agriculture.

In the UK, the regional distribution of responsibilities is fixed in a 2012 agreement between the Fisheries Administrations of England (Defra), Northern Ireland (the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)), Scotland (Marine Scotland) and Wales (the Welsh Government). Marine Scotland is the implementing body under the Scottish Government, responsible for all components of fisheries management, from science to management and enforcement. In England, the MMO is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) under Defra, which delivers legal, monitoring and enforcement functions.

Hence, there are effective national legal systems at national level in the UoA flag states, as well a framework for cooperation with other parties under the CPF and in NAFO, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 is met. The cooperation with other parties is organized and effective, so SG 80 is also met. There are two additional requirements for the achievement of SG 100. First, procedures governing cooperation with other parties must not only be organized and effective; they must also be binding, which is the case with both the CFP and the NAFO Convention. Second, the procedures must ‘deliver’ (not only able ‘to deliver’, as under SG 80) outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. At ACDR stage, it is too early to conclude that that is the case. SG 100 is not met.

Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution b arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Disputes in the fishery may arise at international and national levels. Under the NAFO Convention, where two or more Contracting Parties disagree on the interpretation or application of the Convention, the dispute may be submitted to non-binding ad hoc panel proceedings or to compulsory proceedings entailing binding decisions. At the global level, disputes can, provided the parties give their consent, be brought in for settlement at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in accordance with Part XV of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), or to arbitration under Annex VII of the LOSC. At EU level, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets EU law to ensure it is applied in the same manner in all EU countries and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. Common cases dealt with by the CJEU include appropriate national interpretation of EU Law, national infringements with EU law, annulling EU legal acts that are in violation of other acts and treaties, ensuring the EU takes action, and sanctioning EU institutions in case of harm resulting from action or inaction. It can also, in certain circumstances, be used by individuals, companies or organizations to take action against an EU institution. At national level in the flag states, fishers can take their case to court if they do not accept the rationale behind an infringement accusation by enforcement authorities or the fees levied against them. Verdicts at the lower court levels can be appealed to higher levels. Hence, the management system incorporates mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes that arise within the system. SG 60 is met. These mechanisms are transparent in the sense that citizens have access to information about court cases, and verdicts are publicly available. No disputes between the parties have been recorded, nor at national level in the UoA fishery, and the system can be considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 80 is met.

To meet SG 100, dispute resolution mechanisms must be tested and proven to be effective. There are good reasons to conclude that the mechanisms at EU and national levels in general have been tested and proven to be effective in that disputes are solved in EU and national courts on a running basis and decisions complied with. That is not

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 86 necessarily the case with the international courts and tribunals. In 1995, Spain instituted proceedings against Canada before the International Court of Justice with respect to a dispute relating to the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to the implementing regulations of that Act, and to certain measures taken on the basis of that legislation, more particularly the boarding in the NAFO Regulatory Area, on 9 March 1995, of a fishing boat, the Estai, sailing under the Spanish flag. The Court found that the case was covered by a Canadian reservation and hence had no jurisdiction to rule in the case. It cannot be concluded that the dispute resolution mechanism has not been tested and proven to be effective. SG 100 is not met.

Respect for rights The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or c Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

With the fishery taking place in international waters in the NAFO Regulatory Area, there are no people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in the fishery as such, but within NAFO fishing rights are given based on historic catches.

In the EU, member states are obliged, according to the 2013 CFP, to include social and economic dimensions in their criteria for allocation of quota rights, among them the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels (Art. 17). Protection of the interests of coastal communities dependent on fisheries is also one of the rationales for the principle of relative stability in fishing rights between the member states (Recital (35)). Among the objectives of the CFP (which are not legally binding, but an aid to interpretation) is to foster job creation and economic development in coastal areas (Recital (12)) and to contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects (Art. 2 f)). Marine biological resources in the outermost parts of the Union shall be secured special protection due their importance to the local economy, and certain types of fishing activities shall be limited to fishing vessels registered in the ports of those territories (Recital (21)).

Hence, the management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG 60 is met. The mechanisms observe such rights, so SG 80 is met, and formally commit to them through binding legislation, so SG 100 is also met.

References

A Subject Specific Concordat between The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, The Welsh Government and The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland) (‘The Administrations’) On Management Arrangements for Fishing Opportunities and Fishing Vessel Licensing in the United Kingdom, 2 May 2012 Act on Marine Fisheries (Poland), 19 December 2014, the Polish Parliament (Sejm) Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (amended NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017 Fisheries Act 2020 (UK), 23 November 2020 https://www.envir.ee/en/fisheries (Ministry of the Environment, Republic of Estonia) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 Notification of the Act on Fisheries and Aquaculture (Fisheries Act) (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse af lov om fiskeri og fiskeopdræt (fiskeriloven)], LOV nr. 568 af 21/05/2014, Folketinget (Parliament), last revised 2017

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 87

Notification on Regulation of Fisheries in 2014–2020 (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse om regulering af fiskeriet I 2014– 2020], BEK nr. 212 af 01/03/2017, AgriFish, last updated 2017 Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Samy-Kamal, Mohamed, Estonian fisheries management system under the lens of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard, Marine Policy 117, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103885 Wakefield, Jill (2014), Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 88

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The management structure in the fishery at NAFO, EU and national level is laid out in SI 3.1.1a above, including identification of organizations involved in the management process. Other stakeholders are identified in SI 3.1.2b below.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, and their functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. SG 60 is met. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined in legislation and long-standing practice and hence well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction, so SG 80 is also met. At ACDR stage, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that functions, roles and responsibilities are well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. SG 100 is not met.

Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At EU level, the CFP requires stakeholder participation through Advisory Councils, which are stakeholder-led bodies that provide the Commission and EU member states with advice on fisheries management. At national level in the flag and coastal states involved in the management of the fishery, there are a number of consultation mechanisms for authorities to seek relevant information from stakeholders, for instance throughout the producer organizations (POs). For example, in Poland, as one of the flag states in the fishery, the Ministry consults with fishing industry organisations prior to the distribution of national quotas, the three most important being Krajowa Izba Rybacka (Polish Fisheries Chamber), Stowarzyszenie Armatorow Rybackich (Fishing Shipowners Association) and Zrzeszenie Rybakow Morskich (Marine Fishermen’s Union). Similar mechanisms exist in the other national management systems in the UoA. In Estonia, management authorities consult with stakeholders in the Council of Environmental NGOs. Likewise, in the UK, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations and other stakeholders are actively involved in consultations with national authorities.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 89

Hence, the management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. SG 60 is met. The processes regularly seek and accept relevant information, and the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. SG 80 is met. Before interviews at site visit, it cannot be confirmed that management authorities explain how stakeholder input is used or not used. SG 100 is not met.

Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and Guide interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes No

Rationale

As follows from SI 3.1.2b above, there are numerous opportunities for stakeholders to provide input into the fisheries management process at both EU and national level. Hence, the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. SG 80 is met. However, at ACDR stage there is not yet sufficient evidence that the authorities actively encourage all stakeholders, including environmental NGOs, to be involved and facilitate their effective engagement. SG 100 is not met.

References

A Subject Specific Concordat between The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, The Welsh Government and The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland) (‘The Administrations’) On Management Arrangements for Fishing Opportunities and Fishing Vessel Licensing in the United Kingdom, 2 May 2012 Act on Marine Fisheries (Poland), 19 December 2014, the Polish Parliament (Sejm) Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017 Fisheries Act 2020 (UK), 23 November 2020 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 Notification of the Act on Fisheries and Aquaculture (Fisheries Act) (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse af lov om fiskeri og fiskeopdræt (fiskeriloven)], LOV nr. 568 af 21/05/2014, Folketinget (Parliament), last revised 2017 Notification on Regulation of Fisheries in 2014–2020 (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse om regulering af fiskeriet I 2014– 2020], BEK nr. 212 af 01/03/2017, AgriFish, last updated 2017 Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Wakefield, Jill (2014), Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information sought on whether functions, roles and responsibilities are well understood for Information gap indicator all areas of responsibility and interaction; whether management authorities explain how stakeholder input is used or not used; and whether the

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 90

authorities actively encourage all stakeholders, including environmental NGOs, to be involved and facilitate their effective engagement

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 91

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

In 2004, NAFO adopted a Precautionary Approach Framework, which requires fisheries under its management authority to be managed according to that approach. This is also a requirement in the 2017 amended NAFO Convention (Art. III(c)).

The CFP Basic Document requires that member states, in accordance with international treaties such as the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and 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 (Recital (6), Art. 2). It is specifically mentioned that when targets relating to the maximum sustainable yield cannot be determined, multiannual (management) plans shall provide for measures based on the precautionary approach, ensuring at least a comparable level of protection for the relevant fish stocks (Art. 9). 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 (Art. 2).

In connection with the UK leaving the EU, a new UK fisheries act (Fisheries Act 2020) was adopted on 23 November 2020. Its main objectives are the sustainability objective (Art. 1(1)(a)), the precautionary objective (Art. 1(1)(b)), the ecosystem objective (Art. 1(1)(c)) and the scientific evidence objective (Art. 1(1)(d)).

Hence, clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy at both international and national level. SG 60 and 80 are met. Such objectives are also made mandatory for lower-level regulations and policy implementation at national level. SG 100 is met.

References

Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (amended NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017 Fisheries Act 2020 (UK), 23 November 2020 NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework (https://www.nafo.int/Science/Frameworks) NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework, Annual Meeting – September 2004, NAFO/FC Doc. 04/18 https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/fc/2004/fcdoc04-18.pdf) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 92

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 93

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are Guide expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with a Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Objectives which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 are in place in the management of the UoA fishery, at NAFO an EU level and with supporting legislation at national level in the flag states. SG 60 is met. This includes objectives to maintain stocks at sustainable levels (both target stocks and other retained species) and protect other parts of the ecosystem, such as habitats. These objectives are short- and long-term and measurable, in the sense that performance against them can be measured through the enforcement bodies’ recording and inspection routines (see PI 3.2.3). SG 80 is met. It is not yet clear to the assessment team whether objectives are well defined and measurable. SG 100 is not met.

References

Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (amended NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 94

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 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 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established Guide making processes in place decision-making processes a that result in measures and that result in measures and post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Established decision-making procedures, codified in the NAFO Convention, NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures, the CFP Basic Document and supporting legislation in the flag states involved in the management of the fishery ensure that strategies are produced, and measures taken to achieve the fishery-specific objectives; see PI 3.1.1 above. Broad stakeholder involvement is secured through consultation mechanisms at EU and national level in the flag states; cf. PI 3.2.1 above. SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There is evidence that decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in research, monitoring and evaluation by, e.g., as a result of scientific advice and inspection reports. This is ensured through inter-agency cooperation as well as formal and informal arenas for regular and ad hoc consultations between governmental agencies and the industry; cf. PI 3.1.2 above. In addition, there is close contact between authorities and scientific research institutions. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. It remains to be seen at the site visit whether there is evidence that all issues are appropriately responded to. At this time, SG 100 is not met.

Use of precautionary approach Decision-making processes c Guide use the precautionary post approach and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Rationale

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 95

In accordance with the NAFO Convention, the NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework and the CFP Basic Document (cf. PI 3.1.3 above), decision-making processes are based on the precautionary approach and the best scientific advice available. SG 80 is met.

Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and Guide any actions or lack of action management actions and d associated with findings and describes how the post relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Reports and minutes from meetings in all the bodies involved in the management of the UoA fishery, such as the NAFO Commission and Scientific Committee, are available on their respective websites. In these reports, actions taken or not taken by the relevant authority are accounted for, including those proposed on the basis of information from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Information is also conveyed at meetings between authorities and all interested stakeholders; see PI 3.1.2 above. SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

In order to achieve a 100 score on this SI, the information must be provided through ‘formal reporting’, and it must be ‘comprehensive’. In the opinion of the assessment team, availability on the respective management authorities’ websites counts as formal reporting appropriate to the context of the fishery, as much as written letters to stakeholders would have done. However, it is too early at ACDR stage to conclude that the information is comprehensive. SG 100 is not met.

Approach to disputes Although the management The management system or The management system or authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly Guide challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions e a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. post the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges or indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. SG 60 is met. If taken to court by fishing companies, the authorities comply with the judicial decision in a timely manner. SG 80 is met. The management authorities in all countries involved in the management of the fishery work proactively to avoid legal disputes through the tight cooperation with user-groups at the regulatory level (cf. SI 3.1.2a above), ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. Only the most serious cases go to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. SG 100 is met.

References

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 96

Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (amended NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017 NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework (https://www.nafo.int/Science/Frameworks) NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework, Annual Meeting – September 2004, NAFO/FC Doc. 04/18 https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/fc/2004/fcdoc04-18.pdf) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 97

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been Guide the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery a reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Inspections at sea in the NAFO Regulatory Area are conducted under the NAFO At-Sea Inspection and Surveillance Scheme, which is currently founded in Chapter VI of the 2021 Conservation and Enforcement Measures. A Contracting Party with more than 15 fishing vessels operating at any one time in the Regulatory Area shall during that time: (a) have an inspector or other competent authority present in the Regulatory Area; or (b) have a competent authority present in the territory of a Contracting Party adjacent to the Convention Area; and (c) respond without delay to every notice of infringement in the Regulatory Area by a fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag (Art. 31(3)). Inspectors in the NAFO Regulatory Area are not limited to inspecting fishing vessels flying the flag of their own state but can board and control vessels from all Contracting Parties. Inspection procedures are detailed in Arts. 31-40 of the Conservation and Enforcement Measures. Infringements shall be reported by the inspecting state to the flag state within 24 hours (Art. 37(2)(a)). In the case of an infringement by a vessel flying its flag, the flag State Contracting Party shall: (a) investigate fully, including as appropriate, by physically inspecting the fishing vessel at the earliest opportunity; (b) cooperate with the inspecting Contracting Party to preserve the evidence and the CoC in a form that will facilitate proceedings in accordance with its laws; (c) take immediate judicial or administrative action in conformity with its national legislation against the persons responsible for the vessel; and (d) ensure that sanctions applicable in respect of infringements are adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance, deterring further infringements or their repetition and depriving the offenders of the benefits accruing from the infringement (Art. 39(1)). Additional procedures exist for a list of serious infringements, including directed fishing for a stock that is subject to a moratorium, fishing in a closed area or with irregular fishing gear (Art. 38).

In addition to the At-Sea Inspections and Surveillance Scheme, the Conservation and Enforcement Measures contains a Port State Control regime in its Chapter VII. The regime applies to landings, transhipments and use of ports of Contracting Parties by fishing vessels entitled to fly the flag of another Contracting Party, conducting fishing activities in the Regulatory Area. The provisions apply to vessels carrying fish caught in the Regulatory Area, or fish products originating from such fish, that have not been previously landed or transhipped at a port (Art. 42). The port State Contracting Party shall carry out inspections of at least 15 % of all landings or transhipments of fish from the Regulatory Area during each reporting year (Art. 43(10)). An inspection of a landing or transhipment in port shall involve the monitoring of the entire landing or transhipment of fish. During an inspection, the port State Contracting Party shall, at a minimum: (a) cross-check against the quantities of each species landed or transhipped, the quantities by species recorded in the logbook; catch and activity reports; and all information on catches provided in the prior notification; (b) verify and record the quantities by species of catch remaining on board upon completion of landing or transhipment; (c) verify any information from inspections carried out in accordance with Chapter VI; (d) verify all nets on board and record mesh size measurements; (e) verify fish size for compliance with minimum size requirements; (f) where relevant, verify species for compliance with accuracy of catch declaration (Art. 43(13)).

The EU system for fisheries control is laid out in the Control Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2010. The Regulation applies to all activities covered by the CFP carried out on the territory of member states or in EU waters, and by EU fishing vessels or nationals of a member state (Art. 2). It requires all member states to adopt appropriate measures, allocate adequate financial, human and technical resources and set up all administrative and technical structures necessary for ensuring control, inspection and enforcement of activities under the CFP (Art. 5).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 98

The Regulation contains Titles (‘sections’ above chapter level) on, among other things, access to waters and resources (Title III), control of fisheries (Title IV), control of marketing (Title V), surveillance (Title VI), inspections and proceedings (Title VII), enforcement (Title VIII) and common control programmes (Title IX). Among the substantial requirements are that member states operate a VMS and an AIS, to be generally applied by vessels above 12 and 15 meters, respectively (Art. 9, 10), and that they make the use of fishing logbooks mandatory for all vessels above 10 meters (Art. 14) and electronic logbook for all vessels above 12 meters (Art. 15). The Regulation also introduces an obligation of member states to employ real-time closure of fisheries (Art. 51-54). Further, member states are obliged to carry out monitoring of fishing activities by inspection vessels or surveillance aircraft (Art. 71) and physical inspections of fishing vessels (Art. 74-77); in addition to national inspectors, a pool of Community inspectors shall also be set up (Art. 79). Procedures are established for situations where infringements are detected (Art. 82-88), including enhanced follow-up when infringements are serious, such as mis-recording of catches of more than 500 kg or 10 % of what is reported in the logbook (Art. 84). Further, provisions are given for proceedings (Art. 85-88) and sanctions (Art. 90-93) (see SI 3.2.3b below).

Hence, monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist and are implemented in the fishery, and there is reasonable expectation that they are effective. SG 60 is met. These measures qualify as a system and have demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures; see SI 3.2.3c below. SG 80 is met. Furthermore, the system is comprehensive, but it cannot be concluded at ACDR stage that it has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures. SG 100 is not met.

Sanctions Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- b Guide compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

As mentioned under SI 3.2.3a above, the NAFO Management and Enforcement Measures’ At-Sea Inspection and Surveillance Scheme require Contracting Parties to ensure that sanctions applicable in respect of infringements are adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance, deterring further infringements or their repetition and depriving the offenders of the benefits accruing from the infringement (Art. 39(1)). Judicial or administrative action and sanctions may include, but is not limited to, depending on the gravity of the offence and in accordance with domestic law: (a) fines; (b) seizure of the vessel, illegal fishing gear and catches; (c) suspension or withdrawal of authorization to conduct fishing activities; and (d) reduction or cancellation of any fishing allocations (Art. 39(2)).

In accordance with the EU Control Regulation, member States are required to ensure that appropriate measures are systematically taken when violations of fishing regulations are detected, including administrative action or criminal proceedings, in order to provide effective deterrence (Art. 89). For serious infringements, a point system is to be applied (Art. 92), whereby fishermen are given a specified number of points for different kinds of violations. When a specific number of points is reached, the fishing licence shall be automatically suspended for a period of at least two months, increasing with repeated violations.

As mentioned under SI 3.2.3c below, five fishing vessels were detected in apparent infringements in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 2019. Three Faroese vessels were in the end fined, two with rather minor sums while the only serious infringement (misrecording of catches) was fined with DKK 350,000 and DKK 733,000 in confiscation of fish (approx. EUR 135,000).

Hence, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied. SG 60 is met. Sanctions are consistently applied in the NAFO Regulatory Area and thought to provide effective deterrence; see SI 3.2.3c below on compliance. SG 80 is met. Since little information on inspections and infringements is available from the shrimp fishery, it cannot be concluded that sanctions demonstrably provide effective deterrence in the UoA fishery. SG 100 is not met.

Compliance c Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers post management system for the with the management system comply with the management

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 99

fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment, including, when required, when required, providing including, providing providing information of information of importance to information of importance to importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

In 2019, inspectors from Canada, the EU and the USA were deployed onboard of patrol vessels of Canada and the EU. Five patrol vessels were deployed with inspection presence. In all 358 patrol-days were spent in the NAFO Regulatory Area. The total length of time each patrol vessel exercised its patrol duties varied between 12 and 177 days. There were 105 days with no patrol vessel, 175 days with one vessel, and 85 days when there was more than one patrol vessel present in the Regulatory Area. In addition, in 2019 Canada deployed surveillance planes, collectively flying 202 hours with 698 vessel sightings in the NRA. No vessel from non-Contracting Party suspected of conducting IUU fishing activities was spotted.

A total of 106 at-sea inspections were conducted at sea. In five of these inspections, 11 apparent infringements were detected – two serious and nine non-serious as per Article 38 definition; see SI 3.2.3a above. According to the Annual Report for EFCA, six infringements were detected by EU inspection vessels in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 2019, related to fishing with illegal gear, fishing without observer, reporting errors and violation of stowage/capacity plan rules. The NAFO 2020 Compliance Review (for the fishery year 2019) concludes that: ‘Overall compliance with reporting obligations is high and has continued to improve in recent years. Contracting Parties are providing the required compliance indicators necessary to complete the compliance review process.’

Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment and provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. SG 60 is met. Some evidence exists (in the NAFO Compliance Review and EFCA Annual Report) that this is the case. SG 80 is met. Since it is not clear whether the inspections refer to include the shrimp vessels, it cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that compliance is high in the UoA fishery. SG 100 is not met.

Systematic non-compliance d Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance.

Met? Yes

Rationale

No information of systematic non-compliance in the fishery has been presented to the assessment team so SG80 is met.

References

Annual Fisheries and Compliance Review 2020 (Compliance Report for Fishing Year 2019), 42nd ANNUAL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2020, NAFO/COM Doc. 20-17 (Revised) Annual Report 2019, European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), 2020 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021 REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 100

Draft scoring range ≥80 Information sufficient to score PI Information gap indicator More information sought on compliance in the shrimp fishery

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 101

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

At its Annual Meeting in September 2017, NAFO agreed to launch its second Performance Review. The first Performance Review (PR-1) took place in 2011. Since then, all 225 recommendations arising out of this 2011 Performance Review have been implemented or addressed. The second Performance Review, which took place from October 2017 to September 2018, addressed issues regarding conservation and management; compliance and enforcement; governance; science; international cooperation; finance and administration. It also assessed how NAFO had addressed the recommendations of its first Performance Review in 2011.

The EU CFP is reviewed in connection with the major revisions of its basic regulations every tenth year. In 2009, the Commission analysed the functioning of the CFP based on the Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission concluded that despite progress since the 2002 reform, the objectives to achieve sustainable fisheries in all its dimensions (environmental, economic and social) had not been met, and the Green Paper identified a series of structural shortcomings of the current CFP. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers supported this conclusion. Numerous contributions from EU citizens, organizations and governments during the public debate between April 2009 and November 2010, as well as specific studies and evaluations, also confirmed the overall assessment in the Green Paper and helped to identify the weaknesses to be addressed through the reform. The proposals resulting from the original evaluation on the reform of the CFP included the implementation of multiannual management plans, banning discards, restoring fisheries to MSY levels, decentralising governance, financial assistance for sustainability purposes (resulting in the European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF)), beneficial measures for small scale fisheries, and a system of transferable fishing concessions. Furthermore, Article 49 of EU Reg. No 1380/2013 details that: ‘The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the CFP by 31 December 2022.’ Further, Article 50 states that: ‘The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress on achieving maximum sustainable yield and on the situation of fish stocks, as early as possible following the adoption of the yearly Council Regulation fixing the fishing opportunities available in Union waters and, in certain non-Union waters, to Union vessels.’

Enforcement in member states is reviewed by the EFCA, which in turn was audited by the Internal Auditing Service (IAS) in September 2018. The scope of the audit engagement was to assess the adequacy of the design and efficiency and effectiveness of the management and control system set up by the EFCA for the planning, budgeting and monitoring of its activities. The IAS concluded that the three audited processes were effective and efficient and did not identify any critical or very important risks that may affect the achievement of the objectives for the processes audited. However, notwithstanding the overall positive conclusion, a limited number of issues were identified, and five recommendations were issues, all rated as ‘important’. For each recommendation, EFCA drafted a comprehensive action plan that was considered by IAS as adequate to mitigate the risks identified. The recommendations would be addressed by 2020.

Hence, there are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific management system. SG 60 is met. As both NAFO and the CFP are subject to thorough, holistic review at given intervals, mechanisms are in place to review all parts of the management system. SG 80 an SG 100 are met.

Internal and/or external review b Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 102

subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The EU Commission reports annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the status in EU fisheries management. There is also regular internal review within the Commission as well as within NAFO. SG 60 is met. As follows from SI 3.2.4a above, both NAFO and the European Commission have commissioned independent evaluations at regular intervals. Hence, the management system is subject to regular internal and external reviews of NAFO and the CFP. SG 80 and SG 100 are also met.

References

NAFO Performance Assessment Review, 2011 NAFO Performance Review Panel Report, 2018 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Common Fisheries Policy /* COM/2011/0425 final - 2011/0195 (COD) Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 103

8 Appendices 8.1 Assessment information 8.1.1 Small-scale fisheries As stated in Table 18, this UoA is not a small-scale fishery.

Table 18. Small-scale fisheries

Percentage of vessels with length Percentage of fishing activity completed Unit of Assessment (UoA) <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore

1 0% 0%

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 8.2.1 Site visits The CAB shall include in the report:

- An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16

The Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) was prepared as a desktop study based on publicly available information and input from the clients Reyktal Ltd, Reval Seafood Ltd, P/R Ocean Prawn, and UAB Marlinas. The remote site visit is scheduled to be held during the week of 28 June 2021. On 9 April 2021, DNV submitted a variation request to the MSC, requesting approval to hold the site visit remotely given ongoing health and safety concerns regarding Covid-19. Currently, the team members are not able to travel to the clients’ countries and/or would have to quarantine for several days, making an onsite site visit impossible. As part of this request, a review of the risks was completed (Table 19). The MSC approved this request on 23 April.

Table 19. Areas considered in risk assessment Risk Areas Key Risks Risk Mitigation Sufficient information to enable Ability to verify information Fishery reports, government documents, and an effective and robust fishery remotely. other relevant reports required for the assessment process and assessment against the MSC Fisheries comprehensive assessment Standard are available publicly and/or can be against the MSC Fisheries transmitted electronically. There are ample Standard opportunities and mechanisms to engage with clients and stakeholders including electronic forms of communication (videoconferencing, phone conferencing, email). These mechanisms are effective in this fishery so the team is confident that information can be verified remotely. Ability to engage with stakeholders, Electronic forms of communication and other deliver a robust stakeholder mechanisms to engage with clients and consultation process and conduct stakeholders (such as video conferencing, interviews with stakeholder. Please phone conferencing, email, phone) will be refer to FCP 4.2, GFCP 4.2, and efficient and effective in providing the 7.16. information required for a site visit for this fishery. Again, there are ample opportunities and mechanisms to engage with clients and stakeholders remotely so the team is confident that we can deliver a robust stakeholder consultation and interview processes.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 104

Ability to gather information and NA carry out stakeholder consultations if the Risk Based Framework (annex PF) is being used to assess data-deficient PIs. Please refer to PF2.3, PF3.2, PF3.3.2, PF4.1.5.b.ii, PF4.2, PF7.2, PF8.2, PF8.4.1, PF8.5.1, PF8.6.1 and PF8.7.1.

Other relevant references: FCP 7.10.2.m Availability of information: Fishery reports, government documents, and FCP 7.10.2.h requires CABs to other relevant reports required for the indicate the availability of assessment against the MSC Fisheries information used to score each PI Standard are available publicly and/or can be and to highlight potential transmitted electronically. Specifically, information gaps. If the CAB information necessary to assess the Principles identifies a large number of 1 and 2 information requirements (e.g., VMS information gaps in the ACDR the data, observer data, logbooks) are available CAB should consider if a remote electronically. Additional information can be site visit will be sufficient to obtain gathered from the client and stakeholders via the necessary information. videoconferencing or phone during the site visit or via email following the site visit. Please refer to the interpretation ‘Clarifications relating to the For Principle 3, there is a sufficient level of Announcement Comment Draft’ transparency in management, such that which provides the MSC’s intent information on the fishery is publicly available behind draft scoring ranges, or known to the wider group of stakeholders. identification of information gaps to Any information provided on the fishery can be inform site visits and stakeholders easily verified. consultation: “The MSC’s intent is that the ACDR provides indicative The team is confident that the current scoring and rationales, and information gaps highlighted in the ACDR can identifies where more information is be addressed via a remote site visit during needed. One of the objectives of client and stakeholder interviews. the ACDR is to assist the site visit by facilitating stakeholder input to the assessment prior to the site visit, and to ensure the CAB, the client and stakeholders are better informed and prepared for the site visit…”

CABs should consider the risk of an off-site initial fishery assessment if any Performance Indicator has a draft scoring range of <60 reported in the ACDR. Ability to understand the context, The team concluded that the assessment scale, and intensity of the fishery does not require investigation of physical operations. aspects of the fishery, but if questions arise, there are reliable mechanisms to enable verification of these aspects from a remote location. Sufficient communication Availability of information and The client, all team members, and all identified capability to effectively plan, communication technology (ICT). stakeholders can easily access ICT and are conduct interviews and Competency of assessment teams, competent in doing so. Team leader facilitate information sharing auditees, and stakeholders in using experience with some of these individuals and as per IAF ID 4: 2018. ICT. Please refer to IAF MD 4:2018. the client representative’s knowledge of them confirm this statement.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 105

Ability to clearly exchange The client, all team members, and all identified information between the stakeholders can communication effectively in assessment team, prospective English. Team leader experience with some of fishery client and stakeholders and these individuals and the client to be understood by all parties representative’s knowledge of them confirm when parties speak different this statement. languages. Ability to schedule remote site visit The two team members are in Europe, and activities at reasonable mutually the team leader is on the west coast of the convenient times when parties are United States. Some clients and stakeholders located across different time zones. are in the Eastern Baltic region (i.e., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Other clients are in Europe and the UK, and other stakeholders are in eastern Canada. At the time of the remote site visit, the following is a chart of the time-zone differences:

Estonia 17:00 Norway 16:00 France 16:00 Denmark 16:00 UK 15:00 Canada east coast 11:00 US west coast 7:00

The team is confident that mutually convenient times can be found to accommodate all parties (e.g., early morning for the team leader).

Additionally, as per the September 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic Derogation 1.2, DNV: • Shall request an additional peer reviewer from the Peer Review College when implementing FCP 7.14. • Shall conduct remote audits in alignment with IAF MD 4:2018 (IAF Mandatory Document for the Use of Information and Communication Technology for Auditing/Assessment Purposes, considering security/confidentiality and process requirements). • Will utilize other mechanisms to ensure a successful remote site visit (e.g., ASI’s remote audit procedure, DNV’s remote audit procedure, ISO 9001 remote audit guidance). • Will ensure that remote site visit replicates on-site visit as far as practicably possible.

8.2.2 Stakeholder participation

The CAB shall include in the report:

- Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

8.2.3 Evaluation techniques

At Announcement Comment Draft report stage, if the use of the RBF is triggered for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report:

- The plan for RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit. - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - The full list of activities and components to be discussed or evaluated in the assessment.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 106

At Client Draft Report stage, if the RBF was used for this assessment, the CAB shall include in the report: - A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome.

The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16, FCP v2.2 Annex PF Section PF2.1

The ACDR was based on a desktop study with information from the client, on request, and the client document checklist. Information on the assessment process will be made publicly available through www.msc.org at given stages of the assessment. DNV published the assessment announcement along with the ACDR on 28 April 2021. Following publication on the MSC website, stakeholders were notified via email and given the opportunity to monitor the assessment process and provide feedback to the assessment team.

During the site visit, stakeholder meetings will be held with scientists and fishery managers, harvesters, NGOs, client group, academics, and other interested knowledgeable stakeholders to gather additional information on the target stock, the fishery’s ecosystem impacts, and its management. The forthcoming agenda will provide a full list of activities and components to be discussed during the site visit.

8.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The CAB shall include in the report explicit responses of the team that include:

- Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, - A substantiated justification for not making changes where Peer Reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14

8.3.1 Peer Reviewer A:

8.3.2 Peer Reviewer B:

8.3.3 Peer Reviewer C:

8.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 107

8.5 Conditions – delete if not applicable To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6

Table 20. Condition 1

Performance Indicator

Score State score for Performance Indicator.

Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification Justification text here.

Condition State condition.

Condition deadline State deadline for the condition.

Exceptional Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is longer than circumstances ☐ the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a justification.

Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable.

Verification with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 7.19.8. entities

Complete the following rows for reassessments.

Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a).

Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. Related condition ☐

Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP v2.2 Condition rewritten ☐ 7.30.5.3).

8.6 Client Action Plan To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 108

8.7 Surveillance To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage The CAB shall include in the report the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification.

Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28

Table 21. Fishery surveillance program

Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit & e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit re-certification site visit

Table 22. Timing of surveillance audit

Proposed date of surveillance Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal to postpone e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 23. Surveillance level justification

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale

e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most e.g. 1 auditor on-site with e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit conditions will be closed out in year 3, remote support from 1 auditor the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

8.8 Harmonised fishery assessments To be completed at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

All fisheries identified as overlapping with assessed fishery are detailed in Table 24. A total of 4 overlapping fisheries were identified. However, only fisheries assessed using the same version of the assessment tree shall harmonise their

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 109 assessments (FCP 2.2, PB1.2.1). Since the NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn fishery is being assessed against MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, its scoring shall only be harmonised against two of the overlapping fisheries. See Tables 25-27 for more details. Harmonisation will be reviewed in more detail during and following the site visit.

Table 24. Overlapping fisheries

Assessment Performance Indicators Fishery name Certification status and date tree to harmonise Canada Scotian Shelf northern prawn trawl Certified 5 August 2008; v2.01 TBD and trap recertified November 2020 Certified 31 March 2009; Gulf of St Lawrence northern shrimp trawl v2.01 TBD recertified November 2020 Certified 21 February 2013; West Greenland coldwater prawn v1.3 NA recertified August 2018 Certified 24 June 2011; Canada northern and striped shrimp v1.3 NA recertified October 2016

Table 25. Overlapping fisheries

Supporting information

- Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes.

Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? Yes / No

Date of harmonisation meeting DD / MM / YY

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

- e.g. Agreement found among teams or lowest score adopted.

Table 26. Scoring differences Canada Scotian Shelf Performance NAFO 3M Flemish Gulf of St Lawrence northern prawn trawl Indicators (PIs) Cap cold water prawn northern shrimp trawl and trap

PI TBD Score Score

PI TBD Score Score

PI TBD Score Score

Table 27. Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.6).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 110

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 111

8.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable To be added at Public Certification Report stage The CAB shall include in the report all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure.

Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 112

8.10 Client Agreement

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 113

8.11 References

A Subject Specific Concordat between The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, The Welsh Government and The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland) (‘The Administrations’) On Management Arrangements for Fishing Opportunities and Fishing Vessel Licensing in the United Kingdom, 2 May 2012. Annual Fisheries and Compliance Review 2020 (Compliance Report for Fishing Year 2019), 42nd ANNUAL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2020, NAFO/COM Doc. 20-17 (Revised). Annual Report 2019, European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), 2020. Act on Marine Fisheries (Poland), 19 December 2014, the Polish Parliament (Sejm). Bergström, B. 2000. Biology of Pandalus. Advances in Marine Biology, 38:55-256. Casas, J. M. 2008. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2007. NAFO SCR Doc.08/ 68, Serial No.N5600. Casas, J.M. 2020. Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) on Flemish Cap Surveys 2020. NAFO SCR Doc.20/064, Serial No. N7138. Casas Sánchez, J.M. and Álvarez, M. 2020. Division 3M Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) – Interim Monitoring Update. NAFO SCR Doc. 20/051 Serial No. N7102. Colbourne, E., A. Perez-Rodriguez, A. Cabrero, and G. Gonzalez-Nuevo. 2018. Ocean Climate Variability on the Flemish Cap in NAFO Subdivision 3M during 2017. NAFO SCR. Doc. 2018/010. Serial No. N6794. Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (amended NAFO Convention), Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, 2017. DFO, 2014. Short-term prospects for cod, crab and shrimp in the Newfoundland and Labrador Region (Divisions 2J3KL). Can. Sci. Adv. Secret. Sci. Response 2014/049: 18 pp. DFO. 2015. 2015 assessment of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, and striped shrimp, Pandalus montagui, in the eastern and western assessment zones. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2015/017: 22 pp. FAO. 2021. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Database. http://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine- ecosystems/vme-database/en/vme.html. Fisheries Act 2020 (UK), 23 November 2020. Hammill, M. O. and G. B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Atlantic Canada. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 26: 1-23. Hardie, D., Covey, M., and Cook, A. 2018. 2015 Eastern Scotian Shelf Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Framework. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2018/005. vi + 117 p. Holthuis, L.B. 1980. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 1 Shrimps and prawns of the world. An annotated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fish. Synop. (125) Vol. 1: 271pp. Horsted, S.A. 1978. Life cycle of the shrimp, Pandalus borealis, in Greenland waters in relation to the potential yield. ICNAF Selected Papers, 4: 51-60. Jorde, P.E., Søvik, G., Westgaard, J.I., Orr, D., Han, G., Stansbury, D. and Jørstad, K.E. (2014). Genetic population structure of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3046: iv + 27 p Kingsley, M.C.S. 2011. Pandalus montagui in the West Greenland shrimp fishery, 2001-2010. NAFO SCR Doc. 11/053: 13 pp Knutsen, H., Jorde, P. E., Blanco Gonzalez, E., Eigaard, O. R., Pereyra, Ricardo T., Sannæs, H., Dahl, M., Andre´, C., and Søvik, G. 2014. Does population genetic structure support present management regulations of the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Skagerrak and the North Sea? ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu204. Koeller, P. 1996. Aspects of the Biology of Pink Shrimp Pandalus borealis Krøyer on the Scotian Shelf. DFO Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 96/9. Martinez, I., Aschan, M., Skerjdal, T. and Aljanabi, S.M. (2006). The genetic structure of Pandalus borealis in the Northeast Atlantic determined by RAPD analysis. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 840-850. Ministry of the Environment, Republic of Estonia. https://www.envir.ee/en/fisheries. MSC. 2014. Fisheries Certification Requirements. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. MSC. 2018. MSC Fisheries Standard, v.2.01, 31st August 2018. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 289 pp. Murillo, F.J., A. Serrano, E. Kenchington, and J. Mora. 2015. Epibenthic assemblages of the Tail of the Grand Bank and Flemish Cap (northwest Atlantic) in relation to environmental parameters and trawling intensity. Deep-Sea Res. I. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2015.08.006i. NAFO Performance Assessment Review, 2011. NAFO Performance Review Panel Report, 2018. NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework, Annual Meeting – September 2004, NAFO/FC Doc. 04/18 https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/fc/2004/fcdoc04-18.pdf).

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 114

NAFO. 2019a. Report of the Scientific Council Meeting, 08 - 13 November 2019, Trømso, Norway. NAFO SCS Doc. 19/22. NAFO. 2019b. Redfish (Sebastes mentella and Sebastes fasciatus) in Division 3M: Advice June 2019 for 2020-2021. https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/Advice/2019/red3M.pdf. NAFO. 2020a. Report of the Scientific Council (in conjunction with NIPAG) Meeting, 14 September 2020 by Web Ex. NAFO SCS Doc. 20/22. Document Serial No. N7147. NAFO. 2020b. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2020. https://www.nafo.int/Portals/0/PDFs/COM/2020/CEM- 2020-web.pdf. NAFO. 2021a. Conservation and Enforcement Measures 2021. NAFO. 2021b. Ecosystem Approaches. https://www.nafo.int/Science/Frameworks/Ecosystem-Approach. NAFO. 2021c. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) Closures. https://www.nafo.int/Fisheries/VME. NAFO. 2021d. Ecosystem Considerations. https://www.nafo.int/Science/Ecosystem. NAFO Precautionary Approach Framework (https://www.nafo.int/Science/Frameworks). Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Conservation and Enforcement Measures, 2021. Notification of the Act on Fisheries and Aquaculture (Fisheries Act) (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse af lov om fiskeri og fiskeopdræt (fiskeriloven)], LOV nr. 568 af 21/05/2014, Folketinget (Parliament), last revised 2017. Notification on Regulation of Fisheries in 2014–2020 (Denmark) [Bekendtgørelse om regulering af fiskeriet I 2014– 2020], BEK nr. 212 af 01/03/2017, AgriFish, last updated 2017’. Parsons, D.G. 2005. Predators of northern shrimp, Pandalus borealis, (Pandalidae) throughout the North Atlantic. Marine Biology Research, 1: 59 – 67. Pedersen, O. P., Aschan, M., Rasmussen, T., Tande, K. S., and Slagstad, D. (2003). Larval dispersal and mother populations of Pandalus borealis investigated by Lagrangian particle-tracking model. Fisheries Research, 65: 173-190. Pérez-Rodríguez, A. and D. González-Troncoso. 2018. Update of the Flemish Cap multispecies model GadCap as part of the EU SC05 project: “Multispecies Fisheries Assessment for NAFO”, NAFO SCR Doc.18/024, serial No. N6808 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Common Fisheries Policy /* COM/2011/0425 final - 2011/0195 (COD). REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy. Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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. Samy-Kamal, Mohamed, Estonian fisheries management system under the lens of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard, Marine Policy 117, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103885. Shumway, S. E., Perkins, H. C., Schick, D. F., and Stickney, A. P. 1985. Synopsis of biological data on the pink shrimp, Pandalus borealis, Krøyer, 1838. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 30. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 144. 57 pp. Smidt, E. 1981. Environmental conditions and shrimp stocks at Greenland. In: Frady T., editor. Proceedings of the International Pandalid Shrimp Symposium; February 13–15; Kodiak, Alaska. Kodiak, Alaska: University of Alaska. pp. 391-392. Wakefield, Jill (2014), Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 115

8.12 Vessel list Flag Country Client Vessels Denmark P/R Ocean Prawn Ocean Tiger (R38) Estonia Reyktal Ltd Dagö (EK-2001) Steffano (EK-1601) Merike (EK-1801) Reval Seafood Ltd Reval Viking (EK-1202) Latvia SIA Batterfisa Dorado 2 (LVL 2158) Arctic Trawler Ltd. Auseklis (LVR 0851) SIA North Star Laima (LVR 0853) Lithuania UAB Marlinas Taurus (KL 898) Lokys (KL 926) Poland Arctic Navigations Polonus (GDY-58) United Kingdom Onward Fishing Company Ltd Norma Mary (H110)

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 116

8.13 Landing sites (if applicable)

TBD

DNV dnv.com NAFO 3M Flemish Cap cold water prawn 117

9 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’.

The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’ and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2020. All rights reserved.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

1.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).

Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

DNV dnv.com

ABOUT DNV

DNV is the independent expert in assurance and risk management, operating in more than 100 countries. Through its broad experience and deep expertise DNV advances safety and sustainable performance, sets industry benchmarks, and inspires and invents solutions.

DNV is one of the world’s leading certification, assurance and risk management providers. Whether certifying a company’s management system or products, providing training, or assessing supply chains, and digital assets, we enable customers and stakeholders to make critical decisions with confidence. We are committed to support our customers to transition and realize their long-term strategic goals sustainably, collectively contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. www.dnv.com © DNV 2021