(MSC) Public Comment Draft Report SFSAG Rockall Haddock on Behalf

Home , Grey gurnard, Marine Scotland, Rockall, Rockall Bank dispute

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Comment Draft

Report

SFSAG Rockall haddock

On behalf of

Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group

(SFSAG)

Prepared by

ME Certification Ltd

May 2018

Authors: Dr Hugh Jones Dr Robin Cook Dr Jo Gascoigne Dr Geir Hønneland

ME Certification Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.me-cert.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Contents

GLOSSARY ...... 3

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 8

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 10 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 10 3.1.2 Final UoC(s) ...... 11 3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 11 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 12 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 12 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 13 3.2.1 The Client fishery ...... 13 3.2.2 Rockall ...... 13 3.2.3 Gear and operation of the fishery...... 16 3.2.4 Fishing areas and seasons ...... 16 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 20 3.3.1 Life History ...... 20 3.3.2 Fishery history at Rockall ...... 20 3.3.3 The current fishery ...... 21 3.3.4 Stock assessment ...... 23 3.3.5 Stock trends ...... 23 3.3.6 Biological reference points ...... 24 3.3.7 Management ...... 24 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 26 3.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...... 26 3.4.2 Main bycatch species ...... 27 3.4.3 ETP species ...... 31 3.4.4 Habitats ...... 33 3.4.5 Rockall ecosystem ...... 47 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 52 3.5.1 Jurisdiction ...... 52 3.5.2 Objectives ...... 52 3.5.3 Legal basis and management set-up ...... 52 3.5.4 Stakeholders and consultation processes ...... 53 3.5.5 Resolution of disputes ...... 54 3.5.6 Enforcement and compliance ...... 55 3.5.7 Review of the management system ...... 57 4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 58 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 58 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 58 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 58 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 59 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 59 4.4.2 Evaluation Techniques ...... 60

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 1 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 62 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 62 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 62 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 64 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 65 6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 66 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 66 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 66 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 67 6.4 Recommendations ...... 68 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 68 REFERENCES ...... 69

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 74 Principle 1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 74 Principle 2 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 87 Principle 3 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 139 APPENDIX 2 CONDITIONS ...... 162 Appendix 2.1 Marine Scotland Support ...... 169 APPENDIX 3 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 171 Peer Review 1 ...... 171 Peer Review 2 ...... 204 APPENDIX 4 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 212

APPENDIX 5 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 213

APPENDIX 6 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 214

APPENDIX 7 HADDOCK BOX COMPLIANCE ...... 215

APPENDIX 8 SFSAG VOLUNTARY MOVE-ON RULE ...... 216

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 2 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Glossary

Term / acronym Definition

AIS Automatic Identification System

AUV Automated Underwater Vehicle

Bpa Precautionary reference point for spawning stock biomass (SSB)

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected (species)

F Fishing mortality

FAM Fishery Assessment Methodology

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FCR 2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (MSC Scheme Document)

FMAC Fisheries Management and Conservation Group

FMSY Fishing mortality consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

GITAG Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group

HCR Harvest Control Rule(s)

ICES The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICJ International Court of Justice

IFMAC Inshore Fisheries Management and Conservation Group

ITLOS International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

MCRS Minimum Conservation Reference Size

MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance

MCZ Marine Conservation Zones

MEC ME Certification Ltd

MMO Marine Management Organisation

MS Member State(s) (EU)

MSE Management Strategy Evaluation

MSS Marine Scotland Science

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

NSAC North Sea Advisory Council

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 3 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Term / acronym Definition

NWWAC North Western Waters Advisory Council

PA Precautionary approach

PA Precautionary advice

PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration

PCDR Public Comment Draft Report

PCR Public Certification Report

PET Protected, Endangered and Threatened (species)

PI Performance Indicator

PO Producer Organisations

RBF Risk Based Framework

ROV Remote Operated Vehicle

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SFF Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

SFO Scottish Fishermen's Organisation

SFPA Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

SFSAG Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group

SI Scoring Issue

SIDI Scottish Industry Discard Initiative

SPA Special Protected Area

SSB Spawning Stock Biomass

SSIs Scottish Statutory Instruments

SWFPA Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd

TAC Total Allowable Catch

TR1 Mesh size with >= 100 mm codend mesh

TR2 Mesh size with 70 mm – 99 mm codend mesh

UNCLOS UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

UoA Unit of Assessment

VME Vulnerable Marine Habitat

VMS Vessel Monitoring System

WGDEC Working Group on Deep-water Ecology

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 4 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Term / acronym Definition

XSA Extended Survivors Analysis

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 5 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

1 Executive Summary This report is the Public Comment Draft Report for the SFSAG Rockall haddock fishery. The assessment team consisted of Dr Hugh Jones (Team Leader), Dr Robin Cook (Principle 1), Dr Jo Gascoigne (Principle 2) and Dr Geir Hønneland (Principle 3). The site visit for the assessment took place in Aberdeen, Scotland from the 28th February to 2nd March 2017. The fishery is carried out by vessels covered by membership of the Scottish Fisheries Sustainability Assessment Group (SFSAG) which consists of all the Scottish Producer Organisations, as well as a number of fishermen’s associations. The members represent the majority of the Scottish demersal industry operating in the mixed demersal fisheries of the North Sea and West of Scotland. SFSAG membership includes 232 vessels and represents a mixed fleet, using various gear types to target a mix of demersal species of which currently only TR1 (Trawl net with >= 100 mm cod end mesh) vessels operate at Rockall. The Rockall haddock fishery is limited to ICES division 6b and any west of Scotland and North Sea catches are therefore not included in this Unit of Assessment. Rockall haddock is fished, or has been fished in the past, by vessels from the EU and the Russian Federation, with the UK (Scotland) accounting for over 80 % of the total landings in 2015. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) has increased rapidly since 2013 with an estimated value in 2017 of 18,066 t which is 1.5 times greater than Bpa (10,200 t). Fishing Mortality (F) continues to show a general decline since 1991 despite large annual variation. The 2016 exploitation rate is below the desired level of F = 0.2. The fishery takes place in international waters and the United Kingdom Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and is managed at three levels: the international, EU and national levels. At the international level the fishery is managed under the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). At EU level, the fishery is managed within the context of the Common Fisheries Policy. At the Scottish level, the main legal bases for fisheries management are the 2013 Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act and the 2010 Marine Act. Marine Scotland is the implementing body under the Scottish Government, responsible for all components of fisheries management, from science to management and enforcement. Marine Scotland works closely with the Producer Organisations (POs), which are delegated responsibility for managing fish quotas on behalf of their members. Analysis of landings data for Scottish vessels, as well as discards and landings estimates for Scottish vessels indicated four main “primary” non-target species (whiting, saithe, monkfish and ling) and no main “secondary” species. Elasmobranchs, classed by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 as forbidden to land, were considered under ETP Species. The fishery was found to interact with the following ETP species: common skate complex (particularly blue skate), spurdog and grey seals. Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems were identified based on survey work used to identify Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive within EU waters and NEAFC recommendations in international waters, in combination with the occurrence of low or limited mobility species. VMEs potentially overlapping with this fishery were identified as Biogenic reefs: i.e. cold-water coral communities, including Lophelia pertusa and other taxa; Rocky reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on bedrock and rocky outcrops; Stony reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on mixed rock, cobbles and boulders, where 50 % or more of the area is hard substrate.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 6 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The main strength of the client fishery is that it is a well-organised fleet which operates in a well-defined management framework with transparent stakeholder consultation processes. The Rockall haddock stock has strong signs of SSB recovery since 2013. A sizable proportion of the fishable area (~45 %) is closed to fishing, to protect VMEs or for other reasons. In relation to the weaknesses identified by the assessment, a more effective harvest strategy and harvest control rules are required. With regards to its wider ecosystem impacts, the fishery will need to address its potential impacts on some ETP species, in particular common skate complex (blue skate). Overall, no single performance indicator scored below 60 and the aggregate score for each principle was 80 or above, therefore the fishery is therefore being provisionally recommended for certification. The overall preliminary scores for each Principle are as follows: Principle 1: 84.2, Principle 2: 81.0 and Principle 3: 90.4. Six PIs scored less than 80 and therefore conditions were raised and summarised below. Note that there was no harmonisation with other MSC fisheries for this UoA. As this is an initial assessment, none of the conditions raised were related to previously raised conditions.

Condition Condition Performance number Indicator

There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy 1 detailing the harvest strategy is being implemented and is 1.2.1a responsive to the state of the stock resulting from ICES advice.

There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy detailing the harvest strategy is being implemented and well-defined 2 1.2.2a HCRs are in place that will be responsive to the status of the stock as the PRI is approached.

There needs to be clear evidence that direct effects of the fishery 3 2.3.1b are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on blue skate.

There needs to be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy 4 for blue skate from the fishery will work based on information directly 2.3.2c about the fishery and/or the species involved.

There needs to be sufficient information available such that the impact of this fishery on common skate complex (blue skate) can be 5 2.3.3a quantitatively estimated, and hence it can be determined whether the fishery may be a threat to the recovery of the population

The fishery needs to provide quantitative evidence that the 6 measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully, with 2.4.2c/d particular reference to the voluntary move on rule

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 7 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers Dr Hugh Jones (Team Leader): Hugh obtained his PhD in Australia investigating the bioaccumulation of mercury in fisheries and the effects on human health, following a BSc. (Hons) in Marine Biology from Plymouth University.

He has a broad background in marine research including publications and reports on fisheries research, ecotoxicology and environmental risk assessments. Prior to joining MEC he was employed by the University of Tasmania as a fisheries scientist in the development of an empirical harvest strategy for the commercial abalone fisheries and stock assessments of estuarine bivalves. This included work on population metrics (recruitment, growth), harvest dynamics (catch rates, market selectivity), and the use of fine scale geo-spatial techniques as fishery performance measures to assess stock sustainability.

He is a contributing author to the Status of Australian Fish stocks for Tasmanian abalone and shellfish fisheries. Hugh currently works as a Fisheries Assessment Manager for MEC.

Dr Robin Cook (Principle 1) Robin Cook studied zoology at Durham University followed by a PhD in population dynamics from Oxford University. He worked for many years at the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen and was Director there from 2002-2011. He worked mainly in the field of demersal fish stock assessments and assessment methodology. During the 1990s he was chair of the ICES North Sea demersal assessment working group and served on the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) and the EU Scientific, Economic and Technical Committee on Fisheries (STECF). Currently he is a Senior Research Fellow at Strathclyde University, Glasgow, focusing on bio-economic modelling of grey seal predation on demersal fish and the assessment of data-poor stocks. He has published over 80 scientific papers including a number dealing with the status of North Sea cod.

Dr Cook had primary responsibility for the assessment of Principle 1.

Dr Jo Gascoigne (Principle 2): Dr. Gascoigne, an MEC associate, is a former research lecturer in marine biology at Bangor University, Wales. She is an expert on fisheries science and management, with over 15 years’ experience as a consultant, working mainly on MSC pre-assessments and full assessments, as well as FIP scoping, planning and implementation. Jo has been involved as expert and lead auditor in a significant number of MEP and MEC’s full MSC assessments and pre-assessments covering a range of demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and Pacific.

For this assessment, Dr. Gascoigne was responsible for Principle 2.

Geir Hønneland (Principle 3) Geir Hønneland is Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and adjunct professor at the University of Tromsø, Norway. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Oslo and mainly studies fisheries management and international relations in the European North. Among his books are Making Fishery Agreements Work: Post-Agreement Bargaining in the Barents Sea (Edward Elgar, 2012) and Coercive and Discursive Compliance Mechanisms in the Management of Natural Resources: A Case Study from the Barents Sea (Springer, 2000). He has also published extensively in peer reviewed journals. His most important ongoing research project is about the resilience of established

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 8 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

international management regimes to spatial shifts in major marine stocks in Polar waters. Before embarking on his academic career, Geir worked for several years as a fishery inspector for the Norwegian Coast Guard.

Geir has gained a broad experience from evaluations and consultancies in the fisheries sector, e.g. for FAO relating to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and country studies for OECD. He was a member of the team that performed the first MSC assessment of a Russian Barents Sea fishery in 2010, and has subsequently participated in a number of assessments in the Northeast Atlantic and Southern Ocean, as well as inland fisheries. His experience includes MSC full assessments, re-assessments, pre-assessments, surveillance audits and peer reviews.

Geir Hønneland was responsible primarily for Principle 3.

No conflicts of interest were identified for any of the assessors for this fishery.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 9 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3 Description of the Fishery

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

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)

MEC confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 of the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0):

• The target species is not 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 labour violation in the last 2 years; • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery; • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.3; and • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.4. The UoC and UoA are the same in this assessment as there are no other eligible fishers.

UoA:

Species Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

Geographical range Division VIb (Rockall)

Method of capture Single Nephrops trawl Twin Nephrops trawl Demersal trawl Twin demersal trawl Danish seine Pair seine–trawl Pair trawl

Stock Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division VIb (Rockall)

Management Systems Legal: EC Common Fisheries Policy; EU-Norway Agreement; National legislation, NEAFC. Enforcement: : Marine Scotland Compliance & Royal Navy. Science: Marine Scotland Science / ICES / NEAFC

Client group Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) member vessels

Other eligible fishers None

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 10 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.1.2 Final UoC(s)

(PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe: a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification. b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c). c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.

(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10)

3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Landing data for Rockall is available from the ICES annual advice ICES (2017a) with breakdown by country (Table 1). This includes non-EU landings (Table 2) and advice status against agreed TACs (Table 3). Table 1. Landings (tonnes) by country in 2015 - 2016 of Rockall (6b) haddock. *landings from outside the EEZ in division 6b. Source ICES (2017a).

Quota allocated Landings

Country 2015 2016 % of TAC 2016

Belgium 6 7 0.2 0 Germany 7 24 0.2 0 France 285 332 11.0 0 Ireland 203 353 7.9 362 UK 2079 2509 80.6 2160 Norway* 0 0 63 Russia* 0 0 0 Faroes* 0 0 0 Total 2580 3225 2585 Landings from NEAFC area 624

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 11 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 2. Non-EU landings Rockall

Year Faroe Russian Norway Non-EU Total Catch Non-EU Islands Federation catch inc EU Pct catch Total

2012 53 1 48 102 710 14.4 2013 0 4 121 125 826 15.1 2014 1 388 38 427 1675 25.5 2015 1 136 66 203 2445 8.3 2016 0 0 63 63 2585 2.4 Table 3. ICES advice, TAC and landings (percentage of TAC) for 2015-2017.

Year ICES advice TAC Landings (% TAC)

2015 4,310 2,580 2,445 (94.7%)

2016 3,225 3,225 2,585 (80.2%)

2017 5,163 5,163 -

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

The fishery under assessment is a wild capture fishery and does not meet the criteria for enhanced fisheries (see FCR v2.0 7.4)

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

The fishery is not an ISBF (see FCR v2.0 7.4).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 12 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.2 Overview of the fishery

3.2.1 The Client fishery

The SFSAG Rockall haddock fishery is carried out by vessels covered by membership of the Scottish Fisheries Sustainability Assessment Group (SFSAG) which consists of all the Scottish POs. The members represent the majority of the Scottish demersal industry operating in the mixed demersal fisheries of the North Sea and West of Scotland. The collective members of the group are:

• Scottish White Fish Producers Association • Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation • Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation • Fife Fish Producers Organisation • Fishermen’s Mutual Association (Pittenweem) • North East of Scotland Fishermen’s Organisation • Northern Producers Organisation • The Fish Producers’ Organisation • Orkney Fish Producers Organisation • Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation • Shetland Fish Producers Organisation • Eastern England Fish Producers’ Organisation • Lunar FPO Ltd

Vessels in the UoA are all vessels who are members of any of the above organisations, totalling 232 vessels. Note that this UoA includes some vessels registered in England and Northern Ireland but administered through the above POs. SFSAG current vessel list is updated and provided online at http://scottishfsag.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MSC- Saithe-and-haddock-Master-110217.pdf .

The Board of SFSAG is chaired by Mike Park of Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd (SWFPA) and the Secretariat is provided by Seafood Scotland. Marine Scotland Policy and Science also take an active role in the group by assisting with expertise and funding advice.

3.2.2 Rockall

Rockall Island, situated in the North Atlantic Ocean, is an eroded stack of an extinct volcano, 240 mile off the west coast of Scotland (Figure 1). Following the declaration of 200 mile EEZs, Rockall fell entirely within the EU zone. However, this was challenged when uninhabitable islands were disqualified for use in establishing baselines under UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). Currently there remain competing interests in the area and no definitive

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 13 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

agreement has been reached on the designation of national EEZs. Under UNCLOS, features such as Rockall are entitled to a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles and the UK recognises this (Figure 2). As of 2014 the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which resolved any disputes between the two nations over the extent of their respective EEZs around the Rockall region (UK, 2013; Ireland, 2014), although there still exists some dispute between the United Kingdom, Ireland, Faroes and Iceland over claimed interests over the sea bed adjoining Rockall.

Figure 1. Rockall (source: Wikipedia 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 14 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 2. UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (blue shading) with ICES divisions overlaid. Source Marine Scotland.

The Rockall Bank is a piece of continental crust which was partially detached from Europe during the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. It forms part of the larger Rockall Plateau comprising Hatton Bank on the western side of the plateau, Rockall Bank on the eastern side and George Bligh Bank on the northern side. Rockall Bank itself is approximately 450 km long running NE to SW and 200 km wide at its widest point. It ranges in depth from 0 to 1000 m. The eastern and north eastern edge of the bank falls away very steeply from 250 m descending the Rockall Trough at 1000 m - 1500 m. The western and southern slopes are less steep and descend into the Rockall-Hatton Basin at around 1000 m (Howell et al., 2009). Trawl fishing at Rockall for haddock occurs in UK EEZ waters and the NEAFC regulatory area at depths between 140 m and 400 m.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 15 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.2.3 Gear and operation of the fishery

The SFSAG fleet is a mixed fleet, using various gear types to target a mix of demersal species, including gadoids (cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, hake) but also monkfish and megrim. The SFSAG vessels targeting Nephrops also take a significant bycatch of these species which is retained where possible. Under the convention used in the Cod Recovery Plan, gear mesh sizes are described as ‘TR1’ and ‘TR2’: TR1 is >100 mm (often 120 mm); TR2 is 80 mm- 99 mm. Only TR1 gears currently operate at Rockall.

The fleet can roughly be divided as follows:

• Single-rig trawlers targeting mainly whitefish; • Twin-rig trawlers targeting mainly whitefish; • Single-rig trawlers targeting Nephrops and whitefish; • Twin-rig trawlers targeting Nephrops and whitefish; • Pair trawlers targeting whitefish; • Scottish, Danish seines targeting whitefish (single and pair)

The gear types used by vessels in the UoA are divided as follows in Table 4.

Table 4. Gear type percentage of the UoA

Gear type Percentage of fleet Trawl 86 Pair trawls 8 Scottish and Danish 6 seines TR1 75 TR2 25

3.2.4 Fishing areas and seasons

The fishing area and tonnage for the entire Scottish fleet, not just the UoA, is given in Figure 3 in terms of ICES statistical rectangle. The spatial extent of the fishery examined in this UoA is bounded by the borders of ICES subdivision 6b West of -12° longitude and between 54.5°N and 60°N latitude (Figure 3). Trawl fishing for haddock is limited to < 400 m at Rockall and the majority of fish are found at this depth (Figure 4). Fishing by the fleet at Rockall is technically open all year but is significantly limited by appropriate weather windows. Areas closed to fishing in 6b are discussed in detail within Principle 2 and 3 and are shown in Figure 9.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 16 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 3. Scottish haddock landed weight (2015) by ICES statistical rectangle in tonnes. Data provided by Marine Scotland Science.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 17 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 4. Distribution of haddock (catch N per 30 minutes) on the Rockall Bank in 2001–2016 from the Scottish trawl survey (Scottish Rock-IBTS-Q3). Source: (ICES, 2017b).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 18 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 5. Survey map from 2017 haddock survey at Rockall. Red stratum = 0-150 m depth, green stratum = 150-200 m, blue stratum = 200-250 m and light-blue stratum = 250-350 m. Boxes/polygons represent restricted or closed areas. Closed circles = primary haul positions, open circles = secondary haul positions. Source (MS, 2017).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 19 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 Life History

Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) is a widely distributed roundfish that inhabits temperate northern waters at depths ranging from 10 m to 450 m, but usually between 10 m – 200 m (Muus and Nielsen, 1999). In the Northeast Atlantic, haddock are distributed from the Bay of Biscay to Spitzbergen, the Barents Sea to Novaya Zemlya and around Iceland to southern Greenland. They feed mainly on small bottom-living organisms including crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, worms and fishes; and they are preyed on by other fish, marine mammals and seabirds. The haddock stock at Rockall is a separate stock from that on the continental shelf of the British Isles (Newton et al., 2008). The predominantly northward current in this area of the Northeast Atlantic prevents eggs and larvae reaching Rockall from the mainland. At Rockall few fish live longer than 8 - 10 years old with a maximum weight of little over 1 kg. The population achieves lower growth rates and individuals are of smaller size than other haddock populations in the Northeast Atlantic. Most fish are mature by the age of 3 years, with 86 % of Rockall haddock sexually mature at 2 years of age. Recent work has confirmed that Rockall haddock exist at greater depths than elsewhere in its species range (from 140 m down to 450 m) (Figure 4) and it is possible that a significant proportion of the spawning stock exists in the deeper water to the west of the Rockall Bank (Blacker, 1982; Newton et al., 2008). Haddock at Rockall are caught by a directed fishery that deploys mainly otter trawls, and as bycatch in demersal trawl and gillnet fisheries. In recent years more than 65 % of haddock caught in Rockall has been landed in Scotland (ICES, 2016a).

3.3.2 Fishery history at Rockall

The starting date of fishing at Rockall is unclear but there is some evidence of fishing ‘the banks’ from the early 19th century, although its isolation and exposure has always meant that fishing at Rockall has been sporadic (Blacker, 1982). Initially fishing would have been with hand lines for cod, but by 1906 English landing statistics include significant steam trawler landings from Rockall (Blacker, 1982). Whilst the Rockall grounds were originally fished by cod fishermen it has been the haddock fishery which has had the most economic significance for the majority of the 20th century (Newton et al., 2008). The haddock fishery is almost entirely a trawl fishery. Catch history for Scotland prior to 1955 was included only as west coast Scotland catches and therefore cannot be verified, while ICES records for that period from other countries include plaice and sole which are considered absent from Rockall and therefore place some doubt on the accuracy of the data (Blacker, 1982). Post-1955 Scottish catches of haddock peaked at around 2,500 tonnes in 1965 before declining and showing some resurgence by 1980 to 2,000 tonnes. For England and Wales landings peaked around 1940 at >6,000 tonnes before declining to <1,000 tonnes annually from 1955 to 1975 before surging to around 6,000 tonnes in 1980. The 1970s saw large effort from the USSR at Rockall with catches of 40,000 tonnes of haddock reported, although whether the fish were actually caught at Rockall (there were no quota restrictions there at the time) or elsewhere has been questioned (Blacker, 1982). The upsurge in catches at Rockall by the UK fleet in the late 1970s resulted from the extension of the UK fishing limits, which prevented the USSR access to the

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 20 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

majority of the fishing grounds at Rockall and the banning of UK vessels in Icelandic waters (Blacker, 1982). Trawl fishing for haddock at Rockall takes place in waters between 140 m and 400 m in UK EEZ waters and international waters.

3.3.3 The current fishery

UK and Irish vessels are now the primary fleets fishing the area with Scotland dominating the catches (Table 5). At times there have been major fisheries for mixed demersal fish in the non- EU zone prosecuted by Russia though this is not currently operating at a large scale (2015 Russian catch was 136 t (ICES, 2016a)). As Rockall is some distance from mainland ports, and the vessels exploiting the area are relatively small, the area tends only to be fished during seasons of quieter weather and when fishing opportunities closer to the mainland are less attractive. In recent years the number of Scottish vessels fishing at Rockall has varied between 22 and 37 (ICES, 2016a). While haddock are the principal target other important target species include anglerfish, saithe, ling and megrim are also caught and are discussed further in Principle 2 section 3.4.1.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 21 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 5. Catch history of haddock at Rockall (ICES division 6b). 1Preliminary, 2Includes division 6a, 3 Includes Scotland, England Wales and NI Landings, 4Includes the total Russian catch. Source ICES (2016a).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 22 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.3.4 Stock assessment

The core assessment uses Extended Survivors Analysis (XSA, Shepherd (1999)) which is a least squares regression model using catch at age data for landings and discards. The analysis is “tuned” using a single research vessel survey, the Scottish Rock-IBTS-Q3 survey. The survey is co-ordinated by ICES. In addition a survey only method, SURBAR, (Needle, 2015) has been used as well as statistical catch-at-age analysis (StatCam) (Brodziak, 2005). These generally support stock trends estimated by the XSA assessment. XSA is generally regarded as a robust method but many current stock assessments use models based on recent developments in statistics that better quantify uncertainty and are more capable of accommodating missing data and accounting for error in the catch data.

3.3.5 Stock trends

ICES limits its assessment to the period 1991 onwards though there are catch data at least from the 1950s (Figure 6). These show very high catches up to 50,000 tonnes in the mid- 1970s with catches thereafter typically below 10,000 tonnes.

Figure 6. International haddock landings from Rockall (ICES, 2016a).

There are also periodic survey data prior to 1991 which are potentially suitable for use in assessments (Cook, 1989). Thus, stock trends estimated by ICES only give an insight into comparatively recent changes in the stock (Figure 7). During this period catches have declined as has recruitment and fishing mortality. The SSB fluctuates in response to the highly variable recruitment and it is difficult to identify a long-term trend. Recent good year classes have boosted the SSB above Bpa while current fishing mortality is estimated to be below FMSY = 0.2.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 23 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 7. Rockall haddock. Stock trends from 1991 as estimated by ICES (2017a).

3.3.6 Biological reference points

ICES carried out an evaluation of MSY and precautionary advice (PA) reference points for this stock in 2016 (ICES, 2017a) which are summarized below in Table 6: Table 6. MSY and PA reference points for this stock in 2016 (ICES, 2017a).

3.3.7 Management

Following the declaration of 200 mile EEZs, Rockall fell entirely within the EU zone. However, this was challenged when uninhabitable islands were disqualified for use in establishing baselines under UNCLOS. Currently there remain competing interests in the area and no definitive agreement has been reached on the designation of national EEZs. However, at present the UK and Ireland have agreed a partition and this effectively divides the area between an EU zone (UK, 2005; Ireland, 2014) where the CFP forms the basis of

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 24 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

management, and international waters where NEAFC co-ordinates management. The main fishery in international waters is prosecuted by the Russian Federation but which is operating at a low level with very low haddock catches (Table 5). Consequently, management of haddock is in effect being carried out by the EU under the CFP. There have been attempts to agree a management of the whole area within NEAFC and ICES provided advice on a potential harvest control rule (NEAFC, 2012). However, this is still not agreed by the contracting parties. Scottish fishery-independent surveys have highlighted the fact that young haddock tend to concentrate in the south-west area of Rockall Bank (Newton et al., 2008). In order to protect the pre-recruit stock in 2001, the International Waters component of statistical rectangle 42D5, which is mainly at depths less than 200 m, was closed by NEAFC to all fishing activities, except with longlines, via “bilateral contacts” between representatives of the EU and the Russian Federation (ICES, 2013a). In spring 2002, the EU component of this rectangle, again mainly shallow water, was also closed to trawling activities (Figure 8). This combined closed area is the Rockall Haddock Box (EU, 1998). The Rockall Haddock Box regulation is routinely re- established each year by NEAFC and the EU but may at some stage lapse if the parties (on the NEAFC side) fail to agree.

Figure 8. Location of the Rockall Haddock Box with dates and reference to the EU boundary. Source Newton et al. 2008.

The EU agrees a TAC for its vessels based on ICES advice and this is announced via the EU council, typically in December each year (e.g. EU (2017a)). The advice is conditioned on the MSY approach and ICES advice is based on a generic and widely understood HCR (ICES, 2016b). The landing obligation will apply to Rockall haddock in 2018 for trawls and seines and this will affect the way TACs are calculated. NEAFC has also agreed a ban on discarding in international waters. The status of the UK outside the EU in the future will also be relevant to the way TACs and discards are managed.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 25 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2

The fishery’s impact on non-target species is analysed differently if the species is from a “managed” stock or not, or considered Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP). These are defined as follows: Primary species (MSC Component 2.1): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’.

Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below).

ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows: • Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

Both primary and secondary species are defined as ‘main’ if they meet the following criteria: • The catch comprises 5 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; • The species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and comprises 2 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history; • The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only);

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 26 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

• Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of bycatch species.

3.4.2 Main bycatch species

Landings data by gear, 2013 - 2015, from Subarea 6b (Rockall) are given in Table 7 (all gears are TR1 i.e. mesh size >100 mm). Note that this excludes landings of squid, which is reported to be a separate fishery using a different gear (‘squid bags’) and is not included in the UoA. Haddock makes up the largest proportion of the landings for all gear types; monkfish (anglerfish), ling and saithe are ‘main’ bycatch species based on proportion of landings, depending on gear type. Table 7. Landings from Subarea 6b for all species making up <0.5% of the total catch overall and >1% for any gear type (tonnes and %age; excluding squid), 2013-15, as provided by Marine Scotland.

Landings (t) 2013-15 Landings (%) 2013-15

pair single twin pair single twin sein species trawl trawl trawl seine total trawl trawl trawl e total

Haddock 39.0 3378 329 28 3773 78.0 53.0 45.0 91.0 53.0

Monkfish 3.8 1471 262 1 1739 7.5 23.0 36.0 4.4 24.0

Ling 3.3 571 78 >1 653 6.6 9.0 11.0 0.2 9.1

Saithe 1.0 402 15 418 1.9 6.3 2.1 0.0 5.9 Megrim 0.4 251 16 >1 268 0.7 4.0 2.2 1.8 3.7

Whiting 0.5 70 >1 >1 71 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.7 1.0

Thornback ray 0.1 38 7 >1 44 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.6

Cod 1.7 30 5 37 3.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.5

Table 7 does not include discards. Marine Scotland have only estimated discard rates at Rockall for haddock, monkfish and megrim (for TR1 single trawl only; but note that this makes up ~90 % of the landings; see Table 7 above). For the other species, the total catch has been estimated by applying the discard rate for each species estimated by Marine Scotland from Subarea 6b, or failing that from Subarea 6a, or the discard rate given by ICES or in one case estimated by the client (Table 8). This results in whiting being added as a ‘main’ bycatch species on a precautionary basis. Species with catch proportion 2-5 % may be considered ‘main’ bycatch species if they are vulnerable. This could apply to megrim (Table 8), but megrim is not considered vulnerable since the biomass indicator has been increasing over the last decade (ICES, 2016c). The full list of main bycatch species is given in Table 9. Minor species are given in Table 10.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 27 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 8. Total catch for selected species based on estimated discard rate by Marine Scotland at Rockall in 2015 (haddock, monkfish, megrim) or on estimated discard rate by Marine Scotland in 6a (*) or discard rates reported by ICES (cod** (ICES, 2015a)) or reported by SFSAG from members (***). For thornback ray (***) ‘negligible’ has been interpreted as 5 %, this is supported by the three years’ worth of observer data (2013-15) does not show any discards of this species. # this is based on a discard rate of 5 %; it is clear from the figures, however, that the discard rate would have to be extremely high (~300 %) for the species to approach the 2 % threshold for a vulnerable ‘main’ bycatch species.

Species Estimated discard rate Estimated total catch (t) Estimated catch %

Haddock 18% 4601 52

Anglerfish 2% 1774 20

Ling 23%* 848 9.5

Whiting 89%* 647 7.3

Saithe 7%* 450 5.0

Megrim 38% 431 4.8

Thornback ray ‘negligible’*** ~47 ~0.5#

Cod ~1%** 37.1 0.4

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 28 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 9. Main bycatch species for this fishery, with information about stock definition, status and management framework

Species Stock Designation Applies to which Stock status Management advice Ref. gears?

Monkfish 3a,4 and 6 Primary trawls Stock size indicator is Framework for data- (ICES, increasing deficient stocks (category 2016d) 3)

Ling Subareas 6–9, 12, and 14, Primary trawls Stock size indicator is Framework for data- ICES and in divisions 3.a and 4.a increasing deficient stocks (category (2017c) (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic 3); precautionary TAC Ocean)

Saithe 3a,4 and 6 Primary single trawls B2017>MSY Btrigger; EU-Norway management ICES F2017

Whiting Unknown; ICES consider it Primary (on the applied to all on a F2015

‘unlikely’ that there is a self- basis that likely the precautionary basis B2016

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 29 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 10. Minor species (based on landings data from Marine Scotland).

Species (English) Species (Scientific) Primary / secondary

Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Primary (ICES, 2016c)

Cod Gadus morhua secondary

Thornback ray Raja clavata secondary

Tusk Brosme brosme secondary

Lemon sole Microstomus kitt secondary

Wolffish Anarhichas lupus secondary

Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus secondary

Grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus secondary

Cuckoo ray Raja naevis Primary (ICES, 2016f)

Red gurnard Chelidonichthys cuculus secondary

Blackbelly rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus secondary

Golden Redfish Sebastes norvegicus Primary (ICES, 2016g)

Starry ray Amblyraja radiata secondary

3.4.2.1 Management of discards

The most recent Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform is progressively introducing a ‘landings obligation’ (LO) for EU fisheries, with the objective being a complete ban on discarding of quota species (EU, 2015)(2015)(2015)(2015)(2015). Full implementation of the discard ban is due for 1 January 2019. What will happen to the LO and other elements of EU fisheries regulation in Scotland after Brexit (29th March 2019), is currently just speculation. Therefore, changes due to Brexit will have to be taken into account during surveillance audits, however, it is worth noting that the UK has been one of the strongest proponents of the landings obligation within the EU. For Northwest Waters (including Rockall), the LO situation in 2017, as applies to the vessels in the UoA, is that they must land all haddock, sole, plaice and megrim (Gov.Scot, 2017a). Additional species will be added in 2018, according to Marine Scotland (Gov.Scot, 2017a). Efforts are being made to improve selectivity and adapt fishing practices to reduce the reasons for discarding (Gov.Scot, 2017b). A discard ban has been in place in the NEAFC regulatory area since 2009 (NEAFC, 2009). Most of the international waters of the Rockall Bank above 400 m (the maximum depth of the fishery) are closed to bottom trawling via the SW Rockall closed area and the Rockall Haddock Box (see below); fishing effort on the NEAFC side of the line therefore is likely to be a relatively small proportion of the total. Enforcement of the LO is potentially a problem. The focus of Marine Scotland Compliance has been to compare landings profiles with what would be expected given the gear, fishing area

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 30 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017) etc. In the future it is planned to use fully-documented vessels as a reference fleet to reinforce this approach. The issue is considered under Principle 3 section 3.5.6. Despite the increasing focus on trying to limit discards, there remain some species which are required to be discarded; notably some species of skates in some areas where they are considered to be depleted (see 3.4.3 below).

3.4.3 ETP species

ETP species should be protected by national law or binding international treaty. Fish species (such as elasmobranchs) may be classified as ETP species if protected by EU fisheries regulations (Council Regulation 2017/127 of 20 January 2017, (EU, 2017b)). For ICES Division 6b (Rockall) these species are as follows:

• Common skate complex (Dipturus batis (blue skate), D. intermedia (flapper skate)). • Smooth lanternshark (Etmopterus pusillus) • Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) • Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) • Norwegian skate (Dipturus nidarosiensis) • White skate (Rostroraja alba) • Undulate ray (Raja undulata) • Spurdog (Squalus acanthias)

The common skate species-complex is split into two nominal species, the blue skate (provisionally called D. batis occasionally referred to as D. cf. flossada) and the flapper skate (D. cf. intermedia) with maximum lengths of 143.2 cm and 228.8 cm respectively (Iglésias et al., 2010). ICES denote the species as D. batis (blue skate), D. intermedia (flapper skate) and that convention is followed here with all references referring to the common skate species- complex and subspecies within it (ICES, 2016h). Marine Scotland observer trips provided data on estimated catch per trip for ETP species for 2013-15 (Table 11) based on vessels from the UoA from TR1 trips (this gear type makes up ~90 % of the total effort at Rockall, according to Marine Scotland). Table 11. Estimates of mean catch per trip from observers, by number of individuals, 2013-15 (data from Marine Scotland).

Mean number/trip

Species 2015 2014 2013

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) 0 33.2 0

Common skate complex - Blue skate (Dipturus batis) 0 514.0 0

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 31 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The other source of data on ETP species is the PET (Protected, Endangered, Threatened) observer scheme which collects data on ETP species specifically (including all elasmobranchs), although its coverage of Rockall is low: four trips in 2016, two in 2015 and one in 2014 (when the scheme started). In total, the PET species identified at Rockall were as shown in Table 12. Note that according to Marine Scotland, it is not possible to scale up either of these datasets to fleet level (at least, not in the time available of this assessment). Table 12. ETP interactions at Rockall according to the PET observer data set (from Marine Scotland).

Species 2016 (four trips) 2015 (two trips) 2014 (one trip)

Common skate complex - 10 0 0 Flapper skate (D. intermedia)

Common skate complex - Blue 12 6 0 skate (D. batis)

Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) 0 2 (one dead one alive) 0

The two datasets are qualitatively if not quantitatively consistent; they both identify species in the common skate complex (mainly D. batis) as the main bycatch of ETP species, along with spurdog. Grey seals are added to the list from their appearance in the PET data; grey seals are protected under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, (UK, 2010)).

3.4.3.1 Spurdog

This species’ stock status is assessed by ICES at a Northeast Atlantic scale where the current stock is well below MSY but the harvest rate has declined substantially from the levels seen prior to 2000 (ICES, 2016i). The current advice for 2017 and 2018 suggests no targeted fishing of the stock and annual catches at the recent assumed level (2,468 t) will allow the stock to increase at a rate close to that estimated with zero catches (ICES, 2016i). The TACs for spurdog have been set at zero since 2011, but this may have led to increased discarding (ICES, 2016i).

3.4.3.2 Common skate complex inc. flapper skate and blue skate

ICES consider the stock of common skate complex - blue and flapper skate around Rockall to be part of the larger population in subareas 6-7, and advises that catch should be zero for 2017 – 2018 (ICES, 2016h). Current EU regulations prohibit these species from being fished, retained on board, trans-shipped, or landed. This is the highest protection possible under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, a long-term conservation strategy that is like a long-term management plan for this species. ICES consider the misidentification of members of the Batis genus an issue in the data reported. There are currently no robust indicators of stock size (ICES, 2016h).

3.4.3.3 Grey seal

Scientific advice on seal populations in the UK is provided by the Special Committee on Seals, which is hosted by the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St. Andrews University (SMRU).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 32 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Approximately 38 % of the world’s grey seals breed in the UK and 88 % of these breed at colonies in Scotland with the main concentrations in the Outer Hebrides and in Orkney. According to SMRU, grey seal’s use of Rockall is limited and there is no permanent population due to its isolation (D. Russell pers. comm.). Observations from Rockall island itself are limited due to its remoteness, but the assessment team were able to confirm that there is no haul out sites at Rockall for seals as the steep sides of the rock prevent this and neither are there haul out sites at nearby Hazelwood Rock or Helen Reef which are intertidal only (N. Hancock pers. comm.). The observer noted that all seals they witnessed from the island appeared to be large individuals and remained in the area for a number of days presumably feeding (N. Hancock pers. comm.). Telemetry data collected by SMRU suggest the Scottish grey seal population do not go beyond the UK continental shelf (Russell et al., 2017) however the lack of a haul out area on Rockall implies that individuals using Rockall waters are likely part of the wider West of Scotland meta-population, given the extensive feeding forays (>100 km) this species is capable of. The 2017 population advice for UK seals provides an estimate of 139,800 (approximate 95 % CI 116,500-167,100) UK grey seals (1+ aged population) in 2015 (SMRU, 2017). The population has increased around the North Sea in recent years, and is stable elsewhere (SMRU, 2017). New survey data and advice is due to be presented in 2018 but were not yet available at the time of this report and will need to be considered at surveillance.

3.4.4 Habitats

The MSC FCR v2.0 requires habitats interacting with the fishery to be defined as ‘commonly- encountered’, ‘VME’ or ‘minor’, with definitions as given in Table 13. Table 13. Habitat definitions as per the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0.

FCR Definition reference

SA3.13.3.1 A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA.

SA3.13.3.2 A Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME) shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.2). This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.

GSA3.13.3.2 VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/ reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 33 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

FCR Definition reference

growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features

N/a Minor habitats are those that do not meet the above definitions.

3.4.4.1 Jurisdictions at Rockall in relation to habitat protection

Fishable habitat (<400 m for haddock (Figure 5)) is shared between EU and international waters (NEAFC) (Figure 9, Figure 10). This limits bottom trawling active at Rockall for haddock to the summits and shallower areas of the bank and away from the deeper drop off areas (Figure 8). The management of vulnerable habitat appears to have been delegated to NEAFC across the whole bank. There are multiple closed areas on and around the Rockall Bank, of which three are relevant to this fishery (the others being too deep): the NW Rockall Bank area, the SW Rockall area and the Haddock Box (Figure 9). The SW Rockall area is entirely in international waters, but the other two are shared between NEAFC and EU waters, but both parts are closed to bottom trawling. The SW and NW areas are closed for protection of VMEs, while the Haddock Box is closed for other reasons (to reduce bycatch of juvenile haddock), although an analysis by ICES WGDEC (ICES, 2017e) suggests that this closure may be also working to protect VMEs in the NW part of the Haddock Box, contiguous with the NW Rockall closed area (Figure 9).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 34 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 9. Closed areas at Rockall for VMEs (white hatched), the haddock box (grey hatched), the delineation of EEZ (grey/red line) and ICES Divisions (yellow). The NW Rockall area (not labelled) referred to in the text is the hook-shaped white-hatched area directly on the Rockall bank.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 35 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 10. VMS data for fishing events at Rockall (~2000) prior to the implementation of closed areas. Note this figure shows all trawl VMS records not just the SFSAG fleet but is indicative of the areas possible to fish at Rockall. Source (Tasker and Hall-Spencer, 2007).

3.4.4.2 Habitat sampling at Rockall

There was a systematic habitat survey at Rockall in 2006, as part of a JNCC Strategic Environmental Assessment, with the objective of identifying potential SACs; the results of this survey are described in detail in Howell et al. (2009). Since then there has been further sampling effort from various sources, including sidescan and multibeam, video and camera tows, ROV (remote operated vehicle) and AUV (automated underwater vehicle) deployments and trawl / grab surveys; the available data relating to VMEs are synthesised annually as far as possible by ICES WGDEC (ICES, 2017e).

3.4.4.3 Commonly encountered habitats at Rockall

According to Howell et al. (2009), the seabed on the Rockall Bank includes some rocky outcrops around Rockall island itself, and includes rock ridges and boulder fields interspersed with coarse carbonate sand further from the rock and fine carbonate sand around the edges of the bank. They also note a variety of geological sources for the sand on top of the bank other than carbonate in some areas, including sand derived from basalt and metamorphic rocks (Howell et al., 2009). Surveys of the East of Rockall bank have also been conducted but the depth of water here is beyond the limits of the fishery (>400 m) (Stewart et al., 2009). The main habitats by survey area, as evaluated by these surveys, are described in Table 14.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 36 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 11. Rockall bank habitat map from Howell et al., (2009). Note the NW Rockall Bank cSAC is now a recognised closed area.

Table 14. The main (commonly-encountered) habitats in different areas of the Rockall Bank, according to the 2006 survey (Howell et al., 2009).

Region Depth (m) Main habitats of bank

W and 271 - 342 Fine sand with iceberg plough marks made of parallel lines of cobble/ NW boulder. Clumps of Lophelia and rubble, associated with the plough lines. summit Some evidence of bottom trawling in the NW region, associated with coral rubble. Note The majority of this area is now protected as part of the NW Rockall Bank VME. Central 141 - 190 Large areas of exposed bedrock and rock outcrops fringed with boulder, summit cobble, pebbles and sand. Sand is coarse and rippled with areas of rubble. E. 210 - 280 Fine sand with iceberg plough marks; areas of mixed cobble and pebbly summit sand. No Lophelia was encountered but there may be some present based on sidescan output. E. flank 390 - 1600 Complex habitat mosaic on steep slopes; mixed outcrops of bedrock, boulder, cobble and pebbles; clumps of Lophelia and rubble. Sandy mud giving way to mud at the deepest stations. Note: Below the depth of the fishery SE 428 - 585 Muddy sand. region Note: Below the depth of the fishery

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 37 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

On this basis of the W and NW summits being within closed areas the ‘commonly- encountered’ habitats are found in the central summit and E. summit areas and were defined as follows: • Mixed sand / pebble / cobble / boulder / rubble with and without iceberg plough marks; • Bedrock / rock outcrops; • Coarse rippled sand from various geological sources; • Fine carbonate sand.

The mixed nature and lack of distinct boundaries of these habitats mean sub-characterization would be an artificial embellishment. On this basis the assessment team used Howell et al. (2009) descriptions and given the mixed nature of the habitats treated them as a single scoring element.

3.4.4.4 VMEs

Based on the 2006 surveys, Howell et al. (2009) identify three ‘reef’ habitats, based on habitat definitions in the Habitats Directive (since they were surveying to identify potential special areas of conservation (SAC)). These have been taken here to define VMEs, as follows: • Biogenic reefs: i.e. cold-water coral communities, including Lophelia pertusa and other taxa; • Rocky reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on bedrock and rocky outcrops • Stony reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on mixed rock, cobbles and boulders, where 50 % or more of the area is hard substrate (Howell et al. (2009) definition – the Habitats Directive is not specific).

Corals: Stony corals (mainly Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora occulata in European waters) can occur as encrusting fauna, in single colonies or clumps or patches or larger areas, or otherwise in some highly favourable environments can form large mounds several 100 metres high and across (‘carbonate mounds’). These mounds occur on the Porcupine, Hatton and Rockall banks, and have probably existed for several million years in the same place. Around Rockall are the Logachev mounds to the south and the West Rockall mounds to the west; these are protected from fishing (see Figure 9) but in any case, are below the maximum depth of this fishery (starting at ~500 m). In relation to this fishery, therefore, the habitat of potential concern is encrusting coral communities rather than mounds. Howell et al. (2009) note that a submersible survey in 1979 found coral communities scattered across the bank from ~150 m - 400 m, with larger reef-type structures starting below 500 m on the eastern flank. These shallower communities were made up of Lophelia and Madrepora, along with coral debris and associated fauna. The 2006 survey did not observe anything that would be considered ‘biogenic reef’ according to Habitat Directive definitions but did observe patchy clumps and scattered colonies of corals, particularly around the north and NW summit and down the eastern flank of the bank. It seems likely that coral cover has been lost between the 1979 survey and the 2006 survey, but the extent of loss is not clear. Records of coral and coral rubble on the Rockall bank are mapped in Figure 12.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 38 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 12. Distribution of Lophelia reef (top) and coral rubble (bottom) from the 2006 survey (Howell et al., 2009). Grey triangle=historical records, black circles=2006 survey points with presence of Lophelia / rubble, white circles=survey points with absence. Note: Contours are separated by 100 m; the first one is at 100 m depth (not zero).

Rocky reef: As noted above, rocky areas are mainly found in the central shallowest area of the bank, as well as off the eastern flank (>390 m i.e. below the depth of this fishery). Rocky areas are defined as ‘reefs’ (VMEs) where they have a high density of encrusting fauna; in this case encrusting and cup sponges, encrusting and cyclostome bryozoans, cup corals and

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 39 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017) anemones. They note that in the shallowest areas surveyed (140 m -190 m), the fauna was somewhat similar to rocky habitat at similar depths on the Scottish continental shelf, e.g. west of the Hebrides; this includes a diverse community of erect, branching and cup sponges as well as encrusting sponges and bryozoans, tunicates, anemones and encrusting keel worms. The cyclostome bryozoans, as well as Reteporella sp. (another species of leaf-like bryozoan) were, however, characteristic of Rockall. Stony reef: This habitat is more widely distributed across and around the bank, including associated with iceberg plough marks. The fauna is essentially the same as for rocky reefs (described above), but generally lacking a dense encrusting fauna; important species are encrusting sponges and bryozoans, keel worm and barnacles, but corals and anemones do not appear to be present. Squat lobsters (Munida sp.) were also characteristic of this habitat type. ICES WGDEC also collect and map records of VMEs from surveys (visual surveys of various kinds and trawl survey bycatch), including at Rockall – these records are updated annually and are available online at http://vme.ices.dk/map.aspx. These maps show records of individual VME indicator taxa (anemones, black corals, chemosynths, cup corals, gorgonians, sea pens, soft corals, sponges, stony corals, stylasterid corals) and for a ‘VME index’. Data can be filtered by year (1958-2015) and by confidence (high, medium, low); according to the number and type of records. The map is generated by mapping VME survey sightings / bycatch by ‘c-square’ (squares of 0.05O lat/long). The different VME indicator species are scored (by expert judgement) according to the FAO criteria for VMEs (see Table 13; rarity, function, fragility, life history and structural complexity) to give an overall score (output of the VME weighting algorithm) in the range 1 (low) to 5 (high) (the range runs from anemones at 1.4 to stony corals at 4.4). They then apply this scoring to records of VMEs in each c-square and categorise each square as low vs. medium vs. high for VMEs (VME index). Figure 13 shows the online map output (all types; selecting individual taxa does not alter the look of the map). Figure 14 shows the map as generated by WGDEC for their 2017 report.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 40 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 13. Online map of VME index by c-square for Rockall – all VME indicator taxa and habitat types are checked, year from 2006 onwards, other layers are NEAFC closed areas (orange) and the NEAFC limit (yellow). See http://vme.ices.dk/map.aspx.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 41 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 14. Output of the VME weighting algorithm as displayed in ICES (2017e). Note that this includes all records from the start of the time series. Yellow=low VME index, orange=medium, red=high; closed areas also shown.

3.4.4.5 NEAFC approach to managing habitats

As noted above, although jurisdictions are shared on Rockall Bank, responsibility for habitat protection appears to have been passed to NEAFC, who have established shared closed areas which are also enforced on the EU side of the line. The NEAFC approach to protecting VMEs is set out in Recommendation 19/2014 (NEAFC, 2014) as amended by Recommendation 9/2015 (EU, 2014). Essentially, the Recommendation defines a series of closed areas for VMEs, including the two (SW Rockall and NW Rockall) relevant to this fishery (not the Haddock Box). It also defines existing bottom fishing areas based on fishing activity 1987-2007; outside these areas fishing is defined as ‘exploratory’ and a scientific and regulatory framework is defined for such exploratory fishing. It also provides for move-on rules for VME encounters (defined as 30 kg live coral or 400 kg live sponge), requires vessels to quantify catch of VME indicators and provides for periodic review of the location and coordinates of the closed areas by ICES. On the EU side there are no statutory move-on rules for encounters with VMEs in EU waters but SFSAG operate under a voluntary code of conduct for these waters following the NEAFC recommendations (see appendix). The results of the most recent ICES review of these closed areas was published in 2017 (ICES, 2017f); they recommend maintaining all of them, and adjusting the NW Rockall closure to expand the boundaries of the closed area, as shown in Figure 15.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 42 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 15. Online map of VME index by c-square for Rockall, showing the slight difference between the NEAFC boundaries of the NW Rockall area (brown) and the ICES advice for changes to the boundaries of this area (blue). See http://vme.ices.dk/map.aspx.

3.4.4.6 Impacts on VMEs from fishing at Rockall

In 2006, Howell et al. (2009) reported direct evidence of damage to biogenic reef areas from trawl doors, as well as some discarded gillnets (noting that this certificate does not include gillnets). Their comparisons with surveys from the 1970s also suggest a loss of coral cover on the Rockall bank. It is therefore reasonable to assume that demersal fishing has in the past damaged VMEs at Rockall. A comparison of Figure 12 and Figure 13 / Figure 14, however, suggest that VMEs are still largely present in the same areas as the historical sightings. ICES’ advice to NEAFC on VMEs at Rockall (ICES, 2017f) notes that there was evidence for fishing with demersal trawl gear inside the NEAFC part of the Haddock Box (Figure 16). The assessment team requested further information from Marine Scotland Compliance in relation to non-compliance with the Haddock Box (on either side of the jurisdictional boundary). They informed the team that the issue arose from a poorly-drafted regulation on the Haddock Box regulations between 2013 and 2015. In March 2013, the wording of the Haddock Box included the following statement “All fishing of Rockall haddock, except with longlines, shall be prohibited in the areas…” This meant that only fishing by bottom gear targeting Rockall haddock was prohibited in the Haddock Box between 2013-2015 not fishing by bottom gear for other target species e.g. monkfish, squid, etc. It is these bottom trawling events which are reported in the ICES report. The wording of the Haddock Box regulation was amended in May 2015 to “All fishing, except with longlines, shall be prohibited in the areas…” e.g. NEAFC (2018). Marine Scotland now consider that the amended regulation has resolved the issue and note that there is minimal non-compliance with the Haddock Box (Gordon Hart, Marine Scotland Compliance, pers. comm.). The 2017 WGDEC report (ICES, 2017e) makes no

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 43 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017) comment about this issue, and data analysed post March 2015 to 2017 showed compliance with the Haddock Box (ICES, 2017g) (Figure 16 and Appendix 7 Haddock Box Compliance). On this basis, given the above information the team concluded that it is reasonable to assume that the Haddock Box functions as a closed area. Furthermore, an updated report by ICES on VMEs at Rockall (ICES, 2017h) confirmed the presence of VME indicators in the Haddock Box from new records submitted in 2017 justifying its inclusion as a closed area protecting VME habitats.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 44 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 16. Left-hand figure: VMS tracks (2015) of vessels in the NEAFC area reportedly using bottom trawl gear and travelling 1-5 knots, used by NEAFC as a definition of bottom trawling activity (ICES, 2016j); hatched areas = VME closed areas, outlined areas = NEAFC bottom fishing areas. Note: VMS tracks in EU waters are not shown because they were not analysed by ICES as part of this assessment. (there is difficulty in cross referencing this map, because neither contours nor the haddock box are shown, but the NW closed area is apparent by its distinctive ‘hook’ shape). The presence of bottom trawling in the haddock box area was resultant of the poorly worded regulation from 2013 – 2015 described in section 3.4.11 which has now been amended and compliance is evident in the 2016 data (right hand figure). Right-hand figure shows VMS compliance in 2016 with the inclusion and compliance of the haddock box.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 45 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

In 2017, WGDEC evaluated evidence of damage to a coral feature on the Rockall Bank which is not inside any protected area (including the Haddock Box), although it would be covered by the expanded boundaries of the NW Rockall closure advised by ICES since 2014 (see Figure 13). They found clear evidence of damage to the feature and signals in the form of trawl door tracks that fishing was responsible (ICES, 2017e) (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Images of a coral feature in the part of the Rockall Bank open to trawl fishing: top four images from 2011; bottom four from 2016. Note this area is not within the bounds of any protected area (see (ICES, 2017e, 2017f)).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 46 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.4.4.7 Evaluation of exposure of VMEs to the UoA

The assessment team evaluated the proportion of the total haddock fishing area which is closed as a result of the NEAFC closed areas on the Rockall Bank. This was done by overlaying the VME / closed area maps on a grid and limiting the area down to 400 m (the maximum depth for haddock trawling at Rockall). The area closed to fishing as a proportion of the total area <400 m is 45 % based on this analysis. If the Haddock Box is excluded (i.e. only VME closed areas are considered), the closed area makes up 31 %. In other words, 69 % of the total bank area <400 m is not closed due to VMEs, with the Haddock box included (justified by its VME index (ICES, 2017g) only 55 % of the total bank area is open to bottom trawling for haddock. For the areas with VMEs (taken to be the points with high or medium VME index; Figure 14), it is estimated that ~70 % of the total fishable area which is likely to have VMEs is protected by the VME closed areas. Including the Haddock Box in this analysis it is ~75 %.

3.4.5 Rockall ecosystem

3.4.5.1 Oceanography

Rockall is relatively far north (57.6oN) but is situated in the path of the warm North Atlantic Current derived from the Gulf Stream, and the mean annual SST in the Rockall Trough is ~10 °C (Figure 18). Generally surface current flow is in a northerly direction, but at depths below ~400 m - 600 m, cold water formed in the Arctic flows south through the Faroes-Shetland Channel and this can spill over into the deeper parts of the Rockall Trough (between Rockall and Scotland). A full summary is provided at Gov.Scot (2017c). There can also be cyclonic flow around the Rockall Bank, as well as upwelling (see references in Neat and Campbell, 2011).

Figure 18. Surface currents in the North Atlantic; red star indicates Rockall; from Neat (2016).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 47 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.4.5.2 Observed changes to the ecosystem

ICES provide an annual summary of ecosystem changes in the Celtic Sea ecosystem (ICES, 2016k), which they divide into the Malin Shelf (NW Scotland including Rockall), the Celtic Sea/W. Ireland and the Irish Sea. According to ICES, long-term monitoring suggests the following general changes to this ecosystem: • Mean annual SST of the Rockall Trough has increased from ~9.3°C in 2001 to a peak of 10.1°C in 2006, with a cooling trend since then. Salinity in the upper 800 m of the Rockall Trough has also shown an increase from the early nineties until 2010, with a decrease since. Temperature impacts are visible in the migration, distribution and spawning of key pelagic fish species such as blue whiting, mackerel, horse mackerel and boarfish, as well as the recruitment of some gadoids. ICES notes that the region is at the edge of the geographical range of several important species, potentially making these species more susceptible to environmental variation/change. • Phytoplankton abundance and the abundance of diatom and dinoflagellate species in shelf and oceanic waters show long-term declines since 1958. There has also been a decline in overall copepod abundance; the cold-water species Calanus finmarchicus and Pseudocalanus spp. have decreased, but the warm-water copepod C. helgolandicus has increased in abundance and has spread northwards. • The abundance of breeding seabirds has shown a broad downward trend since the early 2000s. Populations of grey seals have, however, increased over at least the past thirty years, though they now appear to be stabilising. • Fishing pressure on commercial stocks has decreased since its peak in 1998; average

F/FMSY is now close to one. Overall biomass of commercial stocks has also increased;

the average SSB/Btrigger is >1 (i.e. on average B>Btrigger; see Figure 19). • Fishing effort by bottom mobile gears has decreased by ~35 % from 2003 to 2014, reducing the fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 48 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 19. Time series of average SSB/Btrigger ratio by commercial species guild in the Celtic Sea ecoregion; includes all stocks for which a Btrigger is estimated. From ICES (2016k).

Although causal factors for ecosystem change can only be inferred, it appears from this list as if the key driver of ongoing ecosystem modification in the Rockall region is climate change. It has been thought by some that fishing pressure was one driver of the decline in bird populations, but this cannot explain their continuing decline, given the reduction in fishing effort and particularly when contrasted with the increase in seal populations; although the ongoing reduction in discarding may play a role.

3.4.5.3 Fish in the ecosystem

According to Neat and Campbell (2011) the fish assemblage at Rockall is a subset of the assemblage characterising the West coast of Scotland; a comparison of surveys at the two areas show a suite of species present on the Scottish shelf but not at Rockall, but none present only at Rockall. Estimates of species curve asymptotes suggest that Rockall has overall about two thirds of the fish species in the west coast assemblage. They conclude that the depauperate nature of the community may relate to several factors: i) lack of inshore habitat (particularly nursery habitat); species with juvenile habitat preference for inshore/coastal areas such as pollack, Norway pout, dab and plaice were absent or rare and saithe was present only as adults; ii) relative isolation resulting in fewer recruitment events; and iii) small size of the bank resulting in possible competitive exclusion (they surmise that this might be the case with whiting which is intermittently present but rare). Certain species were particularly abundant at Rockall compared to the west coast; e.g. haddock, poor cod (Trisopterus minutus), golden redfish, black-bellied rosefish and grey gurnard; all of these are predominately benthic invertebrate feeders, although it is not clear if this is the reason for their abundance.

3.4.5.4 Ecosystem modelling

The Malin shelf ecosystem has not been as intensively studied as, for example, the North Sea. In recent years, there have been attempts to develop and fit ecosystem models for the purposes of informing fisheries management (Alexander et al. (2015) and Bailey et al. (2011)). The models have had some difficulty in fitting historical data and in explaining recent trends.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 49 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

For example, EcoPath assumes that the system is initially at equilibrium, while since the time series from the west coast of Scotland is shorter than for the North Sea, the dataset starts when various gadoid species (notably cod and whiting) were already in the process of decline; this is problematic to model within the EcoPath/Sim framework, according to Bailey et al. (2011). The scenario modelling also has difficulty in explaining why gadoid populations in Subarea 6a have not seen the same recovery as in the North Sea, despite the same management framework being applied (the Cod Recovery Plan). Alexander et al. (2015) conclude that neither seals nor bycatch of juveniles in the Nephrops fishery can explain this phenomenon. Overall, they note that fishing is the key driver of the ecosystem, and fishing stocks at FMSY would benefit cod stocks particularly; whiting less so, according to the model. They note, however, that there remains a lack of understanding of predator-prey and recruitment dynamics in the west of Scotland system relative to elsewhere in NW Europe, and the massive gadoid decline still cannot be easily explained by existing models, even when fishing is incorporated. How might this apply to Rockall? Based on the analysis of Neat and Campbell (2011) the assessment team can surmise that the food web at Rockall, as it relates to commercially- exploited species, is a simplified version of the west coast shelf food web (Figure 20); presumably groups that are rarer/absent at Rockall such as Norway pout, pollack, whiting and immature cod play less/no role, while species that are more abundant such as poor cod, redfish and rosefish play a more significant role. Based on Neat and Campbell (2011), however, we can infer that the food web is likely to be qualitatively like that of the Scottish west coast.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 50 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 20. Biomass and energy flow for the West coast of Scotland ecosystem, as modelled by EcoPath (Alexander et al., 2015).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 51 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Jurisdiction

The fishery is shared stock between the NEAFC international zone and EU waters. The fishery takes place in the EU (UK) exclusive economic zone and international waters, and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of NEAFC regulation (international waters) and EU, UK member state regulations in EU waters.

3.5.2 Objectives

The current CFP regulation 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. 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. 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. Further objectives of the CFP include the implementation of the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, the collection of scientific data, elimination of discards, provision of conditions for economically viable and competitive fishing industries, adjustment of fishing capacity to the levels of fishing opportunities and contributing to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects.

3.5.3 Legal basis and management set-up

The fishery is managed by NEAFC in international waters and within the context of EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the Scottish EEZ. In international waters, NEAFC sets quotas and oversees closure of areas and habitat protection, among other things (see discussion under Principles 1 and 2 above). The provisions of the CFP are transposed into the Scottish legal system in the form of Scottish Statutory Instruments. The EU quota is divided among member states according to the principle of relative stability. The major part of the UK quota is given to the Scottish fishing industry. The Production Organizations (POs) manage quota distribution at the regional level. The CFP applies to all fishing activities in EU waters, including the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and to the activities of EU vessels outside EU’s marine jurisdiction. The main legal bases for fisheries management in Scottish territorial waters, as well as management of activities by Scottish registered fishing vessels outside Scottish territorial waters, are the 2013 Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act and the 2010 Marine Act, with supplementary legislation at lower levels (secondary or subordinate legislation, such as specific requirements to fishing operations and gear). The regional distribution of responsibilities within UK fisheries management is fixed in an agreement between the Fisheries Administrations of England (Defra – the Department for Environment,

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 52 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Food & Rural Affairs), Northern Ireland (the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)), Scotland (Marine Scotland) and Wales (the Welsh Government) from 2012. Marine Scotland is the implementing body under the Scottish Government, responsible for all components of fisheries management, from science to management and enforcement. In accordance with the Marine Act, its full special jurisdiction is limited to Scottish territorial waters, but it is also conferred the authority to enforce Scottish fisheries legislation in the EEZ and flag-state responsibilities towards Scottish registered fishing vessels outside EU waters. Marine Scotland works closely with the Producer Organisations (POs), which are delegated responsibility for managing fish quotas on behalf of their members. At a UK level, Marine Scotland works with several other bodies of governance, such as Defra and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). MMO is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) under Defra, which delivers legal, monitoring and enforcement functions.

3.5.4 Stakeholders and consultation processes

Scottish fisheries management includes a sophisticated system for stakeholder consultation. The main mechanisms are i) public meetings (regional fishing industry assemblies, quayside conversations and fishing sector focus groups); ii) advisory and working groups (the Inshore Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (IFMAC), the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (FMAC) and the Scottish Discard Steering Group); and iii) ad-hoc events, such as conferences. FMAC was set up by the Cabinet Secretary (effectively: Minister) for Rural Affairs and the Environment in 2011, as part of a broader political and management effort to implement the cod recovery plan and increase fisherman – and Scottish – influence in the forthcoming reform of the CFP. It is chaired by Marine Scotland and includes representatives from the fishing industry representative bodies, fish producer organizations, environmental organizations and Marine Scotland Policy and Science. FMAC makes recommendations to Marine Scotland – and, on request, to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment – on matters connected to the development of fisheries legislation and policies, the allocation of fishing opportunities, management mechanisms and objectives for and strategies towards international negotiations. FMAC meets 1-4 times per year, and agendas and minutes from the meetings are available for download on Marine Scotland’s website. Marine Scotland aims to circulate documents for discussion no less than four weeks in advance of meetings to allow time for the constituent organizations to consult with their members. Decisions are sought made through consensus, but objections are recorded in the minutes, on request. Marine Scotland also seeks the opinion of stakeholders on running regulatory issues through occasional consultations papers posted on their website. Another important interface between the industry and authorities are the Producer Organisation (POs). These are membership organizations for industry actors whose role, according to EU legislation, is to market the products of their members and implement measures that promote the concentration of supply and stabilize prices. POs are also allocated the vast majority of UK quotas by Fisheries Administrations and are responsible for managing these quotas on behalf of their members. There are currently 10 Scottish POs recognized by Marine Scotland, among them the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation (SFO).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 53 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Other stakeholder organizations include Seafood Scotland, which was set up in 1999 to increase the value of return to the Scottish seafood sector, and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association (SWFPA), the largest fishing association in Scotland, which protects and promotes its members’ interests across a range of national and international political arenas. SWFPA, in turn, is part of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), which works to promote the collective interests of Scotland’s ten geographically and sectorally defined fishermen’s associations. The SFF plays an active role in advancing the interests of Scottish fishermen at national and international levels by lobbying government officials in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. It also plays a key role in helping to inform fisheries science, management of the marine environment; inshore fisheries management, marine spatial planning, marine safety regulations and industry recruitment and training programmes. An example of a more ad hoc interface between different industry actors and authorities is the Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group (GITAG), which is hosted by SFF with Marine Scotland participation, established in 2015 to foster flexible working partnerships between fishermen, industry and public bodies, gear technologists and science in the implementation of the landing obligation in 2019. The situation is similar at the international level, where user groups participate in meetings in NEAFC and the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC); NGOs are also allowed to participate as observers. The Advisory Councils are the main consultation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities at EU level. They include European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. They actively develop policy advice to the European Commission and are considered as part of the EU’s management system. NWWAC currently has 70 member organizations from the EU and the member states, including fisheries associations, POs and NGOs. Both user groups and NGOs are also represented on NEAFC meetings,

3.5.5 Resolution of disputes

At the national level in Scotland, 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. In practice, the vast majority of disputes are resolved within the management system, which incorporates ample formal and informal opportunities for fishers and other stakeholders to interact with the authorities, e.g. to clear out disagreement and conflict among users and between users and authorities. At the international level, a state can institute proceedings against another state through mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or bring a dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). At the regional level, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2004 adopted a recommendation for compulsory dispute settlement. None of these mechanisms have so far been widely used as means for solving fisheries disputes, but ICJ has over many decades had a number of cases regarding fisheries jurisdiction, and ITLOS has in recent years had cases on the prompt release of detained fishing vessels and the use of provisional measures. PCA was called upon in 2013 to solve certain aspects of the dispute between the EU and Faroe Islands regarding the coastal state management regimes in the Norwegian Sea. Hence, there are mechanisms in place within the Law of the Sea, and international law more widely,

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 54 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

that the parties can invoke in cases of serious disagreement. However, these mechanisms have not yet been tested and proven to be effective in cases most likely to arise in the context of the fishery under assessment, e.g. disputes on quota allocation or the technical regulation of fisheries.

3.5.6 Enforcement and compliance

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the fishery is taken care of by Marine Scotland Compliance, in collaboration with enforcement authorities at UK and EU level (including the European Fisheries Control Agency) and exchange of information with relevant authorities in other states, including under the auspices of the NEAFC Control and Enforcement Scheme. All enforcement activities are carried out based on a risk-based framework, identifying where resources can be best put to use at any time in order to optimize compliance. The NEAFC Control and Enforcement Scheme applies to all vessels used or intended for use for fishing activities in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (international waters in the Northeast Atlantic) (Art. 2). It contains comprehensive detailed requirements to the Contracting Parties as regards control measure (such as authorization, notification and marking of gear; Chapter II), monitoring of fisheries (such as recording, reporting and application of VMS; Chapter III), inspections at sea (Chapter IV), port state control of foreign fishing vessels (Chapter V), infringements (Chapter VI) and measures to promote compliance by non-contracting party fishing vessels (Chapter VII). In summary, the Scheme obliges the NEAFC Contracting Parties to a considerable level of sharing of catch information, harmonization of regulations and national contribution to monitoring in international waters. The EU system for fisheries control is laid out in the Control Regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 2010 (EU, 2009). 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. 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. 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 vessel monitoring system (VMS) and an automatic identification system (AIS), to be generally applied by vessels above 12 and 15 meters, respectively, and that they make the use of fishing logbooks mandatory for all vessels above 10 meters and electronic logbook for all vessels above 12 meters. The Regulation also introduced an obligation of member states to employ real-time closure of fisheries, under certain conditions. Further, member states are obliged to carry out monitoring of fishing activities by inspection vessels or surveillance aircraft and physical inspections of fishing vessels; in addition to national inspectors, a pool of Community inspectors shall also be set up. Procedures are established for situations where infringements are detected, including enhanced follow-up when infringements are serious, such as misreporting of catches of more than 500 kg or 10 % of what is reported in the logbook. Further, provisions are given for proceedings and sanctions.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 55 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Marine Scotland Compliance carries out the UK’s EU responsibilities for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance in Scotland. It has 19 offices across the country and operates three surveillance vessels and two aircraft. In accordance with EU legislation, it takes care of information gathering through VMS (through the Marine Monitoring Centre) and electronic logbooks, and carries out all other obligations conferred upon Scotland, in accordance with the detailed reporting and control requirements in EU legislation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). A Registration of Buyers and Sellers (RBS) Scheme has been fully operational in Scotland since 2005 and requires all buyers and sellers of first sale fish to be registered, and all auction sites of first sale fish and shellfish to be designated. All relevant regulations and information on enforcement activities are available on Marine Scotland’s website. 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. For serious infringements, a point system is applied, 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. In addition to the point system, a graduated system of penalties is used at national level in Scotland, ranging from oral advice to advisory letter, official written warning, various forms of statutory notices (such as revocation and suspension notices), financial administrative penalties (up to £10,000), other material enforcement measures (such as seizure and disposal of fish) and formal prosecution. Fixed penalty levels for different types of offences are publicly available; e.g. the lowest level of infringements leads to a penalty of £250 for a first-time offence and £500 the second time, while the case is referred to prosecution if the violation is repeated. According to Marine Scotland Compliance, the level of compliance is high in the fishery under assessment. In correspondence with the assessment team, they report that there were no enforcement issues with Scottish and UK administered fishing vessels in recent years concerning Rockall haddock specifically. See explanation in 3.4.4.6 regarding the haddock box resolution. They have given priority to the fishing areas where catches have been highest, and last-haul analysis inspections have regularly been carried out. The observance of the Scottish Cod Real Time Closure scheme has remained consistently good throughout the period, and closures are particularly respected by Scottish registered vessels. All prosecuted cases for the last decade are listed on the website of Marine Scotland Compliance. An average of eight cases have been prosecuted each year for the entire Scottish fisheries sector. Few infringements are of a serious nature. The five cases prosecuted in 2015 were related to the failure to comply with e-log requirements (fined £2,000), failure to submit sales notes (fined £350), retention of skate after a closure (admonished), retention of ling after a closure (fined £4,000) and retention of mackerel after a closure (fined £3,000). Under the data exchange arrangements with other states, bilaterally and under the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme, Scottish enforcement authorities have not been informed of any violations committed by the UoA fishers in waters outside EU jurisdiction at the time of this assessment. As follows from the above, the fishery has in place a relatively comprehensive system for monitoring, control and surveillance, including physical checks of fishing operations, catch and gear, as well as a fine-meshed sanctioning system. In addition to these coercive compliance

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 56 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

mechanism, various forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have proved effective to deliver compliance in other fisheries. In the fishery under assessment, there might be a degree of social control in the relatively small Scottish fishing communities, and the high level of user-group involvement may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good. Inspectors are trained to approach the fishermen in as forthcoming a manner as possible – starting from the position that they follow regulations – and interfering with the fishing activities as little as possible (cf. the inspection codes of conduct and enforcement strategies of the UK Marine Management Organisation). Importantly, they perceive themselves as having a guidance-providing and not only a policing role towards the fishing fleet.

3.5.7 Review of the management system

The Scottish system for fisheries management is subject to a number of review mechanisms, covering all major parts of the management system. Marine Scotland – which is the overall fisheries management body in Scotland, responsible for all areas of fisheries management at national level, from science to regulation and enforcement – performs annual reviews of its own work, spanning all areas of the organization’s responsibility. Annual reviews are also performed within different parts of the organization for scrutiny at higher levels; for example Marine Scotland Science submits annual review reports to the Marine Scotland Board. In 2010, an independent panel appointed by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment evaluated the Scottish fisheries sector, including its system of governance. In 2015–2016, a comprehensive review of the performance and structure of Marine Scotland was conducted by the Scottish Government. The views of staff, customers and major stakeholders were sought, including their experience with Marine Scotland’s efforts to communicate effectively with stakeholders. Similarly, at UK level, the Prime Minister in 2003 tasked the Strategy Unit with carrying out a review of options for a sustainable UK fishing industry in the medium to long term, published in 2004. The POs were subject to a comprehensive review by Marine Scotland in 2010–2011. The purposes, functioning and impact of the producer organizations were evaluated, including their management of quotas. All these reviews are publicly available on Marine Scotland’s website. At EU level, the CFP is reviewed in connection with the major revisions of its basic regulations every tenth year. In addition to internal review processes, an independent evaluation was commissioned by the European Commission ahead of the 2013 reform to assess the CFP from both a natural and social sciences point of view. The scientific component of the fishery under assessment is routinely assessed by ICES, as is the management plan for the fishery under assessment. NEAFC was subject to a comprehensive review in 2014, focused on both internal and external challenges, not least the organization’s role in the setting of TAC of stocks that straddle waters under national and international jurisdiction in the Northeast Atlantic.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 57 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment In terms of Principle 1 there is currently no other MSC assessment which fishes the Rockall haddock stock and therefore no harmonisation is applicable. For Principle 2 there is currently no other fishery certified on the Rockall ecosystem which requires consideration of cumulative ecosystem effect and therefore harmonisation concentrated on Principle 3. For Principle 3 there is partial overlap within this assessment and other SFSAG fisheries (Table 15). Overall scores between this assessment and the other SFSAG fisheries are similar except for PI 3.1.1 on account of the different management regimes for the UoAs. For this assessment international waters within Rockall (under NEAFC governance) required scoring this is not part of the other SFSAG assessments, while for the other SFSAG assessments Norwegian waters management was considered but this is not applicable at Rockall. Table 15. Comparison of Principle 3 performance indicator scores for overlapping SFSAG fisheries

Fishery FCR 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5

Saithe 1.3 100 100 100 100 95 90 90 80 80 MEP (2013)

Haddock 1.3 85 100 100 100 90 100 95 90 80 MEC (2016)

Cod MEC 2.0 85 100 100 - 90 100 100 - 90* (2017)

This fishery 2.0 95 100 100 - 90 100 100 - 90* * 3.2.4 in the FCR v2.0

4.2 Previous assessments There are no previous assessments on this fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies This full assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0 for assessment procedure with version 2.0 scoring. Adjustments to the Default Assessment Tree were not required.

The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015) was used to produce the report.

The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was not used in this assessment.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 58 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

Stakeholders were informed of the scheduled site visit, its time and location and the proposed audit team on 26th January 2017. No comments or requests for interviews were received within the allotted time period of the notification. The visit was held on 28th February through 2nd March 2017 in Aberdeen, between Hugh Jones, Jo Gascoigne, Robin Cook and Geir Honneland, Jennifer Mouat (Aegir Consultancy for SFSAG) and Elena Balestri (SFF). Mike Park (SFSAG chair) and Ben Dipper (Scotland Government) were in contact by phone during the assessment. Marine Scotland Science and Marine Scotland Compliance (Simon Dryden) were also contacted. A full list of stakeholders consulted during and after the site visit are listed in Table 16.

Table 16. Stakeholders consulted within the assessment.

Name Organisation Type of consultation

Jennifer Mouat The Aegir Consultancy / SFSAG Provision of information during the representative site visit

Mike Park Chief Executive Scottish White Fish Provision of information during the Producers' Association / SFSAG site visit representative

Gordon Hart Head of Access and Control, Marine Provision of information on Scotland compliance via email correspondence

Francis Neat Marine Scotland Provision of information on VME compliance via email correspondence

Liz Clarke Marine Scotland Science. Marine Provision of information on landings Laboratory and discard data via email correspondence

Elena Balestri Scottish Fishermans Federation (SFF) Provision of information on landings and discard data via site visit in person and via email correspondence

Nick Bailey Marine Scotland Science. Marine Provision of information regarding NS Laboratory cod ICES advice via telephone.

Nick Hancock NA –longest occupation record of 45 Telephone call regarding seal days on Rockall in June and July 2014 behaviour at Rockall

Debbie Russell SMRU Grey seal distributions at Rockall via email

Robin Cook MEC Assessor

Jo Gascoigne MEC Assessor

Geir Honneland MEC Assessor

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 59 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Name Organisation Type of consultation

Hugh Jones MEC Assessment team leader

Information obtained: • SFSAG: Information about the functioning and management of the fishery (operations, data gathering and analysis, management structures and responsibilities, management plans, regulations, enforcement etc.); • Marine Scotland Compliance: Information on enforcement, sanctions and non- compliance; • Marine Scotland Science and SFF: Information on landings, discards and ETP data, interpretation of records; observer data. • Nick Hancock: Observations of grey seals from Rockall during his occupation. • SMRU: Distribution of grey seals around West coast Scotland and confirmation of population status at Rockall

4.4.2 Evaluation Techniques a) Media announcements: MEC selected the MSC as media outlet. The MSC press release targeted a wide range of stakeholders within the sustainable seafood industry, ensuring that key stakeholders were notified of this fishery’s announcement. b) Methodology for information gathering: Review of data and documentation, interview of stakeholders. c) Scoring process: Scoring was completed on the third day of the site visit, followed by additional email correspondence between assessors afterwards, mainly in relation to Principle 2 discard and ETP data which was received from Marine Scotland after the site visit.

The scores were decided as follows:

How many scoring issues met? SG60 SG80 SG100

All 60 80 100

Half FAIL 70 90

Less than half FAIL 65 85

More than half FAIL 75 95

Note that where there is only one scoring issue in the SG, the issue can be partially scored – in this case the team used their judgement to determine what proportion of it was met, e.g. at the 100 level, a small part met = 85, about half met = 90, nearly all met = 95. d) Decision rule for reaching the final recommendation: The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows:

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 60 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

• No PIs scores below 60; • The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above.

The aggregate score for each Principle is the sum of the weighted score of each Performance Indicator within that Principle e) Scoring elements: The set of scoring elements considered in the assessment are listed in Table 17. Scoring elements are scored in accordance with Table 4 of FCR 2.0.

Table 17. Scoring elements.

Component Scoring elements Main/Not Data- main deficient or not

Principle 1 (target Haddock in Subarea 6b N/A No species)

Primary species Saithe, ling, whiting, monkfish Main No

megrim, golden redfish, cuckoo ray Not main N/A

Secondary species None Main N/A

cod, thornback ray, lemon sole, wolffish, Not main N/A witch, grey gurnard, red gurnard and blackbellied rosefish, tusk.

ETP species Common skate complex (blue skate), Grey N/A No seal, spurdog

Habitats CEH (as one element): N/A No Mixed sand / pebble / cobble / boulder / rubble with and without iceberg plough marks; Bedrock / rock outcrops; Coarse rippled sand from various geological sources; Fine carbonate sand.

Biogenic reefs: i.e. cold-water coral N/A No communities, including Lophelia pertusa and other taxa; Rocky reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on bedrock and rocky outcrops Stony reefs: encrusting ‘VME’ type organisms on mixed rock, cobbles and boulders, where 50% or more of the area is hard substrate

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 61 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

5 Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The Eligibilty Date has been set as the date of certification, pending the successful outcome of this evaluation. Product caught by SFSAG after the date of certification will be eligible to enter further chains of custody.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery This fishery is governed by the requirements of NEAFC, the European Union and the UK government and as a result, presents a robust traceability system.

The fishing vessels involved in this fishery are required to complete an electronic logbook of all catches that they complete during fishing activities. The vessels are also directly tracked through the use of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). The fishery is enforced through the relevant jurisdictions’ fishery Monitoring Control and Surveillance systems and authorities (as detailed in Section Enforcement and compliance). This system and the management relating to the fishery are considered to be robust and well maintained. The risk of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing within this fishery is considered low.

Upon gear hauling, fish are brought onboard and graded per length and in accordance to what is required for the destination marketplace. Fish are then placed in open containers in their graded sizes. The catch is then covered with ice to maintain the temperature of the fish. There is no processing or freezing onboard and fish are landed fresh. The boxes are labelled onboard with species, weight and date of capture and will be marked as MSC for haddock caught within the area of the UoC. As a second check, the date of capture can be linked to the e-logbooks, which gives a high degree of certainty where the vessels have fished (for example, whether they have fished outside the UoC).

Upon landing, the labelled boxes remain separated by fishing area and are either purchased through a direct sales agreement between the fishing company and a processor (e.g. is transferred direct from the vessel to the purchaser's vehicles at the point of landing) as well as sales through the auction at the port of landing (sales from fishing company to first buyer). Therefore traceability to the point of first sale is maintained by the vessel skipper. This is the intended change of ownership and subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required after this transaction. Fish may be landed at ports in the UK.

EU traceability legislation now dictates that all fish brought to auction must be labelled with the vessel name, type of fishing (e.g. trawl, seine etc) and ICES catch area prior to the sale so buyers can make informed purchasing decisions prior to and during the auction sale. Once sold, MSC certified stocks are invoiced by the auction under a different MSC-specific code setting out clearly on the invoice the difference between MSC and non-MSC purchases (this code is related directly to the species, gear and ICES area to ensure that only the correct certified stocks can be labelled as MSC on the invoice by the auction).

The combination of The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005, EC logbooks and custom and practice provide a series of

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 62 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

independent and verifiable mass-balance measures that would enable transgressions to be detected.

The Registered Buyers and Sellers Regulation requires that all transactions at the first point of sale are fully recorded, allowing immediate traceability between the fishery and the first point of the chain of custody whilst the logbook provides a record of the time, location and nature (species and volumes) of the catch. Each vessel in the client group is required to sign terms of membership that stipulate that produce from the Unit of Certification must be both segregated and traceable via logbooks and other mechanisms (e.g. GPS-linked weighing records). Adherence to these terms and conditions would form part of the annual surveillance audit requirements.

Table 18. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls)

Potential for non-certified gear/s The Unit of Assessment (UoA) for this fishery has specifically to be used within the fishery included all gears used by the vessels under assessment. The risk of a non-certified gear being used is therefore extremely low.

Potential for vessels from the There is a possibility of the vessels from the UoC fishing outside UoC to fish outside the UoC or in the UoC on the same trip. As fish come onboard, they are different geographical areas (on graded and placed into open labelled boxes. The boxes are the same trips or different trips) labelled onboard with species, weight and date of capture and are marked as MSC for haddock caught within the area of the UoC. The date and position of catch would link with the e-log to show where a vessel was fishing; this gives a high degree of security where vessels may fish different management zones in the same fishing trip. Note that any changes in fishing areas are logged. The separate labeled boxes also provide physical separation of catch on their way to port.

Potential for vessels outside of Vessels from outside the UoC may fish for the same stock but the UoC or client group fishing will not be covered by this assessment. To avoid the risk of the same stock vessels landing haddock from outside the UoC as MSC (i.e. vessels not associated with this assessment) an up to date list of vessels is maintained by the SFSAG on their website (http://scottishfsag.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MSC- Saithe-and-haddock-Master-110217.pdf) (note: vessel list is the same as for currently certified SFSAG haddock, cod and saithe fisheries). This list can then be used by companies with MSC CoC to ensure product is originating from a vessel covered by this assessment.

Risks of mixing between certified One risk of mixing is between haddock and other similar species and non-certified catch during (such as saithe). All vessels maintain catch separately by storage, transport, or handling species (meaning physical identification of species on land is activities (including transport at still possible as product has not been filleted (for example). The sea and on land, points of risk of mixing on-board the vessels during storage or handling is landing, and sales at auction) seen as low.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 63 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Risks of mixing between certified As described above, only basic processing (gutting) is and non-certified catch during completed on board the vessel and all fish are landed ‘whole’. processing activities (at-sea The risk of mixing between certified and non-certified product and/or before subsequent Chain during processing is seen to be low. of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified No transhipment occurs within this fishery and so the risk is seen and non-certified catch during as minimal. transhipment

Any other risks of substitution No other risks have been identified. Product is landed directly between fish from the UoC and chain of custody will be required from the first change of (certified catch) and fish from ownership (either directly on landing or through the auction outside this unit (non-certified system). When product is sold in the auction it is sold by vessel catch) before subsequent Chain and by species (and is backed up by logbook data). Risk of of Custody is required mixing of certified and non-certified product here is therefore minimal.

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The assessment team have considered the risks of traceability in the fishery and have determined that product landed by vessels covered by the SFSAG vessel list (found at the following link, http://scottishfsag.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MSC-Saithe-and-haddock- Master-110217.pdf) (note: vessel list is the same as for currently certified SFSAG cod, haddock and saithe fisheries) and originating from within the Unit of Assessment covered by this assessment (see Section 3.1) shall be eligible to enter into further chains of custody. Product landed from vessels not included on the SFSAG list (as described above) will not be eligible to enter into further chains of custody.

Product is eligible for landing at the following landing ports:

• Peterhead • Scalloway • Mallaig • Kinlochbervie • Scrabster • Fraserburgh • Lerwick Further chain of custody certification will be required for certified product at the first point of sale (either directly at the point of landing or through the auction). Any additional storage of product by the fishing vessel (i.e. storage not on-board the vessel) other than storage organised by an auction, will require separate assessment to determine if chain of custody is required.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 64 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody No IPI stocks were identified in this assessment.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 65 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 19. Principle level scores.

Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84.2 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.0 Principle 3 – Management System 90.4

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 20. Summary of PI scores.

Princi Compo- Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score -ple nent

1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 90 Outcome 0.33 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.5 N/a

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 75 One Manage- 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 75 0.67 ment 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 80

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 95

2.1.1 Outcome 0.33 90 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.33 85 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 90

2.2.1 Outcome 0.33 90 Second- ary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.33 80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 80 Two 2.3.1 Outcome 0.33 75 ETP 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.33 75 species 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.33 75

2.4.1 Outcome 0.33 80

Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.33 70

2.4.3 Information 0.33 85

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 66 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Princi Compo- Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score -ple nent

2.5.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Eco- 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.33 80 system 2.5.3 Information 0.33 80

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 85 Govern- ance and 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.33 95 policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.33 100

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 80 Three Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 95 manage- 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 85 ment system Monitoring & management 90 3.2.4 0.25 performance evaluation

6.3 Summary of Conditions The SFSAG Rockall haddock fishery achieved a score under 80 for five Performance Indicators. In summary, five conditions were raised, summarised in Table 21. Table 21: Summary of Conditions

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised number Indicator condition? (Y/N/NA)

There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy detailing the harvest strategy is being 1 1.2.1a N implemented and is responsive to the state of the stock resulting from ICES advice.

There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy detailing the harvest strategy is being 2 implemented and well-defined HCRs are in place that 1.2.2a N will be responsive to the status of the stock as the PRI is approached.

There needs to be clear evidence that direct effects 3 of the fishery are highly unlikely to create 2.3.1b N unacceptable impacts on blue skate.

There needs to be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for blue skate from the fishery will 4 2.3.2c N work based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 67 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised number Indicator condition? (Y/N/NA)

There needs to be sufficient information available such that the impact of this fishery on common skate 5 complex (blue skate) can be quantitatively estimated, 2.3.3a N and hence it can be determined whether the fishery may be a threat to the recovery of the population

The fishery needs to provide quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being 6 2.4.2c/d N implemented successfully, with particular reference to the voluntary move on rule

6.4 Recommendations In relation to ETP, the team propose a non-binding recommendation, that the fishery seek additional PET trips each year to Rockall. In relation to VMEs, see scoring PI 2.4.1, the team propose a non-binding recommendation, that the fishery support the adoption of ICES’ adjusted boundaries to the NW Rockall closed area. See Section 3.4.4 and Habitats scoring PIs 2.4.1 for full description.

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: FCR 7.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

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

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 68 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

References Alexander, K.A., Heymans, J.J., Magill, S., Tomczak, M.T., Holmes, S.J., Wilding, T.A., 2015. Investigating the recent decline in gadoid stocks in the west of Scotland shelf ecosystem using a foodweb model. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72, 436–449. Bailey, N., Bellini, D.M.B.L., Fernandes, P.G., Fox, C., Heymans, S., Holmes, S., Howe, J., Hughes, S., Magill, S., McIntyre, F., McKee, D., Ryan, M.R., Smith, I.P., Tyldsely, G., Watret, R., Turrell, W.R., 2011. The West of Scotland Marine Ecosystem: A Review of Scientific Knowledge. Marine Science Scotland. Blacker, R.W., 1982. Rockall and its fishery. Ministry of Ariculture, Fisheries and Food Directirate of Fisheries Research. Brodziak, J., 2005. Technical Description of STATCAM Version 1.2. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 166 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543. Cook, R.M., 1989. Assessing a fish stock with limited data: An example from Rockall haddock. ICES CM 1989/G:4. Costello, M.J., McCrea, M., Freiwald, A., Lundälv, T., Jonsson, L., Bett, B.J., Weering, T.C.E. van, Haas, H. de, Roberts, J.M., Allen, D., 2005. Role of cold-water Lophelia pertusa coral reefs as fish habitat in the NE Atlantic, in: Freiwald, A., Roberts, J.M. (Eds.), ColdWaterCorals Ecosystems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 771–805. Ellis, J.R., McCully-Philips, S.R., Poisson, F., 2017. A review of capture and post-release mortality of elasmobranchs. Journal of Fish Biology 90, 653–722. EU, 1998. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. European Union. EU, 2009. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 88/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. European Union. EU, 2014. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Recommendations for adoption from the 33rd Annual Meeting of NEAFC (London, 10 to 14 November 2014). Council of the European Union. EU, 2015. Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98. European Union. EU, 2017a. 2018 EU TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES IN THE ATLANTIC AND NORTH SEA. European Union. EU, 2017b. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. Official Journal of the European Union.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 69 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Froese, R., Coro, G., Kleisner, K., Demirel, N., 2016. Revisiting safe biological limits in fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 17, 193–209. Gov.Scot, 2017a. Demersal and Nephrops Landing Obligation From 2017. Gov.Scot, 2017b. The Landing Obligation - engaging with others. Gov.Scot, 2017c. Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan - CURRENTS AND CIRCULATION. Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Sciberras, M., Szostek, C.L., Hughes, K.M., Ellis, N., Rijnsdorp, A.D., McConnaughey, R.A., Mazor, T., Hilborn, R., Collie, J.S., Pitcher, C.R., Amoroso, R.O., Parma, A.M., Suuronen, P., Kaiser, M.J., 2017. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 8301–8306. Howell, K. l., Davies, J.S., Jacobs, C., Narayanaswamy, B.E., 2009. Broadscale survey of the habitats of Rockall Bank and mapping of Annex I “reef” habitat ( No. 422). JNCC, Peterborough. ICES, 2012. ICES Implementation of Advice for Data-limited Stocks in 2012 in its 2012 Advice. ICES DLS GUIDANCE REPORT 2012, ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ICES CM 2012/ACOM 68. ICES, 2013a. Request from NEAFC on the closure area and additional measures for the protection of juvenile haddock on Rockall Bank. NEAFC - Celtic Sea and West of Scotland, Special request, Advice August 2013. ICES, 2013b. Request from NEAFC to evaluate the proposals for the harvest control components of the management plan for Rockall haddock fisheries. ICES. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 5, Section 5.3.3.2. ICES, 2015a. Cod (Gadus morhua) in Division VIb (Rockall). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregion. 30th June 2015. ICES, 2015b. Ling (Molva molva) in Subareas VI-IX, XII, and XIV, and in Divisions IIIa and IVa (other areas). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic. June 2015. ICES, 2016a. Report of the Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE)). ICES 4–13 May 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM. ICES, 2016b. ICES Advice Basis. ICES. Book 1 ICES Advice basis February 2016. ICES, 2016c. Megrim (Lepidorhombus spp.) in Division 6.b (Rockall). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea Ecoregions. 31 October 2016. ICES, 2016d. Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) in subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea ecoregions, 31st October 2016. ICES, 2016e. Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 6.a (West of Scotland). ICES. ICES, 2016f. Cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus) in subareas 6 and 7 and divisions 8.ab and 8.d. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Published 11 October 2016. ICES, 2016g. Golden redfish (Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 5, 6, 12, and 14 (Iceland and Faroes grounds, West of Scotland, North of Azores, East of Greenland). ICES Advice

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 70 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Iceland Sea and Greenland Sea Ecoregions. Published 10 June 2016. ICES, 2016h. Common skate (Dipturus batis-complex (blue skate (Dipturus batis) and flapper skate (Dipturus cf. intermedia)) in subareas 6–7 (excluding Division 7.d) (Celtic Seas and western English Channel). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Published 11 October 2016. ICES, 2016i. Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic. Oct 2016. ICES, 2016j. Vulnerable deep-water habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. ICES, ICES Advice, Published 4 July 2016. ICES, 2016k. Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. ICES - ICES Ecosystem Overviews, Version 2, 13 May 2016. ICES, 2016l. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 6.b (Rockall). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. 30th June 2016. ICES, 2016m. Report of the Working Group for the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian waters Ecoregion (WGBIE). ICES, CM/ACOM:12. ICES, 2016n. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). ICES. ICES, 2016o. Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Subarea 4 and Division 7.d (North Sea and eastern English Channel). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Ecoregions. 11 November 2016. ICES, 2016p. Mixed-fisheries advice for Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 3.a.20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion Published 11 November 2016. ICES, 2017a. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 6.b (Rockall). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. 30th June 2017. ICES, 2017b. Report of the Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE)). ICES 9- 18 May 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM. ICES, 2017c. Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 6–9, 12, and 14, and in divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort, Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Ecoregions Published 7 June 2017. lin.27.3a4a6-91214. ICES, 2017d. Saithe (Pollachius virens) in subareas 4 and 6 and Division 3.a (North Sea, Rockall and West of Scotland, Skagerrak and Kattegat). ICES, Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Faroes, and Greater North Sea Ecoregions. Published 30 June 2017. ICES, 2017e. Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). ICES WGDEC REPORT 2017, ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ICES CM 2017/ACOM:25. 20-24 March 2017. ICES, 2017f. New information regarding vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. ICES. ICES Special Request Advice North Atlantic Ecoregion Published 20 June 2017 vme.neafc.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 71 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

ICES, 2017g. New information regarding vulnerable habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. ICES Advice North Atlantic Ecoregion Published 20 June 2017 vme.neafc. ICES, 2017h. Megrim (Lepidorhombus spp.) in divisions 4.a and 6.a (northern North Sea, West of Scotland). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Celtic Seas , Faroes, and Greater North Sea Ecoregions Published 30 June 2017. ICES, 2017i. Tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas 4 and 7–9, and in divisions 3.a, 5.b, 6.a, and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast, Celtic Seas, Faroes, Published 7 June 2017. Icelandic Waters, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions. Iglésias, S.P., Toulhoat, L., Sellos, D.Y., 2010. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20, 319–333. Ireland, 2014. S.I. No. 86/2014 - Maritime Jurisdiction (Boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zone) Order 2014. ISB - Office of the Attorney General. JNCC, 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions: Cold-water Coral Reefs. From: UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions, in: Maddock, A. (Ed.), JNCC. Kaiser, MJ, Collie, JS, Hall, SJ, Jennings, S., Poiner, I., 2003. Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. CABI Publishing, pp. 197–217. MS, 2016. HIGH RESOLUTION MAPPING AND NEW DISCOVERIES AT ROCKALL - THE OFFCON PROJECT. Marine Scotland. MS, 2017. Surveying haddock at Rockall with the Scotia. Muus, B.J., Nielsen, J.G., 1999. Sea fish. Scandinavian Fishing Year Book. Hedehusene, Denmark. NEAFC, 2009. RECOMMENDATION BY THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION ON FUTURE MULTILATERAL COOPERATION IN NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES AT ITS ANNUAL MEETING IN NOVEMBER 2009 FOR A BAN ON DISCARDS IN THE NEAFC REGULATORY AREA. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. NEAFC, 2012. Evaluation of the EU–Russia proposal for the harvest control component of the management plan for Rockall haddock fisheries. Celtic Sea and West of Scotland, Special request, Advice August 2012. NEAFC, 2014. Recommendation on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. NEAFC, 2018. Recommendation to Adopt Conservation and Management Measures for Haddock in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (ICES 6b) in 2018. North East Atlantic Fisheries Commision. Neat, F., 2016. Introduction to ATLAS Case Study 3: Rockall Bank, northern NE Atlantic. Marine Scotland Science. Neat, F., Campbell, N., 2011. Demersal fish diversity of the isolated Rockall plateau compared with the adjacent west coast shelf of Scotland. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 104, 138–147. Needle, C.L., 2015. Using self-testing to validate the SURBAR survey-based assessment model. Fisheries Research 171, 78–86.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 72 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Newton, A.W., Peach, K.J., Coull, K.A., Gault, M., Needle, C.L., 2008. Rockall and the Scottish haddock fishery. Fisheries Research 94, 133–140. Russell, D.J.F., Jones, E.L., Morris, C.D., 2017. Updated Seal Usage Maps: The Estimated at-sea Distribution of Grey and Harbour Seals. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 8. Shepherd, J.G., 1999. Extended survivors analysis: An improved method for the analysis of catch-at-age data and abundance indices. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56, 584– 591. SMRU, 2017. Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2017. Seal Mammal Research Unit, St. Andrews University. Stewart, H., Davies, J., Long, D., Strömberg, H., Hitchen, K., 2009. NCC Offshore Natura Survey: Anton Dohrn Seamount and East Rockall Bank. JNCC. Tasker, M., Hall-Spencer, J., 2007. Finding Boundaries from imperfect information: lessons from the Rockall Bank closure, in: ICESannualConference. UK, 2005. The Registration of Fish Sellers and Buyers and Designation of Auction Sites (Scotland) Regulations 2005. UK Government. UK, 2010. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. United Kingdom Government. UK, 2013. The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013. British Government National Archives.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 73 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Principle 1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The time series of stock and recruitment data is relatively short (from 1991-2016) and no clear stock recruitment relationship is apparent cation (ICES, 2016l). Higher recruitment has been observed at values of SSB less than the estimated 2016 SSB. It is therefore highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. Assuming estimation error in SSB of 0.5 the probability (from log normal distribution) that current SSB exceeds Blim is >0.99, taking Blim as a proxy for the PRI meaning there is a high degree of certainty the stock is above PRI and that SG100 is met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

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

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 74 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y N

Justifi The time series of SSB estimates show the stock fluctuating around MSY Btrigger with more observations lying above the reference point cation than below (ICES, 2016l, 2017a). These fluctuations show no obvious trend despite an overall reduction in fishing mortality rate. In the most recent years SSB has increased and is more than 2 x MSY Btrigger meeting SG80 as dictated by Froese (2016). However, current fishing mortality (0.214) is slightly above FMSY (0.2) so that there is not a high degree of certainty that the stock will continue to fluctuate around the biomass reference point and SG100 is not met

References ICES (2016; 2016l, 2017a)

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Value of reference Current stock status relative to Type of reference point point reference point

Reference Blim the lowest observed spawning stock estimated in previous 6,800 t 18,066 t (SSB2017)/ 6,800 t = 2.66 point used in assessments scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference FMSY = Segmented regression with Bloss/Blim, the lowest observed 0.2 0.214 (F2017)/ 0.2 = 1.07 point used in spawning–stock biomass (EqSim) scoring stock relative to MSYBtrigger = Bpa which is Blim x 1.5) 10,200 t 18,066 t (SSB2017)/10,200 t = 1.77 MSY (SIb)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 75 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is expected to The harvest strategy is responsive to the state The harvest strategy is responsive to the state post achieve stock management of the stock and the elements of the harvest of the stock and is designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives reflected in PI SG80. 1.1.1 SG80.

Met? Y N N

Justifi ICES advice has been given in relation to the Precautionary Approach and managers have typically set recent TACs in line with this cation advice (ICES, 2017a).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 76 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Assessments show that the stock since 1991 has been above Bpa/MSY Btrigger for most of this period and is therefore expected to achieve stock management objectives and meets SG60. Annual stock assessments provide estimates of stock status relative to Precautionary Approach reference points and management decisions respond to this. However, there is no agreed management plan or HCR at this stage and therefore the fishery does not meet SG80 b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guide The harvest strategy is likely to work The harvest strategy may not have been fully The performance of the harvest strategy has post based on prior experience or tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its been fully evaluated and evidence exists to plausible argument. objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 77 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justifi TACs have been set in line with this advice (ICES, 2017a) and the commitment of the principal jurisdiction (the EU) to MSY means that cation the harvest strategy is likely to work. Assessments show that the stock since 1991 has been above Bpa/MSY Btrigger for most of this period and is therefore likely to achieve stock management objectives in the future and meets SG80. However, there is no agreed management plan or HCR at this stage and the historical time series of SSB and F values is insufficient to demonstrate the current strategy is fully tested in the absence of an agreed HCR. Hence the fishery does not meet SG100. c Harvest strategy monitoring

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

Met? Y

Justifi The scientific monitoring includes sufficient data to determine SSB and F levels with reasonable precision. There are annual stock cation assessments that provide a basis to evaluate whether Precautionary Approach management is working.

d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed post and improved as necessary.

Met? Y

Justifi The harvest strategy has been reviewed by ICES (2013b) which evaluated a proposed harvest strategy and proposed F=0.2 as consistent cation with the Precautionary Approach. Following a request from the EU ICES has provided advice on FMSY ranges (ICES, 2016m).

e Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning is not It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking There is a high degree of certainty that shark post taking place. place. finning is not taking place.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 78 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justifi The target species is not a shark – not relevant. cation

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

Met? Y Y N

Justifi Discarding of haddock below the legal minimum landing size or commercial size is the principal cause of unwanted mortality. The cation effectiveness of technical measures to reduce bycatch is monitored through annual ICES assessments that use discard data to estimate unwanted mortality (ICES, 2016a). Haddock in Area VIb is included under the EU landings obligation in 2017 to introduce measures aimed at preventing discards. The minimum landing size of haddock taken by EU vessels at Rockall is 30 cm. There is no minimum landing size for haddock taken by non-EU vessels in international waters but a discards ban has been in place in the NEAFC regulatory area since 2009. There is no biennial review of measures SG100 is not met.

References ICES (2013b, 2016a, 2016l, 2016m, 2017a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 79 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood HCRs are in place Well defined HCRs are in place that The HCRs are expected to keep the stock post or available that are expected to reduce ensure that the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a target level consistent the exploitation rate as the point of reduced as the PRI is approached, are with MSY, or another more appropriate level recruitment impairment (PRI) is expected to keep the stock fluctuating taking into account the ecological role of the approached. around a target level consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N N Justifi There is a generally understood HCR that fishing mortality should be below Fpa (0.46) and SSB should be above Bpa (10,600 t). TACs have cation usually been set that are consistent with this and the stock has satisfied these conditions in recent years, so SG60 is met. As there is no well-defined HCR in place SG80 is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be robust to the The HCRs take account of a wide range of post main uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi As there is a detailed stock assessment using both fishery-dependent and fishery independent data the generally understood HCR can be cation operated with estimates of F and SSB. It is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties as the definitions of the reference points (Blim and

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 80 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Bpa) take into account the uncertainties in the assessment and SG80 is met. Although an HCR has been developed and tested, it has not been agreed by managers and hence SG100 is not met. c HCRs evaluation Guide Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use There is some evidence that tools used or Available evidence indicates that the post are effective in achieving the exploitation levels available to implement HCRs are tools in use are appropriate and effective required under the HCRs. appropriate and effective in controlling in achieving the exploitation levels

exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justifi The principal tool used to implement HCRs is a Total Allowable Catch. However, this has only been effectively applied to EU vessels. In cation the past vessels fishing in international waters at Rockall have taken a large catch. A closed area (Haddock box) is currently in operation, but subject to annual renewal, which limits fishing in international waters and effectively reduces uncontrolled catches outside EU waters. As EU vessels currently take the largest portion of the catch, SG80 is met. As there is not formally agreed HCR and the closed area is not permanent, SG100 is not met. References ICES (2017a) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 81 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information related Sufficient relevant information related to A comprehensive range of information (on stock post to stock structure, stock productivity stock structure, stock productivity, fleet structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, and fleet composition is available to composition and other data is available to stock abundance, UoA removals and other support the harvest strategy. support the harvest strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to

the current harvest strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi Rockall haddock is a small isolated stock so structure and identity are known and not an issue. The age structure is available from cation surveys, landings and discards. Data for fleets exploiting the stock are available hence SG80 is met. Some other information on other species is available from surveys but there is not systematic environmental monitoring (e.g. food webs) so SG100 is not met. b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA removals are All information required by the harvest control rule post removals are monitored and at least regularly monitored at a level of accuracy is monitored with high frequency and a high degree one indicator is available and and coverage consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a good understanding of monitored with sufficient frequency control rule, and one or more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the information [data] to support the harvest control rule. available and monitored with sufficient and the robustness of assessment and frequency to support the harvest control rule. management to this uncertainty.

Met? Y Y N

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 82 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justifi Landings and discards are monitored regularly and there is an annual trawl survey carried out in the area (ICES, 2016a) and SG80 is cation met. Discard sampling is limited and subject to higher uncertainty, although catches taken within the NEAFC area are not subject to discarding. The reported catches have been subject to a historic unknown level of misreporting (ICES, 2016a) which may have affected the robustness of the assessment, hence SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information

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

Met? Y

Justifi There are no other major sources of removals. In the past, before the area closure for the Haddock box, large catches of demersal fish cation including haddock were taken by Russian vessels. In recent years these catches have all but ceased. SG80 is met.

References ICES (2016a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 83 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guide The assessment is appropriate for the stock The assessment takes into account the major post and for the harvest control rule. features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Y Y

Justifi The assessment is based on an age-structured model that uses catch and survey data. The model used is XSA (Shepherd, 1999) and cation provides estimates of SSB, recruitment and F. Although no formal HCR exists for this stock, the metrics obtained from the assessment and model used are appropriate for the use in conventional HCRs and have been used by ICES to investigate proposed HCRs (ICES, 2013b). SG100 is met. b Assessment approach

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

Met? Y Y

Justifi Stock identity is known and reference points based on the Precautionary Approach and MSY have been calculated for the stock. The cation assessment provides estimates of current F and SSB in relation to these reference points (ICES, 2017a). SG80 is met.

c Uncertainty in the assessment

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 84 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Guide The assessment identifies major The assessment takes uncertainty into The assessment takes into account uncertainty and post sources of uncertainty. account. is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The assessment uses a regression type age structured model that estimates measurement error (Shepherd, 1999; ICES, 2017a). These cation errors are taken into account in evaluating status in relation to reference points. The reference points themselves take into account estimation error, process error and structural uncertainty in the stock recruitment relationship (ICES, 2016a). SG100 is met. d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been tested and shown to be post robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? N

Justifi The assessment using XSA has been subject to testing within the framework of one assessment method only and does not consider all cation sources of uncertainty, such as errors in the catch at age data. Results have been compared to a survey only method (SURBA) and show some consistency. Retrospective testing of the XSA configuration has also been carried out indicating that retrospective patterns are not a serious problem (ICES, 2016a). The assessment method may be considered somewhat out of date and while adequate could probably be improved. SG100 not met. e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock status is subject to The assessment has been internally and post peer review. externally peer reviewed.

Met? Y Y

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 85 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justifi The ICES advisory system incorporates and external review system of working group assessments before the advice is prepared and cation published and external peer review takes place at benchmark assessments therefore SG100 is met.

References ICES (2013b, 2016k, 2016m, 2017a), Shepherd (1999)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 86 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Principle 2 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guidepost Main primary species are likely to be Main primary species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that above the PRI be above the PRI main primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level OR OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA If the species is below the PRI, there is has measures in place that are expected either evidence of recovery or a to ensure that the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective strategy in place recovery and rebuilding. between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Y Y Y – saithe N – monkfish, ling, whiting

Justification Main primary stocks are monkfish (3a46), ling (other areas), saithe (3a46) and whiting (6) (see section 3.4.1). Monkfish: There are no MSY reference points defined for the stock; the assessment is based on empirical reference points derived from changes in a survey index. The index has been increasing and the harvest rate declining since ~2014; the index in 2015/16 was 1.71 times the current reference level (index 2012-14). On this basis, it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI, but the status relative to MSY cannot be determined; i.e. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 87 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Ling: The same type of assessment is applied to ling as to monkfish, using standardised Norwegian longline CPUE instead of a survey index. Previous advice considered discarding to be negligible. The discard rate has been increasing and reached 8.3 % of the catches. The most recent CPUE index (2015-16) was above the current reference level. The index is estimated to have increased by more than 20 %. On this basis, it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI, but the status relative to MSY cannot be determined; i.e. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

Saithe: Biomass is above BMSY since the late 1990s, and fishing mortality is below FMSY. On that basis, it is likely that the stock as at a level consistent with MSY: SG100 is met. Whiting: ICES have no basis to assess Rockall whiting as a single stock (but did provide catch advice on it up to 2015, it is a category 6 stock). ICES consider it unlikely that there is a self-sustaining stock of whiting in 6b, and suggest that it may potentially be part of the adjacent 6.a stock with management (TAC) set at this level (ICES, 2017b). On that basis, the team applied the West of Scotland whiting (6a) advice (ICES, 2016e). Subarea 6a whiting was depleted to a very low biomass level (<

Figure: Biomass trends in 6a whiting, from ICES (ICES, 2016e).

b Minor primary species stock status

Guidepost For minor species that are below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 88 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species

Met? Y

Justification Minor primary species are megrim, cuckoo ray and golden redfish. The status of these stocks is as follows:

• Rockall megrim: catches have been in decline since ~2000 and the stock size indicator has been generally increasing throughout the time series. ICES consider that the stock is above possible proxy MSY reference points.

• Cuckoo ray (6,7,8): The biomass index has been stable throughout the time series but increasing in the last few years (since 2014). ICES classify the stock as ‘increasing’.

• Golden redfish (5,6,12,14): The stock biomass is estimated by ICES to be ~50 % higher than MSY Btrigger, with F estimated at close to (but slightly above) FMSY. All these stocks appear to be above PRI and/or increasing, providing evidence that the fishery is not hindering rebuilding. SG100 is met.

References ICES (2016d, 2016e, 2016f, 2016g, 2017c, 2017d, 2017h, 2017i)

Scoring element Scores

Saithe 100

Whiting 80

Ling 80

Monkfish 80

Minor species 100

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 89 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly PI 2.1.2 reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place for the There is a partial strategy in place for the There is a strategy in place for the UoA for UoA, if necessary, that are expected to UoA, if necessary, that is expected to maintain managing main and minor primary species. maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary the main primary species at/to levels species at/to levels which are highly likely to which are likely to above the point be above the point where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired.

Met? Y Y Y – saithe, ling, monkfish N – whiting, minor species (megrim, golden redfish and cuckoo ray)

Justification The definition of a ‘strategy’ according to the MSC is given below (Table SA8): A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. For the main primary stocks, ICES provide advice based on a framework set out by the EU (the MSY approach or the framework for data- deficient stocks), and TAC are set accordingly. There is no formal strategy to manage discards for the moment (since none of these species come under the landing obligation in Rockall at time of writing (2017)) but discards are estimated and taken into account where significant (e.g. whiting). The TAC history for each species shows that it is adjusted according to the perception of stock status.

The stock of whiting is depleted (below Blim) but has been recovering since ~2010. Although there is no formal management plan for whiting, the strategy (setting a very limited bycatch only TAC for subarea 6a and 6b) is clearly working to rebuild the stock, although this will take time. A TAC is set for Divisions 6a+6b with a MCRS of 27cm. Most of the catch is discarded and selectivity measures such as

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 90 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

mandatory SMPs for the Nephrops fleet aim to reduce unwanted catch (noting the Nephrops fleet are absent from Rockall). The success or otherwise of the approach is monitored via stock assessment, and the evidence from this suggests that the SSB is recovering (see 2.1.1). The measures constitute a partial strategy, so SG80 is met. The assessment team concluded that there is an overarching strategy for the management of the other main primary stocks. On this basis, for the main species (saithe, ling, monkfish), SG100 is met. For the minor primary species (only considered at SG100), the strategy (as defined by TACs following ICES advice) is applied to megrim, and redfish, but not cuckoo ray, for which there is no specific TAC. SG100 is not fully met for minor species. b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that the work, based on plausible argument confidence that the measures/partial strategy partial strategy/strategy will work, based on (e.g., general experience, theory or will work, based on some information directly information directly about the fishery and/or comparison with similar about the fishery and/or species involved. species involved. fisheries/species).

Met? Y Y Y – saithe N – all other stocks (Whiting, ling, monkfish, megrim, tusk and redfish and cuckoo ray)

Justification For the main and minor primary species, the stock status provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working, as described in 2.1.1a and b. All the stocks are either increasing (monkfish, ling, whiting, megrim, cuckoo ray) or are at or above biomass reference levels (saithe, redfish). Although the whiting stock is depleted, it has been steadily recovering since ~2010, according to ICES. SG80 is met. With the exception of saithe, however, there is not high confidence in the strategy, since it is either empirical (survey or LPUE-based – all except saithe, whiting and redfish) or shows that the stock remains depleted (whiting). SG100 is not met, except for saithe (redfish being considered in a group with the other minor species).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 91 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y Y – saithe N – other stocks: (Whiting, ling, monkfish, megrim, redfish and cuckoo ray)

Justification TACs are set following ICES advice, and as noted above, the strategy appears to be working in terms of maintaining or increasing or recovering stock biomass; SG80 is met. In relation to SG100, for saithe the TACs are set in accordance with advice, and biomass has been maintained at target levels (met). For monkfish, ICES express concern about a mismatch between assessment and TAC areas, which they consider might result in some risk of TAC overshoot (not met). For whiting, the strategy is not yet achieving its objective (not met). For the other species, the strategy is empirical so the evidence that objectives are being achieved cannot be described as ‘clear’ (not met). d Shark finning

Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is not It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark taking place. taking place. finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification None of the primary species are sharks to which finning would apply.

e Review of alternative measures

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 92 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justification There is unwanted catch of species where there is insufficient quota to cover the total quantity caught, requiring discarding. If quota is insufficient at vessel, PO or national level, then generally this can be rectified via quota swaps, except in the case of ‘choke species’ where the overall TAC is insufficient to deal with catches in a mixed fishery. Choke species have been under extensive discussion since the introduction of the landings obligation, which requires this fishery to cease all discarding of quota species by 2019. There is also unwanted catch generated if undersized individuals are taken – these were previously required to be discarded under Regulation 850/1998, but as the landings obligation is phased in are increasingly required to be landed. Scotland has an excellent track record of putting in place management aimed at reducing discards, including real-time closures for juvenile cod, as well as EU real-time closures for juvenile cod, haddock and saithe, the introduction of square-mesh panels and other selectivity improvements in the Nephrops fleet and other measures tested and implemented as part of the ‘conservation credits’ (FMAC) scheme (e.g. CCTV, echosounders and cameras on the net, separator trawls). The Gear Innovation Technical Advisory Group solicits ideas from skippers as part of the Scottish Industry Discards Initiative (SIDI) and the testing of these ideas is supported by 300 days of SFF observers (note, however, that SIDI has been suspended for now, pending more clarity on the landing obligation post-Brexit; the Scottish Discard Steering Group remains active, however). SeaFish also have a ‘discard action group’ which acts as a clearing house for research and information and a forum for discussion. This question is also under discussion at EU level at present, because it is clear that key EU regulations aimed at reducing unwanted catch (e.g. 850/1998, the Cod Recovery Plan, although not directed at this fishery, informed the development of future management) are not compatible with the landings obligation and other elements of the reformed CFP. The Cod Recovery Plan has been repealed, and is being replaced with a broader multi-annual plan (MAP); a MAP has been proposed by the Commission for the North Sea but not yet for NW Waters; it is likely that Brexit will intervene before this can happen so the situation in the near-future is unclear. It is clear, however, that in general more flexibility is required in the system to reduce unwanted landings where discarding is no longer allowed.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 93 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The LO is being phased into the NWW area annually with revised species lists (2018 – Cod, Haddock, Hake, Nephrops, Northern prawn, Plaice, Saithe, Sole, Whiting) and exemptions by gear. This provides evidence of review. MSS engagement with stakeholders is conducted through meetings and steering groups and is publicized through their website (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea- Fisheries/engagement). On this basis, it is clear that the discussion on how to reduce unwanted catch has been ongoing and is particularly intensive at present; it is considerably more than ‘biennial’. Various measures have been tested and when shown to work, are implemented. SG100 is met.

ICES (2015b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e, 2016f, 2016g, 2016n, 2016o) Information on the Scottish Discard Steering Group: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/discards/engagement References LO in NNW demersal fisheries - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/demersal-landing-obligation-2018-guidance/demersal- landing-obligation-2018 Seafish discards action group: http://www.seafish.org/responsible-sourcing/conserving-fish-stocks/discards/the-discard-action-group

Scoring element Score

Saithe 100

Whiting 80

Ling 90

Monkfish 90

Minor species (megrim, redfish and cuckoo ray) 85

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 94 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and estimate the impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to assess the impact of is adequate to assess with a high main primary species with respect to the UoA on the main primary species with degree of certainty the impact of the status. respect to status. UoA on main primary species with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: UoA: Qualitative information is adeqaute to Some quantitative information is estimate productivity and susceptibility adequate to assess productivity and attributes for main primary species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species.

Met? Y Y Y – monkfish, saithe, ling N – whiting

Justification In relation to the impact of the UoA, landings are known and since the introduction of ‘buyers and sellers’ in the early 2000s, Marine Scotland is relatively confident about these figures. Discards are estimated from the vessels with onboard cameras and from observers. However, discard information is limited (see section 3.4.2.1), although assessments do take discards into account. However, all the main stocks have a quantitative assessment, which allows an analysis of the stock status and the impacts of the fishery (albeit not always in relation to MSY reference points) – see PI 2.1.1. SG80 is met for all main primary stocks.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 95 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The impact of the UoA on these stocks can be also be evaluated by comparing UoA catch to total catch or estimated total biomass, noting that the UoA is very small compared to the size and geographical extent of most of these stocks. These figures are as follows:

• monkfish: ICES landings 2015 – 16,100 t; UoA landings 2015 – 502 t (3 %) • ling: ICES landings + discards 2014 – 17,500 t; UoA landings 2015 – 198 t (~260 t with estimated discards (Table 9); 1.1 % or 1.4 % with discards)

• saithe: ICES landings 69,400 t; UoA landings 2015 141 t (0.2 %) For monkfish, ling and saithe the team considered that the impact of the UoA could be assessed with a high degree of certainty. SG100 is met. For whiting, a similar calculation could be made on the basis of the stock at Rockall being part of the 6a ICES catch estimate 10,000 t; UoA estimated catch 2015 647 t (5.4 %), but since the certainty of whiting stocks in NW waters is not confirmed as is depleted SG100 is not met (see PI 2.1.1 and ICES (2016e).

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species

Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

Met? Y

Justification In relation to the impact of the UoA, landings are known and since the introduction of ‘buyers and sellers’ in the early 2000s, Marine Scotland is relatively confident about these figures. Discards are estimated from the vessels with onboard cameras and from observers. For the minor primary species, stock status is known with a reasonable degree of certainty for megrim, tusk, redfish and cuckoo ray (see PI 2.1.1a). With the exception of megrim (for which discards are quantified by Marine Scotland; see Table 8) all these minor species make up <0.5 % of the landings, or <4 t. Total landings on the stocks, across all fisheries according to ICES for the other minor species are as follows: cuckoo ray: ~3600 t (2015)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 96 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

redfish: ~60,000 t (2016) Therefore, despite a lack of estimates of discards for three of the minor primary species, the team nevertheless considers that sufficient quantitative information is available to assess the UoA impact on these stocks as negligible. On this basis, the team concluded that SG100 is met for all minor primary species. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a measures to manage main primary partial strategy to manage main Primary strategy to manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y Y – saithe N – monkfish, whiting, ling, minor species

Justification As noted in 2.1.2a, there is a strategy in place to manage main primary species, which is support by extensive information (empirical or analytic stock assessments, landings data, some discard data) SG80 is met. This also applies to minor primary species. However, as already noted in 2.1.2, it is only possible to evaluate for saithe with a high degree of certainty that strategy objectives are being met. SG100 is met for saithe but not for the other stocks.

ICES (2015b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e, 2016f, 2016g, 2016n, 2016o) References Landings and discard data from Marine Scotland Science.

Scoring element Score

Saithe 100

Whiting 85

Ling 95

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 97 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Monkfish 95

Minor species (megrim, redfish and cuckoo ray) 90

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 98 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.2.1 secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guidepost Main Secondary species are likely to be Main secondary species are highly likely There is a high degree of certainty that within biologically based limits. to be above biologically based limits main secondary species are within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there If below biologically based limits, there is are measures in place expected to either evidence of recovery or a ensure that the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective partial strategy recovery and rebuilding. in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Y Y Y

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 99 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justification No main secondary species have been identified (see Section 3.4.1). SG100 is met by default.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guidepost For minor species that are below

biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? N

Justification Minor secondary species are cod, thornback ray, lemon sole, wolffish, witch, grey gurnard, red gurnard, tusk and blackbellied rosefish. Although catches of these species by this fishery are quite small and stock damage is unlikely, little or nothing is known about the stock status of these species, so there is not ‘evidence’; SG100 is not met.

References Landings data from Marine Scotland

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 100 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.2.2 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

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There is a strategy in place for the UoA There are measures in place, if There is a partial strategy in place, if for managing main and minor secondary necessary, which are expected to necessary, for the UoA that is expected to species. maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main

secondary species at/to levels which are secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be within biologically highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Since there are no main secondary species, SG80 is met by default. In relation to SG100, there is a general strategy in place to manage the impact of the fishery, incorporating effort limits, TAC and quotas, the landings obligation, gear restrictions, closed areas etc. but these measures do not all apply to all the minor species (e.g. gurnards, rosefish); there cannot be said to be a ‘strategy’ for these species, so SG100 is not met in full.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that work, based on plausible argument (e.g. confidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory or comparison strategy will work, based on some based on information directly about the with similar UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 101 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

information directly about the UoA and/or species involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justification According to SIa, the ‘partial strategy’ only applies to the main secondary species; since there are none, it is clearly working; SG80 is met. Although SG100 also refers to a ‘partial strategy’, the team concluded that on a precautionary basis it should be assumed that the intent at SG100 is that it should apply to all species, including minor species. This is not the case, so SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Met? Y N

Justification The objective of the partial strategy is to ensure that the fishery is having no significant impact on main secondary species; since there are none, this is being achieved. SG80 is met. Without a partial strategy for minor species it cannot be implemented therefore SG100 cannot be met

d Shark finning

Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is not taking It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that place. taking place. shark finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 102 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justification None of the secondary species are sharks (in the sense of finning).

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

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

Met? Y Y N

Guidepost Since there are no main secondary species, there is no unwanted catch of main secondary species, so SG80 is met by default. In relation to SG100, since we do not have information on discard rates of minor secondary species, we do not know if there is unwanted catch of these species, so this cannot be met.

References ICES (2015b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e, 2016f, 2016g, 2016n, 2016o)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 103 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA PI 2.2.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is Quantitative information is available and estimate the impact of the UoA on the available and adequate to assess the main secondary species with respect to impact of the UoA on main secondary adequate to assess with a high degree status. species with respect to status. of certainty the impact of the UoA on OR OR main secondary species with respect to If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the status. UoA: UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is estimate productivity and susceptibility adequate to assess productivity and attributes for main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Sufficient quantitative information is available to evaluate with reasonable confidence that there are no main secondary species, so SG80 is met by default. However, this analysis has required discard rates to be estimated from various sources for most of the secondary species, so there is not a ‘high degree of confidence’ on the impact on secondary species with respect to status (see Table 9). On this basis, SG100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guidepost Some quantitative information is

adequate to estimate the impact of the

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 104 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? N

Justification Some quantitative information is available as to the impact on minor species – i.e. landings; but since we know little or nothing about stock status in some cases, this is not sufficient to evaluate the impact on stock status. Not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a measures to manage main secondary partial strategy to manage main strategy to manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Since there are no main secondary species, SG80 is met by default. As noted above, there is not a full strategy for minor secondary species (in all cases) and the impact of the fishery cannot be measured with any certainty; SG100 is not met.

References ICES (2015b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e, 2016f, 2016g, 2016n, 2016o)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 105 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

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

a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guidepost Where national and/or international Where national and/or international Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, requirements set limits for ETP species, requirements set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the the combined effects of the MSC UoAs there is a high degree of certainty that population/stock are known and likely to on the population/stock are known and the combined effects of the MSC UoAs be within these limits. highly likely to be within these limits. are within these limits.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification There are no limits that would trigger management action; this scoring issue was therefore not scored.

b Direct effects

Guidepost Known direct effects of the UoA are likely Known direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of confidence that to not hinder recovery of ETP species. highly likely to not hinder recovery of there are no significant detrimental direct ETP species. effects of the UoA on ETP species.

Met? Y Common skate complex (blue skate) – N Spurdog, grey seal – Y Spurdog, grey seal – Y Common skate complex (blue skate) - N

Justification ETP species are: species in the common skate complex (D. batis blue skate), spurdog, grey seals (see Table 11 and Table 12).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 106 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Common skate complex (blue skate): The species is required to be discarded if caught, but total discards for this fleet cannot be quantified, according to Marine Scotland, and the status on discard (alive vs dead) is also generally not recorded for this species. Catch estimates per trip are highly variable (see Table 11 and Table 12). ~45% of the total fishable area is closed to fishing for various reasons (see Section 3.4.4.4). ICES evaluates the whole species complex together for Subareas 6 and 7. According to ICES, there are no robust stock size indicators in Subareas 6 and 7, but the ‘stock’ is above possible F reference points and below possible B reference points. Nevertheless, analyses of Scottish survey data indicate a possible increase in the proportion of survey hauls catching some common-skate-complex species, although confidence intervals are wide. The Spanish Porcupine Bank survey has also seen increasing catch rates of Dipturus spp. but ICES note that this may not be representative of trends elsewhere in Subarea 6. It is, however, notable that offshore effort in 6 (Rockall, Porcupine, Hatton) has decreased markedly in recent years. ICES note that further measures to reduce bycatch in Subareas 6 and 7 would be possible, such as spatial closures, but propose that this should be done as part of a rebuilding plan that takes into account the mixed fisheries context. The team considered that trends appears to be in the right direction in Subarea 6, and (given the small number of trips per year to Rockall), total catch is likely to be low. Furthermore, almost half of the fishable area (down to ~400 m) is closed to fishing, and further habitat for common skate complex is available deeper. On this basis, the team concluded that it is not likely that the fishery is having impacts on common skate complex (blue skate); SG60 is met. There is, however, insufficient information for the moment to say that SG80 is met.

Spurdog: Although the stock is still well below Btrigger, the harvest rate has dropped to well below the proxy MSY level and ICES considers that there are signs of recovery of the biomass in recent years. ICES’ projections suggest that recent catch rates should allow the stock to recover at more or less the same rate as zero catch. Catch rates in this fishery are very low (~one per trip in 2014, zero in 2013 or 2015; none observed in the PET sampling). SG100 is met. Grey seal: Grey seals are protected under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and may not be killed, except with a license or to alleviate suffering. The PET dataset includes interactions with two grey seals, one alive and one dead (see Table 12). There are no specific grey seal surveys at Rockall, and no permanent population according to SMRU who undertake UK surveys. Individuals at Rockall are most likely adults on extended foraging trips. The population of grey seals in the UK is stable overall and increasing in some areas (North Sea). It is estimated to be 139,800. Overall, although total mortality for the whole fleet cannot be estimated from the data available, there is a high degree of confidence that it will have no impact on the grey seal population given the large population size and low interaction rate; SG100 is met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 107 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

c Indirect effects

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

Met? Y N

Justification The team considered that indirect effects are unlikely (e.g. ghost fishing, unobserved mortality, noise disturbance etc.) and so considered that SG80 is met. Ghost fishing is very unlikely given the catch control systems used by the fleet which provide real- time feedback from sensors attached to the nets. There is no information regarding unobserved mortality or noise disturbance at Rockall however, studies in the NE Atlantic indicate that survival of cat sharks (of which spurdog is one) from trawling is very high (78-90 %) with low post-capture mortality and demersal species with buccalpump ventilation (common skate complex and spurdog) have a higher survival than obligate ram ventilators (pelagic sharks) following trawl capture. SG100 is not met because there is not a ‘high degree of confidence’ about indirect effects at Rockall itself.

References (ICES, 2016h, 2016p), (Ellis et al., 2017)

Scoring element score

Blue skate 70

Grey seal 90

Spurdog 90

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 108 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guidepost There are measures in place that There is a strategy in place for managing There is a comprehensive strategy in minimise the UoA-related mortality of the UoA’s impact on ETP species, place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, and are expected to be including measures to minimise mortality, ETP species, including measures to highly likely to achieve national and which is designed to be highly likely to minimise mortality, which is designed to international requirements for the achieve national and international achieve above national and international protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP requirements for the protection of ETP species. species.

Met? Y Y Spurdog – Y Common skate complex (blue skate), grey seal – N

Justification Note: Either Scoring Issue a or b is scored here. This SI need not be scored if there are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. Note that the 'requirements for protection and rebuilding' can be any national or international requirements for protection and rebuilding, such as requirements not to target, safe handling practices, codes of conduct etc.; they are not the same as the ‘limits’ in 2.3.1 scoring issue a. On this basis, this scoring issue applies here. ICES provide advice on the elasmobranch species (summarised in 2.3.1), which is in summary to avoid catching where possible. The requirements, as set out in EU fisheries regulations are i) not to target, have on board or land; and ii) if brought on board alive to handle following best practice and to discard as soon as possible (or in the case of spurdog, a zero TAC – i.e. do not land). On

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 109 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

this basis, the team considered that this constitutes a strategy for managing the impact of fisheries (in general, including this one) on these stocks. They include measures to minimise mortality (no targeting, avoid bycatch, carefully handling if taken alive), and are designed to reduce the fishery impact to the lowest practicable level. Hence SG80 is met. In relation to SG100, MSC’s definition of a ‘comprehensive strategy’ is as below; it is met for spurdog (since there is a stock assessment relative to reference point, management measures and analysis and projections to check if it is working, which it is) but not common skate complex. A “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses. In relation to grey seal, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 bans the killing of grey seals without a licence, as well as the disturbance of seals at haul-out sites. Seal populations are surveyed annually by the Sea Mammal Research Unit of St. Andrews University, and are known to be increasing (although there is not specifically a survey at Rockall due to its isolation and lack of permanent population). Interactions with grey seals in the Rockall fishery are reported to be rare and it is clear that the fishery is not having a detrimental impact on the population (with Rockall considered to be part of the wider UK population). The team considered that on this basis, that the Scottish / UK strategy for protecting grey seals was the most appropriate level at which to have a strategy (rather than in the fishery directly), hence SG80 is met. Since there are no formal measures in the fishery directly, however, SG100 is not met. b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guidepost There are measures in place that are There is a strategy in place that is There is a comprehensive strategy in expected to ensure the UoA does not expected to ensure the UoA does not place for managing ETP species, to hinder the recovery of ETP species. hinder the recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification See scoring issue a

c Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to There is an objective basis for The strategy/comprehensive strategy is work, based on plausible argument confidence that the measures/strategy mainly based on information directly

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 110 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

(e.g., general experience, theory or will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, comparison with similar about the fishery and/or the species and a quantitative analysis supports fisheries/species). involved. high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Common skate complex (blue skate) – N Spurdog – Y Spurdog, seal – Y Common skate complex (blue skate), grey seal – N

Justification Common skate complex (blue skate): The measures (prohibited species, closed areas) are plausibly likely to work, but objective data (e.g. CPUE or survey trends, distribution data, catch hotpots) are lacking – SG60 is met but SG80 is not met. Spurdog: There is a quantitative stock assessment by ICES, as well as projections showing that the stock should continue to recover at close to the zero-catch rate under current management; SG100 is met. Seals: There is no evidence that any recovery is required, but interaction levels are sufficiently low to provide an objective basis for confidence that the fishery is having no impact. SG80 is met, but since there is no quantitative analysis, SG100 is not met. The team propose a non-binding recommendation (in addition to the condition), that the fishery support the adoption of increased PET data collection per annum from Rockall as the current level gives rise to uncertainty in interaction rates.

d Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Y – Spurdog, grey seal Y – Spurdog N – Common skate complex (blue skate)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 111 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

N – Common skate complex (blue skate), grey seal

Justification Common skate complex (blue skate): Closed areas are enforced by VMS (in both UK and NEAFC waters); there is no evidence of non-compliance (Gordon Hart, Marine Scotland Compliance, pers. comm.). The requirement to discard can be checked by comparing observer with landings data – the species does not occur anywhere in the landings data for this fishery provided by Marine Scotland. However, observer coverage is low. A key part of the strategy, however, is that individuals caught must be handled such that discard survival is maximized. Rajidae spp. are known to show low post-capture mortality rates in trawl operations from the NE Atlantic but evidence that this is being implemented at Rockall is not checked. SG80 is not met for Common skate complex (blue skate). Spurdog: ICES evaluate total catch on the stock and evaluate stock status relative to reference points, as well as projecting recovery rates; SG100 is met. Seals: The available evidence (PET data) on interaction rates suggests that they are very low (two in three years) – SG80 is met. There is, however, no quantitative survey of seal numbers at Rockall to define or evaluate objectives and observer trip number is low – SG100 is not met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guidepost There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of effectiveness and practicality of effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of ETP species. related mortality of ETP species and they related mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as appropriate. are implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Y – Common skate complex (blue skate), Y – Common skate complex (blue skate), Y – Common skate complex (blue skate), spurdog, grey seal spurdog, grey seal spurdog N – Grey seal

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 112 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justification The ongoing review and improvement of management in relation to discards is described in detail in the rationale for PI 2.1.2e – this also applies to all the species here except grey seal. For grey seals, the SMRU advice (annual) includes an assessment of seal bycatch in commercial fisheries (mainly in static net fisheries); they have a unit dedicated to monitoring and evaluating bycatch of all marine mammal species in fisheries, as well as from fish farms, turbines etc. This includes a review of, and recommendations on, measures such as pingers to reduce mortality in applicable situations (not this fishery). The review period of SMRU advice is on an annual basis but reviews for alternative measures within the advice specific to this fishery is not annual and therefore SG100 is not met.

References (ICES, 2016h, 2016p) SMRU, 2015.

Scoring element Scoring

Spurdog 100

Blue skate 70

Grey seal 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 113 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is Quantitative information is available to estimate the UoA related mortality on adequate to assess the UoA related assess with a high degree of certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related impacts, whether the UoA may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and the OR protection and recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the species. species. UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the estimate productivity and UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Y Y – Spurdog, grey seal N N – Common skate complex (blue skate)

Justification Information about interactions with this fishery comes from discard estimates and the PET scheme (see Table 11 and Table 12). It is reportedly not possible to scale these data up to provide accurate estimates for the entire fleet, so estimates of mortality

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 114 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

remain semi-quantitative rather than quantitative. Stock status of spurdog is evaluated, but for grey seals (at Rockall) and common skate complex (blue skate) it is not. Overall, SG60 is met for all species (qualitative estimate of fishery-related mortality from PET data). SG80 is met for spurdog since the overall status or trend in stock status can be evaluated quantitatively, and estimated mortality rates are low enough to be able to infer with confidence that the impact of the fleet on the population is ~negligible. For grey seals, although quantitative data are limited (see Table 12) the large population size and low interaction rate are sufficient to be confident that the fleet does not represent a threat to this population; SG80 is met. For common skate complex (blue skate), SG80 is not met because of a lack of population-level data or trends and because mortality rates from the fleet cannot be estimated. SG100 is not met for any species, because fleet-level mortality cannot be estimated.

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to measure Information is adequate to support a measures to manage the impacts on trends and support a strategy to manage comprehensive strategy to manage ETP species. impacts on ETP species. impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

Met? Y Y Y – Spurdog N – Common skate complex (blue skate), grey seal

Justification As argued in 2.3.2 scoring issue a) there is a strategy in place for all the ETP species. The strategy does not particularly rely on gathering information – rather on minimizing any fisheries impacts (or in the case of grey seal, impacts from direct killing and disturbance, which are more of a concern for these species than fisheries interactions); however, trends can be measured at least qualitatively from the discard and/or PET data (as well as from other sources of information as described in scoring issue a, except for common skate). On this basis, SG80 is met. In relation to SG100, there is a comprehensive strategy for spurdog, and a high degree of certainty that it is achieving its objective (rebuilding at ~same rate as zero catch); SG100 is met for spurdog but not for the other species (no comprehensive strategy).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 115 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

References (ICES, 2016h, 2016p)

Scoring element Scoring

Spurdog 90

Blue skate 70

Grey seal 80

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 116 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly and function of the commonly structure and function of the commonly unlikely to reduce structure and function encountered habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a point where of the commonly encountered habitats to there would be serious or irreversible there would be serious or irreversible a point where there would be serious or harm. harm. irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Commonly-encountered habitats are (see Section 3.4.4.3): Mixed sand / pebble / cobble / boulder / rubble with and without iceberg plough marks (‘stony reefs’ i.e. cobble/boulder areas with extensive epibiotic fauna, are considered under VMEs below) Bedrock / rock outcrops (‘rocky reefs’ are considered under VMEs below) Coarse rippled sand from various geological sources Fine carbonate sand These are all considered as a single scoring element as outlined in Section 3.4.4.3. Overall, 45% of the total bank area <400 m is protected in VME closed areas (calculations for this basis are in main text section 3.4.4.3). The commonly-encountered types of habitat are not particularly vulnerable to disturbance from demersal fishing gear, although some differences may be apparent between trawled and untrawled areas; the team did not consider, however, that this constitutes ‘serious or irreversible harm’ for these habitat types. Evidence of recovery of habitats from otter trawls in NW Europe indicate recovery within 20 years (Hiddink et al., 2017). SG80 is met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 117 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

In relation to SG100, while there is extensive research evidence that demersal fishing causes changes to various different habitat types (reviewed in Kaiser et al., 2001), the evidence required here would be something specific to the area / habitat in question; it would be possible to evaluate it by comparing the habitats inside and outside closed areas, but as far as the team is aware, this has not been done at Rockall. SG100 is not met. The assessment team have also completed the MSC’s semi-quantitative analysis of likely impacts on commonly-encountered habitats (Table GSA 7); this supports the above score: Note: The CEH’s identified are mixed demersal habitats without discrete subcomponents (sub-habitats) beyond broad scale areas see Table 14, therefore are treated as a common element. UoA / habitat characteristics sand sand-silt sand-mud sand-gravel

A % completely protected in closed areas 45%

B Area of habitat subject to fishing 55%

C Level of gear impact High (bottom trawl) (Hiddink et al., 2017)

D Current status of habitats in fished area (% ~80% based on this habitat’s resilience to trawling of unimpacted level)

E Current overall status of habitat (A + (B x D)) 89%

F Habitat recovery rate Fast (within 20 years) (Hiddink et al., 2017)

G Expected future status in fished areas in 20 100% (Hiddink et al., 2017 and references within) years if fishing ceases

H Expected future overall status of habitat in 100% (Hiddink et al., 2017 and references within) 20 years, compared to unimpacted level (A + (B x G))

I Likelihood that the UoA is causing serious or Highly unlikely irreversible harm (H<80%)

J MSC score 80 or higher

b VME habitat status

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 118 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or structure and function of the VME unlikely to reduce structure and function irreversible harm. habitats to a point where there would be of the VME habitats to a point where serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible

harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Types of VMEs at Rockall ICES (WGDEC) have a relatively long list of VME indicator taxa (see Section 3.4.4.4), but do not divide habitats up according to different types of VMEs; rather they generate a ‘VME index’ for the whole area, based on the relative sensitivity of each indicator taxon and the type of sample (explained in Section 3.4.4.7). Howell et al. (2009) identify three ‘reef habitats’ following the definitions in the Habitats Directive, but it was not clear to the team when it came to scoring how these might map on to the VME indicator taxa. Since the most useful and up-to-date maps are produced by WGDEC, the team have followed their lead in scoring according to the overlap with the high VME index areas, but we have also tried to break VMEs down into individual habitat types or taxa where possible; this analysis is, however, more partial and qualitative. The key VME taxa contributing to this VME index are stony corals (Lophelia, Madrepora), other types of corals (soft corals, gorgonians, sea pens, black corals, stylasterid corals, cup corals), sponges, anemones and chemosynthetic organisms. ‘Managed area’ for VMEs According to the FCR (version 2.0):

FCR ref. Description

SA3.13.5 When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, the team shall consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (the “managed area” for short). SA3.13.5.1 The team shall use all available information (e.g., bioregional information) to determine the range and distribution of the habitat under consideration and whether this distribution is entirely within the “managed area” or extends beyond the “managed area”.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 119 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

SA3.13.5.2 In cases where a habitat’s range falls within the “managed area”, the team shall consider the habitat’s range inside the “managed area”. SA3.13.5.3 In cases where a habitat’s range overlaps the “managed area”, the team shall consider the habitat’s range both inside and outside the “managed area”. The assessment team is thus required to define a ‘managed area’ based on the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area. In this case, this is clearly problematic, because the Rockall Bank is shared between the EU EEZ and international waters managed by NEAFC. Bearing in mind that habitats at Rockall bear some resemblance to continental shelf habitats off the west of Scotland, and some resemblance to habitats in other NEAFC areas (e.g. Hatton Bank, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, various seamounts) (see Section 3.4.4), defining a suitable ‘managed area’ based on both these jurisdictions would potentially result in a very large area, most of which is poorly mapped and unfished by the UoA. A further difficulty is that much of the benthic fauna at Rockall is not identified to species level, being known from images rather than samples. This makes it problematic to use ‘bioregional information’ for relevant taxa, even if such evidence existed. The team concluded, therefore, that it would be precautionary to consider the Rockall Bank itself as the ‘managed area’, despite the division between two larger jurisdictions – noting that management of VMEs has been largely delegated to NEAFC and evaluation to ICES (WGDEC) (ICES, 2017e). The team has included in this notional ‘managed area’, however, the deeper parts of the Rockall Bank outside the area of this fishery, since the distribution of the key taxa at Rockall extends generally over a wider depth range than the fishery (see ICES (2016j, 2017e, 2017f), Howell et al. (2009); http://vme.ices.dk/map.aspx).

Current protection of VMEs from fishing.

As set out in Section 3.4.4.7, ~75 % of the area <400 m which is known to have VMEs with medium or high confidence is protected in two VME closed areas (NW Rockall, SW Rockall) and the Haddock Box. An updated report by ICES on VMEs at Rockall (ICES, 2017h) confirmed the presence of VME indicators in this area from new records submitted in 2017 and justifies its inclusion as part of the protected area. This leaves in theory ~25 % which can be fished; i.e. damaged. This, however, does not include areas of habitat below the maximum depth of the fishery (~400 m) which are also protected from fishing by their location. This question is considered in turn for the key VME taxa below. Depth range of VME taxa (for taxa where species names are available): Stony corals: Although Lophelia is present all across the Rockall Bank, the main areas of Lophelia at Rockall (the carbonate mounds) start at 500 m and extend down to 1200 m or further; those that have been found (i.e. the Logachev and West Rockall Mounds) are fully protected in closed areas (Howell et al., 2009; JNCC, 2008). The centre of distribution of Madrepora seems to be similar to Lophelia; they are often found together. The species is known down to at least 1500 m, if not further.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 120 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Sponges: Characteristic species of sponges are given by Howell et al. (2009) as Axinella sp. and Phakellia sp. There are several species of each genus; the most common in UK/Norwegian waters seem to be A. infundibuliformis (‘funnel-shaped’), P. robusta and P. ventilabrum. Maximum depths are given for these species as 700 m, 800 m and ‘deep’. WGDEC likewise note 2016 samples to be Phakellia ventilabrum, Suberites pagurorum and species of Axinellidae. S. pagurorum is a widespread species which occurs to below 1000 m. Updated NEAFC recommendations from ICES in 2017 define possible VME closed areas for sponges near Rockall, but these are in water depths far exceeding the fishery (although within range of the deep redfish fishery not assessed here). Cup corals: WGDEC report that all specimens added to the database in 2016 were Caryophyllia smithii, the Devonshire cup coral, which is relatively abundant around the coast of NW Europe. Reportedly there are two forms, a robust shallow water form which occurs from the intertidal down to ~100 m and a deep-water form which occurs from ~50 m down to 1000 m or further (presumably it is this latter form that occurs at Rockall; the team were unable to evaluate whether the difference was genetic or purely phenotypic). Black coral: WGDEC report recent specimens to be Parantipathes sp. but there are several species. Gorgonians: Placogorgia; species unclear. Sea pens: Tall sea pen Funiculina quadrangularis to ~2000 m; also Pennatula sp. but species unclear. Soft corals: Duva florida down to at least ~600 m (Mortensen and Buhl-Mortensen, 2005) Bryozoans: Bryozoans are not one of WGDEC’s VME indicator taxa, but have been added in because Howell et al. (2009) identify them as important. They are not easy to identify to species from images; the only taxon identified to genus is Reteporella. There are a great many species of Reteporella; the most likely could be R. beaniana which reportedly in Norway is part of a complex of three almost indistinguishable species. The maximum depth range does not seems to be known, but according to Howell et al. (2009) at Rockall it was characteristic of rocky and stony reef at all depths in their survey. Historical distribution of corals at Rockall A final consideration is historical distribution of, and damage to, these habitats at Rockall, which can be evaluated roughly for corals, based on mapping of historical records by Howell et al. (see Figure 17) as compared to current records (see Figure 17). Although there is some evidence of habitat loss and damage, it does not appear to have been wholesale and extensive (see discussion in Section 3.4.4.7), and VMEs appear to be still largely present in the areas where they were recorded historically. Nevertheless, there is evidence of ongoing damage in areas open to fishing (Figure 16); ICES have recommended for several

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 121 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

years small changes to the boundary of the NW Rockall closed area which have not been implemented as far as the team is aware. Conclusions

SA3.13.4.1 In the case of VMEs the team shall interpret “serious or irreversible harm” as reductions in habitat structure and function below 80% of the unimpacted level.

Protected areas allow for protection of ~75 % of the area which are thought with medium or high confidence to contain VMEs, above 400 m depth (the fishable area). This gives a theoretical maximum potential for damage of ~25%, which would constitute ‘serious or irreversible harm’ according to MSC’s definition, given above. This does not take account of two factors; however: i) VME distribution on Rockall Bank below the maximum depth of the fishery and ii) areas <400 m which are unfishable because of the rocky substrate. Corals clearly occur across the Rockall Bank in small patches, although they are concentrated deeper; around in the edges of the bank and in the form of carbonate mounds. On the top of the bank, they appear to be present generally as single colonies or small patches rather than ‘reefs’ (Howell et al., 2009). Based on this evidence, the team had confidence that fishing damage to stony corals at Rockall covers <20 % of the habitat structure and function: SG80 is met. There is, however, evidence that there is some ongoing damage to corals in the fishable area; SG100 is not met. For other taxa, the situation with regards to depth is more unclear. Howell et al. (2009) note statistical differences between the species composition of the habitats in the central bank vs. down the eastern flank, but since the sampling down the eastern flank went to 1600 m, this is not very surprising. As far as it is possible to determine, the depth range of dominant or indicator species extends to variable depths below 400 m in all cases; VMEs in general are more abundant around the edges of the bank than on the top according to ICES’ mapping (see Figure 15), but this could be a consequence of historical habitat destruction. It is also worth noting that some areas of habitat above 400 m will be unfishable; e.g. where large boulders or very rough rocky outcrops are present; such areas are reportedly known to fishermen, but are not mapped and cannot be quantified. Overall, the team concluded that the 75% closure, plus the qualitative factors of depth range and unfishable areas, made it ‘highly unlikely’ for serious or irreversible harm to be caused to these VMEs, but that evidence is lacking in some areas: SG80 is met but SG100 is not met. The team propose a non-binding recommendation, that the fishery support the adoption of ICES’ adjusted boundaries to the NW Rockall closed area.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 122 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

c Minor habitat status

Guidepost There is evidence that the UoA is highly

unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? N

Justification No attempt has been made to identify minor habitats – not met.

(Kaiser et al., 2003; JNCC, 2008; Howell et al., 2009; NEAFC, 2014; ICES, 2016j, 2017f) Telnes K. The Marine Flora and Fauna of Norway; http://www.seawater.no/fauna/index.html (for sponges) Picton BE and Morrow CE. Encyclopedia of Marine Life of Britain and Ireland. http://www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/ Madrepora occulata: http://www.sealifebase.org/summary/Madrepora-oculata.html References Devonshire cup coral : http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1668 Placogorgia coronata : http://www.sealifebase.org/summary/Placogorgia-coronata.html Tall sea pen: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1154 Suberites pagurorum: http://www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/sponge_guide/sponges.asp?item=C2210

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 123 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place, if There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing necessary, that are expected to achieve necessary, that is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. performance. performance or above.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The NEAFC approach to management of vulnerable habitats is set out in Recs 19/2014 and 9/2015 and cover the following measures:

• VME closed areas, estimated to protect ~45 % of total habitat and ~75 % of VME habitat on the Rockall Bank (see 2.4.1) • Definition of ‘bottom fishing areas’ outside which only experimental fishing is permitted with a defined framework • Move-on rules triggered by 30 kg corals or 400 kg sponges (although based on the comment in ICES (2016j) that all records of VME bycatch were <1 kg, these are not likely to contribute much)

• A process for review of the various measures by NEAFC and for external review of the boundaries of the closed areas by ICES on a regular basis. This meets MSC’s definition of a ‘strategy’ (Table SA8), which covers all fisheries, not just this one for the NEAFC area. On the EU side:

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 124 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

• Responsibility for habitat protection appears to have been passed to NEAFC, who have established shared closed areas which are also enforced on the EU side of the line.

• The review process of VME boundaries is undertaken by ICES on a regular basis • On the EU side there is no Move-on rule triggered for VME encounters but SFSAG have instigated a voluntary code which mimics the existing NEAFC guidelines. This has been established through consultation with Marine Scotland and requires each PO to be part of the code of conduct in order to fish at Rockall. Data collection is organized through SFSAG and control and monitoring through SFSAG in coloboration with Marine Scotland (see Appendix 8 SFSAG voluntary move-on rule). The existence of the above forms a partial strategy for the protection of habitats on the EU side but as part of the strategy is voluntary, untested and only applicable to this UoA this cannot be considered at SG100. SG100 is not met but Sg80 is met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that work, based on plausible argument (e.g. confidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory or comparison strategy will work, based on information based on information directly about with similar UoAs/habitats). directly about the UoA and/or habitats the UoA and/or habitats involved. involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justification There is relatively high confidence that these measures will work, as set out in 2.4.1. There is an objective basis for this based on historical and recent habitat surveys and mapping (Howell et al., 2009; ICES, 2016j, 2017f); There is as yet no reporting from the the voluntary Move-on rule in the EU side of the fishery, but as this follows the same procedures as on the NEAFC side its effectiveness should be comparable. SG80 is met. There is however not enough information about all VME taxa at Rockall and the impacts of fishing such that this could constitute ‘testing’ in this case; there is evidence that there remains some loss of VMEs (see Figure 17); ICES have recommended for several years small changes to the boundary of the NW Rockall closed area. SG100 is not met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 125 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some quantitative evidence There is clear quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is that the partial strategy/strategy is being being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Met? N N

Justification There is quantitative evidence that the VME closed areas are enforced based on VMS tracks (at least in the NEAFC area and there is no reason to suppose that things are different in UK waters, given the analysis conducted on Haddock Box compliance), as well as based on mapping of VMEs inside and outside the closed areas; this is given by ICES, (2016j, 2017f) and summarized in Section 3.4.4.4. ICES in 2016 expressed some concern about the enforcement of the Haddock Box, but Marine Scotland Compliance gave no indication that they have any concerns in this regard. Since it is reported in 2016 reanalysis in 2017 VMS data show compliance and the team interviewed MSS which provided confirmation of compliance. In 2017 ICES described evidence of VME within the Haddock Box and therefore the team were able to conclude that the Haddock Box is enforced in the same way as the other closed areas. Although VMEs remain relatively abundant, there is evidence that some are being lost due to fishing in non-closed areas (see Figure 16). There is not yet evidence that the voluntary move on rule is implemented successfully as it is untested at present and no evidence exists and therefore SG80 cannot be met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

Guidepost There is some quantitative evidence There is clear quantitative evidence There is qualitative evidence that the that the UoA complies with both its that the UoA complies with both its UoA complies with its management management requirements and with management requirements and with requirements to protect VMEs. protection measures afforded to VMEs protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? Y N N

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 126 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Justification See discussion above in relation to the Haddock Box. The team takes the analysis of WGDEC as to the location of VMEs and closed areas, and of Marine Scotland Compliance in relation to compliance, to comprise ‘some quantitative evidence’ that management requirements are being complied with. The ongoing slight question mark about the Haddock Box, however, precludes ‘clear quantitative evidence’. SG80 cannot be met at present as quantitative evidence of the UoA complying with the voluntary move-on rule does not exist. There are no cumulative impacts associated with this UoA and habitats.

References (Kaiser et al., 2003; JNCC, 2008; Howell et al., 2009; EU, 2014; NEAFC, 2014; ICES, 2016j, 2017f)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 6

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 127 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidepost The types and distribution of the main The nature, distribution and vulnerability The distribution of all habitats is known habitats are broadly understood. of the main habitats in the UoA area are over their range, with particular attention known at a level of detail relevant to the to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats. OR scale and intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the OR UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the Qualitative information is adequate to UoA: estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Justification At a scale relevant to the fishery, the general distribution of habitats, including vulnerable habitats, at Rockall is known and continues to be monitored. Information is sufficient to define and evaluate closed areas which protect the majority of VMEs from trawl damage. SG80 is met. The distribution of the habitats over their whole range at Rockall is, however, not understood in much detail (see for example 2.4.1b in relation to depth range of VME indicator species). SG100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 128 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Guidepost Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to allow for The physical impacts of the gear on all understand the nature of the main identification of the main impacts of the impacts of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, and there is habitats have been quantified fully. habitats, including spatial overlap of reliable information on the spatial extent habitat with fishing gear. of interaction and on the timing and OR location of use of the fishing gear. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the OR UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative information is available attributes of the main habitats. and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Since habitats are broadly identified and mapped, VMEs are located and mapped and the spatial extent of the use of fishing gear is known through VMS data and depth limits in both jurisdictions then SG80 is met. SG100 is impossible for this assessment and is therefore not met.

c Monitoring

Guidepost Adequate information continues to be Changes in habitat distributions over time collected to detect any increase in risk to are measured. the main habitats.

Met? Y Y

Justification ICES are charged with reviewing the VME closed areas on a regular basis and use mapping of bycatch records of VME indicator taxa from fishing vessels and (presumably) surveys (for the closed areas). This mapping can be compared with surveys and historical data and is done in Section 3.4.4.7. There is continued exploration of Rockall through research cruises which include

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 129 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

new mapping techniques which increase the knowledge of habitats and provide new information on deeper areas (MS, 2016). SG100 is met.

References (Kaiser et al., 2003; JNCC, 2008; Howell et al., 2009; NEAFC, 2014; ICES, 2016j, 2017f; MS, 2016),

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 130 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the There is evidence that the UoA is highly elements underlying ecosystem structure key elements underlying ecosystem unlikely to disrupt the key elements and function to a point where there would structure and function to a point where underlying ecosystem structure and be a serious or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible function to a point where there would be harm. a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The main driver of ecosystem change at Rockall seems to be climate change (ICES, 2016k). The main ecosystem impacts of the UoA can be surmised to derive from i) removal of biomass of the target species (haddock); ii) removal of biomass of bycatch species, including ETP species and iii) impacts from trawling on demersal habitats. The target stock is in good shape (see Principle 1), and on this basis it can be assumed that the fishery is not harming the ecosystem by this route. The most significant bycatch species (by catch quantity) are monkfish, ling, saithe and whiting. Monkfish, ling and saithe stocks are in good shape (see 2.1.1). Whiting, conversely, is not. ICES consider it unlikely that Rockall whiting is a self-sustaining stock, and Neat and Campbell (2011) note that whiting is rare at Rockall relative to the west coast shelf (even though it is depleted in 6a). On this basis, it is most likely that whiting at Rockall is an extension of the west coast stock (2.1 has been scored on this basis). Its relative rarity at Rockall is presumably a natural phenomenon since fishing pressure is lower at Rockall than closer inshore (as you would expect), and presumably it is less significant as a driver of the ecosystem than shown in Figure 20. On this basis, it is not likely that the catch of whiting is causing serious harm to the ecosystem. Catches of ETP species are low; the fishery may be a concern for common skate complex (as all trawl fisheries around NW Europe) but the species has been essentially extirpated in many inshore areas without apparently resulting in serious harm to the ecosystem. Habitats are protected at Rockall to a much more significant level than elsewhere around Scotland (see 2.4.1). On this basis, SG80 is met. There is still, however, much less understanding of how

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 131 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

the ecosystem functions in this area than, for example, in the North Sea (Bailey et al., 2011; Alexander et al., 2015). On this basis, ‘evidence’ such as would be derived from robust modelling and simulation, is lacking; SG100 is not met.

References (Bailey et al., 2011; Neat and Campbell, 2011; Alexander et al., 2015; ICES, 2016k)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 132 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place, if There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy that consists of a necessary which take into account the necessary, which takes into account plan, in place which contains measures potential impacts of the fishery on key available information and is expected to address all main impacts of the UoA elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the UoA on the on the ecosystem, and at least some of ecosystem so as to achieve the these measures are in place. Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y N

Justification There is not an ecosystem management plan or a formal integrated ecosystem approach to the management of Rockall. There, are, however, measures to manage the various different ecosystem elements that might be impacted by fishing: these are TAC and quotas for the main fishery species; gear restrictions and (increasingly) the landing obligation for discards and closed areas for VMEs. There are minor issues with some of these measures (e.g. in relation to how the TACs apply to non-EU fleets – see Principle 1, boundaries of the closed areas – see Habitats), but overall they appear to be working to restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem to an appropriate level (see 2.4.1). The measures together can comprise a ‘partial strategy’ according to MSC’s definition, so SG80 is met. Since there is not a strategy that consists of a plan, SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that work, based on plausible argument (e.g., confidence that the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy will work,

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 133 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

general experience, theory or comparison strategy will work, based on some based on information directly about the with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). information directly about the UoA and/or UoA and/or ecosystem involved the ecosystem involved

Met? Y Y N

Justification Despite the remoteness of Rockall, there is relatively extensive monitoring of the ecosystem; the area is covered by annual Scottish and Irish fish surveys, there is periodic monitoring of VMEs (see Habitats above) and ICES are monitoring changes in the ecosystem (ICES, 2016k). This provides an objective basis for evaluating the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem, and hence a basis for confidence that the partial strategy is working to restrain ecosystem impacts. SG80 is met. For SG100, ‘testing’ implies in this context some kind of ecosystem modelling / simulation; some attempts have been made to do this for the Scottish west coast shelf ecosystem to evaluate impacts of fishing and other issues, but results have not been satisfactory (Bailey et al., 2011; Alexander et al., 2015). SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

Met? Y N

Justification Marine Scotland Compliance do not report any issues with compliance with the closed areas; there was previously a question over the implementation of the Haddock Box (see 2.4.1) but this has been resolved. TACs and quotas are enforced according to the usual procedures (see Principle 3). SG80 is met. In relation to SG100 it is a little difficult in this system to be certain that there are no significant ecosystem impacts from fishing; although it is not likely, there has not been any detailed ecosystem modelling, as noted above. SG100 is not met.

References (Bailey et al., 2011; Alexander et al., 2015; ICES, 2016k, 2017e, 2017f)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 134 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 135 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidepost Information is adequate to identify the Information is adequate to broadly key elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justification The general elements of the ecosystem (plankton, fish, invertebrates, VMEs) are known and to some extent quantified, and it is possible to see roughly how the food web fits together (see section 3.4.4 and 3.4.5; Figure 20). SG80 is met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guidepost Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from these ecosystem elements can be existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have inferred from existing information, and investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. have been investigated in detail.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The impact of the UoA on some elements (e.g. commercial fish stocks, VMEs) has been and continues to be evaluated in detail (see Principle 1, PI 2.1, PI 2.4). The impact of the UoA on some other elements of the ecosystem (e.g. elasmobranchs) is less well understood. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 136 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

c Understanding of component functions

Guidepost The main functions of the components The impacts of the UoA on P1 target (i.e., P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary and ETP secondary and ETP species and species and Habitats are identified and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y N

Justification As regards the fish components (various gadoids, monkfish, megrim, various skates) their predator-prey dynamics are generally known, and their role in the food web can be evaluated at least qualitatively (see Figure 20). The role of VMEs in the ecosystem (particularly as habitat for some fish species such as redfish) is also broadly understood (see Costello et al. (2005)). It was noted, however, by Alexander et al. (2015) that difficulties in fitting EcoPath models in the case of the west of Scotland shelf ecosystem were partially attributable to gaps in our knowledge of how the foodweb functions; on this basis it could be argued that while the main functions of the various components are known, how they fit together is not well understood in this area – SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met.

d Information relevance

Guidepost Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components impacts of the UoA on the components to allow some of the main consequences and elements to allow the main for the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? Y N

Justification As noted above, the impact of the UoA on the various key components (fish, VMEs) can be inferred or in many cases is evaluated directly; the consequences for the ecosystem are inferred in the rationale for 2.5.1. SG80 is met. SG100 requires that this can be

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 137 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

done for the various elements of ecosystem structure and function; i.e. trophic structure, energy flow, biodiversity etc., including indirect impacts on groups which are not directly impacted by the UoA. This is difficult without a robust ecosystem model, which has not yet been achieved for this area; SG100 is not met.

e Monitoring

Guidepost Adequate data continue to be collected to Information is adequate to support the detect any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

Met? Y N

Justification As noted above, despite Rockall’s remoteness, the key elements of the ecosystem likely to be impacted directly by the UoA (i.e. fish, VMEs) are monitored relatively closely. This monitoring allows for the detection of changes in risk; e.g. via stock assessments and VME mapping; the destruction of a coral area as shown in Figure 17 is an example. The monitoring is adequate to develop a strategy for ecosystem management for the main plausible ecosystem impacts, should that be desired; but the lack of a robust model would mean that indirect impacts might not be detected and included; on this basis SG80 is met but SG100 might not be met in full.

References (Costello et al., 2005; Bailey et al., 2011; Alexander et al., 2015; ICES, 2016k, 2017e, 2017f)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 138 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Principle 3 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and 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

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national legal system There is an effective national legal There is an effective national legal system and post and a framework for cooperation with system and organised and effective binding procedures governing other parties, where necessary, to deliver cooperation with other parties, where cooperation with other parties which management outcomes consistent with necessary, to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent MSC Principles 1 and 2 outcomes consistent with MSC Principles with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi The fishery is managed by NEAFC in international waters and within the context of EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the Scottish cation EEZ. In international waters, NEAFC sets quotas and oversees closure of areas and habitat protection, among other things (see discussion under Principles 1 and 2 above). The provisions of the CFP are transposed into the Scottish legal system in the form of Scottish Statutory Instruments. CFP applies to all fishing activities in EU waters, including the EEZ, and to the activities of EU vessels outside EU’s marine jurisdiction. The EU quota is then divided among member states according to the principle of relative stability. Within the UK, a major share of fish quotas are given to the Scottish fishing industry. The Scottish Government issues most of its allocations to Fish Producer Organizations (POs), of which there are 10 administered directly by Marine Scotland. POs are quota management and marketing organizations made up of member fishing vessels. POs manage their members’ quotas on their behalf and some seek to market their landings.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 139 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The main legal bases for fisheries management in Scottish territorial waters, as well as management of activities by Scottish registered fishing vessels outside Scottish territorial waters, are the 2013 Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act and the 2010 Marine Act, with supplementary legislation at lower levels (secondary or subordinate legislation, such as specific requirements to fishing operations and gear). The regional distribution of responsibilities within UK fisheries management is fixed in an agreement between the Fisheries Administrations of England (Defra – the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), Northern Ireland (the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)), Scotland (Marine Scotland) and Wales (the Welsh Government) from 2012. Marine Scotland is the implementing body under the Scottish Government, responsible for all components of fisheries management, from science to management and enforcement. In accordance with the Marine Act, its full special jurisdiction is limited to Scottish territorial waters, but it is also conferred the authority to enforce Scottish fisheries legislation in the EEZ and flag-state responsibilities towards Scottish registered fishing vessels outside EU waters. Marine Scotland works closely with the Producer Organisations (POs; see PI 3.1.2 b below), which are delegated responsibility for managing fish quotas on behalf of their members. At a UK level, Marine Scotland works with a number of other bodies of governance, such as Defra and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). MMO is a Non- Departmental Public Body (NDPB) under Defra, which delivers legal, monitoring and enforcement functions. At EU and national level, there are effective and binding procedures in place to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. In international waters, the cooperation can be considered organized and, in practice, effective (no systematic overshoot of the TAC in recent years, plus the temporary ‘box’ under NEAFC management authority works effectively), warranting an 80 score, although not binding (in the form of a permanent ‘box’); SG100 is therefore not met. b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or The management system incorporates or is post subject by law to a mechanism for the is subject by law to a transparent subject by law to a transparent mechanism resolution of legal disputes arising within the mechanism for the resolution of legal for the resolution of legal disputes that is system. disputes which is considered to be appropriate to the context of the fishery and effective in dealing with most issues and has been tested and proven to be effective. that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi At the national level in Scotland, there is an effective, transparent dispute resolution mechanism in place, as fishers can take their case cation 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. In practice, the vast majority of disputes are resolved within the

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 140 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

management system, which incorporates ample formal and informal opportunities for fishers and other stakeholders to interact with the authorities (see PI 3.1.2 below), e.g. to clear out disagreement and conflict among users and between users and authorities. At the international level, a state can institute proceedings against another state through mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) or bring a dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). At the regional level, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) in 2004 adopted a recommendation for compulsory dispute settlement. None of these mechanisms have so far been widely used as means for solving fisheries disputes, but ICJ has over many decades had a number of cases regarding fisheries jurisdiction, and ITLOS has in recent years had cases on the prompt release of detained fishing vessels and the use of provisional measures. PCA was called upon in 2013 to solve certain aspects of the dispute between the EU and Faroe Islands regarding the coastal state management regimes in the Norwegian Sea. Hence, there are mechanisms in place within the Law of the Sea, and international law more widely, that the parties can invoke in cases of serious disagreement. However, these mechanisms have not yet been tested and proven to be effective in cases most likely to arise in the context of the fishery under assessment, e.g. disputes on quota allocation or the technical regulation of fisheries. Therefore SG100 is not met. c Respect for rights

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi At all levels of the management system, fish resources are distributed based on some level of historical usage and attention to the social cation context within which the fishery takes place. At the international level, the NEAFC Convention states as its objective to ensure the long- term conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits (Art. 2). At EU level, 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

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 141 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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, mechanisms to formally commit to the rights of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood are in place in the management system, and SG100 is met.

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. Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 2013. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters.

References Interview with Marine Scotland and the fishery client during site visit. Marine (Scotland) Act (2010). NEAFC Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Annex K – Amendment of the Convention on Dispute Settlement, 2004. 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, J., Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2016. Website of Marine Scotland (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 142 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

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

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and individuals involved in Organisations and individuals involved Organisations and individuals involved in the post the management process have been in the management process have been management process have been identified. identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. responsibilities are explicitly defined explicitly defined and well understood for all and well understood for key areas of areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi The functions, roles and responsibilities of all actors in the Scottish system for fisheries management are explicitly defined in the cation Aquaculture and Fisheries Act, the Marine Act and supporting legislation – all read in the context of relevant EU legislation – and are, according to our interviews during site visit, well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. They are also exemplarily described on Marine Scotland’s website. As laid out under PI 3.1.1 a) above, governance functions are mainly performed by Marine Scotland, which is a directorate under the Scottish Government. The functions, roles and responsibilities of NEAFC are explicitly defined in the NEAFC Convention and supporting regulations. These seem well understood for key areas, if not for all, areas of responsibility and interaction. SG 100 is not met. b Consultation processes

Guide The management system includes The management system includes The management system includes consultation post consultation processes that obtain relevant consultation processes that regularly processes that regularly seek and accept information from the main affected parties, seek and accept relevant information, relevant information, including local knowledge.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 143 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

including local knowledge, to inform the including local knowledge. The The management system demonstrates management system. management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains consideration of the information how it is used or not used. obtained.

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi Scottish fisheries management includes a sophisticated system for stakeholder consultation. The main mechanisms are i) public meetings cation (regional fishing industry assemblies, quayside conversations and fishing sector focus groups); ii) advisory and working groups (the Inshore Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (IFMAC), the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group (FMAC) and the Scottish Discard Steering Group); and iii) ad hoc events, such as conferences. FMAC was set up by the Cabinet Secretary (effectively: Minister) for Rural Affairs and the Environment in 2011, as part of a broader political and management effort to implement the cod recovery plan, and increase fishermen – and Scottish – influence in the forthcoming reform of the CFP. It is chaired by Marine Scotland and includes representatives from the fishing industry representative bodies, fish producer organizations, environmental organizations and Marine Scotland Policy and Science. FMAC makes recommendations to Marine Scotland – and, on request, to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment – on matters connected to the development of fisheries legislation and policies, the allocation of fishing opportunities, management mechanisms and objectives for and strategies towards international negotiations. FMAC meets 1-4 times per year, and agendas and minutes from the meetings are available for download on Marine Scotland’s website. Marine Scotland aims to circulate documents for discussion no less than four weeks in advance of meetings so as to allow time for the constituent organizations to consult with their members. Decisions are sought made through consensus, but objections are recorded in the minutes, on request. Marine Scotland also seeks the opinion of stakeholders on running regulatory issues through occasional consultations papers posted on their website. Another important interface between the industry and authorities is the POs. The POs are membership organizations for industry actors whose role, according to EU legislation, is to market the products of their members and implement measures that promote the concentration of supply and stabilize prices. POs are also allocated the vast majority of UK quotas by Fisheries Administrations and are responsible for managing these quotas on behalf of their members. There are currently 10 Scottish POs recognized by Marine Scotland, among them the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation (SFO). Other stakeholder organizations include Seafood Scotland, which was set up in 1999 to increase the value of return to the Scottish seafood sector, and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association (SWFPA), the largest fishing association in Scotland, which protects and promotes its members’ interests across a range of national and international political arenas. SWFPA, in turn, is part of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), which works to promote the collective interests of Scotland’s ten geographically and sectorally defined fishermen’s associations. The Federation plays an active role in advancing the interests of Scottish fishermen at national and international levels by lobbying government officials in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. It also plays a key role in helping to inform fisheries science, management of the marine environment; inshore fisheries management, marine spatial planning, marine safety regulations and industry recruitment and training programmes. An example of a more ad hoc based interface between different industry actors and authorities is the Gear Innovation and Technology Advisory Group (GITAG), which is hosted

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 144 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

by SFF with Marine Scotland participation, established in 2015 to foster flexible working partnerships between fishermen, industry and public bodies, gear technologists and science in the implementation of the landing obligation in 2019. The situation is similar at the international level, where user groups participate in meetings in NEAFC and the North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC); NGOs are also allowed to participate as observers. The Advisory Councils are the main consultation mechanism through which industry engages with management authorities at EU level. They include European industry and NGO representatives ensuring local knowledge is considered within the management system. They actively develop policy advice to the European Commission and are considered as part of the EU’s management system. NWWAC currently has 70 member organizations from the EU and the member states, including fisheries associations, POs and NGOs. Both user groups and NGOs are also represented on NEAFC meetings, Representatives of the client fishery consulted during the site visit report that they concentrate their lobbying activities towards Marine Scotland, Defra and the European Commission. In addition to direct lobbying, of both a formal and an informal nature, they consider FMAC as their most important channel for influence at the national level and NSAC at the international level. They report consultation processes to be inclusive and transparent, with management authorities displaying consideration of the information obtained from stakeholders and explaining how it is used or not used. Such explanations are provided throughout all platforms available for interaction, in both oral and written form. Hence, SG100 is met. c Participation

Guide The consultation process provides The consultation process provides opportunity post opportunity for all interested and and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved. affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? Y Y

Justifi As follows from 3.1.2 b), the consultation processes provide ample opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved in cation discussions about fisheries management in Scotland. Authorities invite relevant stakeholders to meetings and seminars and actively seek their opinion on management measures, in direct meetings and in writing. The level of active encouragement and practical facilitation is considered appropriate to the scope and context of the fishery. SG100 is met.

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 2013. References Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. Fisheries Management and Conservation (FMAC) Group Remit, FMAC/11/02, 2012.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 145 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

FMAC, agendas and minutes from meetings 2013–2015, available at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea- Fisheries/engagement/FMAC/Meetings. Interview with Marine Scotland and the fishery client during site visit. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. REGULATION (EU) No 1379/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. Report on Marine Scotland’s Programme of Regional Fishing Industry Assemblies in 2014, Marine Scotland, 2015. Websites of FMAC (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/engagement/FMAC), GITAG (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/discards/GITAG), Marine Scotland (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine), NEAFC (https://www.neafc.org/), North Western Waters Advisory Council (http://www.nwwac.org/english), Producer Organisations (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries/management/17681/producerinterbranch), SFF (http://www.scottishfishermen.co.uk), SFO (http://www.sff.co.uk) and SWFPA (http://www.swfpa.com) . OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 146 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide Clear long-term objectives that guide post making, consistent with the MSC fisheries decision-making, consistent with MSC decision-making, consistent with MSC standard and the precautionary approach, fisheries standard and the precautionary fisheries standard and the precautionary are implicit within management policy. approach are explicit within approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. management policy.

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The overarching objective of the NEAFC Convention is to ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilization of the fishery cation resources in the Convention Area (Art. 2). When making recommendations, NEAFC shall ensure that these are based on the best scientific evidence available, and the the precautionary approach is applied. The current CFP regulation 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). The Marine (Scotland) Act sets Sustainable development and protection and enhancement of the health of the Scottish marine area as its main objective (Part 2). Seen in the context of the requirements in the remaining law text, and legal acts at lower levels, the objectives are consistent with the precautionary approach to fisheries management, as defined, e.g., in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Since they are codified at the level of law, they are required by management policy. SG 100 is met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 147 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. Marine (Scotland) Act (2010). References 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. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 148 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are broadly consistent Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and post with achieving the outcomes expressed by consistent with achieving the outcomes long-term objectives, which are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are demonstrably consistent with achieving the within the fishery-specific management explicit within the fishery-specific outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y N Justifi Short- and long-term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 are explicit in the CFP and NEAFC regulatory cation measures, such as preservation of fish stocks at sustainable levels, but they are not equally measurable for the long- as the short-term. Other policy instruments set more specific P2 related objectives, such as the EU MSFD for commercial fishing activities and the protection of marine habitats and biodiversity, or NEAFC goals for habitat protection. Until the MSFD programmes of measures are adopted for the West of Scotland region, not all P2 related objectives have been quantified (they were due to be finalised by the end of 2016, but it appears that they are not yet available). SG100 is not met. References MSFD Scotland see http://blogs.scotland.gov.uk/coastal-monitoring/2014/08/12/update-on-the-marine-strategy-framework-directive- msfd-consultation/; also http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/msfd OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 149 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision-making processes There are established decision-making post in place that result in measures and processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. objectives.

Met? Y Y

Justifi Established decision-making procedures in NEAFC, the EU and the Scottish national fisheries management system – evolved over cation several decades and now codified in the NEAFC Convention, the CFP, the Scottish Marine and Fisheries Acts, as well as supporting legislation – ensure that strategies are produced and measures taken to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This applies to the Rockall haddock fisheries as it does to NEAFC, EU and Scottish fisheries in general; see PIs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 above. Measures include, among other things, the establishment of TACs on the basis of scientific advice, regulation of access to the fishery and technical requirements such as gear restrictions; cf. P1 and P2 above. SG80 is met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to all post serious issues identified in relevant serious and other important issues issues identified in relevant research, research, monitoring, evaluation and identified in relevant research, monitoring, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a a transparent, timely and adaptive manner adaptive manner and take some account of transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications the wider implications of decisions. and take account of the wider implications of of decisions. decisions.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 150 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y Y N

Justifi According to our interviews during the site visit, as well as ample documentation on Marine Scotland’s website, the established decision- cation making procedures at national level in Scotland respond to all issues identified in research, monitoring, evaluation or by groups with an interest in the fishery. This is ensured through the 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. User-group representatives claim that the relevant government agencies are open to any kind of input at any time, which is corroborated by information available at Marine Scotland’s comprehensive website. Authorities’ response to stakeholder input is transparent and timely and the ensuing policy options take adequate account of their advice. Also at NEAFC level, decision-making processes appear to respond to serious and other important issues, but the team has not been convinced that all issues are responded to here as information is less readily available than at the national level. SG100 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach

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

Met? Y

Justifi Decision-making processes are based on relevant scientific research by the Marine Scotland Science (UK), The Marine Institute (Ireland) cation and PINRO (Russian Federation), as well as ICES assessments and STECF input. NEAFC, EU and national legislation require the use of the precautionary approach (see PI 3.1.3). SG80 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the fishery’s Information on the fishery’s performance Formal reporting to all interested post performance and management action is and management action is available on stakeholders provides comprehensive generally available on request to request, and explanations are provided for information on the fishery’s stakeholders. any actions or lack of action associated with performance and management actions findings and relevant recommendations and describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 151 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

emerging from research, monitoring, recommendations emerging from evaluation and review activity. research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi As follows from PI 3.1.2 above, there are a number of arenas in the Scottish system for fisheries management where the industry and cation other stakeholders can provide their input to the management process, ranging from formalized platforms such as FMAC to direct consultations like quayside conversations and more informal, direct communication. Marine Scotland’s and NEAFC’s websites offer an impressive amount of written response from authorities to stakeholder input, such as minutes from meetings and response to public hearings (e.g. from consultation with stakeholders ahead of the introduction of electronic logbooks in 2008). The information on the official website is supplemented by a blog, where information is disseminated in an even more accessible manner. Furthermore, management performance is reported formally, in annual reports from scientific, regulatory and enforcement authorities, as well as in a range of reviews of the management system, all publicly available and duly distributed (cf. PI 3.2.4 below). This written documentation alone confirms that formal reporting by authorities is in place and in a satisfactory manner explains findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. No indication to the contrary has been provided during interviews at the site visit and other stakeholder input. SG100 is met. e Approach to disputes

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The national management authority is not subject to continuing court challenges. When occasionally taken to court by fishing companies, cation the management authority complies with the judicial decision in a timely manner. The management authority works proactively to avoid legal disputes through the tight cooperation with user groups at the regulatory level, ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 152 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

and other management decisions, as well as guidance at fisherman level in order to prevent infringements; cf. PI 3.2.3 below. Only the most serious cases go to prosecution by the police and possible transfer to the court system. SG100 is met.

Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 2013. Consultation on the Implementation of Detailed Rules on Electronic Recording and Reporting of Fishing Activities and on Means of Remote Sensing in Scotland, Scottish Government Marine Directorate, 2008. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries, 2006. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. References Interview with Marine Scotland and the fishery client during site visit. ICES. 2013. Request from NEAFC to evaluate the proposals for the harvest control components of the management plan for Rockall haddock fisheries. In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2013. ICES Advice 2013, Book 5, Section 5.3.3.2. Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. 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. Website of Marine Scotland (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine) and NEAFC (https://www.neafc.org/). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 153 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance system has A comprehensive monitoring, control post mechanisms exist, and are been implemented in the fishery and has and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant implemented in the fishery and has reasonable expectation that they are management measures, strategies and/or rules. demonstrated a consistent ability to effective. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) in the fishery is taken care of by Marine Scotland Compliance, in collaboration with enforcement cation authorities at UK and EU level (including the European Fisheries Control Agency) and exchange of information with relevant authorities in other states, including under the auspices of the NEAFC Control and Enforcement Scheme. All enforcement activities are carried out on the basis of a risk-based framework, identifying where resources can be best put to use at any time in order to optimize compliance. The NEAFC Control and Enforcement Scheme applies to all vessels used or intended for use for fishing activities in the NEAFC Regulatory Area (international waters in the Northeast Atlantic) (Art. 2). It contains comprehensive detailed requirements to the Contracting Parties as regards control measure (such as authorization, notification and marking of gear; Chapter II), monitoring of fisheries (such as recording, reporting and application of VMS; Chapter III), inspections at sea (Chapter IV), port state control of foreign fishing vessels (Chapter V), infringements (Chapter VI) and measures to promote compliance by non-contracting party fishing vessels (Chapter VII). In sum, the Scheme obliges the NEAFC Contracting Parties to a considerable level of sharing of catch information, harmonization of regulations and national contribution to monitoring in international waters. 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

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 154 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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 vessel monitoring system (VMS) and an automatic identification system (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 PI 3.2.3 b) below). Marine Scotland Compliance carries out the UK’s EU responsibilities for fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance in Scotland. It has 19 offices across the country and operates three surveillance vessels and two aircraft. In accordance with EU legislation, it takes care of information gathering through VMS (through the Marine Monitoring Centre) and electronic logbooks, and carries out all other obligations conferred upon Scotland, according the detailed reporting and control requirements in EU legislation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). A Registration of Buyers and Sellers (RBS) Scheme has been fully operational in Scotland since 2005 and requires all buyers and sellers of first sale fish to be registered, and all auction sites of first sale fish and shellfish to be designated. All relevant regulations and information on enforcement activities are available on Marine Scotland’s website. When Scottish vessels land in other European ports, they are subject to the NEAFC port state control scheme, which requires that the port state checks whether the landed fish is covered by a legal quota, and physically inspect a certain percentage of the catch. There is also an extensive exchange of information (including inspection and landing data) among the national enforcement authorities around the Northeast Atlantic. Hence, the fishery has a comprehensive and transparent system for monitoring, control and surveillance, and there are a number of possibilities for enforcement authorities to physically check whether the data provided by fishers through self-reporting are indeed correct. However, although VMS data enables control of whether area restrictions are observed, the apparent lack of physical inspections at sea in the ‘haddock box’ in international waters leaves the enforcement system short of being ‘comprehensive’, and SG 100 is not met, . b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non-compliance Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance post exist and there is some evidence that consistently applied and thought to provide exist, are consistently applied and they are applied. effective deterrence. demonstrably provide effective deterrence.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 155 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi In accordance with the EU Control Regulation, member States are required to ensure that appropriate measures are systematically taken cation 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. In addition to the point system, a graduated system of penalties is used at national level in Scotland, ranging from oral advice to advisory letter, official written warning, various forms of statutory notices (such as revocation and suspension notices), financial administrative penalties (up to £10,000), other material enforcement measures (such as seizure and disposal of fish) and formal prosecution. Fixed penalty levels for different types of offences are publicly available; e.g. the lowest level of infringements leads to a penalty of £250 for a first-time offence and £500 the second time, while the case is referred to prosecution if the violation is repeated a second time. The comprehensive enforcement system (see PI 3.2.3 a)) combined with the relatively high level of compliance (see PI 3.2.3 c)) makes it reasonable to assume that the system provides effective deterrence. SG100 is met. c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally thought to comply Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers There is a high degree of confidence post with the management system for the comply with the management system under that fishers comply with the management fishery under assessment, including, assessment, including, when required, providing system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of information of importance to the effective providing information of importance to the importance to the effective management management of the fishery. effective management of the fishery. of the fishery.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi According to Marine Scotland Compliance, the level of compliance is high in the fishery under assessment. In correspondence with the cation assessment team, they report that there were no enforcement issues with Scottish and UK administered fishing vessels the last couple of years concerning Rockall haddock specifically. They have given priority to the fishing areas where catches have been highest, and last- haul analysis inspections have regularly been carried out. The observance of the Scottish Cod Real Time Closure scheme has remained consistently good throughout the period, and closures are particularly respected by Scottish registered vessels. All prosecuted cases for the last decade are listed on the website of Marine Scotland Compliance. An average of eight cases have been prosecuted each year for the entire Scottish fisheries sector. The total number of inspections in 2016 was 4,588, so the share of inspections

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 156 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

resulting in prosecution is miniscule. Few infringements are of a serious nature. The five cases prosecuted in 2015 were related to the failure to comply with e-log requirements (fined £2,000), failure to submit sales notes (fined £350), retention of skate after a closure (admonished), retention of ling after a closure (fined £4,000) and retention of mackerel after a closure (fined £3,000). Under the data exchange arrangements with other states, bilaterally and under the NEAFC control and enforcement scheme, Scottish enforcement authorities have not been informed of any violations committed by the UoA fishers in waters outside EU jurisdiction. As follows from PI 3.2.3 a) and b) above, the fishery has in place a relatively comprehensive system for monitoring, control and surveillance, including physical checks of fishing operations, catch and gear, as well as a fine-meshed sanctioning system. In addition to these coercive compliance mechanism, varioius forms of norm-, legitimacy- and communication-related mechanisms have proved effective to deliver compliance in other fisheries. In the fishery under assessment, there might be a degree of social control in the relatively small Scottish fishing communities, and the high level of user-group involvement (see PI 3.1.2 above) may provide regulations with a degree of legitimacy that increases fishermen’s inclination to comply with them. The same applies to the relationship between fishermen and enforcement officers, which is reported to be good. Inspectors are trained to approach the fishermen in as forthcoming a manner as possible – starting from the position that they are in compliance with regulations – and interfering with the fishing activities as little as possible (see codes of conduct and strategies referenced below). Importantly, they perceive themselves as having a guidance-providing and not only a policing role towards the fishing fleet. The MSC Fisheries Standard does not give any specific guidance as to what level of compliance is required to conclude that fishers ‘comply with the management system under assessment’. Nor would that be reasonable since the absence of infringements in official compliance information might as well imply that inspectors are not competent (or willing) enough to detect non- compliance, or that they focus attention on those parts of the fishery where compliance is highest; cf. the note on risk-based control above. Hence, official compliance information can only give an indication, and must be seen in relation to other factors, such as the comprehensiveness of the enforcement system, the legitimacy of the management system as such, assumptions on the reliability of data provided by the enforcement authorities and other anecdotal evidence of compliance. It is the qualitative judgment of the assessment team that the requirement that fishers ‘comply with the management system’ is met in this fishery – this does not imply that infringements never take place (which is probably not the case in any fishery), but that most rules are generally respected. The requirement that fishers provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery is also met, according to interviews with Marine Scotland. So the question remains whether fishers are ‘generally thought to comply’ (required for a 60 score), whether ‘some evidence exists’ that they comply (required for an 80 score), or whether there is ‘a high degree of confidence’ that they comply (required for a 100 score). Clearly some evidence exists, as the responsible enforcement authority confirms that this is the case, so SG 80 is met. While the enforcement system as a whole is considered to be relatively comprehensive, the prioritization of landing control comes at the expense of at-sea inspections, especially in waters outside national jurisdiction. Therefore the team concludes that there is not a high degree of confidence that fishers generally comply, so SG 100 is not met. d Systematic non-compliance

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

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 157 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y

Justifi According to Marine Scotland Compliance, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery. The assessment team has cation not come across other information indicating that this is not the case. SG80 is met.

Code of conduct: Fishing Vessel Inspections at Sea, Marine Management Organisation and Royal Navy. Code of conduct: Fishing Vessel Inspections in Harbour, Marine Management Organisation and Royal Navy. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009 of 22 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, References (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006. Email correspondence with Marine Scotland Compliance. Financial Administrative Penalties for Fisheries Offences, Marine Management Organisation. Marine Management Organisation Compliance and Enforcement Strategy. NEAFC Scheme of Control and Enforcement, London: NEAFC, updated as per 9 February 2017 (https://www.neafc.org/scheme). 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. Website of Marine Scotland Compliance (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Compliance OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 158 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in place to There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate post evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific key parts of the fishery-specific management all parts of the fishery-specific management management system. system system.

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi The Scottish system for fisheries management is subject to a number of review mechanisms, covering all major parts of the management cation system. Marine Scotland – which is the overall fisheries management body in Scotland, responsible for all areas of fisheries management at national level, from science to regulation and enforcement – performs annual reviews of its own work, spanning all areas of the organization’s responsibility. Annual reviews are also performed within different parts of the organization for scrutiny at higher levels; for example, Marine Scotland Science submits annual review reports to the Marine Scotland Board. In 2010, an independent panel appointed by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment evaluated the Scottish fisheries sector, including its system of governance. In 2015–2016, a comprehensive review of the performance and structure of Marine Scotland was conducted by the Scottish Government. The views of staff, customers and major stakeholders were sought, including their experience with Marine Scotland’s efforts to communicate effectively with stakeholders. Similarly, at UK level, the Prime Minister in 2003 tasked the Strategy Unit with carrying out a review of options for a sustainable UK fishing industry in the medium to long term, published in 2004. The POs were subject to a comprehensive review by Marine Scotland in 2010–2011. The purposes, functioning and impact of the producer organizations were evaluated, including their management of quotas. All these reviews of the national Scottish component of the management system are publicly available on Marine Scotland’s website. At EU level, the CFP is reviewed in connection with the major revisions of its basic regulations every tenth year. In addition to internal review processes, an independent evaluation was commissioned by the European Commission ahead of the 2013 reform to assess the CFP from both a natural and social sciences point of view. The scientific component of the fishery under assessment is routinely assessed by ICES, as is the management plan for the fishery under assessment. NEAFC was subject to a comprehensive review in 2014, focused

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 159 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

on both internal and external challenges, not least the organization’s role in the setting of TAC of stocks that straddle waters under national and international jurisdiction in the Northeast Atlantic. While it is a principal challenge to claim that absolutely ‘all’ parts of a management system are subject to a particular mechanism (here: review), it is the opinion of the assessment team that the plethora of relatively comprehensive, frequent and easily accessible reviews of all major parts of the management system at both national and EU level comes closer to the criteria of ‘all’ than ‘key’ parts. From an opposite point of view, we cannot see that there are parts of the management system that can reasonably be expected to be subject to review, for which there are no such mechanisms in place for this fishery. We therefore conclude that SG100 is met. b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific management system The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is post is subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external external review. review.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi As follows from 3.2.4 a), all areas of Marine Scotland’s work are subject to regular (annual) internal review. The 2010 evaluation of the cation Scottish fisheries sector, including its system of governance, is indisputably external as it was carried out by an independent panel. The comprehensive evaluation of Marine Scotland’s structure, performance and impact carried out by the Scottish Government in 2015–2016 will arguably also count as external as it was not conducted within the management system as such (cf. CR). According to MSC ‘case law’, reviews by Auditors General, on behalf of the respective country’s legislature, count as external to the country’s system for fisheries management. A country’s Government is part of the implementing branch of government, to which the system for fisheries management is subordinate. Hence, a review performed by the Government is admittedly ‘less external’ than one by the Auditor General, but in this case the governmental evaluation was carried out without participation by Marine Scotland’s staff, other than as stakeholders on a par with a range of other actors within the fishery. The fact that two different external evaluations have been carried out in the seven years since Marine Scotland was established counts as evidence that external reviews of the national management system are performed as frequently as might reasonably be expected. In addition come reviews performed of the UK system, such as the 2004 review by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. The international part of the management system is also evaluated both internally and externally with some frequency. As follows from 3.2.4 a) above, the European Commission has commissioned independent evaluations in connection with the general reforms of the CFP, and the management plans are regularly reviewed by ICES and STECFT. The fishery is clearly approaching an SG100 score on this SI, but the apparent lack of an overarching review strategy only warrants an SG80 score at this time.

References A Review of Marine Scotland, the Scottish Government, 2016. Marine Scotland Annual Review 2014.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 160 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Marine Scotland Review of Scotting Fish Producers’ Organisations: Report and Recommendations. Marine Scotland Science: Annual Report to the the Marine Scotland Board, 2015–2016. Net Benefits: A Sustainable and Profitable Future for UK Fishing, Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, 2004. Report on the Performance Review Panel, NEAFC, 2014. Sissenwein, M. & Symes, D., Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy: Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission, 2007 The Future of Fisheries Management in Scotland: Report of an Independent Panel, the Scottish Government, 2010. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 161 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 2 Conditions The SFSAG Rockall haddock fishery achieved a score under 80 for five Performance Indicators and five conditions were raised. Table 22. Condition 1

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

Score 75

Scoring issue 1.2.1a (SG80) The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. Rationale Annual stock assessments provide estimates of stock status relative to

Precautionary Approach reference points in the ICES advice and management decisions respond to this. However, there is no agreed management plan or HCR at this stage and therefore the fishery does not meet SG80.

Condition There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy detailing the harvest strategy is being implemented and is responsive to the state of the stock resulting from ICES advice.

Meeting this condition will require implementation of an appropriate management plan or strategy for Division 6b Haddock. The anticipated milestones are set out below: Year 1: Evidence that the client is working with the UK authorities, or other suitable stakeholders to encourage the EU, NEAFC and ICES or the relevant Milestones coastal states to adopt the proposed management plan for Division 6b Haddock. Likely resulting PI Score: 70 Year 2: Evidence that the management plan with appropriate harvest strategy for Division 6b Haddock is acceptable to the relevant contracting parties. Likely resulting PI Score: 70 Year 4: Evidence that the management plan has been adopted. Likely resulting PI Score: 80

The client will undertake to work with the relevant UK Authorities to look to bring about a management plan for Division 6b Haddock. Following the completion of a draft management plan the client will continue to work with the appropriate stakeholders to ensure that the Management Plan is Client action plan acceptable, workable and achievable. By year four of the MSC certification the client will have worked with the UK authorities and other key stakeholders to bring about the adoption of a final Management Plan. It should be noted that the Client can only influence and work with others to achieve this milestone.

Consultation on See attached letter of support from Marine Scotland (Appendix 2.1 Marine condition Scotland Support)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 162 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 23. Condition 2

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

Score 75

Scoring issue 1.2.2a (SG80) Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Rationale There is a generally understood HCR that fishing mortality should be below Fpa (0.46) and SSB should be above Bpa (10,600 t). TACs have usually been set

that are consistent with this and the stock has usually satisfied these conditions in recent years, so SG60 is met. However, in the absence of a management plan the HCR is not well defined, and a condition to develop and implement a management plan addressing realistic long-term objectives is required. As there is no well-defined HCR in place SG80 cannot be met.

Condition There must be evidence that an agreed management strategy detailing the harvest strategy is being implemented and well-defined HCRs are in place that will be responsive to the status of the stock as the PRI is approached.

Year 1 The client will undertake to work with the relevant UK Authorities to look to bring about a management plan for Division 6b Haddock. Year 2 Following the completion of a draft management plan the client will continue to work with the appropriate stakeholders to ensure that the Client action plan Management Plan is acceptable, workable and achievable. Year 4 By year four of the MSC certification the client will have worked with the UK authorities and other key stakeholders to bring about the adoption of a final Management Plan. It should be noted that the Client can only influence and work with others to achieve this milestone.

Consultation on See attached letter of support from Marine Scotland (Appendix 2.1 Marine condition Scotland Support)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 163 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Table 24. Condition 3

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

Score 75

Scoring Issue b (SG80): Known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. Common skate complex (blue skate) The species is required to be discarded if caught, but total discards for this fleet cannot be quantified, according to Marine Scotland, and the status on discard (alive vs dead) is also generally not recorded for this species. Catch estimates per trip are highly variable (see Table 11 and Table 12). ~45% of the total fishable area is closed to fishing for various reasons (see Section 3.4.4.4). ICES evaluates the whole species complex together for Subareas 6 and 7. According to ICES, there are no robust stock size indicators in Subareas 6 and 7, but the ‘stock’ is above possible F reference points and below possible B reference points. Nevertheless, analyses of Scottish survey data indicate a possible increase in the proportion of survey hauls catching some common- skate-complex species, although confidence intervals are wide. The Spanish Rationale Porcupine Bank survey has also seen increasing catch rates of Dipturus spp. but ICES note that this may not be representative of trends elsewhere in Subarea 6. It is, however, notable that offshore effort in 6 (Rockall, Porcupine, Hatton) has decreased markedly in recent years. ICES note that further measures to reduce bycatch in Subareas 6 and 7 would be possible, such as spatial closures, but propose that this should be done as part of a rebuilding plan that takes into account the mixed fisheries context. The team considered that trends appears to be in the right direction in Subarea 6, and (given the small number of trips per year to Rockall), total catch is likely to be low. Furthermore, almost half of the fishable area (down to ~400m) is closed to fishing, and further habitat for common skate is available deeper. On this basis, the team concluded that it is not likely that the fishery is having impacts on blue skate; SG60 is met. There is, however, insufficient information for the moment to say that SG80 is met.

Condition It needs to be clear evidence that direct effects of the fishery are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on common skate complex (blue skate).

Years 2, 3 and 4: Evaluate species bycatch data in relation to management targets to ensure that there is an objective basis that the strategy will work and Milestones adjust strategy as appropriate. This should take the form of quantifying catches

of blue skate by the UoA fleet, and monitoring CPUE as an indication of / proxy for stock status (Resulting Score Year 4: 80)

Client action plan Year 2 and 3 The client will work with Marine Scotland to look at the ability of the current survey work to include data which will allow for the quantity, distribution and trends in Blue skate to be calculated with confidence. The

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 164 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Client will, if required, carry out self-monitoring in agreement with Marine Scotland to gather data to assist with this process. By year 4 the Client will have progressed this action to ensure that a strategy is in place to collect and estimate data.

Consultation on See attached letter of support from Marine Scotland (Appendix 2.1 Marine condition Scotland Support)

Table 25. Condition 4

PI 2.3.2: The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; Performance • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Indicator Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Score 75

Scoring Issue d (SG80): There is some evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully. Common skate complex (blue skate): Closed areas are enforced by VMS (in both UK and NEAFC waters); there is no evidence of non-compliance (Gordon Hart, Marine Scotland Compliance, pers. comm.). The requirement to discard can be checked by comparing observer with landings data – the species does not occur anywhere in the landings data for this fishery provided by Marine Scotland. A key part of the strategy, however, is that individuals caught must be handled such that discard survival is maximised. The implementation of this element of the strategy is not checked. SG80 is not met for ommon skate complex (blue skate). Rationale Scoring Issue c (SG80): There is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The current measures for blue skate (prohibited species, closed areas) are plausibly likely to work, but objective data (e.g. CPUE or survey trends, distribution data, catch hotpots) are lacking. By the end of Year 4 there needs to be an objective basis for confidence that the interactions with common skate complex (blue skate) from the fishery can be considered to be ‘highly unlikely’ to work. This could be on the basis of an assessment of the stock trajectory (by ICES or other) or on the basis of an evaluation of trends in bycatch across the fleet, or by some other suitable method.

Condition There needs to be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy common skate complex (blue skate) from the fishery will work based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Year 1: Ensure that data collection plan is sufficient to provide an objective basis for evaluating whether bycatch in this fishery leads to ‘unacceptable’ impacts. Data collection. (Score: 75) Milestones Year 2: Review options for management strategy for blue skate bycatch (noting that it should provide an objective basis for confidence that it will work). (Score: 75) Year 3: Implement management strategy (Score: 75)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 165 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Year 4: Demonstrate that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for assessing bycatch of blue skate from the fishery be sufficient to consider that the bycatch to be ‘highly unlikely’ to create unacceptable impacts. (Score: 80)

Year 1 The client will look to ensure the collection of data as per Condition 4. Year 2 The Client will use this data to develop a strategy for blue skate bycatch Client action plan ensuring that is has an objective basis for confidence that it will work. This will be developed in consultation with Marine Scotland and other key stakeholders.

Year 3 The client will implement the management strategy and through condition 4 and the data collection ensure that there is confidence in the highly unlikely impact on the species.

Consultation on See attached letter of support from Marine Scotland (Appendix 1.3 Marine condition Scotland Support)

Table 26. Condition 5

PI 2.3.3: Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: Performance • Information for the development of the management strategy; Indicator • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

Score 75

Scoring Issue a (SG80): Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Information about interactions with this fishery comes from the PET scheme, and observer data (Table 11, Table 12). It is not possible to scale these data up to provide accurate estimates for the entire fleet, so estimates of mortality of PET species remain qualitative rather than quantitative estimates for the entire fleet, Rationale so estimates of mortality of PET species remain qualitative rather than quantitative. By the end of Year 4 there needs to be sufficient information available such that the impact of this fishery on blue skate can be quantitatively estimated, and hence it can be determined whether the fishery may be a threat to the recovery of the population. This requires, as a minimum, a fleet-wide estimate of bycatch of starry ray and common skate, as well as some basis by which population-level trends can be evaluated for common skate (noting that ICES considers that existing data are insufficient for this purpose).

There needs to be sufficient information available such that the impact of this Condition fishery on common skate complex (blue skate) can be quantitatively estimated, and hence it can be determined whether the fishery may be a threat to the recovery of the population.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 166 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Year 1: Ensure that data collection plan is sufficient to provide an objective basis for evaluating whether bycatch in this fishery leads to ‘unacceptable’ impacts. Data collection. (Score: 75) Year 2: Review options for management strategy for blue skate bycatch (noting that it should provide an objective basis for confidence that it will work). (Score: Milestones 75)

Year 3: Implement management strategy (Score: 75) Year 4: Demonstrate that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for assessing bycatch of blue skate from the fishery be sufficient to consider that the bycatch to be ‘highly unlikely’ to create unacceptable impacts. (Score: 80)

Year 1 The client will look to ensure the collection of data as per Condition 4. Year 2 The client will use this data to develop a strategy for blue skate bycatch Client action plan ensuring that is has an objective basis for confidence that it will work. This will be developed in consultation with Marine Scotland and other key stakeholders.

Year 3 The client will implement the management strategy and through condition 4 and the data collection ensure that there is confidence in the highly unlikely impact on the species

Consultation on See attached letter of support from Marine Scotland (Appendix 2.1 Marine condition Scotland Support)

Table 27. Condition 6

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

Score 70

2.4.2c - There is quantitative evidence that the VME closed areas are enforced based on VMS tracks (at least in the NEAFC area and there is no reason to suppose that things are different in UK waters, given the analysis conducted on Haddock Box compliance), as well as based on mapping of VMEs inside and outside the closed areas; this is given by ICES, (2016j, 2017f) and summarized in Section 3.4.4.4. ICES in 2016 expressed some concern about the enforcement of the Haddock Box, but Marine Scotland Compliance gave no indication that they Rationale have any concerns in this regard. Since it is reported in 2016 reanalysis in 2017 VMS data show compliance and the team interviewed MSS which provided confirmation of compliance. In 2017 ICES described evidence of VME within the Haddock Box and therefore the team were able to conclude that the Haddock Box is enforced in the same way as the other closed areas. Although VMEs remain relatively abundant, there is evidence that some are being lost due to fishing in non-closed areas (see Figure 16). There is not yet evidence that the voluntary move on rule is implemented successfully as it is untested at present and no evidence exists and therefore SG80 cannot be met.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 167 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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

2.4.2d - See discussion above in relation to the Haddock Box. The team takes the analysis of WGDEC as to the location of VMEs and closed areas, and of Marine Scotland Compliance in relation to compliance, to comprise ‘some quantitative evidence’ that management requirements are being complied with. The ongoing slight question mark about the Haddock Box, however, precludes ‘clear quantitative evidence’. Furthermore, SG80 cannot be met at present as quantitative evidence of the UoA complying with the voluntary move-on rule does not exist.

Condition The fishery needs to provide quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully, with particular reference to the voluntary move on rule Year 1: Establish a data collection frame for the Move on rule and ensure that data collection plan for the move on rule is sufficient to provide annual data summaries. (Score: 75)

st Milestones Year 2: Provide annual summaries from the 1 two years of the fishery showing all reports of where move on rules were used and how the it was applied.

(Score: 80) Year 3: Provide summaries of the need to move on rules to authorities and establish if formalisation of Move on rules are required in legislation.

Year 1 SFSAG will collect all data which is sent in from skippers as part of the Rockall Move on rule. The data will be recorded in a spreadsheet form and passed to Marine Scotland Science as it is received. Year 2 SFSAG vessels will re issue the Rockall Move on rule to all SFSAG vessels on an annual basis. Data reports will continue to be collected and passed to Marine Scotland Science. Furthermore SFSAG will have discussions with both Client action plan Marine Scotland Science and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to look at whether observers can have VMEs added to their recording sheets. Year 3 SFSAG will continue with data collection and summary reporting of any reports received. SFSAG will assist in any discussion brought about by Government on the establishment of any formal management for the area. Year 4 SFSAG will assist in both discussion and implementation of any formalization of the Voluntary Rockall Move on rule.

Consultation on See Annex 3 of Appendix 8 SFSAG voluntary move-on rule for Marine Scotland condition email confirming support.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 168 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 2.1 Marine Scotland Support

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 169 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 170 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 3 Peer Review Reports

Peer Review 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at No CAB Response an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Justification: The team have reviewed the comments provided by the The evidence presented in the report does not peer reviewer (PR) below for each PI and have justify the scores awarded for most of the responded accordingly. In some instances where peer Performance Indicators and Scoring Issues. reviewer scoring comments varied between the two peer reviewers the team has sought to find a middle I have provided detailed comments for each PI ground in relation to scoring. and in many cases each SI in support of this view. The assessment team would like to note the reviewer is In a number of cases it is not clear how the SG60 incorrect in relation to some comments made in the requirements are considered to be met for the report, the team would like to make the following entire UoA area. response: The key problem with the report is its inconsistent • In the table of discards (Table 8) the PR approach to the fact that the UoA area spans questioned the source of data implying the team had international waters managed by NEAFC and analysed the data themselves this is despite the source waters within the UK/EU EEZ. There are different of the estimates being clearly explained in the legend; it management regimes in each area. The is Marine Scotland or ICES in all cases except for one, assessment team must adopt a consistent where a qualitative estimate was provided by the client, approach and consider the overall management supported by a review of observer data. of the UoA in the context of both the NEAFC and UK/EU management regimes. • In Table 9, the team considered that it is reasonable to assume that given the technical nature of Elsewhere, the report contains many internal these reports, a reader is likely to know what the inconsistencies and errors of fact. I have ‘framework for data-deficient stocks’ is. And in addition annotated a Word version of the report which nowhere do we claim that this constitutes a ‘formal highlights some of these. management plan’ as implied by the PR. • Figure 12 the PR claimed the figure showed non-compliance with the haddock box on the EU side. The non-compliance issue as a whole has been resolved (see Impacts on VMEs from fishing at Rockall and appendix 7). The figure only shows VMS tracks from the NEAFC side of the line, so nothing can be inferred from this figure about compliance on the UK side. Figure 13 shows pictures from an area which is open to fishing (and not in the haddock box) – in both cases this is made clear in the figure legend. In response to the lack of information in regard to the NEAFC managed area the assessment team have responded by expanding the discussion of management within the text and scoring issues. Specifically, within the Principle 3 section this has been subject to rescoring on some PIs. The internal inconsistencies have been dealt with as part of the increased depth of information applied to the NEAFC management above as well as other concerns raised by the PR. The PCDR has been subject to internal CAB review, which is external to the

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 171 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

assessment team, to ensure consistency throughout its content.

Do you think the condition(s) No CAB Response raised are appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub- clauses] Justification: This would not be the first fishery to have a difficult Conditions 1 & 2: It is clear that a management condition to progress management in a multi-lateral plan for Rockall haddock has been under framework; we would refer the reviewer to, for example, consideration for several years. It is not at all Atlanto-Scandian herring and south Pacific albacore clear where the incentive lies to progress the (among several other examples). It is hoped that MSC management plan against the specified certification provides the incentive; The reviewer will be timeframe. aware that there is a framework in place (audits etc.) which can deal with the event that progress cannot be Conditions 3-5: the timescales are ambitious but made with conditions. could be attainable.

If included:

Do you think the client action plan No CAB Response is sufficient to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

Justification: The conditions’ narrative has been updated to reflect the concerns of the PR where suggested. The delivery The client has clearly approached Marine of the conditions does require participation of other Scotland to ask for their assistance and parties, chiefly the EU of which the Scottish commitment to the delivery of the conditions. Government (UK) is member state. The client group The response from Marine Scotland indicates represents the entire Scottish fleet which accounts for general support for the implementation of the the majority of catch at Rockall and which have conditions “…when appropriate and significant lobbying power and support of the Scottish deliverable…” government to achieve the milestones. Condition 1 & 2 both of these conditions require wider participation; the outcome is dependent on agreement from other EU Member States and also from participants in the international fishery. It is not clear that the CAP is adequate to achieve this. Conditions 3-5 should be attainable, providing that support is provided by Marine Scotland to ensure that the data gathered is of adequate quality to inform new management measures and that there is adequate independent observer

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 172 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

coverage or electronic monitoring to verify compliance.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 173 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is appropriate. No comment required

1.1.2 NA NA NA NA No comment required

1.2.1 No No No The team seems to have blurred the The EU commitment to MSY in the current CFP is not distinction between harvest strategy and strictly relevant as the PI refers to a “precautionary harvest control rules. harvest strategy”. Frequently, ICES definitions of MSY This PI should test whether there is an reference points are overridden by precautionary appropriate harvest strategy in place. considerations demonstrating that MSY need not be a It is clear that for the EU part of the UoA this precautionary strategy. The issue, therefore, is whether is the case: the harvest strategy is set out in managers are by design or by implication following a the EU CFP (the strategic commitment for all precautionary strategy. To discern this requires looking fisheries to attain MSY by 2020). at the rules they follow in managing the fishery. Since they appear to follow the ICES advice based on the No evidence at all is presented in the scoring Precautionary Approach one may conclude that their rationale for the harvest strategy (if any) in strategy is precautionary. place for the UoA area outside the EU EEZ. Scoring Issue a (SIa) does not mention the This PI also refers back to objectives in P1.1.1 (the harvest strategy (CFP) at all, but considers scoring of which the reviewer is satisfied) so it difficult harvest control tools (TAC) and whether they to avoid reference to tools in meeting these objectives

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 174 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

are compatible with the available harvest as they are specified in terms of biomass and F control rules (ICES advice, in lieu of a formally thresholds. agreement management plan). The rationale The UoA fleet is subject to EU rules whether or not they therefore does not examine the issues tested fish in international waters. The area closures (haddock by this SI. box, VME closures) in international waters effectively The rationale for SIb makes the same mistake prevents a divergent harvest strategy outside the EU of considering harvest control rules and tools EEZ. rather than the harvest strategy. It also refers to “…the commitment of the principal SIb (SG80) asks if there is evidence that the harvest jurisdiction (the EU) to MSY”. Does this imply strategy is meeting its objectives. The latter are referred a lack of commitment outside the EU? Or to in PI 1.1.1 so it is necessary to show here that the does it indicate that the assessment team are stock has been within these limits; and in general they uncertain about the harvest strategy outside have. Documentation on the establishment of NEAFC the EU EEZ? cannot provide evidence to show whether objectives are being met. The UoA fleet is subject to EU harvest I would suggest that the rationale (and strategy so the NEAFC strategy is not particularly narrative text) need to refer to the 1980 germane, especially since evidence shows that EU Convention establishing NEAFC and other objectives are in any case being met. documents relating to how NEAFC is working to develop its management strategy. The management plan referred to states “The objective The evidence presented for SIb both misses of the management plan is to be consistent with the the issues tested by the SI and does not precautionary approach, provide for the sustainable consider or present evidence for the whole harvesting of the stock and maximize the yield” and may UoA. reasonably be considered a strategy. The evaluation carried out by ICES concluded the proposed plan was SIc is fine. not precautionary and suggested an F=0.2 as an At SId the periodic review by ICES of the alternative. This revised figure has been followed by possible content of a management plan for managers and is an “improvement”. haddock is not the same thing as a review of a harvest strategy. It is also pertinent that this A treatise on the shortcomings of RFMOs could be review has not been implemented, so no included in any evaluation but is perhaps a “improvement” has happened. philosophical digression of limited value in this context. The issue here is evidence that the strategy is reviewed While it is clear that the EU has a system in and improved, and such evidence exists so SG 100 is place for decadal review of the CFP harvest warranted. strategy (not mentioned here but included in the P3 text elsewhere in the report); there is

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 175 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

no mention of the reviews in the literature of There are five not four relevant SIs. One of which only the shortcomings of RFMOs including has SG60 and one SG100. Of the other three, two score NEAFC; nor of the work that NEAFC has been 80 with one 60 so a score of 75 is justified. doing to develop and refine its harvest The comment is fairly obscure and does not refer to the strategy. This are serious omissions. "management system". It asks for a management plan The SG100 score for this SI is not warranted. that explicitly states the harvest strategy which is While a score of 60 or more is warranted here, exactly what this PI requires. the score of 75 is not. Four SIs are relevant Condition: the condition narrative has been updated to to the fishery (shark finning is N/A). One of reflect the concerns of the PR. The delivery of the these can only score 100. Out of 3 SIs which condition does require participation of other parties, can score 60 or 80, only one scores 80; the chiefly the EU of which the Scottish Government (UK) other two score 60. According to the table is member state. The client group represents the entire presented in section 5.4.2, if half the SIs are Scottish fleet which accounts for the majority of catch at met at SG80, a score of 70 is appropriate. If Rockall and which had significant lobbying power and less than half are met, then a score of 65 is support of the Scottish government to achieve the appropriate. Given that the SG100 score milestones. (incorrectly) awarded to SId can only influence scoring if the SG80 requirements are all met, a score of 65 would seem more appropriate. Condition: the condition does not follow the narrative or metric form of the relevant PI / SI and inappropriately refers to a management system responding to ICES advice. The delivery of the condition will require participation of many parties. It is not clear that they are committed to delivery of the condition.

1.2.2 Yes No Yes (if At SIa the scoring takes account of the SIa does not ask about work being done to develop attained). absence of a formally agreed management HCRs or whether the scoring could be improved. It asks plan for the stock and notes that TACs have whether HCRs are in place and the rationale explains been set in line with ICES advice, meeting the why SG60 is met. SG60 requirements. This finding is consistent

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 176 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

with the MSC interpretation of this scoring SIb: By definition an HCR takes uncertainty into issue: there is no formal management plan in account since it is based on Blim and Bpa that explicitly place, but there is evidence that exploitation account for uncertainty. As the assessment can rates are being managed appropriately. estimate both F and SSB the rule can be operated, and There is no mention here of the work that has uncertainty is accounted for. The rationale has been been done to try to develop HCRs for the modified to clarify this. stock, nor any consideration of whether or not The issue here is whether the assessment can deliver these would improve the scoring if they were estimates of F and SSB to operate the HCR adequately. implemented. This is a significant omission Higher levels of uncertainty are used to define PA and should be corrected. reference points in the HCR which account for greater The rationale at SIb does not explain how uncertainty in the assessment, from whatever cause, SG80 is met. The main uncertainties should including misreporting. SG 80 is therefore justified. be explained, and an explanation of how & The peer reviews comments regarding potential future why the HCRs are robust. It is hard to see unilateral allocation of quota for haddock in international how SG80 can be met unless there are some waters and ‘closed area in international waters limits formally agreed HCRs in place, particularly fishing opportunities is flimsy’ are unjustified. The given the rationale presented for SIc. current status quo in the fishery ‘limited interest in the One of the main uncertainties for this fishery international fishery’ is resultant of the installation of the is whether or not the current status quo haddock box. (limited interest in the international fishery) is The peer reviewer has assumed that haddock are likely to continue. The HCRs presently in distributed over the whole plateau which is not the case. place are only working effectively because of The area closure (haddock box) was selected because this; there are no rules in place that would stop that is where the largest catches of haddock in a participant in the international fishery from international waters occurred. Bottom trawl fishing allocating a quota to themselves and outside this box is not directed at haddock, and takes exceeding the TAC. The available evidence place in waters deeper than where haddock is found. from other NE Atlantic fisheries (even those Russia was responsible for most of the catches in with an agreement management plan) is that international waters and these fell from 5,844 t per this can happen. annum to negligible levels by 2009 after the haddock A further uncertainty, highlighted in the box closure was implemented. scoring of PI1.2.3 SIb is that according to SIc: This argument is largely irrelevant as the SI asks if ICES there is “…an unknown level of there is evidence that appropriate levels of exploitation misreporting…”. This is not mentioned here are being achieved. The assessment shows that F has and is fundamental to good management. declined and is currently close to Fmsy. This provides

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 177 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

For these reasons, the score of 80 is therefore good reason to suppose that the tools are adequate and not justified for SIb. SG80 is met. The rationale for SIc is illogical and exposes a Evidence shows that management is effective in flaw in the entire HCR. reducing F to sustainable levels. The high seas component is negligible as NEAFC has maintained the The rationale states that: closed area in international waters The principal tool used to implement HCRs is The reviewer concurred that 1.2.2 a (the HCR) was a Total Allowable Catch. However, this has correctly scored at 60. So we have a generally only been effectively applied to EU vessels. In understood HCR covering the whole stock area and the past vessels fishing in international waters evidence that the stock is being harvested consistent at Rockall have taken a large catch. A closed with Fmsy so SG 80 is met. area is currently in operation, but subject to annual renewal, which limits fishing in Condition: The reviewer appears to be referring to the international waters and effectively reduces wrong condition. As worded the relevant condition does uncontrolled catches outside EU waters. As not contain the words "harvest strategy" and explicitly EU vessels currently take the largest portion refers to HCRs of the catch, SG80 is met. As there is not formally agreed HCR and the closed area is not permanent, SG100 is not met. The argument that the closed area in international waters limits fishing opportunities is flimsy. Figure 8 in the report shows that this closure covers quite a small area of the international part of the UoA. Figure 13 shows the extent of trawling in this area. It is not insignificant; it is also subject to an unknown level of misreporting (according to the scoring comments at 1.2.3 SIb and ICES). The available information is that the fishery just about meets the SG60 requirements at present; but in the absence of a commitment by NEAFC parties to a management plan for this stock, there is no guarantee that the status quo that presently prevails is likely to

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 178 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

continue; indeed recent evidence is that NE Atlantic fisheries with poorly defined management arrangements and a High Seas component are particularly vulnerable to unilateral action by fishing n In the absence of an HCR (in place or available, well defined or otherwise) that covers the entire UOA, a score of 60 would be more appropriate for this PI. Condition: the wording needs attention, and probably the words “harvest strategy” should be replaced with “harvest control rules”. The delivery of the condition will require participation of many parties. It is not clear that they are committed to delivery of the condition.

1.2.3 No No NA SIa is contradictory. It states that: “The SIa: The ICES working group on the Celtic Sea Rockall haddock is a small isolated stock so Ecosystem stated in 2016 that “The haddock stock at structure and identity are not an issue.” Rockall is an entirely separate stock from that inhabiting It is only possible to conclude that it is a small the continental shelf of the British Isles.” isolated stock because there is information The team note that the SG 100 score is an error and available about stock structure and identity. should be SG80 this has been amended This information is fundamental to the SIc: Missing catches are referred to in SIb whereas this assumptions underlying the management SI refers to other removals and appropriately refers to strategy (i.e. that this stock can be regarded previous catches in international waters that have now as separate from the Scottish West Coast ceased. stock). The rationale does not mention whether stock productivity is known (an SG80 requirement). This rationale should be revised. SG100 seems a little generous. SIb is fine. SIc is not justified at all. The text at SIb states that according to ICES “The reported catches

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 179 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

have been subject to an unknown level of misreporting.” If this is the case and in the absence of information to the contrary, there cannot be good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. A score of 75 would seem to be more appropriate for the PI given the level of uncertainty about catches.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The scoring is appropriate. No comment required

2.1.1 No No NA For SIa score of 80 seems appropriate. The approach taken to the P2 rationales has been to For SIb there is no information presented refer to the main body of the report within the rationale anywhere in the report nor cited in the scoring to avoid duplication of information. To satisfy the PR the rationale for this SI to support the assertion information has now been added to the condition. that for the minor species “All these stocks SIb: The PR was correct that more detail was needed appear to be in good shape or increasing, for this PI and this has been provided, in the form of an providing evidence that the fishery is not analysis of each minor species stock status against hindering rebuilding.” reference points. The team are satisfied that there is no The SG100 score of SIb is therefore not need to adjust the score based on the inclusion of this justified. information. If the team should be able to present In relation to scoring, reviewing Table 4 of FCRv2.0 a information to justify the score of SG100 for score of 90 = All elements meet SG80; some achieve SIb, the process followed for awarding the higher performance at SG100, but some do not.’ All 5 score will need to be carefully scrutinised. At elements met SG80 and 2 of the 5 meet SG100 present there are 5 scoring elements, 3 of which meet the SG80 requirements and 2 therefore 90 is satisfied. Further, it is our belief that our which meet SG100. An overall score of 90 interpretation follows the intent of MSC. The scoring has been awarded. Clearly most of the was therefore not changed. elements do not meet the SG100 requirements. According to Table 4 of FCRv2.0, a score of 85 would be appropriate (but only if the SIb scoring can be justified).

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 180 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

A score of no more than 85 is presently appropriate for this PI.

2.1.2 No No For SIa, the argument that all of the main SIa: This SG is not asking what is the stock status; it is species meet the SG100 requirements is asking whether there are measures / a partial strategy / flawed. Whiting are a main species and a strategy in place for management. Note that none of according to ICES, B2016 < Blim (see Table 7 in these have to be in the form of a formal management the report). For this species at least, SG80 is plan. A strategy is defined by MSC as follows (Table not met; the stock id depleted and there is no SA8): evidence of a rebuildind strategy or A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic management response to address this. arrangement which may comprise one or more For the minor species, if there is no TAC for measures, an understanding of how it/they work to cuckoo ray, it is not at all clear how there can achieve an outcome and which should be designed to be a “partial strategy” in place for this species, manage impact on that component specifically. A since the only harvest control tool referred to strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity in the scoring rationale is the TAC. For this and cultural context of the fishery and should contain species at least, SG80 is not met. mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the SIb: as noted above, the whiting stock is light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. depleted. The SG80 requirements are clearly In the case of whiting, the strategy depends on a low not met for this species. bycatch TAC for 6a and 6b (a measure); the history of Further to this, evidence needs to be the TAC shows that it has been modified to respond to presented for each species to provide the ICES estimates of stock status annually, and the current objective basis for confidence referred to in ICES advice clearly shows that it is succeeding in the SI (for instance using the information in rebuilding the stock. This information was included in Table 7 of the report for the main species, and the main report, except for considerations of the TAC providing similar information for the minor history, which has now been added to the rationale.no species). scoring change has been implemented. SIc: the scoring comments state that (for all For the minor species: The comments from the PR re species): cuckoo ray is a procedural error on the PRs part. As the PR notes cuckoo ray is a minor species so is only “TACs are set following ICES advice, and as scored at SG100, therefore cannot fail at SG80. A noted above, the strategy appears to be partial strategy is not required. This has been clarified working in terms of maintaining or increasing in the rationale.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 181 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

or recovering stock biomass; SG80 is met. SIb: For whiting: the assessment team have not […] For whiting, the strategy is not yet questioned the depleted nature of the stock anywhere achieving its objective (not met).” in the report and the depleted status has no bearing in This statements are clearly contradictory. If the scoring at SG80 for this PI. Rather the PI asks the strategy in place for whiting is not whether there is objective evidence that the achieving its objective, then SG80 cannote be management measures in place will allow recovery. The met for this species. stock is rebuilding according to ICES, as was clearly There is no evidence available about the explained in the main body of the report and is now whiting stock at Rockall which ICES consider clearly explained in the rationale for SIa as well. “may potentially be” part of the West of Therefore SG80 is met and More information has been Scotland stock (most recent stock annex, May provided in SIa and SIb to make the ‘objective basis for 2013, stock definition). The West of Scotland confidence’ more apparent for all species. stock is depleted, so the assumption that the SIc: The statements are not contradictory at all. For Rockall stock is depleted is (reasonably) whiting the stock is rebuilding (i.e. the strategy is appropriate. working) but B remains below Blim (i.e. it has not yet There is no evidence whatsoever that the achieved its objective). The PRs comments here partial strategy for whiting is being met, as the regarding ‘no evidence’ of the whiting Rockall stock is scoring rationale indicates. The available misleading. ICES note the ‘potential’ of the stock being evidence from ICES, SG80 is not met for part of West of Scotland (6a) and go further stating that whiting. ‘It is unlikely that there is a self-sustaining population of whiting at Rockall’ (advice whiting 6b) and there is no SId: the scoring is not fully justified. Given other possible source of whiting in the vicinity.’ In any that cuckoo ray are identified as a primary case, as the reviewer notes, 6a whiting is depleted so species, it would be appropriate and the assumption that the fishery is operating on this stock precautionary to check whether or not this or is precautionary from a scoring point of view. No scoring other ray species are winged at sea and change has been implemented. banjoes discarded. Sld: Skate winging is not shark finning; it is not covered SIe: the SG80 score might be appropriate if under EU Regulation 1185/2003 which prohibits shark adequate evidence is presented; SG100 is finning. As it happens, SFSAG report that skate winging certainly not appropriate; and at presend the is not a practice in this fishery, but as far as the team is evidence presented does not justify the SG60 concerned this comment has no relevance here. score. SIe: The reference to 850/1998 and the cod recovery All of the text regarding the cod recoveyr plan plan were intended to refer to two different things – the is irrelevant. Firstly, Regulation 850/1998 is grammar has been adapted to make this clear. This not, nor ever has been, the cod recovery plan fishery does come under the EU regulatory framework,

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 182 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

(it is the Technical Regulation). Secondly, the and the cod recovery plan is included in the discussion cod recovery plan has never applied to ICES as a general reference for EU regulation which is in the sub-area VIb. process of being reviewed and reconsidered as a result The legislation that is relevant here isn’t of the LO – the information provided in the rationale is mentioned. The text should be revised to not relying on measures under the CRP specifically in accurately report on the phased relation to this fishery. implementation of the Landing Obligation, all The current state of implementation of the LO in NW of which information could and should have waters is in fact set out in Section 3.4.3 of the main been considered in the scoring. report and this has been duplicated in the rationale as There is no evidence presented (in the form of requested along with further information on agendas or minutes of relevant formal consultations provided by MSS. meetings) to show that either regular or The Scottish Government has been working alongside biennial (or more frequent) meetings of any the Scottish fishing industry and environmental substance are taking place to discuss this stakeholders in preparation for the implementation of issue. The scoring rationale might reasonably the Landing Obligation in Scotland. Details of these have been expected to have been based on processes can be found in the sections on Engaging observations that such meetings have takeen With Others which includes details of working groups place rather than anecdote and reference to and meetings: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea- incorrect legislation. Fisheries/engagement Finally, the scoring approach is fundamentally The team would dispute, however, the reviewer’s flawed. Each individual scoring element interpretation of the scoring here. In the team’s view, it should be scored against each SI. is possible to look for evidence more widely than simply The approach of grouping together the “main” ‘relevant formal meetings’ labelled ‘review of mortality species would be fine if they all attained the of unwanted catch’. As the rationale makes clear, same score, but this is not the case. Saithe ‘unwanted catch’ in this context is discards, and there scores differently to the other main species. have been an enormous range of activities in the This should have been reflected in the scoring Scottish fishery, both as a consequence of the LO but approach to each SI. previously as a consequence of the cod recovery plans which addressed discarding – e.g. programmes such as At present the informaiton presented for this conservation credits to support trials of more selective SI does not justify a score of 60. If the gear, real-time closures, the change from MLS to MCRS rationales are updated to include current and and so on. These are not ‘anecdotal’ but a matter of relevant information then a score of around public record and are generally well-known. (but no more than) 80 would seem appropriate. Grouping of ‘main’ species- The PR has misinterpreted the shorthand used. The main species

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 183 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

were not grouped together in scoring, except as a shorthand in the scoring boxes where they all score the same (i.e. instead of writing ‘saithe Y, whiting Y, ling Y monkfish Y’ we had written ‘main species Y’ – this was just to save space). Each species is individually scored and summarized at the bottom of the rationale: e.g scores are given for each scoring element for the PI. In order to satisfy the PR and remove this unexpected confusion we have written for each PI the full list of scoring for each species. Score justification: In relation to 80 vs 100, the only distinction is ‘regular’ vs ‘biennial’ – the implementation of the LO alone requires consideration of this issue considerably more frequently than biennially, with new species being added annually. Therefore no scoring adjustment has been implemented.

2.1.3 No No NA SIa: how can the assesment team report that SIa The misreporting relates to Haddock the target “Landings information is available for all species so the PR comments are irrelevant under this species and is considered to be relatively PI and are dealt with by the team under P1. precise” when under the P1 rationale for this Regarding the stock identity for whiting, this is area (the only area-specific information discussed under 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and the team view the available on catches), ICES state that ICES rationale for no other source of whiting at 6b, misreporting of landings is the main source of together with a robust quantitative stock assessment for uncertainty? whiting in 6a (parent stock) and the EU TAC set at a How also can the assessment state that “…all whole subarea 6 level to be sufficient to provide some the main stocks have a quantitative quantitative data to adequately assess impact. assessment” when it is clear from Table 7 in For monkfish and ling, the stock assessments are the report that the only “main” stock with a ‘quantitative assessments’ albeit with large quantitative assessment is saithe? Monkfish assumptions – the rationale has been changed to and ling are “data deficient” and the stock ‘quantitative or semi-quantitative’. Nevertheless, the identity for whiting is uncertain. main point is that it allows for stock status to be

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 184 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Given ICES’ uncertainty about the accuracy of estimated in relation to reference points (albeit not MSY catch reporting from this area coupled with the reference points in all cases). limited information available, the SG100 score MSC defines a ‘high degree of certainty’ for 2.1 as 90 % for saithe seems appropriate. Even though probability. Given that the UoA takes such a low catches of the other species are low in the proportion of the catch, and given that ICES consider UoA, the “high degree of certainty” required at the stock to be above MSYBtrigger (saithe) or above SG100 does not seem to be met – a score of possible proxy MSY reference points (monkfish and 80 for all species would seem more ling) the team has concluded that the score of 100 is appropriate. appropriate. SIb: The rationale states that “The definition SIb:Yes, precisely. The definition of a primary species of a ‘primary species’ means that this is is as follows (FCR SA3.1.3.3): automatically met as long as catch data are Species where management tools and measures are in collected.” place, intended to achieve stock management This is not true. Quantitative estimation of objectives reflected in either limit or target reference impact requires that both the catch and stock points status are known. Therefore, for a primary species, the stock status is In any case, there is no information presented evaluated relative to reference points by definition – here or anywhere else in the report to show otherwise the species is designated as secondary. that the assessmen team knows the quantity Therefore, for primary species, stock status is of the minor primary species caught (as automatically known. This has been explained more distinct from landed) by the UoA. clearly in the rationale detailing how the UoA catch is SG100 is not justified. recorded. SIc: as noted above, no information on the With the exception of megrim (for which discards are catch of minor primary species by the UoA is quantified by Marine Scotland; see Table 8) all these presented in the report SG100 cannot minor species make up <0.5% of the landings. That therefore be met as it refers to all primary equated to <4 t total landings. Total landings in the stock species. area for the other minor species across all fisheries are as follows: SG80 is met by the information presented for main primary species. cuckoo ray: ~3600 t Overall, the information presented in the redfish: ~60,000 t report would probably justify a score of SG80, Therefore, despite a lack of estimates of discards, the but it a score of more than this is not team nevertheless considers that sufficient quantitative appropriate for a fishery with so many information is available to assess the UoA impact on these stocks as negligible. Text reflecting the comment

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 185 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

uncertainties about catches composition and above have been added to the rationale and as a result which such limited observer coverage. the team do not consider a scoring revision is required.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring is justified. Table 7 and Table 8 have been added to the references. The reference is to “Landings data from The team would note in passing that there is only one Marine Scotland”. This is not adequate. minor element of ‘anecdotal information’ from fishermen There are some data presented in the report in these tables, which is clearly flagged and explained. which should be referred to here. These include observer reports and anecdotal information from fishermen as well as landings data. Please update the reference list.

2.2.2 No No NA SIa: scoring justified. SIa: No comment required SIb: this SI does not make a distinction SIb: The team disagrees with this interpretation. It is between main and minor species; therefore to clear from SIa that ‘measures’ and a ‘partial strategy’ meet the SG100 requirement there should be relate only to main species, while a ‘strategy’ has to testing that supports a high confidence for all relate to main and minor species. Since the wording of species. Since the status of all species is not SIb SG100 includes reference to a ‘partial known, discard rates are not known (see SIe), strategy/strategy’ the team felt that, directly following and the strategy in place does not apply to all the wording of the SG, SG100 could be scored here if species, the claim that SG100 is met is not the ‘partial strategy’ for main species met the justified. requirements of SG100. Nevertheless, the intent may SIc: again, the SI does not restrict itself to be that SG100 can only be met here if minor species “main” secondary species; it applies to all are included in the partial strategy, following the rubric secondary species. Since the SG100 level of of SIa. For this reason, to be precautionary, the score SIc is linked to SIa, and the team consider that has been reduced to 80. SG100 is not met for SIa, it is hard to SIc: The same comment applies to SIc (where the score understand how SG100 is met for SIc. A given was 80 in any case) and has been reduced to score of 80 would be more appropriate. match. SId: again, there is evidence that rays SId: See comment under 2.1.2 above. Skate winging is (thornback and starry) are caught in the not relevant here and not considered shark finning. fishery. It would be appropriate for the team

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 186 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

to have considered whether or not these are SIe: Discard rates are estimated by the management winged. authority; they are set out in Table 8 with clear details SIe: the scoring is not justified. The text of the on the source (Marine Scotland i.e. the management report and information presented for PI2.2.3 authority in most cases although not all) and the area SIa indicates that the discard rates of over which they are estimated. Given the ongoing secondary species (main and minor) have had implementation of the LO in this fishery, not to mention to be estimated by the assessment team. If all the previous work relating to reduction of discards, it this is the case, there is clearly no evidence is hard to understand where the reviewer is coming from that a review of the unwanted catch of these on this question. species has been conducted, let alone a discard rates of minor secondary species: It does regular review. SG80 is certainly not met, and inform the scoring here; the PR has not considered the it seems hard to see how SG60 is met. nature of the SG and as a result their dismissal of the Further to this, the rationale presented here scoring is unjustified. SG60 and SG80 refer specifically states that “…we do not have information on to ‘main’ species, therefore minor species are not the discard rates of minor secondary relevant to the scoring at 60 and 80 level. SG100 is not species…” which should have informed the met, precisely for the reason noted by the reviewer. scores awarded here and elsewhere. Overall, the information presented does not justify the score. On the basis of the information presented here and elsewhere in the report a score of less than 80 is appropriate; in the absence of any analysis of discard rates by the management authority makes it hard to see how SG60 is met.

2.2.3 No No NA SIa: it appears that the assessment team has SIa: This is not the case; see legend for Table 8 which had to estimate discard rates for all species. explains clearly the source of discard estimates. Although reported landings are low from this Discard rates are estimated by the management area, ICES have noted that misreporting of authority; they are set out in Table 8 with clear details landings of haddock from this area is a on the source (Marine Scotland i.e. the management concern. There is very limited observer data authority in most cases although not all) and the area available to corroborate anecdotal catch over which they are estimated.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 187 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

reports and the team’s estimates. The status Regarding misreporting of haddock the team note a. of the secondary species is not reported. that haddock is not scored under this PI being the target Taken together, this means that there is very species and b. that ICES refer to the misreporting in the little quantitative information available indeed past sense ‘Anecdotal evidence suggests that to provide any confidence about whether or misreporting of haddock from Rockall have occurred not there are any main species (since discard historically (which may have led to discrepancies in rates are not known or monitored). With all of assessment), but a quantitative estimation of the degree this uncertainty, a score of no more than 60 of misreporting is not possible.’’ (ICES WGCSE 2017) would seem appropriate. and therefore this impacts the robustness of the SIb: the score is appropriate. haddock stock assessment 1.2.3b is scored downward but not the current estimates. SIc: the scoring is marginal. The almost total absence of discard data and very limited SIb: No comment required observer coverage make the conclusion about SIc: The PRs comments regarding the whether or not there are any main secondary meaninglessness of Marine Scotland landing data are species uncertain; and the landings data that unfounded and unjustified given that MS has had no are provided from this fishery are almost sanctions or conformity issues raised against them in meaningless in the absence of knowledge this regard. Anecdotal information about discards was about discarding and stock status. It is hard used only in the case of one minor species (cuckoo ray) to argue against the SG80 by default, but it and only on the basis that even assuming a very high would have been appropriate to sound a note discard rate (up to 300 %) would not change the of caution. conclusions of the scoring. This is explained in a note in Overall, the score of 80 for this PI is not Table 8, further to a comment by the reviewer. justified. Secondary species tend to be those where the stock status is not known; this is the case for all the secondary species identified in this fishery, but it is important to note that they are all ‘minor’. Table 7 provides information on landings for all species taken by the fishery making up >0.5 % of landings. This is 10X lower than the threshold for a species being ‘main’ and 4X lower than the threshold for a species being ‘main’ if vulnerable. The only ‘secondary’ species in this list is thornback ray, which makes up 0.6 % of the landings over the period. Therefore, at worst, if there were discards of only thornback ray and no other

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 188 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

species (the most precautionary assumption for the most vulnerable secondary species), in order for this species to be ‘main’ we would have to assume discard rates of 300 %. In practice, however, in our table of elasmobranch discard observations from Marine Scotland observers, thornback ray does not feature at all. The supposition that all the secondary species are minor, is therefore precautionary. The conclusion as to the lack of ‘main’ secondary species is robust – see above. The scores have not been given to ‘sound a note of caution’ or for any other reason other than to follow the wording of the SGs.

2.3.1 No No No SIb: the limited independent observer data on SIb: A score of 60 has indeed been given for blue skate catches, absence of reliable information about – No further comment required discards, and uncertainty about skate stock For spurdog, the reviewer does not note which part of status professed by ICES would certainly the rationale he disagrees with. The team here restate prevent a higher score than 60 being awarded what seems to be the key piece of information from for this species. For similar reasons, the ICES on this stock: ‘current catch rates on the stock score of 100 awarded for spurdogs seems to allow the stock to (continue to) recover at ~the same be very high indeed. rate as would zero catch’. In other words fishing SIc: the evidence seems very scant. Where pressure on the stock is having an undetectable impact are the reports on gear loss? SG80 is on spurdog population dynamics, according to ICES. probably appropriate, but not adequately SIc: The PR has not made it clear as to why the justified. assessment should consider gear loss relevant to Condition: the wording of the condition does bycatch of blue skate, spurdog and grey seal in trawls not follow the narrative and metric form of the at Rockall? Gear loss is a highly unlikely event given relevant PI/SI. that gears represent huge cost outlay by the owners and It is not at all clear how the client fleet, which the fleet use catch control systems which provide real visits this area erratically, will be able to gather time feedback to the captain about net position, depth sufficient data to enable trends in the skate and spread, which can be cross referenced against stock status to be determined. sonar. This information has been added to the rationale.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 189 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

It would seem much more appropriate to Condition: The team have amended the wording of the direct this condition at coming up with a robust condition to follow the narrative of the PI. estimate of the quantity of skate caught by the The intent of the condition follows the data collection UoA fleet, and monitoring CPUE as an method the reviewer has in mind and the CAP specifies indication of / proxy for stock status. catch analysis to evaluate trends, therefore the team feel the current condition / milestone /CAP is appropriate.

2.3.2 Yes Yes No SIa: the scoring here is confusing. It is stated SIa: This was checked with MSC. The scoring of 2.3.1a that this SI should not be scored if there are and 2.3.2a are not necessarily linked – see advice from no national or international limits. The MSC cited in para. 2 of the rationale. rationale for SI2.3.1 SIa states that there are Spurdog: The team have corrected the terminology no such limits; yet a scoring rationale is here. The TAC is not strictly a TAC; it is an allowance presented for 2.3.2. SIa. The team should (under derogation) to participate in a bycatch avoidance review this. programme run by STECF. In any case there is an error in the text. SIb: As noted above, this was checked with MSC and Spurdog are a prohibited species (Article the team stand by the current rationale. 12(1)(v) of Regulation 127/2017). There is not SIc: no comment required a zero TAC, the 2017 TAC was 270t. This TAC is subject to provisions which can be SId: Closed areas are enforced by VMS and that there found in the relevant Regulation. is no evidence of non-compliance in the NEAFC area. The closed areas in NEAFC waters have regulatory SIb: see comment above; applying the team’s force on UK flagged vessels and this is enforced by own logic, the scoring comments included for Marine Scotland Compliance. This has been clarified SIa should be presented for SIb. and as a result no scoring adjustment has been made. SIc: the scoring is appropriate for all Blue skate: The issue here (for blue skate) is not the elements. level of discarding, it is the level of landings – there SId: for blue skate it is stated that closed cannot be any landings. However, it is true that handling areas are enforced by VMS and that there is and discard survival is not adequately checked (at no evidence of non-compliance. It is not clear Rockall) although post capture survival of Rajidae spp. whether this is true outside the EU EEZ. Is known to be high in the NE Atlantic On that basis that The evidence provided by observers in this discard survival at Rockall is not specifically checked fishery is negligible (see section 4.4.4 of the the score for blue skate has been reduced here. report). The assessment team only report that

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 190 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

7 observer trips have taken place, over just 3 Spurdog: For spurdog, the point is taken, we have years. This level of coverage is not an provided evidence that it is achieving its objective (the adequate basis for determining the level of second part of SG100), but not necessarily that it is discarding and whether or not the fleet is being implemented in this fishery (the first part of complying with regulations. SG100). The team has made the implicit assumption For spurdog, the evidence provided by ICES that if the second is met, the first must be also. It is true is about stock status. It does not provide that this is not necessarily the case; the problem is evidence that the measures / strategy is being under SG80 only the element about implementation is implemented by the fleet. Better justification mentioned, so under these circumstances the only is required for this species. possible scores are 60 or 100. Given the conclusions of The information presented for skate and ICES (that the fishery impacts are undetectable at spurdogs does not meet the SG80 and 100 population level) a score of 60 does not seem requirements. appropriate. We agree, however, that this is a question of interpretation. SIe: the text here refers to PI2.1.2 SIe. My comments there also apply here. Evidence is SIe: The team’s comments on 2.1.2e, are referenced in not presented to justify that SG80 is met. the rationale for this SI. For seals: no evidence is presented to The rationale has been updated as per this logic. demonstrate that anyone outside the Condition: The narrative and timings of the condition assessment team has made a review of the have been revised on this recommendation. effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-relatied mortality. SG80 is probably appropriate, but is not justified by the information provided. Overall the team has correctly identified the need for a condition here, but has been rather generous in its scoring. Condition: the condition does not follow the narrative and metric form of the relevant PI/SI. it would be inappropriate to develop a management strategy in Year 2 and implement it in Year 3 if data collection doesn’t start until Year 1. It will take at least 2 years to obtain some reliable data. The timescale should be reconsidered.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 191 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.3.3 No No No SIa: the text states that: SIa. The bycatch estimates cannot be scaled up “…it is reportedly not possible to scale up quantitatively to fleet level. It is, however, possible and these data [about ETP interactions] to provide reasonable to say that spurdog bycatch is qualitatively accurate estimates for the entire fleet, so low. Furthermore, there is a quantitative stock estimates of mortality remain qualitative rather assessment and short-term projections for spurdog, than quantitative…” (My emphasis) which show recent and ongoing recovery, and suggest that the impact of the fishery (overall) on the population And: is undetectable (recovery rate indistinguishable from “SG100 is not met for any species, because the recovery rate with zero fishing). fleet-level mortality cannot be estimated.” On that basis, the conclusion for spurdog seems to us This view about the difficulty of estimating to be reasonable. fleet level mortality is at odds with the SIb. The PRs assertion is not strictly true from the sense conclusion that:- of the stock which is what is required to manage impacts “SG80 is met for spurdog since the overall on spurdog. There is a quantitative assessment status or trend in stock status can be showing stock recovery, then the overall strategy evaluated quantitatively, and estimated (globally for the stock) is working, regardless of what we mortality rates are low enough to be able to do or do not know about the fleet itself. And in this case, infer with confidence that the impact of the it is not true to say that we know nothing – we know that fleet on the population is ~negligible.” (My interaction rates with spurdog are low although we emphasis). cannot estimate them quantitatively to fleet level. In fact, It seems that the team were informed that for rare events such as this, this is more often than not these date were not adequate to raise to the the case. fleet level. The conclusion is not therefore justifed that SG80 is met for spurdog. Condition: The team have amended the wording of the For this SI, SG60 seems to be justified for all condition to follow the narrative of the PI. The error of of the ETP species, but not SG80 for any of including starry ray has been rectified. The intent of the them. condition is to state the outcome need of the condition SIb: the rationale presented at SIa not the method / strategy required the team feel that the undermines the conclusions drawn here for PRs suggestion of inter-annual CPUE would be suitable SIb. If it is not possible to estimate impacts at however. the fleet level, then the information is not adequate to support a strategy, let alone a comprehensive one.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 192 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Overall, it is not possible to conclude that SG80 is met for any scoring element. It would be appropriate to between 60 and 80 for each element and raise an appropriate condition. Condition: this does not follow the narrative and metric form of the relevant PI/SI. It is not at all clear why the condition refers to starry ray. It seems highly unlikely that population-level trends will be identified by the proposed level of monitoring in the time available. The best that could be attained is some indication of the catch in the fishery and inter-annual variation in CPUE.

2.4.1 No No NA The narrative section of the report (sections Firstly, here the team refer to Table 3 of the FCR– 4.4.5-4.4.12) presents the information that the requirements for using the RBF for habitats: team has considered in a well-structured 1. Information on habitats encountered is available fashion. 2. Information of impact of fishery on habitats It is nevertheless apparent that there seem to encountered is available be significant gaps in the information Information on habitats at Rockall is known through the available. In particular no evidence is systematic survey by Howell et al. (2009) and fishery presented to show the spatial extent of impacts are known through the same paper and ICES commonly encountered habitats relative to reports see (ICES, 2017e, 2017f). Since both these trawling areas. pieces of information are available, the RBF is not The overall impression is that it would have required. Secondly an RBF is not likely to be very robust been more appropriate to use the RBF for at Rockall, given the lack of informed stakeholders. assessing habitats impacts. SIa: ~45% of the total area of the fishery is in closed SIa: the assessment approach would have areas (this was analysed via a spatial analysis), so this been very good here if there was a spatial is extrapolated to CEH assuming that CEH make up analysis of the interaction between commonly most of the habitat inside as well as outside the closed encountered habitats (CEH) and closed areas areas.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 193 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

was presented in the report; but there isn’t. It’s true that we don’t know what % of each CEH is The assertion that 45% of the CEH is in closed protected but given the mixed nature of the habitats in areas is therefore unjustified. question shown in Table 14 (example ‘Fine sand with It is not at all clear why the 4 habitat types iceberg plough marks; areas of mixed cobble and analysed in the table presented in the SG100 pebbly sand’) separation of these habitats by ‘sub- rationale are different to the 4 CEH habitat habitat’ would be impossible. types lised in the SG80 rationale. The approach used (table layout) is that which MSC In any case, it is unlikely that exactly 45% of provide as an example of how to score CEH, so we have each habitat type is within the closed areas. It done our best to replicate this for this assessment. is equally unlikely that 55% of the area of each However, the PRs notion that this is a quantitative habitat type is subject to fishing. It could exercise is highly optimistic. The team draw attention to equally be true (in the absence of information row D (status; % unimpacted level). % of what? total to the contrary) that 100% of one habitat type biomass? number of species? diversity index? biomass is in closed areas and that 100% of another production? turnover? energy flow? Any of these are type is subject to fising. potentially legitimate measures of ‘habitat structure and The estimate that the current status of the function’ and presumably none of them will give the habitats relative to unfished is “~80%” same answer for a given habitat and between different requires substantiation. The resilience of habitat types; they will also be patchy in space and time sand-gravel habitats to trawl disturbance is over a variety of spatial scales (scale of impact – trawl quite different to that of sand-silt and sand- tow. vs wider scores, time of recovery from impact, mud. It seems very unlikely that if all of the seasonally and interannually). habitats were exposed to the same amount of The team have added figures to the scoring table as trawling effort that their status relative to response to the PR but should be regarded as a unfished would be identical. The same pseudo-quantification of a precautionary assessment of comment applies to item “F”: recovery rates of what impact the level of trawl effort at Rockall is likely to different habitat types can be very different be on these types of habitats. Text and figures including indeed, and are not likely to be the same for evidence of VMS tracks on habitat types have been this range of habitat types. added to the text. The current overall statut of the habitat (E) is The typo on habitats type between SG80 and SG100 questionable, given the comments above. has been fixed. The expected future status (G & F) are The team on review have not altered the score. probably correct, but require justification. SIb: The team note that that Figure to which the PR If adequate information is presented to refers only shows VMS from the NEAFC area, so it does support the statements made (particularly not have anything to say about effort in the EU part

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 194 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

spatial information about the extent of CEH either way. As is set out in the report, we queried this relative to fished & unfished areas), then a issue with Marine Scotland Compliance, and in their score of 80 would seem appropriate. view, the issue was solved in late 2015/early 2016. We SIb: The team have adopted a precautionary have accepted their opinion (since they are the people approach here with respect to the “managed in charge of compliance). area” and that seems appropriate. The non-compliance with the haddock box has been The spatial analysis presented in the report resolved as a result of new information published by largely supports the scoring. It is not clear, ICES (ICES, 2017g) and the teams contact with MSS however, whether the team has fully taken this is noted throughout the PR responses and evidence account of the VMS data shown in Figure 13 is presented in 3.4.4.6. NOTE the figure referred to here (left) which indicates that that part of the by the PR has been updated to include a second figure “Haddock Box” located in international waters from ICES (2017g) which wasn’t in the PRDR. On the is subject to demersal trawling and that this basis of above the team have not revised the scoring. area should therefore be discounted as a closed area. The team has recommended that the fishery should be asked to support the adjusted boundaries to the NW Rockall closed area. This seems a good suggestion. It would also seem appropriate to recommend that the fishery should support better compliance with the Hadock box by vessels operating in international waters.

2.4.2 No No NA SIa: the evidence presented here descrives SIa: See paragraph 3.4.6. The assessment team have the NEAFC recommendations that relate to agreed with the assessment of the peer reviewer on the habitat managements. This includes the account of no formal move on rule in EU waters and as “move-on” rule that is an SG60 requirement a result SFSAG have formulated a voluntary move on under CR v2.0. rule which mimics that of the NEAFC side and operates The NEAFC area of jurisdiction extends to under similar circumstances. The assessment team covers roughly 50% of the UoA. It ends at the have also amended the next to reflect that the measures UK/EU EEZ. No evidence is presented to in place at Rockall are handled by NEAFC but these describe the management measures in place extend into the EU area in the form of shared VME

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 195 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

for the UK/EU part of the UoA. In the closures and ICES led reviews of habitats across the comments for SId it is stated that “The NEAFC boundaries of the fishery. measures are the entirety of measures in SIb: Please see the amendments presented in the force in this area.” rationale and paragraph 3.4.6. this omission has been On the basis of the information presented in rectified and the scoring justified. SIa and SId, there is no evidence that the SIc: The non-compliance with the haddock box has SG60 requirements are met for this SI. been resolved as a result of new information published SIb: the scoring rationale does not take by ICES (ICES, 2017g) and the teams contact with MSS account of the fact that the measures outlined this is noted throughout the PR responses and evidence in SIa only cover part of the UoA. This is a is presented in 3.4.4.6. NOTE the figure referred to here major omission. by the PR has been updated to include a second figure SIc: As above, the key omission here is that from ICES (2017g) which wasn’t in the PRDR. The team the measure mentioned only apply to part of on review of the move on rule instigated by SFSAG the UoA. have raised a condition against this PI on the basis of lack of data see Table 27. Condition 6. The scoring rationale states that:- SId: The introduction of the voluntary move on rule by “ICES have expressed some concern about SFSAG, together with the regulatory closures of VMEs the enforcement of the Haddock Box, but in the EU area form the partial strategy on the EU side Marine Scotland Compliance gave no comparative to that on the NEAFC side of the divide. indication that they have any concerns in this The major difference between the two sides is the lack regard. Since it is reported that 2016 VMS of data from the voluntary move on rule as the code is data show compliance, the team decided to new and untested. Post PR the team have raised a assume that the Haddock Box is enforced in condition (Table 27. Condition 6.) against this scoring the same way as the other closed areas.” issue as a result. Figure 13 (left) clearly shows that the Haddock Box is well respected in the UK/EU EEZ, but that the area of the Haddock Box lying in the NEAFC area is fished. The team’s conclusin is clearly unjustified; the Haddock Box is not enforced in the same way as the other closed areas. Further to this, no evidence is presented of compliance with the all-important (at SG60 SIa) “move-on” rule in the NEAFC area. Given the overlap of the VME records and

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 196 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

VMS fishing tracks shown in the various figures in the report, this “move-on” rule should have been triggered at some point in the past 2 years. If it hasn’t, then there is surely some evidence that this rule is either not achievings its objective of protecting VMEs or is not being enforced in the NEAFC area. SId: If it is true that “The NEAFC measures are the entirety of measures in force in this area.”, then SG60 cannot be met. There does, however, seem to be evidence from VMS tracks that the closed areas are observed, along with that part of the Haddock Box that is within the UK/EU EEZ. There is no evidence presented of compliance with the “move-on” rule for VME protection. Overall the scoring comments for this PI do not appear to meet the SG60 requirements.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The scoring is appropriate. No response required

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The score is appropriate. No response required The tone of the scoring comments is rather conversational, and the precision could be improved. It is noted that the scoring here is linked to findings for other PIs, notably PI 2.1.1. The comments about the shortcomings of those PIs are not negated by the approval of the score awarded here

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 197 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.5.2 No No NA The main issue here is that the scoring relies See comments outlined under habitats regarding EU on the VME protection measures established protection of VMEs. by NEAFC, which (as noted in the relevant SIc: see all other comments regarding the haddock box comments above) do not apply throughout the above and text in section 3.4.4.6. UoA. It is therefore hard to justify the SG80 scores for SIa and SIb. For SIc the SG80 score awarded does not account for the fact that there are VMS tracks from bottom trawling in the Haddock Box outside the UK/EU EEZ; the score of 80 does not seem appropriate.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The score is appropriate. No response required.

3.1.1 No No NA The scoring comments do not take account of Information on NEAFC’s management role, as well as the fact that roughly half of the UoA lies international dispute resolution mechanisms in outside the UK/EU EEZ, and is managed by international waters, has been introduced in the text. NEAFC. It has been noted that the recitals in EU legislation are NEAFC is only mentioned in SIc, not in SIa or not legally binding – however, this does not change the SIb. score of SIc since not only the recitals are used as basis For SIc, it is important to note that the recitals for scoring. in EU legislation are not legally binding; they The team has lowered the score for SIb from 100 to 80. are an aid to interpretation. Hence the total score for this PI goes down from 95 to Overall a score of 80 would seem appropriate 85. This is the middle course of the recommendations for this PI, but not more. from the two reviewers.

3.1.2 No No NA Again, the role of NEAFC is neither explained Information on NEAFC has been introduced in the text. nor taken into account, apart from a passing The role of the North Western Waters Advisory Council mention in the scoring of SIb. This means that has been assessed instead of that of the North Sea the management in roughly half of the UoA is Advisory Council. overlooked.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 198 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Further to this, the rationale discusses the role The team has lowered the score for SIa from 100 to 80. of the North Sea Advisory Council. Rockall is Hence the total score for this PI goes down from 100 to not in the North Sea. The text should consider 95. the North West Waters Advisory Council. With appropriate revisions to correct these errors and omissions, a score of 80 or more would seem appropriate.

3.1.3 No No NA The text only considers the CFP. Information on NEAFC as well as management policy There is no mention of NEAFC objectives, at national level has been introduced in the text. which are relevant the part of the UoA that the The final score is indeed ’80 or more’, as advised by the CFP does not apply to. peer reviewer. It would also be appropriate to refer to objectives set out by national management policy in the UK and Scotland With appropriate revisions to correct these errors and omissions, a score of 80 or more would seem appropriate.

3.2.1 No No NA The scoring rationale indicates that:- Incorrect passages have been removed and the score “Well defined and measurable short and long- lowered from 90 to 80 on review. term objectives consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 are explicit in the management plans for the fisheries, such as reference points for stock biomass and fishing mortality, as well as specific timelines for for the achievement of precautionary reference points..” There is no management plan in place for Rockall haddock. Reference points and timelines have not been defined. This text bears no relationship to the UoA.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 199 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

The only objectives relevant to this fishery seem to be those set out in the CFP (for the UK/EU EEZ) and by NEAFC (for the rest of the area). The scoring should be determined on this basis. A score of 80 may be attained, but in the absence of any well-defined and measurable objectives it is hard to see how a higher score could be justified.

3.2.2 No No NA Again, the rationale overlooks the role of A discussion of NEAFC has been added. As a result, NEAFC and the fact that roughly half of the the score for SIb was reduced from 100 to 80 and for UoA is note covered by EU and UK legislation. the entire PI from 100 to 95. This observation means that the scoring SIe: The text is not generic, but it is a fact that in justification for SIa, SIb and SId is inadequate. Scotland – as in most democracies with ‘mature’ legal SIe: the text here seems to be generic – it systems and systems for fisheries management – that could apply to any fishery anywhere in the the national management authority is not subject to world and does not refer to any evidence that continuing court challenges, and that when occasionally supportes the generic assertions. In fact it taken to court by fishing companies, the management contains no verifiable evidence. None of the authority complies with the judicial decision – and also SG requirements are met by this text. that the management authority works proactively to Again, the scoring rationales need revision to avoid legal disputes through the tight cooperation with justify a score of 80 overall, with particular user groups at the regulatory level (see PI 3.1.2), regard to the role of NEAFC. ensuring as high legitimacy as possible for regulations and other management decisions. It goes well beyond the scope of an MSC assessment to seek comprehensive social-science documentation of the degree to which individual countries in general can be classified as well-functioning democracies. Likewise, it is difficult to document that the management system is not subject to continuing court challenges as long as that is not the case – apart from seeking assurance from stakeholders consulted during the assessment that this is indeed the situation.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 200 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.2.3 No No NA Again, there is a paucity of information about SIa: Information on the NEAFC Control and the NEAFC Convention area. Enforcement Scheme has been added, including on the SIa: this states that the landing obligation was port state control regime. introduced in the fishery in 2017. Elswhere in The text about Norway was originally included since it the report it is stated that this won’t apply until was mentioned at the site visit that a very small portion 1st January 2019. of catch from Rockall might occasionally be landed in It is also stated that a small part of the catch Norway. It has now been established (via the client) that is landed outside the EU, in Norway. There is ths was a misunderstanding, and the text on the no mention of any Norwegian points of landing Norwegian enforcement system has been removed. anywhere else in the report. This seems to be The error regarding the landing obligation has been in error, and the related text about corrected. enforcement in Norway therefore irrelevant. The peer reviewer’s main substantial objection seems The available evidence (Figure 13, left) is that to be that there is allegedly no monitoring of fisheries in the MCS system in place is not capable of the ‘haddock box’ outside national waters and that the enforcing relevant management measures, area is ‘fished with impunity’. The team disagrees with strategies and / or rules, because the part of such a categorical assertion. Most importantly, VMS the Haddock Box outsite the UK/EU EEZ data are considered a reliable source of information for seems to be fished with impunity. location of fishing vessels, and the fishing activities of Overall, the fishery may meet the SG60 the UoA vessels are closely monitored by Marine requirements for this SI, but no better because Scotland. Nevertheless, the team agrees to reduce the it is evident that the Haddock Box is note score for this SI from 100 to 80 due to the apparent lack effectively enforced. of physical inspections at sea in the ‘haddock box’. SIb: again, there is no reference to NEAFC SIb: Sanctions are always introduced at the national and two paragraphs of text about Norway level (in either the flag or the port state), even though which seem to be irrelevant. The non- the infringement was committed in international waters. compliance with the Haddock Box outside the Marine Scotland confirm to the assessment team that UK/EU EEZ is a significant issue that must be there is no reason to suspect any systematic non- addressed in the scoring here: it is not clear in compliance in the ‘haddock box’. what way the SG60 requirements are met. SIc: Reference to the landing obligation, as well as to SIc: again, this text refers to the Landing compliance in Norway, is removed; see comments to Obligation applying to this fishery; text SIa above. See also information there about VMS elsewhere states that it will not apply here until monitoring in the ‘haddock box’. Marine Scotland 1st January 2019, so this seems irrelevant; confirm to the assessment team that there is no reason some justificiton of the relevant of the cod real to suspect any systematic non-compliance in the

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 201 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

time closures should be provided since the ‘haddock box’. However, since at-sea inspections are cod recovery plan does not apply to ICES VIb. scant in that area, the team concludes that there is not There is again spurious reference to necessarily ‘a high degree of confidence’ that compliance in Norwegian waters, which are compliance is high there. Hence, the score has been irrelevant here. reduced from 100 to 80 for this SI. Again, the reporting overlooks the VMS- SId: Proven damage to coral reefs does not Haddock Box issues evident in Figure 13 of automatically lead to the conclusion that there is the report. systematic non-compliance in the fishery. The reason can be inadequate regulation rather than fishers’ non- No evidence is presented to show the type of compliance with whichever regulations are in place. information that fishermen provide that may be important to the management of the The overall score for this PI has been reduced from 100 fishery. to 85. Overall, the case that SG60 is met is not made for the entire UoA. SId: It is interesting, though not altogether surprising that the Norwegian Coast Guard reported that there was no evidence of systematic non-compliance in the fishery. The relevance of this observation is not explained in the text. Figure 13 (left) provides evidence of systematic non-compliance with the Haddock Box outside the UK/EU EEZ. Why is this not considered here? Again, the scoring is not justified.

3.2.4 No No NA As previously, the analysis is limited to the UK There was a comprehensive external review of NEAFC and EU management regime. in 2014, which is referred to in the text. Notably, this PI There is no mention of NEAFC or the asks whether, in what form and how frequently reviews processes for review of management systems of the management system are performed, and not in the NEAFC area here; thus nearly half of about the conclusions of the reviews.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 202 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

the UoA is ignored. The scoring is therefore not justified.

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages PR 1: I have made extensive comments in the Word version of the report which highlight some of the main typographic, factual and editorial errors in the report. CAB response: These discrepancies have been dealt with and the document has been subject to internal CAB review to ensure consistency.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 203 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Peer Review 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

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

Justification: The CAB have reviewed the comments Yes, but the assessment rapport does not present all provided by the PR below for each PI and information that should have been used in my opinion and there have responded accordingly. In some are some issued where I do not agree with the scores. I do not instances where peer reviewer imagine that including the missing information will make a major comments varied between peer difference. reviewers the CAB has sought to find a middle ground in relation to scoring.

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

Justification: No comment required It should improve scores for the low scores

If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

Justification: No comment required It should work to improve scores for the identified low scores.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 204 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes No comment required

1.1.2 NA NA NA No comment required

1.2.1 No Yes Yes The report should compare the TAC with the Table 3. ICES advice, TAC and landings ICES advice. Without this information it is (percentage of TAC) for 2015-2017. This difficult to assess if the scoring is correct. additional table has been added to address this concern.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No comment required

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comment required

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 205 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA I have no problem with the scoring based on The PR is correct that the spatial scale of some the information provided, but I am not of these stocks is large but the scale of the stock convinced that the provided information is nomination is dependent on the definition of the relevant. It is not that obvious what the area stock by appropriate research authority in this codings (e.g. 3a46) refer to, but I assume this case ICES. It is not the assessment team’s is to ICES area (3a, 4 and 6)? The specified requirement to define stock, rather they are areas are enormous and no rationale is given dependent on how ICES have defined the to support that these stocks are stock. How ICES defines data limited stocks is homogeneous and mixed. For haddock there given in (ICES, 2012). A short description of the seems to be a separate stock for Rockall, so stock and ICES advice for each is given in the it very well possible that the same goes for the text (Main bycatch species) along with other species. The presented evidence information in the scoring table. No revision of therefore evaluates trends in much of the NE scoring has been made. Atlantic rather than for this fishery, without much of a justification and quite possibly based on information that hardly accounts for Rockall but really are about North Sea trends, which are unlikely to be relevant here.

I think you need a justification to support the assumption that these are homogeneous stocks with homogeneous trends. This is relevant here and for all Scoring issues where these stocks are evaluated.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 206 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.3.1 No No Proof read this The assessment of grey seals seems very The team have expanded the text and rationale please. optimistic, two seals were caught in six trips. across 2.3.1 scoring issues in relation to grey Although it may not be possible to estimate seals, appreciating that the level of detail the total annual catch from this with high previously was insufficient. The inclusion of Yes confidence, the upper confidence interval information relating to Rockall grey seals as would surely be extremely high if you did and part of the wider UK population means that the could be substantial and unsustainable. A lack population scale to fishery impact becomes of a good estimate should not be interpreted very small (in spite of high confidence intervals). as no effect, and scoring this at SG100 seems Furthermore the lack of a haul out site at inappropiate. Rockall means that seals must be migratory and evidence presented from SMRU suggest that these visits to Rockall are rare highlight the Should the evaluation of indirect effects not low interaction rate. Scores are maintained. also consider effects on food availability for ETP species?

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 207 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.3.2 No, unclear Yes Yes For what area is the ICES spurdog stock ICES spurdog stock assessment is provided in what was assessment? No reference or any details are the reference list. The unintentional ambiguity used for given that would allow me to check what is on this has led the team to add a section under spurdog meant here. ETP in the text defining each of the ETP stocks I do not agree with the statement that and their stock status. interactions with seals are low (‘two in three Regarding the grey seals this is dealt with years’), because it is really two in six trips, above in the PRs comments for 2.3.2. which is really quite high in my assessment. Without knowing the total number of trips, it is No scoring change made. hard to know what this means and the report itself states that it is impossible to estimate how many are caught annually. I think that the assessment needs to be much more careful about the grey seal, and that it should not score 80, but lower. This should then result in condition of collection much more observer data of by catch of seals to a level that the actual catches can be estimated. My guess based on landings is that there are about 75 trips in a year which would imply roughly 20 seals caught and 10 killer in a year, which indeed is not much. But given that the report says that we cannot do this calculation, it has to be more careful.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes No comment required

2.4.1 Yes No The assessment score relies on assuming ICES updated advice on the haddock box that VME features in the Haddock box are between the presentation of the PRDR and the intact, but the report shows that this area has team addressing comments. The report (ICES, only been effectively protected for a single 2017g) confirmed the presence of VME year. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate indicators in this area from new records to assume that those corals have not been submitted in 2017. Based on this new fished by this fishery and are intact. Excluding information (which has been added to the text

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 208 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

the haddock box the actual fraction of VMEs and rationale) the team do not see a need to protected was estimated at 70% and unlikely amend the score. to reach 80% even considering the density of corals in the open areas. SG80 is not met.

2.4.2 No Yes NA VMS for the EU sector is missing for no This has been added Figure 10. obvious or justifiable reason. This should be provided because it leaves a large uncertaintly over compliance in the EU sector of Rockall.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA SG100 for 2.4.3d seems rather generous The team believes this is actually referring to given that there is no systematic data 2.4.3c as there is no 2.4.3d. The team note the collection going on. Changing this score will PRs comments but also note that there is not have any effect on the overall score of the continued data collect active in the area PI though. (evidenced by ICES reports in 2017) but acknowledge there is no published research plan. No scoring change

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 209 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3.1.1 No No NA There is no clear discussion and comparison Information on NEAFC’s management role as of the legal framework in NEAFC vs. EU area, well as international dispute resolution and the scoring seems to be selectively based mechanisms in international waters has been on the EU area only. E.g. there is no mention introduced. of what happens with conflict resolution in international waters.

3.1.2 No No NA Again, the justification for a is about Scotland Information on NEAFC has been added. only. What happens in NEAFC waters?

3.1.3 No No NA Again, the justification for a is about EU Information on NEAFC has been added. waters only. What happens in NEAFC waters?

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3.2.2 No No NA Again, the justification for a is about EU Information on NEAFC has been added. waters only. What happens in NEAFC waters?

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 210 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

3.2.3 No No NA Again, the justification for a is about EU Information on NEAFC has been added. waters only. What happens in international The text about Norway was originally included waters? And why is there text about Norway since it was mentioned at the site visit that a here? very small portion of catch from Rockall might occasionally be landed in Norway. It has now been established that this was a misunderstanding, and the text on the Norwegian enforcement system has been removed.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No comment required

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 211 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 4 Stakeholder submissions No stakeholder submissions were received prior to the publication of the PCDR. Summary of verbal submissions received during site visit shown in Section 4.4.1. (REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.

(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 212 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 5 Surveillance Frequency Pending the successful outcome of this assessment, the surveillance for this fishery has been set as default (Level 6), requiring 4 on-site surveillance audits.

Deviations from the standard surveillance schedule (i.e. annually, by the anniversary date of the certificate) are currently not foreseen.

The fishery surveillance programme is shown below.

Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 6 On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance surveillance surveillance surveillance audit audit audit audit

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 213 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 6 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 214 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 7 Haddock Box Compliance ----Original message---- From : [email protected] Date : 17/01/18 - 14:46 (GMT) To : [email protected] Cc : [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject : RE: Rockall Haddock Dear Jennifer I have now received feedback from colleagues as follows. VMS As requested, Marine Scotland Compliance (MSC) has analysed VMS ping data for vessels moving at towing speeds of < 5 knots in and around the Rockall Haddock box since May 2015. It is not possible to provide maps of this data, but the analysis may be summarised as follows. • 2015 Data from 2 vessels with activity in the middle of the box. MSC’s plane investigated and obtained evidence of a vessel deploying gear inside the box. This offence was pursued through the usual channels. • 2016 Data from 8 vessels with almost all activity on the periphery of the box, mostly by vessels towing down the edge and perhaps just clipping the box occasionally. A few records in the middle of the box from 1-2 vessels amounting to ~2-3 nights across the year but no offences recorded. • 2017 Data from 10 vessels but a significant reduction in activity, showing only 66 pings across the year between them and no offences recorded. It should also be noted that some of the relevant VMS pings may come from vessels heading slowly into a large swell which is not uncommon this far out in the Atlantic. With thanks to colleagues, I hope this is helpful.

Regards Ben ------Ben Dipper Head of International Fisheries Scottish Government | Marine Scotland Area 1B-South, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ T: (+44) (0)131-244-6432 | M: (+44) (0)7795-222404 [email protected] | www.scotland.gov.uk/marinescotland

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 215 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 8 SFSAG voluntary move-on rule Voluntary Code of Conduct for SFSAG vessels operating in the Rockall Bank Haddock Fishery (Map attached at Annex 1).1 All vessels which are part of the Rockall Haddock MSC Certification shall ensure that they abide by the following Voluntary Code of Conduct: This voluntary code follows the NEAFC Recommendation 19 2014: Protection of VMEs in NEAFC Regulatory Areas, as Amended by Recommendation 09:2015 and Recommendation 10:2018 The recommendation pertains to the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the NEAFC Regulatory Area The objective of the NEAFC Recommendation and this Voluntary Code of Conduct is to ensure the implementation by NEAFC of effective measures to prevent significant adverse impacts of bottom fishing activities on vulnerable marine ecosystems known to occur or likely to occur in the NEAFC Regulatory Area based on the best available scientific information provided or endorsed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The SFSAG Code of Conduct covers: Encounters with possible VMEs 1. All vessels which are part of the Rockall Haddock MSC Certification shall ensure that they abide by the following Code of Conduct, where, in the course of bottom fishing activities, evidence of VMEs is encountered: a. fishing vessels shall quantify catch of VME indicators; b. if the quantity of VME indicators caught in a fishing operation is beyond the thresholds defined in, section 2, the following shall apply: i. if an encounter is discovered in connection with the hauling of a trawl gear, the fishing vessel shall cease fishing and move out of an area defined as a wide band (polygon) of a distance determined from Table.1 on both sides of the “track” of the trawl haul during which an encounter occurred. The “track” is defined as the line joining consecutive VMS positions, supplemented by more exact information, between the start and the end of the tow, extended by the distance determined in Table.1 at both ends; ii. if an encounter is discovered in connection with other bottom fishing gears the fishing vessel shall cease fishing and move away at least the distance determined in Table.1 from the position that the evidence suggests is closest to the exact encounter location. The master shall use his or her best judgment based on all available sources of information; and

1 Area definition based on an area of Rockall Bank within UK Exclusive Economic Zone, at a depth less than 350m (350m identified as limit of haddock distribution at Rockall: https://blogs.gov.scot/marinescotland/2017/09/01/surveying-haddock-rockall-scotia/)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 216 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

iii. the master shall report the incident, including the “track” or position determined under sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), without delay SFSAG which shall forward the information to Marine Scotland. Table. 1: Width band to be applied to polygon (buffer) based on depth of encounter.2

Depth (m) of encounter (Buffer) width band (m)

0 - 150 450

150 - 200 600

200 - 250 750

250 - 350 1050

2. Threshold levels An encounter with a possible VME is defined as: (a) for a trawl tow, and other fishing gear than longlines: the presence of more than 30 kg of live coral and/or 400 kg of live sponge of VME indicators; and 3. Species included in the Code of Conduct VME Indictor Species The following is a list of seven habitat types as well as physical elements for the NEAFC Regulatory Area, with the taxa most likely to be found in these habitats, which shall be considered as VME indicators. VME Habitat type i. Cold-water coral reef a. Lophelia pertusa reef b. Solenosmilia variabilis reef ii. Coral garden a. Hard bottom garden i. Hard bottom gorgonian and black coral gardens ii. Colonial scleractinians on rocky outcrops iii. Non-reefal scleractinian aggregations b. Soft-bottom coral gardens i. Soft-bottom gorgonian and black coral gardens

2The potential for fishing gear to stray into the VME is related to the uncertainty of the location of the fishing gear relative to the known location of the vessel. This will be a function of water depth and the trawl warp length deployed. In deep-water trawling, the typical warp length deployed decreases with water depth, from around 3:1 at 200 m to 2:1 at 500 m and more. For VMEs that occur on flat or undulating seabed a buffer zone of approximately two (>500 m depth) or three times (< 500 m depth) the local depth is advised. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/Special%20requests/NEAFC_Evalu ation_of_buffer_zones.pdf

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 217 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

ii. Cup-coral fields iii. Cauliflower coral fields iii. Deep-sea sponge aggregations a. Other sponge aggregations b. Hard-bottom sponge gardens iv. Seapen fields a. Tube-dwelling anemone patches b. Mud- and sand-emergent fauna c. Bryzoan patches From NAFO SCR Doc. 11/73 Monitoring and Communication 1. SFSAG will notify any areas, which meet the criteria above, to Marine Scotland who will alarm the area and notify us of any vessels entering at fishing speed. 2. All SFSAG vessels will be notified by the SFSAG Coordinator of any voluntary closed areas with a register of fishing intrusions recorded by SFSAG. 3. Warnings will be given to any vessel intruding at fishing speed and continued non compliance will result in vessels being removed from the SFSAG vessel list.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 218 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Annex 1: Rockall Bank Haddock Fishery Area. Nb: The Rockall Bank Haddock Fishery Area, to which this Code of Conduct applies, is defined as the area of Rockall Bank, that lies within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone and at depth no more than 350 metres.

Limits and Boundaries - 12 Nautical Miles (12M) limit - Scottish territorial seas - March 2011 Limits and Boundaries - VLIZ World Maritime EEZ Boundaries v10 (WMS)

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 219 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Annex 2: Recording sheet Reporting form for the Voluntary Code of Conduct for SFSAG vessels operating in the Rockall Bank Haddock Fishery

Vessel Name and PLN

Skipper Name

Date of encounter with Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME)

Type /Species of VME encountered

Weight of VMW encountered

Coordinates and track of Interaction

Depth of fishing area at time of VME interaction

Coordinates for position of commencement of fishing following moving on from interaction

Date notified to SFSAG @ [email protected]

Date notified to Marine Scotland

Date entered on Summary Spreadsheet

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 220 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (16 th March 2015) MEC V1.1 (2nd October 2017)

Annex 3: Marine Scotland support email.

From: Hart G (Gordon) Sent: 18 May 2018 08:41 To: '[email protected]' Cc: Brown AD (Andrew); Mills JA (John); McLeod MS (Michael); Hepburn I (Ian); Robertson TH (Thomas) (Fish) Subject: RE: RE: Rockall Move on Rule

Hi Jennifer

Happy to report back that MS Compliance have agreed that they will be able to establish similar monitoring arrangements around the Rockall Bank in respect of your proposed industry scheme, however, we would reserve the right to keep any new arrangement under review. History (last couple of years) around Rockall has shown a number of breaches against the protective provisions of EC Regulation 850/98, it will be interesting to see how the SFF voluntary scheme changes behaviour.

Any future vessel reports should be copied direct to UKFMC and should contain complete co-ordinates of the area you wish monitored (which I assume will be additional to areas already regulated by EC 850/98).

Best

Gordon

Gordon Hart Head of Access and Control Marine Scotland: Access to Sea Fisheries Area 1B South, Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

Tel: 0044 (0)131 244 4980 Fax: 0044 (0)131 244 6474 e: [email protected] w:http:/www.scotland.gov.uk/marine scotland

NOTE: the EC 850/98 reference in this email is the Haddock Box - Article 29(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 850/98.

3143R04Q | ME Certification Ltd. 221