INTERTEK MOODY MARINE
January 2013
Ref: (82505)
Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Trawl Walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Fishery
FINAL CERTIFICATION REPORT
Robert O’Boyle, David Japp, Andrew Payne, Steve Devitt
Russian Pollock Catchers Association 51-a, Svetlanskaya Str., Vladivostok, 690990, Russia
Intertek Moody Marine Merlin House Stanier Way The Wyvern Business Park Derby. DE21 6BF
Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Contents Contents ...... i 1. Executive Summary ...... 1 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 3 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 3 2.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 4 3.0 Description of the Fishery ...... 6 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 6 3.1.1 Eligible Fishers ...... 6 3.1.2 Rationale for Unit of Certification ...... 6 3.1.3 Unit of Certification ...... 6 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 9 3.2.1 Distribution and Biology ...... 9 3.2.2 History of the Sea of Okhotsk Pollock Fishery ...... 11 3.2.3 Fishing Locations, TAC’s and Catches ...... 15 4.0 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 18 4.1 Management Unit ...... 18 4.2 Information and Monitoring ...... 19 4.3 Assessment of Stock Status ...... 30 4.4 Stock Status ...... 36 4.5 Harvest Strategy ...... 38 4.6 Reference Points ...... 40 4.7 Management Tools ...... 43 4.8 Peer Review ...... 47 5.0 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 48 5.1 Ecosystem Characteristics ...... 48 5.2 Retained Species (Bycatch) ...... 52 5.2.1 Retained and Bycatch Species Data Collection ...... 52 5.2.2 Observer Deployment and Data Collection in the SOO ...... 54 5.2.3 Estimation of retained species proportions in the fishery ...... 56 5.3 By-catch Species (Discard) ...... 66 5.4 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species ...... 68 5.5 Habitat ...... 75 5.6 Ecosystem ...... 78 6.0 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 81 6.1 General Management, Consultation and Review ...... 81 6.2 Participation in the Fisheries Management Process ...... 83 6.3 Fishing Rights, Licensing, and Subsidies ...... 84 6.4 Fishing Locations ...... 85 6.5 Administrative Arrangements ...... 86 6.6 Legislation, Regulation and Precautionary Management ...... 86 6.7 Research and Harvest Controls ...... 88 6.8 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance ...... 90 6.9 Dispute Resolution, Sanctions, and Incentives ...... 93 7.0 Evaluation Procedure ...... 96 7.1 Previous assessments ...... 96 7.2 Assessment Methodologies ...... 96 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page i Date of issue: January 2013
Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 7.2 Assessment Methodologies ...... 96 7.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 96 7.3.1 Site Visits ...... 96 7.3.2 Consultations ...... 102 7.3.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 102 7.4 Other Fisheries in the Area ...... 105 8.0 Traceability ...... 106 8.1 Eligibility Date ...... 106 8.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 106 8.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 107 9.0 Evaluation Results ...... 111 9.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 111 9.2 Summary of Scores ...... 111 9.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 112 9.4 Detailed Scoring Tables ...... 137 References ...... 204
Appendix A: Peer Reviews and Team Responses Appendix B: Example of Scientific Observer Log
VOLUME 2: APPENDICES C - 3
Appendix C: Stakeholder Consultation Documents during Fishery Evaluation Phase Appendix D: Stakeholder Comments on Public Comment Draft Report and IMM Responses Appendix E: MSC Comments on Public Comment Draft Report and IMM Responses
List of Tables
TABLE 1: NUMBER OF HARVESTING VESSELS OF VARIOUS TYPES, PARTICIPATING TO THE SPECIALIZED FISHERY OF ALASKA POLLOCK IN 2004-2007, ACCORDING TO DATA FROM FFA INFORMATION SYSTEM (RYBOLOVSTVO) ...... 13 TABLE 2: SOO SEASON A (2012) ENTIRE FLEET AND PCA MEMBERS FLEET COMPONENT ...... 14 TABLE 3: RECOMMENDED TAC AND CATCH IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK (61.05.) IN 2006-2012 ...... 17 TABLE 4: MEAN, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POLLOCK SPAWNING BIOMASS (KT) AND ASSOCIATED COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (CV) BASED ON ANNUAL ICHTHYOPLANKTON SURVEYS DURING 1984 - 2010 ...... 22 TABLE 5: SCIENTIFIC OBSERVER COVERAGE (% HAULS) OF THE POLLOCK FISHERY IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK ...... 24 TABLE 6: TOTAL NUMBER HAULS MADE BY LARGE VESSELS OBSERVED IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK DURING 2006 – 2010 BY SCIENTIFIC OBSERVERS, GMI INSPECTORS AND FFA INSPECTORS ...... 25 TABLE 7: ESTIMATES OF UNOBSERVED JUVENILE DISCARDS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES...... 26 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF 1996-2010 DATA COLLECTIONS DURING POLLOCK HARVESTING IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK ...... 27 TABLE 9: PARAMETERS AND ASSOCIATED CVS FROM HESSIAN MATRIX OF DECEMBER 2010 SYNTHESIS MODEL OF NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK (SOURCE: DATA PROVIDED TO ASSESSMENT TEAM DURING SITE VISIT) ...... 34 TABLE 10: REFERENCE POINTS FOR NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK (SOURCE: PCA, 2010) ...... 40 TABLE 11: POLLOCK FORECAST AND APPROVED TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH (TAC) AND REPORTED CATCH BY SUBZONE IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK DURING 1984-2010 ...... 44 TABLE 12: BYCATCH AMOUNTS DURING THE ALASKA POLLOCK FISHERY, ACCORDING TO OBSERVER DATA FOR 1990 – 1999...... 54 TABLE 13: NUMBER OF SOO HAULS OBSERVED BY SCIENTIFIC OBSERVERS, GMI AND FFA INSPECTORS...... 56 TABLE 14: RETAINED (LANDED) SPECIES IN THE FOUR SEA OF OKHOTSK SUBZONES FOR THE POLLOCK FISHERY FROM 2006 THROUGH 2010, IN TONNES...... 58 TABLE 15: OBSERVED CATCHES OF POLLOCK AND BYCATCH OF OTHER SPECIES BY SCIENTIFIC OBSERVERS DURING THE POLLOCK FISHERY IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK, IN TONNES...... 60
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v4_rpd.docx page ii Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report TABLE 16: AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCHES OF POLLOCK MID-WATER DIRECTED VESSELS FOR THE PERIOD 2006 TO 2010 BY SUB- ZONE IN THE SOO...... 62 TABLE 17: RETAINED SPECIES CLASSIFICATION ...... 63 TABLE 18: ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR PROTECTED SPECIES IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK...... 69 TABLE 19: LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RUSSIAN FISHERY MANAGEMENT ...... 84 TABLE 20: AT-SEA INSPECTIONS IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK FISHERY ...... 93 TABLE 21: SUMMARY COMPLIANCE INFORMATION FOR THE SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK FISHERY ...... 94 TABLE 22: PCA MEMBER COMPANIES LIST (AS OF DECEMBER 29 2012) ...... 108 TABLE 23: FINAL PRINCIPLE SCORES ...... 111 TABLE 24: SUMMARY TABLE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORES ...... 112 TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS ...... 113 TABLE 26: PRINCIPLE 1 SCORING RATIONALES...... 137 TABLE 27: PRINCIPLE 2 SCORING RATIONALES ...... 152 TABLE 28: PRINCIPLE 3 SCORING RATIONALES...... 184
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: RUSSIAN FAR EAST FISHERY MANAGEMENT ZONES ...... 8 FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF ALASKA POLLOCK IN THE SEA OF JAPAN, SEA OF OKHOTSK, BERING SEA AND GULF OF ALASKA. 9 FIGURE 3: MAIN LOCATIONS DURING LIFE HISTORY OF SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK ...... 10 FIGURE 4: AVERAGE MULTIYEAR SPAWNING PERIODS OF POLLOCK IN SEA OF OKHOTSKS ...... 11 FIGURE 5: SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK CATCH (THOUSANDS OF TONS) BY REGION ...... 11 FIGURE 6: SOO POLLOCK FISHING FLEET ACTIVITIES IN JANUARY, MARCH AND APRIL, 2008...... 15 FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF VESSELS FISHING POLLOCK AND MANAGEMENT SUBZONE DURING PERIOD OF JANUARY TO APRIL 2008...... 16 FIGURE 8: SEA OF OKHOTSK MANAGEMENT SUBZONES ...... 18 FIGURE 9: STATION DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL ICHTHYOPLANKTON SURVEY IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SEA OF OKHOTSK ...... 20 FIGURE 10: STATION DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL TRAWL SAMPLING ACCOMPANYING ICHTHYOPLANKTON SURVEY IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SEA OF OKHOTSK ...... 21 FIGURE 11: TREND IN POLLOCK KG PER KM2 FROM FALL ECOSYSTEM TRAWL SURVEY ...... 23 FIGURE 12: LONG-TERM TERM WEIGHT (TOP PANEL), PERCENT MATURITY (MIDDLE PANEL) AND M (LOWER PANEL) DERIVED FROM SURVEY AND OBSERVER DATA AND USED IN THE ASSESSMENT ...... 30 FIGURE 13: RESIDUALS IN LN (C'(T,A)) – LN (C(T,A)) FROM DECEMBER 2010 SYNTHESIS MODEL OF NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK ...... 32 FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF FORECAST FISHABLE BIOMASS OF WEST KAMCHATKA, KAMCHATKA-KURIL (A) AND NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK (B) SUBZONES OF THE SEA OF OKHOTSK TO THAT SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSED ...... 33 FIGURE 15: TREND IN NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK SPAWNING BIOMASS WITH ASSOCIATED 95% CONFIDENCE BOUNDS ...... 35 FIGURE 16: CHANGE IN SYNTHESIS MODEL SELECTIVITY AT AGE FROM 1963 – 2000 TO 2001 – 2009 ...... 36 FIGURE 17: TREND IN CATCH AND FULLY RECRUITED FISHING MORTALITY (AGES 7 – 11) OF NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK ...... 36 FIGURE 18: TREND IN SPAWNING BIOMASS OF NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK ...... 37 FIGURE 19: TREND IN AGE TWO (RECRUITS) NUMBERS OF NORTHERN SEA OF OKHOTSK POLLOCK ...... 37 FIGURE 20: PROBABILITY OF SSB2013
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v4_rpd.docx page iii Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report FIGURE 29: TOTAL RUSSIAN FISHERY HARVEST IN THE FAR-EASTERN PART OF RUSSIAN EEZ, 1965-2008 (UPPER; LINE WITH DOTS). THE SEA OF OKHOTSK PORTION IS INDICATED BY THE RED CURVES (RELATIVE TO THE RIGHT AXIS); SAME WITHOUT POLLOCK (LOWER)...... 51 FIGURE 30: DISTRIBUTION OF CETACEANS IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK DERIVED FROM SOO SURVEY IN 2003 ...... 70 FIGURE 31: MAP SHOWING AREAS AND TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS ON TRAWLING TO PROTECT HABITAT OR OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM IN SOO...... 71 FIGURE 32: REGISTERED SIGHTINGS OF SHORT-TAILED ALBATROSS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST, 1950 – 2010...... 72 FIGURE 33: FISHING FLEET LOCATIONS IN POLLOCK FISHERY IN MARCH 2000, STELLER SEA LION AND FUR SEAL BREEDING ROOKERIES AND MAIN RIBBON SEAL AGGREGATIONS ON ICE IN THE SEA OF OKHOTSK...... 73 FIGURE 34: DISTRIBUTION OF STELLER SEA LION ROOKERIES ...... 74 FIGURE 35: TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE OF STELLER SEA LIONS IN THE SOO, KURIL ISLANDS AND COMMANDER ISLANDS ...... 75 FIGURE 36: BOTTOM SEDIMENTS OF THE OKHOTSK SEA ...... 76 FIGURE 37: COMPARATIVE BIOMASS OF MACRO BENTHOS IN THE SOO BETWEEN 1982 AND 2004 REPORTED BY DULEPOVA, 2011 ...... 77 FIGURE 38: ESTIMATES OF BIOMASS AND PRODUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS OF THE SOO ...... 79 FIGURE 39: FISHERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN RUSSIA (FAR EAST BASIN) ...... 81 FIGURE 40: INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE RUSSIAN TAC-SETTING PROCESS ...... 89 FIGURE 41: FLOWCHART OF DECISION-MAKING TO DETERMINE TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH (TAC) AND POSSIBLE CATCH (PC) OF FISH AND NON-FISH OBJECTS AND TO ALLOCATE QUOTAS TO FISHING COMPANIES...... 90
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v4_rpd.docx page iv Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Commonly Used Abbreviations
ABRs Aquatic Biological Resources BSAI Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands CITES Committee of International Trade in Endangered Species CFMC Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communications CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CV Coefficients of Variation DVR Daily Vessel Report DVNPS Far Eastern Scientific and Technical Council EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened, Protected Species FAM MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) FFA Federal Fishery Agency (or Rosrybolovstvo) FMS Fishery Monitoring System (operated by CFMC) FSB Federal Security Services GOA Gulf of Alaska GMI State Marine Inspectorate of the North-Eastern Border Control Department HCR Harvest Control Rule HS Harvest Strategy IMM Intertek Moody Marine Ltd IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing KT Kilotonnes LME Large Marine Ecosystem M Natural Mortality MCS Monitoring, Control, Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MT Metric tonnes NGO Non-Governmental Organization PC Possible Catch PCA Pollock Catchers Association (Client for Certification) PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PI Performance Indicator RFE Russian Far East SG Scoring Guidepost (60, 80, 100) SI Scoring Issue (individual performance criteria under each SG) SOO Sea of Okhotsk TAC Total Allowable Catch UOC Unit of Certification (MSC) VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WBS Western Bering Sea
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page v Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
1. Executive Summary
This is the first MSC evaluation of the Russian Sea of Okhotsk mid-water trawl Pollock fishery. The full assessment process started in 2008, team membership was revised multiple times in order to identify assessors with both capacity and available time to conduct the assessment. The client, at the advice of TAVEL Certification, the first Certification Body of record, prepared an extensive client submission responding to MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology Version 1 default indicators. The submissions were published in September 2010.
The site visit was conducted in late June, early July 2011. Five assessors, Mr Robert O’Boyle, Principle 1 assessor and Mr David Japp, Principle 2 assessor for the Sea of Okhotsk, Dr. Alexei Sharov, Dr. Donald Bowen for the West Bering Sea Principles 1 and 2 respective, as well as Dr. Andy Payne who assessed Principle 3 for all fisheries along with Intertek Moody Marine Lead Auditor Steve Devitt, spent two weeks in Vladivostok meeting with clients, scientific and management agency personnel as well as stakeholders. Available members of the assessment teams proceeded to Seattle to meet with additional stakeholders on July 11th. Dr. Sharov provided much needed verification of both Russian translations during the site visit discussions as well as specific interpretation of Russian documentation during the report preparation process. The entire team was thankful for the hospitality and commitment to the certification project displayed by their hosts and Russian colleagues.
The Russian Far East has a long history of fishing. During the Soviet era, Russian fleets explored potential fishing areas around the world, collecting an incredible wealth of information on the world’s oceans and seas. The tradition of collecting basic ecosystem data within the Russian EEZ continues and one of the primary strengths of the Russian management system is the long time series of data on many species, habitats and environments across the Russian EEZ ecosystem.
The management system has evolved through tremendous periods of change since the 1990s. Historical approaches to fishery monitoring and biological data collection in Russia depended less on direct fishery sampling and more on scientific research conducted independently of or in tandem to the fishery. As such, the percentage of direct observation of potential fishery impacts across a broad selection of the fishery is limited. This low level of observer coverage has left the candidate fishery disadvantaged in responding to a number of performance indicators within this assessment.
After scoring the fishery against the MSC default performance indicators, subsequent client review and clarifications, peer review and stakeholder comment during the Public Comment Draft Report review, the assessment team recommends certification of the fishery at this time as the basic requirements for certification have been met. MSC certification requires that each of the three MSC Principles have aggregated scores of 80 or higher; that no individual performance indicator score less than 60; and that the clients provide a client action plan to improve the performance of indicators with scores less than 80 for which conditions have been prescribed. The fishery has met these three requirements. The final MSC Principle scores were calculated based on the MSC scoring methodology defined in the MSC FAM (V2.1) and are as follows.
Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem Components 80.3 Principle 3 – Management System 85.1
At the Final Report and Determination stage, the assessment report has also been considered by Intertek Moody Marine’s Governing Board (a body independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 1 Date of issue: January 2013
Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report reviews the report and has made the final certification determination on behalf of Intertek Moody Marine Ltd. The Final Report and Determination is now published on the MSC website for a final public consultation period of 15 working days. If no objections are received from stakeholders during the final public consultation period, the Public Certification Report is then published on the MSC website, together with the fishery’s Certificate of Compliance, and the fishery will be certified at that time.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 2 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers
The assessment team consisted of three assessors and the lead auditor and project management support from Intertek Moody Marine.
2.1 Assessment Team
Principle 1 Expert Assessor Mr. Robert O’Boyle: Robert (Bob) O'Boyle received his B Sc. and M Sc. from McGill and Guelph Universities in 1972 and 1975 respectively. He joined Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia in 1977 as a stock assessment scientist and was with DFO for over 30 years, retiring in October 2007. During his first 10 years at DFO, he was heavily involved in the development of stock assessment approaches and conducted assessments of most of the Maritime region's fish resources (herring, capelin, cod, haddock, pollock, the flatfishes, and more recently, the large pelagic sharks).
He started his career in science program management about this time, heading up the Scotian Shelf Ichthyoplankton Program, the Biomathematics and Computer Section, and the Population Dynamics Section. In 1987, he became a division manager with responsibility for the finfish research programs and assessment-related activities of over 70 scientific and support staff. He remained in this position until 1996, at which time he became responsible for the peer review of the science and advice on the Maritimes Region's finfish, invertebrate and marine mammal resources, on its habitat management, and on its ocean management practices and approaches. He became the Associate Director of Science in 2000, a position that he held until his retirement in 2007, and as such was heavily involved in DFO science program management at the regional and national level. He has been involved in a number of national and international reviews, ranging from science program design to resource assessment. He is president of Beta Scientific Consulting Inc, which provides a variety of services on ocean management including meeting / workshop organization and facilitation, technical analyses, reviews, and outreach. He is also an emeritus scientist with BIO, pursuing research projects related to resource and ocean management and assessment.
Principle 2 Expert Assessor Mr. Dave Japp, M.Sc. Mr. Japp is a Fisheries Scientist with an undergraduate degree in Zoology and Oceanography and postgraduate degrees in Fisheries Science. Presently he is Director of a neutral and independent service organization in South Africa, working for all sectors of the fishing industry including the state authority (M&CM), the fishing industry, international organizations and numerous other groups.
He was previously employed at the Sea Fisheries Research Institute from 1988 to 1997 as a biologist and manager and at the time he left this institution was head of the offshore resources section (demersal and pelagic stocks). His role at SFRI (now Marine and Coastal Management, MCM) was primarily management, biology and resource assessment and he was responsible for the submission of management advice on hake and other demersal stocks. Mr. Japp was also responsible for, planned and led many demersal hake-directed biomass surveys in the period employed at SFRI. Mr. Japp has retained an intimate knowledge of all aspects of the demersal and other fisheries including the trawling methods. His experience in fisheries management and related research is extensive and covers more than 20 years. He has authored many fisheries related papers as well as numerous technical reports for the FAO. In addition, since 2003, he has been active in the MSC Certification of the South African hake trawl fishery as well a numerous pre-assessments of other fisheries. His main area of expertise is fisheries management, compliance and monitoring and marine ecosystems. He has a total of 20 years experience in fisheries research and management and works extensively in the region (African sub- continent) on fisheries and the implementation of observer and other programmes.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 3 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Principle 3 Expert Assessor Dr. Andrew I.L. Payne Dr Andy Payne is an International Fisheries Consultant based at Cefas, UK. Previously, he was Director of Research in Cape Town, South Africa. His MSc and PhD degrees were acquired while he worked in South Africa, mainly on groundfish. He has advised on fisheries issues in the UK, the USA, the Caspian Sea, South America and Africa, though by training he is a fisheries ecologist, specialising in groundfish. Apart from his fisheries and advisory work, he is also a long-term editor and was for some years editor-in-chief of the ICES Journal of Marine Science. Apart from Marine Stewardship Council accreditations, he heads a Fisheries Science Partnership project in the UK, and is also involved there in ecological advice on proposed new nuclear build and other smaller projects of an advisory nature. He has acquired more than 40 years of experience in fisheries research, advice and management around the world.
Lead Auditor Mr. Steven Devitt Steve Devitt is currently an Associate Auditor with Intertek Moody Marine Ltd. in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Formerly, he was the Operations Manager and Lead Auditor for TAVEL Certification Inc. from 2000 until sold to Moody Marine in 2009. His principle responsibilities include management of the project, verification of proper MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) procedural implementation during the full assessment, preparation of report and client contact. Mr Devitt brings a broad environmental and fisheries background to the project, he is a trained ISO 14000 lead auditor. He worked for 10 years in the environmental services industry in various capacities including Project Manager, Aquatic Scientist and Operations Manager at four different Atlantic Canadian environmental consulting companies. Mr Devitt has participated in over 30 MSC pre- assessments and 10 MSC full certification assessments, as well he has conducted over 50 MSC Chain of Custody audits for fishing companies, seafood processors, value added processors, brokerage companies. He has also conducted Group COC audits for seafood processors and retailers.
2.2 Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers were nominated on 20 December 2011 and confirmed on 27 March 2012. There were three confirmed peer reviewers as identified below. The non-attributed peer review comments, with the team’s responses to those comments may be seen in Appendix A.
Dr. Pavel A. Balykin Dr. Balykin graduated in 1978 from the Astrakhan University of Fisheries and Fishing industry in Aktrakhan, Russia. From October 1978 to September, 2007, he worked in the Kamchatka research institute of a fisheries and oceanography (KamchatNIRO) in Petropavlovsk- Kamchatsky). His last position was as the head of the marine fishes laboratory. Since September, 2007 until present, he works at Southern scientific centre of the Russian Academy of sciences (Rostov-ON- Don) as the head of laboratory of ichthyology. In 1990, he defended the dissertation of Cand.Biol.Sci. on Alaska pollock of the western sea Bering at 1990. In 2001, he received a rank « the Honored worker in the Russian Federation Fisheries». He defended the dissertation of Dr.Sci.Biol. on resources of fish of the western Bering sea at 2007. Dr. Balykin is the author of more than 100 scientific publications on ichthyology, ecology and fishery issues, including five books. The area of his scientific interests includes water biological resources of a northwest Pacific (the western Bering Sea, eastern Okhotsk Sea, Pacific Ocean at east coast of Kamchatka). He has repeatedly participated in the international meetings on fisheries as an expert and member of the Russian delegation.
Dr. Geir Honneland Geir Hønneland is Research Director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway. He holds a Ph.D in political science, speaks Russian fluently and has followed the developments of Russian fisheries politics for one and a half decades. Among his books are Russian Fisheries Management: The Precautionary Approach in Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004) and Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia (Manchester University Press,
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 4 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2003) (including fisheries agreements), and he has published a number of articles about Russian fisheries management in peer reviewed journals. Mr. Hønneland also has wide range of evaluation experience, e.g. for the FAO relating to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. In summer/fall 2008, he performed a country studyof Russian fisheries management for the OECD. In 2010, he participated as an MSC assessment team member in the evaluation of the Barents Sea Cod and Haddock Fisheries.
Dr. Kevin Stokes Dr Kevin Stokes has experience in all thee MSC Principle areas, both as a practitioner and as a reviewer. He has acted as a reviewer for MSC assessments, has carried out pre- assessments for clients, has supported clients during certification and re-certification assessments, and was actively involved in MSC default assessment tree, performance indicator and scoring guideline developments. He was Chief Scientist with the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd (SeaFIC) from 2000 to 2009, having previously worked for 15 years in the United Kingdom at the Lowestoft fisheries laboratory. Kevin has extensive fisheries science, policy and operations experience and has worked globally with and for industry and government. He currently runs his own consulting company (stokes.net.nz Ltd), providing science, policy and management support to varied clients around the world.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 5 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
3.0 Description of the Fishery
3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought
3.1.1 Eligible Fishers
Eligible fishers include the 45 pollock fishing organizations represented by the client group, the PCA. The association membership represents over 70% the total quota share for pollock in the Russian Far East.
3.1.2 Rationale for Unit of Certification
The unit of certification was chosen on the basis of the stock science, which has defined the current Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock structure, and the management system, which manages the fishery and collects data on the basis of the four management subzones.
3.1.3 Unit of Certification
The MSC certification methodology defines a candidate fishery unit of certification (UOC) as follows “The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework."
The client has proposed certification of three units of certification, including the Sea of Okhotsk, as evaluated within this report, Navarinsky Area and Western Bering Sea, which are evaluated in separate reports.
Unit of Certification 3 –Sea of Okhotsk
Species: Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), also referred to as Alaska pollock. Geographic Area: Sea of Okhotsk pollock are found throughout the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk. There are four Russian fishery management subzones, including Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone (05.1), this sub-zone is reported as the Western part (Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone) of the Sea of Okhotsk. The Western -Kamchatka (05.2) and Kamchatka-Kuril (05.4) subzones are reported in the submission material as Eastern part of the Sea of Okhotsk. Finally, the Eastern-Sakhalin (05.3) subzone is reported separately (see Figure 1) and is not part of this certification. Method of Capture: Mid-water pelagic trawl Client: Pollock Catchers Association (PCA) Fleet: All pollock fishing companies harvesting pollock with pelagic mid-water trawls and who are active members of the pollock Catchers Association. Stock: TINRO scientists considered that the most appropriate stock structure for the northern Sea of Okhotsk was that of Zverkova (2003) - a large population with complex organization.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 6 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Management: The Federal Fishery Agency (FFA) (or Rosrybolovstvo) plays the central role in managing Russian fisheries, including pollock in the WBS and Sea of Okhotsk. It operates with executive power under the President and it manages five regional offices in the Russian Far East. By decrees and recent amendments; the FFA: • develops laws, orders, and rules related to fishery management • manages the protection, rational use, study and reproduction of aquatic biological resources and their habitats • delivers public services in the area of fisheries, conservation, sustainable use, study, preservation and reproduction of aquatic biological resources and their habitat • provides safety and rescue operations in the fishing areas • coordinates production activities related to ports and vessel maintenance
Traceability within Fishery: All fishing vessels and transhipment vessels are equipped with vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and are tracked on a daily basis. All products from the candidate fishery are required to be inspected by Federal Security Services (FSB) at time of transhipment and landing. All product is required to be landed and inspected in a Russian port prior to expedition to another country. All product is traceable to the point of first landing. At-Sea Processing: Most product is caught and processed at sea including heading, gutting and freezing operations. Product is typically block frozen. Point of Landing: Product must be landed at ports where FSB and Customs inspectors are available to monitor offloading.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 7 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
61 – NORTH – WEST PACIFIC Navarinsky area OCEAN aggregations Fishery areas of Russia 01 – Western Bering sea zone 02 – Eastern-Kamchatka zone 02.1 – Karaginskaya subzone 02.2 – Petropavlovsk- Karaginsky & Oluytorsky areas aggregations Komandorskaya subzone 03 – Northern-Kuril Zone 03.1 –Pacific ocean subzone “Donut Hole” Convention 03.2 – Sea of Okhotsk subzone Area 04 – Southern-Kuril zone “Peanut Hole” 04.1 – Pacific ocean subzone Convention Area 04.2 – Sea of Okhotsk subzone 05 – Sea of Okhotsk zone 05.1 – Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone 05.2 – Western -Kamchatka subzone 05.3 – Eastern-Sakhalin subzone 05.4 – Kamchatka-Kuril subzone 06 – Sea of Japan 06.1 – Primorye subzone 06.2 – Western -Sakhalin subzone
Fishery areas of other countries 08 – Japan zone 08.1 – Pacific ocean subzone 08.2 – Sea of Okhotsk subzone 08.3 – Japan sea subzone 09 – North Korea zone 10 – South Korea zone
Open part of district 51 – Center Bering sub district 52 – Center part Sea of Okhotsk sub district 53 – Kuril sub district 174o 54 – Hawaiian range sub district
67 – NORTH – WEST PACIFIC
Figure 1: Russian Far East Fishery Management Zones
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 8 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
3.2 Overview of the fishery
3.2.1 Distribution and Biology
Walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) (also referred to as Alaska pollock) is a gadoid species which is distributed in the North Pacific from the North west Bering and Chukchi Seas, and down the coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula into the Seas of Okhotsk and Japan and on the Eastern side of the Pacific from Californian waters, north through the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and out to the Aleutian Island (Figure 2).
In total, the fisheries for pollock across the entire area of distribution constitute the largest whitefish fisheries by volume in the world. The two main fisheries exist in Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea, inclusive of both within the US EEZ and the Russian EEZ.
Pollock are considered to be mainly a pelagic species, schooling in mid-water. However, their habitat can extend down to depths of 1000m (Allen & Smith, 1988), and they typically reside in depths of 100- 300m in both offshore and near shore locations. They are often located on the slopes of the Western regions bordering the Western Bering Sea, the Kuril Islands out to the Aleutians and Gulf of Alaska. They are also distributed throughout the Sea of Okhotsk.
Figure 2: Distribution of Alaska pollock in the Sea of Japan, Sea of Okhotsk, Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. (Source: FAO, 2012. http://www.fao.org/figis/geoserver/factsheets/species.html).
Spawning and Population Centers
Stock structure knowledge is supported by current understanding of spawning and migratory patterns within the Sea of Okhotsk. Within the large population, there are several centers of reproduction (Figure 3), the most important of which are located on the west Kamchatka shelf in the area of northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Shelikhov Bay (PCA, 2010). Spawning occurs within the shelf and shallow
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 9 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report areas at depths ranging from 50 to 200-250m with the largest concentration of spawners occurring on the western Kamchatka shelf, in the shallow north-central region and in the Shelikhov Bay. Smaller spawning concentrations occur in the waters northwest and southwest of the Iona Island and near the eastern coast of Sakhalin.
Figure 3: Main locations during life history of Sea of Okhotsk pollock (from Fadeyev and Smirnov, 1993: 1-spawning; 2- overwintering concentrations; 3-feeding range; 4- spawning migrations; 5- feeding migrations (Source: PCA, 2010)
Spawning occurs in a counter-clockwise manner around the Sea of Okhotsk (Figure 3). Spawning begins on the western Kamchatka shelf, occurring during January to May, with a peak during late March-April and is complete by July – August (Figure 4). Only on rare occasions is spawning found during the summer (PCA, 2010). Spawning begins later in the Shelikhov Gulf, and then extends to the northwestern part of the Sea. Spawning time in each of the neighbouring spawning areas generally differs by about 2-3 weeks. The latest spawning is observed in the eastern Sakhalin shelf with a peak during May and rarely extending into early June.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 10 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
January February March April May June July
Figure 4: Average multiyear spawning periods of pollock in Sea of Okhotsk: 1 - South-West and West Kamchatka; 2- North-West Kamchatka; 3-Shelikhova Bay; 4- Lebed’s height; 5- Iona- Kashevaroskiy area; 6- North-East Sakhalin; dark rectangles indicate periods of mass spawning (Source: PCA, 2010), with changes and supplements
3.2.2 History of the Sea of Okhotsk Pollock Fishery
The Alaska pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk has a short (just 45 years) but nevertheless rich history. Started in 1962, it began to develop rapidly and within a decade, had exceeded an annual catch of one million metric tonnes (mt). The main fishing grounds in the early stage were the waters of Western Kamchatka, where until 1977, the Alaska pollock was actively caught not only by home fishermen, but by Japanese as well. The maximum catch was achieved in 1974 - 1975, with almost 1.3 million mt, after which the catch started to decrease (Figure 5) due to the more rigid quota system, steady introduction of the 200-mile economic zones and the complete cessation of the Japanese fishery. In total, within the whole period of the fishery in the Eastern part of the sea, more than 30 million mt of Alaska pollock have been caught.
Figure 5: Sea of Okhotsk pollock catch (thousands of tons) by region (Source: PCA, 2011a).
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 11 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Within the waters of the East Sakhalin sub-zone, the Alaska pollock fishery started in the mid-1960s. Alaska pollock was caught by Russian and foreign fishermen, mainly Japanese and Korean. Until 1975, the intensity of the fishery was very low, the annual catch being between 1 and 10 thousand tons. Later, scale of the fishery grew: in 1980, the catch amounted to 182 thousand mt and after that the catch decreased.
In 1984, the fishery in the Northeastern part of the Sea started to develop. The annual catch varied from 450 up to 950 thousand mt, and on account of the foreign fishery in the Central enclave (started in 1991), it exceeded one million mt. However, in 1992-1993, the Russian fishery was artificially restrained, as a part of the recommended TAC was reserved for the supposed taking by the foreign fleet. The unregulated foreign fishery (the harvesting of Alaska pollock was executed by fleets from Poland, China, Republic of Korea, Japan and Russia) in the Central enclave was stopped in 1995 after making a bilateral agreement between Russia and the countries engaged in Alaska pollock fishery in exchange for Alaska pollock quota allocations within the Russian economic zone (Fadeyev, Wespestad, 2001).
Overall, as a result of the complete involvement in the exploitation of all the resources’ units in the Northern part of the sea, the catch in the 1980s - 1990s grew to 1.6 – 1.7 million mt, and the record annual catch of 2.0 million tons was reached in 1996. However, later, the catch started to decline, by 2002, reaching the level of about 500 thousand mt, as a whole, in the Northern part of the Sea. Roughly that same amount of Alaska pollock has been caught during the first half and middle of the current decade.
Fleet Composition, Gears and CPUE
The industrial, specialized trawling fishery of Alaska pollock in the Sea of Okhotsk is waged by vessels of large and medium tonnage fleet. As of late, the number of vessels harvesting Alaska pollock has not been substantially changed (Table 1), as provided by PCA, in the 2010 client submission document., In the context of this fishery, the team interprets the term “Industrial fishery” as a large-scale, total utilization of raw material inclusive of direct human consumption fishery rather than reduction of all material to meal and/or oil.
Among the large tonnage fleet vessels the most numerous are the big refrigerating fishery trawlers (Russian abbreviation BMRT). The vessels are responsible for catching fish by bottom and pelagic trawls, processing fish on-board to produce frozen whole and gutted products, processing of non-edible by-catch and fish processing wastes into fishmeal and fish oil, production of canned fish lever and unfinished medical fish oil, on-board storage of the produced goods, transshipping to transportation vessels. There are currently 7 designs of the BMRT-type vessels, with the capability of 3.7-5.7 thousand tons, main engine power of 2-5.2 thousand HP and crews of 90-100 members. Other large tonnage vessels (Russian abbreviations: RTMS, RTM, RTMSK, RKTS) are of similar design and purpose to the BMRTs.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 12 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 1: Number of harvesting vessels of various types, participating to the specialized fishery of Alaska pollock in 2004-2007, according to data from FFA information system (Rybolovstvo)
Type of vessel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Large tonnage vessels BMRT 87 87 83 68 RTMS 5 7 6 5 RTM 7 3 6 3 RTMKS 2 1 2 3 RKTS 1 1 1 1 Total 102 99 98 80 Medium tonnage vessels STR 66 57 59 47 SRTM 30 33 34 33 TSM 11 10 8 8 Japanese schooner 4 4 4 6 Total 111 104 105 94
Design and purpose of medium tonnage vessels is rather different from BMRTs. These are the vessels from 912 to 3 thousand tons of capacity, with the main engine power from 800 to 3.3 thousand HP and crews of 25 to 60 persons. The designed purpose of these vessels can be divided into two distinct groups including catcher processors harvesting and processing Alaska pollock and catcher vessels who harvest fish and transfer to processing vessels (mother-ships). The most numerous medium tonnage vessels in the Alaska pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk are the STR-type vessels (Seiner-trawler refrigerator). These vessels harvest fish by mid-water stern trawls (as well as purse seine and bottom trawl in other fisheries/ locations), store catch and transfer to processing vessels. Numerous SRTM-type (Medium fishing trawler refrigerator) vessels also catch Alaska pollock. These vessels fish near bottom using pelagic trawls, freeze the non-processed catch, produce frozen fish products (H/G and fillets) and the fish-meal, storage and delivery of products to transportation vessels and to ports.
All the indicated types of vessels, in accordance with the Fishing Rules, are waging the specialized fishery of Alaska pollock in the Sea of Okhotsk only by various depths mid-water trawls.
Except for the trawlers engaged in the Alaska pollock fishery, it is worth mentioning the mother-ship processing vessels. In the Far East basin including the SOO and WBS, there are a total of 5-7 units. The mother-ships receive raw fish from harvesting vessels, process and preserve frozen (different fillets, headed Alaska pollock, roe in eggs’ bags) and salted products, fish meal and technical fish oil, supply of harvesting vessels with all kinds of provisions and services. Only certain mother-ships are equipped with machinery to produce Surimi-paste.
Table 2 describes the size, number of vessels and catch for the Sea of Okhotsk 2012 Season A fishery. The table describes the entire fleet as well as the client members.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 13 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 2: SOO Season A (2012) Entire Fleet and PCA Members Fleet Components 9::'-83M9!NO5'P'Q:OO4 !"#$%&'()'*%++%,+ -./012'/1("+'34 *+*,- !!" #"$%&' !"#$%&!$'# () )**+(, -./ 0 1+2, $3'#$%&$'3# 4 1*+11 '3#/ 0 4,+24 5$/ 4 )+1) '#$ 2 10+,* -./1%&+'R' '#$3/ 4 10+61 M&(0%++(&+ '#$/ ) 4*+7( /8/ 0 )+14 /'#$ 0( 16*+44 /'#' 1 4+(4 /#' 1* 4*+60 #/$ * (+71 5674849: ;<= =>?@>A 35! 4 59: 4 5' 1 '8;/ 1 3(/1%&'51HI+ <5! * /=$ 4 '$/ * 5674849: ;B '/ 4) 17+4, -./01%&+ /#' 4( )(+42 5674849: <; A<@
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
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 14 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Fishing gear of the candidate fleet is restricted and regulated to mid-water otter trawl designed for mid- water and not for bottom trawling. The gear typically operates off the bottom, although bycatch can include typical demersal species, which may arise from fishing very close to the bottom where pollock reside.
The Sea of Okhotsk lies in FAO region 61 with Russia fishery sub-zones West Kamchatka, Kamchatka- Kuri, and Northern Sea of Okhotsk, among others. Each vessel receives a TAC to fish in specific sub- zone. The FFA tracks each vessel and knows spatial distribution of fishing fleets on a daily basis.
3.2.3 Fishing Locations, TAC’s and Catches
Maps below (Figure 6, PCA, 2011), display the distribution of the Sea Okhotsk fishing fleet in mid- January, mid-March, and early April, 2008. Black dots represent vessels in fishing areas 05.2, 05.1, and 05.4 operating off the Western Kamchatka coast (2-ten day; or 1-ten refers to the respective periods of the months). The maps show vessels harvesting fish along bathymetric lines marking ocean depths. In January about 100 trawlers fished waters about 200-330 meters in West Kamchatka and Kamchatka- Kuril regions and few vessels fished in East Sakhalin. By March, vessels moved northwards into the Cape Shelikov region at isobaths from 330 to 390 meters. In April fishing is limited to Northern Sea of Okhotsk zone where vessels fish in waters 200 to 250 meters deep until the fishery closes.
Figure 6: SOO pollock fishing fleet activities in January, March and April, 2008. (Source: PCA 2011a)
PCA (2011) state that harvest begins in the southern Kamchatka-Kuril subzone in January, but the fishery moves north during spring months with increased harvests from Western Kamchatka and Northern Okhotsk subzones later in the spring. Figure 7 below presents the number of vessels fishing in the different SOO subzones through the season.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 15 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
January February March April
Figure 7: Number of vessels fishing pollock and management subzone during period of January to April 2008. (Source: PCA 2011a).
Fishing
There are two seasons in the Sea of Okhotsk set by Regulation, season A and B. This means that fishing companies can fish in the SOO within two periods; January to April, and October to December (actual dates for each zone is set in the Fishing Rules specifically). A fishing company can catch 100% of its quota in the SOO during season A. If it fails to do it (for any reasons) and catch, say, 80%, it gets an opportunity to catch the rest 20% in the season B. But there is no regulation that sets allocation for SOO quota between seasons.
However, in 2009 in order to control production volume going to the market the PCA decided to divide quota in the SOO by 70% / 30%. That was decision only for one year.
Table 3 below presents catch results and TAC for the four SOO subzones for the years 2006 – 2012.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 16 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Table 3: Recommended TAC and Catch in the Sea of Okhotsk (61.05.) in 2006-2012
Northern Sea of Okhotsk West Kamchatka Kamchatka - Kuril East - Sakhalin TOTAL combined Year TAC, Catch, kt % TAC used TAC, kt Catch, kt % TAC used TAC, kt Catch, kt % TAC used TAC, kt Catch, kt % TAC used TAC, kt Catch, kt % TAC used 2006 180 178.1 99% 185 165 89% 160 142.8 89% 5 14 274% 530 499 94% 2007 182 178.1 98% 169 165 98% 145 142.8 99% 15 14 91% 511 499 98% 2008 204.5 200.6 98% 308 296 96% 146 143.1 98% 39 37 94% 698 676 97% 2009 289.6 284.8 98% 311 304 98% 220 215.9 98% 48 47 97% 869 852 98% 2010 390 382 98% 366 114 31% 254.2 490.2 193% 48 47 98% 1058 1033 98% 2011 335 328.4 98.0% 328 168 51.2% 257 402.5 156.6% 82 77.5 94.5% 1002 976.4 97.4% 2012 313.9 307 241.1 97 959 Note: Beginning in 2012, catches for West Kamchatka and Kamchatka-Kuril were calculated together, combined TAC for 2 areas = 620.2 kt, combined catch = 604.2 kt. 2011 Combimed TAC for West Kamchatka and Kamchatka Kuril subzones = 585 kt, combined catch = 570,5 kt, or 97,5% of TAC used. Source: 2011-2012 TAC - FFA orders; Catch data - Fishery monitoring System
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 17 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
4.0 Principle One: Target Species Background
The information presented in this section has been summarized from the PCA submissions (PCA, 2010; PCA, 2011a) as well as responses to questions by the assessment team (PCA, 2011b; 2011c). Full citations for references within Section 4 can be found in those documents.
4.1 Management Unit
In Russian legislation, the spatial units used in the management of the northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock fisheries are termed ‘subzones’ (Figure 8) which is the terminology used throughout this report. Separate regulations are typically set for each subzone. For instance, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) established annually for the fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk is divided up amongst these subzones. The three management subzones relevant to this assessment are: • Northern Sea of Okhotsk (subzone 5.1) • Western – Kamchatka (subzone 5.2) • Kamchatka – Kuril (subzone 5.4)
The Eastern – Sakhalin subzone (subzone 5.3) is in the southern Sea of Okhotsk and is not part of unit of certification.
Figure 8: Sea of Okhotsk management subzones (Source: PCA, 2011a)
As in other jurisdictions, subzone boundaries are based upon a combination of administrative necessity and biological stock structure, of which there has been a long history of study. Early work
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 18 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report during the 1970s – 80s on pollock stock structure was undertaken by a number of Japanese and Russian scientists (PCA, 2010). Based upon morphological and biological (e.g. growth) variation of pollock from different parts of the Sea as well as genetic studies, these authors suggested that there were between two and 10 populations resident in the Sea of Okhotsk. This was consistent with morphological and distributional (tagging and feeding /spawning aggregations) work by Zverkova (1981a, b, 1982) and Zverkova and Pushnikov (1982) (both described in PCA, 2010) who considered that the northern and southern Sea of Okhotsk were composed of separate populations with that north of the 50th parallel being one large population composed of separate sub-populations of winter and spring spawners.
Subsequent work during the 1990s and 2000s expanded on the earlier work, reviews of which can be found in PCA (2010). These studies generally concluded that one large pollock population inhabited the northern Sea of Okhotsk rather than being a collection of small isolated ones. However, the detailed positions of the researchers differed substantially. Shuntov et al (1993), based on morphological variation in relation to habitat and ecology, concluded that the northern Sea of Okhotsk was a ‘super-population’ composed of a complex of individual populations. Zverkova (2003), expanding on earlier work (Zverkova, 1981a; 1981b; 1982; 1999; Zverkova and Pushnikov, 1982) considered that one large population with a complex intrapopulation structure inhabited the Sea of Okhotsk. Kuznetsov et al. (2008), in their examination of population dynamics and fishery exploitation, hypothesized a complex, hierarchically organized population system for the Sea of Okhotsk. Section 3.2.1, above, provides additional detail on the spawning patterns and population centers for pollock in the Sea of Okhotsk.
In their submission (PCA, 2010), scientists at TINRO provided their views on this work. They considered that the term "super-population" used by Shuntov et al. (1993) and Kuznetsov et al (2008) was not appropriate, pointing out that by definition, a super-population inhabits such a large area in which there is geographic isolation between its components, a situation which is not applicable to pollock. Also considered inappropriate was the term "population system" proposed by V.V. Kuznetsov et al. (2008). PCA (2010) considered that a population system implies the existence of groupings bigger than “real” populations. In hierarchically organized population-based systems proposed by Dobzhansky (1950; 1955; 1970), it is impossible to identify the groups that would be universal "regulated units" (Kuznetsov et Mina, 1985). The TINRO scientists considered that the most appropriate stock structure for the northern Sea of Okhotsk was that of Zverkova (2003) - a large population with complex organization. It is this hypothesis that currently is the basis of fisheries management of the Sea of Okhotsk pollock.
4.2 Information and Monitoring
Surveys
A number of survey programs are used to provide stock abundance indices for assessments. These consist of
• Winter / Spring Ichthyoplankton / Trawl spawning biomass survey • Winter / Spring acoustic survey • Fall ecosystem survey
The objectives and design of the spawning biomass survey have evolved over time. While ichthyoplankton surveys in the Sea of Okhotsk started in the 1930s, only since 1972 has it been used to evaluate pollock spawning biomass to inform fisheries management. Prior to the mid-1980s, some of the spawning grounds in the northern part of the Sea were not routinely sampled but since 1984, all known spawning areas are sampled using a design of over 380 fixed stations (Figure 9). Sampling
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 19 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report starts in the West Kamchatka subzone at the beginning of April, in Shelikhov Bay in early May and in the North Central – West parts of the Sea in late May. The duration of the survey in each area is about 15 – 17 days. The gear is an IKS-80 conic net, which is towed vertically from either 200 or 400 m dependent where spawning occurs. The data from the survey are typically available in September in time for the fall annual assessment meeting.
Figure 9: Station distribution of annual ichthyoplankton survey in the Northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk (Source: PCA, 2010)
Since 1983, the ichthyoplankton survey has been accompanied by trawl sampling. Protocols for this part of the winter / spring sampling were standardized in 1998, including the addition of hydrological sampling. Since then, 24 hour sampling is undertaken using a PT/TM – 57/360 mid-water trawl with 10 mesh cod-end. The station distribution of this sampling is similar to that of the ichthyoplankton sampling (Figure 10).
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 20 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Figure 10: Station distribution of annual trawl sampling accompanying ichthyoplankton survey in the Northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk (Source: PCA, 2010)
Currently, about 8500 biological samples are collected per subzone, which allows the estimation of female maturity and fecundity at length. The methodology used to estimate number of females at length by subzone is described in PCA (2010). It involves dividing the total eggs estimated from the ichthyoplankton survey by an estimate of the number of eggs spawned per female at length from the trawl survey. A number of adjustments, also described in PCA (2010) are used to standardize trawl set catch, including application of experimentally–derived age–specific catchability coefficients (0.1 and 0.4 for ages one and four plus respectively) and a voluminosity coefficient based upon echosounder traces which adjusts for the abundance of pollock occurring above the trawl during a set. During the site visit, it was noted by TINRO scientists that typically no voluminosity adjustment is required in depths of 0 – 200m. However, in deeper water, the voluminosity adjustment can be two times (during day) and three times (during night) the set’s catch to account for uncaught fish above the trawl. From the discussion during the site visit, it was evident that the objective of the design and processing of the ichthyoplankton /trawl survey data is to produce absolute estimates of pollock biomass, through application of a series of adjustments. Notwithstanding this, when these data are used in the population model (see below), survey catchability is estimated, implying use of the index as a relative measure of spawning biomass. The statistical properties of these adjustments are unclear and require further consideration. The estimates of the coefficient of variation (Table 4) of the derived spawning biomass are based upon the methodology of Alverson and Pereyra (1969) and range 28 – 52%.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 21 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 4: Mean, minimum and maximum pollock spawning biomass (kt) and associated coefficients of variation (CV) based on annual ichthyoplankton surveys during 1984 - 2010 (Source: PCA, 2011c)
CV % Year Minimum Maximum Mean 34.6 1984 5,093 10,485 7,789 52.4 1985 2,331 7,471 4,901 40.8 1986 4,174 9,936 7,055 40.9 1987 4,797 11,433 8,115 38.2 1988 4,215 9,431 6,823 44.8 1989 2,790 7,312 5,051 36.4 1990 2,410 5,168 3,789 49.2 1991 1,723 5,061 3,392 34.3 1992 3,676 7,514 5,595 36.6 1993 44.4 1994 33.2 1995 4,604 9,176 6,890 35.0 1996 2,653 5,511 4,082 41.6 1997 1,757 4,259 3,008 34.0 1998 1,532 3,110 2,321 32.1 1999 1,162 2,260 1,711 38.0 2000 995 2,215 1,605 34.5 2001 1,115 2,291 1,703 34.0 2002 1,876 3,806 2,841 2003 37.4 2004 2,208 4,850 3,529 36.5 2005 2,632 5,658 4,145 32.7 2006 2,928 5,774 4,351 36.0 2007 2,889 6,135 4,512 28.9 2008 3,443 6,239 4,841 34.0 2009 3,861 7,831 5,846 28.0 2010 5,096 9,059 7,077
Since 1998, TINRO has conducted a winter / spring acoustic survey using first a Simrad EK500 and now an EK600 system. Considerable effort has been spent on standardizing the design and protocol of this survey with a number of issues identified. It is not currently used to inform management decision-making (i.e. in assessment) and is not discussed further. It is described in PCA (2010).
Since 1984, TINRO has conducted a fall trawl survey using the same design and protocol as that used in the winter / spring. This survey is designed to monitor broader changes in the ecosystem’s biodiversity and environmental conditions and, while not directly included in the assessment, is used to corroborate the observations of the winter / spring survey. The trend in kg/km2 of SOO pollock since 2000 in this survey largely follows that of the winter – spring ichthyoplankton survey (Figure 11) with increases in biomass since 2000 indicated.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 22 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
250000
200000
150000 Kg / Kg Km2 100000
50000
0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Figure 11: Trend in pollock Kg per Km2 from fall ecosystem trawl survey (Source: data from PCA, 2011c)
KamchatNIRO conducts additional surveys in West Kamchatka including a winter/ spring ichthyoplankton and summer trawl survey. These are restricted in areal extent and are thus not used in the pollock assessments. These are not discussed further in this report.
Before discussing data on fishery removals, it is important to reiterate the types of vessels operating in the fishery, of which there are four. As indicated in section 3.2, there are catcher vessels which only catch pollock and deliver unprocessed fish to processor vessels, catcher – processor vessels which catch and process (generally as headed and gutted or HG) on board, processor vessels which only process catch delivered to them (not many operating in the Sea of Okhotsk) and transhipment vessels which deliver processed catch to a port. Since 2008, as per Russian Law, all catch must be landed at a Russian port. There are about 125 vessels currently operating in the client’s fleet (95 catcher processors, 10 motherships and 20 catchers). Monitoring of the activities of this fleet is conducted by:
• Scientific observers (managed by TINRO) • Government Marine Inspectors (managed by FSB) • Scientific fishing (managed by TINRO) • Logbooks & reports (completed by captains & companies) • Satellite – based vessel monitoring system (VMS monitored by FSB) • FFA inspectors (manged by FFA)
Scientific observers are deployed to the catcher and catcher – processor vessels to collect information on the composition of the catch, including discards of directed species and bycatch species. According to Russian Law, a vessel is only obliged, not required, to carry a scientific observer. During the site visit, it was reported that it is only recently that there has been a greater willingness to take observers on board. These observers record information on length composition of catch by species, weight – length data, gut contents, sex and maturity stages of pollock and other relevant observations (see Appendix B for example observer log). While encounters with ETP species are recorded, no specific record of seabird sightings is made. Each research institute receives funding for observer coverage from the Federal Fishery Agency. Once the budget is received, deployments are made according to an annual plan by each science institute and thus priorities can vary by institute. TINRO priorities are for pollock, herring, saury and crab coverage. TINRO deploys about 12 observers in the Sea of Okhotsk (and an additional three in the West Bering Sea). Other institutes (e.g. KamchatNIRO) deploy additional observers. During 2006 – 2010, an average of 4% and 1% of the hauls made by large and
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 23 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report medium-sized vessels were observed (Table 5).
Table 5: Scientific observer coverage (% hauls) of the pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk
Large-scale vessels Medium vessels
Number of Number of Number of Number of Scientific Number of hauls % of hauls Scientific Number of hauls % of hauls Year Observers hauls observed observed Observers hauls observed observed 2010 14 15171 929 6.1% 2 8581 35 0.4% 2009 12 15607 349 2.2% 2 6187 47 0.8% 2008 11 13568 440 3.2% 1 7068 73 1.0% 2007 11 12246 595 4.9% 1 5235 57 1.1% 2006 13 16035 570 3.6% 2 6907 129 1.9% Source: Observers reports of TINRO, VNIRO, KamchatNIRO and MagadanNIRO in PCA, 2011c
Government Marine Inspectors (GMI), who have regulatory authority under the Coast Guard, (FSB) aboard catcher and catcher-processor vessels, also observe trawl hauls before discarding to confirm compliance with Fishing Rules, such as juvenile by-catch, 2% / 49% by-catch rules, sea mammals interaction, benthic interaction (sea floor samples or bottom species), proper recording of by-catch and catches). It is important to understand the processing of the catch aboard the catch and catcher – processor vessels to appreciate what is being observed and recorded by the various on-board observers, such as the GMI inspectors (PCA, 2012a). In accordance to paragraph 7.1 of the Fishing Rules, after the trawl net is hauled onto the deck, the vessel master (captain, skipper) visually evaluates the degree of the net’s fullness, estimates the amount of catch and makes an entry on the catch amount in the on-board logbook. This information is used to identify inconsistencies in catch (raw) weight later estimated from the processed weight. The catch then proceeds to the processing facility, where it is sorted by size and the non-target species are separated out. Samples are taken to determine the species composition and percent juveniles in the haul. Normally, 1-2 samples of 30 – 50 kg each are taken from the front, middle and back of each haul. The data on all samples are summarized and recorded in the Catch Check Act report (see below). According to paragraph 9.7 of the Fishing Rules, fishing vessels are prohibited to “discard any harvested (caught) aquatic living resources permitted for harvesting (catching).” Thus, the whole catch is processed and the weight of each product type recorded using certified weighing machines. Raw weight is then back calculated from processed weight based on conversion coefficients that are updated by TINRO every three years. The latest conversion rates have been in effect since June 2011. This is consistent with the practice to estimate catch in most other fisheries in the world. Fishing companies can develop their own conversion rates (e.g. due to equipment refurbishment or changes in the settings) but these must be agreed to by TINRO.
The monitoring of the catch is used in the regulation of juvenile bycatch. Prior to 2001, the percentage of vessels producing fish fillets in the fishery was high and their freezers could not handle large numbers of juveniles. Thus, the weight of less than 20 cm pollock catch was limited to a maximum of 8% of the total catch. Since 2001, the main product types are headed and whole frozen pollock. The juvenile size regulation was changed so that the weight of less than 35 cm pollock caught is now limited to a maximum of 20% of the total catch. The Fishing Rules also state (paragraph 21.4) that, if the pollock juvenile catch exceeds 20%, all harvested pollock juveniles must be processed and the relevant entries made in the fishing and/or processing logs. As noted above, every trawl hauled onto a vessel is subject to mandatory sampling for juvenile percentage.
GMI inspectors are required to record on-board inspection results on reporting forms as per the requirements of the Catch Check Act. The GMI inspectors also check fishing gear for regulatory compliance. Designed to minimize benthic interactions, the Fishing Rules prohibit use of bottom
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 24 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report trawls, specify net sizes and construction, and establish fishing zones for operation. GMI inspectors issue fines when they find evidence of bottom interactions, such as the presence of crabs, sea stars, flounders and other benthic species in the catch.
During 2006 – 2010, GMI inspectors observed, on average about 15.5% of the hauls made by the large vessels (Table 6). This is in excess of the at-sea coverage provided by the scientific observers (Table 5). Together, at-sea coverage by the scientific observers and GMI inspectors of the hauls made by the large vessels during 2006 – 2010 averaged almost 20%.
Table 6: Total number hauls made by large vessels observed in the Sea of Okhotsk during 2006 – 2010 by scientific observers, GMI inspectors and FFA Inspectors
M$'%&/%7($9('63%413*36( M$'%&/%7($9(XYT(34'5%61)&'( M$'%&/%7($9(88J( 2)1,-(+,"-'()$'%&/%7 )$'%&/%&'(HH HHH 34'5%61)&'(HHHH 2)1,-(4"#$%&()*(+,"-'($9(6,16+F 2)1,-(!"#$%&( 2)1,-( 5&)6%'')&'(H !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( )*(34'5%61%7( 83'+%&9( +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +",-' .)/%&,0% :;<; <=<>< ?:? @AC
Observations of the fishery are also made by inspectors from the FFA, whose work on board the vessels takes place under the auspices of FFA Decree #1112, dated 30 December 2010, entitled “About Coordination group for pollock fishery and other fisheries management in the Sea of Okhotsk”. According to that decree, each of the four FFA Far East territorial divisions in the Russian Far East has to send at least 2-3 inspectors to work on board commercial vessels harvesting fish in the Sea of Okhotsk (item 6 of the Decree). The specific tasks of the FFA inspectors under this decree are: • to coordinate vessel fish-catching activities in the Sea of Okhotsk; • to collect data on pollock fishing status and fishing conditions; • to collect information on pollock catches, size and age catch compositions, roe yield and sex composition, and to collect samples to determine fish age (scales, otoliths); • to analyse the information collected from commercial vessels DVRs reports and the Fishery Monitoring System; and • to make appropriate suggestions for restrictions or changes to fishing regulations (e.g. by suggesting to the FFA that a certain area of the Sea of Okhotsk be closed if the catch is dominated by juvenile pollock, or if a notable by-catch is being taken).
All data collected by the FFA inspectors are submitted to the Coordination group by radio, then captured by the Fishery Monitoring System. The main goal of the FFA inspectors within the Coordination group is to gather operational information on the fishery that can be used quickly to make appropriate management decisions, including revision of management tools and analysis of the efficiency of the management strategy in place.
According to official data from the FFA Okhotsk territory division, during the pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk in 2011, eight FFA inspectors were active on board the commercial fleet operating there; in all, they observed 626 hauls with pollock in the catch. In 2010, 11 FFA inspectors were active and observed 572 hauls, and in 2009, 8 inspectors were active and observed 285 hauls.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 25 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Landings from the fishery are verified by the GMI inspectors, who are mandated by Russian Law to be aboard the transhipment vessels (see also chapter 6 for broader discussion of legal requirements of fishery monitoring). As well, when a vessel enters and leaves a subzone, a mandatory inspection occurs. GMI inspectors can thus move from vessel to vessel on the fishing grounds. These inspectors are responsible for verifying the weight of landings delivered by the catcher – processor to the transhipment vessel. Note that GMI verification of the landings and transhipments, as opposed to the coverage of the hauls, increased from low levels in the early 2000s to 100% by 2010 as per current regulations.
Unobserved catch, particularly the discarding of juveniles, has been an issue in the history of this fishery. Melnikov et al (2011) report that in the 1990s and even in the beginning of 2000s, there were multiple violations of the fishery regulations such as young fish discards, concealment of harvests, fishing activities in prohibited areas and periods, and so on which resulted in TAC overages in the order of 15 – 20% per year. Estimates from other reports (Table 7) of unobserved juvenile discards ranged 8 – 42% above the official statistics. Melnikov et al (2011) report that due to changes in markets, monitoring, regulations, enforcement and the stock, discarding has been greatly reduced. For instance, in 2010, the price of whole pollock in South Korean markets was comparable to headed pollock used for fillets. Further, the relative contribution of middle to large size pollock suitable for fillet products has increased in recent years.
Table 7: Estimates of unobserved juvenile discards from various sources.
Year % above Official Report Statistics 2001 33.4 Varkentin A.I., Sergeyeva N.P. Underestimation of pollock 2002 32.7 harvests in the north-eastern part of the Sea of Okhotsk and its impact on stock assessment and TAC forecasts. // Abstracts of 2003 35.4 the IX All-Russian Conference on Fishery Forecasting. Murmansk: PINRO. 2004. pp. 48-50. 2005 41.1 The Sea of Okhotsk Pollock - 2010 (harvest season forecast). 2007 8.1 Vladivostok: TINRO Center. 2009. 69 p. 2009 25.4 Source: Melnikov et al, 2011.
The main other source of pollock catch is the coastal seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf. pollock landings of this fishery increased from 23.2 kt in 2005 to 79.1 kt in 2011 (PCA, 2012b), and now represents 8.8% of the total catch in the Northern Sea Okhotsk. While the fishery is undertaken throughout the year, it primarily occurs during January – March and June, which is the pre-spawning and spawning period. As well, it is undertaken in a relatively well-defined area off the coast of West Kamchatka (see map in PCA, 2012b). During the site visit, the impression was left that monitoring of this fishery was limited. However, it was subsequently clarified (PCA, 2012b) that monitoring rates of fishery removals and at-sea observer coverage are similar to that in the much larger directed pollock trawl fishery. For instance, coverage during 2007 – 2011 ranged 2.7 – 4.9% with good spatial distribution of the sampling in relation to the fleet’s activity. These data are used to construct annual Danish seine fishery catch at age for incorporation into the stock assessment. The catch is dominated by the same age/size groups as in the directed pollock fishery but with a lower abundance of juveniles, ranging 2 – 9% of the catch depending upon the season. PCA (2012b) report that there are no pollock discards in this fishery and the entire catch is processed.
Fishery Logbooks and Reporting
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 26 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Logbooks aboard all catcher and catcher – processor vessels are used to record all catches including discards or retained bycatch per haul along with information on the date and time, location, tow duration and so on. These data are verified by the fishery inspector when received aboard transhipment vessels. Daily Vessel Catch reports (DVRs) are sent to the Fishery Monitoring System (FMS) operated by the FFA body - Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communications (CFMC). The FSB cooperates with the FFA (FMS) and shares data through the FMS. Catch data are used to monitor catch against the TAC and permissible catches (PC). During the site visit, it was noted that electronic logbooks, which would allow direct data upload, may be used in future dependent on a change in Russian Law. The logbook data are used to provide the large vessel catch per unit (CPUE) and effort indices, which is used in the stock assessment. A synopsis of these data is provided in PCA (2010).
There are a number of reporting obligations for captains and companies. Captains must report their landings and fishing activity via transmission of the DVR to the FMS while fishing companies must report aggregate statistics on operations, catches, production, landings to FMS on the first and 15th of each month. Since about 2001, FSB has managed a vessel monitoring system (VMS) to record the fishing location of all vessels (Russian and foreign) operating in the Russian EEZ. There are three monitoring centres in Russia covering about 4,500 vessels. During the site visit, a tour of the monitoring facility was provided during which it was noted that the system is similar to that used in the East Bering Sea fishery. It was noted during the site visit that all FSB monitoring data (fishery inspections, logbooks, VMS) is accessible to the scientists.
The research institutes also undertake scientific fishing. Vessels owned and operated by the scientific institutes fish like commercial vessels against a specific share of the annual TAC. Prior to 1990, TURNIF operated the scientific fleet (became private company in 1995) and this was privatized in 1995, the institutes took ownership of this fleet. These vessels collect data similar to that of the observers. Since 2008, the institutes have maintained the operation of this fleet through quota share provide by the industry. During the site visit, TINRO estimated that about 80% of catch information comes from scientific observers and 20% from scientific fishing.
Fishery Sampling
An overview of the amount of data collected by the scientific observers and fishing of KamchatNIRO during 1996-2010 for the subzones of the northern Sea of Okhotsk is given in Table 8.
Table 8: Summary of 1996-2010 data collections during pollock harvesting in the Sea of Okhotsk (Source: PCA, 2010)
Year Number of Lengths Complete Special Samples Samples for operations Biological Analysis for age fecundity (tows) Analysis Northern-Sea of Okhotsk subzone 1996 82 23579 27 24 0 1997 70 14789 1201 550 4 1998 279 18807 1418 1354 0 1999 21 62 34 33 34 2000 193 33991 3109 418 22 2001 169 3604 1262 222 28 2002 372 25418 4052 3768 0 2003 65 5438 464 12 464 100 2004 472 32336 3571 1239 101 2005 86 7259 932 651 43 2006 42 6703 274 0 42
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 27 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Year Number of Lengths Complete Special Samples Samples for operations Biological Analysis for age fecundity (tows) Analysis 2007 16 2674 200 200 0 2008 78 6451 2148 350 0 2009 144 18692 1174 3602 890 71 2010 552 58893 4073 9401 1398 45 Total 2641 258696 23939 13015 11561 490 Western-Kamchatka subzone 1996 469 49691 3872 2909 89 1997 613 115883 10394 2762 218 1998 656 50788 7117 5207 213 1999 430 29954 1144 31 1055 234 2000 488 66103 4761 2 1954 226 2001 304 14159 2376 836 128 2002 515 23717 3984 656 3912 177 2003 130 5498 657 2103 300 36 2004 269 23372 3321 209 744 17 2005 482 11141 928 577 55 2006 63 8411 401 248 44 2007 312 8396 350 347 0 2008 227 18238 1235 520 94 2009 483 11672 1001 1200 790 36 2010 830 55865 3666 3300 398 16 Total 6271 492888 45207 7501 22559 1583 Kamchatka-Kuril subzone 1996 301 21705 884 738 21 1997 161 24525 1684 491 0 1998 216 11245 1768 1314 2 1999 263 17148 1100 44 944 120 2000 378 31057 1936 776 58 2001 250 33914 1887 1 384 40 2002 648 19031 2692 746 2131 37 2003 175 9061 966 363 856 168 2004 212 23955 2420 130 1012 65 2005 231 12408 740 353 12 2006 44 8370 300 286 1 2007 442 15650 887 100 0 2008 586 45781 4447 6 1363 112 2009 636 42258 3545 5701 2629 84 2010 996 96077 5572 23300 3137 151 Total 5539 412185 30828 30291 16514 871 Grand Total 14451 1163769 99974 50807 50634 2944
These data provide the basis for the determination of the age/size composition of the catch. Regarding age determination, prior to 1996, this was undertaken through the reading of scales. During 1996 – 2003, a transition to age determination through otoliths was made with both scales and otoliths read. Since 2004, only otolith reading has been undertaken. Comparative studies conducted during the transition period and reported during the site visit indicated that there were no differences in age
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 28 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report determined from scales and otoliths up to age six. It is unclear how the aging compares after age six. Age determination using other structures (pectoral fin rays and vertebrae) has been attempted and is shown to provide similar estimates to that of otoliths albeit with a greater investment in time.
Stock Productivity and Other Data.
Regarding stock productivity, including observations of pollock growth, maturity and fecundity, the trawl survey and scientific observer data collections mentioned above provide the information used to estimate these. Annual estimates of weight at age are not available to the stock assessment. Thus, the assessment model uses a long-term average weight at age to compute spawning biomass rather than annual estimates (Figure 12). TINRO noted that there is not enough reliable data in all areas and years. This is complicated by the lack of good quality at – sea weighing equipment. Taken together, reliable data on fish weights to determine weight – length relationships and thus the annual weights at age are not available in all years. PCA (2010) describes long-term variation in fish growth based on the available data. There have been increases and decreases on a decadal scale with no long-term trend, either increasing or decreasing, apparent. PCA (2011a) reported that, compared to other sources of variability, year-to-year variation in weights at age is not substantial.
These data also provide the information used to estimate natural mortality (M) and percent maturity at age. Annual estimates of the gonad index (WGSI) for female maturity state IV during 1996 – present are averaged and used to estimate a long-term annual M using the equation of Gunderson and Dygert (1988): М = 0.03 + 1.68×WGSI
This is taken to represent the M on the most abundant ages (6 – 8) in the catch. The method of Blinov (1977) (cited in PCA, 2011c) is then used to estimate the distribute of M across age (Figure 12)
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 29 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Figure 12: Long-term term weight (top panel), percent maturity (middle panel) and M (lower panel) derived from survey and observer data and used in the assessment (Source: PCA, 2011c)
PCA (2010) highlights additional sources of data available for the Sea of Okhotsk. Mention was made above of hydrological (e.g. temperature, salinity) data collected on the surveys. These and other environmental information are collected to monitor oceanographic processes influencing pollock recruitment and broader changes in the ecosystem, (see also Section 5) some of which have been reported in PICES reports (e.g. PICES, 2004). 4.3 Assessment of Stock Status
The pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk has been assessed using a number of approaches over the years. The most consistently used approach has been the ‘biostatistical’ method which uses the ichthyoplankton / trawl survey data to estimate spawning biomass by subzone. The algorithms involved are extensive and fully described in PCA (2010).
Assessment modelling methods were initially based upon the assumption of negligible error in the catch at age (e.g. Virtual Population Analysis or VPA). For the West Kamchatka subzone, methods such as VPA, ICA and XSA have all been used, generally conducted by the scientists at KamchatNIRO. For the North Sea of Okhotsk subzone, both XSA and ISVPA (Instantaneous Separable VPA; Kizner and Vasilyev, 1997) have been used. The latter belongs to the class of separable cohort models, recognizes the need to address errors in the catch at age and provides a more
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 30 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report formal statistical basis for estimation of model parameters. In 2007, a new model was used for the Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone which is an extension of ISVPA and has features similar to those in a Statistical Catch at Age (SCAA) approaches (PCA, 2011b). Termed ‘Synthesis’ (not related to Stock Synthesis of Methot, 2009), it undertakes a least squares minimization of observed vs. predicted catch at age and abundance indices using a suite of model parameters including beginning of cohort population numbers, fully recruited fishing mortality, fishery selectivity at age, abundance index catchability coefficients, and the parameters of a Ricker stock – recruitment relationship. While both the ISVPA and Synthesis models showed similar long-term stock dynamics, the Synthesis results indicated a gradual increase in biomass since 2001, consistent with the observations of the ichthyoplankton surveys, whereas the ISVPA results showed a decline in biomass after 2005, with a sharp (by 579 thousand tons) decrease from 2006 to 2007. Accordingly, the Russian peer review committee considered that the results of the Synthesis model better reflected the dynamics of the pollock stock, especially in recent years. Subsequent assessment models and the observations from the ichthyoplankton support this decision.
While these modelling efforts informed management decisions, it was not until December 2010 that they became the official basis for the TACs; the biostatistical method had been used for this purpose up until this time. NIRO indicated to TINRO that modelling, which integrates information from various sources in an explicitly defined statistical framework, was a more appropriate approach. During the site visit, it was noted that the Synthesis model, and variants thereof, will be used as the basis of future TAC decisions. The Synthesis model was used in December 2010 as the basis of the projected 2012 TAC.
The inputs and structure of the Synthesis model used in December 2010 are described in PCA, 2011b). The main input data consist of
• Catch at age (1963 – 2010) for ages 2 – 20 • Long term average weight at age • Long term average maturity at age • Fishing effort (2001 – 2010) • Large vessel catch rate (2001 – 2010) standardized for fishing capacity • Spawning biomass from the winter / spring Ichthyoplankton / Trawl surveys (1972 – 2009) • Long term average M at age (noted above) for ages 2 - 20
It is useful to note that starting in December 2013, the winter / spring acoustic and fall ecosystem surveys will be incorporated into the assessment as additional abundance indices (PCA, 2012c).
The model parameters consisted of • 1963 beginning of year numbers at ages 3 – 20 and age 1 for 1963 – 2010 • Fully recruited fishing mortality (ages 7 – 11) • Selectivity at age in two time blocks (1963 – 2000 and 2001 - 2010) for ages 2 – 6 and 12 – 20 with that on ages 7 – 11 assumed equal to one • a and b of Ricker stock – recruitment relationship • catchability coefficient (q) for each of F vs Effort, CPUE vs biomass and survey biomass vs SSB (biomass used at beginning of year)
The objective function involved minimization of the residual sum of squares (log error assumed) for the following components: • Catch at age • F vs Effort • Recruitment around Ricker stock – recruitment relationship
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 31 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report • SSB vs survey biomass • CPUE vs fishable biomass
Uncertainty is incorporated in the model through the use of a lambda term applied to each of the components, these being 1, 1, 0.1, 10 and 10 for each of the objective function components noted respectively above. These lambda terms were based upon the expert judgment of the analysts and discussed during the peer review. It is important to note that the weight given the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship is quite low compared to the other components of the objective function. PCA (2011b) indicates that the relationship explained 6.5% of the variation in recruitment. A Ricker stock – recruitment model which incorporates sea lion abundance, ice cover and spring zooplankton biomass has been attempted and explained 74% of the variation about the relationship. However, the Russian peer view considered that this model was too preliminary to be used in the assessment and stock projections.
It is useful to consider the performance of this model. The residuals associated the catch at age (Figure 13) appear to be relatively well distributed. Residuals for the other components of the objective function examined during the site visit indicated no significant issues of fit. During the site visit, a retrospective analysis was conducted which indicated that the model performs relatively well. An overall impression of the performance of historical assessments was obtained by comparing forecast and assessed fishable biomass throughout the time series. During the 1980s – 1990s, forecast biomass of the West Kamchatka – Kuril subzone was generally below the assessed biomass. It was almost the same in the early 2000s and more recently it has again been below assessed biomass (Figure 14a). The forecast and assessed fishable biomass was very similar throughout the time series for the Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone (Figure 14b). The coefficients of variation (CVs) from the Hessian matrix of the December 2010 Synthesis model were examined during the site visit and were found not unreasonable by the assessment team (Table 9). The differences noted above between ISVPA and Synthesis on recent trends in biomass are likely due to differences in model structure that would need to be explored further.
Figure 13: Residuals in Ln (C'(t,a)) – Ln (C(t,a)) from December 2010 Synthesis Model of Northern Sea of Okhotsk Pollock (Source: PCA, 2011b)
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 32 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
a. West Kamchatka - Kuril
8,000 Forecast Assessed
6,000
4,000 Fishable Biomass, kt
2,000
0 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
B. Northern Sea of Okhotsk 8000
Forecast Assessed
6000
4000 Fishable Biomass, kt
2000
0 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Figure 14: Comparison of forecast fishable biomass of West Kamchatka, Kamchatka-Kuril (a) and Northern Sea of Okhotsk (b) subzones of the Sea of Okhotsk to that subsequently assessed (Source: data from PCA, 2011c)
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 33 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 9: Parameters and associated CVs from Hessian matrix of December 2010 Synthesis Model of Northern Sea of Okhotsk Pollock (Source: data provided to assessment team during site visit)
Estimated Parameter Ln Par CV Estimated Parameter Ln Par CV Estimated Parameter Ln Par CV ln(N(1963,2)) 8.37 2.0% ln(selectivity_block1(2)) -3.79 -3.3% ln(Q_effort) -9.88 -2.6% ln(N(1963,3)) 8.11 2.1% ln(selectivity_block1(3)) -2.66 -4.4% ln(Ricker_a) 0.95 16.0% ln(N(1963,4)) 7.62 2.3% ln(selectivity_block1(4)) -2.08 -5.6% ln(Ricker_b) -9.35 -13.3% ln(N(1963,5)) 7.55 2.4% ln(selectivity_block1(5)) -1.10 -10.4% ln(q_ssb1) -0.84 -8.2% ln(N(1963,6)) 7.32 2.5% ln(selectivity_block1(6)) -0.14 -74.0% ln(q_ssb2) -2.68 -5.0% ln(N(1963,7)) 6.95 2.7% ln(selectivity_block1(12)) -0.23 -44.7% ln(q_cpue1) -4.52 -2.8% ln(N(1963,8)) 6.52 3.0% ln(selectivity_block1(13)) -0.52 -21.1% *selectivities 7-11 in block 1 are fixed ln(N(1963,9)) 6.10 3.4% ln(selectivity_block1(14)) -0.78 -14.8% *selectivities 7-11 in block 2 are fixed ln(N(1963,10)) 5.64 3.8% ln(selectivity_block1(15)) -0.78 -15.0% ln(N(1963,11)) 5.15 4.3% ln(selectivity_block1(16)) -1.01 -11.9% ln(N(1963,12)) 4.71 5.0% ln(selectivity_block1(17)) -1.61 -7.5% ln(N(1963,13)) 4.27 5.9% ln(selectivity_block1(18)) -1.73 -7.0% ln(N(1963,14)) 3.89 6.9% ln(selectivity_block1(19)) -1.90 -6.4% ln(N(1963,15)) 3.49 8.3% ln(selectivity_block1(20)) -2.31 -5.4% ln(N(1963,16)) 3.04 10.4% ln(selectivity_block2(2)) -4.18 -7.2% ln(N(1963,17)) 2.77 12.7% ln(selectivity_block2(3)) -3.59 -6.6% ln(N(1963,18)) 2.60 15.7% ln(selectivity_block2(4)) -2.21 -10.6% ln(N(1963,19)) 2.48 20.1% ln(selectivity_block2(5)) -1.09 -21.4% ln(N(1963,20)) 2.34 30.3% ln(selectivity_block2(6)) 0.00 #DIV/0! ln(R(1964)) 8.50 2.0% ln(selectivity_block2(12)) -0.28 -80.2% ln(R(1965)) 8.55 1.9% ln(selectivity_block2(13)) -0.33 -66.6% ln(R(1966)) 8.64 1.9% ln(selectivity_block2(14)) -0.36 -60.1% ln(R(1967)) 8.56 1.9% ln(selectivity_block2(15)) -0.27 -81.9% ln(R(1968)) 8.86 1.9% ln(selectivity_block2(16)) -0.12 -183.9% ln(R(1969)) 8.82 1.9% ln(selectivity_block2(17)) 0.00 #DIV/0! ln(R(1970)) 9.00 1.8% ln(selectivity_block2(18)) 0.00 #DIV/0! ln(R(1971)) 8.82 1.8% ln(selectivity_block2(19)) -0.62 -41.3% ln(R(1972)) 8.84 1.7% ln(selectivity_block2(20)) -0.60 -44.1% ln(R(1973)) 8.71 1.8% ln(f(1963)) -4.43 -4.5% ln(R(1974)) 8.52 1.8% ln(f(1964)) -3.43 -5.4% ln(R(1975)) 8.48 1.8% ln(f(1965)) -2.80 -6.3% ln(R(1976)) 8.59 1.8% ln(f(1966)) -2.28 -7.5% ln(R(1977)) 8.85 1.7% ln(f(1967)) -2.40 -7.2% ln(R(1978)) 9.11 1.7% ln(f(1968)) -1.88 -9.1% ln(R(1979)) 9.36 1.6% ln(f(1969)) -2.06 -8.1% ln(R(1980)) 9.60 1.6% ln(f(1970)) -1.97 -8.6% ln(R(1981)) 9.48 1.6% ln(f(1971)) -1.91 -8.6% ln(R(1982)) 9.19 1.7% ln(f(1972)) -1.88 -8.7% ln(R(1983)) 9.14 1.7% ln(f(1973)) -1.64 -9.8% ln(R(1984)) 9.08 1.7% ln(f(1974)) -0.96 -16.2% ln(R(1985)) 9.16 1.7% ln(f(1975)) -1.84 -9.2% ln(R(1986)) 9.26 1.7% ln(f(1976)) -1.25 -13.5% ln(R(1987)) 9.41 1.7% ln(f(1977)) -1.18 -14.1% ln(R(1988)) 9.13 1.7% ln(f(1978)) -1.93 -8.7% ln(R(1989)) 9.35 1.7% ln(f(1979)) -1.77 -9.2% ln(R(1990)) 9.44 1.6% ln(f(1980)) -1.89 -8.6% ln(R(1991)) 9.55 1.6% ln(f(1981)) -2.55 -6.5% ln(R(1992)) 9.43 1.6% ln(f(1982)) -2.49 -6.6% ln(R(1993)) 9.10 1.8% ln(f(1983)) -2.40 -6.9% ln(R(1994)) 9.17 1.8% ln(f(1984)) -1.91 -8.6% ln(R(1995)) 8.96 1.9% ln(f(1985)) -1.56 -10.4% ln(R(1996)) 8.93 2.0% ln(f(1986)) -1.21 -12.7% ln(R(1997)) 9.32 1.8% ln(f(1987)) -1.35 -11.4% ln(R(1998)) 9.08 1.9% ln(f(1988)) -1.56 -10.0% ln(R(1999)) 9.16 1.9% ln(f(1989)) -1.34 -11.5% ln(R(2000)) 8.83 2.1% ln(f(1990)) -1.38 -11.2% ln(R(2001)) 8.41 2.4% ln(f(1991)) -1.34 -11.4% ln(R(2002)) 8.88 2.3% ln(f(1992)) -1.24 -12.6% ln(R(2003)) 8.99 2.3% ln(f(1993)) -1.26 -12.7% ln(R(2004)) 8.98 2.5% ln(f(1994)) -2.17 -7.8% ln(R(2005)) 8.61 3.0% ln(f(1995)) -1.30 -12.3% ln(R(2006)) 8.45 3.8% ln(f(1996)) -0.81 -18.1% ln(R(2007)) 9.11 3.9% ln(f(1997)) -0.57 -23.9% ln(R(2008)) 8.99 4.9% ln(f(1998)) -0.15 -81.5% ln(R(2009)) 8.18 5.5% ln(f(1999)) -0.85 -17.4% ln(R(2010)) 8.90 6.5% ln(f(2000)) -0.78 -19.0% ln(f(2001)) -1.37 -11.8% ln(f(2002)) -1.73 -9.7% ln(f(2003)) -1.92 -8.8% ln(f(2004)) -2.21 -7.8% ln(f(2005)) -2.06 -8.2% ln(f(2006)) -1.61 -10.6% ln(f(2007)) -1.83 -9.6%
The Synthesis modelling approach has identified the main uncertainties in the assessment. Estimation of the uncertainty in historical estimates of biomass is described by PCA (2011c) and involves Monte Carlo sampling of the Synthesis results, assuming the standard deviation of the catch of 0.3 to provide
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 34 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report approximate 95% confidence limits around the key population indicators (see example in Figure 15). These confidence intervals are very small and, in the opinion of the assessment team, likely understated. Since the site visit, estimation of uncertainty has been by a bootstrap approach, with sampling of residuals associated with the catch at age and stock abundance indices (e.g. CPUE and survey indices) used to characterize uncertainty and is a positive development in the assessment (PCA, 2012c).
Figure 15: Trend in Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock spawning biomass with associated 95% confidence bounds (Source: PCA, 2011b)
The reliability of the historical catch at age is a concern. Landings monitoring prior to 2001 was not comprehensive and indeed during the 1990s, reports of IUU fishing were common. It was indicated during the site visit that prior to 1996, there are no estimates of unreported discards. Since then, estimates of unreported discards, mostly of juveniles, are included in the catch at age (PCA, 2012d). Melnikov el al (2011) indicate that a number of methods are used to estimate these discards. While use of a lambda term of one for the catch at age in the objective function partly addresses these uncertainties, it is assumed to be constant over time, which does not address reported IUU in the 1990s.
The Synthesis model uses two selectivity-at-age blocks to address the change in regulations (introduction of square mesh panels in trawls) in 2001 intended to reduce juvenile bycatch. However, the Synthesis model results indicate that while the selectivity on younger age groups decreased, the selectivity on age 13+ individuals increased (Figure 16). As noted above, the catch at age in the stock assessment includes estimates of juvenile discards as a source of fishing mortality. This could explain the changes in the fishery selection at age (to older age groups) before and after 2001. For the younger age groups, the inclusion of discards would result in little apparent shift in age-specific selectivity. For the older age groups, the change in focus of the fishery would explain the increased selection on these age groups post 2001. Overall, while the assessment identifies the major sources of uncertainty, there is concern that these are understated and require further examination.
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 35 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
1.2 1963 - 2000 2001 - 2010
1
0.8
0.6 Selectivity
0.4
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Age
Figure 16: Change in Synthesis Model selectivity at age from 1963 – 2000 to 2001 – 2009 (Source: data provided during site visit)
4.4 Stock Status
Catch and fishing mortality (F) of the fully recruited age groups (7 – 11) have closely followed each other over the history of the fishery (Figure 17). Prior to the 1990s, fishing mortality rarely exceeded 0.3 and averaged about 0.17 or about 60% of M. Catch and F dramatically increased in the 1990s but subsequently declined to about the pre-1990 average.
4000 1 Catch F, age 7 - 11 0.9
0.8 3000 0.7
0.6
2000 0.5 Catch, t
0.4 Fishing Mortality
0.3 1000 0.2
0.1
0 0 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007
Figure 17: Trend in Catch and fully recruited fishing mortality (ages 7 – 11) of Northern Sea of Okhotsk Pollock; Source: results of December 2010 Synthesis model obtained during site visit
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 36 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report
Spawning biomass (Figure 18) was below the target (BTR) of 5096 kt until 1980, rose during the 1980s, subsequently declined to close to the limit (BLIM) of 2632 kt in 1999, after which it has risen to BTR, fluctuating around this level since 2006. There was a slight downturn in biomass in 2010. The two year stock projections undertaken in December 2010 to advise the 2012 TAC indicated that stock biomass will first rise above and then fall below BTR by 2013 to 4.7 Mt. The recent increase in biomass cannot be explained by strong recruitment, which in fact has on average been declining since the 1980s (Figure 19). Rather, reductions in recent fishing mortality have likely increased recruit survivorship and thus spawning biomass.
10000
8000
6000
Btr t, 000s
4000
2000 Blim
0 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007
Figure 18: Trend in spawning biomass of Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock; Source: results of December 2010 Synthesis model obtained during site visit
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000 Numbers, 000s 6000
4000
2000
0 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007
Figure 19: Trend in age two (recruits) numbers of Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock; Source: results of December 2010 Synthesis model obtained during site visit
Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 37 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Projections to 2013 indicate that the probability of spawning biomass being below BLIM is almost negligible (Figure 20) for any 2012 TAC below 900kt. This is also the case with the probability of F being greater than FLIM (Figure 21). These projections assumed a 2011 TAC of 920kt. Based on these projections, the 2012 TAC was set at 862kt.
Overall, the Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock appears to be in a relatively healthy state.
Figure 20: Probability of SSB2013 Figure 21: Probability of F2012 > FLIM over range of 2012 TACs assuming 2011 TAC of 920kt; Source: PCA, 2011b) 4.5 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is composed of objectives, the progress towards which is controlled by harvest control rules (HCRs) and the implementation of regulations, which are informed by stock assessment. While a harvest strategy has been a key feature of pollock management for some time, many elements of the current strategy are relatively new. The HCR (Figure 22) is new and was used for the first time in December 2010 as the basis of the 2012 TAC. It has not yet been tested. As well, a new assessment model was used in December 2010 as the basis for the 2012 TAC (see Section 4.3). The success of the harvest strategy not only depends upon its components but also how these function together. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 38 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Regarding objectives, the 2004 Federal Fisheries Act on Fisheries and Conservation of Aquatic Biological Resources Fisheries Act outlines the overarching goals of the fishery. Under this Act, the focus of fisheries is the protection and rational use of aquatic biological resources. Russia has ratified and is party to several international conventions such as the 1992 UN ban on drift-net fishing and the 1995 Fishery Code of Conduct, including Article 6, Annex II of the Fish Stocks Agreement. During the site visit, it was stated by FFA officials that international laws are considered to prevail over Russian national laws although Honneland (2004) notes that the Russian Parliament worked on the Fisheries Act during 1992 - 2004, corroborating and rejecting a number of propositions until it approval, and while domestic concerns were considered, international obligations were not a consideration. PCA (2011a) provides useful and extensive background to over-arching goals in the fishery, and behind those are some long-term objectives that are used to guide decision-making that can be teased out. Similarly for fishery objectives, the extensive background in submission documents does allow one to determine what are the long-term objectives, but grammatical issues do raise issues of precise interpretation. Having said this, it was evident to the assessment team during the site visit that conservation is an overarching priority of management. Similar to practice elsewhere, the HCR consists of determination of the TAC based upon the status of fishing mortality and spawning biomass in relation to limit and target reference points (Fig. 22). It consists of four primary reference points - BLIM, BTR, FLIM and FTR as well as F0 which is set to allow scientific fishing below BLIM. When stock biomass is above BTR, fishing mortality is set at FTR. Fishing mortality is reduced as stock levels decrease between BLIM and BTR, while below BLIM, it is set at F0. The latter allows for scientific fishing to occur while the commercial fishery is closed. The HCR works in concert with the results of the annual stock assessment as part of a two-year projection process in which the current stock biomass along with upcoming year’s TAC is used to project the following year’s TAC. For instance, the most recent assessment provided estimates of beginning of year biomass at age for the year (2011) after the last one (2010) in the model. The current year’s TAC (2011) was established by the previous decision process, using the HCR. Updates to this TAC are possible based upon new survey and fishery observations considered during the annual assessment. During the site visit, it was queried whether or not this has occurred to which an affirmative response was provided. The HCR is used to set the fishing mortality (i.e. based on projected biomass in relation to BLIM and BTR) and thus establish the TAC for the second year of the projection. The projection is done in a probabilistic manner by sampling the noise around the current year’s (e.g. 2011) age 3+ numbers at age (primarily based on error in the catch at age) and the Ricker Stock – Recruitment (SR) relationship for age 2 recruitment (e.g. to provide recruitment estimates for 2011 and 2012). The error in the latter is not conditioned by biomass but rather provides an estimate of error around average recruitment. In the most recent projection, the recruitment value for 2011 and 2012 is set equal to the average during the 10 years before the projection period. It is to this average that the noise around the SR relationship is applied. This produces a probability distribution of biomass at the end of the second year of the projection, which is then tested against the BLIM (see Figure 20 for the probability that 2013 biomass is less than BLIM for a range of 2012 TACs). If the probability of 2013 biomass being below BLIM is less than 5%, then the results using the HCR can be adopted. Otherwise, the fishing mortality and thus the TAC are adjusted downwards such that the probability that projected biomass being below BLIM is less than 5%. This approach ensures that biomass does not fall below BLIM. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 39 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 22: Harvest Control Rule for Sea of Okhotsk Pollock (Source: PCA, 2011b) 4.6 Reference Points A number of biomass and fishing mortality reference points have been estimated for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock. These are re-evaluated during each annual assessment meeting. Those estimated as December 2010 and considered during the site visit are provided in Table 10. The key ones used in the HCR are BLIM and BTR, the limit and target biomass reference points respectively, and FLIM and FTR, the limit and target fishing mortality reference points respectively. Table 10: Reference points for Northern Sea of Okhotsk (Source: PCA, 2010) Indicator Reference Point Estimate BLOSS 2632 kt B25% of B0 3868 kt B of B 3094 kt Spawning Biomass 20% 0 BMSY 5590 kt BLIM 2632 kt BTR 5096 kt FMED 0.25 FCRASH 0.45 F0.1 0.48 F 0.25 Fishing mortality 40% F30% 0.38 FLIM (F35%) 0.31 FTR (FMSY of Caddy) 0.23 FMSY 0.19 The biomass target (BTR of 5096 kt) is based upon the average of the beginning of year spawning biomass determined by the Synthesis assessment model (1963 – 2010). While the intent was to use BMSY as determined by the model (5590 kt), the Russian peer review considered that the fit of the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship (Figure 23) was too uncertain (see Section 4.3) to permit use of the analytically derived BMSY and thus the long-term mean was used as a BMSY proxy. Preliminary work by TINRO which included ecological covariates in the Ricker relationship significantly Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 40 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report improved the fit, which support its contention that recruitment is primarily determined by processes other than pollock spawning stock biomass. Use of long-term average biomass as a proxy for BMSY is not without precedent. Canada`s Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sustainable Fisheries Framework allows use of long-term average biomass during a productive period as a proxy for BMSY (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches- fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm). The assessment Tier 3 of the US North Pacific Region Fisheries Management Council outlines estimation of a BMSY proxy based on long-term average recruitment and exploitation at F40%. Such BMSY proxies are estimated in both the Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Walleye Pollock assessments (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/stocks/assessments.htm). For the SOO, the full assessment time series (1963 – 2010) was used to provide a BMSY proxy which would be reflective of production over the long-term. This implies that while there may be temporal changes in production, these are about a long- term mean with no declining or increasing trends. The weak stock – recruitment relationship suggests that non-stock processes are influential in determining the strength of incoming year-classes (see also section 5.6). There are no periods of low or consistently low recruitment in the assessment time series (Figure 19) and thus the long-term average recruitment could be expected at BMSY. There have been long-term fluctuations in fish growth, attributable to environmental factors, with no overall increasing or declining trend. While fishing mortality increased for a short period in the 1990s (Figure 17), overall it has been low (below natural mortality) and without significant trend. The time series average of age 7 – 11 (fully recruited ages) was 0.22. This is very close to the target fishing mortality of 0.23, which is based upon the FMSY of Caddy (1998). It is slightly lower than the F40% (a common FMSY proxy) of 0.25. Overall, biomass has likely fluctuated around BMSY and thus BTR over the long-term. Further support for BTR as a BMSY proxy is found in the estimates of virgin biomass and steepness of the stock – recruitment relationship. During the site visit, based on spawner per recruit considerations, virgin biomass (B0) was estimated to be in the order of 15,472 kt. The proxy BMSY (5096 kt) is 33% of this. The 2011 US East Bering Sea pollock assessment (NMFS, 2011) incorporated a steepness of 0.67. A study of the relationship between steepness and the BMSY/B0 ratio in US West Coast groundfish (Punt et al, 2008) indicated that for steepness in the range of 0.6 - 0.7, BMSY/B0 ratios of 30 – 35% could be expected, which is consistent with the BTR. This is suggestive of a stock – recruitment relationship with relatively high steepness, which is consistent with recruitment being driven primarily by non- stock processes, as TINRO contests. On balance, this combined evidence suggests that the long-term average biomass is consistent with BMSY. The limit biomass (BLIM of 2632 kt) was chosen as the lowest value in the time series, the rationale being that this is a biomass from which recovery of the stock has been observed. This is in lieu of an analytically determined BMSY on which BLIM could be based. This proxy is 52% the BMSY proxy, which is consistent with the MSC guidelines on the setting of BLIM. It could be argued that productivity changes mitigate against use of a time series low for BLIM. However, the fluctuations in spawning biomass have been about a long-term mean with no declining or increasing trend. There are no periods of low or consistently low recruitment in the assessment time series and while there have been long-term fluctuations in fish growth, attributable to environmental factors, these are also without an overall increasing or declining trend. Overall, these reference points are consistent with the MSC standard. The limit fishing mortality (FLIM of 0.31) is based upon the age 7 – 11 fishing mortality at 35% of maximum spawning potential (F35%) and is consistent with the derivation of fishing mortality limit reference points used elsewhere (Quinn and Deriso, 1999). The target fishing mortality (FTR of 0.23) is based upon Caddy (1998), who used life history characteristics as a guide for optimal harvest rates. These references points are consistent with current practice. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 41 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 Age 2 Recruits 6000 4000 2000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 SSB Figure 23: Ricker stock – recruitment relationship for northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock determined by Synthesis model (Source: data from December 2010 Synthesis model provided during site visit) Contrary to the West Bering Sea HCR in which precautionary buffers have been built into the reference points, such is not the case with the biomass reference points as of December 2010. During the site visit, TINRO noted that there is greater uncertainty in the status of the West Bering Sea stocks, this exemplified by better agreement between model results and observations in the Sea of Okhotsk. If this situation were to change, it stated that consideration would be given to the use of a precautionary buffer. The biomass reference points were updated during the December 2012 assessment and are consistent with those presented above (PCA, 2012c). Specifically, the analytically derived BMSY based upon the Ricker stock recruitment relationship is now estimated to be 5085 kt, below the long-term average and given uncertainties in the relationship, the long-term average has been maintained as the BTR. The BLIM (2763 kt) is based upon long-term recruitment times spawner per recruit assuming no fishing mortality. An adjustment, similar to that used in West Bering Sea, for added precaution has been applied with the new BLIM being 3416 kt. It is informative to consider the exploitation history of the stock in relation to the new HCR. In general, harvesting has been consistent with the rule (Figure 24) except in the 1990s when fishing mortalities were substantially higher than FLIM. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 42 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 1 BLIM 0.9 0.8 0.7 Flim 0.6 0.5 Age 7 - 11 F 0.4 FLI 0.3 M 0.2 0.1 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Blim Beg year SSB, kt Figure 24: Exploitation history of Sea of Okhotsk pollock in relation to new harvest control rule (Source: data from December 2010 Synthesis model provided during site visit) A concern raised during the site visit was whether or not the reference points would change with changes in the assessment, to which it was replied that this may occur but the modelling approach will be used in the future, ensuring some consistency in their determination. Other than the HCR, there is no additional policy that deals with the stock when it is below BLIM. In many jurisdictions specific rebuilding plans must be drafted when a stock is below the biomass limit reference point. In the current situation, below BLIM, other than scientific activities, no fishing is permitted, which would allow for the recovery of the stock, the speed of which would depend on the strength of in-coming recruitment, which in turn is strongly influenced by non-stock processes. 4.7 Management Tools The primary regulatory tool for implementation of the HCR is the annual TAC, the monitoring of which is discussed in Section 4.2. As described in Section 4.5, TACs are based upon the two-year projected stock biomass harvested to ensure less than five percent probability of not falling below BLIM. Table 11 and Figure 25 provide comparisons of forecast and approved TAC and reported catch by subzone. Note that while the assessment is for the whole northern Sea of Okhotsk, biomass and TACs are established by subzone based on the ichthyoplankton spawning survey results. In the West Kamchatka – Kuril subzone, except for during the mid-1990s, the approved TACs were those forecast by the scientific community. Reported catch was essentially the same as the approved TAC. In the Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone, until the 2000s, forecast and approved TAC varied. Also, catch during 1984 – 88 considerably exceeded the TACs. During the site visit, this was explained as being due to the exploration of new fishing areas. Since 2001, reported catch, forecast and approved TAC Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 43 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report have been equivalent. Overall, these comparisons indicate that science advice is being followed and that the management tools are likely effective in controlling fishing mortality. Table 11: Pollock forecast and approved total allowable catch (TAC) and reported catch by subzone in the Sea of Okhotsk during 1984-2010 (Source: PCA, 2011c) West Kamchakta - Kuril Nothern Sea of Okhotsk TAC, kt TAC, kt 2-year 2-year year forecast approved Catch, kt forecast approved Catch, kt 1984 604 750 925 100 100 456 1985 800 750 975 400 100 540 1986 750 750 719 400 400 746 1987 760 750 786 450 450 729 1988 730 800 713 500 500 655 1989 740 740 791 675 650 687 1990 750 600 537 600 800 946 1991 800 800 688 650 650 792 1992 670 700 760 426 506 509 1993 800 800 827 560 360 391 1994 800 800 733 738 650 583 1995 600 1000 1074 720 750 914 1996 900 1250 1250 500 625 756 1997 950 1180 1182 550 650 586 1998 800 850 852 460 460 476 1999 515 500 514 350 500 506 2000 550 340 343 380 560 551 2001 300 300 291 510 510 502 2002 250 250 252 180 180 180 2003 315 315 305 320 320 324 2004 210 210 192 205 205 197 2005 280 280 280 220 220 220 2006 369 345 345 180 180 180 2007 314 314 314 182 182 185 2008 454 454 454 214 205 205 2009 531 531 519 290 290 284 2010 619 619 604 390 390 381 Note: During 1984-1985, catch exceeded TAC due to exploration of newly discovered pollock stock in new fishing areas in northwest part of the Sea of Okhotsk Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 44 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report a. West Kamchatka - Kuril subzone 1400 Forecast TAC Approved TAC 1200 Reported Catch 1000 800 Yield, kt 600 400 200 0 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 b. nothern Sea of Okhotsk subzone 1000 Forecast TAC Approved TAC 900 Reported Catch 800 700 600 500 Yield, kt 400 300 200 100 0 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Figure 25: Comparison of pollock forecast and approved TACs to reported catch by subzone of the Northern Sea of Okhotsk The annual TAC is allocated in a tiered process to address a number of needs including: 1. Scientific activities 2. Small communities (coastal) 3. Hatcheries (i.e. salmon) 4. Education 5. Coastal 6. Industrial sector Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 45 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Since 2000, the TAC allocation process for the industrial sector has undergone considerable change with the evolution of a competitive to quasi-property rights fishery. This has been paralleled by regulatory and enforcement reforms that have led to both better catch monitoring and fleet management. For instance, an effective system of sanctions of fishery regulatory violations has been put in place which include criminal responsibility of captains, vessel confiscation and irrevocable forfeiture of company quota (Melnikov et al., 2011; PCA, 2012d) (see Section 6.7 for details). Additional gear and area regulations are comprehensively described in PCA (2010; 2011a). Gear regulations for pollock permit only mid-water trawling with a cod end mesh size of 100mm. In 2001, a regulation was introduced requiring large square mesh panels between the body of the trawl and the cod-end. This was intended to limit the catch of juvenile pollock. Prior to 2001, the weight of less than 20 cm pollock was limited to a maximum of 8% of the total catch. Since 2001, this regulation has been changed so that the weight of less than 35 cm pollock caught is now limited to a maximum of 20% of the total catch (except for in the West Sakhalin subzone, where the maximum percentage is maintained at 8%). Associated with this regulation, is a ‘move-on’ rule which stipulates that when the maximum percentage of juvenile pollock in a haul is exceeded, the captain must change the vessel’s location by at least five nautical miles from any previous trawling location, describe his actions in the vessel’s fishing logbook and report such information to the FFA (PCA, 2012a). To further limit the catch of juvenile pollock, since 2009, the quotas of the West Kamchatka and Kamchatka – Kuril subzones have been combined. Vessels can now move freely between these subzones, searching for pollock concentrations, which optimize the size distribution for particular product types. Catches in the northern part of the West Kamchatka subzone tend to be dominated by juveniles, which is not the case in the Kamchatka – Kuril subzone (PCA, 2012e). Juvenile fish closures are also imposed between 57.00 – 58.00 N and 152.00 E eastward to the shoreline. Closed seasons are imposed during the spawning season: • West Kamchatka/Kuril: Once spawning starts but no later than 1st April – 1st November • North Sea of Okhotsk: Once spawning starts but no later than 10th April – 15 October The TAC is divided by season as well as subzone. While the specific dates vary by subzone and are stated in the fishery regulations, they are generally January – April (season A) and October – December (season B). A fishing company can catch 100% of its quota during season A. If it fails to do this (for any reasons) and catches, say, 80%, it has an opportunity to catch the rest 20% in season B. There is no regulation that explicitly establishes allocations by season. However, in 2009, in order to control the volume of production going to the market, the PCA decided to divide its quota. That was a decision only for one year, and only for PCA members. The coastal fishery is prosecuted by small Danish seiners. It occurs primarily on the western Kamchatka shelf where it ranks next in volume to that of the trawl fishery. For example, in 2010, coastal seiners were allocated about 12.5% of the TAC. In the Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone, the seine fishery is practically undeveloped with only 75 tons of the TAC harvested (0.02%). On the West Kamchatka shelf, while the seine fishery operates coastally (within internal waters and territorial sea of the Russian Federation), it also operates commercially within the Federation’s EEZ with most fishing occurring within the 12-mile coastal zone. Thus, in 2010, the coastal fishery represented about 67% of total seine catch of pollock on the West Kamchatka shelf. The contribution of this fishery to the overall pollock catch, while small, has grown since 2005. In 2011, the coastal Danish seine fishery caught 8.8 % of the Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock catch. This fishery is managed under a competitive quota and is not part of the candidate fishery unit of certification. The overall effect of these management tools and enforcement efforts appears to have been the limitation of illegal fishing with its consequent overfishing of TACs, this primarily since 2007/2008, Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 46 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report such that the unreported catch of pollock in recent years is reported to be negligible or at least greatly reduced (Melnikov et al., 2011; PCA, 2012d). Juvenile fish closures are also imposed between 57.00 – 58.00 N and 152.00 E eastward to the shoreline. 4.8 Peer Review The Russian scientific peer review process consists of preparation of the assessments by each institute (TINRO, KamchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO and SakhNIRO), which are then reviewed at an annual (December) meeting of the specialized Council on pollock under the auspices of TINRO. There, the data and analyses are discussed and a consensus on TAC forecasts developed. These are then sent to the Scientific Council of VNIRO where experts at the national level provide their observations on the assessments. The resultant TACs are then discussed both at the Fishery Industry Council and at public hearings of the Far Eastern Scientific and Technical Council (DVNPS), which incorporates testimony from scientific, management agencies, fishing companies, individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media. Following this, non-FFA contracted scientists, academics and nature conservation organizations review the TACs and assessments under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is independent of the FFA. TACs cannot be raised over the objections of these external experts. To date, no foreign experts have been involved in the process. Throughout this process, it is the responsibility of the regional institute to agree to and approve any recommended changes. The overall process is complete by about the December after the assessment year and before the projected TAC year. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 47 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 5.0 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 5.1 Ecosystem Characteristics The closed nature of the Sea of Okhotsk (SOO) suggests a complex ecosystem (Figure 26) but one that is more easily understood and studied than, for example, the open Large Marine Ecosystem of the Bering Sea. Russian marine research institutions have historically studied the SOO in detail, particularly with respect to physical and biological oceanography. There are many studies on the SOO ecosystem such as Chernyavsky et. al. (1981), Markina and Chernyavsky (1984), Kuznetsov et al. 1993), Iljinskiy and Gorbatenko (1994), Arzhanova and Zubarevich (1997), Dulepova (2002), Dulepova and Radchenko (2003), Ishmukova (2004), Chuchukalo (2006), Dulepova and Merzlyakov (2007), Okunishi et al. (2007), Radchenko (2007), Labay and Kochnev (2008), Heileman and Belkin (2010) and Radchenko et. al (2010). Dulepova also reported directly to the assessment team (presentation refers http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). The general ecosystem characteristics of the SOO are therefore well understood, including likely recent changes related to climate change and global warning (Ohshima, 2008). Figure 26: Sea of Okhotsk showing bathymetry and main features (Source: Radenchenko, 2010). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 48 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The Sea of Okhotsk (SOO) has a total area of 1.53 million km2. It is classified as a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) ) (Heileman and Belkin 2010) and differs notably from the Bering Sea in that it is a semi-enclosed sea at the edge of Russia and Northern Japan. It is relatively shallow with an average depth of 891 m and a reported maximum depth of 3,916 m. The SOO is shallow in the north and deep in the south with numerous entry points into the SSO from the Pacific (Western Bearing Sea) sea, mainly through the Kuril Straits which allows for the seasonal exchange of water from the Pacific Ocean. Large-scale circulation in the Sea of Okhotsk is cyclonic with northward flow in the north- eastern part due to the West Kamchatka Current, and southward flow in the west due to the East Sakhalin Current (Favorite et al. 1976). Compared to the Western Bering Sea (WBS), the SOO receives considerably more fresh water inputs in the northern and north-eastern shallow areas and Sakhalin Bay and Shantar Basin (Figure 26) In winter, SOO is entirely covered in ice. In spring, ice melt combined with river run-off causes a shallow pycnocline (Sorokin and Sorokin, 1999). For this reason, the SOO pollock fishery does not operate year round (Figure 27). - main pollock fishing areas; - main herring fishing areas; - main herring spawning grounds Figure 27: Location of main pollock and herring fishing areas in (a) winter-spring period and (b) autumn-winter period (Source: Melnikov et al. 2010) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 49 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report According to Melnikov et al. (2010), research has demonstrated that most observed changes in pelagic communities of large ecosystems are the results of natural climatic (and other) perturbations. In particular, in the SOO, the three main “strategic” species are pollock, Pacific herring and sardine (Shuntov et al., 1993). Climate is considered the primary force driving the SOO ecosystem, with intensive fishing as the secondary driving force (Heileman and Belkin, 2010). The SOO is nevertheless considered a highly productive system and the most productive area in the North Western Pacific (450 gC m2 – Shuntov and Dulepova, 1997; Dulepova, 2002). Heileman and Belkin (2010) state that the SOO is a “moderately productive” ecosystem, producing 150-300 gC m–2 year–1. Areas of highest primary productivity are in the northern and eastern parts of the SOO (adjacent to the Kamchatka peninsula). The high biological productivity in the Sea of Okhotsk is a result of nutrients that enrich the surface layer during the period of intensive vertical mixing in autumn and winter. They are almost completely used by phytoplankton during the spring bloom. Production continues through the summer through nutrient recycling and upwelling. The main part of the fishery for pollock is located in these areas (Figure 27). Similarly, the main location of small pelagic species (herring mainly) productivity is also located in the northern SOO. Salmon are also found in the SOO with the main migrations into the central and southern basins of the SOO in autumn (when the fishery is closed due to ice onset). Radchenko et al. (2010) reports on the relative decadal proportions of the main fish species and demonstrated changes in the proportions of the main fish groups, as well as the dominance of pollock in the ecosystem (Figure 28). Figure 28: Quantitative composition of the epipelagic fish community in the Sea of Okhotsk in 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s (2000-2005); (Source: Radchenko et al., 2010). In their overview of the SOO ecosystem, Radchenko et al. (2010) also note that in the 1980s, total fish biomass in the Sea of Okhotsk was likely >55 million metric tons (mmt). Of this, pollock approximated 15.6 mmt, groundfish 5.7 mmt, and other epipelagic fish 2-3 mmt (Figure 28). The Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 50 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report predominance of pollock in the Sea of Okhotsk pelagic fish community was therefore evident in the 1980s (Shuntov et al. 1993). About 1 mmt of Pacific sardine migrated annually into the Sea of Okhotsk for summer feeding until the beginning of the 1990s. The estimated biomass of mesopelagic nekton was 27.8 mmt (Iljinskiy and Gorbatenko 1994). Other gadoid fish (Pacific cod and saffron cod) also had high biomass in the demersal fish community on the shelf. Among the benthic groundfish, grenadiers predominated with biomass of about 2.0 mmt and small flatfish species combined for a total of 0.94 mmt. Pacific cod biomass reached 0.66 mmt, saffron cod 0.2 mmt, Greenland turbot 0.57 mmt, eelpouts 0.43 mmt, skates 0.37 mmt, and others 0.57 mmt. Total fish biomass has reportedly fluctuated historically – at a maximum in the North Pacific during warm periods (Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, 2005). The 1980s were warmer and notably more productive years for fish harvests than the relatively cool period during the late 1990s. The years 2003-2009 were a period of stability and gradual growth in abundance of pelagic fish, especially pollock, groundfish species, and notably, Pacific salmon (Figure 29). Up to the mid 1980s, the pollock fishery was prosecuted “ by low capacity medium-tonnage trawlers (RS-300) with the use of bottom trawls and large trawlers, BMRT type”. Thereafter, vessels and gear were modernized and gradually substituted by modern large vessels, of BATM, MRKT types and by medium trawlers of STR-500, MFT types (i.e. midwater trawls)1. Figure 29: Total Russian fishery harvest in the far-eastern part of Russian EEZ, 1965-2008 (upper; line with dots). The Sea of Okhotsk portion is indicated by the red curves (relative to the right axis); same without pollock (lower). (Source: Radchenko et al. 2010) It is also worth noting that historically dumping of pollock by the Russian fleets took place. This was primarily a result of the low demand and quality of the fish itself and the high demand and value of pollock roe that were stripped prior to discarding. This practice is now banned and roe retention 1 http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ “For the preliminary certification of the Russian fishery Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 51 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report closely monitored by both the FSB and Government inspectors on board the catcher-processor vessels. The predominance of pollock in the SOO ecosystem is significant in the context of this assessment. As pollock are essentially a mid-water species with gear designed and deployed to fish above the sea floor. For this reason, catches of non-target species should be minimised. The gear would however be expected to impact other pelagic species such as herring. 5.2 Retained Species (Bycatch) This Principle 2 assessment has relied extensively on the client submission of unpublished data (See http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). The assessment of retained species and discards in the pollock fishery has been the subject of very few published papers, and most documentation that has been provided has been translated from Russian to English, where English documents are available, they have been provided (see http://pollock.ru/files/insertfiles/ermakov_ koryakin_2003.pdf). It is therefore important to note that Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17 are a consolidation of a vast amount of information (tables and text) provided by the PCA in their submissions and has been used as the primary information for the assessment of retained species and by-catch. Note also that in some instances, information on surveys, biomass estimates, catch proportions etc. overlaps with the WBS, the assessor has tried to separate this information to focus on the SOO. In particular, observer data (proportions of trawls monitored) for the SOO is higher than WBS and has given higher confidence in the by-catch estimates (Table 12). There is also some supporting historical literature (apart from hard data provided in the form of tables) on catch composition in the SOO pollock fishery (Ermakov and Karyakin 2003, Kuznetsov et al. 1993). At that time (pre-1993), the main species of commercial importance in the SOO were pollock, flounder, herring, pacific salmon, cod and capelin. There were also fisheries for halibut, pacific sardine, pacific saury, sand eel, smelts, crab and shrimp with a total average catch of 1.5 million tons in SOO (www.fishsource.org). 5.2.1 Retained and Bycatch Species Data Collection Information on retained species is based mainly on the Federal Security Service (FSB) inspector reports and also the DCRs that are completed and reported daily by the vessel captain (see also Section 6). It should be noted that the deployment and monitoring of the pollock fleet is atypical of many large commercial fisheries. For example, although relatively low proportions of Observer coverage is undertaken (see Table 5 and 6), the scientific monitoring is also effectively undertaken by the main research institutes (see Section 4.2) who undertake “scientific fishing”. Vessels owned and operated by the scientific institutes fish like commercial vessels against a specific share of the annual TAC. These vessels collect data similar to that of the observers. Since 2008, the institutes have maintained the operation of this fleet through quota share provide by the industry. During the site visit, TINRO estimated that about 80% of catch information comes from scientific observers and 20% from scientific fishing. Logbooks aboard all catcher – processor vessels are used to record all catches including discards or retained bycatch per haul along with information on the date and time, location, tow duration and so on. These data are verified by the fishery inspector when received aboard transhipment vessels. Daily Vessel Catch reports (DVRs) are sent to the Fishery Monitoring System (FMS) operated by the FFA body - Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communications (CFMC). The FSB cooperates with the FFA (FMS) and shares data through the FMS. Catch data is used to monitor discards and landings Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 52 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report against the TAC and permissible catches (PC). It is evident that information on discards is available since 1996 and included in the catch at age used in the assessment. These data are electronically transmitted to the Federal Fisheries Monitoring System where they are entered into a national database. Vessels are required by law to accept inspectors on board and all trans-shipments of pollock are inspected. Boats can be inspected any time, however this is usually done upon entering and departing the fishing grounds. On board catcher vessels “the GMI inspectors observer catches before discarding with respect to the Fishing Rules compliance (such as juvenile by- catch, 2% / 49% by-catch rules, sea mammals interaction, bottom interaction (sea ground samples or bottom species), proper recording of by-catch and catches). Making haul observation, the GMI inspectors take samples and fill in a special form (Catch Check Act). Refer to the example of Catch Check Act. Item5 “Catch details” says that the inspector took 6 samples weighting from 21 up to 76 kilos. The samples are collected to check the catch composition (other species by-catch and juvenile by-catch). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Based on the information provided during the site visit, the percentage of catcher-processor hauls inspected by the FSB system is estimated to be 14.3% in 2010 (Table 13), refer also to the PCA website (http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/) regarding the number of trawls inspected and sampled as well as to the information provided by the Okhotsk Territorial Office of the Federal Fisheries Agency. The cross referencing system between data systems and inspections suggests that there is little scope for misreporting of retained catches or discarding. Observations of the fishery are also made by inspectors from the FFA, whose work on board the vessels takes place under the auspices of FFA Decree #1112, dated 30 December 2010, entitled “About Coordination group for pollock fishery and other fisheries management in the Sea of Okhotsk”. According to that decree, each of the four FFA Far East territorial divisions in the Russian Far East has to send at least 2-3 inspectors to work on board commercial vessels harvesting fish in the Sea of Okhotsk (item 6 of the Decree). The specific tasks of the FFA inspectors under this decree are: • to coordinate vessel fish-catching activities in the Sea of Okhotsk; • to collect data on pollock fishing status and fishing conditions; • to collect information on pollock catches, size and age catch compositions, roe yield and sex composition, and to collect samples to determine fish age (scales, otoliths); • to analyse the information collected from commercial vessels DVRs reports and the Fishery Monitoring System; and • to make appropriate suggestions for restrictions or changes to fishing regulations (e.g. by suggesting to the FFA that a certain area of the Sea of Okhotsk be closed if the catch is dominated by juvenile pollock, or if a notable by-catch is being taken). According to official data from the FFA Okhotsk territory division, during the pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk in 2011, eight FFA inspectors were active on board the commercial fleet operating there; in all, they observed 626 hauls with pollock in the catch. In 2010, 11 FFA inspectors were active and observed 572 hauls, and in 2009, 8 inspectors were active and observed 285 hauls. In addition to the Observers and GMI inspectors, the deployment of FFA inspectors increased the inspection coverage of pollock trawls at sea to 24.2%. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 53 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 12: Bycatch amounts during the Alaska pollock fishery, according to observer data for 1990 – 1999. 5.2.2 Observer Deployment and Data Collection in the SOO Globally, most industrial fisheries deploy independent observers; the actual levels of deployment however may vary considerably. Observer deployments are one tool in a suite of methods by which retained species and bycatches can be monitored. For example, in Namibia, the industrial hake and horse mackerel fisheries has 100% at-sea observer coverage; those Observers mostly provide a compliance monitoring function and generally do not undertake biological or scientific data such as proportions of retained and by-catch species in the hauls. In South Africa, the MSC certified hake trawl sector deploys between 5 and 10 % scientific observers (for non-compliance), and the data collected are used primarily to support management and research (including estimates of by-catch). Similar large target fisheries such as the New Zealand hoki (mid-water) and the Orange Roughy (bottom trawl) fisheries have observer coverage that may be up to 100% of fishing effort. The West Scotland pelagic trawl fishery for herring, for example, is a fishery similar to that of SOO pollock in that it uses industrial mid-water trawlers. Although volumes caught are lower, the fishery has similar characteristics such as gear that is expected to have a low bycatch of non-target species and is unlikely to interact with bottom habitat. FAO reports (FAO, 2007) that Alaskan pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) was fished only with bottom trawls prior to 1990. Concerns about the bycatch of crabs and other ground fish species, such as Pacific halibut, initiated a switch to pelagic trawling for the pollock. As pelagic trawling soon proved to be as efficient as bottom trawling the industry quickly adopted this new trawling technique, resulting in a bottom trawl ban by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) since 1999 (NRC, 2002). There are understood to be about 100 Observers trained in all Russian Far East fisheries including WBS and SOO (PCA, 2011). The total number of Observer deployments for SOO is given in Table 5 and 13 and the sampling data for 2006-2010 is provided in breakdown in Table 13. Observers deployed by the Russian fisheries research institutes provide high quality scientific data. GMI inspectors on the other hand, focus on compliance and the correct reporting of retained species. The strategy of deploying both scientific observers and data-collecting inspectors, combined with the low likelihood of interaction with the sea floor (due to gear type) provided confidence in the in both the quality and quantity of the sea-based sampling strategy on the catcher-processors. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 54 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report In the case of the Russian pollock fisheries, observer deployments are therefore undertaken, focusing on the acquisition of both scientific and compliance information. Scientific observer deployments are conducted by the research laboratories, such as TINRO, on annual planning basis, dependent upon availability of observers, location of the fishery and current data collection requirements. In the Sea of Okhotsk, scientific observers work onboard fishing vessels during the entire fishing season: in fishing Season “A” in January – April in Kamchatka-Kuril (61.05.4), Western Kamchatka (61.05.2) and Northern Sea of Okhotsk (61.05.1) statistical sub-zones: in accordance with timing specified by Fishing Rules. In Kamchatka areas, scientific observers are deployed from the date of start of fishery until the 30th of March, in Northern Sea of Okhotsk sub-zone – till the end of fishery, i.e., the 10th of April. It is planned that during season “B” observers will work in November – December. Locations of fishing vessels with observers on the board during fishing season depends on the commercial fishery situation which is directly related to the distribution of pollock aggregations as well as to ice and weather conditions. The difference in bycatch rates between the Large Vessels and Medium (or “average) vessels also influences the retained species proportions. Vessels also have the option of transferring bycatch to alternate vessels (such as within the same company) as shown in the PCA (2010) submission Para 4.2; “In case the by-catch volume is not comparatively big one, not more than 30-40% of the TAC or PC, so a part of the quota is transferred from a specialized fishery vessel, engaged in the Alaska pollock fishery to other vessels, engaged in catching Alaska pollock as a by-catch for a species in the risk-zone. In case the by-catch amount is too big the total amount the TAC either PC is transferred to cover it. However, in case the by-catch is forecasted in greater amounts, more than the TAC either PC, there are introduced banning measures for certain areas and time-frames- depending upon where and when the specie in the risk zone produces the bigger amount of the by-catch.” The Observer data provided (Tables 5 and 13) suggest that up to 6.1% (2010) of hauls in the large- scale vessels were monitored and sampled by Observers deployed by the Russian Research Institutes and an additional 18.1% inspected and sampled by GMI and FFA inspectors. Records of the proportion of bycatch in pollock-directed trawls (by subzone) in the 1990’s is also provided in Table 12, suggesting that during this period bycatch allocations (or proportions of retained species) was very low but that differences are expected both seasonally and between the large and medium vessels. The full species breakdown (official landings) is provided in Table 14 and 15. For ease of interpretation these data have also been been consolidated into Table 16. Observer data in years prior to 2010 was even lower - nevertheless sample sizes measured in terms of the total number of “hauls” observed are considerable when compared with the actual number of Observers employed (between 349-929 hauls observed). Given the nature of the fishery, high volume with haul sizes of over 60 t on average, sample sizes might be considered substantial but not necessarily adequately representative to classify as quantitative evidence to achieve SG100. On the other hand, when scoring retained species and bycatch in the SG60 and SG 80 levels, the FAM makes provision for retained species and bycatch to be addressed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Another area of uncertainty in Observer samples is that of spatial and temporal coverage to increase confidence that the sampling is representative of the fishing fleet. Certainly, the relatively small observer sample size will give low confidence in the Observer data, although the data are already spatially and temporarily defined as the fishery is closed seasonally for ice and areas are also closed seasonally to avoid herring. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 55 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 13: Number of SOO hauls observed by Scientific Observers, GMI and FFA Inspectors. M$'%&/%7($9('63%413*36( M$'%&/%7($9(XYT(34'5%61)&'( M$'%&/%7($9(88J( 2)1,-(+,"-'()$'%&/%7 )$'%&/%&'(HH HHH 34'5%61)&'(HHHH 2)1,-(4"#$%&()*(+,"-'($9(6,16+F 2)1,-(!"#$%&( 2)1,-( 5&)6%'')&'(H !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( !"#$%&'()*( .)/%&,0%( )*(34'5%61%7( 83'+%&9( +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +,"-' *&)#(1)1,- +",-' .)/%&,0% :;<; <=<>< ?:? @AC 5.2.3 Estimation of retained species proportions in the fishery The basis on which retained species, bycatch and ETP species are scored for the SOO pollock fishery depends on a combination of both the qualitative and quantitative information available to the assessment team. In this regard, the primary information sources are : 1. Reported landings and species breakdown (essentially the recorded retained species by the SOO pollock fleet) – this is quantitative data of 100% coverage of the fleet and has a high level of confidence based on the rigorous monitoring strategy demonstrated to the assessment team viz. 100% monitoring of transhipments, daily reporting of catches, cross referencing with log books and daily reports by satellite (See Table 14); 2. Observer data – quantitatively low in coverage but qualitatively assumed to be good with some confidence that the spatial and temporal coverage is reasonable based on the spatial and temporal management of the fleet (including the apportionment of allowable catches into three main zones in SOO) 3. Quantitative data on retained species and biological samples obtained by GMI inspectors; 4. Qualitative data presented by the scientists at TINRO who state that the gear deployed by the fishery and history of research and experience of the scientific staff is that the fishery is clean and that landings and Observer samples are representative of the fishery; 5. Other similar fisheries - Qualitative information suggesting that similar mid-water trawl fisheries, in particular those in which the large industrial fleets operate, have similarly low bycatch expected. This assessment of both retained species and bycatch is also guided by para 7.2.2 of the FAM V2.1. In particular for P2 retained species, bycatch and ETP species, the following has relevance to this assessment: “Both SG60 and SG80 use the qualifier main retained species. ‘Main’ in this context is intended to allow consideration of the weight, value or vulnerability of species caught. For instance, a species that comprises less than 5% of the total catch by weight may normally be considered to be a minor species, i.e., not main‘, in the catch, unless it is of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or if the total catch of the fishery is large, in which case even 5% may be a considerable catch. On the other hand a species that normally comprises 20% or more of the total catch by weight would almost always be considered a main‘ retained species. Assessment Teams shall use their expert judgement to determine and justify in writing which species are considered main‘ and which are not”. The official landed data on retained catches are provided in Table 14 and the data provided by TINRO of observed catch by the scientific observer program in Table 15. The data from these two sources were consolidated by the assessment team to allow for a direct comparison between declared and Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 56 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report observed estimates of bycatch and retained species (see Table 16). This table (16) suggested consistency in the relative proportions estimated by the Observers and the reported landings (using the main species groupings). Specifically, this consolidated table has averaged all data for 2006 - 2010 with the intention of ensuring historical trends are also captured. Catch data (Table 16) were grouped by area and species as well as summing the total catches for each species by area. Note also that all the data provided by the PCA submission were included, that is catches from 2006 to 2010 (see also http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). This was done to ensure inter-annual variability was captured for the most recent years of the fishery. Table 17 (consolidation) was then used to determine the classification of retained species as either “Main” or “Minor”. Essentially Table 16 provides the following : • A direct comparison by species between areas, as the area data reflected variable proportions of some species between areas, • A direct comparison between the retained species proportions within areas and the total reported catch for that species • A comparison between the proportions of retained species in each area, the total for each area of each species with the total pollock catch • An objective evaluation (quantifiable proportions) based on the reported landings to determine Main or Minor retained species. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 57 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 14: Retained (landed) species in the four Sea of Okhotsk subzones for the pollock fishery from 2006 through 2010, in tonnes. East Sakhalin subzone 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Species Latin Name Type of Limit^ Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Pollock Theragra chalcogramma TAC 47269 48400 47049 48400 36709 39000 13683 15000 13683 5000 Herring Clupea pallasii TAC 0 630 0 0 0 0 Flatfish Pleuronectidae PC 91 2370 1 2370 22 3062 23 3068 38 3375 Goby Cottidea PC 13 6440 5 6440 35 6530 3 6530 63 4760 Halibut TAC 0 400 0 0 0 0 Wachna Cod Eleginus gracilis PC 0 0 0 0 2 9669 West Kamchatka subzone 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Species Latin Name Type of Limit Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Pollock Theragra chalcogramma TAC 113702728 365800 304414 311400 295593 308000 164821 169000 164821 185000 Herring Clupea pallasii TAC 89 53000 48 38000 171 19000 62 16000 199 17000 Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus TAC 288 11372 514 12071 625 12264 347 10880 614 11100 Flatfish Pleuronectidae TAC 874 22015 1291 29265 1201 22165 584 26823 632 25300 Wachna Cod Eleginus gracilis TAC 868 14665 1350 9100 1276 7815 722 8040 491 2200 Goby Cottidea PC 114 4042 450 3942 435 3942 191 4354 425 5754 Halibut TAC 4 3556 12 3318 8 3713 6 4023 4 4394 Arctic Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax dentex PC 15 1635 20 2498 24 3735 29 1996 2 1240 Eelpout PC 0 400 0 400 1 600 Grenadiers TAC 0 1000 Capelin Mallotus villosus PC 0 1950 23 5000 1 14975 1 12870 Skate Bathiraja sp. PC 0 600 0 440 1 400 1 430 0 650 Rockfishes PC 0 60 Pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha TAC 0 0 7650 Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch TAC 0 0 6020 Sockeye Salmon (Red) Oncorhynchus nerka TAC 0 0 582 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 58 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 14 cont… Kamchatka Kuril subzone 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Species Latin Name Type of Limit^ Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Pollock Theragra chalcogramma TAC 490214.7 254200 * 215871.681 220000 143146.565 146000 142833.415 145000 142833.415 160000 Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus TAC 1870.865 15100 939.711 5600 1041.329 4600 593.791 3000 750.564 4200 Halibut TAC 14.368 4211 64.829 4808 70.857 3883 58.78 4392 40.705 4040 Flatfish Pleuronectidae PC 2280.017 22885 2265.964 25950 1911.9 20050 2169.57 24100 2265.283 16900 Goby Cottidea PC 1073.625 3700 311.263 3100 717.015 3100 829.137 3400 852.075 3300 Wachna Cod Eleginus gracilis TAC 1318.581 7735 1600.451 5000 1119.758 5000 1066.768 5160 815.096 3710 Arctic Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax dentex PC 159.181 1030 71.028 1616 241.747 2443 310.268 1644 253.856 1860 Squid TAC 0.005 0.093 Eelpout PC 0.238 550 0.02 550 0.9 250 0.026 150 Grenadiers TAC 0.036 4000 1.776 3000 0.5 3000 Skate Bathiraja sp. PC 9.879 530 7.946 560 21.717 500 6.11 500 8.1 530 Wolffish Anarchias orientalis PC 0.09 0.003 Pink Oncorhynchus gorbuscha TAC 0.02 7350 Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch TAC 0.031 2155 Sockeye Salmon (Red) Oncorhynchus nerka TAC 0.02 20523 Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Species Latin Name Type of Limit Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Total Catch TAC or PC Pollock Theragra chalcogramma TAC 382042.164 390000 284827.349 289600 200623.069 204500 178079.325 182000 178079.325 180000 Herring Clupea pallasii TAC 3099.916 290020 740.759 226040 448.809 176540 176.637 186030 1975.924 224020 Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus TAC 1.454 1641 4.419 1641 0.811 1609 1.158 1614 19.201 2364 Halibut TAC 3.868 5516 7.767 5366 Flatfish Pleuronectidae PC 8.693 3896 0.983 4043 0.261 4044 0.2 4111 30.257 4023 Eelpout PC 0.113 400 0.376 400 0.435 900 0.18 400 Grenadiers TAC 0.01 1000 0.029 1000 Capelin Mallotus villosus PC 0.016 1390 77.34 1600 79 1100 0.25 1550 0.006 8900 Skate Bathiraja sp. PC 0.395 349 1.122 319 0.544 319 0.01 900 Rockfishes PC 0.022 192 0.014 192 Notes: ^ - Type of Limit refers to regulated limits (TACs) set on the basis of stock evaluations or possible catches (PC) which are not based on formal evaluation of stock status * - In 2010 TAC for Kamchatka Kuril and Western Kamchatka subzones were combined into one TAC. Total TAC was 620 000 MT, total catch in both subzones is ~ 603,9 thous MT Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 59 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 15: Observed catches of pollock and bycatch of other species by scientific observers during the pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk, in tonnes. 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 TAC or Total TAC or TAC or TAC or Total TAC or Specie Latin Name Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Type of Limit^ PC Catch PC PC PC Catch PC Pollock Theragra chalcogramma TAC 15932 804200 10921 869400 26953 697500 12196 511000 9763 530000 Herring Clupea pallasii TAC 249.6 343650 171.1 264040 422.2 195540 191.0 202030 152.9 241020 Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus TAC 17.3 28113 11.8 19312 29.2 18473 13.2 15494 10.6 17664 Saffron cod Eleginus gracilis TAC 0.7 31729 0.5 23896 1.2 21596 0.5 22633 0.4 16015 Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis TAC 3.4 603 2.3 672 5.7 581 2.6 609 2.1 589 Black Halibut Reinhardtius hippoglossoides TAC 4.4 13800 3.0 1332 7.4 12600 3.3 13361 2.7 14520 Arrowtoothed Flounder Atheresthes evermanni TAC 2.0 - 1.3 - 3.3 - 1.5 - 1.2 - Yellowfin Sole Limanda aspera PC 0.0 22114 0.0 17115 0.0 21006 0.0 31307 0.0 46207 Sakhalin sole Pleuronectes sachalinensis PC 0.8 - 0.5 - 1.3 - 0.6 - 0.5 - Flathead sole Hippoglossoides ellasodon PC 2.8 16153 1.9 7300 4.8 13629 2.2 9278 1.7 5078 Longhead dab Myzopsetta proboscidea PC 0.0033 - 0.0022 - 0.0055 - 0.0025 - 0.0020 600 Yellow-ballied flounder Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus PC 0.1 6633 0.0 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Korean flounder Microstomus Stelleri PC 0.042 - 0.029 - 0.071 - 0.032 - 0.026 - Great flounder Platichtys stellatus PC 0.0166 - 0.0110 - 0.0 233 0.0 13015 0.01 249 Rock sole Lepidopsetta bilineata PC 0.12 - 0.43 - 0.16 - 0.26 - 0.11 - Rockfish Sebastes sp. PC 2.0 42 1.4 42 2.3 42 1.5 42 1.1 210 Thornyhead Sebastolobus macrohir TAC 0.2 260 0.1 260 0.3 260 0.2 260 0.1 260 Eelpout Lycodes sp. PC 0.2 1350 0.1 - 0.3 1750 0.1 800 0.1 1200 Threadfin hakeling Laemonema longipes 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.0 - Smooth lumpsucker Aptocyclus ventricosus 0.04 - 0.03 - 0.1 - 0.03 - 0.02 - Silvery eelpout Bothrocarichtys microcephalus 0.2 - 0.1 - 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.1 - Sandfish Trichodon trichodon 0.0103 - 0.1 - 0.02 - 0.1 - 0.1 - Okhotsk popeye blacksmelt Lipolagus ochotensis 0.1 - 0.04 - 0.1 - 0.16 - 0.04 - Darkfin sculpin Malacocottus zonurus 0.15 - 1 - 0.1 - 0.054 - 0.0331 - Butterfly sculpin Melletes papilio PC 0.17 - 0.08 - 0.06 - 0.05 - 0.05 - Lord Hemilepidotus sp. PC 0.21 - 0.18 - 0.12 - 0.14 - 0.12 - Sculpins Myoxocephalus sp. PC 0.016 - 0.01 - 0.12 - 0.013 - 0.086 - Arctic Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax dentex PC 0.109 - 0.21 - 0.16 - 0.08 - 0.06 - Capelin Mallotus villosus PC 0.053 16420 0.048 23202 0.045 26602 0.032 31102 0.016 27594 Northern smoothtongue Leuroglossus schmidti 2.04 - 1.8 - 1.62 - 1.76 - 1 - Longsnout prickleback Lumpenella longirostris 0.11 - 0.05 - 0 - 0.01 - 0.025 - Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 60 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 15 cont… 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 TAC or Total TAC or TAC or TAC or Total TAC or Specie Latin Name Total Catch Total Catch Total Catch Type of Limit^ PC Catch PC PC PC Catch PC Eelpouts Bothrocarina microcephala 0.08 - 0.12 - 0.085 - 0.14 - 0.04 - Eelpouts Bothrocarina nigrocaudata 0.07 - 0.07 - 0.12 - 0.074 - 0.052 - Eelpouts Licogramma sp. 0.01 - 0.046 - 0.023 - 0.054 - 0.012 - Prowfish Zaprora silenus 0 0.023 - 0.012 - 0 - 0.014 - Grenadiers Coryphaenoides sp. TAC 0.669 6000 0.426 5000 1.212 5000 0.5 5000 0.4 5000 Skates Rajidae PC 1.59 1979 1.09 1819 1.62 1719 0.96 1757 0.84 2580 Coho Oncorhynchus kisutch TAC 0,00596 (1 i.s.) 105 0 (*) 0 (*) 0,0084 (2 i.s.) 124 Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha TAC 0 (*) 0 (*) 0,00032 (1 i.s.) 2499 0 (*) Komandor Squid Berrytheuthis magister TAC 3.8 - 2.6 - 4.7 - 2.4 - 1.9 - Northern Squid Gonatopsis borealis 0.79 - 0.63 - 0.34 - 0.52 - 0.76 - Snailfishes Careproctus sp. 0.28 - 0.31 - 0.54 - 0.22 - 0.13 - Pacific Sleeper Shark Somniosus pacificus 0,063 (2 i.s.) - 0,020 ( 1 i.s.) - Marine Mammals (seals, 0 0 0 0 0 sea lions, whales, etc!) Turtles 0 0 0 0 0 Birds 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: ^ - Type of Limit refers to regulated limits (TACs) set on the basis of stock evaluations or possible catches (PC) which are not based on formal evaluation of stock status * - Netheir PC or TAC were set for these species for that current year in the Sea of Okhotsk zones Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 61 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 16: Average annual catches of pollock mid-water directed vessels for the period 2006 to 2010 by sub-zone in the SOO. A comparison has been made between the proportions of each species landed (FSB data) and the mean proportions (by-catch species breakdown) reported by Observers. Average Annual Catch 2006 to 2010 (t) Species Observed Sub Zone Sub Zone Sub Zone Avg Catch Sub Area Proportion Proportions 5.2 5.4 5.1 Landed pa Landed % % Pollock 208670.04 226979.95 244730.25 680380.23 98.61 98.20 Flounder and 916.32 2178.55 8.08 3102.94 0.45 0.05 soles Wachna Cod 941.51 1184.13 0.00 2125.64 0.31 1.64 Pacific Cod 477.51 1039.25 5.41 1522.17 0.22 Herring 113.93 0.00 1288.41 1402.33 0.20 1.54 Goby (sculpins) 322.96 756.62 0.00 1079.58 0.16 0.0038 Smelts 17.81 207.22 0.00 225.02 0.03 0.0013 Halibuts 6.83 49.91 5.82 62.56 0.009 0.0477 Capelin 6.13 0.00 31.32 37.45 0.005 0.0003 Skates 0.40 10.75 0.52 11.67 0.002 0.0079 Eelpouts 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.81 0.0001 0.0034 Grenadiers 0.02 0.77 0.02 0.81 0.0001 0.0042 Squids 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.00001 0.0239 Wolffish 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.000007 0.0001 Coho Salmon 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.000005 0.0000 Red Salmon 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.000003 0.0000 Rockfishes 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.000003 0.0108 Pink Salmon 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.000002 0.0000 Total Catch (all 211 474 t 232 408 t 246070 t 689951 t species reported} Total non-target 2804 5428 1340 9571 % non-target of 1.33% 2.34% 0.54% 1.39% Total Landed Note. No incidental mortality or catches of mammals, birds and turtles reported by Observers The assessment team then identified the retained and bycatch species in accordance with MSC FAMv2 guidance provided in Section 2. Accordingly, the team’s classification of the species encountered in the SOO fishery can be seen in Table 17. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v4_rpd.docx page 62 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 17: Retained Species Classification Species Fishing Zone in Retained Allowed Proportion Retained Comments SOO Species Catch of Permitted species % of Catch (TAC or catch taken actual Pollock PC) catch Goby Kamchatka Kuril 3783.12 16600 22.79 0.33 Goby Catch is precautionary in midwater trawl Goby West Kamchatka 1614.80 22034 7.33 0.73 (Pollock) and only in Kam. Kuril and West Kam area is it >5% of the allowable catch for Goby. The catch Goby East Sakhalin 117.73 30700 0.38 0.07 is 0.15% of Pollock total and value is low - classified Goby All Areas 5515.64 69334 7.96 0.15 "Minor" and not "main" retained species. Wachna Cod Kamchatka Kuril 5920.65 26605 22.25 0.52 Wachna cod mostly taken by the danish seine pollock Wachna Cod West Kamchatka 4707.54 41820 11.26 0.10 fleet in the Kam Kuril zone that are not part of Wachna Cod East Sakhalin 1.70 9669 0.02 0.00 PCA(average vessels). Catch is 0.3% of Pollock catch and catch in midwater trawl is of low quality and low Wachna Cod All Areas 10629.90 78094 13.61 0.30 value = Minor species Pacific Cod Kamchatka Kuril 5196.26 32500 15.99 0.46 Pacific cod taken by mainly in Kam Kuril zone by Pacific Cod West Kamchatka 2387.54 57687 4.14 1.50 Danish Seine fleet / Average size vessels not part of Pacific Cod Northern Okhotsk 27.04 8869 0.30 0.00 PCA. Catch is 0.21% of Pollock catch and poor quality = Minor species Pacific Cod All Areas 7610.84 99056 7.68 0.21 Smelt Kamchatka Kuril 1036.08 8593 12.06 0.09 Smelt mostly caught in Kam Kuril zone by midwater Smelt West Kamchatka 89.04 11104 0.80 0.02 trawls - catch is low quality and low value and very small proportion of Pollock catch = Minor species Smelt All Areas 1125.12 19697 5.71 0.03 Flounder Kamchatka Kuril 10892.73 109885 9.91 0.96 Flounder is a bottom species and caught mostly in Flounder West Kamchatka 4581.59 125568 3.65 0.11 Kam Kuril zone by danish seine and average vessel Flounder East Sakhalin 175.65 14245 1.23 0.11 not part of PCA. Overall catch is very low proportion Flounder Northern Okhotsk 40.39 20117 0.20 0.00 of Pollock catch (0.44%) and therefore is Minor Flounder All Areas 15690.37 220217 7.12 0.44 species Skate Kamchatka Kuril 53.75 2620 2.05 0.00 Skate is a bottom species and caught mostly in Kam Skate West Kamchatka 1.99 2520 0.08 0.00 Kuril zone by danish seine and average vessel not part Skate Northern Okhotsk 2.07 1887 0.11 0.00 of PCA. Overall catch is very low proportion of Skate All Areas 57.81 7027 0.82 0.00 Pollock catch (< 1%) and therefore is Minor species Capelin Northern Okhotsk 156.61 14540 1.08 0.01 Capelin taken in Kam Kuril mostly and very low Capelin West Kamchatka 24.52 34795 0.07 0.00 value in midwater trawl - minor species Capelin All Areas 181.13 49335 0.37 0.01 Halibut West Kamchatka 34.17 19004 0.18 0.00 Halibut taken on bottom mstly by danish seine and if Halibut Northern Okhotsk 11.64 10882 0.11 0.00 taken in midwater Pollock is low quality and low Halibut East Sakhalin 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 value - Minor species Halibut All Areas 295.75 43189 0.68 0.01 Herring Northern Okhotsk 6442.05 1102650 0.58 0.53 Herring is the largest bycatch in Pollock fishery and is Herring West Kamchatka 569.63 143000 0.40 0.62 strictly controlled through catch limits - only a Herring East Sakhalin 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 proportionatley small portion taken by the Pollock fishery. Retained catch is poor quality and low value - Herring All Areas 7011.78 1246280 0.56 0.20 overall 0.2 % of Pollock catch = Minor species Eelpout Kamchatka Kuril 1.18 1500 0.08 0.00 Eelpout Northern Okhotsk 1.10 2100 0.05 0.00 Eelpout West Kamchatka 0.71 1400 0.05 0.00 Eelpout All Areas 3.00 5000 0.06 0.00 Grenadiers Kamchatka Kuril 2.31 10000 0.02 0.00 Grenadiers East Sakhalin 0.04 2000 0.00 0.00 Grenadiers West Kamchatka 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Grenadiers All Areas 2.39 13000 0.02 0.00 Rockfishes West Kamchatka 0.01 60 0.01 0.00 Rockfishes Northern Okhotsk 0.04 384 0.01 0.00 ALL OTHER RETAINED SPECIES CLASSIFIED Rockfishes All Areas 0.04 444 0.01 0.00 AS MINOR - COMPRISE EXTREMELY LOW Sockeye West Kamchatka 0.02 582 0.00 0.00 PROPORTION OF POLLOCK CATCH Sockeye Kamchatka Kuril 0.02 20523 0.00 0.00 Sockeye All Areas 0.04 21105 0.00 0.00 Coho Kamchatka Kuril 0.03 2155 0.00 0.00 Coho West Kamchatka 0.04 6020 0.00 0.00 Coho All Areas 0.07 8175 0.00 0.00 Pink Kamchatka Kuril 0.02 7350 0.00 0.00 Pink West Kamchatka 0.01 7650 0.00 0.00 Pink All Areas 0.03 15000 0.00 0.00 Squid Kamchatka Kuril 0.10 0 0.00 0.00 Wolffish Kamchatka Kuril 0.09 0 0.00 0.00 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 63 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Based on data from the most recent 5 years (Table 15) provided from the FFA’s Information System, some 23 species in total have been landed from the directed pollock fishery. Salmon species were retained during one year in one management zone for the period 2006-2010. As a percentage of the total fishery catch, retained species landings represented from trace level to no more than 1.5% by volume in all areas of the fishery. The retained species catches are limited by Total Allowable Catch (TACs) or Possible Catch (PC), see Table 14. Possible catch limits are determined using the same process as TACs, the difference being that PCs are usually set for species of limited commercial interest (e.g. gobys, rays, smelt, etc.). In the case of Pacific cod, the retained catch accounted for an average of about 20% of the cod TAC. For all other species, retained catches accounted for <1% to about 10% of the permitted catch for that species, or in the case of flounders and gobies, the Possible Catch for those species combined. The data presented in Table 16 suggest that if the proportion of retained species in the pollock fishery are compared between declared catches and Observer estimates, the estimates are consistent and in all species is less than 2% of the directed (pollock) catch. Salmon species were retained during one year in one management zone for the period 2006-2010. The TINRO 2012 stock status report states: “In summary, the salmon bycatch in the course of pollock fishing in the Sea of Okhotsk during both season A and B is minimal. According to the data obtained by scientific observers aboard fishing vessels, at an average level of abundance the average size of salmon bycatch per one fishing vessel during season A is equal to 3-4 specimens of Chum salmon and 0-1 specimens of chinook salmon. So, if we take the average number of fishing vessels up to 100 items, the total size of catch for the whole season will not exceed 400 specimens of immature calico salmon and 100 specimens of chinook salmon. During season B, the quotas undrawn during season A are typically completed in the Western Kamchatka and Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzones where salmons are exceptionally rare. For the last 3 years the scientific observers registered only 2 events of catching the immature chinook salmon and 3 events of calico salmon bycatch. It is obvious that the pollock fishing cannot have any effect on the salmon abundance dynamics. The catch of salmons has been consistently increasing since 2006, both in even-numbered and odd-numbered years (fig. 7 of TINRO Stock Status Report). The decrease in catch which began in 2006 is attributed to such natural factors as disruption of cyclicity of the even- numbered and odd-numbered year generations of humpback salmon in the waters around Sakhalin. The assessment team were therefore satisfied that the pollock midwater fishery presents no significant threat to salmon stocks in the SOO. For skate species the TINRO report (translated) states for example that for the Northern Sea of Okhotsk subzone (12-mile coastal zone of Magadan region): “Taking into consideration the under investigated nature of this commercial species and for the avoidance of local overfishing, possible catch at the level of 1% from the size of commercial stock is recommended on the basis of precautionary approach”, and for the Western Kamchatka and Kuril-Kamchatka subzones: Since monitoring of status of this group of species is conducted almost annually and due to the absence of large-scale fishing and presence of a considerable part of skate biomass (88.5%) outside the shelf (at depths over 200 m), on the basis of the expert estimate the possible catch of skates as a Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 64 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report bycatch during trawl and seine and longline fishing in 2012 in Western Kamchatka subzone will amount to 0.7 thousand tons, and in Kuril-Kamchatka subzone – to 1.3 thousand tons. The assessment teams is satisfied that although stock assessment outputs with reference points are not presented, the level of catch and biomass estimates provide confidence that the current levels of mortality of these species in pollock mid-water trawls does not pose a significant biological risk to these species. For other species taken as a bycatch (minor) include capelin, flounders, wachna cod, other cod species and gobies, stock status is also reported on annually by TINRO. These (translated) reports are presented for review on the PCA web site. The team opines that the reported levels of catches in the mid-water pollock fishery suggest no significant threat to the biological status of these stocks that are targeted in other fishery sectors. The catch data provided do not specify when vessels deliberately target species other than pollock. This undoubtedly occurs as vessels carry multiple permits on a trip by trip basis, that is, most operators may have fishing rights in more than one sector for multiple species. Catches of TAC- controlled species (other than pollock) are therefore accommodated through either TAC control (vessels carry permits to catch their portion of the TAC for that species) or are given a “Possible Catch” (PC) permit which effectively accommodates incidental catches of that species and requires the operator to move from the area when >2% of the catch comprises the PC species. This was confirmed by the PCA (http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). Gear deployed by the pollock vessels are clearly regulated by the Fishing Rules (FFA order №942) which specify what species can be caught and by what type of gear (bottom, pelagic trawl, or lining) as well as the spatial and temporal restrictions. If a vessel for example has a multiple permit (for bottom species and pollock) it can carry both types of gear (bottom and pelagic trawls). If a vessel is inspected and found to have multiple trawl gear and does not have the appropriate permits to target an alternate species, it is subject to prosecution and possible loss of fishing rights. Note that vessels licensed under “Specialized pollock Fishery” (Unit of Certification) are not allowed to carry other gear types. The pollock-specific vessels may be licensed to target other species but may not carry different gear for each species at any one time. (http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). For non-specialized vessels which may switch to alternate gears, it is required to be reported in the vessel's catch logbook at all times and each operation with a different gear (arming, disarming, changing, streaming, hauling) must be recorded in the vessel logbook. The logbook is checked during every inspection by GMI inspectors. All catches are registered in the logbook with the specification by what type of gear it was caught. Vessels submit daily vessel reports (DVR), where they also report what type of gear they use, and how much species they catch with a certain type of gear. The variability in the proportions of some retained species seen by area and species can therefore be accounted for in numerous ways. Boats are permitted to carry multiple permits for different species and will seasonally and by area target species other than pollock. For example the PCA (2010) assessment supporting submission corroborates this by stating “However by-catch rates vary greatly among regions and seasons. According to submitted data, by-catch rates vary by vessel type and fishing depth. See Table 3.2.1.1.5.[Table 12 in this document] Submitted data from 2008 show herring % in catches ranging from nearly zero in Kuril-Kamchatka region (0.00006812% of TAC in January) to 7.2476 % for the North Okhotsk Sea Sub-zone (2008 average; p. 154. And Table 3.2.1.3.1, p160)” . The use of square mesh panels and 100 mm cod end meshes as well as limiting trawls to midwater and deeper than 200 m also plays an important role in minimising both retained catch and bycatch species. PCA (2010) submission para 3.2.1.3 refers Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 65 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report “At present the specialized fishery of Alaska pollock in accordance with the “Fishery Rules…” is allowed only with the use of various depths trawls. As a result of such trawls’ use the species of marine living resources making up the bottom societies practically are not caught. At the same time the various depths trawls should be equipped with a selective insertion placed between the middle part and the end part of the trawl. The inner size of the net’s mesh of the various depths trawl and the selective insertion made of the capron, should amount to not less than 100 mm, while made of other materials and mono-threads – to not less than 110 mm. The insertion should be of a cylindrical form, made of a one layer of the net of the length not less than 10 meters for vessels with engine capacity of 2,000 HP and more, while for vessels with the main engine capacity of less than 2,000 HP – not less than 7 meters. Such a construction of the trawl permits not to catch Alaska pollock young fishes as well as other small-sized fishes and plankton invertebrates that may result in substantial decrease of the share of accompanying pelagic species" A further consideration is that the relative proportion of the fleets fishing under the PCA. The PCA reports that the main fleet comprises 80 vessels (66%) of that sector of the fishery, only 84 of 492 average size vessels and only 24 (3%) of the small vessels in the fleet. No Danish seine vessels that fish mostly inshore are members of the PCA nor are covered by this certification assessment. The retained species data are influenced by the relative proportions of retained species caught by the different fleets. The large vessels dominated by the PCA have much lower bycatch components than the smaller vessels that tend to be more multi-species directed and often closer to shore. Considering all the available quantitative and subjective data as well as the information on fleet dynamics and spatial and temporal aspects of the fishery, the assessment team concluded that all PCA landings comprise only minor species. The overall conclusion is that retained catch of other species in the pollock-directed fishery is low (<2 %) and that catches of some species are spatially and temporally higher at times, but never exceeding 5%. For the purposes of scoring and application of the MSC guidance, the available data suggests that there is both a quantitative and subjective likelihood that retained species are not significantly impacted by the pollock fishery. Where higher (than 2%) catch proportions are reported, these species are accommodated within the allowable catch limits and total allowable catch for the species. For the retained species and those designated as Possible Catch, the catches are small and within the allowable catch for these species. The annual report and recommendations on the main exploited fisheries (2010 version in Russian (see http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/) indicates that the commercial species other than pollock retained by the pollock-directed fleet are managed and assessed. Catches are accommodated through permits within the allowable limits, in particular salmon (general data), herring, capelin, pacific cod, wachna cod, flounders, sole and goby. 5.3 By-catch Species (Discard) By-catch is typically expected to be low in mid-water directed fisheries due to the nature of the gear deployed (fishing in mid-water and clear of the substrate). Most of the evidence presented in this assessment suggests that this is the case. (see Ermakov and Karyakin, 2003). It is stressed however, that the fishery has focused historically on pollock and retained species, reporting of by-catch (other than retained species) in the fishery has not been a prioritised research activity, although efforts have been made through the deployment of observers to estimate proportions of by-catch in hauls. The main reason for this has been the assumption that because the gear deployed is mid-water, the by- catch component of the fishery is not significant. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 66 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Research surveys (using similar gear to commercial operations) and observers on commercial vessels provide evidence of by-catch (species identification, quantification and proportions). In the SOO, there has historically been a high level of inspection of vessels with monitoring of the catcher- processors as well as transhipments to mother vessels, but a low level of Observer deployments. The pollock fleets fish on aggregations and generally remain in groups fishing on these aggregations. The inspection strategy is one of monitoring these groups of vessels with inspectors moving from vessel to vessel. On board inspectors on mother vessels also tally transhipments and inspect the catch (which is correlated with daily electronic declarations made by the catcher vessels). Similarly the Observer reports reviewed demonstrated that observer deployments were few, although deployments were for long periods on a particular vessel. Bycatch Management Strategy The assessment team gave careful consideration of the overall strategy applied to the management of bycatch and was guided by the MSC CR guidance in this regard. A “partial strategy” under Guidance GCB3.3.1.c, “represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.” The team concluded that the management strategy is adequate to qualify as a partial strategy related to bycatch Total Catch and Possible Catch allocations, move on rules, 2% and 49% catch limits. Further evidence of partial strategy was the monitoring of biological status of other bycatch species landed by the fishery, particularly those under TAC management in other target fisheries and those fisheries in which bycatch may occur and for which provision is made as “Possible Catch” (such as for mid- water pollock). The team refer to the most recent TINRO report of stocks. (Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Centre FGUP TINRO- Centre. Vladivostok, 2011. The team obtained translations of the status of key species, refer also to the specific translated sections e.g. Status of Pacific salmon stocks in the Sea of Okhotsk basin on the PCA website. http://pollock.ru/en/pollock-sustainability/key-references/sea-of-okhotsk-fishery.html). Nevertheless, there is a suite of measures that support mitigation of by-catch and constitute a partial strategy. These include: 1. If an incidental by-catch occurs on a pollock vessel is large it is permitted to transfer / allocate the catch to an alternate rights holder with allocation for that species; 2. If by-catch is in excess of the TAC or PC, the management authority can enforce time-area closures to mitigate further excess by-catches;. 3. If by-catch exceeds 2% of pollock catch in any one haul, the excess catch must be returned to the sea; 4. Multiple species quotas. Vessels can have quotas for multiple species which eliminates the need to apply mitigation as long as the allocation to the vessel for the by-catch species is not exceeded; 5. Closed Seasons applied to fishing from 1 January to 31 March (Kamchatka-Kuril) and West Kamchatka and 1 January to 9 April in North Okhotsk. 6. Pollock directed effort is predominantly mid-water trawls with 100 mm mesh nets; no bottom trawls allowed. 7. Spatial management: Full or partial ban in some fishing zones. Trawling is not permitted less than 30 miles off-shore and 5-12 miles from islands. 8. When by-catch exceeds 2% there is a “move-on” rule of at least five miles from areas of high by- catch. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 67 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 9. Daily Vessel Records (DVRs). Vessel captains must keep records of by-catch and submit daily DVRs. The assessment team was also guided by the FAM para 7.1.11 which states that for “Retained Species and Bycatch Species Components of Principle 2, the PISGs are structured with reference to avoiding serious or irreversible harm to the Component from fishing. The term “biologically based limit” in the SGs for Principle 2 refers, at a minimum, to the point of serious or irreversible harm. The SGs refer to being within‘ biologically based limits because these limits may take many forms and may be expressed as upper or lower limits in relation to the index that is being measured. BLim and Flim are common single-species biologically based limits, but many proxies are acceptable, depending on the information that is available and nature of the ecosystem feature of concern (e.g. percent of an area impacted by a fishery). ―Within means on the precautionary side of a limit, for example, above BLim or below FLim. For the purposes of this assessment, the team has categorized all bycatch species as “minor” species. This decision is based on the very low volume of the bycatch species, and their low potential vulnerability. Further the stock status report (2010) (see http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc- certification/) suggest no threat to the biological limits of many of the species 5.4 Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species There are a number of ETP species that occur in the SOO such as Steller sea lions, otters, short-tailed albatross and some fish species such as sleeper sharks. The observer samples of this particular species are limited to only a few “Individual specimens”. Catches of salmon species are also low – due to the closure of the SOO fishery as a result of ice-cover, this is understood to mitigate bycatch of salmon in pollock trawls when they are most abundant and likely to be impacted by the mid-water trawl fishery. The uncertainty relating to levels of independent observer data from the pollock midwater trawl fishery for ETP species prevails as for retained and bycatch species. However, there is clear evidence of both research and understanding of the status of ETP species within both academia and the Russian fisheries management system. Marine Birds and Mammals Observer data showed no evidence or records of mortality of marine mammals or sea birds. There is a requirement to report incidental mortality of birds and mammals – the fact that no incidents or mortalities are reported could mean that such events do not occur, or that reporting of such events is not prioritised. As with the by-catch species, reporting levels on incidental catches (and mortality) is desirable, if there is to be confidence in the assessment of ETP species. The uniqueness of the SOO area, Kamchatka Peninsula, Kuril Islands and other areas is recognised in Russia as illustrated in the Russian Red Data Book (Iliashenko, V.Yu. and E.I. Iliashenko. 2000) that identifies all ETP species and effectively incorporates the CITES species lists. The status of other marine mammal species are reported extensively in Marine mammals of the Holarctic (Collection of scientific papers after the 3rd International Conference, Kotebel, Crimea, Ukraine, 2004). These reports cover all key marine mammal species found in the SOO including gray whales, sea otters, killer whales, bowhead whales, white whales and humpback whales. Information on impacts of fishing gear on marine mammals is not extensive although Burdin А.М.,, Nikulin V.S., Brownell R.L.Jr. (2004) report on Cases of entanglement of western north-pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in fishing gear: serious threat for species survival. The fishing gear referred to however is longlines and not trawl gear. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 68 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The main mammal species occurring in the SOO reported by Radchenko et al. (2010) are: Fin whale, Minke whale, Humpback whale, Gray whale, North Pacific right whale, Killer whale, Sperm whale, Dall's porpoise, Harbour porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin, Baird's beaked whale and Sea Otters Of these, the ETP species in the SOO are listed in Table 18. With respect to the northern pacific right whales there is some evidence of entanglement in fishing gear (set lines and traps) but no reported incidents with pollock trawlers (Burdin et. al. 2004). These authors report that the prospects for the survival of the western population of the Northern-Pacific right whales is are generally positive. Similarly for gray whales (Burdin et. al. 2004) also report on the potential for human impacts on the species in the SOO but only generalises on impacts and the need for protection of the species (with no direct impacts reported by the pollock fisheries). Table 18: Endangered, threatened or protected species in the Sea of Okhotsk. Species Status Source Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus Decreasing Russian Red Book Harbour seal, Phoca vitulina Endangered Russian Red Book Sea otter, Enhydra lutris Rare, endangered Russian Red Book, IUCN Red Book Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus Decreasing, Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I Endangered Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus Endangered Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I North Pacific Right whale, Eubalaena Endangered Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I glacialis Gray whale, Eschrichtius robutus Recovering Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I Sperm whale, Phiseter macrocephalus Endangered CITES Appendix I Short-tailed Albatross, Phoebastria albatrus Endangered Russian Red Book, CITES Appendix I From 1999 to 2003 (Vladimirov et. al. 2004) three visual surveys were conducted in the Sea of Okhotsk to estimate the abundance of whale and dolphin species (Figure 30). These surveys showed a significant increase of numbers of baleen whales including fin whale (13,200 specimens), and Minke whale (19,200). In comparison, total numbers of baleen whales in the Russian EEZ from the late 1980s to the early 1990s were estimated at 7,200 individuals in summer and 3,200 in autumn (Shuntov, 1993). This visual survey was conducted beyond the Russian territorial waters and limited to 155°E and 58°N, so whale abundance is probably underestimated. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 69 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 30: Distribution of cetaceans in the Sea of Okhotsk derived from SOO survey in 2003 True seal (Phocidae) abundance was not surveyed throughout the Sea of Okhotsk in the 2000s. In the 1990s, however, it was estimated that there were 1,300,000 seals by species: ringed seal – 543,000, ribbon seal – 345,000, bearded seal and spotted seal – 190,000 each, and harbour seal – 7,000. Seals have likely increased in the 2000s due to a cessation of sealing and prey supply stability. Positive trends were also determined for the Steller sea lion (Burkanov and Loughlin, 2007; Burkanov, et al. 1997). Local seal abundance was estimated by aerial visual surveys conducted around the Sakhalin Island coast in August and September of 2009. Almost 14,000 seals were estimated in 40 groups. Additionally, 4,125 seals were found off the southwestern coast of Sakhalin Bay (near the mainland) but the main concentrations were found in the northern and northeastern bays, and also along the southern Sakhalin coast from Cape Terpeniya to Cape Krilyon. These were main areas of pink salmon spawning migrations so the spotted seals were concentrated there to feed on them. In comparison with data of previous calculations, the seal abundance has increased during the last 30 years. With respect to mitigation measures, many areas are closed to trawling (Figure 31). There is therefore no indication that the large cetacean ETP species directly interact with the pollock fishing fleet. Also, the diets of these species (mainly zooplankton and forage fish) in other populations, although poorly known in the SOO, would indicate that competition with the fishing fleet for pollock does not occur or is highly unlikely. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 70 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 31: Map showing areas and types of restrictions on trawling to protect habitat or other components of the ecosystem in SOO. (Red – Fishing prohibited, purple – trawling prohibited, green – mid-water pollock trawling prohibited.) In the case of sea otters, by 2004, the population in the Far East had recovered and repopulated their former habitat in coastal waters, with an estimated total population of about 27,000. Of these, about 2,000 to 3,500 occur on Kamchatka and another 5,000 on the Commander Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_otter_conservation-cite_note-Kornev-12#cite_note-Kornev-12). The near-shore foraging distribution (most diving to depths usually <30 m) of Sea Otters throughout their range (Bodkin et al. 2004), and diet dominated by invertebrate species (Estes, 1980), provides no opportunity for interaction with the pollock fisheries. Although not well documented, the abundance of the western Pacific harbour seal, or Kuril seal (P.v. stejnegeri) is thought to be about 3,000–3,500 in the Kuril Islands, a similar number in the Commander Islands, and about 350 in Hokkaido, northern Japan. Harbour seals are a non-migratory species found mainly in the coastal waters of the continental shelf and slope, and are also commonly found in bays, rivers, estuaries and intertidal areas. Although they are generalists, feeding on a wide variety of fish, cephalopods, and crustaceans obtained from surface, mid-water, and benthic habitats, their coastal distribution combined with coastal area closures to pollock fishing (Figure 31) largely precludes interaction with the pollock fisheries (SOO included). The short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) is an endangered species listed on CITES Appendix 1. They forage widely across the temperate and subarctic North Pacific (Suryan et al. 2006), including Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 71 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report the WBS and SOO. The world population is currently estimated to be about 1200 birds and is increasing. Albatrosses spend the majority of time within the exclusive economics zones of Japan, Russia (Kuril Islands and Kamchatka Peninsula), and the United States, but overall, they spent the greatest proportion of time within the Alaska exclusive economic zone. The threat to this albatross species in the SOO is assumed to be very low. Artukhin (2011) states that; “the species begins to appear more and more often in the water area from the southern part of the Sea of Okhotsk to the Bering Strait, though it still occurs rarely in the Sea of Japan”. Nomadic migration routes for short- tailed albatross often lie in the areas where there are many pollock harvesting vessels (Figure 32) and that most sightings of this species are made from commercial fishing vessels (birds feeding around the vessels). Artyukhin (2011) reports on the Modern distribution of the short-tailed albatross in the far eastern seas of Russia. This paper suggests that short-tail albatross, although historically in a severely depleted state, have increased significantly since the mid 1990’s. For example on STA colonies to the south of SOO, Hasegawa (2009) (Tori-shima Island) reports that the number of registered visual observations of the short tail albatross within the Russian Far East has increased significantly since the mid 1990’s. Figure 32: Registered sightings of short-tailed albatross within the Russian Far East, 1950 – 2010. Source: Artukhin, 2011. Observer reporting protocol does allow for the reporting of bird mortality and other species such as seals. None of the observer data presented, however, gives any indication that there are either sightings or that mortality may be occurring. A recent review of observations however suggests that birds concentrate in hot spots (e.g. at least 200 albatross or about 10% of the total population were observed within sight of a single fishing vessel) and therefore may be vulnerable to perturbations in these locations (Piatt et al. 2006). Artukhin (2011), provided an update of registered sightings of the short-tailed albatross in Russian waters, see Figure 32. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 72 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Short-tailed albatross remains on the International Endangered Species List and is also listed in the Russian Red Book of endangered species of the Russian Federation and its constituent units (category 1 - an endangered species). Currently however there are no special conservation measures in Russia for this species. Steller sea lions are another species whose populations have been decimated historically but are now protected. The breeding colonies of this species as well as seals (four species) are now protected, especially along the Kuril Islands (information presented on these species is recent, up to 2009) – see Figure 33. Waite and Burkanov (2004) report that pollock do make up an important part of Steller sea lion diet but report no direct impact of the pollock fisheries on the distribution and abundance of Steller sea lions. Figure 33: Fishing fleet locations in pollock fishery in March 2000 (black dots), Steller sea lion and fur seal breeding rookeries and main ribbon seal aggregations on ice in the Sea of Okhotsk. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 73 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The status of Steller sea lions in the SOO is well understood as presented by survey results published by Burkanov 2009; Burkanov et al. 2002, 2003, 2008. The current knowledge of the Steller sea lion populations suggests that although stocks declined to historical lows, current estimates indicate status is improving. The distribution of rookeries (Figure 34) and protection offered by preventing trawling closer than 20 nm from these rookeries affords good protection for the species from the potential impacts of the pollock midwater trawl fishery. The team also refer to the work of Burkanov and colleagues (Steller sea lions Eumetopias jubatus demographic studies in Russian waters) that conclude that the status of Steller seas lions in the SOO is well understood and that stocks are currently increasing (Figure 35). FFA Fishing Regulations ban trawling in a 30 nm radius around these colonies. Other ETP species such as sea otters are similarly protected. There is no evidence to suggest that the pollock fishery may influence the changes in population structure of any of these species, although the impact on trophic structure (diet of these species) may be relevant (see “ecosystem” comments) as fish dominate the diets of seals. Figure 34: Distribution of Steller sea lion rookeries (Burkanov 2009). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 74 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 35: Trends in abundance of Steller sea lions in the SOO, Kuril Islands and Commander Islands (Burkanov, 2009). 5.5 Habitat Some geological evidence (historical) is provided showing the spatial distribution of substrate types in SOO including historical records defining the SOO substrate types (Bezrukov, 1960); see Figure 36. In general, the northern part of the SOO is shallow and the southern portion is deep. Water movements are influenced by bottom topography; for example, the Kuril Basin in the south is connected through gutters with the Deryugin (1,744 m) and TINRO (990 m) trenches. Although the description of overall substrate type is rough, regular benthic surveys have been undertaken (in the 2000s) on the Sea of Okhotsk shelf. These surveys have been used for comparative assessments with surveys in the 1980s (Nadtochyi, et al. 2004, 2007; Dulepova, 2008). The comparison of the quantitative characteristics of the benthos conducted on the data received from these surveys in 1980s and middle 2000s showed that the biomass of the separate groups and dominating benthic species in various areas of the SOO has not changed significantly in the last 20 years. Over a period of about 20 years, there were reported to be no significant changes in bottom fauna (Shuntov, 2001; Dulepova, 2002). These authors also reported that the benthic fauna was dominated by predatory polychaetes (30%) (see Dulepova in: http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc- cert/msc-certification/). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 75 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 36: Bottom sediments of the Okhotsk Sea: 1 - boulder-gravel-pebble, 2 - sand, 3 - silt, 4 - silty-clayey diatom muds, 5 - clayey diatom muds, 6 - silty-clayey muds without silica, 7 - rock outcrops (Source: Bezrukov, 1960) Pelagic or midwater trawls are considered relatively benign and are recognised as having low environmental impact (see for example: http://www.goodcatch.org.uk/start-improving/gather- information/fishing-methods/pelagic-mid-water-trawling/). Pelagic trawls rarely come into contact with the seabed so are not associated with damage to marine habitat or significant levels of discarding of unwanted species (bycatch). They may however still unintentionally catch vulnerable species. As mid-water gear does not make contact with the sea bed, there is expected to be near-zero impact on bottom habitat. Nevertheless, data presented on catches shows records several species associated with bottom-dwelling (demersal) habitat types. Although impact on bottom habitat is expected to be minimal, evidence to support this assumption is limited (there are no studies using gear directly comparable with SOO pollock pelagic trawls to identify the resulting effect of such gear if contact is made with the substrate). Vessels licensed under “Specialized pollock Fishery” are not allowed to carry other gear types. The pollock-specific vessels may be licensed to target other species but may not carry different gear for other species at any one time In some instances, non-specialized vessels do carry multiple permits and different gear types to target different species. At these times the gear changes and target species must be declared (e.g. switching to cod using bottom trawls). There is therefore no confusion between periods when gear and targeting practices are changed and therefore no misinterpretation of fishing effort related to midwater pollock- directed effort and any other directed effort that might have a different impact on bottom habitat. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 76 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report In a comparatively similar, established mid-water trawl fishery (New Zealand Hoki recently MSC recertified), there remain elements of uncertainty and assumptions were made regarding the performance of certain types of fishing gear. Refer to the descriptions given and gear designs for the SOO specialized fleet, which support the assumption that the gear is not designed to fish on the bottom http://pollock.ru/en/pollock-sustainability/key-references/sea-of-okhotsk-fishery.html) The spatial and temporal distributions of the pollock mid-water fleet in the SOO are reported (see Figure 6 for example) and the trawl locations relative to the habitat is known. These data are useful descriptors of the fishery although effort levels (trawling intensity) on or over habitat types is not quantified (a trawling intensity index might for example be a useful indicator of potential impacts of gear on or over habitat types). The recent large scale benthic surveys of the Sea of Okhotsk were conducted in the middle of 2000s (Nadtochyi, et al, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008). In the SOO, the highest intensity of pollock-directed effort occurs on the west Kamchatka shelf (see Figure 6). Nadtochyi and Budnikova (2005) concluded that species wealth and quantitative estimates of west Kamchatka shelf benthos are at a high level and are similar to that reported in the 1980s (suggesting that the pollock fishery has most likely not impacted the benthic environment). Similarly surveys of the benthic habitat in other areas of the Far Eastern Basin where the pollock fishery is active (Nadtochyi et. al. 2004, 2007; Dulepova et.al. 2008) suggest little change in the status of the benthic habitat. The results of these benthic surveys were presented by Dr. E.P. Dulepova to the team during the site visit in July 2011 (Figure 37). The assessment team acknowledges the weakness in the arguments used to identify the impacts of mid-water gear on habitat. The available information on the actual substrate type distribution in the SOO is based on limited information. The fishing areas of the pollock mid-water trawl fleet are accurately known. Extensive research has been undertaken by Dulepova (2004) (Results of macro- benthos surveys at the West Kamchatka shelf of the Sea of Okhotsk in 2004 TINRO), in the areas that the fishery operates and have shown insignificant changes in macro benthos (Figure 37). Figure 37: Comparative biomass of macro benthos in the SOO between 1982 and 2004 reported by Dulepova, 2011 (Presentation to the IMM assessment team, 2011). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 77 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Radchenko and Dulepova, (2004) reported for example: “Amount of total benthos biomass at the West Kamchatka shelf has not changed in comparison with 80-s. Not it is estimated at 323,0 ± 50,1 gr/sq m. The total resource of macro-benthos is estimated at 17 mln tons, and its feeding base – 16 mln tons. In general, at the West Kamchatka shelf the key taxon groups of benthos playing leading role in formation of its average total biomass, as 20 years ago, are sea urchins (30%), mussels (29,6%), polychaetes (17,3%), and holothurias (6,7%) which constitute 80% of average total biomass of macro-benthos in this particular area. It has been noted a slight decrease of flat sea urchins and sponges, growth of biomass of holothurias and mussels. The biomass of polychaetes has remained at the same level as in 1980-s. Making comparision of quantitive characteristics of benthos in 1982 and 2004, it could be concluded that despite some change of total biomass volume, biomass of groups and dominating species have remained at the same level as it was 20 years ago. Therefore, it could be stated surely that present status of bottom biota of the West Kamchatka shelf is at the same level as in 1980-s. In conclusion, this survey proves a well know thesis about stability of quantitative characteristics of benthos in the areas not affected by large-scale changes in the environment”. The benthic impacts of the pollock trawl gear in the SOO could be better understood. For example, research undertaken in the Eastern Bering Sea demonstrated that some part of a pollock mid-water trawl net contacted the ocean floor 44 percent of the time when deployed. This study nevertheless concluded that for the U.S. Alaska pollock essential fish habitat analysis, “the (Alaska) pollock fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.” Several management measures have been implemented to limit the areas where fishing can occur (Figure 31). It was clear during the site visit to the vessels and discussions with skippers that due to the high risk of gear damage and related costs, no trawler operator using mid-water gear would willingly foul the bottom and risk the cost of damaging or losing his net. Nevertheless, TINRO presented evidence of historical and current research on benthic habitat in several areas of the SOO (http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/). This research suggests that no major habitat changes associated with pollock-directed midwater trawling is occurring. See also the SOO LME review conducted by Heileman and Belkin (2010). 5.6 Ecosystem TINRO have conducted regular ecosystem surveys since the 1980s – the objectives of these surveys were typically broad including physical and chemical data collection, biomass estimates, and species identification. These surveys have been conducted over a period of 20 years (some 60 surveys conducted seasonally) providing a historical baseline of the main ecosystem characteristics, e.g. composition and biomass of nekton, bottom fish, macro-benthos, and meso- and macro-plankton (see Shunto, 1995,1997; Dulepova, 1996, 2002, Sorokin and Sorokin, 1999, Dulepova, 2002 ) (Figure 38). These surveys provide the basic information needed for trophic modeling (Aydin et. al. 2002; Lapko and Radchenko, 2000; Kuznetsov et al. 1993; and others). Within the epipelagic fish communities, Alaska pollock plays a central ecological role in the SOO (Shuntov et al. 1993). One manifestation of this is the apparent inverse relationship between the abundance of pollock and herring, suggesting competition for plankton (Shuntov et al., 1993). The impact of the removal of pollock from the SOO system is not fully understood although trophic modeling has been attempted (Lapko and Radchenko, 2000; Aydin K.Y. et al., 2002). This kind of modeling offers one way to evaluate the ecosystem impacts of the pollock fishery. Models of pelagic communities have also been constructed to investigate temporal changes in structure and function, but Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 78 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report these have not yet been published. Another approach to assessing the impact of pollock in the ecosystem has been to estimate the size and composition of the consumption of pollock (Shuntov et al. 1993, Shuntov and Delepova, 2000, Chuchukalo 2006). These studies underscore the dominant role played by pollock in the ecosystems in which they are found. Although pollock are major consumers, they are also food for a number of predators in the SOO, including pollock (cannibalism), other fishes, and marine mammals (mainly Steller sea lion and northern fur seals). During the 1980s, predators accounted for an estimated 58-78% of the annual losses of Alaska pollock, whereas the fishery accounts for about 22-42% (Shuntov et al. 1993). Figure 38: Estimates of biomass and production of the essential ecosystem components of the SOO (Source: Shuntov and Dulepova, 1996). The accumulation of information from historical surveys has supported the evaluation and broad understanding of the SOO ecosystem and trophic relationships between key species and groups. There are, for example, a number of references to large-scale changes in the plankton and nekton communities of the Sea of Okhotsk, which were observed from the beginning of 1990s (Shuntov, 1995; Shuntov, 1997). The changes have been linked to the dynamics of the climate and oceanographic variability, which has affected the composition and structure of the marine resource base (Shuntov, 1998). For example there was a significant shift in pollock biomass (decrease) towards the end of the 1990s with a simultaneous growth in the herring resource. Thereafter changes in the productivity of the SOO ecosystem resulted in the progressive increased in the stocks of species like pollock and herring (Shuntov, 2009). This led to the stabilisation of pollock towards the end of the 2000s, particularly in the northern part of the SOO resulting in the increase in the pollock TAC (Avdeev, 2008; Smirnov, 2009). Despite the intensive collection of information on the SOO ecosystem, this information has yet to be used in a rigorous analysis to evaluate the specific impacts of the pollock fishery on key components of the ecosystem. Nevertheless, to a large extent, the input data for such analyses do exist and thus a better understanding of fishery impacts can be obtained. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 79 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report It is evident that there have been measures implemented to protect sensitive parts of the SOO ecosystem. This has been accomplished primarily through implementation of fishing regulations restricting the fishery in specific ways. In the Russian Far East Basin, Jamison et al (2010) reported: “The Fishery Rules have established 54 permanent and three seasonal area closures for commercial fisheries for all species: three closures are for trawls, one is for bottom gillnets, and others are for all gears for vessels whose total length is greater than 24 m. There are exceptions for shorter fishery vessels conducting coastal fisheries, and four which exempt Pacific salmon and kelp harvesting. There are additional area closures for some species: e.g., nine for walleye pollock, two for holothurians, and one or two for each of the eight crab species. Many of these limitations protect marine mammals’ rockeries and the forage grounds around them, as well as some valuable bottom biotopes which are protected from the negative influence of the bottom trawl fishery. The Fishery Rules have established 44 seasonal fishery closures that deal with 20 species and groups of fishery targets. Most of the closed areas protect spawning and early development of commercial species. Other closures are efforts to restrict large-scale fisheries to the most profitable period (time with the highest catch per unit efforts) to reduce the total effects of a fleet presence on ecosystems. When a fishery quota is realized in the shortest time period, the fleet’s environmental impact, because of its discards, noise and wastes on the marine ecosystem, also occurs over a shorter time. The Fishery Rules have established 26 prohibitions and limitations that deal with fishing gears and method of catch, such as restriction in the crab fishery of any gear except specially equipped pots. These measures protect fishery stocks from overfishing and they may also reduce the juvenile and non-target bycatch. These rules also prohibit the hunting of marine mammals, excluding seals, by nets, traps, seines, and rifles, and there is a requirement for vessels being used to have a winch, ropes, etc. to ensure the immediate extraction of killed animals from the water. Loss of marine mammal bodies in the sea is prohibited and is regarded as polluting. A minimal distance of beach traps from spawning rivers for Pacific salmon is also established.” These measures provide significant protection to the ecosystem components, although there is no broader integrated ecosystem management approach currently implemented. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 80 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 6.0 Principle Three: Management System Background 6.1 General Management, Consultation and Review At first sight, the Russian fisheries organizational structure appears to be rather complex (Figure 39), and it is not static, changes being made to streamline and improve it during the consultation and write- up phases of this evaluation. However, there are few layers and divisions, and there are clearly defined roles and responsibilities within the management framework. Russian fisheries management is organized through a common coordinating agency, the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA; or Rosrybolovstvo), which has operated with executive power since May 2012 under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture and manages five regional offices in the Russian Far East. The FFA administers federal law and policy on fisheries on a region-by-region basis through regional divisions. Their responsibilities are organized on a clearly defined fishery-zone basis. Enforcement of fishery laws is under the responsibility of a separate service, the Federal Security Service (FSB). The Ministry of Natural Resources (RosPrirodNadzor) conducts an independent review of the annual TACs. The Federal Customs Agency reports directly to the Government. It has legal procedures for customs clearance of the fishing vessels and fishery products. According to Russian legislation, all catches have to be delivered to a Russian port where the Federal Customs Agency can inspect fish cargoes to be landed for domestic or export purposes. The Ministry of Agriculture also coordinates the work of the Federal Service of Veterinary and Sanitary Inspection (RosSelkhozNadzor), which is responsible for quality/health inspections of landed fish products before they are moved into domestic or export markets. Figure 39: Fishery management system in Russia (Far East basin) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 81 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for developing policies on fisheries and issues legal acts on key fishery management issues proposed by the FFA. The FFA and its regional divisions administer fisheries in a manner consistent with federal law. By decrees and amendments, the FFA: • develops laws, orders, and rules related to fishery management, all of which are issued by the Ministry of Agriculture; • manages the protection, rational use, study and reproduction of aquatic biological resources and their habitats; • performs fisheries control and enforcement functions; • promotes scientific research and surveys of resources; • ensures that TACs (total allowable catches) and PCs (possible catches) are set for aquatic biological resources in Russian EEZ and internal waters; • delivers public services in the area of fisheries, conservation, sustainable use, study, preservation and reproduction of aquatic biological resources and their habitat; • arranges adequate observation and monitoring activities and manages the Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communication (CFMC); • distributes TACs among various types of quota; • allocates quotas among fishing companies; • issues catch permits for companies and fishing vessels; • provides for safety and rescue operations on fishing grounds; and • coordinates production activities related to ports and vessel maintenance. Each regional division of the FFA has the power to implement fishery regulations in its own region. For this purpose, the FFA maintains a central administration to ensure coordination of regional fishery management processes. This can be seen at many levels of the Russian fishery management system, e.g. in research coordination (through VNIRO, based in Moscow; annual setting and amendment of the TAC). Communication between regional centres and the FFA is an integrated process of continuous informal and formal procedures. For example, when the SOO pollock fishery is operating, there are weekly, scheduled conference meetings between regional divisions and the Moscow office of the FFA, scientific research centres, the Coast Guard, and fishing companies. The FFA establishes basin scientific councils (in the current case, the Far Eastern Scientific and Fishery Council, the so-called DVNPS, that handles the management processes relating to pollock) that coordinate proposals from the fishing industry and represent the FFA Community Council at a federal level (also sometimes referred to as a Public Council; see 6.2 below) as a way to promote transparency, cooperation and dialogue with scientific, non-governmental, and public organizations and individuals. Operationally, the FFA adopts Fishing Rules that define catch limits, seasons, gears, and areas for legal operation. Such rules include standard fishery regulations describing the responsibilities of the fishing operator, a list of the documents to be available on board fishing vessels, details of prohibited areas, seasons and species, fishing gear regulations, minimum sizes for fish and other harvestable species, and bycatch regulations. The main requirements are for vessels to submit daily vessel reports, to maintain a serviceable and operating vessel monitoring system (VMS), and to follow rules on bycatch, prohibited areas, seasons and species, fishing gear regulations, minimum size of fish in the catch, and other operational procedures. For both the Western Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk fisheries, the key management measures are enshrined in the “Fishing Rules for the Far Eastern Fishing Basin”, which were most recently approved by FFA order 671 of 6 July 2011. Fishing Rules can be modified through a review process coordinated by the DVNPS, which considers proposals from fishers and other stakeholders in a broad sense, acting as a coordinating body for communication, discussion and, if appropriate, confirmation of options and decisions related to both Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 82 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report the Western Bering Sea and SOO pollock fisheries. In this way, it takes advantage of local knowledge and broadens participation by the public, fishers and other stakeholders in fishery management, within the context of federal law and policy for Russian fisheries. At a regional level, legislative assemblies may adopt regional laws subservient to the federal law that regulates relationships between local authorities and fishing companies, again following extensive and broad, transparent consultation. For example, the Legislative Assembly of Primorsky Krai adopted a Law on Fisheries in Primorsky Krai in April 2002 that “sets forth procedures for the realization of the right to use aquatic biological resources as well as basic standards and requirements of fisheries in Primorsky Krai.” The system also promotes consultation among central and regional government agencies, open to input by fishing companies, their associations, their representatives, NGOs, indigenous peoples, and citizens. Stakeholders and interested parties, including the public, participate in this consultation process under clearly defined procedures. For instance, the FFA manages the pollock fisheries in close consultation with the research institutes TINRO, KamchatNIRO, and MagadanNIRO, all of which oversee research, survey and technical issues relating to stock assessment and harvest control rules, supported centrally by VNIRO. To be able to consider local knowledge, the FFA established the DVNPS to serve as a coordinating body for fishing companies and local organizations to participate in the decision-making process and to provide a mechanism to seek and consider proposals relating to pollock fishery management. In addition to the DVNPS, the FFA operates a Community Council and several basin Councils (as stated above, DVNPS for the Far East fishery basin), allowing fishing companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), associations, and other interested groups and individuals to participate in fishery management. Operating under the FFA, these Councils allow for and encourage transparent and cooperative dialogue with all stakeholders and permit broad interests to shape FFA policies and activities (for more detail on these Councils, see 6.2 below). It is important here to stress that the DVNPS always includes representatives from indigenous communities, but because the Russian pollock (also variously referred to as Alaskan pollock) fishery operates at least 30 miles offshore with industrial trawlers, it tends not to impact coastal indigenous communities directly. To include the most appropriate scientific data and advice in decision-making, the management system includes VNIRO, TINRO, MagadanNIRO, and other scientific institutes with an interest in regular reviews of fishery management decisions, especially, but not only, in the annual process of setting TACs. VNIRO itself is responsible for providing oversight and an arms-length review to ensure scientific rigour and consistency of the proposed decisions with federal fisheries policy and law. 6.2 Participation in the Fisheries Management Process The right to participate in the fisheries management process is specified in the provisions of the Federal Act on Fisheries and regulations promulgated under this Act and in the Federal Act on the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. The three levels of participation in the fishery management process are the federal level (FFA Community Council), the federal fishery district level (Fishery and Scientific Basin Councils, e.g. the DVNPS Far East Council which covers fisheries in that region, including for pollock), and the regional level (a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, e.g. the Primorsky Fishery Council). In general, these three advisory bodies can be further subdivided into two groups based on their legal provisions of establishment. Establishment of the FFA Community Council is based on the general requirement to ensure public access to the decision- making basis for most State authorities, and the other two types of body are based on the Federal Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 83 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Fisheries Act. Table 19 summarizes the levels and flow of information to and from the public in Russian fishery management. Table 19: Levels of public participation in Russian fishery management Level Advisory body Authority Russian Federation / FFA Community Council → federal level Federal Agency for Federal fishery district Basin Scientific and Fishery Councils → Fisheries (fishery basins) (Far Eastern Scientific and Fishery Council, DVNPS, for pollock) Territory / Region Territorial Fishery Councils → Local Governments (Kamchatka Fishery Council, Primorsky Fishery Council, etc.) Fishing companies, NGOs, associations, and even the media participate in Russian fishery management through the FFA Community Council. It was established by the FFA in 2008, and serves as an advisory body in representing public interests, allowing for and encouraging transparent and cooperative dialogue with all stakeholders, so shaping FFA policies and activities. Federal law allows citizens as well as public organizations and NGOs to review environmental projects, including TACs, and to comment on their value and impact. It is enlightening to read some of the key provisions of the FFA Community Council, to show how it meets its aims and objectives. It has three main aims: to improve the work of the FFA, to consolidate State policy and the economic potential of the fishery sector, and to operate comprehensively with NGOs and fishery experts. For example, WWF Russia is a member of the FFA Fishery Community Council. Succinctly, the FFA Council is an advisory body to the FFA, to ensure compliance with (Russian) public interests, to operate under the principles of transparency, openness, cooperation and constructive dialogue with scientific, non-governmental, non-commercial, and other organizations, contains no more than 50 volunteering and elected members for two-year periods, acting pro bono on a grant basis, and is populated widely across all possible participating groups, members being approved by the FFA. As stated above, each fishing region within the Russian Far East has regional (or territorial) public councils associated with it. For example, the Primorsky Territory Fishery Council aims to provide coordination with federal authorities, scientific institutions, non-governmental organizations, fishing companies, and fish processing companies in the Primorsky region in order to provide consolidated advice on state fishery management, conservation, and optimal harvesting of aquatic biological resources in its territory. Hence, the Territory Fishery Council is a collegial advisory body of the Government of a particular region. Basin and Territorial Councils are set up (for each basin and each region) to advance proposals for the conservation of aquatic biological resources, in particular proposals for distributing quotas to those mandated to catch the resources. The lists of members and rules of procedure of both are approved by the FFA and by the constituent entities of the Federation. 6.3 Fishing Rights, Licensing, and Subsidies The FFA bases its management strategy on a coherent and cohesive series of measures and control rules designed to meet short-term goals, such as annual TACs aimed to be consistent with long-term conservation objectives for sustainable use of stocks and avoidance of damage to the resources. As a means of ensuring this, the FFA issues ten-year quotas to licensed fishing companies (the cost of these Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 84 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report quotas and licenses to those entering now is relatively high by national and international standards), and 20-year access to specific fishing zones, in this manner promoting long-term stewardship by the fishing industry and industry support for achieving long-term conservation goals. In recent years, the Pollock Catchers Association (PCA), the client seeking accreditation here, has proactively proposed legislative changes to strengthen fishery management and enforcement, so promoting from within its own ranks the principle of sustainability. Further, approved by its President in 2001, the Marine Doctrine to 2020 establishes Russian sovereignty in its EEZ and provides long-term objectives to conserve and manage all aquatic biological resources there. It sets specific goals and targets for national development and five-year target programmes to commit budgets to specific projects. Goals include modernizing the fishing fleet, reducing fishing capacity to levels concomitant with the resources being exploited, improving port and processing infrastructure, and encouraging investment. To accomplish these goals, legislation changes to fishery laws and improved information technologies are recommended and implemented, the latter to provide open access to information and greater transparency into management decisions. The Marine Doctrine also links the fishery to food security concerns by seeking to develop domestic fish processing capabilities and supply chains in Russia. Further, it proposes greater public participation and more public–private partnerships in the fishing industry, and recommends actions to streamline government processes, remove government obstacles, and increase the capacity and resources of fishery management agencies. Through these planning strategies, the federal government seeks to link regional development to sustainability of the stocks. There are no subsidies available to the Alaskan pollock fishery. The fishery is therefore based on maintaining a commercially viable industry, managed through licenses to quota granted for the long term, and with punitive sanctions (including removal from the fishery, with quotas and licenses then being offered publicly to others; see 6.9 below) being applied to those who breach Fishing Rules or persistently offend on any aspect of fishery management. 6.4 Fishing Locations Russia is party to several international conventions and agreements to manage fisheries in the North Pacific and Bering Sea. They include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982; the UN Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995; the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks of the North Pacific Ocean (NPAFC), 1992; the Resolution on Large-scale Pelagic Drift-net Fishing and its Impact on the Living Marine Resources of the world’s oceans and seas, 1991; and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources in the central Bering Sea, 1994. As Russia shares the Bering Sea with the United States, among others, the two nations share research findings and management responsibilities for Alaska pollock. Since 1988, Russia–US consultations have taken place under the auspices of the Russian–American Intergovernmental Consultative Committee on Fisheries. Also, in the mid-1990s, Russia and the US began working on an agreement between the two governments covering fisheries in the Bering Sea, to stipulate joint actions by the two countries in terms of the conservation and management of aquatic living resources in the north Bering Sea. In the SOO, only Russian vessels are allowed to catch pollock, but Russia does allocate a small amount of its quota in the Western Bering Sea to South Korea. Almost all the Russian catch is from its own EEZ, i.e. not shared with another state, but Russia applies the same principles of long-term sustainable fisheries management as apply to international waters. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 85 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 6.5 Administrative Arrangements With laws that require all catches taken in marine waters to be delivered to specifically established maritime ports, Russia’s administrative reforms have boosted port capacity and infrastructure. Administrative reforms of note include the establishment of universal maritime ports responsible for port operations with all types of vessel, including fishing and fish cargo vessels. An important feature of universal maritime ports is that they are State-owned and administered by staff nominated by the State. Provisions for maritime ports include, in particular, requirements for advance notification of port calls for fishing and fish cargo vessels, and selective port inspection by, where applicable, representatives of the Port administration, Border Control (FSB), Customs, and the Veterinary Agency. These provisions enhance monitoring capacity within the fishery, as discussed below. The establishment of universal maritime ports owned and administered by the State represents an important element in the control of fish landings and trade in Russia. It imposes federal control over all landings of catches and fish products, and requires random port inspection of fishing and fish cargo vessels. This is part of national administrative reforms aimed at improving transparency in fish landings and trade products, and is an important tool in the fight against IUU fishing because it imposes government control over all landings of catches and fishery products through random, but comprehensive, port inspections. The FFA assigns fishery management and control functions to territorial FFAs, such as the Primorsky Territory Division and the Okhotsk Territory Division. Territorial FFAs are responsible for issuing catch permits, monitoring fish catches, processing operational reports, and helping to maintain regional fishery management system centres. All fish products destined for export to the EU are supported by an EU catch certificate issued by the FFA Territory division in accordance with EU Regulation N1005/2008 of 29 September 2008, to prove their source as being free of IUU fishing. The hubs of the Russian fishery management system, which operates the formal VMS centre and monitors fisheries via daily vessel reports and data collection (see 6.8 below), are in Vladivostok, Kamchatka, and Sakhalin. The Federal Service of Veterinary and Sanitary Inspection (RosSelkhozNadzor) is responsible for quality/health inspections of landed fish products before they are moved into domestic or export markets. Port officials and FSB staff can inspect the catch and the vessels at all times, and by decree, port clearance time should not exceed three hours and can be expedited by advance notice being filed. 6.6 Legislation, Regulation and Precautionary Management In Russia there is already a well-established, comprehensive legal and policy framework aimed at developing sustainable fisheries. The governance structure is based on a series of inter-linked laws, decrees, orders, and rules consistent with local, national, and international mandates, empowering national and regional bodies to propose, implement and enforce laws and rules related to fishery management. They define clear roles for federal agencies and regional governments to manage the fishery. The federal law “On Fishing and Preservation of Marine Living Resources” (2004), hereafter referred to as the Fishing Law, along with its amendments since 2007, provides much of the enabling legislation for fishery management. Strategic planning documents, such as the “Marine Doctrine to 2020” mentioned above, and five-year target programmes define general goals to develop the fishing industry over the next ten years and to provide a policy framework to achieve them in an integrated manner. The mandates also link national food security to the fishing industry and recognize the legal rights of fishers, indigenous communities, and other stakeholders in the fisheries for Alaska pollock. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 86 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Federal laws cover legal and enforcement aspects of marine resource management. They define rights, protect endangered and threatened species, and protect water and aquatic habitats. Key laws include: “On Fishing and Preservation of Marine Living Resources”, the Fishing Law (2004); “On Internal Seawaters, Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of the Russian Federation” (2003); “On Exclusive Economic Zone of the Russian Federation” (1998); “On Wildlife” (1995); “On Ecological Expertise” (1995); “Water Code of the Russian Federation” (1995); and “On Protection of the Environment” (1991). Since its adoption, the Fishing Law has been subjected to a number of revisions, culminating in December 2007 with the adoption of Federal Act 333, which contains amendments to provide more detail, definition, and procedures to strengthen the original Law, e.g. the requirement to land all fish caught in its EEZ in Russian ports. Other amendments to the Fishing Law followed in 2009 and continue with the participation and inputs of both the fishing industry and government. They include provisions to eliminate IUU fishing (Russia signed its acceptance of that international legislation in 2009), and to provide transparent mechanisms for the ecologically based, sustainable management of aquatic biological resources and their utilization. The Fishing Law also now ensures that: only Russian-flagged vessels conduct fishing activities in Russian waters (except for foreign-owned vessels permitted subject to international agreements or other legislative instruments); all vessels of gross registered tonnage >80 t and engine power >55 kW participating in commercial fisheries be equipped with a functioning VMS; trading in all catches of aquatic biological resources and products of their processing be carried out under Commodity Exchanges; all catches of marine biological resources (and processed products) taken in Russian inland and territorial seas, EEZ, and continental shelf be delivered to the Customs territory of the Russian Federation; all quota shares be allocated to operators in the form of agreements for periods of 10 years; rights to operate on specific fishing grounds be rigorously controlled through signed agreements with operators; monitoring of all resources be rigorous and controlled; a register of resources, fishing areas, catches, operators, licenses, records of non-compliance with regulations, economic characteristics, etc. be maintained. Examples of non-compliance statistics are provided in 6.9 below. Russia signed the FAO Port State Agreement to Prevent IUU Fishing in 2009, and the FFA is in the process of developing and adopting a National Plan of Action to prevent IUU fishing, in accordance with the FAO 2001 guidelines. Russia has also signed an agreement with South Korea (2010) and an MOU with Japan (2009) to limit IUU fishing, and is compliant with EU legislation on the prevention of IUU. Indeed, there have been no legal challenges or disputes from EU Border Inspections of non- conformity of catch-certificate documentation associated with the Russian pollock fishery. The federal law “On fisheries …” stresses that priority in fishery management has to be given to preservation and rational use of aquatic biological resources. Therefore, although the precautionary approach as such is not incorporated in Russian fisheries legislation, the principle of precautionary fishery management is enshrined in the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995), to which Russia is a signatory, and practical harvest control rules used in the pollock fishery do incorporate a clear precautionary element. A number of “tools” have been suggested by those who helped develop that code to assist managers and decision-makers in applying the precautionary principle to the management of national and international fisheries. Those tools were outlined by Garcia (1994), and it is illustrative here to list them as a means of briefly evaluating whether, in the opinion of this certification team, the Alaskan pollock fishery is following the precautionary approach by utilizing those tools. The full list of tools is: • adopt the sustainable development principle; • adopt the principle of precautionary management; • use the best scientific evidence available; • adopt a broad range of management benchmarks and reference points; Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 87 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report • develop criteria for use when assessing the impacts of development; • take a risk-averse stand; • agree acceptable levels of impacts and risk; • take a holistic view of resources within their environment; • speed up management response time; • allow for greater participation by non-fishery users in management bodies; • improve decision-making procedures; • introduce prior consulting procedures; and • strengthen monitoring, control and surveillance. Noteworthy in the above list are the use of the terms “sustainability”, “best scientific evidence”, “risk- aversion”, “holistic view” (= an ecosystem approach to management), and “reference points”, key terms used nowadays to underpin best practice fishery management worldwide. Some of these tools are clearly taken up robustly in stated Russian national fisheries policy, some obviously in the harvest control rules applied. However, while acknowledging that future environmental (or climate change) impacts are largely unpredictable, it is the team’s view that the fishery here seeking certification is well covered by most of the tools, so that it does adhere reasonably closely to the principle of precautionary management. Overall, therefore, the precautionary approach to management of Russian pollock fisheries appears to be applied implicitly within long-term objectives, to guide decision- making. General evidence includes: the strong legal basis through robust policies enshrined in key laws; a TAC process that is adaptable to changing, long-term-monitored environmental conditions; protected areas around the Kommander Islands; a moratorium on fishing in key grounds in international waters; Russia’s ratification of and adherence to important international conventions; long-term forecasting of the ecosystem conditions needed to generate (high) productivity of resources; management advice being provided according to stock assessments carried out under the precautionary management recommendations of Babayan (2000); harvest control rules incorporating clear precautionary elements; a strong monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) process. 6.7 Research and Harvest Controls The FFA sets and allocates TACs each year for Alaska pollock and other species in the Russian Far East, cooperating with scientific research institutes such as VNIRO and TINRO, and regional centres such as KamchatNIRO and MagadanNIRO. The FFA also provides the legal and administrative mandate for scientific surveying, research and monitoring to be conducted in Russian fisheries, through TINRO and other regional research centres, which collectively handle much of the scientific work related to the fisheries for Russian pollock (TINRO, 2006a, b). Such survey and research activities are carried out on an autonomous, scientific and objective basis through the regional centres, but they are interconnected and coordinated through both formal discussion and decision-making processes, and federally through VNIRO in Moscow. Russian fisheries research is fully collaborative nationally, ensuring the sharing of data and formal reports, many of which are formally published internally in Russia, and there is a clear research plan that is published annually. The TAC-setting process involves the FFA working with scientific institutions, regional management agencies, fishing companies, and NGOs in a consultative decision-making process. The FFA submits the proposed TACs to the Federal Services of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology for an environmental review known as “ecological expertise” (Figure 40). A related public exercise (so- called public hearings) also seeks opinions from citizens and NGOs. When the results of this review are received and taken into account, the Ministry of Agriculture approves the TACs formally, then the FFA distributes them among fishing companies (Figure 41). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 88 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 40: Inter-Organizational Relationships in the Russian TAC-setting Process The TAC-setting process itself includes a carefully prescribed consultative process that takes nearly two years to accomplish and involves many steps conducted among various stakeholders and interested parties (Figure 41). For pollock in the Western Bering Sea and the SOO, initial data collection and analysis is conducted mainly by KamchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO, and TINRO, and thereafter the material passes through the various stages outlined in Figure 41. The process is not described in detail here (full detail is provided in the client submission), but it needs to be noted that VNIRO in Moscow plays a leading scientific and advisory role in the process, acting as arbiter and ensuring that the assessment and advice meet national and international standards of rigour. Public and NGO input to the process is through the Community Councils and is encouraged, and industry input mainly through the PCA, which currently represents 45 fishing companies who together take >70% of the total catch of Alaskan pollock in Russia. The PCA works proactively with the FFA, the FSB, NGOs, and other stakeholders in trying to improve the Russian pollock fishery through legislative reform and implementation of best practice. Russian scientists participate in PICES, the Pacific independent marine research organization that operates in a manner similar to that of the century-old ICES of the North Atlantic, other than in formally reviewing national stock assessments, so can share ideas with international colleagues involved with Alaska pollock fisheries at that forum. In these ways, international colleagues, especially US scientists at NOAA/NMFS, are able to share views about the science and advice of Russian and US scientists involved with Bering Sea fishery science and management, to the benefit of both. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 89 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Figure 41: Flowchart of decision-making to determine Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Possible Catch (PC) of fish and non-fish objects and to allocate quotas to Fishing Companies. (Source: provided by the Client during the June 2011 Site Visit, subsequently readjusted in 2012). 6.8 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance The FFA cooperates closely with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to meet monitoring, control and surveillance responsibilities. In that role, the FFA issues catch permits, collects and processes daily vessel catch reports (DVRs), monitors satellite-based VMS data, and manages the Centre for Fishery Monitoring and Communications (CFMC). It maintains the Fishery Monitoring System (FMS) and supports the CFMC in collecting, storing, processing, and distributing fishery data, including daily statistics on the volumes of resource harvested, processed, trans-shipped, and transported by individual vessels. It also provides real-time vessel position information, allowing anomalies and potentially illegal activities to be identified early. The FSB conducts enforcement and inspections at sea and in port, cooperating with the FFA and sharing data through the CFMC. It is necessary here to make a few comments based on information on catch and discard monitoring and of VMS usage and compliance provided to the team by the responsible statutory organizations, Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 90 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report some of it mentioned elsewhere in this document, to exemplify the rigour of both systems currently in place in the Russian Far East. (i) Catch and discard monitoring and reporting In accord with paragraph 7.1 of the Fishing Rules, fishing vessels have to keep “separate records on catch and reception with breakdown by aquatic living resource species, indicate weight of species in aquatic living resource catches, fishing (catching) gear and catching area in the fishing log.” Records need to be maintained in a fishing logbook, the form of which is approved by FFA order 942 of 18 November 2010. The instruction on logbook-keeping requires the amount of catch to be determined “by weighing the catch, transferring it into containers, grading by target species, then placing it into transport containers of known holding capacity, or visually (roughly, by eye) evaluating the degree of fullness of the codend or other fishing gear taking account of the Fishing Rules applicable to the fishing area”. After each SOO trawl for pollock is brought aboard the fishing vessel, the master evaluates the level of haul fullness, determines the amount of the catch and makes an entry in the logbook. The catch is then taken for processing, where it is sorted by size and non-target species separated out, and a record of the processed amount provided. According to paragraph 9.7 of the Fishing Rules, fishing vessels are not allowed to “discard any harvested (caught) aquatic living resources permitted for harvesting (catching).” The Fishing Rules (paragraph 19) specify the minimum fishable size of pollock as 35 cm, and a bycatch of a maximum of 20% juvenile bycatch is allowed during the pollock fishing everywhere except in the West Sakhalin subzone, where the maximum is 8%. The Fishing Rules further state (paragraph 21.4) that, if the allowable bycatch of 20% is exceeded, all harvested juvenile pollock have to be processed and entries made in fishing and processing logs. If that situation arises, the master has by law to move at least 5 nautical miles away, record his action in the logbook, and report the information immediately to the FFA. Every trawl has to be sampled for juvenile pollock percentage, and the size distribution of all fish caught determined by sampling. The juvenile pollock bycatch in the Sea of Okhotsk has been reducing over the history of the fishery (KamchatNIRO data), but the whole juvenile catch is processed, not discarded. Similar reporting rigour applies to non-target species. In accord with paragraph 24 of the Fishing Rules, the bycatch of aquatic living resource species not specified in the fishing permit is allowed during the target pollock fishery as follows: for species subject to TAC regulations, a maximum of 2% by weight per haul of the total catch of permitted species (except marine mammals, crabs and shrimps, such bycatch is prohibited); for species subject to potential catch (PC) limitations, a maximum of 49%. If the requirement of 2% is exceeded, all bycatch in excess of 2% by weight after weighing has to be “immediately returned to its natural habitat with minimum damage possible and with relevant entries to be made in the fishing log.” Again, in this case according to paragraph 25 of the Fishing Rules, the master has to move his vessel 5 miles from his previous position, record his actions in the logbook and vessel log and report his action immediately to the FFA. Further, if the total TAC for a particular bycatch species has been used up, all such bycaught organisms have to be returned to their natural habitat, with minimum damage. Here too it should be noted that TACs are set for commercially valuable species such as pollock, cod, herring, and crabs, and that potential catches are established for little-used species such as sculpin, rays, and saffron cod in certain areas and for aquatic organisms of some value, e.g. capelin and sablefish for which there is currently no target fishery but which are caught incidentally in small quantities in other fisheries. The procedures for establishing TACs and PCs are identical, with scientific data underpinning their evaluations. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 91 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report (ii) VMS systems and compliance Article 19 of the Federal law “On Fisheries…” states that vessels engaged in commercial fisheries must be equipped with “technical means of control providing for continuous automatic transmission of information about vessel’s location and other technical means of control.” The procedure for installing a VMS on vessels is established under FFA order 50 of 14 July 2008, and the equipment has to have a certificate of compliance issued by the FFA’s CFMC registering it as meeting the requirements of the Fishery Monitoring System. After testing, all VMS equipment aboard a vessel is sealed to preclude mechanical intervention in its operation, and it should be operative at all times while the vessel is at sea. The FFA establishes VMS equipment performance requirements and authorizes suitable models. By 2011, 52.5% of all vessels catching pollock were operating solely with an Inmarsat-C device, 37.1% with an Argos device, and 10.4% with both devices (CFMC statistics). For the fishery seeking accreditation in the SOO, the percentages would be weighted more in favour of the Argos system, and year-on-year throughout all fisheries, the Inmarsat-C device was progressively being replaced by the more robust Argos system. The Inmarsat-C system provides automatic vessel location coordinates 15 times per 24 h and can be asked independently by the monitoring centre for more frequent coordinates. The Argos system provides coordinates every hour (24 times per day) and receives coordinates during every satellite pass over an area, needing satellite contact for at least 154 s to determine coordinates. In practice, by January 2012, the Argos system was delivering accurate coordinates 62−76 times per day even when the Argos system satellite was not covering a vessel for up to 6 h. In the event of VMS failure for technical or other reasons, the vessel master has to stop fishing, inform the CFMC and Coast Guard of the reasons for equipment failure and the time required to repair it, and request permission to continue or resume fishing (paragraph 10.3). In the event of VMS failure too, the vessel master has by order of the CFMC to ensure transmission of data on the vessel’s location every 4 h using other means of communication (paragraph 10.4). If the VMS cannot be repaired and automatic formal communication resumed within 48 h, the vessel has to return to port for it to be repaired or replaced (paragraph 10.5). While operating in a specific fishing area, a vessel is allowed to operate without a functional VMS according to the above conditions once only before returning to port (paragraph10.6). According to CFMC data, the number of registered cases of VMS equipment failure on all vessels fishing with any gear for pollock in all areas of the Far East basin (not just the SOO), requiring other means of communication of location coordinates to be used, for 48 h or more was 18 in 2010 and 29 in 2011. The FSB (which closely monitors all VMS operations) and the Customs Service enforce legal mandates through federal (Presidential) decrees and directives applying to Russian marine waters. The FSB enforces marine fishery laws and fishing rules to protect species and their habitats, and also organizes and coordinates the actions of all the management agencies responsible for the protection and control of aquatic living resources. The FSB Coast Guard enforces laws in Russian territorial, EEZ, and continental shelf waters, and also in international waters in the cases of salmon from Russian rivers. Formally appointed marine (fisheries) inspectors have a comprehensive list of duties and rights that correspond to the objectives of legally binding measures developed by the FAO (2007). Federal programmes are committed to strengthening the FSB Coast Guard by equipping them with six specialized patrol vessels and ~200 speedboats of various type. Finally, information in the form of media reports of GMI at-sea inspections and their results are transparently available on the Internet and cited in various formal publications. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 92 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The Customs Service inspects fish cargoes landed in Russian waters and destined for export. Prior to 2009, fish caught in the Russian EEZ could be trans-shipped at sea without clearing customs, but since then, all fish caught in the Russian EEZ have to be landed, and where possible, inspected in Russian ports. As a result, the Customs Service plays an important role in eliminating potential IUU fishing and cooperates with the FFA and the FSB in controlling international transfer and shipping of Alaska pollock from both the Western Bering Sea and the SOO. The Customs Service has legal procedures for Customs clearance of fishing vessels when entering and leaving Russian Customs territory, in particular relating to fish shipments on board such vessels. The procedures include provision for advance notification of port calls. Just as in other countries worldwide, however, the team notes that Customs clearance is not required where vessels leave to fish in the Russian EEZ or over the continental shelf without calling at a foreign port, nor are such vessels subject to Customs control when returning to ports with fish catches destined for domestic markets. 6.9 Dispute Resolution, Sanctions, and Incentives Court systems in Russia provide a mechanism to resolve disputes, such as those arising between fishing companies and inspectors. By providing legal guidelines for the fishing industry, the Supreme Court acted in 2010 to harmonize laws and enforcement procedures. Transparent governance mechanisms to avoid and resolve disputes include provisions to allow fishing companies to propose changes to fishing rules, and formal processes for citizens and NGOs to review annual TACs, most obviously through their encouragement to participate in Community Councils. A transparent auction system helps preclude disputes related to quota allocations. Recently, much-improved enforcement and strengthened sanctions, plus confiscations and quota cancellations (see below), have provided further legal incentives in Russia to obey the law. Under current law, the FFA can revoke fishing licenses and simply confiscate quotas in cases of fishery violation. Repeated offences can also lead to the total termination of the fishing rights of the offenders. In particular, Fishing Law Article 13 contains provisions for enforced termination of fishing rights for: • having violated fishery regulations twice or more per year and when violations resulted in large- scale damage to aquatic biological resources as defined, • failing to deliver catches to the Customs territory as required, and • having, without the required notification, a VMS device on board not working for more than 48 h in a calendar year. According to official statistics, the North-Eastern Border Control Department conducted the following numbers of at-sea inspections of vessels (catchers, trawlers, motherships) operating in the pollock fishery in the SOO (Table 20): Table 20: At-sea inspections in the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of at-sea inspections by the North-Eastern Border Control Department of the pollock fishery in 758 1 088 1 334 1 406 the Sea of Okhotsk Note: this list does not include GMI inspections of cargo (transport) vessels during trans-shipment. Compliance data on the SOO pollock fishery for the years 2008−2010 were provided by the North- Eastern Border Control Department and officially submitted to the PCA (under official document Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 93 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 21/705/2/1/2799 dated 11 May 2011). Detailed statistics in the form of comprehensive spreadsheets are available for perusal but are summarized here for ease of presentation and assimilation. Those spreadsheets list all violations in the SOO pollock fishery reported by the North-Eastern Border Control Department. Some violations and sanctions were subsequently not upheld by the court, and some violations resulted in a double penalty; for the captain, and for the ship owner as the legal entity (depending on the type of violation). Summary statistics for the years 2008–2010 are provided below, in Table 21. In 2008, the GMI (State Marine Inspectorate of the North-Eastern Border Control Department) identified 37 violations of fishery regulations on the SOO pollock fishery, including 23 related to exceeding the specified limit for pollock roe output (2008 was the first year when the new 4.5% limit on pollock roe yield was introduced), five violations of vessel documentation-keeping procedures (e.g. catch and production logbooks), and three cases of unreported products being found on board (a total of 16 t). There was one incidence of quota-overfishing, and one of fishing in a prohibited area. The total fines for 2008 are estimated at 2.4 million rubles, and 36 t of pollock product was confiscated. In 2009, there were 33 incidences of fishery regulation violation, including seven of quota-overfishing (total volume overfished, 39 t), six related to documentation (logbook) misdemeanour, five incidences of unreported product being on board (45 t total unreported products), four incidences of misreporting including daily vessel notification transgression, and six incidences related to carrying over-limit pollock roe. Fines of 6.5 million rubles were collected and 125 t of product was confiscated. In 2010, the GMI notified 24 violations of fishery regulations, including nine related to misreporting and daily notification, six of violation of logbook-keeping procedures, two of having on board unreported fish products (5 t in total), and three of catching without valid permission (69 t of pollock). The total fines imposed were >18 million rubles, and 74 t of pollock product were confiscated. Table 21: Summary compliance information for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery 2008 2009 2010 Number of vessels boarded 1 088 1 334 1 406 Increase over previous year +43.5% +22.6% +5.4% Number of violations 37 33 24 Decrease from previous year −14% −11% −28% Level of compliance (violations/inspections) 3.4% 2.5% 1.7% The team also noted that inspectors from the GMI (Border Control Department) are mandated to draw up protocols on fishery legislation violation and to make immediate decisions to stop catching, to arrest miscreants and hold their vessels, to take possession of incriminating documentation, and to dispose of or impound catching gear and equipment if appropriate. The courts make decisions on the fate of illegal catches and products, and of fishing vessels. The order and the procedure for decrees related to criminal and administrative misdemeanour are described in a specific Code (Administrative or Criminal) of the Russian Federation, and the period between violation and court appearance varies from a week to several months, depending on the amount of time needed to prepare the material for the court and that court’s schedule of cases. According to the Federal law “On fisheries…” (Article 53 “Compensation for harm caused to ABRs” [aquatic biological resources] “…compensation for harm caused to ABRs is made on a voluntary basis or on a court decision in accordance with approved rates and calculation methods of ABR damage, or in terms of the expenses associated with ABR recovery”. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 94 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Damage to the fishery considered as heavy (Government Decree 625 of 18 August 2008 “About calculating a damage volume made to ABRs and taken as heavy”) and its calculation is specified by the Russian Federal Government. In the Alaska pollock fishery, heavy damage is defined to start at 150 t. For quota-overfishing, the damage is calculated as the difference between the volume specified in the catch permit and the volume of fish caught. Where fishing is undertaken without an appropriate and correct catch permit, the damage is specified as the total volume of fish caught in excess of the allowable bycatch. The sanction rate where damage is deemed to be heavy is defined by Russian Federation Government Decree 24 of 26 September 2009 “About tax change for damage calculation in case of collecting for damage caused to ABRs”. For the Alaska pollock fishery, the fine for a single species regardless of its weight and size is 50 rubles. Clearly, Russia and this particular fishery management system is committed to strong sanction of miscreants and protecting the Alaska pollock fishery in the SOO. Inspections between 2008 and 2010 increased, but the percentage of violations per inspection (which was anyway small, <3.5% initially) halved over the three years as the level of fines noticeably burgeoned. This formal statistical information supports the verbal statements made to the accreditation team by many individuals during the site visit in summer 2011. However, other incentives underpinning the drive for sustainable fishing need to be mentioned here too. There is the incentive supplied by the opportunity to participate in a long-term (by international standards) and hence fairly stable fishery for up to 10 years, with longer-term policies decreed. Then there was the fleet-modernization incentive provided by the State’s offer of partial compensation of bank interest on loans supporting new vessel construction for the period 2008−2009 (a new fleet modernization programme is currently under consideration). The State shows by these two incentives and others known to the team that it is clearly committed to balancing fleet capacity against resource availability. Together with the punitive sanctions listed already (and available in detailed spreadsheets), there is an ethos within the fishing industry of support for the principle of sustainable fishing practice in the pollock fishery. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 95 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 7.0 Evaluation Procedure 7.1 Previous assessments This is the first MSC evaluation of the Russian Sea of Okhotsk mid-water pollock trawl fishery. 7.2 Assessment Methodologies The following MSC normative documents were used in the evaluation of this fishery: • MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Version 1.1. May 2010. • MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology (FCM) Version 6, September 2006. • MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology, Version 2.1, May 2010. • MSC Technical Advisory Board Directives and Policy Advisories as applicable. • MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2. The fishery was assessed using the Default Assessment tree as defined in the MSC Fisheries Assessment (FAM) version 2.1. There were no adjustments proposed for the assessment tree. Report preparation, from November 2011 onward, was conducted under the requirements and guidance of the following: • MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2. 7.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 7.3.1 Site Visits The site visit for all the Units of Certification in the Russian pollock assessment was conducted in Vladivostok from June 27 to July 8, 2011. The itinerary for the site visit, and those in attendance is set out below. Russian Pollock Fisheries Site Visit Assessment Schedule June 26 – July 08 2011 Vladivostok Sunday, June 26 Team Meeting Closed. – Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Steve Devitt. (Andy Payne arrived on June 28th) Monday, June 27 08:00 – 11:00 – Team Meeting Closed. 13:00 – 18:00 – Client meeting. Client presentation. “Dalryba” meeting room (PCA office). PCA stakeholders. Participants: Client: German Zverev – PCA Chairman, Grigory Abovsky – PCA Vice-Chairman, Chairman of TURNIF JSC (PCA Member Company), Petr Savchuk – CEO NBAMR JSC (PCA Member Company), Andrei Ovchinokov – Salers Director of NBAMR JSC (PCA Member Company), Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 96 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Fishery Improvement Partnership - Peter Hajipieris – Chief Technical, Sustainability & External Affairs Officer Birds Eye Iglo Group, TINRO: Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Steve Devitt (Andy Payne arrived on June 28th) Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Tuesday, June 28 - Principle 3 Fishery Management & Monitoring, control and surveillance 09:00 – 12:30 – Meeting with representatives of the Federal Fishing Agency. Participants: Deputy Minister, Federal Fishing Agency – V. Sokolov; Head of “Center for fisheries monitoring and communications” – M. San’yko; Head of Primorsky Department of FFA – A. Ivankov. Place – TINRO office 14:00 – 18:00 – Meeting with representatives of the Federal Fishing Agency. Participants: Deputy Minister, Federal Fishing Agency – V. Sokolov; Head of “Center for fisheries monitoring and communications” – M. San’yko Head of Primorsky Department of FFA – A. Ivankov. Place – TINRO office Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Vasiliy Sokolov – Deputy Minister - FFA, Andrei Solodouniyov - Center for Fisheries Monitoring and Communications, Lev Bocharov –Director, TINRO, Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO Client: German Zverev – PCA Chairman, Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO, Peter Hajipieris – Chief Technical, Sustainability & External Affairs Officer Birds Eye Iglo Group, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Steve Devitt (Andy Payne arrived during the late afternoon) Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov 19:45 – 21:00 – Stakeholder Consultation, WWF Russia Participants WWF: Konstantin Zgurovsky Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 97 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Wednesday, June 29 - Principle 1 Biology and population assessment in the SOO. TINRO experts: Smirnov A., Melnikov I. Ovsyannikov E., Ilyin O. (KamchatNIRO), others experts 09:00 – 12:30 – Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office Principle 1 – Biology and population assessment in the WBS. TINRO experts: Gritsay E., Smirnov A., Melnikov I., Ilyin O. (KamchatNIRO), others experts 14:00 – 18:00 - Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO, Anatoly Smirnov – Head Pollock Lab, Il’in Oleg – Stock Scientist, KamchatNIRO, Evgeniy Orgyannikov – TINRO, Artem Sheibak, TINRO, Elena Gritsay - TINRO Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Thursday, June 30 -Principle 1 Biology and population assessment in the WBS. TINRO experts: Gritsay E., Smirnov A., Melnikov I., Ilyin O. (KamchatNIRO), others experts 09:00 – 12:30 – Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office. Principle 2 – Ecosystem of the SOO. TINRO experts: Dulepova E., Kuzin A., Savin A., Smirnov A., Melnikov I., others experts 14:00 – 17:30 - Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO, Anatoly Smirnov – Head Pollock Lab, Il’in Oleg – Stock Scientist, KamchatNIRO, , Elena Gritsay – TINRO, Elena Dupepova – TINRO, V. Nadtochy – TINRO. Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Friday, July 01 Principle 2 – Ecosystem of the WBS. TINRO experts: Dulepova E., Kuzin A., Savin A., others experts) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 98 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 09:00 – 12:30 – Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office 14:00 – 17:30 - Meeting in TINRO. TINRO office. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO, Anatoly Smirnov – Head Pollock Lab, Il’in Oleg – Stock Scientist, KamchatNIRO, Evgeniy Orgyannikov – TINRO, Artem Sheibak, TINRO, Elena Gritsay – TINRO, Elena Dupepova – TINRO, V. Nadtodiy – TINRO. Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Monday, July 04 09:00 – 12:30 – Team Meeting Closed. – Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt. 14:00 – 18:00 – Follow up meeting with TINRO. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Igor Melnikov – Deputy Director of TINRO, Anatoly Smirnov – Head Pollock Lab, Oleg I. Il’in – Stock Scientist, KamchatNIRO, Evgeniy Orgyannikov – TINRO, Artem Sheibak, TINRO, Elena Gritsay – TINRO, Elena Dupepova – TINRO, Artem Sheibak – TINRO. Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Tuesday, July 05 09:00 – 12:30 – Meeting with the representatives of the Coast Guard. Visit to the GMI Operations Center. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Oleg Lukyanov – Coast Guard, Vladimir Tolkachev – Coast Guard, Vitaly Abrainov – Coast Guard. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 99 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, Sergey Sennikov – Fisheries Holding Karat, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt MSC Observer – Dan Hoggarth Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov 14:00 – 17:30 – Meeting with the representatives of the Coast Guard, Marine Division. Participants Management/ Scientific Agency: Tatiana Zhukova – Marine Division, Mihaie Mazchenko – Marine Division, Alexander Ivankov – Head of Department, Vassily Sitnikov – Deputy Chief of Marine Division. Client: Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, Sergey Senuikov – Fisheries Holding Karat, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt MSC Observer – Dan Hoggarth Interpreter: Konstantin Matofanov Wednesday, July 06 10:30 – 14:45 – PCA member fishing vessel visit. Trawler: “Vladivostok” Owner: TURNIF JSC Participants Client/ Vessel Crew: Makarov Victor V. – Deputy Director of TURNIF JSC, Ilyin Boris V. – Captain, Simonenko Alexander N. – Production Chief, Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne 08:30 – 09:15 – Stakeholder Consultation – Royal Greenland A/S - Teleconference Participants Royal Greenland – Lisbeth Due Schönemann-Paul - Corporate Sustainability and Environmental Manager, Dirk Scheuermann - purchaser of Alaska pollock Assessment Team: Robert O’Boyle, Steve Devitt 13:00 – 14:00 – Stakeholder Consultation – Pacific Andes - Teleconference Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 100 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Participants Pacific Andes: Ms. Jessie Ng - Executive Director, Mr. Benny Chuchen - General Manager - Trade Department, Mr. Kent Yeh - Director of Corporate Development & Planning Assessment Team: Robert O’Boyle, Steve Devitt 15:00 – 16:30 – Stakeholder Consultation – WWF US (Alaska) - Teleconference Participants WWF US: Heather Brandon – Senior Fisheries Officer, Bruce Robson – Consultant with WWF Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Thursday, July 07 8:00 – 12:00 – Final client meeting. Preliminary results. PCA stakeholders. PCA meeting room. Client: German Zverev – PCA Chairman, Alexey Buglak – PCA staff, Sergey Sennikov – Fisheries Holding Karat, On behalf of Iglo Group - Dave Garforth- Technical Director of Global Trust & Steve Nelson- Expert of Global Trust. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Robert O’Boyle, Don Bowen, Dave Japp, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt Monday, July 11 Stakeholder Consultation Session – MSC Regional Office, Seattle, Washington 10: 00 – 11:00 – Stakeholder Consultation – Birds Eye Iglo/ Russian Pollock Fishery Improvement Partnership Participants Birds Eye Iglo - Peter Hajipieris - Chief Technical, Sustainability & External Affairs Officer Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Don Bowen, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt MSC Observer: Jim Humphreys 11:00 - 12:00 – Stakeholder Consultation – Sustainable Fisheries Partnership - Teleconference Participants Sustainable Fisheries Partnership: Jim Cannon – CEO, Eugene Sabourenkov (via telephone) Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Don Bowen, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt MSC Observer: Jim Humphreys Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 101 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 13:00 – 15:30 - Stakeholder Consultation – At-sea Processors Association Participants At-Sea Processors Association – Stephanie Madson – Exec Dir, Jim Gilmore – Dir of Public Affairs, Paul McGregor – General Counsel, Ed. Richardson – Resource Economist. Assessment Team: Alexei Sharov, Don Bowen, Andy Payne, Steve Devitt MSC Observer – Jim Humphreys 7.3.2 Consultations Assessment team members met with and/or spoke to a number of stakeholders representing different groups throughout the course of the site visit. The names of individuals and affiliated organizations are listed above. Details of the interviews, as well as any submitted documentation are listed in Appendix C. Two groups of stakeholders provided input during the consultation process. The first group included those who were specifically invited by the assessment team to obtain specific information about the fishery and its management. This group included the clients, industry representatives, TINRO and FFA personnel, and members of other management agencies. The second group included those parties whose information was not specifically requested by the assessment team but who choose to present information about the fishery, the stock health science, fishery impacts and the fishery management system. This group included all other parties who have a concern about some aspect of the fishery and its management. The main topics discussed were the stock assessment process, IUU fishing, poor observer coverage and lack of transparency and availability of information regarding the fishery and stocks. All issues and concerns raised by stakeholders were considered in the scoring of the appropriate Performance Indicators (PIs). 7.3.3 Evaluation Techniques Pre-Assessment As required by the MSC program as the first step in the assessment process, TAVEL Certification Inc (subsequently purchased by Moody Marine) conducted a pre-assessment evaluation of the Russian Western Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk mid-water trawl pollock fisheries which included an examination of pollock as a potential P1 candidate species. The pre-assessment was conducted over a 14 month period starting in 2007 and terminating in 2008. After review of the pre-assessment, the PCA representatives decided to proceed into full certification assessment process. Initially, it was suggested that there be separate assessments of the two geographical areas, with possibility of multiple units of certification. Full Assessment Announcement and Preparation The full certification assessment of both Russian pollock fisheries commenced in September 2008. All aspects of the assessment process were carried out under the management of TAVEL Certification Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 102 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Inc. and subsequently Moody Marine Ltd., both accredited MSC certification bodies, and in direct accordance with MSC requirements (MSC Fisheries Certification Methodology Version 6). The Russian pollock fisheries announced MSC full assessment on 8 September 2008. The fishery assessment was announced via the MSC email notification system. The press release was also published by fishing industry internet news sites including Worldfishingtoday.com, Seafoodsource.com and Seafood.com. These outlets are well known seafood industry websites with readership in much of Europe and North America. The client also announced the full certification through a Russian web news service, Fishnews.ru. The fishery client provided information for both the pre-assessment and the full assessment with significant help from the scientific authority for the fishery, TINRO Center. The client prepared multiple information submissions for the pre-assessment and subsequently the full assessment in order to respond to the Fisheries Assessment Methodology default indicators. The first client submission prepared for the full assessment was published on the MSC website in September 2010. Team Nominations The first team nomination was issued in September 2008, at the time of the full assessment announcement. Team membership was subsequently revised in November and December 2010. The teams were confirmed in February 2011. The assessors who evaluated the fishery are listed above in Section 2.1. Use of the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology Default Performance Indicators The fishery was originally announced with the intention of using the MSC FAM Version 1 (July 2008) as the basis for evaluation. After discussions with the client, their consultant, Global Trust and the members of the assessment team, a decision was made to use the MSC FAM Version 2.1 and applicable MSC Technical Advisory Board Directives and Policy Advisories in force at the time of the site visit. The primary reason for this was ensure the fishery was evaluated with the most current version of normative documents available. The assessment team did not suggest any modifications to the default assessment tree and determined that the MSC risk-based framework assessment methodology was not necessary for the assessment. Report preparation, from November 2011 onward, was conducted under the requirements and guidance of the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2. Scoring fishery The assessment team scored the fishery using the required MSC methodology and without input from the client group or stakeholders. Team members prepared their initial impressions of the fishery performance and presented their opinions and supporting evidence to their team members during a scoring meeting session held at the Intertek Moody Marine (IMM) office in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, on October 6th and 7th, 2011. All team members participated and scores were agreed through consensus discussion of all team members of both assessment teams. There were subsequent electronic scoring discussions held amongst the certification team members during preparation of the client draft report. Classification of Principle 2 Species Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 103 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The MSC FAM v2.1 requires that the status, management and information for non-target species be evaluated under Principle 2. As this fishery interacts with a number of different species, it is important that readers understand where evaluation of those species can be found in Main Scoring Table for Principle 2 below (Table 27). Tables 14 to 17, in Section 5 above, provides the basis for the division of the non-candidate catch species into retained and bycatch categories. Data from the Russian Fishery Information System provided by TINRO Center for the period 2006- 2010, indicate that herring, Pacific and Wachna cods, flatfish (spp) and halibut accounted for most of the retained species catch (see Table 14). Landings of these species or groups of species averaged approximately 1.2% of the pollock catch for the period of 2006 to 2010. Individual numbers of salmon were retained during this 5-year period along with trace levels of other species as defined in Table 15. Report Drafting The assessment team, in collaboration with the IMM lead auditor, drafted the report in accordance with MSC required process. Selection of peer reviewers As required, IMM released an announcement of potential peer reviewers soliciting comment from stakeholders on the merit of the selected reviewers. The nominated peer reviewers were Dr. Pavel Balykin, Dr. Geir Honneland, Dr. Paul Medley and Dr. Kevin Stokes. Following the consideration of stakeholder and client comments, the selected peer reviewers were Dr. Pavel Balykin, Dr. Geir Honneland and Dr. Kevin Stokes. Their comments, and the IMM assessment team responses can be seen in Appendix A. Condition Setting and Client Draft Report Review The Assessment Team and IMM reviewed potential certification conditions once scores had been finalized and those PIs receiving scores less than 80 were identified. Subsequently, the client was informed of the initial scores via the Client Draft Report. This process included a review of any additional information submitted as clarification to points raised in the Client Draft Report. The client had a minimum of 30 days in which to review the Client Draft Report and provide feedback. Public Comment Periods on Report The MSC Certification Requirements v 1.2 require that the draft report be made available for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. Some stakeholders commented that given the nature of the fishery and the extensive supporting information largely unavailable to the non-Russian speaking public, 30 days for public comment was insufficient. To attempt to accommodate these concerns, the PCA made as much of the supporting information as possible available on their website which was established on 3rd July 2012. The information was available to the public since 3 July 2012. IMM notified interested stakeholders on the same day. At the Final Draft Report stage, the report is considered by IMM’s Governing Board (a body independent of the assessment team). The Board reviews the report and makes the final certification determination on behalf of IMM Ltd. The assessment team reviews the Board’s comments and makes changes as required, the final deterimination is then published on the MSC website for a final 15 working day period allowing stakeholders who have participated in the assessment to object to the Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 104 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report determination. If no objections are received, the Public Certification Report is then published on the MSC website, together with the fishery’s Certificate of Compliance, and the fishery is certified 7.4 Other Fisheries in the Area In the areas where pollock fishing is conducted, other commercial fisheries are conducted, including a seasonal herring fishery as well as a benthic longline fishery for assorted groundfish species. Pollock are caught in the longline fishery. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 105 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 8.0 Traceability 8.1 Eligibility Date Intertek Moody Marine and the client, Pollock Catchers Association, have agreed that the actual date of eligibility will be the beginning of the 2012 Sea of Okhotsk Pollock Fishery B Season, or 15 October 2012. 8.2 Traceability within the Fishery Legal Catch and Vessel Monitoring The Russian pollock fisheries are prosecuted using large and average sized vessels which catch and process pollock and other retained species at sea. Most product is caught, roe is stripped and suitable carcasses are headed, gutted and block frozen. Some product is also frozen whole round for processing at a shore side processing plant. All vessels operating in the fishery are required to be equipped with either an Inmarsat or Argos Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Dependent upon fishing area, the vessels are tracked by the regional Vessel Monitoring Centers (VMC) operated by the Federal Security Service (FSB). All companies are issued annual quota, dependent upon company share. Each vessel must have a catch permit on-board which instructs the captains how much product they are allowed to catch and in which fishing zones the catch is to be taken. While at sea, vessels are required to report daily and submit daily catch information and production volumes. If vessels do no report at the end of each day, the VMCs will contact them to identify the reason for lack of communication. Inspectors can board vessels often during the season. Inspectors review fishing logs, production logs, daily communications and verify hold contents. Risk of Vessels fishing outside the Unit of Certification It is concluded that there is low risk of Russian vessels fishing outside the EEZ, the commercially viable pollock concentrations are located in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk, in Zones 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Russian vessels do not fish in the “Peanut” Hole convention area in the middle of the SOO. It is possible that vessels fishing in the SOO may deploy to Russian EEZ fishing zones to the east (i.e. Zone 5.3, East Sakahlin), which are not part of the Unit of Certification. However, this catch would be traceable to the fishing logs and transhipment records. On-Board Processing and Labelling During the site visit, members of the assessment team met with the Captain and Production Manager of the Fishing Trawler “Vladivostok”. The crew explained how product is typically processed aboard Russian pollock fishing vessels. The team’s understanding is that while this procedure may vary slightly dependent upon fishing company and individual customer requirements, the procedure is basically the same for most at-sea processors. Production from each day is processed and frozen on a continual basis. Production plants use a system of marking the external packaging for pollock blocks, usually food grade paper. Blocks are put into paper sacks, and are either sewed shut with a different colour thread (one colour for each day) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 106 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report or often bags are labelled with different colour labels to indicate the day of production. Each bag is usually marked with a production code to indicate the day of production. Once frozen product is bagged, it is stored in the freezer holds. Usually, one of the Mates is responsible for supervising the storage of product. Product is stowed sequentially in holds and batches are typically evident based on the label or threads used to sew the sacs. Transhipment and First Point of Landing Product is transhipped to transport reefer vessels to allow the fishing vessels to continue to fish. All transhipments are conducted under supervision of FSB inspectors who are aboard the transport vessels at all times. Product is transferred and a tally is kept by both vessels. Once transhipped, all fisheries products caught by Russian vessels within the Russian EEZ must proceed to a designated Russian port for Customs inspection prior to export to another location. Much of the product caught in Russian waters is then expedited to Busan, Korea, where it is forward shipped to customers or for further processing. Risk of Substitution of Certified Fish with Non-certified fish prior to and at the point of Landing There is very low risk of substitution of certified fish. All transhipments are under Inspector supervision to the point of landing at a Russian port where they are Customs inspected and subsequently shipped back out to the Russian EEZ. If a transport has no more available cargo space and is en route to another country, the risk that the vessel will attempt to take more product on board is considered low, so the vessel may leave unsupervised. 8.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The scope of this certification ends at the first point of landing in Russian territory after completion of Customs inspection. Downstream certification of the product would require appropriate certification of storage and handling facilities at these locations. Only pollock caught by the PCA membership or signatories to the PCA cost-sharing agreement, as currently listed below, are eligible to enter Chains of Custody. In Nov-Dec 2012, 32 PCA member companies were assessed towards MSC Chain of Custody Standard. The audits were conducted by Food Certification International, an MSC accredited CAB. All 32 applicants passed assessment and obtained MSC Chain of Custody Certificates. The rest of PCA member companies are to apply for Chain of Custody certification in Jan-Feb 2013. The information about certified PCA suppliers is available at the MSC website searching form: http://cert.msc.org/supplierdirectory/VController.aspx?Path=be2ac378-2a36-484c-8016- 383699e2e466&LastPage=WebApp.pages.WucIndexPage . List of Companies Eligible to Use the Fishery Certificate. Active PCA member companies and vessels owned by these companies are eligible to use the fishery certificate (Table 22). The latest list of companies and vessels eligible to use the fishery certificate is available at the PCA website www.pollock.ru/eng and MSC webpage www.msc.org . Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 107 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 22: PCA member companies list (as of December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ocument: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 108 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 22 cont…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ocument: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 109 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 22 cont…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` <6=B+0*,")(J-ST$F+/S 32: :-.A<-?$B-&< QX <+.393"#T$Y1J$ 9:32 E%A"&?*BA<"?$HA+.-B 32:1 6&*Z%#/. 3821 8%'"+%#$H&*?#",(;< R^ Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 110 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 9.0 Evaluation Results 9.1 Principle Level Scores The overall performance of the Russian Sea of Okhotsk midwater trawl pollock fishery is identified in Table 23 below. The Assessment Team has recommended in accordance with MSC Certification Requirements that the fishery is eligible to be certified in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The following three normative requirements for certification have been met, primarily: 1. Each MSC Principle has an aggregated, weighted score of 80 or higher. 2. Individual performance indicators attained the minimum requirement of 60. 3. The client has agreed to improve performance of performance indicators with scores less than 80 through implementation of a client action plan. The final MSC Principle scores were calculated based on the MSC scoring methodology defined in the MSC FAM (V2.1). Table 23: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem Components 80.3 Principle 3 – Management System 85.1 9.2 Summary of Scores Individual performance indicator scores for the Sea of Okhotsk unit of certification can be seen below in Table 24. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 111 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Table 24: Summary Table of Performance Indicator Scores Prin- Wt Component Wt PI Performance Indicator (PI) ciple (L1) (L2) No. Score One 1 Outcome 0.5 1.1.1 Stock status 90 1.1.2 Reference points 80 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0.5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 75 Two 1 Retained species 0.2 2.1.1 Outcome 80 2.1.2 Management 85 2.1.3 Information 80 Bycatch species 0.2 2.2.1 Outcome 80 2.2.2 Management 85 2.2.3 Information 75 ETP species 0.2 2.3.1 Outcome 80 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 70 Habitats 0.2 2.4.1 Outcome 80 2.4.2 Management 85 2.4.3 Information 85 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.1 Outcome 85 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 75 Three 1 Governance and 0.5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 90 policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 95 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific 0.5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 85 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 85 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 70 9.3 Summary of Conditions The Russian Sea of Okhotsk midwater trawl fishery attained scores below 80 for the following performance indicators (Table 25). Certification conditions set out below are required to be addressed by a client action plan which meets the assessment team’s approval and required actions must be completed in the timeframe specified in order to maintain any subsequently awarded certification. The following conditions, milestones, client action plan and deliverables have been accepted by the assessment team. Table 25 presents a summary of the prescribed conditions and milestones, as well as the client action plan and proposed deliverables for this fishery. Tables 26, 27 and 28 provide detailed scoring rationales for all performance indicators defined in Principles 1, 2 and 3. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 112 Date of issue: January 2013 Table 25: Summary of Conditions Condition 1 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy: There The harvest strategy is expected to achieve The harvest strategy is responsive to the The harvest strategy is responsive to the is a robust and stock management objectives reflected in state of the stock and the elements of the state of the stock and is designed to precautionary harvest the target and limit reference points. harvest strategy work together towards achieve stock management objectives strategy in place achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference reflected in the target and limit reference points. points. The harvest strategy is likely to work The harvest strategy may not have been The performance of the harvest strategy based on prior experience or plausible fully tested but monitoring is in place and has been fully evaluated and evidence argument. evidence exists that it is achieving its exists to show that it is achieving its objectives. objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place that is expected to The harvest strategy is periodically determine whether the harvest strategy is reviewed and improved as necessary. working. Scoring Comments As described in section 4.5, a harvest strategy consists of a harvest control rule (HCR) informed by monitoring and assessment, which elicit a defined management response. The strategy for Sea of Okhotsk pollock contains all these elements and is similar to strategies developed for other stocks elsewhere in the world. It can be expected to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. During the site visit, considerable time was devoted to describing how the elements of the strategy work together towards achieving the objectives. In particular, the two-year projection process highlighted how uncertainty in the assessment is used to inform future TAC decisions. It was also noted that during the two-year process, updates are possible based upon new assessment results. Thus, the first SI of SG60 and SG80 are met. As noted above, the harvest strategy has all the elements of harvest strategies developed elsewhere and based upon this prior experience, is likely to work. However, the strategy is new, having been used for the first time in December 2010 to inform TAC decisions in 2012 and thus it is too early to state whether or not it is achieving its objectives. It has not undergone any testing, such as in a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), in which the robustness of achievement of objectives is evaluated taking into account the uncertainties in management, monitoring and assessment. Notwithstanding this, monitoring is in place (i.e. Synthesis assessment model) that provides the necessary platform for future determination of key population indicators and associated uncertainties. Therefore, the second SI of SG60 is met but not that of SG80. Monitoring is in place (i.e. Synthesis assessment model) which provides biomass and fishing mortality indicators which, when points of the HCR measured against the reference, allows determination of whether or not the strategy is working. The third SI of SG60 is met. Score: 70 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 113 Date of issue: January 2013 The three SIs are met at SG60. Only the first SI at SG80 is met. This PI therefore scores 70, requiring the following condition. Condition and Milestones Condition 1 As the harvest strategy is newly implemented, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy is to undergo testing to explore its robustness to management and assessment uncertainties. The client must annually provide evidence of the results of annual monitoring which demonstrate that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives as reflected in the target and limit reference points. Milestones First Surveillance The client must provide detailed written evidence of the annual monitoring in order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is working satisfactorily and is achieving the exploitation levels required in relation to the established reference points. The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance The client must provide detailed written evidence of the annual monitoring in order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is working satisfactorily and is achieving the exploitation levels required in relation to the established reference points. The milestone associated with the second surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Third Surveillance The client must provide detailed written evidence of the annual monitoring in order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is working satisfactorily and is achieving the exploitation levels required in relation to the established reference points. The milestone associated with the third surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Fourth Surveillance By the fourth surveillance audit, the client must provide written evidence, in the form of a report, which demonstrates that the harvest strategy has undergone testing to explore robustness to management and assessment uncertainties. Provided the actions defined in the milestones and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI is expected to be re-scored at 80 or higher, demonstrating that the second scoring issue of SG80 has been met. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 114 Date of issue: January 2013 Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan It is accepted that some elements of the harvest control rules which form the harvest strategy are new. Monitoring of the fishery is already in place to ensure that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. At each annual audit PCA will provide detailed evidence of the annual monitoring in order to demonstrate that the strategy is working satisfactorily and is achieving the exploitation levels required in relation to the established reference points. During the fourth year of the certification PCA will commission an independent evaluation of the strategy using a Management Strategy Evaluation or another appropriate evaluation method in order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Deliverables First, Second, Third Surveillance Audits At each annual audit PCA will provide detailed evidence of the annual monitoring in order to demonstrate that the strategy is working satisfactorily and is achieving the exploitation levels required in relation to the established reference points. Fourth Surveillance Audit By the fourth annual audit, the PCA will present a report which will demonstrate that the fishery is fully compliant with the second scoring issue in SG80 and achieve a minimum score of 80 for this PI. PI 1.2.1 Scoring Issue (80b): ‘The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. By the fourth annual audit the evidence of the monitoring of the fishery presented at each annual audit will have demonstrated that the fishery is compliant with the first element of SG 100 and should achieve a score of 85 for this performance indicator. PI 1.2.1 Scoring Issue (100a): The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Condition 2 1.2.3 Information / Some relevant information related to stock Sufficient relevant information related to A comprehensive range of information (on monitoring: Relevant structure, stock productivity and fleet stock structure, stock productivity, fleet stock structure, stock productivity, fleet information is collected composition is available to support the composition and other data is available to composition, stock abundance, fishery to support the harvest harvest strategy. support the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as strategy environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 115 Date of issue: January 2013 the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and fishery removals are Stock abundance and fishery removals are All information required by the harvest monitored and at least one indicator is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy control rule is monitored with high available and monitored with sufficient and coverage consistent with the harvest frequency and a high degree of certainty, frequency to support the harvest control control rule, and one or more indicators and there is a good understanding of the rule. are available and monitored with sufficient inherent uncertainties in the information frequency to support the harvest control [data] and the robustness of assessment rule. and management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Scoring Comments The MSC FAM v2.1 requires evaluation of information needs from the harvest strategy by six groupings – stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other data (para 6.3.15). These groupings apply to different SIs, which is taken into account in the scoring below. Stock structure PCA (2010) provides a review of a long series of studies that have been conducted on stock structure by Russian and Japanese scientists since the 1970s. This work is summarized in section 4.1. This work concludes that the current consensus on Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock structure is a metapopulation composed of several spawning components. The spawning distributions and timings of each component are well described as are the seasonal migrations of each group around the Sea of Okhotsk. There is some debate as to the status of pollock in East Sakhalin but this component is not included in the Unit of Certification. Overall, there is a comprehensive range of information on Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock structure. Stock productivity A wide range of data is available on different features of the productivity of Sea of Okhotsk pollock, including information on age and growth processes and maturity and fecundity data. These data have been and are routinely collected on surveys and observed fishing trips. A synopsis of the number of observations made since 1996 is provided in section 4.2. No analysis has been conducted on the sufficiency of these data although overall, the number of observations is large. Regarding growth studies, during 1996 – 2003, a transition from scales to otoliths was made in age determination. During the site visit, it was reported by TINRO scientists that ageing comparisons were made between the scale and otolith readings with no problems indicated up to at least age 6. It was unclear what error rates occurred in the older ages. Notwithstanding this, while the stock assessment models ages 2 to 20, ages six and under generally represent over 80% by numbers of the catch. Studies have been conducted on the stock’s density-dependent processes, focusing on the stock – recruitment relationship. As indicated in section 4.6, the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship used in the Synthesis model was considered too weak to allow estimation of analytically derived reference points. PCA_followup (2010) reports that explorations of a relationship which includes the abundance of sea lions, percent ice cover and the gross biomass of spring zooplankton, have been undertaken. This model improved the R2 of the Ricker relationship from the 6.5% estimated in the December 2010 Synthesis model to about 74%. Thus far, TINRO considered these explorations too preliminary to include in the Synthesis model and stock projections. Estimates of natural mortality (M) are based on life history parameters, specifically the gonad index (WGSI) for females at maturity state IV. The annual indices for 1996 to the present are averaged and then used in the equation of Gunderson and Dygert (1988) to provide a long-term estimate of M. This estimate is taken to be representative of M for ages 6 – 8. The method of Blinov (1977) is then used to estimate the pattern of M across ages. Thus, estimates of M used in the stock assessment have a basis in the life history Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 116 Date of issue: January 2013 observations of Sea of Okhotsk pollock. Overall, this is sufficient information on Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock productivity. Fleet composition There are a number of sources of information on the composition of the Sea of Okhotsk fishing fleets. These include the FFA vessel licensing system, logbooks and FSB reporting requirements of at-sea activities, scientific observers and fishery inspectors. Further, the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) provides accurate information on fishing location, which supplements that in the logbooks. Overall, this source of information is considered to be comprehensive. Stock abundance A suite of survey activities (described in section 4.2) are conducted in the Sea of Okhotsk each year, the primary one being the winter – spring ichthyoplankton / trawl survey. This 380 fixed-station survey has been conducted in a standardized fashion since 1972 and has covered the Northern Sea of Okhotsk since 1984, providing the annual assessment with its main index of spawning biomass. This is a time series of 26 years, which is over three times the generation time of pollock. A winter – spring acoustic survey has also been conducted since 1998. During the site visit, it was noted that this survey has been the focus of work to standardize its design and protocol and thus was used in the assessment. An ecosystem trawl survey has been conducted each fall since 2000 (gap in 2004 – 2006) with the objective to monitor broader changes in the ecosystem – species abundance and diversity changes, physical and biological oceanographic conditions and so on. While these data are not directly used in the pollock stock assessment, they are used to corroborate trends and better understand the dynamics of the pollock fishery in the broader context of the ecosystem. Finally, since 2001, a catch rate index has been estimated for the large trawler fleet and used as an index of fishable biomass in the annual stock assessment. Overall, stock abundance is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. What became apparent during the site visit and in PCA submissions (2010; 2011), is that correction factors are applied to the surveys to try and develop an absolute index of spawning biomass. It was unclear that the uncertainties in these data have been adequately described as well as the relative influence of these adjustments on the precision and accuracy of the index. Fishery removals Fishery removals are monitored by a suite of activities (see sections 4.2 and 6). Fishery inspectors (GMI) on transshipment vessels monitor 100% of what is equivalent to the landings while fishery logbooks, again 100% coverage, document these landings which are required to be reported daily to FSB. Scientific observers, Government Marine Inspectors and scientific fishing provide estimates of discarding which in combination with the landings provides estimates of the catch for the stock assessment. Scientific observer coverage on the large trawlers ranged from 2 to 6% during 2006 – 2010 while on the medium sized trawlers ranged from 0.4 to 2%. Coverage by GMI observers is higher (e.g. 14.3% in 2010). Together, at-sea coverage of large vessel hauls averaged about 20% during 2006 – 2010. While these rates appear to be adequate , given the operation of the fishery, no analysis has been undertaken to indicate what percent coverage would be required given the between and within vessel variability of the catch species and pollock size composition. During the site visit, while it was felt by TINRO that the coverage was sufficient, no analysis was provided to support this. It was reported that discard rates were currently low but had been an issue during 1990 – 1995, the period of USSR – Russian Federation transition. There were also problems with illegal fishing when vessels were allowed to land pollock at non-Russian ports (e.g. Korea), but legislation has been introduced stipulating that all catch must be landed in Russia. It was reported during the site visit that discard rates, mostly of juveniles, were currently low but had been an issue during 1990 – 1995, the period of USSR – Russian Federation transition. Since 1996, discarding of juveniles has also occurred although estimates of these are made and included in the assessment (see section 4.2). Further, regulatory efforts have been made to limit juvenile discards and there is evidence that these have been effective (see section 4.7). There were also problems with illegal fishing when vessels were allowed to land pollock at non-Russian ports (e.g. Korea), but legislation has been introduced stipulating that all catch must be landed in Russia. Regarding other fisheries, the coastal Danish seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf, while small, has increased in intensity since 2005, with harvesting primarily occurring Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 117 Date of issue: January 2013 during the pre-spawning and spawning period. In 2011, it represented 8.8% of the total pollock catch in the Northern Sea of Okhotsk. During the site visit, it was reported that sampling of this fishery has been expanded but it is too preliminary to be incorporated into the assessment. However, it was later clarified that monitoring of fishery removals and at-sea observer coverage is comparable to that of the directed pollock trawl fishery, with the information incorporated into the stock assessment. Given the small (8.8% of total pollock fishery catch in 2011) scale of this fishery, it is considered that fishery removals are well monitored and sampling is sufficient to characterize their age/size composition. An issue raised during the site visit was the lack of weights at age for all years in the assessment. The current assessment uses one weight at age for all years. During the site visit, it was reported that this was due to mechanical problems with the at-sea scales which considerably reduced the amount of reliable data available to reliably determine weight – length relationships and thus the annual weights at age. Other data PCA (2010; 2011) describes a comprehensive array of information on the physical and biological oceanography and the ecosystem of the Sea of Okhotsk. These data are routinely collected on the surveys noted above and reported in such venues as PICES. These data are an important supplement to the pollock assessment information. Synopsis Information on stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is sufficient to support the harvest strategy and other data are also available. The first SI is scored at SG80. Stock abundance is monitored by at least one indicator on an annual basis (in fact four indicators are available - three survey and one CPUE) which is sufficient to support the HCR. What is not apparent is the statistical properties of the primary survey index (ichthyoplankton/trawl survey) which would inform the uncertainties in the assessment and hence the HCR. Fishery removals are monitored although it is not completely clear that the level of at –sea observer of fishing activities is consistent with the HCR. The second SI is scored at SG60 but not at SG80. There is good information on the emerging Danish seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf. Thus, the third SI of SG80 is met. Score: 75 The two SIs of SG60 are met as well as the first and third SI of SG80. Most SG80 scoring issues are met, few are not, this PI scores 75, thus requiring the following condition. Condition and Milestones Condition 2 By the second surveillance audit, provide a written report evaluating the monitoring program for the fishery (e.g. analysis of the accuracy and at-sea observer coverage of both the ichthyoplankton / trawl survey and fishery removals), which demonstrates that stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and at- sea observer coverage consistent with the harvest control rule. Milestones First Surveillance At the first surveillance audit, the client must provide a written report to demonstrate coverage, consistency and accuracy of the records of landings, of survey activities and analysis that these are consistent with the harvest strategy and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. This must include monitoring of the seine net fishery on the West Kamchatka Shelf. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 118 Date of issue: January 2013 Provided the actions defined in the milestone and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 75 at the first surveillance audit on the basis of the third scoring issue of the SG80 having been met. Second Surveillance By the second surveillance audit, the client must provide a written report evaluating the monitoring program for the fishery (e.g. analysis to ensure that the accuracy and coverage of both the ichthyoplankton / trawl survey and fishery removals are consistent with the harvest strategy), which demonstrates that stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and that one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Provided the actions defined in the milestone and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the second surveillance audit. Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan At the first surveillance audit PCA will provide a written monitoring report to demonstrate coverage, consistency and accuracy of the records of landings, of survey activities and analysis that these are consistent with the harvest strategy and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. This will include monitoring of the developing seine net fishery on the West Kamchatka Shelf. By the second surveillance audit, PCA will provide a full evaluation of all the fishery independent surveys which are used in the stock assessment in the form of a written report. Deliverables Two written monitoring reports will be provided. As a result the fishery will achieve a minimum score of 80 for this performance indicator at the second surveillance audit. First Surveillance Audit The first report, detailed above, at the first surveillance audit is expected to partially achieve the second scoring issue of SG80 and fully achieve the third scoring issue. Second Surveillance Audit The second written report, evaluating the fishery independent surveys will be provided by the second surveillance audit and is expected to fully achieve the second scoring issue of SG80. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 119 Date of issue: January 2013 Condition 3 1.2.4 Assessment of stock The assessment estimates stock status The assessment is appropriate for the stock The assessment is appropriate for the stock status: There is an relative to reference points. and for the harvest control rule, and is and for the harvest control rule and takes adequate assessment of evaluating stock status relative to into account the major features relevant to the stock status reference points. the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment identifies major sources of The assessment takes uncertainty into The assessment takes into account uncertainty. account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment of stock status is subject to The assessment has been internally and peer review. externally peer reviewed. Scoring Comments Prior to 2010, assessments of Sea of Okhotsk were based upon the direct enumeration of spawning stock biomass using winter - spring ichthyoplankton / trawl surveys in each subzone. VPA-based assessment models (XSA, ICA, ISVPA) by subzone were then used to project an upcoming year’s TAC. While these (and more recently a Statistical Catch at Age (Synthesis) formulation) were run in parallel to the direct enumeration method, the latter was used as the basis of harvest advice. In December 2010, pollock in the Northern Sea of Okhotsk were assessed as one stock using the Synthesis model (described in section 4.2) for the first time. The decision to use Synthesis over the previously used ISVPA was based on a comparison of observed and predicted spawning biomass from the two models. Synthesis better matched recent trends in biomass than did ISVPA. During the site visit, it was noted that Synthesis will be the preferred method for future assessments. An advantage of Synthesis over previous methods is that it evaluates stock indicators such as spawning biomass and fishing mortality against reference points which are also estimated from the same dataset, thus ensuring consistency in the numbers. Further, Synthesis has the prospect of allowing comparison of population indicators with analytically derived reference points. Thus, the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points, which is used to inform a HCR. The first SI of SG60 and SG80 are met. The Synthesis model recognizes the major sources of uncertainty as being in the catch at age, the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship, and the fishing mortality - effort, spawning biomass - survey biomass and fishable biomass – commercial catch rate relationships. Uncertainty in these model components is incorporated through lambda terms in the objective function (described in section 4.2) determined by expert judgment. A regulatory change in 2001 was incorporated in the model through use of two selectivity time blocks. While other sources of uncertainty are recognized (e.g. M and ageing), relative to the other sources, these are not considered major. Notwithstanding this, the assessment team considered that while the assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, it is only taking these into account to a limited degree. The Monte Carlo characterization of uncertainty in historical biomass appears to be understating uncertainty, this due to consideration of error only associated with the catch at age. Both fishing mortality – effort and catch rate – fishable biomass relationships are incorporated into the model, which appears to be redundant use of the same data. Further, catch rate indices Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 120 Date of issue: January 2013 are prone to hyper-stability. The use of one weight at age vector for all years in the analysis (1963 – 2010) is worrisome. Finally, error in ageing and natural mortality is yet to be incorporated in the analysis. Thus, while the assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, it only takes these into account to a limited degree. Thus, the second SI is met at SG60 but not at SG80. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that since the site visit, estimation of uncertainty has adopted a bootstrap approach, with sampling of residuals associated with the catch at age and stock abundance indices (e.g. CPUE and survey indices) used to characterize uncertainty and is a positive development in the assessment. The assessment is subject to a multi-level Russian peer review process including scrutiny at the laboratory (e.g. TINRO), regional and national level. Review consists of experts both within the fisheries agency and outside in the academic environment. During the site visit, it was noted that this peer review can result in modification to draft TACs (reductions only permitted), evidence of which was presented in submission documents. No foreign experts have been involved in this review process and it is unclear as to the level of scrutiny that assessments receive. On balance, however, it is considered that the third SI of SG80 is met. Score: 75 The two SIs of SG60 are met as are the first and third SIs of SG80. The second SI of SG80 is not met thus score of 75 was awarded and the following condition set. Condition and Milestones Condition 3 By the third surveillance audit, provide a report which details how the assessment appropriately evaluates major sources of uncertainty and takes them into account. Milestones First Surveillance The client must provide a detailed written update of the status of the project, including draft terms of reference for the assessment review and proposed candidates to undertake the review. The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance By the second surveillance audit, the client must provide evidence that the review has been commissioned, the final terms of reference for the review and the final list of candidates chosen to complete the review. The milestone associated with the second surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Third Surveillance By the third annual surveillance audit, the client must provide the completed written review detailing how the assessment appropriately evaluates major sources of uncertainty and takes them into account. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 121 Date of issue: January 2013 Provided the actions defined in the milestones and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the third surveillance audit. Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan By the second surveillance audit PCA will commission a written review provided by fishery science institutions (both from those within and external to the SOO fishery) of the assessment model and its effectiveness in addressing all major sources of uncertainty. PCA will require the review to consider whether there are alternative assessment models which should be evaluated. Any recommendations from the review will be considered for incorporation into the assessment process where appropriate. Deliverables First Surveillance Audit The PCA will provide a detailed written update of the status of the project, including draft terms of reference for the assessment review and proposed candidates to undertake the review. Second Surveillance Audit Appropriate scientific personnel will be identified by the second surveillance audit and the report will be commissioned for completion within one year Third Surveillance Audit The written report will be presented to the audit team prior to the third annual surveillance. This review is expected to fully achieve the requirements of SG80 resulting in a minimum score of 80 for this performance indicator. Condition 4 2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some Accurate and verifiable information is monitoring amount of main bycatch species affected quantitative information are available on available on the amount of all bycatch and Information on the by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch species the consequences for the status of affected nature and amount of affected by the fishery. populations. bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to estimate Information is sufficient to quantitatively by the fishery and the understand outcome status with respect to outcome status with respect to biologically estimate outcome status with respect to effectiveness of the biologically based limits. based limits. biologically based limits with a high strategy to manage degree of certainty. bycatch. Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a measures to manage bycatch. partial strategy to manage main bycatch comprehensive strategy to manage species. bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 122 Date of issue: January 2013 of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in detect any increase in risk to main bycatch sufficient detail to assess on-going species (e.g. due to changes in the mortalities to all bycatch species. outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Scoring Comments Both qualitative and quantitative information has been presented for the fishery including perspectives of fishing captains and comments from researchers who have been involved in the pollock fishery historically. This gave the team a broad understanding of the bycatch in the fishery and this perspective has been used as the basis for management measures (qualitative). However, the quantitative data are based on limited scientific reports and on the presented Observer data summaries. Based on this the assessment team notes the MSC definition, that most of the caught species effectively are classified as bycatch because of their low frequency in the catches (as determined by reported catches from the FSB). Annual assessments are made of all the primary commercial species as well as precautionary limits (possible catches) set for many of the species for which there are no formal stock assessments. These data continue to be collected but more comprehensive information from independent sources could further corroborate the catch declarations of retained species as well as the other bycatch species not declared in the catch reports, which are either discarded or processed for meal. SG60: Qualitative information has been presented on bycatch that is adequate to broadly understand outcome status, and on this basis there is information on which measures can be based to manage bycatch. SG80: There are some quantitative data as well as independent observer estimates of bycatch. Data collected is adequate to support a partial strategy for the management of main bycatch species and are considered sufficient to detect any increase in risk to possible main bycatch species. Increased levels of independent observer data would give higher confidence in the information provided i.e. SI 1, 2 and 3 are met at SG80, but not SI 4. Score: 75 All of SIs for SG60 and three of the four SG80 SIs are met so a score of 75 is awarded and the following condition set. Condition and Milestones Condition 4 By the second surveillance audit, demonstrate through a detailed analysis and written report, that sufficient data continue to be collected to estimate outcome status with respect to biological based limits (SI 2) and to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy), (SI 4). Milestones Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 123 Date of issue: January 2013 First Surveillance At the first annual surveillance audit, the client must provide a detailed written report and analysis of the data collected on main by-catch species. The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance At the second surveillance audit, the client must provide a detailed written report and analysis of the data collected on all main by-catch species. An evaluation of their vulnerability status due to the operation of the fishery will be made using biological based limits.. Provided the actions defined in the milestone and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the second surveillance audit. Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan At each annual surveillance audit we will provide a detailed written report and analysis of the data collected on all by-catch species whether or not they form <5% of the total catch. The report will compare estimates obtained through the statutory recording and reporting of bycatch by the independent on board observers and estimates obtained through a new programme of observer coverage of an appropriate sample of the fleet by scientific staff. An evaluation of their vulnerability status will be made using biological based limits for main by-catch species >5% considered at greater risk due to the operation of the fishery. The report will also contain discard monitoring evaluation. Deliverables First, Second, Surveillance Audits The reports detailed above will be presented to at each annual surveillance audit and the fishery is expected to be fully compliant with the second and fourth scoring issues of SG80 by the second surveillance audit and achieve a score of 80 for this performance indicator. PI 2.2.3 SI (80b): Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. PI 2.2.3 SI (80d): Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 124 Date of issue: January 2013 Condition 5 2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to determine Information is sufficient to quantitatively monitoring understand the impact of the fishery on whether the fishery may be a threat to estimate outcome status with a high degree Relevant information is ETP species. protection and recovery of the ETP of certainty. collected to support the species, and if so, to measure trends and management of fishery support a full strategy to manage impacts. impacts on ETP species, including: Information is adequate to support Sufficient data are available to allow Information is adequate to support a - information for the measures to manage the impacts on ETP fishery related mortality and the impact of comprehensive strategy to manage development of the species fishing to be quantitatively estimated for impacts, minimize mortality and injury of management strategy; ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high - information to assess degree of certainty whether a strategy is the effectiveness of the achieving its objectives. management strategy; and Information is sufficient to qualitatively Accurate and verifiable information is - information to estimate the fishery related mortality of available on the magnitude of all impacts, determine the outcome ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the status of ETP species. consequences for the status of ETP species Scoring Comments Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lion pup production and non-pups counts are monitored periodically in the protected areas. Observers are required to report on interactions with bycatch including seabirds and mammals, although these data currently report zero interactions. There have been numerous surveys to estimate abundance of marine mammals including Steller sea lions. Information on Steller Sea Lions is therefore substantial and considered sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery– related mortality. Observer reports accommodate mortality estimates (zero reported), however the low coverage give poor confidence on the estimates of potential mortality of sea lions in pollock trawls. Because pollock vessels maintain a minimum of 30 nautical miles distance from rookeries, mortality in pollock trawls is unlikely. (SG 60 and SG 80 met and none of SG100) Cetaceans Threatened cetacean species (predominantly large mammals) are not reported to interact with pollock trawls (SG100 met). Albatross (Short-Tailed) No mortalities of short-tailed albatrosses are reported for pollock trawls although confidence in this quantitative data is low due to low Observer coverage and the lack of any detailed mitigation strategy for sea birds to minimised potential impacts on albatrosses. Information is considered adequate to broadly understand the status of the short-tailed albatross but not explicitly of the direct impact of the fishery. Short-tailed albatross breeding colonies are also located outside of the SOO. Abundance data are collected by non-Russian agencies and researchers. All SI of SG60 are met and the first SI of SG80 is met. SG60: Information is available on the populations of Steller Sea lions, short-tail albatross, otters and other mammals. There are surveys of colonies. Observer data report zero Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 125 Date of issue: January 2013 interactions – on this basis the information is sufficient for a qualitative assessment of status and direct fishery impacts and is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. All three scoring issues at SG60 are met. SG80: As no species are threatened directly by the fishery (Steller sea lions are assumed to be recovering and not impacted by the SOO fishery), the information is considered to be sufficient. The data are however not considered sufficient to quantify the mortality of short-tailed albatross in the fishery – so only the first SI is met for SG80 (for all identified ETP species) Score: The three SIs at SG60 and the first at SG80 are met, but the second SI at SG80 is not therefore a score of 70 is awarded and the following condition has been set. Condition and Milestones Condition 5 By the fourth surveillance audit the client will demonstrate that sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Particularly, the client needs to initiate studies on the diet and foraging behaviour of Steller sea lions in the SOO to determine feeding rates on pollock, to be completed by the end of year 3 of certification, and to record observations of sea mammal and seabird interactions with trawls to determine if there are any mortalities of sea mammals and seabirds in pollock trawls, to be completed by the end of year 3 of certification. Milestones First Surveillance By the first annual surveillance audit, the client must: 1. Commission work to collate all of the existing research data on the diet and foraging behaviour of Steller sea lions; 2. Initiate annual reporting of the interactions between the fishery and sea birds including seabird mortalities. These reports are intended to provide a benchmark to assess progress towards full compliance with the second scoring issue of SG80. The surveillance team will review and confirm whether the information the client provides is likely to fulfil their expectations for meeting this condition. Meeting this milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance The client must provide a written report on the commissioned Steller sea lion work and the annual report of interactions between the fishery and sea birds including seabird mortalities. The surveillance team will review and confirm whether the information the client provides is likely to fulfil their expectations for meeting this condition. Meeting this milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Third Surveillance The client must provide a written report on the commissioned Steller sea lion work and the annual report of interactions between the fishery and sea birds including seabird mortalities. The surveillance team will review and confirm whether the information the client provides is likely to fulfil their expectations for meeting this condition. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 126 Date of issue: January 2013 Fourth Surveillance By the 4th audit the client must demonstrate that sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan The assessment report recognises that the monitoring of interactions with Steller Sea lions and cetaceans is adequate. This level of monitoring of interactions in the fishery will continue and a monitoring report provided at each annual audit. PCA will commission work to collate all of the existing research data on the diet and foraging behaviour of Steller Sea lions. The findings of this activity can be reported at the first surveillance audit. If a requirement for further research is identified in relation to feeding rates on pollock and other interactions with the fishery PCA will explore the possibility of relevant funding for an appropriate research project to be started during the period of certification. To monitor and report information on interactions between the fishery and seabirds and to record any resultant seabird mortality will be added to the brief of all on board observer teams. Their observations will be reported at each annual surveillance audit. PCA note the comments of the assessment team in relation to monitoring bird strikes and will fully appraise the on board observers of these issues and the importance of accurate recording of all interactions with the fishing gear. Deliverables First, Second, Third Surveillance Audits Annual reports detailed above, on the two separate issues, will be provided at each surveillance audit. These reports will provide a benchmark to assess progress towards full compliance with the second scoring issue of SG80. Any requirements for change will thus be identified and acted on through an iterative process with the audit team. PI 2.3.3 ETP Information/monitoring SI (80b): Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. The fishery is expected to be fully compliant with SG80 and achieve a minimum score of 80 by the fourth annual surveillance audit. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 127 Date of issue: January 2013 Condition 6 2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to broadly monitoring elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic understand the functions of the key understand the key elements of the There is adequate structure and function, community elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. knowledge of the composition, productivity pattern and impacts of the fishery on biodiversity). the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main interactions between the fishery and ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from these ecosystem elements can be inferred existing information, but have not been existing information, but may not have from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. investigated. The main functions of the Components The impacts of the fishery on target, (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are Habitats are identified and the main known. functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is available on the Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these impacts of the fishery on the Components Components to allow some of the main and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Information is sufficient to support the detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due development of strategies to manage to changes in the outcome indicator scores ecosystem impacts. or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Scoring Comments Through surveys and ecosystem modeling, information is adequate to identify and broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting the first SI of SG60 and SG80. The main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem components can be inferred from the ecosystem modeling but have not been investigated, meeting the second SI of SG60 and SG80 but not the first SI of SG100. The main functions of the ecosystem components are generally known but the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, ETP species and the habitat have not been identified, Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 128 Date of issue: January 2013 meeting the third SI of SG80 but not the second SI of SG100. Sufficient information is available to allow inference of some but not all of the main ecosystem impacts of the fishery, meeting the fourth SI at SG80 but not SG100. In order to detect any increase in the risk level to ecosystem components, the assessment team considers that more quantitative information on impacts is required. The fifth SI of SG80 is not met. SG60: Information on the SOO ecosystem is adequate to identify key elements of the ecosystem, and the main impacts of the fishery on the system can be inferred. SG80: Information is adequate to broadly understand the system and the main impacts of the fishery can be inferred. The impact of fishery removals is difficult to quantify although models have been developed for the SOO. Sufficient data are being collected, although a higher level of sea-based research on trophic structure would increase the information needed to support ecosystem models. Score: 75 The two scoring issues of SG 60 and the first four scoring issues at SG80 are met. The fifth scoring issue at SG80 is not met. Therefore a score of 75 is awarded and the following condtion set. Condition and Milestones Condition 6 By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence to demonstrate that sufficient information is available and continues to be collected on the impacts of the fishery on these Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) and key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity) to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Milestones First Surveillance At the first annual surveillance audit, the client must provide a written report that describes the information collected in relation to other ecosystem components (see first annual milestones for Conditions 2, 4, 5) and key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestones would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance By the second annual surveillance audit, the client must provide a report which details an analysis of these data in order to demonstrate that the current level of monitoring is Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 129 Date of issue: January 2013 adequate in relation to understanding the impact of the fishery on the whole ecosystem. Provided the actions defined in the milestones and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the second surveillance audit. Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan A summary of all the information collected and reported on in relation to target species (Condition 2), by-catch species (Condition 4) and Steller Sea lions and Cetaceans (Condition 5) will be provided. The report will clearly differentiate between retained species of commercial value and bycatch species of no commercial value. An analysis of these data will be carried out in order to demonstrate that this level of monitoring continues to be adequate in relation to understanding the impact of the fishery on the whole ecosystem. All the information in the above report will eventually be incorporated into a trophic model of the SOO ecosystem to better understand the potential impact of the pollock fishery. Deliverables First Surveillance Audit The PCA will provide a written summary report that describes the information collected in relation to other ecosystem components as detailed in Conditions 2, 4 and 5 above. Second Surveillance Audit The report detailed above will be provided at the second surveillance audit and is expected to be sufficiently detailed to fully comply with the requirements of the final scoring issue of SG 80 and thus achieve a score of 80 for this performance indicator. The results of trophic modeling will be presented at subsequent annual surveillance audits and may be sufficient to comply with some elements of SG100. Condition 7 3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal decision-making There are established decision-making processes processes that result in measures and processes that result in measures and The fishery-specific strategies to achieve the fishery-specific strategies to achieve the fishery-specific management system objectives. objectives. includes effective decision-making Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to all processes that result in serious issues identified in relevant serious and other important issues issues identified in relevant research, measures and strategies research, monitoring, evaluation and identified in relevant research, monitoring, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in to achieve the consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a a transparent, timely and adaptive manner Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 130 Date of issue: January 2013 objectives. 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 decisions. of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for any actions Formal reporting to all interested or lack of action associated with findings stakeholders describes how the and relevant recommendations emerging management system responded to findings from research, monitoring, evaluation and and relevant recommendations emerging review activity. from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Scoring Comments There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The process leading to decision-making in the Russian pollock fishery for the Sea of Okhotsk is clear and seemingly robust, at least in terms of its broad-ranging, comprehensive consultation. The system is based on sound science, all available information being used in the process and evaluated by experts regionally and centrally in Moscow. Experts in many fields of science and economics then probe the outcome of the assessments and ask the questions necessary to achieve the objective of sustainability of the fishery and of the ecosystem in which it operates. As in most such consultations worldwide, the evaluation tends to be weighted towards the target species, in this case pollock, but the type of environmental/ ecosystem questions posed and answers given to the evaluation process are appropriate and relevant; the questions show good understanding of the system in which the pollock fishery is prosecuted. The established decision-making process clearly responds to the requirements of the first scoring issue of both the 60 and 80 SGs. Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. There is a national research plan that is subject to regular updating, although there is evidence that much of the research is being done “because it has always been done that way”. In other words, decisions could be made on the basis of how there has always been a response to research output, rather than by stimulating a response by requesting that new, innovative appropriate research be carried out. In terms of the formal assessment and the output in terms of management advice, however, the decision-making process is fully reactive and adaptive, based on up-to-date catch statistics, survey results and all other relevant research output. That it is timely (though takes a long time, as all such systems do) is also not questioned, but it was not that easy to conclude that the processes involved in this scientific evaluation, as opposed to management evaluation, are transparent throughout, specifically in the ability of the team to access some of the crucial assessment documentation. This was almost certainly the consequence of interpretation issues, but simply making material more available publically on, for instance, the internet will help. Notwithstanding, all requests from the team for information were met positively, and documentation swiftly provided. It is notable that the wider implications of all decisions, on the serious issues and possibly other more mundane issues too, are considered in producing the management advice, judging by the notes of the evaluation meetings and the expertise present at them. The team was concerned too that, although the management system “seemed” to be transparent, at least that the team was told it was by all those questioned, we were not that convinced that the culture of the system in Russia promoted the form of transparency to which one is accustomed in the western, developed (by definition) world. Overall, therefore, the team considered that the evidence provided did not demonstrate that all identified issues in research, monitoring, evaluation and Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 131 Date of issue: January 2013 consultation were being responded to openly and as transparently as they should be, although the serious ones were, so the 60 SG scoring issue was met, but not the 80. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. As stated above, all (and best) information is used in decision-making, at least all natural scientific information. There are few parts of the world where social and economic data are taken into consideration formally and rigorously in the evaluation process, so the pollock fishery is not unusual in that respect. However, explicit in the assessment methodology is the precautionary principle, as explained in the Babayan (2000) document. Overall, adherence to the precautionary principle as defined by the FAO (1995) is strong, so this aspect of decision-making is well catered for. The third scoring issue under the 80 SG was considered met. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Effort is made to provide formal feedback resulting from decisions on management, through publicizing the minutes of the various meetings, but there does not seem to be directed formal reporting to all (or even to some) stakeholders unless the latter specifically request it. The same clearly applied to the team’s specific requests for access to information, as stated above. This might be a part legacy of the system applying 20 or so years ago in Russia (the Soviet Union), but in terms of international standards, it is not unusual. Certainly, the team found no attempt to hide the decisions and the reasoning on which they are based, and websites are used to support such actions. The fourth 80 SG scoring issue is considered met. As per the requirements of the MSC Policy Advisory 18, the first and third scoring issues under the 100 SG have been deleted from the higher scoring guidepost because of their repetition from the 80 SG, and do not contribute to scoring under those SGs. All but one 80 SG scoring issues were clearly met (and that one scored 60 based largely on the transparency issue), and no 100 SG scoring issues were met. A score of 75 was therefore awarded. Score: 75 The two scoring issues of SG60 and three of four scoring issues of SG 80 are met. Therefore a score of 75 is awarded and the following condtion set. Condition and Milestones Condition 7 By the second surveillance audit, the client will implement a strategy to ensure that its management decision making processes which respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, are transparent (i.e. that information is more readily available) and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Milestones First Surveillance At the first annual surveillance audit, the client must provide an interim written progress report of evidence that a strategy has been implemented to ensure that its management decision-making processes which respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, are transparent (i.e. that information is more readily available) and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 132 Date of issue: January 2013 this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance At the second surveillance audit, the client must provide evidence that a strategy has been implemented to ensure that its management decision-making processes which respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, are transparent (i.e. that information is more readily available) and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Provided the actions defined in the milestones and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the second surveillance audit. Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan The strategy to clearly demonstrate that the decision-making processes as described in the condition are transparent (i.e. that information is more readily available) is as follows: By the second surveillance audit PCA will list all the relevant research projects related to this fishery both past and on-going and make publicly available to help demonstrate how they have contributed to the basic understanding and sound management of the fishery, in relation to its long-term conservation and ecosystem impact. Information will become more readily accessible by non-Russian interested parties and external bodies via PCA-promoted website development activities and published information. Information availability will identify the decision-making processes and how information generated by fishery-independent and -dependent activities is utilized in the decision- making process. Deliverables First Surveillance Audit The PCA will provide a written progress report of completed tasks, remaining tasks and deliverables timeline update at the first surveillance audit. Second Surveillance Audit The relevant list, and related information, detailed in paragraph 1 above will be provided by the PCA and demonstrated as ‘publicly available’ at the second annual surveillance audit. Over the first two years of certification PCA will develop and enhance the website described in paragraph 2 above. The level of information available and its accessibility will make the fishery fully compliant with the second scoring issue of SG80 by the second surveillance audit. The fishery will thus achieve a minimum score of 80 for this performance indicator. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 133 Date of issue: January 2013 Condition 8 3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to management evaluate some parts of the management evaluate key parts of the management evaluate all parts of the management performance system and is subject to occasional system and is subject to regular internal system and is subject to regular internal evaluation internal review. and occasional external review. and external review. There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Comments The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate (some of the) key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The overall fishery management system is based on similar systems in place worldwide. It is seemingly effective in its operation, though is clearly still developing, and is impressive in that its development to international standards is not much more than a decade long. Many (organizations and people) are involved in the system, and several key people lead the main functions and organizations, and its general administrative and bureaucratic transparency throughout is obvious. It is obvious too that its development has been both proactive (to an urgent need) and reactive (to international developments and requirements), and is therefore most certainly under rigorous internal review, where “internal” here means federally within Russia and regionally in its far east. What is not so clear, however, is whether there is now, or indeed was ever much, external review of (some of the key aspects of) the management system. The term “external” is generally taken to mean external to the country, but guidance in FAM v2.1 (at 8.3.18) advises that “external review” means external to the fisheries management system, but not necessarily international. Certification requirement v1.2 also advises (CB4.11.1) that teams should interpret “External review” at SG80 and 100 to mean external to the fisheries management system, but not necessarily international. In terms of the advice and subsequent TAC within the management system (especially that related to the formal stock assessment process), Russian scientists are interacting with their US and other counterparts in PICES and through some bi-national agreements, but the formal external review seems to be that relating to the stock assessment and advisory process of many Russian fisheries convened by VNIRO in Moscow. Even at PICES, however, there is no formal review of the annual assessments (as happens at ICES), merely opportunity through a scientific forum for researchers to exchange scientific views on matters of mutual interest. Formal review of the management system itself, i.e. related to the processes outside of the scientific assessment, is not so obviously taking place, at least documentary evidence has not been found of it, but such review does seem to be the norm in fisheries management around the world. That the management system is well constructed is not questioned (documentary evidence shows it to be), only whether it is sufficiently being reviewed independent of possibly vested interests. One can believe that the management system is subject to some form of evaluation during the Moscow-based and other internal to Russia reviews, and also that it is regular enough for the fisheries in question. Further, given that at least some key parts of the management system are being evaluated sufficiently regularly, including external to the regional administrative arrangements, and that a partial score is allowed for this Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 134 Date of issue: January 2013 indicator because it has a single scoring issue under each SG and that the full SG 60 scoring issue is met, a partial score of 70 is awarded on the basis that the management system is indeed moving closely and irrevocably towards meeting the requirements of SG 80. Score: 70 The single scoring issue of SG60 is met and the single scoring issue of SG80 is partially met and so a score of 70 is awaded and the following condition set. Condition and Milestones Condition 8 By the third surveillance audit, the client fishery will provide evidence to show that it has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system other than the scientific assessment and is subject to occasional external review. Milestones First Surveillance At the first annual surveillance audit, the client must provide a written interim progress report on establishing an external review of the management system, including a terms of references. The milestone associated with the first surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Second Surveillance By the second surveillance audit, the client must have identified potential external reviewers and the key parts of the management system that will be reviewed. The milestone associated with the second surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Third Surveillance By the third surveillance audit, the client will provide a written report of the proposed review mechanism and the confirmed external reviewers.. The milestone associated with the third surveillance audit has been defined as a means to monitor progress, meeting the milestone would likely not result in a change in score at this surveillance audit. Fourth Surveillance By the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide a report of the external review of the management system and that occasional external review will continue, the results of which will be made available to stakeholders. Provided the actions defined in the milestones and the deliverables in the client action plan are met, the PI would be re-scored at 80 or higher at the second surveillance audit. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 135 Date of issue: January 2013 Client Action Plan and Deliverables Client Action Plan By the second surveillance audit PCA will identify and report to the audit team potential external reviewers for the management system and the key parts of the management system proposed subject to external review. Subject to audit team comment, PCA will provide a report of the proposed review mechanism (year 3) and commission an external audit of the key parts of the management system during this third year and provide a report of this external evaluation by the fourth surveillance audit. Deliverables First Surveillance Audit. The PCA will provide a written progress report of completed tasks, remaining tasks and deliverable timeline for the second surveillance deliverable. Second Surveillance Audit By the second surveillance audit PCA will identify and report to the audit team potential external reviewers for the management system and the key parts of the management system proposed subject to external review. Third Surveillance Audit Subject to audit team comment, PCA will provide a report of the proposed review mechanism (year 3) and commission an external audit of the key parts of the management system during this third year audit. Fourth Surveillance Audit The PCA will provide a report of this external evaluation by the fourth surveillance audit. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 136 Date of issue: January 2013 9.4 Detailed Scoring Tables Tables 26, 27 and 28 provide detailed scoring rationales for all performance indicators defined in Principles 1, 2 and 3. Table 26: Principle 1 Scoring Rationales. Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 Management Outcomes: Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.1.1 Stock Status: The stock 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 is at a level which where recruitment would be impaired. the point where recruitment would be stock is above the point where recruitment maintains high impaired. would be impaired. productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing The stock is at or fluctuating around its There is a high degree of certainty that the target reference point. stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. Scoring Comments Spawning biomass was below the target (BTR) of 5096 kilo tonnes (kt) until 1980, after which it first rose and then declined to an historical low, close to the limit (BLIM) of 2632 kt in 1999. Since then, it has increased and has been fluctuating at or around the BTR since 2006, with signs of a slight decline in 2010. This recent increase is likely not due to improved recruitment, as this has been slowly declining since the 1980s. Rather, recent reductions in fishing mortality have improved recruit survivorship, thus leading the increase in biomass. Fully recruited fishing mortality (ages 7 – 11) has been in the order of 0.17 or 60% of natural mortality (0.3) since about 2005. When considering the first scoring issue (SI), it is necessary to determine the status of current spawning biomass in relation to BLIM in probabilistic terms. Indication of this is provided in the risk plots (see section 5.2) used to determine the TAC two years into the future. At the current 2011 TAC of 920 kt, all projections assuming a 2012 TAC of less than 1500 kt indicate that there is a negligible risk that stock biomass is at or below BLIM. The 2012 TAC was established at 826 kt. These projections are evidence that the current (2010) spawning biomass is above BLIM, the point below which recruitment would be impaired, with a high degree of uncertainty (P>90%). Thus, the first SI is met at SG 100. The second SI requires determination of current status in relation to BTR. As noted above, spawning biomass has been fluctuating at or around BTR since 2006, which is about half a generation time (TGEN = age of 50% maturity of 5 plus 1/M of 0.3 = 8.33). Thus, this SI meets SG80. However, in 1999, biomass was at one of its lowest points in the time series (1963 – 2010) and increased to BTR by 2006, with signs of a recent slight decline. Further, the two year stock projections undertaken in December 2010 to advise the Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 137 Date of issue: January 2013 2012 TAC indicated that stock biomass will first rise above and then fall below BTR by 2013 to 4.7 Mt. Thus, while current biomass can be judged to be at the BTR with 50% probability, this cannot be stated with a high degree of certainty (P>90%). For this reason, it is not possible to score the second SI at SG100. Score: 90 A score of 90 was awarded. The single SI at SG60 is met, as is the first SI at both SG 80 and SG100. The second SI at SG80 is also met but not at SG100. Audit Trace References PCA (2010; 2011) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 138 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.1.2 Reference Points: Generic limit and target reference points Reference points are appropriate for the Limit and target are based on justifiable and reasonable stock and can be estimated. reference points are practice appropriate for the species appropriate for the category. stock. The limit reference point is set above the The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of level at which there is an appreciable risk impairing reproductive capacity. of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. The target reference point is such that the The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Scoring Comments A number of biomass and fishing mortality reference points have been estimated for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock. A biomass limit (BLIM) and target (BTR) of 2632 kt and 5096 kt respectively have been established based upon the population dynamics of the stock as determined by the stock assessment (see PI 1.2.4). A fishing mortality limit (FLIM) and target (FTR) of 0.38 and 0.23 respectively have also been established. Further, a minimum fishing mortality (F0) has been established to allow scientific research fishing when the stock is below BLIM. It was indicated during the site visit that the intent is to use BMSY-based reference points as a default but in cases where these could not be determined analytically, to develop BMSY proxies. Thus, the reference points are more than generic, being specific to Sea of Okhotsk pollock, are appropriate and consistent with the MSC FAM guidelines of BMSY, and are being estimated. The first SI is met at both SG60 and SG80. While the intent is to base the reference points on BMSY, the Russian peer review considered that the Ricker stock / recruitment relationship used in the assessment (see PI 1.2.4) was too uncertain to justify its use as the basis of analytically derived BMSY – based reference points. This influenced decisions on the choice of both BLIM and BMSY. BLIM of 2632 kt was chosen as the lowest estimated biomass (1963) in the time series modelled in the stock assessment (1963 – 2010). It was reasoned that this is a point from which the stock has been observed to recover and thus is a good basis for choice of the biomass above which recruitment impairment is not occurring. When BLIM is not analytically estimated, MSC FAM V2.1 (para 6.2.19) provides a default of 50% of BMSY (in this case, the proxy) that may be used for BLIM. The BLIM is 52% of the BMSY proxy, consistent with the MSC FAM V2.1 guidelines. As noted in section 4.6, it could be argued that productivity changes mitigate against use of a time series low for BLIM. However, the fluctuations in spawning biomass have been about a long-term mean with no declining or increasing trend. There are no periods of low or consistently low Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 139 Date of issue: January 2013 recruitment in the assessment time series and while there have been long-term fluctuations in fish growth, attributable to environmental factors, these are also without an overall increasing or declining trend. It is considered that BLIM is sufficiently above the point at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. There is evidence that the stock has recovered from this biomass level. A recent update of BLIM (see section 4.6) is consistent with this BLIM. The second SI at SG80 is met. Contrary to the situation in the West Bering Sea pollock in which an adjustment is made to provide further precaution in the BLIM, no such adjustment was made here. During the site visit, it was reported that no adjustment was necessary given that the stock has been observed to recover from BLIM. As well, the overall level of uncertainty in the Sea of Okhotsk was considered lower than that in the West Bering Sea. Further, the HCR ramps fishing mortality down as BLIM is approached, which is precautionary. It could be argued that not using the uncertain Ricker stock / recruit relationship is precautious. Notwithstanding these points, the lack of a precautionary buffer, as used for West Bering Sea pollock, is a cause for concern. On balance, it is considered that the first SI of SG100 is not met. As noted in section 4.6, BLIM was updated during the December 2012 assessment meeting and a precautionary buffer applied similar to that used for West Bering Sea. The BTR of 5096 kt is the 1963 – 2010 average spawning biomass from the stock assessment and is a proxy for BMSY given the concerns with the analytically derived estimate. There is precedent for use of long-term average biomass as a proxy for BMSY (see section 4.6). The uncertain stock – recruitment relationship suggests that non-stock processes largely determine the strength of incoming year-classes. There are no periods of low or consistently low recruitment in the assessment time series and thus the long-term average recruitment could be expected at BMSY. There have been long-term fluctuations in fish growth, attributable to environmental factors, with no overall increasing or declining trend. While fishing mortality increased for a short period in the 1990s, overall it has been low (below natural mortality) and without significant trend. The time series average of age 7 – 11 (fully recruited ages) was 0.22. This is very close to the target fishing mortality of 0.23, which is based upon the FMSY of Caddy (1998). It is slightly lower than the F40% (a common FMSY proxy) of 0.25. Overall, biomass has likely fluctuated around BMSY and thus BTR over the long-term. Further, assuming that virgin biomass is about 15472 kt, the proxy BMSY (5096 kt) is 33% of B0. As noted in section 4.6, this is consistent with stock – recruitment relationships with steepness in the order of 0.6 – 0.7 (as used in the East Bering Sea assessment) and is consistent with recruitment being driven primarily by non-stock processes. On balance, this combined evidence suggests that the long-term average biomass is consistent with BMSY. Thus, it is considered that the BMSY proxy of 5096 kt is intended to maintain the stock at a level consistent with BMSY. As noted in section 4.6, the analytical estimate of BMSY was updated during the December 2012 assessment meeting and confirms the maintenance of the long-term average biomass as the BTR. Thus, the third SI of SG80 is met. Other than the ramping down of fishing mortality as BLIM is approached, there is no explicit consideration of precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the species. The focus of the harvest strategy is the conservation and protection of pollock with less regard for the potential impact of fishing on the rest of the ecosystem. While the harvest strategy could be precautionary in this regard, no evidence was presented that it is. Thus, the second SI of SG100 is not met. As Sea of Okhotsk pollock is not a lower trophic level species, with numerous studies demonstrating their trophic status as the dominant pelagic top predator in the ecosystem (Aydin et al. 2002, Lapko (1994), Heileman and Belkin ( 2010), Sorokin and Sorokin, 1999) the fourth SI at SG80 is not scored. Score: 80 A score of 80 was awarded. The single SI at SG60 is met. All four SIs at SG80 are met. Neither of the SG100 SIs is met. Audit Trace References PCA (2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2011c) Punt et al. (2008) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 140 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding: Where stocks are depleted rebuilding Where stocks are depleted rebuilding Where stocks are depleted, strategies are Where the stock is strategies, which have a reasonable strategies are in place. demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks depleted, there is expectation of success are in place. continuously and there is strong evidence evidence of stock that rebuilding will be complete within rebuilding. the specified timeframe. A rebuilding timeframe is specified for A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the The shortest practicable rebuilding the depleted stock that does not exceed depleted stock that does not exceed the timeframe is specified which does not the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation exceed one generation time for the generation time. For cases where 3 time. For cases where 2 generations is less depleted stock. generations is less than 5 years, the than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. to 5 years. Monitoring is in place to determine There is evidence that the rebuilding whether the rebuilding strategies are strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the stock within highly likely based on simulation modeling the specified timeframe. or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. Scoring Comments Since 2006, spawning biomass has been fluctuating at or around the target biomass of 5096 kt. As per MSC FAM v2.1 para 6.2.39, the stock is judged not to be depleted and thus this PI is not scored. Score: Not Scored N/A Audit Trace References Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 141 Date of issue: January 2013 1.2 Harvest Strategy (management) Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy: There The harvest strategy is expected to The harvest strategy is responsive to the The harvest strategy is responsive to the is a robust and achieve stock management objectives state of the stock and the elements of the state of the stock and is designed to achieve precautionary harvest reflected in the target and limit reference harvest strategy work together towards stock management objectives reflected in strategy in place points. achieving management objectives the target and limit reference points. reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is likely to work The harvest strategy may not have been The performance of the harvest strategy has based on prior experience or plausible fully tested but monitoring is in place and been fully evaluated and evidence exists to argument. evidence exists that it is achieving its show that it is achieving its objectives objectives. including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place that is expected to The harvest strategy is periodically determine whether the harvest strategy is reviewed and improved as necessary. working. Scoring Comments As described in section 4.5, a harvest strategy consists of a harvest control rule (HCR) informed by monitoring and assessment, which elicit a defined management response. The strategy for Sea of Okhotsk pollock contains all these elements and is similar to strategies developed for other stocks elsewhere in the world. It can be expected to achieve management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. During the site visit, considerable time was devoted to describing how the elements of the strategy work together towards achieving the objectives. In particular, the two-year projection process highlighted how uncertainty in the assessment is used to inform future TAC decisions. It was also noted that during the two-year process, updates are possible based upon new assessment results. Thus, the first SI of SG60 and SG80 are met. As noted above, the harvest strategy has all the elements of harvest strategies developed elsewhere and based upon this prior experience, is likely to work. However, the strategy is new, having been used for the first time in December 2010 to inform TAC decisions in 2012 and thus it is too early to state whether or not it is achieving its objectives. It has not undergone any testing, such as in a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), in which the robustness of achievement of objectives is evaluated taking into account the uncertainties in management, monitoring and assessment. Notwithstanding this, monitoring is in place (i.e. Synthesis assessment model) that provides the necessary platform for future determination of key population indicators and associated uncertainties. Therefore, the second SI of SG60 is met but not that of SG80. Monitoring is in place (i.e. Synthesis assessment model) which provides biomass and fishing mortality indicators which, when points of the HCR measured against the reference, allows determination of whether or not the strategy is working. The third SI of SG60 is met. Score: 70 The three SIs are met at SG60. Only the first SI at SG80 is met. This PI therefore scores 70, requiring the following condition: Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 142 Date of issue: January 2013 Condition 1 As the harvest strategy is newly implemented, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy is to undergo testing to explore its robustness to management and assessment uncertainties. The client must annually provide evidence during the certificate validity period of the results of annual monitoring which demonstrate that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives as reflected in the target and limit reference points. Audit Trace References PCA (2010; 2011) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 143 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.2.2 Harvest control rules Generally understood harvest control rules Well defined harvest control rules are in and tools: There are well are in place that are consistent with the place that are consistent with the harvest defined and effective harvest strategy and which act to reduce strategy and ensure that the exploitation harvest control rules in the exploitation rate as limit reference rate is reduced as limit reference points place points are approached. are approached. There is some evidence that tools used to The selection of the harvest control rules The design of the harvest control rules take implement harvest control rules are takes into account the main uncertainties. into account a wide range of uncertainties. appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates that the tools Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use in use are appropriate and effective in are effective in achieving the exploitation achieving the exploitation levels required levels required under the harvest control under the harvest control rules rules. Scoring Comments The harvest control rule (HCR) is described in Section 4.5. It is similar to HCRs developed in other fisheries elsewhere in the world. It consists of four primary reference points - BLIM, BTR, FLIM and FTR as well as F0 which is set to allow scientific fishing below BLIM. When stock biomass is above BTR, fishing mortality is set at FTR. Fishing mortality is ramped down between BLIM and BTR, while below BLIM, it is set at F0. The HCR works in concert with the results of the annual stock assessment as part of a two-year projection process in which the current stock biomass along with upcoming year’s TAC is used to project the following year’s TAC. The upcoming year’s TAC was established by the previous decision process, using the HCR. Updates to this TAC are possible based upon new survey and fishery observations. The HCR is used to set the fishing mortality and thus establish the TAC for the second year of the projection. The projection is done in a probabilistic manner by sampling the noise around the current year’s age 3+ numbers at age (primarily based on error in the catch at age) and the Ricker Stock – Recruitment (SR) relationship for age 2 recruitment. If the probability of biomass in the second year of the projection being below BLIM is less than 5%, then the results using the HCR can be adopted. Otherwise, the fishing mortality and thus the TAC are adjusted downwards such that the probability that projected biomass being below BLIM is less than 5%. There is a well-defined HCR in place which is a key part of the harvest strategy and is designed to ensure that fishing mortality is reduced as BLIM is approached. Thus, the first SI of SG60 and SG80 are met. The HCR, through use of the stock assessment outputs, takes the main uncertainties into account. It is the assessment team’s opinion that uncertainties in the assessment (PI 1.2.4) are likely understated. However, if and when these are addressed, the HCR can take these into account. On the other hand, the HCR is focused on the management of pollock and does not consider the wider implications and uncertainties of fishing mortality on the ecosystem. The second SI of SG80 is met but not the first SI of SG100. There is a suite of regulatory tools used to implement the TAC produced by the HCR. This includes catch quotas allocated to the fleet sectors, gear and mesh regulations, time / Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 144 Date of issue: January 2013 area closures and so on, similar to management efforts elsewhere. While juvenile discards have been an issue in the past, since about 2007, efforts to control these appear to be effective. All of these are considered appropriate and effective in controlling fishing mortality. The favourable comparison of approved TAC to reported catch (see Section 4.7) is taken as available evidence that tools are effective at controlling fishing mortality. Further, the favourable comparison of science advice and approved TACs indicates that science advice is generally followed by fishery decision makers. The second SI of SG60 and third SI of SG80 are met. On the other hand, given uncertainties associated with at-sea coverage of fishing activities (see PI 1.2.3), the evidence that the tools are effective is not completely clear. The second SI of SG100 is not met. Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded. The two SIs of SG60 are met as well as the three SIs of SG80. The two SIs of SG100 are not met. Audit Trace References Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 145 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.2.3 Information / Some relevant information related to Sufficient relevant information related to A comprehensive range of information (on monitoring: Relevant stock structure, stock productivity and stock structure, stock productivity, fleet stock structure, stock productivity, fleet information is collected fleet composition is available to support composition and other data is available to composition, stock abundance, fishery to support the harvest the harvest strategy. support the harvest strategy. removals and other information such as strategy environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and fishery removals are Stock abundance and fishery removals are All information required by the harvest monitored and at least one indicator is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy control rule is monitored with high available and monitored with sufficient and coverage consistent with the harvest frequency and a high degree of certainty, frequency to support the harvest control control rule, and one or more indicators and there is a good understanding of the rule. are available and monitored with inherent uncertainties in the information sufficient frequency to support the harvest [data] and the robustness of assessment and control rule. management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Scoring Comments The MSC FAM v2.1 requires evaluation of information needs from the harvest strategy by six groupings – stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other data (para 6.3.15). These groupings apply to different SIs, which is taken into account in the scoring below. Stock structure PCA (2010) provides a review of a long series of studies that have been conducted on stock structure by Russian and Japanese scientists since the 1970s. This work is summarized in section 4.1. This work concludes that the current consensus on Northern Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock structure is a metapopulation composed of several spawning components. The spawning distributions and timings of each component are well described as are the seasonal migrations of each group around the Sea of Okhotsk. There is some debate as to the status of pollock in East Sakhalin but this component is not included in the Unit of Certification. Overall, there is a comprehensive range of information on Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock structure. Stock productivity A wide range of data is available on different features of the productivity of Sea of Okhotsk pollock, including information on age and growth processes and maturity and fecundity data. These data have been and are routinely collected on surveys and observed fishing trips. A synopsis of the number of observations made since 1996 is provided in section 4.2. No analysis has been conducted on the sufficiency of these data although overall, the number of observations is large. Regarding growth studies, during 1996 – 2003, a transition from scales to otoliths was made in age determination. During the site visit, it was reported by TINRO scientists that ageing comparisons were made between the scale and otolith readings with no problems indicated up to at least age 6. It was unclear what error rates occurred in the older ages. Notwithstanding this, while the stock assessment models ages 2 to 20, ages six and under generally represent over 80% by numbers of the catch. Studies have been conducted on the stock’s density-dependent Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 146 Date of issue: January 2013 processes, focusing on the stock – recruitment relationship. As indicated in section 4.6, the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship used in the Synthesis model was considered too weak to allow estimation of analytically derived reference points. PCA follow-up (2010) reports that explorations of a relationship which includes the abundance of sea lions, percent ice cover and the gross biomass of spring zooplankton, have been undertaken. This model improved the R2 of the Ricker relationship from the 6.5% estimated in the December 2010 Synthesis model to about 74%. Thus far, TINRO considered these explorations too preliminary to include in the Synthesis model and stock projections. Estimates of natural mortality (M) are based on life history parameters, specifically the gonad index (WGSI) for females at maturity state IV. The annual indices for 1996 to the present are averaged and then used in the equation of Gunderson and Dygert (1988) to provide a long-term estimate of M. This estimate is taken to be representative of M for ages 6 – 8. The method of Blinov (1977) is then used to estimate the pattern of M across ages. Thus, estimates of M used in the stock assessment have a basis in the life history observations of Sea of Okhotsk pollock. Overall, this is sufficient information on Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock productivity. Fleet composition There are a number of sources of information on the composition of the Sea of Okhotsk fishing fleets. These include the FFA vessel licensing system, logbooks and FSB reporting requirements of at-sea activities, scientific observers and fishery inspectors. Further, the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) provides accurate information on fishing location, which supplements that in the logbooks. Overall, this source of information is considered to be comprehensive. Stock abundance A suite of survey activities (described in section 4.2) are conducted in the Sea of Okhotsk each year, the primary one being the winter – spring ichthyoplankton / trawl survey. This 380 fixed-station survey has been conducted in a standardized fashion since 1972 and has covered the Northern Sea of Okhotsk since 1984, providing the annual assessment with its main index of spawning biomass. This is a time series of 26 years which is over three times the generation time of pollock. A winter – spring acoustic survey has also been conducted since 1998. During the site visit, it was noted that this survey has been the focus of work to standardize its design and protocol and thus was used in the assessment. An ecosystem trawl survey has been conducted each fall since 2000 (gap in 2004 – 2006) with the objective to monitor broader changes in the ecosystem – species abundance and diversity changes, physical and biological oceanographic conditions and so on. While these data are not directly used in the pollock stock assessment, they are used to corroborate trends and better understand the dynamics of the pollock fishery in the broader context of the ecosystem. Finally, since 2001, a catch rate index has been estimated for the large trawler fleet and used as an index of fishable biomass in the annual stock assessment. Overall, stock abundance is regularly monitored at a level of accuracy consistent with the HCR. What became apparent during the site visit and in PCA submissions (2010; 2011), is that correction factors are applied to the surveys to try and develop an absolute index of spawning biomass. It was unclear that the uncertainties in these data have been adequately described as well as the relative influence of these adjustments on the precision and accuracy of the index. Fishery removals Fishery removals are monitored by a suite of activities (see sections 4.2 and 6). Fishery inspectors (GMI) on transshipment vessels monitor 100% of what is equivalent to the landings while fishery logbooks, again 100% coverage, document these landings which are required to be reported daily to FSB. Scientific observers, Government Marine Inspectors and scientific fishing provide estimates of discarding which in combination with the landings provides estimates of the catch for the stock assessment. Scientific observer coverage on the large trawlers ranged from 2 to 6% during 2006 – 2010 while on the medium sized trawlers ranged from 0.4 to 2%. Coverage by GMI observers is higher (e.g. 14.3% in 2010). Together, at-sea coverage of large vessel hauls averaged about 20% during 2006 – 2010. While these rates appear to be adequate, given the operation of the fishery, no analysis has been undertaken to indicate what percent coverage would be required given the between and within vessel variability of the catch species and pollock size composition. During the site visit, while it was felt by TINRO that the coverage was sufficient, no analysis was provided to support this. It was reported that discard rates were currently low but had been an issue during 1990 – 1995, the period of USSR – Russian Federation transition. There were also problems with illegal fishing when vessels were allowed to land pollock at non-Russian ports (e.g. Korea), but legislation has been introduced stipulating that all catch must be landed in Russia. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 147 Date of issue: January 2013 It was reported during the site visit that discard rates, mostly of juveniles, were currently low but had been an issue during 1990 – 1995, the period of USSR – Russian Federation transition. Since 1996, discarding of juveniles has also occurred although estimates of these are made and included in the assessment (see section 4.2). Further, regulatory efforts have been made to limit juvenile discards and there is evidence that these have been effective (see section 4.7). There were also problems with illegal fishing when vessels were allowed to land pollock at non-Russian ports (e.g. Korea), but legislation has been introduced stipulating that all catch must be landed in Russia. Regarding other fisheries, the coastal Danish seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf, while small, has increased in intensity since 2005, with harvesting primarily occurring during the pre-spawning and spawning period. In 2011, it represented 8.8% of the total pollock catch in the Northern Sea of Okhotsk. During the site visit, it was reported that sampling of this fishery has been expanded but it is too preliminary to be incorporated into the assessment. However, it was later clarified that monitoring of fishery removals and at-sea observer coverage is comparable to that of the directed pollock trawl fishery, with the information incorporated into the stock assessment. Given the small (8.8% of total pollock fishery catch in 2011) scale of this fishery, it is considered that fishery removals are well monitored and sampling is sufficient to characterize their age/size composition. An issue raised during the site visit was the lack of weights at age for all years in the assessment. The current assessment uses one weight at age for all years. During the site visit, it was reported that this was due to mechanical problems with the at-sea scales which considerably reduced the amount of reliable data available to reliably determine weight – length relationships and thus the annual weights at age. Other data PCA (2010; 2011) describes a comprehensive array of information on the physical and biological oceanography and the ecosystem of the Sea of Okhotsk. These data are routinely collected on the surveys noted above and reported in such venues as PICES. These data are an important supplement to the pollock assessment information. Synopsis Information on stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is sufficient to support the harvest strategy and other data are also available. The first SI is scored at SG80. Stock abundance is monitored by at least one indicator on an annual basis (in fact four indicators are available - three survey and one CPUE) which is sufficient to support the HCR. What is not apparent is the statistical properties of the primary survey index (ichthyoplankton/trawl survey) which would inform the uncertainties in the assessment and hence the HCR. Fishery removals are monitored although it is not completely clear that the level of at –sea observer of fishing activities is consistent with the HCR. The second SI is scored at SG60 but not at SG80. There is good information on the emerging Danish seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf. Thus, the third SI of SG80 is met. Score: 75 The two SIs of SG60 are met as well as the first and third SI of SG80. Most SG80 scoring issues are met, few are not, this PI scores 75, thus requiring the following condition. Condition 2 By the second surveillance audit, provide a written report evaluating the monitoring program for the fishery (e.g. analysis of the accuracy and at-sea observer coverage of both the ichthyoplankton / trawl survey and fishery removals), which demonstrates that stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and at- sea observer coverage consistent with the harvest control rule. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 148 Date of issue: January 2013 Audit Trace References Blinov (1977); Gunderson and Dygert (1988); WWF (2011); PCA (2010; 2011); PCA_response (2011) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 149 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 1.2.4 Assessment of stock The assessment estimates stock status The assessment is appropriate for the The assessment is appropriate for the stock status: There is an relative to reference points. stock and for the harvest control rule, and and for the harvest control rule and takes adequate assessment of is evaluating stock status relative to into account the major features relevant to the stock status reference points. the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessment identifies major sources The assessment takes uncertainty into The assessment takes into account of uncertainty. account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment of stock status is subject The assessment has been internally and to peer review. externally peer reviewed. Scoring Comments Prior to 2010, assessments of Sea of Okhotsk were based upon the direct enumeration of spawning stock biomass using winter - spring ichthyoplankton / trawl surveys in each subzone. VPA-based assessment models (XSA, ICA, ISVPA) by subzone were then used to project an upcoming year’s TAC. While these (and more recently a Statistical Catch at Age (Synthesis) formulation) were run in parallel to the direct enumeration method, the latter was used as the basis of harvest advice. In December 2010, pollock in the Northern Sea of Okhotsk were assessed as one stock using the Synthesis model (described in section 4.2) for the first time. The decision to use Synthesis over the previously used ISVPA was based on a comparison of observed and predicted spawning biomass from the two models. Synthesis better matched recent trends in biomass than did ISVPA. During the site visit, it was noted that Synthesis will be the preferred method for future assessments. An advantage of Synthesis over previous methods is that it evaluates stock indicators such as spawning biomass and fishing mortality against reference points which are also estimated from the same dataset, thus ensuring consistency in the numbers. Further, Synthesis has the prospect of allowing comparison of population indicators with analytically derived reference points. Thus, the assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points, which is used to inform a HCR. The first SI of SG60 and SG80 are met. The Synthesis model recognizes the major sources of uncertainty as being in the catch at age, the Ricker stock – recruitment relationship, and the fishing mortality - effort, spawning biomass - survey biomass and fishable biomass – commercial catch rate relationships. Uncertainty in these model components is incorporated through lambda terms in the objective function (described in section 4.2) determined by expert judgment. A regulatory change in 2001 was incorporated in the model through use of two selectivity time blocks. While other sources of uncertainty are recognized (e.g. M and ageing), relative to the other sources, these are not considered major. Notwithstanding this, the assessment team considered that while the assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, it is only taking these into account to a limited degree. The Monte Carlo characterization of uncertainty in historical biomass appears to be understating uncertainty, this due to consideration of error only associated with the catch at age. Both fishing mortality – effort and catch rate – fishable biomass relationships are incorporated into the model, which appears to be redundant use of the same data. Further, catch rate indices are prone to hyper-stability. The use of one weight at age vector for all years in the analysis (1963 – 2010) is worrisome. Finally, error in ageing and natural mortality is yet to Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 150 Date of issue: January 2013 be incorporated in the analysis. Thus, while the assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, it only takes these into account to a limited degree. Thus, the second SI is met at SG60 but not at SG80. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that since the site visit, estimation of uncertainty has adopted a bootstrap approach, with sampling of residuals associated with the catch at age and stock abundance indices (e.g. CPUE and survey indices) used to characterize uncertainty and is a positive development in the assessment. The assessment is subject to a multi-level Russian peer review process including scrutiny at the laboratory (e.g. TINRO), regional and national level. Review consists of experts both within the fisheries agency and outside in the academic environment. During the site visit, it was noted that this peer review can result in modification to draft TACs (reductions only permitted), evidence of which was presented in submission documents. No foreign experts have been involved in this review process and it is unclear as to the level of scrutiny that assessments receive. On balance, however, it is considered that the third SI of SG80 is met. Score: 75 A score of 75 was awarded. The two SIs of SG60 are met as are the first and third SIs of SG80. The second SI of SG80 is not met. Condition 3 By the third surveillance audit, provide a report which details how the assessment appropriately evaluates major sources of uncertainty and takes them into account. Audit Trace References PCA (2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2011c) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 151 Date of issue: January 2013 Table 27: Principle 2 Scoring Rationales Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends 2.1 Retained non-target species Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.1.1 Status: The fishery does Main retained species are likely to be Main retained species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that not pose a risk of serious within biologically based limits or if be within biologically based limits, or if retained species are within biologically or irreversible harm to outside the limits there are measures in outside the limits there is a partial strategy based limits. the retained species and place that are expected to ensure that the of demonstrably effective management does not hinder recovery fishery does not hinder recovery and measures in place such that the fishery of depleted retained rebuilding of the depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. species. If the status is poorly known there are Target reference points are defined and measures or practices in place that are retained species are at or fluctuating around expected to result in the fishery not their target reference points. causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Scoring Comments In MSC FAMv2, the MSC defines main retained species as those that a) are >5% of overall catch volume, b) are commercially valuable or c) are required to be retained by management rules. Further, Section 7.2.2 of the FAMv2 defines use of the qualifier ‘main retained species’, which is intended to allow consideration of the weight, value or vulnerability of the species caught. The MSC guidance suggests that species comprising of less than 5% of total catch may normally be considered minor, and therefore not score at the SG60 or SG80, assuming that minor species are not of high value to the fishery or of particular vulnerability. MSC Guidance for the SG 100 states: “SG100 does not include the qualifier ‘main’ and the team shall consider all retained species in the assessment. If there are no P2 retained species in the fishery, or retention is exceptionally rare and negligible in its impact, then the fishery would meet SG100.” In the SOO pollock fishery, the reported data suggest that retained species combined constitute less than 2% of the pollock catch by volume (see Table 14, 15, 16 and 17). By the “main species” definition based on catch volume, all retained species could therefore be categorized as “minor”. In some instances some species are caught in higher volumes, as indicated in Table 17. Species such as goby, cods, smelt skate and flounder for example are reported in the pollock fishery total landed catch (retained species) as relatively high in some areas. This is also supported by the Observer estimates of the proportions of species in the pollock catches (Table 14). Where catches of some species are a higher proportion of the designated allowable catch limit, it is typically a result of spatial and seasonal abundance of these particular species (Tables 15 and 16). In all instances, the catches of these species are predominantly of low commercial value due the method of catch using large volume midwater trawl nets dominated by pollock. The Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 152 Date of issue: January 2013 team accepted that these species, while of value, do not qualify as “high value” product, hence these species do not trigger the value requirement for a main retained species and all are classified as minor species (Table 16). A further note is that in the PCA submission on Ecosystems (P2), reference is made to ecosystem surveys that are undertaken regularly (annually) to monitor the biological status of most SOO fish species. This monitoring suggests all retained species in the pollock fishery are not impacted to the point where they are biologically threatened and that they are within biologically safe limits. The 2010 assessments on stock status of capelin, goby, herring, cods, salmon and sole for example are all assessed and under management. This includes TAC controls and measures to mitigate targeting and excessive catches of species other than pollock. There was no evidence indicating that these retained species are outside safe biological limits or that the current catches of these species (by the pollock-directed fishery) are taken outside of the current management of these stocks. It is concluded that a partial strategy is in place to provide protection for these species taken by the pollock midwater trawl and that they are managed (including any recovery or stock rebuilding strategies). The team also concluded that there are no Main retained species and the 23 species listed in Table 16 as landed by the fishery should be considered Minor species for this assessment. While low observer coverage is a potential concern for verification of discards, the team is satisfied that the species caught in the highest percentages are desired TAC species, which have both economic incentives to land them as well as falling under the management protocols for those species. SG 60 is met: There are no main retained species to be scored, hence the first SI is met. There are measures in place to ensure that fishing practice does not adversely impact all retained species (permits issued that limit catches of these species, limits on % of non-pollock TAC species retained, season restrictions, area closures). SG 80: There are no main retained species, minor species were not scored. A score of 80 is awarded as per MSC guidance in Section 7.2.3. The team considered that the information available on minor species did not allow scoring at the SG100 level. As, all species were not evaluated, as required at the SG100, and as such no scoring issues of SG100 were scored and the scoring was capped at 80. Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Radchenko et al. (2010). PCA submission ref. fleet structure Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, (2011). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ www.fishsource.org Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 153 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.1.2 Management strategy: There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing There is a strategy in that are expected to maintain the main necessary that is expected to maintain the retained species. place for managing retained species at levels which are highly main retained species at levels which are retained species that is likely to be within biologically based highly likely to be within biologically designed to ensure the limits, or to ensure the fishery does not based limits, or to ensure the fishery does fishery does not pose a hinder their recovery and rebuilding. not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. risk of serious or irreversible harm to The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for The strategy is mainly based on information retained species. work, based on plausible argument (e.g., confidence that the partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or species general experience, theory or comparison work, based on some information directly involved, and testing supports high with similar fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or species involved. confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the partial There is some evidence that the strategy is strategy is being implemented achieving its overall objective. successfully. Scoring Comments In order to score management strategy PIs (2.1.2, 2.2.2), the assessment team needed to consider the management strategy being implemented by the fishery. As per FAM guidance 7.1.20 – 7.1.25, a strategy is considered composed of linked monitoring, analyses, measures and responses. The team interpreted these components as being analogous to the monitoring (e.g. dockside or at-sea observation of landings or catch), assessment (e.g. evaluation of stock status), tools (e.g. quotas, closed areas, etc.) and harvest control rules (e.g. change in harvest rate in response to stock status) used in Principle 1. The team noted that whereas measures (i.e. tools) can exist in the absence of a strategy, as per FAM 7.1.22 – 7.1.24, a strategy (partial or comprehensive) requires that all components exist. Monitoring informs analyses which lead to measures based upon a management response. The Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA) is responsible for the management of the pollock fishery. Each vessel is issued with a pollock as well as retained species catch permit (either TAC or PC). Catch limits are apportioned by zone and species. In some areas higher catches are permitted of some species (such as herring and cod) depending on the apportionment of the permitted catch and the calculated TAC. These measures form the basic management control to maintain catches within biological limits. Sea-based controls include move-on rules when bycatch proportions are above 2% of pollock catch. The move-on rule applies when vessels exceed more than 2% by weight of a particular non-target retained species in any one area and requires the vessel to move at least 5 nautical miles from the area in which the catch was taken. Collectively, these measures are likely to work and are the main bycatch management measures applied for the fishery. There is a comprehensive set of Fishing Rules applicable to both WBS and SOO. [Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007]. Retained non-target species that are Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 154 Date of issue: January 2013 incidentally caught are accommodated by the vessel (rights holder) allocation for the species (Total Allowable Catch or alternatively “Possible Catch”). The “Possible Catch “ (PC) is issued as a precautionary allocation and is set within predetermined biological limits which have the objective of ensuring that non-assessed species remain within sustainable biological limits. There are measures in place that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. Based on the fishery management framework, these measures are likely to work. Mother vessels carry inspectors and catcher vessels are randomly boarded by inspectors, who confirm fishing rule compliance. Daily fishing reports are mandatory for all vessels: these are monitored by the FSB. Areas of higher bycatch and vessels in those areas are tracked with assistance from the VMS system. Vessel operators are penalised heavily for misreporting and risk losing their licenses. Further the majority of the main retained species are likely to be taken by the smaller average sized vessels, which are only a small proportion of the UoC (PCA fleet). There is a partial strategy in place through application of the combined Fishing rules for the pollock fishery. Reporting schedules for the vessels and inspection levels give confidence that this is working. Inspectors enforce the move-on rule and monitor bycatch percentages at sea. There is therefore an objective basis for confidence that this strategy is working. There is a partial strategy in place for the each of the main retained species that includes: a) By catch limits (up to 2%, for TAC species; above this amount, by-catch must be returned to the sea) b) Multiple species quotas. Vessels can have quotas for multiple species c) Season restrictions: Fishing from 1 January to 31 March Kamchatka-Kuril and West Kamchatka; 1 January to 9 April in North Okhotsk d) Gear restrictions: mid-water trawls with 100 mm mesh nets; no bottom trawls allowed e) Spatial management: Full or partial ban in some fishing zones. Must fish 30 miles offshore; five to 12 miles from islands. Must “move-on” at least five miles from areas of high by-catch. f) Daily Vessel Records (DVRs). Vessel captains must keep records of by-catch and submit daily DVRs. g) Observer monitoring h) inspectors on catcher and mother vessels, and, i) near real-time catch reports supported by location information (VMS). The team agrees that these measures constitute a strategy for the management of retained species. The first scoring issue of the SG 100 is considered met. The team did not consider that sufficient evidence was presented to respond to the three remaining SG100 scoring issues. A score of 85 is awarded. Score: 85 A score of 85 is awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, (2011). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 155 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some Accurate and verifiable information is monitoring: Information amount of main retained species taken by quantitative information are available on available on the catch of all retained species on the nature and extent the fishery. the amount of main retained species taken and the consequences for the status of of retained species is by the fishery. affected populations. adequate to determine the risk posed by the Information is adequate to qualitatively Information is sufficient to estimate fishery and the assess outcome status with respect to outcome status with respect to Information is sufficient to quantitatively effectiveness of the biologically based limits. biologically based limits. estimate outcome status with a high degree strategy to manage of certainty. retained species. Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a Information is adequate to support a measures to manage main retained partial strategy to manage main retained comprehensive strategy to manage retained species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of retained species is conducted detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due in sufficient detail to assess on-going to changes in the outcome indicator scores mortalities to all retained species. or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Scoring Comments There is a comprehensive catch reporting system that is documented, reports are easily obtained from the system (demonstrated at FSB). There are two sources of fishery- independent information on the catch and size composition of non-target retained species - non-target species; scientific observers deployed by the research institutes (TINRO, SakhNIRO, KamchatNIRO) and inspectors from the national monitoring organization (FSB). In addition some of the vessels in the fleet are “research vessels” and are in fact commercial operations with TAC allocation. These vessels are understood to have a higher proportion of sampling and inspection than other vessels in the fleet. These vessels also fish in the main areas targeted by the commercial fleet and submit electronic log data daily. 100% of daily catch logs are electronically transmitted to the Federal Fisheries Monitoring System. On the larger-scale vessels, up to 6.1% (2010) of all hauls were sampled by scientific observers. [average is 4% for the 2006 – 2010 period]. GMI Inspectors do not cover all vessels – they are deployed randomly amongst the fleet when working in specific areas, transferring from vessel to vessel. A total of 24.2% of hauls were inspected and sampled (Inspectors and observers) in 2010. On board mother vessels and transport steamers taking transshipments, there is 100% coverage by inspectors. Resulting tallies are cross-referenced with the electronic logs of the catcher vessels. On the smaller (“medium size”) vessels, the inspection and scientific observer rates are lower. However 70% of the pollock catch in SOO is taken by the “Large-scale” vessels with a lower proportion of “medium” vessels sampled in the PCA fleet. In the SOO, there are four subzones covered by the pollock fishery (see section 5.2 as well as Tables 12, 14, 15 and 16). Although the relative sample of the fleet is small, a large number of hauls have nevertheless been sampled in both “large-scale” and “medium” vessels of the SOO fleet (964 in Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 156 Date of issue: January 2013 2010), and the samples do corroborate the proportions reported as landed (Table 13, 14 and 15) in the SOO. Within the Observer sample data presented in Table 15, there is a small proportion by mass (<0.5%) that is not accounted for in landings (Table 15 and Table 16); we assume that these are numerous minor species. The Observer data provided are related primarily to fish species and do not account for “non commercial” species. SG 60: There are adequate qualitative data (catch log outputs) and catch data are verified which provides adequate information to manage retained species. SG80: There are adequate qualitative data (catch log outputs) and catch data are verified which provides adequate information to manage retained species. There are qualitative and some quantitative information on the catch of retained species (24.2% coverage of all hauls reported for 2010). The first scoring issue of SG60 and SG80 is met. The information provided has not been verified e.g. in the form of scientific papers or other referenced materials so SG100 is not met. For the second scoring issue, information is available to both qualitatively and quantitatively assess outcome status in respect to biologically based limits. The qualitative information, however, is not verified and therefore cannot be considered quantitatively sufficient to assess outcome status with a high degree of certainty. The biological limits for the primary retained species status are uncertain, although these species are not significantly targeted by the large-scale vessels of the PCA fleet for which 70% of the UoC applies. For the second scoring issue therefore SG60 and SG80 is met but not that at SG100. For the third scoring issue, the information is considered adequate to support measures to manage main retained species and is sufficient to support a partial management strategy. It is however, not considered sufficient to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species. Therefore, the third SI of SG60 and SG80 is met but not that at SG100. For the fourth scoring indicators that apply only to SG80 and SG100, the data collected should be increased to give greater confidence in the ability to determine the biological risk to the retained species. At SG100 the information provided requires more detail to assess the on-going mortalities of all retained species. The team agrees that this guidepost is met at SG80, as there is confidence at two levels; a) that the midwater trawl operation has a low expected bycatch and impact on non-target species, and b) there are data to support this perspective based on the existing levels of monitoring and reporting. A score of 80 is awarded. Score: 80 As all SI’s are met for SG60 and all are met for SG80 and none for SG100, a score of 80 is awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003); Radchencko, (2010) Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, (2011). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 157 Date of issue: January 2013 2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”) Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.2.1 Status The fishery does Main bycatch species are likely to be Main bycatch species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that not pose a risk of serious within biologically based limits, or if be within biologically based limits or if bycatch species are within biologically or irreversible harm to outside such limits there are mitigation outside such limits there is a partial based limits. the bycatch species or measures in place that are expected to strategy of demonstrably effective species groups and does ensure that the fishery does not hinder mitigation measures in place such that the not hinder recovery of recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder recovery and depleted bycatch species rebuilding. or species groups. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Scoring Comments Independent observer data on bycatch and discards have been provided (Tables 14 and 15). For ease of interpretation, Table 16 has been consolidated to reflect averages for the years 2006-2010. Data presented in Table 5 indicate that coverage on the large-scale vessels averaged 4 % during 2006 – 2010, but less, averaging 1% for the same period, for the smaller “medium size” vessels. The information (data tables, Observer reports, landed catches) available presented in Section 5, suggests that the bycatch of all species is very low. Qualitatively, this is expected primarily due to the selectivity of the mid-water trawl gear configuration used by both the large and medium tonnage vessels. Typically, observer sampling programmes in many industrial fisheries cover about 10% or more of hauls. In many currently certified fisheries, Observer programmes require about 10% of fishery effort to be covered although in some instances up to 100% coverage may be required. Analysis of the SOO Observer data reflects only minor species such as sculpins, and eelpouts and in some instances, only single specimens of species such as Pacific sleeper shark (recognising that this species is IUCN listed as data deficient). Small numbers of salmon species (Chinook, coho, sockeye and pink) are also recorded but their numbers are very low in the SOO fishery. The seasonality of and selectivity of the gear used for the SOO fishery, with closures of the fishing grounds by ice and spawning period closures for pollock and herring are expected to reduce bycatch. In fisheries where selectivity is high, sampling proportions are often lower, reflecting the relatively clean nature of the catch. This would seem to be the case for the SOO fishery, although a higher sampling effort would give higher confidence in the data. While research emphasis appears focused on retained species; effort to quantify the impact of the fishery on bycatch and discards needs to be increased. The assessment team reviewed the summarized landed catch and observer data provided by the client (Tables 5, 6, 12 - 16) and used this information aggregated for 2006-2010 to determine main and minor bycatch species. Based on the information provided, the majority of species of low commercial value occur in insignificant amounts. After review of the available observer data, the team concluded that there were no main bycatch species. Some species such as Coho, Chinook salmon and Pacific sleeper shark could be categorized as main species due to their potential vulnerability however these species were not detected in all years and only occur as individual specimens. The team concluded that based on the observer data, the number of these species encountered is insignificant; therefore these species were also considered minor. The team noted, Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 158 Date of issue: January 2013 however, that as Observer coverage was low, there is some uncertainty in the estimates and that as a consequence the SI for SG100 could not be met. Therefore based on the very low frequency of bycatch species reported in Tables 14-16, collection of observer data aboard vessels operating with the fleet on the various fishing grounds and monitoring of most species during annual ecosystem surveys, the team categorized all bycatch species as “minor” species. SG60 and SG80: The team concluded that there were no main bycatch species. All minor bycatch species are an insignificant portion of the overall catch. Effectively, there are no main bycatch species in this fishery. There are small numbers of minor species caught which implies that the fishery is having negligible impact on them. The data available, including the annual state of stocks report give no indications that any of the common bycatch species are not within biological limits or are threatened by bycatch taken in the pollock midwater trawl. Consequently, they are likely within biologically based limits. As, for many of the minor bycatch species no estimates of biological status is known, SG 100 is not met. The PI for this fishery is therefore awarded a score of 80 as no minor species were scored. Score: 80 A score of 80 was awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Iljinskiy & Gorbaenko, (1994) Kuznetsov et al. (1993) Radchencko, (2010) Shuntov et al. (1993) Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, 2011. ). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 159 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.2.2 Management strategy: There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing There is a strategy in which are expected to maintain main necessary, for managing bycatch that is and minimising bycatch. place for managing bycatch species at levels which are highly expected to maintain main bycatch bycatch that is designed likely to be within biologically based species at levels which are highly likely to to ensure the fishery limits or to ensure that the fishery does be within biologically based limits or to does not pose a risk of not hinder their recovery. ensure that the fishery does not hinder serious or irreversible their recovery. harm to bycatch populations. The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for The strategy is mainly based on information work, based on plausible argument (e.g. confidence that the partial strategy will directly about the fishery and/or species general experience, theory or comparison work, based on some information directly involved, and testing supports high with similar fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or the species confidence that the strategy will work. involved. There is some evidence that the partial There is clear evidence that the strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully, and successfully. intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Scoring Comments In order to score PIs 2.2.1 to 2.2.3, the assessment team needed to consider the management strategy being implemented by the fishery. As per FAM guidance 7.1.20 – 7.1.25, a strategy is considered composed of linked monitoring, analyses, measures and responses. The team also considered evidence relating to recently certified fisheries as well as fisheries that had undergone objections relating to similar concerns re the interpretation of a partial strategy. Supporting the partial strategy is a suite of measures as indicated below. The team interpreted these components as being analogous to the monitoring (e.g. dockside or at-sea inspections and observation of landings or catch), stock assessment, management tools (e.g. quotas, closed areas, etc) and harvest control rules (e.g. change in harvest rate in response to stock status) used in principle one. The team noted that whereas measures (i.e. tools) can exist in the absence of a strategy, as per FAM 7.1.22 – 7.1.24, a strategy (partial or comprehensive) requires that all components exist. Monitoring informs analyses which lead to measures based upon a management response. For the management of the SOO main bycatch species, the following components of a partial strategy are: Main Retained Species Monitoring Analysis (Assessment) Measures (Tools) Response (HCR)/ (feedback loop) All Species -100% transhipment -Annual analysis of - TAC/ PCs for many -Move-on rule for areas of high bycatch monitoring status of nekton via species (see Tables 14, 15) ichthyoplankton surveys -TAC/ PC setting on annual basis Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 160 Date of issue: January 2013 -100% dockside - Seasonal closures verification of -Annual bottom trawl landings surveys to innumerate - Spatial closures and compare abundance -At sea observer trends - Gear restrictions coverage (up to 6%) - Formal TAC/ PC -100% VMS setting processes for coverage with active many species monitoring by FSB -100% mandatory electronic daily fishing log reporting The FFA is responsible for managing the pollock fishery in the SOO. A number of measures are in place for all vessels in the fishery. Vessels have a bycatch limit and can catch up to 2% for species with a specified allowable catch; above this amount, bycatch must be returned to the sea. Vessels can also have allocations (within the authorized TAC) for more than one species. Vessel captains must keep records of bycatch and submit daily vessel records (DVRs). Vessels must “move-on” at least five miles from areas of high by-catch. Fishing closures are in place from 1 January to 31 March in Kamchatka-Kuril and West Kamchatka subzones, and from 1 January to 9 April in North Okhotsk subzone. No bottom trawling is permitted in the pollock fishery. There is a full or partial ban in some fishing zones. Pollock vessels must fish 30 miles offshore; and a minimum of five to twelve miles from islands, depending on applicable rules. These Fishing Rules set out the key management measures for the Russian pollock fisheries in the SOO (Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007). Government scientific observers and GMI inspectors are responsible for obtaining estimates of bycatch species of fishes, invertebrates, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. Vessels are not permitted to retain more than 49% of a particular bycatch species (as a proportion of the pollock catch per haul), to limit exploitation of these species but must have a permit to catch such species (falling within a management regime). For many species, TACs have been established based on annual evaluation of stock health. For others, a Possible Catch (a precautionary limit) has been determined based on survey estimates of abundance or expert scientific opinion. These “possible” catch limits are designed to keep bycatch species within biologically acceptable limits. No catch limit has been established for some species in the bycatch (e.g., sleeper shark, eelpouts, snailfish), but catches of these species appear to be insignificant. Therefore, there are measures in place that are expected to maintain potential bycatch species at levels highly likely to be within biologically based limit (SI 1) and these measures are considered likely to work (SI 2). The fishery meets the SG60 level. Given all the management measures in place as well as monitoring it is considered that a partial strategy is in place to manage bycatch, as described in the table above. This provides an objective basis for confidence in the strategy. No convictions of breaches of the bycatch conditions have been reported so qualitatively it is assumed that the strategy is successful. There are significant punitive sanctions for non-compliance to fishery rules (see section 6.9), clear evidence of a disincentive to be found non-compliant. The three SG80 scoring issues are met. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 161 Date of issue: January 2013 The team agrees that there is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch, thus meeting the requirements of the first SG100 scoring issue. There was no evidence that the remaining two SG100 scoring issues have been met. Score: 85 A score of 85 was awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aquatic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science. Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, (2011). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 162 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some Accurate and verifiable information is monitoring amount of main bycatch species affected quantitative information are available on available on the amount of all bycatch and Information on the by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch species the consequences for the status of affected nature and amount of affected by the fishery. populations. bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to estimate Information is sufficient to quantitatively by the fishery and the understand outcome status with respect to outcome status with respect to biologically estimate outcome status with respect to effectiveness of the biologically based limits. based limits. biologically based limits with a high strategy to manage degree of certainty. bycatch. Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a measures to manage bycatch. strategy to manage main bycatch species. comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted detect any increase in risk to main bycatch in sufficient detail to assess on-going species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome mortalities to all bycatch species. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Scoring Comments Both qualitative and quantitative information has been presented for the fishery including perspectives of fishing captains and comments from researchers who have been involved in the pollock fishery historically. This gave the team a broad understanding of the bycatch in the fishery and this perspective has been used as the basis for management measures (qualitative). However, the quantitative data are based on limited scientific reports and on the presented Observer data summaries. Based on this the assessment team notes the MSC definition, that most of the caught species effectively are classified as bycatch because of their low frequency in the catches (as determined by reported catches from the FSB). Annual assessments are made of all the primary commercial species as well as precautionary limits (possible catches) set for many of the species for which there are no formal stock assessments. These data continue to be collected but more comprehensive information from independent sources could further corroborate the catch declarations of retained species as well as the other bycatch species not declared in the catch reports, which are either discarded or processed for meal. SG60: Qualitative information has been presented on bycatch that is adequate to broadly understand outcome status, and on this basis there is information on which measures can be based to manage bycatch. SG80: There are some quantitative data as well as independent observer estimates of bycatch. Data collected is adequate to support a partial strategy for the management of Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 163 Date of issue: January 2013 main bycatch species and are considered sufficient to detect any increase in risk to possible main bycatch species. Increased levels of independent observer data would give higher confidence in the information provided i.e. SI 1, 2 and 3 are met at SG80, but not SI 4. Score: 75 A score of 75 was awarded as three of the four SG80 scoring issues were met. Condition 4 By the second surveillance audit, demonstrate through a detailed analysis and written report, that sufficient data continue to be collected to estimate outcome status with respect to biological based limits (SI 2) and to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy), (SI 4). Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock. ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Radchenko, 2010 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 164 Date of issue: January 2013 2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.3.1 Status: The fishery Known effects of the fishery are likely to The effects of the fishery are known and are There is a high degree of certainty that the meets national and be within limits of national and highly likely to be within limits of national effects of the fishery are within limits of international international requirements for protection and international requirements for national and international requirements requirements for of ETP species. protection of ETP species. for protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. Known direct effects are unlikely to create Direct effects are highly unlikely to create There is a high degree of confidence that unacceptable impacts to ETP species. unacceptable impacts to ETP species. there are no significant detrimental effects The fishery does not (direct and indirect) of the fishery on ETP pose a risk of serious or species. irreversible harm to ETP Indirect effects have been considered and species and does not are thought to be unlikely to create hinder recovery of ETP unacceptable impacts. species. Scoring Comments There are four possible ETP species or groups that may interact with the candidate fishery – Sea Otters, Steller Sea Lions, short-tailed albatross and several cetaceans. The Russian “Red Book” identifies species that can potentially interact with the SOO pollock fishery. Several species of large cetaceans in the SOO are listed in CITES Appendix 1. These include the following species: humpback, finback, western gray and beluga. There is no indication from observer reports (2006-2010) that these species directly interact with the pollock fishing fleet. Their diets, although poorly known in the SOO, suggest that competition with the fishing fleet for pollock does not occur or is highly unlikely. Surveys undertaken in the SOO have reported no major changes in the status of the many mammals and cetacean species commonly found in the SOO. This included Gray Whales, Northern Right Whales, Fin Whales, Humpback Whales, Bowhead Whales and Sperm Whales. Fisheries interactions (lines and trap fishing mostly) are reported to foul some of these species but no interactions with the pollock trawl are reported. Further, no information is reported suggesting that pollock mortality associated with fishing is highly likely to be impacting cetaceans (see also ecosystems and trophic impacts). There are also no records of interaction between fishing operations in the observer reports. The client submission states that marine mammals consume 350 000 t of pollock a year and that there is no apparent correlation between pollock biomass and the population levels of sea lions, seals and other mammals. Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris) are found close to shore. There is a trawling ban (trawl operations must take place 30 miles off-shore and five to 12 nautical miles from islands). Closed fishing zones ban fishing in key habitats and sensitive areas around the entire coast as well as around the islands and peninsulas (Kurils, the Kamchatka Peninsula and Sakhalin Island). Thus, Sea Otters are not impacted by the fishery and are not considered further in the scoring. Steller Sea Lions are listed in the Russian Red Book as decreasing but they are not currently listed on CITES Appendix I. They are also an IUCN red-listed species, but this listing does not trigger ETP status consideration under MSC certification processes. The threatened and endangered Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is found in the area Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 165 Date of issue: January 2013 of the fishery. There are no observer reports of Steller sea lion mortalities in the pollock fishery in the SOO. Sea lions and fur seals likely consume pollock; trophic studies on the SOO ecosystem have been conducted although there are no definitive conclusions about the impacts of the fishery on these mammals (a general conclusion is that food is not limiting for sea lions and fur seals). Fur seal populations are reported to be increasing. It is unlikely that the fishery is creating unacceptable impacts to either sea lion or fur seal populations in the SOO. The Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) is an endangered species listed in both the Russian Red Book and on CITES Appendix 1. They forage widely across the temperate and subarctic North Pacific, including the WBS and SOO. Albatrosses spend the majority of time within the exclusive economic zones of Japan, Russia (Kuril Islands and Kamchatka Peninsula), and the United States, but overall, they spend the greatest proportion of time within the Alaska exclusive economic zone. Nevertheless, they do potentially overlap with areas of operation of the pollock fishery in the SOO. Based on the available Observer reports and the client submissions, there is no mortality of short-tailed albatross associated with the pollock fishery in SOO. Of the numerous other minor species reported in the Observer summaries provided, there are no other ETP species of concern. SG60: Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for each ETP species. There are no known direct effects. SG80: There are no reported effects of the fishery on any ETP species – i.e. no direct effects such as mortality in trawls. This is primarily a qualitative assumption as quantitative data are not reported although surveys conducted in the SOO suggest stock status of the threatened species is improving and that their status is unlikely to be affected by the pollock midwater trawl fishery. Indirect effects of the fishery on trophic structure has been studied, the fishery is unlikely to create any unacceptable impacts on the large predators. SG100: There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within national and international limits. It is not possible, however, to state with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects on those predator species. Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded as all SG80 scoring issues were considered met. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Artukhin, Yu. B. (2011). Bodkin, J.L., Esslinger, G.G. and Monson, D.H. (2004) Burdin А.М, Nikulin V.S. and R.L. Brownell R.L. (2004) Burdin А.М., Weller D.W. and R.L. Brownell R.L. (2004 Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Radchenko et al. (2010). Burkanov and Loughlin (2007) Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Iliashenko and Iliashenko (2000) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 166 Date of issue: January 2013 Kornev S.I. and Korneva (2004) Piatt et al. (2006) Suryan et al. (2006) Vladimirov A.V.1, Miyashita T.2, Khayashi N.2, Saito T.2, Tokuda D. and E.P. Shvetsov (2004). Waite and Burkanov (2004) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 167 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place that minimise There is a strategy in place for managing There is a comprehensive strategy in place The fishery has in place mortality, and are expected to be highly the fishery’s impact on ETP species, for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP precautionary likely to achieve national and including measures to minimise mortality, species, including measures to minimise management strategies international requirements for the that is designed to be highly likely to mortality, that is designed to achieve designed to: protection of ETP species. achieve national and international above national and international - meet national and requirements for the protection of ETP requirements for the protection of ETP international species. species. requirements; - ensure the fishery does The measures are considered likely to There is an objective basis for confidence The strategy is mainly based on not pose a risk of serious work, based on plausible argument (e.g. that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery or irreversible harm to general experience, theory or comparison information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative ETP species; with similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the - ensure the fishery does strategy will work. not hinder recovery of ETP species; and There is evidence that the strategy is being There is clear evidence that the strategy is - minimise mortality of implemented successfully. being implemented successfully, and ETP species. intended changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Scoring Comments Provision for data collection and reporting for other species is made in Observer reports including ETP species, although records of bird and mammal interactions are not reflected in the data summaries provided during the assessment. Apart from protected areas for ETP species, there is no evidence that can be considered a comprehensive strategy (SG100) for each of the identified ETP species. In the SOO, Steller sea lions are protected in the Kuril and Magadan reserves, where there are both rookeries and haul outs. Trawling is prohibited within 30 nautical miles of these sites. There is paucity of information on the management strategies except for the protected status in the marine reserves and Fishing rules. The marine reserves and protection afforded marine mammals and seabirds in these areas provide evidence of the protection of critical habitat. For sea birds information quantifying interactions with pollock trawl gear is lacking. In the case of the Short-tailed Albatross, while there are no measures in place to minimize mortality, none are deemed necessary given the lack of documented interaction with the fishery. Therefore, this element was not scored. For Otters the same applies as for Steller Sea Lions – the limitation on trawling from land sites mitigates the potential for any interactions with otters. For other large mammals no interactions are reported and no mitigation or management measures are deemed necessary (see 2.3.1) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 168 Date of issue: January 2013 SG60: There are measures in place to protect ETP species in the national and international context, including protected areas and closed fishing areas. Based on the foraging range of these species, these measures are likely to work. SG80: ETP species are protected under Russian Law and there are extensive protected areas – as the fishery is believed not to interact with the known ETP species, no specific management measures are thought necessary so have not been introduced. The strategies are working, given increases in population sizes from census counts in the Kuril Islands, Tuleniy Islands and Northern Sea of Okhotsk rookeries at Iony Islands. Other populations, such as Yamskiye have shown stability, and the Lisyanskogo population has declined. The Fishing Rules for the Far East (Section 10), define explicit fishery closure areas designed to protect sea mammals and their primary forage habitats. For the threatened ETP species surveys conducted give no indication that stocks are declining or are threatened by the fishery. On-going research on Steller sea lions by Burkanov 2009; Burkanov et al. 2002, 2003, 2008; show stable and or increasing SSL populations. Artyukhin (2011), for short tailed albatross, does not suggest that the fishery is impacting this species. For other marine mammals, studies consolidated in Collection of scientific papers after the 3rd International Conference, Kotebel, Crimea, Ukraine, 2004 make no suggestion that the pollock fishery is having an impact on marine mammals. SG100: There is no comprehensive strategy to manage ETP species in the pollock fishery therefore, the three SG100 scoring issues are not met. Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded. Audit Trace References Artyukhin (2011) Burkanov, 2009. Burkanov et al. 2011; Burkanov et al. 2002, Burkanov et al 2003, Burkanov et al 2008 Collection of scientific papers after the 3rd International Conference, Kotebel, Crimea, Ukraine, 2004 (numerous authors relating to individual species) Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 169 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to determine Information is sufficient to quantitatively monitoring understand the impact of the fishery on whether the fishery may be a threat to estimate outcome status with a high Relevant information is ETP species. protection and recovery of the ETP species, degree of certainty. collected to support the and if so, to measure trends and support a management of fishery full strategy to manage impacts. impacts on ETP species, including: Information is adequate to support Sufficient data are available to allow Information is adequate to support a - information for the measures to manage the impacts on ETP fishery related mortality and the impact of comprehensive strategy to manage development of the species fishing to be quantitatively estimated for impacts, minimize mortality and injury of management strategy; ETP species. ETP species, and evaluate with a high - information to assess degree of certainty whether a strategy is the effectiveness of the achieving its objectives. management strategy; and Information is sufficient to qualitatively Accurate and verifiable information is - information to estimate the fishery related mortality of available on the magnitude of all impacts, determine the outcome ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the status of ETP species. consequences for the status of ETP species Scoring Comments Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lion pup production and non-pups counts are monitored periodically in the protected areas. Observers are required to report on interactions with bycatch including seabirds and mammals, although these data currently report zero interactions. There have been numerous surveys to estimate abundance of marine mammals including Steller sea lions. Information on Steller Sea Lions is therefore substantial and considered sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery– related mortality. Observer reports accommodate mortality estimates (zero reported), however the low coverage give poor confidence on the estimates of potential mortality of sea lions in pollock trawls. Because pollock vessels maintain a minimum of 30 nautical miles distance from rookeries, mortality in pollock trawls is unlikely. (SG 60 and SG 80 met and none of SG100) Cetaceans Threatened Cetacean species (predominantly large mammals) are not reported to interact with pollock trawls (SG100 met). Albatross (Short-Tailed) No mortalities of short-tailed albatrosses are reported for pollock trawls although confidence in this quantitative data is low due to low Observer coverage and the lack of any detailed mitigation strategy for sea birds to minimised potential impacts on albatrosses. Information is considered adequate to broadly understand the status of the short-tailed albatross but not explicitly of the direct impact of the fishery. Short-tailed albatross breeding colonies are also located outside of the SOO. Abundance data are collected by non-Russian agencies and researchers. All SI of SG60 are met and the first SI of SG80 is met. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 170 Date of issue: January 2013 SG60: Information is available on the populations of Steller Sea lions, short-tail albatross, otters and other mammals. There are surveys of colonies. Observer data report zero interactions – on this basis the information is sufficient for a qualitative assessment of status and direct fishery impacts and is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. All three scoring issues at SG60 are met. SG80: As there is no evidence to suggest that these two species are threatened directly by the fishery, as current information suggests that both populations in the SOO area are stable or increasing, the available information on abundance trends of SSL and STA is considered to be sufficient. The fishery specific data are however not considered sufficient to quantify the mortality of short-tailed albatross in the fishery – so only the first SI is met for SG80 (for all identified ETP species) Score: 70 A score of 70 is awarded. The three SIs at SG60 and the first at SG80 are considered met, but the second SI at SG80 is considered not met. Condition 5 By the fourth surveillance audit the client will demonstrate that sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Particularly, the client needs to initiate studies on the diet and foraging behaviour of Steller sea lions in the SOO to determine feeding rates on pollock, to be completed by the end of year 3 of certification, and to record observations of sea mammal and seabird interactions with trawls to determine if there are any mortalities of sea mammals and seabirds in pollock trawls, to be completed by the end of year 3 of certification. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Radchenko et al. (2010). Burkanov and Loughlin (2007) Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) Iliashenko and Iliashenko (2000) Kornev S.I. and Korneva (2004) Piatt et al. (2006) Suryan et al. (2006 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 171 Date of issue: January 2013 2.4 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant negative impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.4.1 Status The fishery does The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the fishery is highly not cause serious or structure and function to a point where habitat structure and function to a point unlikely to reduce habitat structure and irreversible harm to there would be serious or irreversible where there would be serious or irreversible function to a point where there would be habitat structure, harm. harm. serious or irreversible harm. considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. Scoring Comments Mid-water gear is deployed – so direct impacts on substratum / habitat are unlikely. The catch and effort data provided suggest that the fishery is highly selective. In the SOO, the catch data suggest that certain demersal species are also landed (flatfish species, cod) that may imply that the gear is fishing on or near the bottom. This may be an artefact of the data, however – vessels are permitted to carry permits for other TAC or PC controlled species, in particular flounder and cod, which are mostly demersal. Although bottom trawling gear is not permitted, vessels do carry alternative gear when fishing under permit for other species such as cod. Deploying mid-water gear is a technical process that uses a range of sophisticated technology that includes sidescan, the latest echo-sounding equipment, and gear position in the water column. The high cost of fouling mid-water gear makes it highly unlikely that operators would allow gear to contact the seabed, although incidental/accidental occurrences are likely. A series of benthic surveys was conducted in the 2000s in the SOO. The comparison of the quantitative characteristics of the benthos made on the data received from these surveys in 1980s and middle 2000s showed that the biomass of the separate groups and dominating benthic species in various areas of the Sea of Okhotsk has not changed significant in the last 20 years. Globally, trawl fisheries impacts on habitat are difficult to assess, but mid-water (off-bottom) trawl gear impacts cannot be reasonably compared with bottom trawl impacts. Pelagic or midwater trawls are considered relatively benign and are recognised as having low environmental impact. There is evidence based on research in the Eastern Bering Sea that pollock-directed midwater trawls do contact the bottom substrate. However this study concludes that impact is low and combined with the research on benthic habitat undertaken by Radchenko and Dulepova it is concluded that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function causing irreversible harm. SG60: Mid-water trawl gear is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function. SG80: The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure to the point of irreversible harm. SG100: Gear configurations, echo and net sonde traces give some evidence that the gear fishes clear of the bottom and is highly unlikely to reduce habitat. More evidence of this is needed to be conclusive. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 172 Date of issue: January 2013 Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded. Audit Trace References Gear descriptions and echo traces of typical trawls provided on site visits. http://www.goodcatch.org.uk/start-improving/gather-information/fishing-methods/pelagic-mid- water-trawling/ Bezurukov, 1960. Dulepova, 2002. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Koblikov V.N., Bezrukov V.N. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Bezrukov R.G. 2007. Radchenko and Dulepova (2004) Shuntov and Dulepova, 2001 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 173 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing There is a strategy in that are expected to achieve the Habitat necessary, that is expected to achieve the the impact of the fishery on habitat types. place that is designed to Outcome 80 level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance ensure the fishery does or above. not pose a risk of serious The measures are considered likely to The strategy is mainly based on or irreversible harm to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. There is some objective basis for information directly about the fishery habitat types. general experience, theory or comparison confidence that the partial strategy will and/or habitats involved, and testing with similar fisheries/habitats). work, based on some information directly supports high confidence that the strategy about the fishery and/or habitats involved. will work. There is some evidence that the partial There is clear evidence that the strategy is strategy is being implemented successfully. being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Scoring Comments There is a partial strategy to protect habitat, although bottom trawling is not permitted in the candidate fishery and the fishery has depth restrictions (no fishing inside 200m). FFA rules, however, regulate gear configuration, cod-end mesh size, areas that can be trawled (there are some areas closed to trawling in the SOO). Other area closures for protection of ETP species also provide habitat protection. FSB provided a list of the most recent compliance discretions in the fishery – non reported on fishing with unauthorised gear or gear touching or fouling the sea floor. Alaskan pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) was fished only with bottom trawls prior to 1990. Concerns about the bycatch of crabs and other ground fish species, such as Pacific halibut, initiated a switch to pelagic trawling for the pollock. As pelagic trawling soon proved to be as efficient as bottom trawling the industry quickly adopted this new trawling technique, resulting in a bottom trawl ban by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) since 1999. SG60: Measures are in place – gear type, areas permitted to fish, inspected catches for evidence of epifauna and benthic fish species – these are likely to work assuming that gear fouling is not desirable as a consequence of the considerable cost incurred, and fishing time lost, when gear is damaged. SG80: There is a partial strategy in place – spatial and temporal restrictions, bycatch limits on TAC and PC managed species. There is no contrary evidence that this strategy is not effective. Long-term serious or irreversible harm caused by changes induced by the fishery have not been determined. SG100: There is a clear strategy in place for managing habitat impacts (no bottom trawling permitted). This information is based directly on the fishery operational characteristics - quantitative evidence was also provided by the PCA submission that gear loss due to interaction with the sea floor is minimal, the no bottom trawling rule provides high confidence that the strategy will work. Clear evidence on the successful implementation of this strategy (i.e. high compliance with no-bottom trawling rule) was not given) although there have been no reported transgressions of the requirement to fish only with midwater gear or of the gear fishing on the sea floor. Only the first of three Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 174 Date of issue: January 2013 scoring issues at SG100 is met. Score: 85 A score of 85 is awarded, one of the three SG100 scoring issues have been met Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ FAO. 2007 Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Bezurukov, (1960) Radchenko et al. (2010). Ermakov and Karyakin (2003) NRC, (2002) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 175 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.4.3 Information / There is a basic understanding of the The nature, distribution and vulnerability of The distribution of habitat types is known monitoring types and distribution of main habitats in all main habitat types in the fishery area are over their range, with particular attention Information is adequate the area of the fishery. known at a level of detail relevant to the to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat to determine the risk scale and intensity of the fishery. types. posed to habitat types by the fishery and the Information is adequate to broadly Sufficient data are available to allow the Changes in habitat distributions over time effectiveness of the understand the main impacts of gear use nature of the impacts of the fishery on are measured. strategy to manage on the main habitats, including spatial habitat types to be identified and there is impacts on habitat types. extent of interaction. reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be collected to The physical impacts of the gear on the detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. habitat types have been quantified fully. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Scoring Comments There is an active benthic research program for SOO undertaken by TINRO. The surveys have used baselines to compare potential habitat changes in fished areas between the 1980s and the 2000s. The most recent large scale benthic surveys of the Sea of Okhotsk were conducted in the middle of 2000s (Nadtochyi, et al, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008). The comparison of the quantitative characteristics of the benthos made on the data received from the surveys in 1980s and middle 2000s showed that the biomass of the separate groups and dominating benthic species in various areas of the Sea of Okhotsk has not changed significantly during the recent 20 years period. These surveys are invaluable for determining habitat stability or changes, but do not test the impacts of pollock trawls explicitly. Spatial and temporal data are available on the location of pollock trawling effort – however as no bottom trawling takes place trawling intensity and potential impacts are significant and are not measured. There are also spatial maps of substratum type; although the evidence presented does not compare trawl intensity on habitat type (this is not likely to be viable as the gear fishes off the bottom). A large portion of the central SOO is closed to fishing (Peanut Hole) as well there been ice cover for large periods during which fishing does not occur. SG 60: There is a basic understanding of habitat types as well as information to broadly understand the likely impacts of pollock trawl gear on these habitats. No vulnerable habitat is reported on in the available literature. SG80: The habitat types relative to the scale of the fishery are described – vulnerability of bottom substratum is expected to be minimal for mid-water gear and is the primary supporting information that minimal impact on habitat is likely. VMS and trawl logs provide accurate positional data with which to assess trawling frequency over habitat types. These data are collected on an on-going basis and can be monitored. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 176 Date of issue: January 2013 SG100: The distribution of habitat type in SOO is known in part and there have been surveys to measure habitat distributions over time, Therefore SI 2 is met, but SI 1 and 3 are not, because physical impacts, although highly unlikely, have not been determined rigorously and habitat type has not been clearly illustrated over the full range of the areas fished. Score: 85 A score of 85 is awarded. Audit Trace References Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/) Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Dulepova (2002) Radchenko et al. (2010). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 177 Date of issue: January 2013 2.5 Ecosystem Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.5.1 Status The fishery does The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the There is evidence that the fishery is highly not cause serious or elements underlying ecosystem structure key elements underlying ecosystem unlikely to disrupt the key elements irreversible harm to the and function to a point where there would structure and function to a point where underlying ecosystem structure and key elements of be a serious or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible function to a point where there would be a ecosystem structure and harm. serious or irreversible harm. function. Scoring Comments Long-term ecosystem monitoring and studies are undertaken (TINRO has a documented rolling 4-5 year research programme). It includes biological surveys estimating phyto and zooplankton biomass. There was some evidence presented that suggested that pollock biomass was correlated with strong and weak year classes of plankton. There is a good understanding of the ecosystem, therefore, although trophic models have not being applied explicitly to the SOO pollock fishery (ECOPATH has been used to model the pelagic ecosystem). No evidence is available to suggest that fishing mortality has a significant impact on the trophic structure of the SOO. Qualitative scientific opinion (TINRO), however, is that the pollock fishery has little impact on the ecosystem and that large-scale climatic and oceanographic conditions compound interpretation of fishery impacts on the SOO ecosystem. SG60: The fishery is unlikely to disrupt key elements of the ecosystem to cause irreversible harm (historically, no major shifts in the ecosystem have been reported for the SOO). Trophic cascade effects as a result of pollock fishing mortality are unlikely. Although pollock are the dominant fish species in the ecosystem they are largely mid-water and feed on associated mid-water species, i.e. there is no benthic feeding to impact species in that habitat. No significant biodiversity changes in SOO have been reported that suggests the fishery is having a negative impact of species diversity. Pollock are also not a top predator in the system and feed at an intermediate trophic level in the ecosystem SG80: Based on qualitative assessment and expert judgment and some quantitative evidence, the fishery is highly unlikely to alter the ecosystem irreversibly SG100: Most of the elements in FAM para 7.6.3 are addressed by on-going research, such as gross changes in biodiversity, truncation of community size composition, impact on top predators and trophic cascade effects. The evidence supporting these elements is both qualitative and quantitative, i.e. the fishery is not significantly impacting the ecosystem. It cannot however be said that the evidence is clear due to the subjective nature of ecosystem information presented. This SG is therefore only met in part. A score of 85 is awarded. Score: 85 A score of 85 is awarded. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 178 Date of issue: January 2013 Audit Trace References Aydin et al. (2002) Chuchukalo (2006) Dulepova E.P., (2002) Jamieson, G., Livingston, P. and Zhang, C.-I. (Eds.) (2010) Kuznetsov et al. (1993) Lapko and Radchenko (2000) Shuntov and Dulepova (2000) Shuntov and Dulepova (1996) Shuntov et al. (1993) Shuntov V.P. (2009) Sorokin, I and Sorokin, P. (1999) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 179 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy that consists of a plan, There are measures in that take into account potential impacts of necessary, that takes into account available containing measures to address all main place to ensure the the fishery on key elements of the information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, fishery does not pose a ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so and at least some of these measures are in risk of serious or as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 place. The plan and measures are based on irreversible harm to level of performance. well-understood functional relationships ecosystem structure and between the fishery and the Components function. and elements of the ecosystem. The measures are considered likely to The partial strategy is considered likely to This plan provides for development of a work, based on plausible argument (eg, work, based on plausible argument (e.g., full strategy that restrains impacts on the general experience, theory or comparison general experience, theory or comparison ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). cause serious or irreversible harm. There is some evidence that the measures The measures are considered likely to comprising the partial strategy are being work based on prior experience, plausible implemented successfully. argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. Scoring Comments There is no explicit overarching ecosystem management approach articulated in FFA policy, although the FFA permits aim to minimize impacts of the fishery on the general ecosystem as well more broadly through the Federal Law on Wildlife. There is a partial strategy in place aimed at minimizing the risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem impacts are primarily controlled through measures to address fishery impacts on specific ecosystem components. This is highlighted by the presence of measures aimed at managing retained (PI 2.1.2), bycatch (PI 2.2.2) and ETP (PI 2.3.2) species as well as for habitat (PI 2.4.2). Thus, while it can be concluded that a partial strategy is in place to minimize fishery impacts on the ecosystem, it was not designed as an ecosystem management strategy per se and thus does not constitute a comprehensive strategy (FAM V2.1 par 7.1.22). While it is reported that annual TAC recommendations are reviewed taking the ecosystem into consideration, no evidence was provided suggesting that ecosystem concerns might have influenced the adjustment of the pollock TAC. SG 60: There are measures in place to take into account potential impacts (FFA fishing regulations, protected areas, minimum mesh size etc.). These measures are likely to be effective as the level of monitoring is high (retained catch monitoring, ecosystem sampling of benthos, nekton, commercial species surveys, scientific observer coverage). SG 80: There is a partial strategy in place relating to retained, bycatch and habitat components, and in particular the use of mid-water trawl gear minimises benthic ecosystem impact. Similar fisheries elsewhere using similar gear also have little impact. These measures are monitored closely and are successfully implemented. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 180 Date of issue: January 2013 SG100: Trophic modelling has been done on SOO although the application of the theory to the management has not been demonstrated. There is however no clear explicit ecosystem management strategy defined and no evidence that it is being implemented successfully. No elements of SG100 are met. Score: 80 A score of 80 is awarded. Audit Trace References Fishing Rules for Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Iliashenko and Iliashenko (2000) Radchenko et al. (2010). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 181 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to broadly monitoring elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic understand the functions of the key understand the key elements of the There is adequate structure and function, community elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. knowledge of the composition, productivity pattern and impacts of the fishery on biodiversity). the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main interactions between the fishery and ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from these ecosystem elements can be inferred existing information, but have not been existing information, but may not have been from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated. The main functions of the Components (i.e. The impacts of the fishery on target, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. Habitats are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is available on the Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components impacts of the fishery on the Components to allow some of the main consequences for and elements to allow the main the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to Information is sufficient to support the detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to development of strategies to manage changes in the outcome indicator scores or ecosystem impacts. the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Scoring Comments Through surveys and ecosystem modeling, information is adequate to identify and broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting the first SI of SG60 and SG80. The main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem components can be inferred from the ecosystem modeling but have not been investigated, meeting the second SI of SG60 and SG80 but not the first SI of SG100. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 182 Date of issue: January 2013 The main functions of the ecosystem components are generally known but the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, ETP species and the habitat have not been identified, meeting the third SI of SG80 but not the second SI of SG100. Sufficient information is available to allow inference of some but not all of the main ecosystem impacts of the fishery, meeting the fourth SI at SG80 but not SG100. In order to detect any increase in the risk level to ecosystem components, the assessment team considers that more quantitative information on impacts is required. The fifth SI of SG80 is not met. SG60: Information on the SOO ecosystem is adequate to identify key elements of the ecosystem, and the main impacts of the fishery on the system can be inferred. SG80: Information is adequate to broadly understand the system and the main impacts of the fishery can be inferred. The impact of fishery removals is difficult to quantify although models have been developed for the SOO. Sufficient data are being collected, although a higher level of sea-based research on trophic structure would increase the information needed to support ecosystem models. Score: 75 A score of 75 is awarded as the first four scoring issues at SG80 are met, but the fifth scoring issue is not met. Condition 6 By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence to demonstrate that sufficient information is available and continues to be collected on the impacts of the fishery on these Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) and key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity) to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Audit Trace References Aydin et al. (2002) Chuchukalo (2006) Kuznetsov et al. (1993) Lapko and Radchenko (2000) Shuntov and Dulepova (2000) Shuntov and Dulepova (1996) Shuntov et al. (1993) Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 183 Date of issue: January 2013 Table 28: Principle 3 Scoring Rationales. Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable 3.1 Governance and Policy Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.1.1 Legal and/or The management system is generally customary framework consistent with local, national or The management system international laws or standards that are exists within an aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in appropriate and accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. effective legal and/or The management system incorporates or The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or customary framework is subject by law to a mechanism for the subject by law to a transparent mechanism is subject by law to a transparent which ensures that it: resolution of legal disputes arising within for the resolution of legal disputes which is mechanism for the resolution of legal - Is capable of the system. considered to be effective in dealing with disputes that is appropriate to the context delivering sustainable most issues and that is appropriate to the of the fishery and has been tested and fisheries in accordance context of the fishery. proven to be effective. with MSC Principles 1 and 2; Although the management authority or The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts - Observes the legal fishery may be subject to continuing court attempting to comply in a timely fashion proactively to avoid legal disputes or rights created explicitly challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect with binding judicial decisions arising from rapidly implements binding judicial or established by or defiance of the law by repeatedly any legal challenges. decisions arising from legal challenges. custom of people violating the same law or regulation dependent on fishing necessary for the sustainability for the for food or livelihood; fishery. and - Incorporates an The management system has a mechanism The management system has a mechanism The management system has a mechanism appropriate dispute to generally respect the legal rights to observe the legal rights created explicitly to formally commit to the legal rights resolution framework. created explicitly or established by or established by custom of people created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for dependent on fishing for food or livelihood custom on people dependent on fishing food or livelihood in a manner consistent in a manner consistent with the objectives for food and livelihood in a manner with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 of MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with the objectives of MSC and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Comments Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 184 Date of issue: January 2013 The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Developments in the Russian fisheries management system during the past decade that are still taking place in 2012 have shown that the country is committed to enshrining international best practice in its fisheries governance. An array of Acts, most of which specifically define sustainability as a key outcome and often an objective, have been promulgated, and regional and national bodies and sub-bodies have been put in place with a view to ensuring that sustainable fisheries, in accord with MSC Principles 1 and 2, are achieved. It can be argued that before the turn of the century, international laws and standards were not being met adequately in Russia, but there has been a commitment to putting that situation right over the past decade. Russia has also recently signed its adherence to the principles of eradicating IUU fishing, though it signed up to most other UN codes some years ago. The first scoring guidepost under 60 has been met. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. Court systems in Russia provide a mechanism to resolve disputes, e.g. those arising between fishing companies and inspectors/Coast Guard. By providing legal guidelines for the fishing industry, the Russian Supreme Court acted in 2010 to harmonize laws and enforcement procedures. Transparent governance mechanisms to preclude and resolve disputes include provisions to allow fishing companies to propose changes to fishing rules, and formal processes for citizens and NGOs to review annual TACs. All stakeholders are now able and encouraged to participate, and an impressive number are participating, in the management process. A transparent auction system helps preclude disputes related to quota allocations. There is no evidence that the 100 SG scoring issue has been met, because no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the mechanism has been tested and proven effective. Both 60 and 80 SGs have been met for this scoring issue. The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The control methods implemented, including that for combating IUU, such as an enlarged and active monitoring capacity, arrest of illegal vessels, immediate remedial action, and often punitive sanctions are consistent with international conventions and practice. There is evidence too that the fishery is self-policing to a large degree, an important consideration given the massive area and large fleet size operating under the surveillance of virtually 100% VMS coverage but a clearly stretched inspectorate capacity. Overall, given the rapid progress and improvements made over the past decade, it is considered proven that “the system or fishery rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges”, the alternative option for this SG. The 60, 80 and 100 SGs for this scoring issue have therefore been met. There are no indigenous people dependent upon fishing in the waters in which Russian pollock are being caught by the Russian fishery. The fishery is prosecuted offshore in a largely “clean” fishery in which the small bycatch is also not high priority for indigenous peoples operating inshore. As per the requirements of the MSC Policy Advisory 18, the first scoring issue under both the 80 and 100 SG has been deleted from the higher scoring guideposts and does not contribute to scoring under those SGs. All 60 and 80 SG scoring guideposts have been met, one of the two applicable 100 SGs have been met, and the final 100 SG is considered non-applicable. Therefore, the awarded score is 90. Score: 90 A score of 90 is awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes: Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 185 Date of issue: January 2013 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and Organisations and individuals involved in Organisations and individuals involved in Organisations and individuals involved in responsibilities the management process have been the management process have been the management process have been The management system identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, roles and has effective responsibilities are generally understood. responsibilities are explicitly defined and responsibilities are explicitly defined and consultation processes well understood for key areas of well understood for all areas of that are open to responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. interested and affected parties. The management system includes The management system includes The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant consultation processes that regularly seek consultation processes that regularly seek The roles and information from the main affected and accept relevant information, including and accept relevant information, including responsibilities of parties, including local knowledge, to local knowledge. The management system local knowledge. The management system organisations and inform the management system. demonstrates consideration of the demonstrates consideration of the individuals who are information obtained. information and explains how it is used or involved in the not used. management process are clear and understood by The consultation process provides The consultation process provides all relevant parties. opportunity for all interested and affected opportunity and encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Scoring Comments Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The Russian system clearly outlines the people and the organizations involved, and defines their functions, roles and responsibilities. All involved organizations know how their role complements and supports other aspects of the system; that became abundantly clear during the site visit and from the documentation, including meeting notes, provided. Although the organizational structure appears to be rather complex, there are few layers and divisions, and all roles and responsibilities are clearly defined within the management framework. All Russian fisheries management is organized through a common coordinating agency, the Federal Fisheries Agency (FFA; or Rosrybolovstvo), which has operated with executive power since May 2012 under the Russian Ministry of Agriculture, currently managing five regional offices in the Russian Far East and administering federal law and policy on a regional basis. The enforcement of fishery laws is under the responsibility of a separate service, the Federal Security Service (FSB), but these two main organizations operate in an effective tandem with a common overall aim. In addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment operates the Federal Customs Agency under the direction of the Ministry of Agriculture. The available evidence and testimony confirms that the 60, 80 and 100 SGs for the first scoring issue have been met. The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The FFA establishes Fishing Rules in cooperation with the Far Eastern Scientific and Technical Council (DVNPS), which coordinates proposals from the fishing industry and others, and supports the establishment of Community Councils (also sometimes referred to as Public Councils) as a way to promote transparency, cooperation and dialogue with scientific, non-governmental, and public organizations and individuals. Operationally, the FFA adopts Fishing Rules that Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 186 Date of issue: January 2013 define catch limits, seasons, gears, and areas for legal operation. Such rules include standard fishery regulations describing the responsibilities of the fishing operator, a list of the documents to be available on board fishing vessels, details of prohibited areas, seasons and species, fishing gear regulations, minimum sizes for fish and other harvestable species, and bycatch regulations. For all Russian pollock fisheries, the key management measures are enshrined in the “Fishing Rules for the Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007”. Fishing Rules can be modified through a review process coordinated by the DVNPS, which considers proposals from fishers and others in a broad sense, acting as a coordinating body for communication, discussion and, if appropriate, confirmation of options and decisions related to the pollock fisheries. In this way, the process takes advantage of local knowledge and broadens public participation in fishery management, within the context of federal law and policy for Russian fisheries. An attempt was made during the site visit to determine whether the use or non-use of the information gleaned from the consultation process was fed back to all, i.e. the outcomes defined and explained, but perhaps through interpretation problems, that status could not be confirmed, though there were some indications from consulted participants that the required transparency did allow such two-way explanation. However, the certification assessment team was convinced then and has received confirmation since that all appropriate information is being gleaned and at least considered carefully in developing management options, beyond the TAC-setting and quota-allocation processes that tend to dominate fisheries management consultations in Russia and worldwide. During the site visit and since, the evaluation team has spent a lot of time checking on accessibility of the various sources of basic information and records required. Although translation issues have arisen during these searches, the team has been impressed by the ease with which the source material has been found, and the openness with which Russian participants in the process have approached its constant stream of enquiries, so accessibility (of internet-placed material, statistics and scientific background) is deemed for this fishery at least to be very good. Overall, the available evidence and testimony confirms that the 60 and 80 SGs for the second scoring issue have been met, but there was no written evidence that the management system regularly explained how it uses/did not use information gathered through its consultative processes. Therefore, the second 100 SG scoring issue was not considered to be met. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. As stated above, the Russian system has expanded rapidly over the past decade at least, and full opportunity is provided for everyone to become involved in the process of management; encouragement for all to participate was clear, and the process allows occasional refreshment of participants in formal boards where public and other consultation takes place. One cannot here draw comparisons with the system in other countries, as some would wish to do, because each country has its own way of addressing the term “consultation” and the outcomes of such consultation, but the certification assessment team was fully convinced during the visit that all appropriate steps were taken to involve as many of those interested in the fishery and affected by it as possible, and as representative a group of those stakeholders as possible, in the consultation process. It was clear that there were numerous opportunities in the management cycle for pollock for stakeholder participation, and over the past few years, many have taken up the opportunity, with the rolling cycle of newcomers supplementing those few who have remained involved for long periods, maintaining some consistency. The team agreed that the evidence and testimony responded to the requirements of the 80 and 100 SG for this scoring issue. As two of three 100 SG scoring issues have been met and the third scoring issue met the 80 SG, a score of 95 has been awarded. Score: 95 A score of 95 was awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 187 Date of issue: January 2013 Fishing Rules for the Far Eastern Fishing Basin. Directive by Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture No. 151 of 1 March 2007 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 188 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.1.3 Long term objectives Long-term objectives to guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide Clear long-term objectives that guide The management policy making, consistent with MSC Principles decision-making, consistent with MSC decision-making, consistent with MSC has clear long-term and Criteria and the precautionary Principles and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria and the objectives to guide approach, are implicit within management precautionary approach, are explicit within precautionary approach, are explicit decision-making that are policy. management policy. within and required by management consistent with MSC policy. Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Comments Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. Although the precautionary approach as such is not incorporated in Russian fisheries legislation anywhere, practical harvest control rules set for this and other fisheries do incorporate a precautionary element. The team notes that the fishery is managed as an “assessed” fishery, and data, research plans and regulations are tailored to meeting management needs. The pollock fishery is assessed and management duly advised according to the precautionary approach, as explained in the Babayan (2000) stock assessment document and in terms of management as defined by the FAO in its Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995), as well as with due regard for ecosystem health and sustainability, so is fully consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria. Evidence demonstrates the existence of long-term objectives within management policy, objectives defined in federal laws such as the Fishing Law, and strategic planning documents such as the Conception of the Fishing Industry and Marine Doctrine to 2020. Together, these documents define policy objectives for the Russian Far East fishing industry and provide a broad context for managing the pollock fishery. Long-term strategic plans enshrined in these documents include objectives to maintain sustainable stocks and protect the environment while meeting social and economic goals, sometimes including schedules and performance indicators to guide decision-making. In particular, the team notes that: • The Fishing Law (2004) defines key principles for Russian fisheries including priority provisions to conserve aquatic biological resources for human use and to maintain ecosystem health and functioning. To achieve these long-term objectives, there is a management strategy based on a cohesive series of measures and control rules designed to meet short-term goals such as annual TACs consistent with long-term conservation objectives for sustainable use of stocks and avoiding damage to ecological resources. . • Under amendments to the Fishing Law, ten-year quotas and 20-year access to specific fishing zones are issued, promoting long-term stewardship by the fishing industry and tacit support for achieving long-term conservation goals related to the resources and their associated ecosystems. • The Marine Doctrine to 2020 establishes Russian sovereignty in the EEZ and provides long-term objectives to conserve and manage aquatic biological resources, setting specific goals and targets for national development. It also sets goals for modernizing the fishing fleet, reducing fishing capacity, improving port and processing infrastructure, and encouraging long-term investment. It promotes open access to information and greater transparency into management decisions supporting evidence of both of which was found, and links the fishery to national food security as it seeks to further develop national fish-processing capabilities and supply chains. It advocates broader public participation and more public–private partnerships in the fishing industry, and recommends actions to streamline government processes, remove government Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 189 Date of issue: January 2013 obstacles, and increase the capacity and resources of State fishery management agencies, seeking to link regional development to sustainable stocks. • Russian government edict No. 1057 (2008) describes long-term objectives in the “Conception of the Russian fishery industry development up to 2020.” The Conception links fishing industry development with sustainability of stocks. Key objectives include improving the legal and policy framework, maintaining effective governance, rationalizing the use of aquatic biological resource through limiting fishing pressure, increasing expenditure on appropriate scientific research, and maintaining fleet capacity at levels concomitant with the marine resources being exploited. • With explicit support for scientific research in strategic documents, Russian scientists obtain and share information on marine ecosystem science. They participate in the international Pacific marine science organization (PICES), collaborate with American scientists in research in the Bering Sea and adjacent areas, and pay attention to investigating the extent and impacts of bycatch on non-target species and marine habitats. The assessment team considered that the unique scoring issues for the 60, 80 and 100 SG for this performance indicator have been met. The awarded score is 100. Score: 100 A score of 100 was awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Conception of the Russian fishery industry development up to 2020.Russian Government Edict, 1057, of 2008Babayan, V. K. 2000. Precautionary approach to Assessment of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) . Analysis and practical recommendations. VNIRO Publishing, Moscow. 192 pp. FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome. TINRO. 2006a. Combined thematic plan for 2005 scientific research by fisheries research organizations of TINRO system (Сводный тематический план НИР рыбохозяйственных научных организаций системы ТИНРО на 2005 год). TINRO, 2006b. Program of complex studies of biological resources of the open waters of the Pacific Ocean for 2007–2011. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Vladivostok. 44 pp. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 190 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.1.4 Incentives for The management system provides for The management system provides for The management system provides for sustainable fishing incentives that are consistent with incentives that are consistent with achieving incentives that are consistent with The management system achieving the outcomes expressed by the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles achieving the outcomes expressed by provides economic and MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly social incentives for incentives do not arise. considers incentives in a regular review of sustainable fishing and management policy or procedures to does not operate with ensure that they do not contribute to subsidies that contribute unsustainable fishing practices. to unsustainable fishing. Scoring Comments The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. Russian fisheries law is now mature, with marked developments during the last half of the first decade of the 21st century. Further, the management system for Alaska pollock in the Russian Far East has created through its policies and guiding principles some positive incentives to fish sustainably and to engender a sense of stewardship of the resources. They include: • In terms of conservation and sustainable operation, the Fishing Law (2004) establishes the primary strategic goal of the fishing industry in Russia as conservation of aquatic biological resources (ABRs). • As far as strategic industry development is concerned, long-term plans to develop an integrated fishing industry contain provisions to balance fleet capacity with marine resources, a commitment to resource conservation, greater support for marine research, promotion of long-term investment, and the establishment of more public–private partnerships to help modernize the fishing industry and ensure sustainability. • To implement longer-term strategic plans, five-year target programmes implement specific projects to achieve long-term goals. The federal target programme “Enhancing the Effective Use and Development of the Resource Potential of the Fisheries Complex from 2009 to 2013” seeks to improve the resource base, matching marine bioresource levels with a controlled fleet production capacity. Consideration of a fleet refurbishment scheme similar to the one that existed in 2009 and 2010 is further evidence of the Government’s balancing effort between resources and effort potential. • Russia implemented a ten-year quota system in 2009. With quotas for longer periods, fishers have greater incentive to fish sustainably and to invest. Fishers also have 20- year rights to fishing grounds, which are lost if they fail to catch at least 50% of their quota for two years. • With much of the above, the system seems to have attributes and principles that should incentivise the fishers and their companies to fish sustainably, i.e. promoting their sense of stewardship of the resource. The policies seem to the review panel to be a clear attempt to provide stability and/or security for the fisher community and industry despite the uncertainty that always surrounds sustainable fishing (worldwide) into the future. • Likewise, the absence in the region of “perverse” or negative incentives to fish unsustainably, such as subsidies, is a positive element of the system, leading to confidence that the system is operating in support also of MSC Principles 1 and 2. • All catches taken in Russian territorial seas, EEZ, and continental shelf have to be delivered to the Customs territory of the Russian Federation for inspection. Failure to do so may lead to the loss of the fishing license. • Uniform Fishing Rules apply across the Russian Far East basin. The rules define gears, seasons, and fishing zones, and specify documents, licenses, and reporting Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 191 Date of issue: January 2013 requirements. • With greater ownership of the resource, fishers have been more proactive in suggesting strengthening of the laws and enforcing the Fishing Rules. This is a very strong example of how the system is working to favour the resource – buy-in nearly always means commitment to responsibility towards the future. Through the DVNPS, fishers, associations and other stakeholders propose changes to the rules, which are then considered on the basis of rigorous scientific information and review. Also, the Community Councils provide a consultative and broadly appreciated forum for transparent dialogue among fishing companies, stakeholders, and other interested parties, promoting where necessary legal reform, better enforcement, and sustainable development. • Improved enforcement and strong sanctions, confiscations, and license cancellations provide legal incentives to obey the law. Under current law, fishing licenses can be revoked and quotas cancelled in cases of fishery violations (see section 6 and PI 3.2.3 below). Note too that the cost of being awarded a fishing right now is relatively high by local and international standards (though the cost on first issue was not so high), and to lose it through violation of laws and rules would have a severe economic consequence well beyond the cost of the fish so lost for the company placed in that situation. There seems too to be no shortage of potential applicants to join the fishery should an opportunity arise as a result of punitive sanctions being applied to current participants. Repeated offences can of course lead to termination of fishing rights, e.g. for having violated fishery regulations twice or more in a single calendar year and when the violation resulted in large-scale damage to aquatic biological resources (ABRs), for failing to deliver ABR catches to the Customs territory as required, and having, without the required notification, a VMS device on board not working for >48 h in a calendar year. There was no evidence provided or found to demonstrate that the management system explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that current incentives do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. A score of 80 was awarded as the scoring issue under both 60 and 80 were clearly met. Score: 80 A score of 80 was awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Conception of the Russian fishery industry development up to 2020.Russian Government Edict, 1057, of 2008Enhancing the Effective Use and Development of the Resource Potential of the Fisheries Complex from 2009 to 2013 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 192 Date of issue: January 2013 3.2 Fishery-specific management system Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.2.1 Fishery-specific Objectives, which are broadly consistent Short and long term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and objectives with achieving the outcomes expressed by consistent with achieving the outcomes long term objectives, which are The fishery has clear, MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are demonstrably consistent with achieving specific objectives within the fishery’s management system. explicit within the fishery’s management the outcomes expressed by MSC’s designed to achieve the system. Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed by fishery’s management system. MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Comments Short- and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. The management system in Russia covering the pollock fishery is rigorous, and overall managed by the FFA to high and transparent standards. Under the system, the FFA oversees the agreement on allocation of quota shares for catches, and grants the right to capture (catch) the resource to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. Currently, the agreement provides for allocation of quota shares for ten years based on official catch statistics of a particular user in the nine years preceding the accounting year, and the procedure for preparing and concluding of the Agreement is established by the federal government decree. The agreement specifies the parties, the subject of the contract, its duration, the type of fishing and other terms and conditions. The Fishing Law "On fishing..." provides for early termination of the agreement at the request of one of the parties in accord with civil legislation (Article 33.5). In addition, the public authority has the right to terminate the agreement unilaterally through court in the cases of: 1) a need for water bioresources for public use; 2) if the catch of pollock is for two consecutive years less than 50% of the quota issued; 3) if during the calendar year the quota-holder twice or more violates the Fishing Rules, causing notable damage to the resource; 4) if the quota-holder fails to deliver its catches to the Customs territory of the Russian Federation; 5) if the VMS ceases operation for 48 h or more without prior agreement. All the above refer to the management system itself, how it operates, and what happens when a fisher might default in some way. However, it is also notable that to include the most appropriate scientific data and advice in decision-making, the management system includes VNIRO, TINRO, and other scientific institutes in regular reviews of fishery management decisions, especially, but not only, in the annual process of setting TACs. Notably, VNIRO in Moscow is responsible for providing oversight and an arms-length review to ensure scientific rigour and consistency of the proposed decisions with federal fisheries policy and law, and advocates and supports the use of the precautionary approach (Babayan, 2000) to assessment (refer to P1), so promoting the principle of short- and long-term sustainability inherent in MSC principles. The transparency imbued in the system through the inclusive process of broad consultation throughout the assessment and evaluation process also generates confidence that P2 requirements are being met adequately. For instance, the regular evaluation of the fishery’s performance in terms of avoiding endangered, threatened and protected species (ETPs) that demonstrates Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 193 Date of issue: January 2013 stability in ETP stocks is proof that P2 objectives are being taken seriously. Moreover, many of those consulted during the evaluation process showed themselves to be less interested in fisheries per se than they are in the long-term health of the ecosystem and the environment within which they operate. Records of those consultations are available, and the correct questions are clearly being asked before decisions on exploitation, and by whom, are made; the process is itself a lengthy and comprehensive one. Of relevance to this objective too is the fact that direct observer coverage (including all three groups of observers, scientific, FFA, and GMI) is increasing year on year, allowing the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2 to be evaluated more effectively (the observers between them note far more than mere catches and discard rates, and the observations they make feed back immediately into the management process). On careful perusal of statistics too, the system of observation monitoring of what could be construed as recording discard rates is a rigorous one, and discarding nowadays is clearly not a common practice. Further, the several research centres associated with this fishery devote massive resources to on-going monitoring of the habitat and the ecosystem in the Sea of Okhotsk, and many of the environmental time-series available to managers are now impressively long. Finally, there is no evidence of any IUU fishing associated with the pollock fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk over the past few years at least. There was evidence of explicit short- and long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 being defined within the management system, so meeting the 80 SG scoring issue and, because they are to some degree measurable (e.g. ETP species stability) making their formal evaluation demonstrable, partially meeting the requirement of SG100. However, there was insufficient evidence of all potential MSC P1 and P2 objectives being measurable, which would be required to fully meet the 100 SG scoring issue, so a partially measurable score of 85 was awarded. Score: 85 A score of 85 was awarded. Audit Trace References Babayan, V. K. 2000. Precautionary Approach to Assessment of Total Allowable Catch (TAC). Analysis and Practical Recommendations. VNIRO Publishing, Moscow. 192 pp. PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes: Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Malkin, E.M. 1985. On two main directions of fish abundance theory development. In Theory of Abundance Formation and the Rational Use of Target Species’ stocks, pp. 148-157. Nauka, Moscow. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 194 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal decision-making There are established decision-making processes processes that result in measures and processes that result in measures and The fishery-specific strategies to achieve the fishery-specific strategies to achieve the fishery-specific management system objectives. objectives. includes effective decision-making Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to Decision-making processes respond to all processes that result in serious issues identified in relevant serious and other important issues identified issues identified in relevant research, measures and strategies research, monitoring, evaluation and in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation monitoring, evaluation and consultation, to achieve the consultation, in a transparent, timely and and consultation, in a transparent, timely in a transparent, timely and adaptive objectives. adaptive manner and take some account of and adaptive manner and take account of manner and take account of the wider the wider implications of decisions. the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for any actions Formal reporting to all interested or lack of action associated with findings stakeholders describes how the and relevant recommendations emerging management system responded to findings from research, monitoring, evaluation and and relevant recommendations emerging review activity. from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Scoring Comments There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The process leading to decision-making in the Russian pollock fishery for the Sea of Okhotsk is clear and seemingly robust, at least in terms of its broad-ranging, comprehensive consultation. The system is based on sound science, all available information being used in the process and evaluated by experts regionally and centrally in Moscow. Experts in many fields of science and economics then probe the outcome of the assessments and ask the questions necessary to achieve the objective of sustainability of the fishery and of the ecosystem in which it operates. As in most such consultations worldwide, the evaluation tends to be weighted towards the target species, in this case pollock, but the type of environmental/ ecosystem questions posed and answers given to the evaluation process are appropriate and relevant; the questions show good understanding of the system in which the pollock fishery is prosecuted. The established decision-making process clearly responds to the requirements of the first scoring issue of both the 60 and 80 SGs. Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. There is a national research plan that is subject to regular updating, although there is evidence that much of the research is being done “because it has always been done that way”. In other words, decisions could be made on the basis of how there has always been a response to research Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 195 Date of issue: January 2013 output, rather than by stimulating a response by requesting that new, innovative appropriate research be carried out. In terms of the formal assessment and the output in terms of management advice, however, the decision-making process is fully reactive and adaptive, based on up-to-date catch statistics, survey results and all other relevant research output. That it is timely (though takes a long time, as all such systems do) is also not questioned, but it was not that easy to conclude that the processes involved in this scientific evaluation, as opposed to management evaluation, are transparent throughout, specifically in the ability of the team to access some of the crucial assessment documentation. This was almost certainly the consequence of interpretation issues, but simply making material more available publically on, for instance, the internet will help. Notwithstanding, all requests from the team for information were met positively, and documentation swiftly provided. It is notable that the wider implications of all decisions, on the serious issues and possibly other more mundane issues too, are considered in producing the management advice, judging by the notes of the evaluation meetings and the expertise present at them. The team was concerned too that, although the management system “seemed” to be transparent, at least that the team was told it was by all those questioned, we were not that convinced that the culture of the system in Russia promoted the form of transparency to which one is accustomed in the western, developed (by definition) world. Overall, therefore, the team considered that the evidence provided did not demonstrate that all identified issues in research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation were being responded to openly and as transparently as they should be, although the serious ones were, so the 60 SG scoring issue was met, but not the 80. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. As stated above, all (and best) information is used in decision-making, at least all natural scientific information. There are few parts of the world where social and economic data are taken into consideration formally and rigorously in the evaluation process, so the pollock fishery is not unusual in that respect. However, explicit in the assessment methodology is the precautionary principle, as explained in the Babayan (2000) document. Overall, adherence to the precautionary principle as defined by the FAO (1995) is strong, so this aspect of decision-making is well catered for. The third scoring issue under the 80 SG was considered met. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Effort is made to provide formal feedback resulting from decisions on management, through publicizing the minutes of the various meetings, but there does not seem to be directed formal reporting to all (or even to some) stakeholders unless the latter specifically request it. The same clearly applied to the team’s specific requests for access to information, as stated above. This might be a part legacy of the system applying 20 or so years ago in Russia (the Soviet Union), but in terms of international standards, it is not unusual. Certainly, the team found no attempt to hide the decisions and the reasoning on which they are based, and websites are used to support such actions. The fourth 80 SG scoring issue is considered met. As per the requirements of the MSC Policy Advisory 18, the first and third scoring issues under the 100 SG have been deleted from the higher scoring guidepost because of their repetition from the 80 SG, and do not contribute to scoring under those SGs. All but one 80 SG scoring issues were clearly met (and that one scored 60 based largely on the transparency issue), and no 100 SG scoring issues were met. A score of 75 was therefore awarded. Score: 75 A score of 75 was awarded. Condition 7 By the second surveillance audit, the client will implement a strategy to ensure that its management decision making processes which respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, are transparent (i.e. that information is more readily available) and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 196 Date of issue: January 2013 Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Babayan, V. K. 2000. Precautionary approach to Assessment of Total Allowable Catch (TAC). Analysis and Practical Recommendations. VNIRO Publishing, Moscow. 192 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. TINRO. 2006a. Combined thematic plan for 2005 scientific research by fisheries research organizations of TINRO system (Сводный тематический план НИР рыбохозяйственных научных организаций системы ТИНРО на 2005 год). TINRO, 2006b. Program of complex studies of biological resources of the open waters of the Pacific Ocean for 2007–2011. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Vladivostok. 44 pp. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 197 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.2.3 Compliance and Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance A comprehensive monitoring, control and enforcement mechanisms exist, are implemented in the system has been implemented in the fishery surveillance system has been implemented Monitoring, control and fishery under assessment and there is a under assessment and has demonstrated an in the fishery under assessment and has surveillance reasonable expectation that they are ability to enforce relevant management demonstrated a consistent ability to mechanisms ensure the effective. measures, strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, fishery’s management strategies and/or rules. measures are enforced and complied with. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance Sanctions to deal with non-compliance Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they exist, are consistently applied and thought exist, are consistently applied and are applied. to provide effective deterrence. demonstrably provide effective deterrence. Fishers are generally thought to comply Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers There is a high degree of confidence that with the management system for the comply with the management system under fishers comply with the management fishery under assessment, including, when assessment, including, when required, system under assessment, including, required, providing information of providing information of importance to the providing information of importance to importance to the effective management effective management of the fishery. the effective management of the fishery. of the fishery. There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Scoring Comments A monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Statistics on compliance in the Sea of Okhotsk from 2008 to 2010 are provided and commented upon in detail in Section 6.9 above, so are not provided in detail here. The system, which operates under the FFA and the FSB, is extensive, well run and effective. Clearly with the size of the fleet, it is impossible to have every vessel consistently under direct observation (as apparently applies in the US pollock fisheries), though that situation would be deemed by some to be desirable, especially in terms of generating confidence in the official catch statistics, particularly relating to bycatch, which may not be recorded adequately. Nevertheless, the number of inspections made annually is rising, and the number of incidences of non-compliance dropping as the level of fines burgeons. Moreover, the MCS system appears now to be as effective as or more effective than many of those operating around the world in other groundfish fisheries, many MSC-certified. Huge strides have been made in recent years in bringing the MCS system to a high standard of operation, and as the Coast Guard fleet expands and renews, according to stated plans to do so, it will continue to develop and to operate even more effectively. There is therefore clearly an effective MCS system already implemented, inclusive of at-sea inspectors, Coast Guard, VMS coverage, and shoreside inspection. The VMS system in place (which covers all vessels) uses two forms of device, Inmarsat-C and Argos. Of these two, the Argos system is the least fallible or prone to mechanical interference, and this is the system gradually being taken up by the UoC fleet. By 2010, almost half the Russian pollock fleet (Sea of Okhotsk and elsewhere, all gears) were using it, either solely or in conjunction with an Inmarsat-C. By now, almost certainly the dominance of the Argos system will be greater, but it needs to be said that other (MSC-accredited) fisheries still use only the Inmarsat-C system. The team is therefore of the opinion that the monitoring and compliance capacity of management of the Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 198 Date of issue: January 2013 UoC fleet is adequate and indeed impressive in international terms, given that VMS is just one component of it and that observations are burgeoning annually. In recent years, the system has been demonstrably consistent in its ability to enforce management measures and rules. However, in terms of coverage, its independence, and whether there are sufficient internal checks and balances, the team considers that it cannot be proven that the system is as comprehensive in world terms as it could be, so just the 60 and 80 SGs have been met. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. The sanctions for non-compliance have been detailed several times in this report, and it is clear that they are very powerful and are being applied rigorously. The statistics on their application are provided in Section 6.9 and a spreadsheet on individual cases is available on the website, under the signature of the FFA. In particular, some commercial harvesting operators have failed to deliver on their allocations and have summarily been removed from the fishery in favour of others. The fishery is very valuable nationally and regionally, part of the largest groundfish fishery in the world, so there is no shortage of operators wishing to enter the fishery if others default. The sanctions being applied are consistent and are certainly working well in this fishery; the statistics show that – increasing inspections, increasing fines overall, but an annually decreasing percentage of non-compliance. It is notable from the individual and summary compliance statistics too that although a few cases against miscreants are deemed unproven by the court, most cases are successful and result in a heavy sanction. The second scoring issue under the 60, 80 and 100 SGs are met. Some evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Local and the few Korean fishers allowed by licence in the fishery are as far as could be determined from the material available compliant with the management system in place (non-compliance statistics reveal the annual rate of non-compliance to be <3.5%), though some of those interviewed by the team felt that the extent of observer coverage was not yet as high as perhaps it should be. That fishers generally comply with regulations is therefore fairly certain, especially given that the sanctions applied to them if they transgress are heavy and that there are many others who would seek the opportunity to take their place if it was offered. From the documented information and compliance statistics at the certification team’s disposal, it is considered that the 80 SG is met. The rate of inspection, though impressive by most international standards, is not so high as to provide convincing evidence of performance equating to the 100 SG, though anecdotal evidence exists that it is being reached; that level is not currently considered therefore to have been met. With overall coverage low, the 80 SG is the best that can be achieved. There is no evidence of systematic, indeed any, non-compliance. No evidence could be found of systematic non-compliance of those licensed to operate in the fishery, though allegations of IUU fishing in some areas do exist for the past, especially before Russia signed its adherence to the principle of eradicating IUU fishing. The team is convinced from documentation and statistics perused, however, that IUU fishing in the pollock fishery is at worst virtually non-existent. There is some information in the reports of management meetings, but there is no formal report available, so SG 80 has in the opinion of the certification team been met, but not SG100. As per the requirements of the MSC Policy Advisory 18, the fourth scoring issue under the 100 SG has been deleted and does not contribute scoring higher than 80 under that SG. Overall, so with one 100 SG and the others 80, a score of 85 is warranted. Score: 85 A score of 85 was awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 199 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.2.4 Research plan Research is undertaken, as required, to A research plan provides the management A comprehensive research plan provides The fishery has a achieve the objectives consistent with the system with a strategic approach to research the management system with a coherent research plan that MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely information and strategic approach to research across addresses the sufficient to achieve the objectives P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information needs of consistent with the MSC’s Principles 1 and information sufficient to achieve the management. 2. objectives consistent with the MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are available to interested Research results are disseminated to all Research plan and results are parties. interested parties in a timely fashion. disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. Scoring Comments A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with the MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. A formal and comprehensive research plan does exist (in Russian, issued annually) and, from a stock assessment and ecosystem evaluation perspective, reliable and timely information is provided with the aim of achieving objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The plan apparently covers a far wider base than just the pollock fisheries and the ecosystems where the fishery is found, though. It is clear that impressive amounts of state funding are provided to the research function, though there is an element still of scientists carrying out the research that has always been carried out rather than strategically evaluating the worth of the various components and if necessary changing direction towards more strategically needed scientific outcomes. This view may well be a consequence of the difficulty in interpreting the extensive document in Russian that is the formal Research Plan, along with the observation that annual research plans do not seem to differ much from year to year, and therefore are questionably reactive to up-to-date research needs. What the far eastern research does deliver, though, is exemplary long time-series of information on the fishery. Long time-series of information, if accurate and well documented in terms of slight changes that might have transpired over time, are extremely valuable in managing fisheries, for instance, and in evaluating long-term changes in resources caused by climate change. The research plan is published formally and annually, so is transparent to other stakeholders in the fishery. The first scoring issue of the 60 and 80 SGs are met, but there is no evidence that the research plan is comprehensive, as specified in the 100 SG scoring issue. Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. Russian scientists seem to be willing to share their research data with other scientists where relevant, certainly far more so than in the Soviet years, and were very willing to share scientific research material with the team. All research material is made available in timely fashion to those charged with formally assessing the state of the pollock fishery, the main target of the research, and to stakeholders if appropriate, and the researchers themselves are available for consultation on key outputs if needed. There is no evidence that the second scoring issue of the 100 SG is met (see the comments elsewhere about transparency of scientific information) that information is widely and publicly available, so this scoring issue only attains a score of 80. Both 80 SG scoring issues are met, and none of the 100 scoring issues are met, so a score of 80 is awarded. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 200 Date of issue: January 2013 Score: 80 A score of 80 was awarded. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Pollock, West Bering Sea zone, trawl, biology, mass measurements, biological analysis special analysis, weight composition, length composition, maturity stages. Report of research results according to the plan of resource study and state monitoring of water resources for 2010. TINRO, Vladivostok. TINRO. 2006a. Combined thematic plan for 2005 scientific research by fisheries research organizations of TINRO system (Сводный тематический план НИР рыбохозяйственных научных организаций системы ТИНРО на 2005 год). TINRO, 2006b. Program of complex studies of biological resources of the open waters of the Pacific Ocean for 2007–2011. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Vladivostok. 44 pp. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 201 Date of issue: January 2013 Scoring Guidepost 60 Scoring Guidepost 80 Scoring Guidepost 100 3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to management evaluate some parts of the management evaluate key parts of the management evaluate all parts of the management performance system and is subject to occasional system and is subject to regular internal and system and is subject to regular internal evaluation internal review. occasional external review. and external review. There is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Comments The fshery has in place mechanisms to evaluate (some of the) key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The overall fishery management system is based on similar systems in place worldwide. It is seemingly effective in its operation, though is clearly still developing, and is impressive in that its development to international standards is not much more than a decade long. Many (organizations and people) are involved in the system, and several key people lead the main functions and organizations, and its general administrative and bureaucratic transparency throughout is obvious. It is obvious too that its development has been both proactive (to an urgent need) and reactive (to international developments and requirements), and is therefore most certainly under rigorous internal review, where “internal” here means federally within Russia and regionally in its far east. What is not so clear, however, is whether there is now, or indeed was ever much, external review of (some of the key aspects of) the management system. The term “external” is generally taken to mean external to the country, but guidance in FAM v2.1 (at 8.3.18) advises that “external review” means external to the fisheries management system, but not necessarily international. Certification requirement v1.2 also advises (CB4.11.1) that teams should interpret “External review” at SG80 and 100 to mean external to the fisheries management system, but not necessarily international. In terms of the advice and subsequent TAC within the management system (especially that related to the formal stock assessment process), Russian scientists are interacting with their US and other counterparts in PICES and through some bi-national agreements, but the formal external review seems to be that relating to the stock assessment and advisory process of many Russian fisheries convened by VNIRO in Moscow. Even at PICES, however, there is no formal review of the annual assessments (as happens at ICES), merely opportunity through a scientific forum for researchers to exchange scientific views on matters of mutual interest. Formal review of the management system itself, i.e. related to the processes outside of the scientific assessment, is not so obviously taking place, at least documentary evidence has not been found of it, but such review does seem to be the norm in fisheries management around the world. That the management system is well constructed is not questioned (documentary evidence shows it to be), only whether it is sufficiently being reviewed independent of possibly vested interests. One can believe that the management system is subject to some form of evaluation during the Moscow-based and other internal to Russia reviews, and also that it is regular enough for the fisheries in question. Further, given that at least some key parts of the Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 202 Date of issue: January 2013 management system are being evaluated sufficiently regularly, including external to the regional administrative arrangements, and that a partial score is allowed for this indicator because it has a single scoring issue under each SG and that the full SG 60 scoring issue is met, a partial score of 70 is awarded on the basis that the management system is indeed moving closely and irrevocably towards meeting the requirements of SG 80. Score: 70 A score of 70 was awarded. Condition 8 By the third surveillance audit, the client fishery will provide evidence to show that it has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system other than the scientific assessment and is subject to occasional external review. Audit Trace References PCA Alaska (Walleye) Pollock fishery submission to Moody Marine Certification Ltd for assessment purposes : Western Bering Sea fishery (Client submission. 150 pp. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 203 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report References The following documents were used in the preparation of this report. Additional documentation and supporting materials can be seen on the client website at http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc- certification/ . Principle 1 Alverson D.L. and W.T. Pereyra. 1969. Demersal fish exploration in the northeastern Pacific Ocean – An evaluation of exploratory fishing methods and analytical approaches to stock size and yield forecasts. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26: 1985-2001. Caddy, J. F. 1998. A short review of precautionary reference points and some proposals for their use in data-poor situations. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Fisheries Technical Paper 379. Fadeyev N.S., Methodic of Alaska pollock resources’ evaluation for eggs abundance and the size/age composition // Sea Biology. 1999. V.25. № 3. – pp.246-249. Gunderson, D.R. and P. H. Dygert. 1988. Reproductive effort as a predictor of natural mortality rate. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 44: 200 – 209. Hønneland, G. 2004. Russian fisheries management: the precautionary approach in theory and practice, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Kizner, Z.I. and D.A. Vasilyev. 1997. Instantaneous separable VPA (ISVPA). ICES J. Marine Science. 54: 399 – 411. Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004- 2009. Methot, R.D. 2009. Chapter 9: stock assessment: operational models in support of fisheries management. In. R.J. Beamish and B.J. Rothschild [eds.]. The future of fisheries science in North America. Pg. 137 – 165. Springer Science. NMFS. 2011. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands SAFE Report. PCA. 2010. Principle 1 – Conservation of Target Species. PCA information submission of 8 june 2010 PCA. 2011a. PCA Alaska (Walleye) pollock fishery submission for MSC assessment purposes. Sea of Okhotsk fishery. PCA information submission of 10 June 2011 PCA. 2011b. Response to the experts’ (Bob O’Boyle) questions concerning the Sea of Okhotsk. PCA. 2011c. PCA submission materials for MSC certification of pollock fisheries in the Sea of Okhotsk and West Bering Sea – site visit follow-up information. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 204 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report PCA. 2012a. Some clarifications on catches and discard monitoring and reporting, 2012. PCA. 2012b. Clarifications on SOO Danish seiner pollock fishery information and monitoring. PCA. 2012c. Clarifications on pollock juvenile discards. PICES. 2004. Marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. PICES Special Publication 1, 280 p. Punt, A.E., M.W. Dorn and M.A. Haltuch. 2008. Evaluation of threshold management strategies for groundfish off the U.S. West Coast. Fisheries Research. 94: 251 – 266. Quinn, T.J. and R.B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynanics. Oxford University Press. New York. 542 pp. Principle 2 Artukhin, Yu. B. 2011. Modern distribution of the short-tailed albatross Phoebasria albatrus in the Far Eastern Seas of Russia. In : Characteristics of biodiversity conservation of Kamchaatka marine nearshore ecosystems. Arzhanova, N.V., Zubarevich, V.L. 1997. Chemical fundamentals of biological productivity of the Sea of Okhotsk. Complex investigations of the Sea of Okhotsk ecosystem. Moscow: VNIRO. pp. 86-92 (in Russian). Avdeev G.V., Ovsyannikov Е.Е., Ovsyannikova S.L. 2008. Modern pollock stock status and fishery prospects in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk // Modern status of marine biological resources: scientific materials at the conference dedicated to 70 years anniversary of Konovalov S.M. Vladivostok: TINRO-Center. P. 9-12. Aydin, K. Y., V. V. Lapko, V. I. Radchenko, and P. A. Livingston. 2002. A comparison of the eastern and western Bering Sea shelf/slope ecosystems through the use of mass-balance food web models. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-130. Bezrukov, P.L. 1960. Bottom sediments of the Okhostk sea. Trudy Inst. Oceanol. Acad. Sci. (USSR). 32. Borets L.A. 1997. Bottom ichtiocens of Russian shelf of Far East seas: composition, structure, elements of functioning and commercial value. – Vladivostok: TINRO, 1997. – P. 217. Borets L.A., Naidenko S.V. 1993. Feeding and food relations of bottom fishes in Western Kamchatka shelf / TINRO. – Vladivostok, 1993. – P. 64 – VNIERH, No. 1166-рх P. 91. Burdin А.М, Nikulin V.S. and R.L. Brownell R.L. (2004) . Cases of entanglement of western north- pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in fishing gear: serious threat for species survival. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. 2004 http://2mn.org/engl/bookshelf_en/mmh3_book_en.htm Burdin А.М., Weller D.W. and R.L. Brownell R.L. (2004). Western population of Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus): Modern status, problems of research and conservation. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. 2004 http://2mn.org/engl/bookshelf_en/mmh3_book_en.htm. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 205 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Burkanov, V. N. 2009. Russian Steller sea lion research update.National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington, AFSC Quarterly Report, January–March:6–11. Burkanov, V., A. Altukhov, R. Andrews, D. Calkins, E. Gurarie, P. Permyakov, S. Sergeev, and J. Waite, 2006. Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) pup production in the Kuril Islands, 2005- 2006,” (poster), AFSC, NOAA and Alaska Sea Life Center, 2006. Burkanov, V., R. Andrews, D. Calkins, A. Altukhov, V. Vertyankin, and J. Waite, 2007. Update on Steller sea lion (Eumatopias jubatus) surveys in Russia, 2006-2008, (poster), AFSC, NOAA and Alaska Sea Life Center 2007. Burkanov, V., E. Gurarie, A. Altukhov, E. Mamaev, P. Permyakov, A. Trukhin, J. Waite and T. Gelatt. 2011. Environmental and biological factors influencing maternal attendance patterns of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Russia. Journal of Mammalogy, 92(2): 352–366, 2011 Burkanov, V. N., et. al. 2002. Preliminary results of Steller sea lion surveys in waters of the Russian Far East in 2001. Pp. 56–59 in Marine mammals of the Holarctic: collection of scientific papersafter the second international conference. KMK, Moscow, Russia. Burkanov, V. N., et. al. 2003. Preliminary results of Steller sea lion surveys in Kamchatka and Commander Islands in 2002 [Kratkie rezul’taty obsledovaniya lezhbishch sivucha na Kamchatke iKomandorskikh o-vakh v 2002 godu]. Pp. 29–41 in Sokhranenie bioraznoobraziya Kamchatki i prilegayushchikh morey: collection of scientific papers after the third international conference. KamchatNIRO, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia (In Russian) Burkanov, V. N., et. al . 2008. Brief results of Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) survey in Russian waters, 2006–2007. Pp. 116–123 in Marine mammals of the Holarctic: collection of scientific papers after the fifth international conference. RPO ‘‘Marine Mammal Counsel’’ Odessa, Ukraine. Chuchukalo V.I. 2006. Feeding and Food Relations of Nekton and Nekton Benthos in the Far Eastern Seas. – Vladivostok: TINRO-Center, 2006. – 484 P. Chernyavsky, V.I., Bobrov, V.A., Afanasiev, N.N. 1981. Main productive zones of the Sea of Okhotsk. Izvestia TINRO 105: 20-25 (in Russian). Chisatao, Y, Yamannaka, Y, and Nakatsuka, T. 2005. An Ecosystem Model Including Nitrogen Isotopes: Perspectives on a Study of the Marine Nitrogen Cycle. Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 61, pp. 921 to 942, 2005 Dolganova N.T. 1986. Feeding of pollock fingerlings in Okhotsk Sea in autumn // Far East seas cods. - Vladivostok: TINRO, 1986. - P. 69-78. Dulepova, E.P. 2002. Comparative bioproductivity of the Far East Seas’ macroecosystems. Vladivostok TINRO-Center, 273 p. (InRussian) Dulepova, E.P. 2002. Comparative bioproductivity of the Far East Seas' macroecosystems. Vladivostok TINRO-Center, 273 Dulepova, E.P., Merzlyakov, A.Yu. 2007. Comparative analysis of the basic components in the southern and northern Okhotsk Sea pelagic subsystems. Izvestia TINRO 148: 23-41 (in Russian). Dulepova E., Ovsyannikov. E. 2008. Productivity of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) in the eastern Okhotsk Sea in 2006-2008 // PICES Abstr. — Daljan, Сhina, October 27–November 4, 2008. — P. 123. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 206 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Dulepova E., Radchenko, V., 2004. Okhotsk Sea. _In_Marine Ecosystems of the North Pacific. PICES Special Pub. 1 Dulepova, E.P. 2002. Comparative bioproductivity of the Far East Seas' macroecosystems. Vladivostok TINRO-Center, 273 Ermakov Yu.K., Karyakin K.A. 2003. By-catch Composition During Pollock Trawl Fishing in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea // Fisheries Matters, 2003, No.3. PP. 423-434. Favorite, F., Dodimead, A.J., Nasu, K. 1976. Oceanography of the Subarctic Pacific region, 1960-71. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 33, 187 p. Gorbatenko K.M. 1987. The daily rhythm of pollock feeding in autumn / pollock population structure, population dynamics and ecology - Vladivostok: TINRO, 1987. - P. 189-202. Gorbatenko K.M., Dolganova N.T. 1989. Feeding of sexually mature pollock and forage utilization in the Okhotsk Sea in autumn // Ichtiology issues. - 1989. - V. 29., Ed. - 2. - P. 249-256. Gorbatenko K.M., Lazhentsev A.E. 2002. Feeding of pollock and nekton food supply in the North Okhotsk Sea // TINRO News. - 2002. - V. 130. - P. 408-421. Gorbatenko K.M., Lazhentsev A.E., Kiyashko S.I. 2004. Modern data on the trophic structure of epipelagic ecosystem in North Okhotsk Sea based on the analysis of isotopic composition of carbon and nitrogen in organic matter of hydrocoles // Report thesis for the scientific and practical conference: On priorities for fisheries science in the development of the fishing industry in Russia until 2020. – Moscow, VNIRO, 2004. – P. 95-96 Gorbatenko K.M., Merzlyakov A.Yu., Shershenkov S.Yu. 2004. Feeding habits of multi-dimensional pollock larvae Theragra chalcogramma (Pallas, 1814) in the West Kamchatka shelf // Sea biology. – 2004а. - V. 30, No. 2. - P. 131-137. Ermakov Tu.K and Karyakin, K.A.. 2003. By-catch composition during pollock trawl fishing in the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea // Fishing Matters, 2003. No 3. Pp 423-434 FAO. 2007. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 506 Options to mitigate bottom habitat impact of dragged gears (J.W. Valdemarsen, T. Jørgensen and A. Engås). Institute of Marine Research Bergen, Norway Heileman, S and Belkin,I. 2010. (unpub.) Contributions to the LME (No 52) report on the Sea of Okhostk in : Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (Editors) 2008. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Iljinskiy, E.N., Gorbatenko, K.M. 1994. Main trophic linkages of nekton of the mesopelagic layer of the Sea of Okhotsk. Izvestia TINRO 116: 91-104 (in Russian). Iliashenko, V.Yu. and E.I. Iliashenko. 2000. Krasnaya kniga Rossii: pravovye akty [Red Data Book of Russia: legislative acts]. State committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection. Moscow. 143 pp. In Russian. Jamieson, G., Livingston, P. and Zhang, C.-I. (Eds.) 2010. Report of Working Group on Ecosystem- Based Management Science and its Application to the North Pacific. PICES Sci. Rep. No. 37, 184 pp. Ishmukova I.V. 2004. The multicomponent model of the Okhotsk Sea ecosystem / Electronic Journal "Explored in Russia" http//zhurnal/ape/relarn/ru/article/2004/210pd. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 207 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Kashiwai, M. (workshop summary), 2009. 4th PICES Workshop on “The Okhotsk Sea and Adjacent Areas,” in PICES Press, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan 2009. Klyashtorin, L.B., Lyubushin, A. 2005. Cyclic climate changes and fish productivity. Moscow: VNIRO. 235 pp. Kuznetsova N.A. 2004. Feeding and nekton food relations in epipelagic Northern Okhotsk Sea: Thesis of Biology Candidate. - Vladivostok: TINRO Center, P. 2004. - 316. Kuznetsov, V.V., V.P. Shuntov, and L.A. Borets, 1993. "Food Chains, Physical Dynamics, Perturbations, and Biomass Yields of the Sea of Okhotsk," in Kenneth Sherman, L. Alexander and B.D. Gold (eds.), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainability (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) pp. 69-78. ISBN: 087168506X Labay, V.S., Kochnev, Yu.R. 2008. Long-term changes in the community Nuculana pernula as the indicator of global benthic changes in sublittoral zone of the low-boreal part of the Okhotsk Sea. Transactions of the Sakhalin Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography 10: 173- 182 (in Russian). Lapko V.V. 1994. Trophic relations in epipelagic ichthyocen of Okhotsk sea // Abstr. Abst. of 3rd Ann. Meet. PICES. — Nemuro, Hokkaido, Japan, October 15–24, 1994. — P. 28. Lapko, V. V., and V. I. Radchenko. 2000. Sea of Okhotsk. Pages 463-472 in C. Sheppard, editor. Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation, Volume II. Elsevier Publishing Co., New York. Markina, N.P., Chernyavsky, V.I. 1984. Quantitative distribution of zooplankton and benthos in the Sea of Okhotsk. Izvestia TINRO 109: 109-119 (in Russian). Melnikov, I. V., Smirnov, A. V. and Baitalyuk, A. A. Principles of Resources and Pollock Fisheries management in Russia. TINRO, Vladivostok. Fisheries legislation reform in Russia, 2004-2009. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Koblikov V.N., Bezrukov V.N. Data on composition and quantitative distribution of microbenthos on Sea of Okhotsk shelf of Sakhalin // Izvestiya TINRO. 2004. V. 139. P. 317-339 Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L. 2005. Marcozoobenthos of the West Kamchatka shelf: 20 years later. // Рыбное хозяйство. №3. P. 3-39. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Bezrukov R.G. 2005. Macrobenthos of the Peter the Great Bay (Sea of Japan): composition, distribution, resources // Izvestiya TINRO. Izvestiya TINRO. 140. P. 170-195. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Bezrukov R.G. 2007. Some results of bonitation in the Russian waters of the Far Eastern Seas: composition and quantitative distribution (Sea of Okhotsk) // Izvestiya TINRO. 2007. V. 149. P. 310-337. Nadtochyi V.А., Budnikova L.L., Bezrukov R.G. 2008. Some results of bonitation in the Russian waters of the Far Eastern Seas: composition and quantitative distribution (Bering Sea) // Izvestiya TINRO. 2008. Izvestiya TINRO. 153. P. 264-282. NOAA (Content Source); 2011. Mark McGinley (Topic Editor) "Sea of Okhotsk large marine ecosystem". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 208 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 20, 2008; Last revised Date May 20, 2008; Retrieved September 29, 2011. Radchenko, V.I., 2007a. Ecosystem-based principles in contemporary fisheries management on the Russian Far East, presentation delivered at PICES 16, October 2007. Radchenko, V.I, 2007b. Problems of TAC forecast development for multi-species fisheries in the Sakhalin-Kuriles region, presentation delivered at PICES 16, October 2007. Radchenko, V.I., Dulepova, E.P., Figurkin, A.L., Katugin, O.N., Ohshima, K., Nishioka, J., McKinnell, S.M., Tsoy, A.T. 2010. Status and trends of the Sea of Okhotsk region, 2003-2008, pp. 268-299 In S.M. McKinnell and M.J. Dagg [Eds.] Marine Ecosystems of the North Pacific Ocean, 2003-2008. PICES Special Publication 4, 393 p. Scientific Observer reports (TINRO, VNIRO, KamtchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO). http://www.pollock.ru/eng/msc-cert/msc-certification/ Shuntov V.P. 1986. State of Knowledge on Perennial Cycling of Fish Population Size of the Far Eastern Seas. // Sea Biology, No. 3, 1986, PP. 9-14. Shuntov V.P., Dulepova E.P. 1993. The biological balance, current state of bio- and fish productivity of Okhotsk Sea ecosystems and elements of its operation / Hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of the seas. – 1993. – Т. 9: Okhotsk Sea. – Ed. 2. – P. 81-93. Shuntov V.P., Volkov A.F., Temnykh O.S., Dulepova E.P. 1993. Pollock in the Far East seas ecosystems. – Vladivostok: TINRO, 1993. – P. 426. Shuntov V.P., Dulepova Е.Р. 1996. Biota of Okhotsk Sea: Structure of communities, the Interan. Dynamics and Current Status // PICES Sci. Rep. – Canada, 1996. – No. 6. – P. 263-271. Smirnov A.V., Avdeev G.V. 2003. Dynamics of age-size structure and formation of fishing stock of the Sea of Okhotsk pollock stock in the end of 1990-s and beginning of 2000-s. // Izvestiya TINRO. V. 135. P. 94-112. Smirnov A.V., Avdeev G.V., Ovsyannikov Е.Е., Ovsyannikova S.L. 2009. Stock status and key features of Sea of Okhotsk pollock population in the end of XX – beginning of XXI centuries // X GBO meeting, Vladivostok. P. 372-373. Sobolevskiy E.I. 1983. Marine mammals of Okhotsk Sea, their distribution, abundance and role as consumers of other animals // Sea biology. – 1983. – No. 5. – P. 13-20 Sorokin, I and Sorokin, P. 1999. Production in the Sea of Okhotsk. J. Plank. Res. 21(2). 201-200pp. Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 209 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Status of Fishery Resources. Forecast of total catch of aqautic resources in the Far East fishery region for 2012 (short version). Federal Fishery Agency, Pacific Fisheries Science . Center FGUP TINRO- Center. Vladivostok, 2011. Volkov A.F. 1988. Food for pollock in the epipelagic Okhotsk Sea and the state of forage in spring- summer 1988 / / Oceanology. – 2000. – V. 40, No. 5. – P. 742-755. Volkov A.F. 1986. Forage status of major commercial objects in the Okhotsk Sea during autumn / Far Eastern seas cods. – Vladivostok: TINRO, 1986. – С. 122-133. Volkov A.F. 1996. Epipelagic zooplankton of Far East seas: composition and annual dynamics, the importance of nekton in the diet: Abstract from Doctor of Biology thesis – Vladivostok, 1996. – P. 70. Volkov A.F. Gorbatenko K.M., Efimkin A.Ya.m. 1990. Pollock feeding strategy // TINRO News. – 1990. – V. 111. – P. 123-132. Volkov A.F., Gorbatenko K.M., Merzlyakov A.Yu. 2003. Plankton, the state of food supply and feeding of mass fishes in epi-and mesopelagiс areas of Okhotsk Sea in the winter-spring period // TINRO News. – 2003. – V. 133. – P. 169-235. Waite, J. N. and Burkanov, V. N. 2006. Steller sea lion feeding habits in the Russian Far-East, 2000- 2003. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Principle 3 Babayan, V. K. 2000. Precautionary Approach to Assessment of Total Allowable Catch (TAC). Analysis and Practical Recommendations. VNIRO Publishing, Moscow. 192 pp. FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome. FAO. 2007. On the procedure of implementing duties by marine inspectors. FAO Fisheries Report, 846. Garcia, S. M. 1994. The precautionary principle: its implications in capture fisheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 22: 99–125. TINRO. 2006a. Combined thematic plan for 2005 scientific research by fisheries research organizations of TINRO system (Сводный тематический план НИР рыбохозяйственных научных организаций системы ТИНРО на 2005 год). TINRO, 2006b. Program of complex studies of biological resources of the open waters of the Pacific Ocean for 2007–2011. Federal Agency for Fisheries, Vladivostok. 44 pp. Extra references relating to formal compliance statistics Interview with Chief of the North-Eastern Border Control Department, General R. Daerbaev, June 2011 (providing general statistics on compliance data for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery). http://www.fishnews.ru/interviews/200 Compliance Statistics for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery in 2010 // Presentation by N. N. Cheban, Chief of GMI, North-Eastern Border Control Department at the PCA General Meeting (December 2010). Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 210 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report General compliance data for the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery in season 2009 (May 8 2009). http://www.fishnews.ru/news/8820 General compliance information for all fisheries in the Russian Far East Fishing Basin (from the start of 2009). Interview with the FSB Border Control Department, General V. Putov. http://www.fishnews.ru/news/8997 Brief information on the meeting in the North-Eastern Border Control Department with respect to the fishery regulations compliance in the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery during season 2010 (May 18 2010). http://www.fishnews.ru/news/12232 Results of the Sea of Okhotsk pollock fishery enforcement and compliance in 2010. Full interview with General A. Lebedev, Head of the Coast Guard division of the FSS North-East Border Guard Department. http://www.fishnews.ru/interviews/140 Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_210113v4.docx page 211 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Appendix A: Peer Reviews and Team Responses PEER REVIEWER 1 Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? NO Justification: The team does not agree with the At all Principles and in many PI, scoring seems to be high and reviewer that scoring is too high, not reflective of available information/evidence in relation to however, the team has responded to all Scoring Guidelines. In a few place, scoring may be appropriate comments provided in specific relation but only if fuller support is provided. In a number of cases, to performance indicators below. scoring seems to be high, and unlikely to be supportable even Scoring rationales and conditions, in with further work. The most important PI where scoring seems some cases, have been revised to to be high is PI 1.1.2 (reference points). This has been scored present more concise information to at 100 but in my opinion even a score of 80 is unsupportable. support proposed scores. Even with no other P1 changes, the overall P1 score would then be less than 80. If reference points were adjusted in line with MSC FAM expectations, then PI 1.1.1 would need to be rescored and it would fall below 80, again leading to an overall P1 score below 80.At P2, support information is weak and scoring poorly justified. At P3, a number of PI may need to be reconsidered. Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? YES Justification: The team has responded to specific Conditions are generally appropriately written, sufficient to comments below in relation to scoring answer “yes”. Comments on conditions are included below on changes and conditions. each PI. At least at PI 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 3.2.5 comments are made suggesting some revision may be worthwhile. Throughout, however, many PI are scored over 80 and comments suggest scoring should be lower, leading to a larger number of conditions. If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? YES Response Justification: No further comment required. The CAP is generally in line with Conditions and Milestones. General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 212 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report The executive summary notes that on advice from Tavel Certification, the PCA provided a submission relevant to the MSC FAM Ver 1 default indicators. For the avoidance of any doubt, the summary should make clear that the assessment is against FAM Ver 2.1 and not FAM Ver 1 or the current MSC CR. IMM Response: The Assessment started under FAM Ver 1, however, during the assessment site visit, the client, CB and assessment team agreed that FAM Ver2.1 would be applied. Subsequently, the MSC CR has superseded FAM Ver 2.1 and is being applied to future assessment activities. Reference point setting is somewhat unclear. In particular, at section 4.3, it appears that reference points have been set during the certification assessment process, following input from the assessment team. This needs to be clarified. Does the “peer review” referred to in the paragraph under Table 8 relate to the internal peer review (as at PI 1.2.4) or to the certification assessment team/process? IMM Response: The peer review under Table 8 refers to the internal peer review conducted by Russia (as in PI 1.2.4). The reference points were developed during the December 2010 Russian peer review. The MSC assessment team had no involvement in this process. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 213 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report. Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response specific scoring issues and any relevant information rationale used to raised improve documentation where possible. Please attach available been score this the fishery’s additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 214 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 1.1.1 Y N NA The rationale for scoring the first SG is sufficient. The It is agreed that the reference to assessment rationale for the second SG score needs perhaps to be uncertainty in the scoring rationale could be reconsidered. Specifically, the current rationale refers to construed as double counting and that scoring PI1.2.4; this seems to be a double counting of the one issue should be based on biomass trends. As indicated by and needs to be treated carefully. There are potentially the reviewer, in 1999, biomass was at a low and doubts about the reference target level setting, assessment started to increase to 2006 after which time it has bias, and about the way uncertainty is characterised – these been fluctuating around BTR. There was a slight should, however, be considered in the relevant PI, not here. downturn in SSB in 2010. Further, the two year stock projections undertaken in December 2010 to For this PI and SG, the issue is whether or not the stock is at advise the 2012 TAC indicated that stock biomass or fluctuating about the target (SG80 level) or whether there will first rise above and then fall below BTR by 2013 is sufficently high certainty to enable 100 level scoring. 100 to 4.7 Mt. level scoring is not available on the basis that the stock has been consistently above the target reference level. Thus while it can be said that biomass is at or Considering the history of the stock from 1999 and that the fluctuating around BTR with 50% probability, meeting highest recent point has only been at the target, before an the 2nd SI of SG80, this cannot be said with 90% apparent slight decrease, it is difficult to score at the 100 probability, thus not meeting the 2nd SI of SG100. level – there is no high degree of certainty. Overall, a score The scoring rationale will be modified to reflect these of 80 seems warranted for the second SI, as given, observations. although the rationale might be slightly amended. The overall PI score, 90, appears to be robust. The comment on reference points is addressed below. However, note that scoring is dependent on the reference points set. If the reference points were increased in line with MSC FAM guidance (see 1.1.2) then the stock would have been below target since the mid 1990s and the second SI at the 80 level would not be met, resulting in an o/a score less than 80 and the need to invoke 1.1.3. 1.1.2 N N NA See Row below, text exceeded available space. Comments inserted below. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 215 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Peer Review Comments = PR 1 Intertek Moody Marine Respones = IMM PR 1: Scoring comments are confusing. A score of 100 is given, based on scoring both SI at the 100 level. If these SG are scored at 100, there is no need strictly to provide comments on the other 80 level SG, as done. The key issue is whether both of the 100 level scores are justified. If not,then there is a need to provide justification for one or more 80 (or even 60) level scores, in order to derive an overall score. Currently, although an o/a score of 100 is given, comments are made relevant to all 80 level SI. IMM Response: Section 4.2 of FAM ver 2.1 outlines the scoring process. In general, comment is to be made on each SG to support the rationale for the overall score. In this fishery, the team extended this scoring process by presenting the rationale on a Scoring Issue (SI) by SI basis. PR 1: Reference point setting is somewhat unclear. In particular, at section 4.3, it appears that reference points have been set during the certification assessment process, following input from the assessment team. This needs to be clarified. Does the “peer review” referred to in the paragraph under Table 8 relate to the internal peer review (as at PI 1.2.4) or to the certification assessment team/process? If the latter, there is a cause for concern. IMM Response: The peer review under Table 8 refers to the internal peer review conducted by Russia (as in PI 1.2.4). The reference points described in the report were developed during the December 2010 Russian peer review. The MSC assessment team had no involvement in this process. PR 1: Target reference point: There is no analytically derived estimate of Bmsy. The argument used is that the long-term mean estimated SSB is a proxy for Bmsy. It is hard to follow this reasoning. Bx% or similar are often used as proxies, but means of estimated biomass are not (and note the climatic dependency described in section 5.1 suggests the mean is of little relevance). In the absence of a credible proxy, the default (FAM 6.2.19(a)) would seem approapriate. The current Btr (based on Blim=2632=.17B0) appears to be 33%B0. The argument that Btr and Bmsy (not accepted) are close, considering uncertainties, is spurious. Currently, the target reference point SG is scored at 100. It is hard to justify scoring even at the 80 level when the RP is not analytically derived and is well below the MSC suggested default with no credible argument to support this. Nowhere is it made explicit that the Btr is 33%B0. IMM Response: It is asserted that the long-term average biomass as a proxy for BMSY is both not justified and contrary to common practice. However, DFO’s Sustainable Fisheries Framework allows use of long-term average biomass during a productive period as a proxy for BMSY (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff-cpd/precaution-eng.htm). Assessment Tier 3 of the US North Pacific Region Fisheries Management Council outlines estimation of a BMSY proxy based on long-term average recruitment and exploitation at F40% which is another form of long-term average. Such BMSY proxies are estimated in both the Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Walleye assessments (http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/stocks/assessments.htm). Determination of BMSY proxies are based upon assumed growth (recruitment and somatic growth) and mortality (fishing and natural) conditions characteristic of those occurring at BMSY. In the case of recruitment, while a Ricker stock – recruitment (SR) relationship (Fig. 25) was used in the assessment optimization, the Russian peer review did not consider it reliable enough for determination of an analytically derived BMSY. It could be argued that the slight positive trend between recruitment and spawning stock biomass (SSB) but TINRO argues that this is due to environmental covariates. Certainly the SR relationship between the lowest estimated SSB and the origin is not defined. Given the weak SR relationship, use of the long-term (1963 – 2010) average recruitment as characteristic of BMSY is considered justifiable. In the case of both somatic growth and natural mortality, the Stock Synthesis assessment model employed long- term averages as there was no evidence of trends in either. In the case of fishing mortality, the long-term average for the fully recruited ages (7 – 11) is 0.22 which is very close to F40% of 0.25 and FTR of 0.23 (Table 8). F40% is used in many jurisdictions (e.g. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council) as a proxy for FMSY. Note that if the increased selectivity on the older ages in 2001 had also been observed over the longer term, annual SSB would likely have been lower. This effect is likely small as only 5 – 20% of the annual SSB occurs in ages 12 plus. Overall, it is considered that long-term growth and mortality conditions have been close to those expected at BMSY, justifying the use of the long-term average SSB as a BMSY proxy. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 216 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report PR 1: Limit reference point: The arguments presented are again spurious. The relationship of Blim to Bmsy is irrelevant as no Bmsy estimate is accepted. As no Blim is analytically derived, the chosen value needs to follow the MSC default (20%B0) unless strong justification is provided otherwise. IMM Response: A BMSY proxy is estimated and further justified above. While the FAM ver 2.1 guidelines stipulate that defaults should be used when analytical RPs are not used, it also allows alternates that are well justified. In this case, the BLIM is the lowest biomass from which the stock has recovered. Such BLIM proxies are used in other jurisdictions. Further, the current BLIM proxy is 52% of the BTR proxy, consistent with common practice. It is argued that the estimate of B0 is very uncertain and that any reference points based on these would also be highly uncertain. The team considers that the BLIM proxy is appropriate and justified. In the background section there is no discusison on the ecological role of pollock in the SOO. Some relevant background is given at PI 2.5 and section 5.6 but is not alluded to here. The limited text provided to justify scoring does not refer to the background section, PI 2.5 or any other materials. It states that pollock is a top predator but does not consider the ecological role of pollock. IMM Response: It is accepted that there is no explicit consideration of precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the species. While it could be precautionary, no evidence was presented that it is. Thus, the second SI of SG100 is not met. The score will be adjusted to 90. Overall, the 100 level scoring is unjustified. Even 80 level scoring for SG 2, 3 and 4 is unsupported. The reference points set do not appear to confrom to the FAM guidelines and it is difficult even to be sure if SG 60 level scoring is justifiable given the arguments presented. 1.1.3 NA NA NA 1.2.1 Y Y N Comments are generally sound and scoring robust. It is agreed that the text of the condition could be interpreted as requiring a Management Strategy The condition set seems to combine a simple requirement Evaluation (MSE), which is not the intent. The text of to monitor fishery performance but it is unclear what is the scoring rationale and condition is modified to expected by way of evidence and demonstration that the HS clarify this. is meeting objectives. The second sentece of the condition states that the HS “…is to undergo testing to explore robustness to management and assessment uncertainties”. This sounds quite prescriptive, probably referrring to MSE, which would likely result in 100 level scoring. While desirable, it is perhaps beyond what can legitimately be rquired in a condition to ensure 80 level scoring. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 217 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 1.2.2 N N NA Contrary to scoring comments, the HCR is not fully It is agreed that all information should be included in described in section 4.3. No reference is made to any core the background sections. Therefore, the description documentation on the HCR and the only description is of the HCR in Section 4.3 was updated to both Figure 22, referencing PAC (2010); infact, Fig 3.1.2.1 of include information provided in the scoring rationale PCA 2010 is different. In any case, more information is as well as more clearly describe how the HCR is provided in scoring comments than in the background applied. section. All information should be in the background and the comments should refer. As described in the comments, the The HCR is used to determine fishing mortality in new TAC-setting procedure does not actually follow the the projected years, which is adjusted downwards as apparent schema in Fig 22. Rather, TACs are set based on biomass approaches BLIM. It is clarified that the test projected probabilities of avoiding Blim. Fig 22 suggests for the probability of biomass at the end of the TACs would be set according to application of F derived projection period being below BLIM is used to ensure from the control rule and presumably dependent on current that the results of the HCR are appropriate and if (or projected) median (spawning) biomass. It is not possible not, an adjustment to fishing mortality in the to say that well defined HCR are in place, as required for 80 projected years is made. level scoring at SG1. The rationale for scoring of the second SI is flawed, depending on “expectation”. The assessment These clarifications better describe why the current team’s opinion, apparently, is that uncertainties are score of this PI is appropriate. understated. It is hard to reconcile this with 80 level scoring. Overall, it would appear the 60 level SI are all met, as well as the third 80 level SI. The overall score, on this basis, would be 70 at best.On this basis,a condition would need to be raised. 1.2.3 Y Y Y While the comments are comprehensive and the scoring The six information groupings are not intended to logical sound, it might help to separate out the synoptic map on the SIs of each SG. Rather, the three SGs comments to make clear that the first three component all have elements of the six information sources. The commentaries refer to SG1, “stock abundance commentary key difference in the SGs is the level of information, relates to SG2 and “fishery removals” to SG3. The synopses which is what was used in the scoring and text. are all sound but note the sentence “Fishery removals are monitored but……….consistent with the HCR” seems to be Regarding the apparent inconsistency with PI 1.2.2, slightly contrary to claims made at 1.2.2. there is a need to ensure that at-sea coverage of fishing activities provides clear evidence of the effectiveness of the HCR. This is stated in PI 1.2.2 and is consistent with the scoring of this PI. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 218 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 1.2.4 Y Y Y The comments are generally sound. It is hard to dig in to the The team acknowledges the useful suggestion to assessment given materials to hand but the assessment include external peer review in future assessments. team comments about uncertainty are important. Uncertainty does seem to be underestimated. Depending on how the The conditions were revisited and updated to ensure HCR actually is implemented, this could be a major issue. that the milestones are appropriate. Peer review is internal only, sufficient o score at the SI 80 level. However, given the history of assessment and change to a new, unvalidated (?) method, external peer review could be timely, perhaps involving comparison with validated assessment software/methods. NB re condition: The condition set requires a report by the third surveillance but the milestones require annual steps that pre-judge how delivery should be undertaken. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 219 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.1.1 Y Y NA [NB There appears to be some confusion in the background The reviewer has made fair comments. The text sections and at PI 2.1 and 2.2 definitions. PI 2.1 relates to was convoluted in places. The definitions relating to species that are retained, and which may then be main and minor species as per FAM have been categorised as main or minor. PI 2.2 relates to species that applied by the team, and clarified in the report. The are discarded, and which may also be categorised as main background to the information provided and the or minor. Definitions are given at FAM 7.1.1, 7.2.1 and 7.3.1. separation of the main species groupings has been The background presented at sections 5.2 and 5.3 seem to clarified. confuse retained, bycatch and discards, as does the text at PI 2.1.2 and the references to various tables. ] The team agreed no scoring adjustments were needed. The background text at section 5.2 is difficult to read and includes material relevant to P3 as well as discussion on Additional information was requested from the PCA scoring. In particular, it is very difficult to follow some of the and those additional supporting references used to descriptions of the tables and to follow how conclusions are better support the scoring rationale. drawn. It would help greatly to separate text within the section clearly to relate, sequentially, to PI 2.1.1, 2.1.2,and 2.1.3; currently, issues pertinent to the three pI are mixed. The main thrust of the discusson in the background and at this PI is to conclude that there are no “main” retained species (using FAM guidance at 7.2). The arguments relate to percentage catch, value and volume relative to TAC or PC. These arguments seem to be robust but the text and descriptions are quite convoluted. It would be more convincing if for those few species where substantial proportions of TAC (or PC) are taken regionally (e.g. smelt, flounder, Pacific Cod, Wachna Cod, Goby), information on stock status were also provided in the background section. Overall, although somewhat difficult tofollow, the logic appears sound and the conclusions robust. 2.1.2 Y Y NA No comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 220 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.1.3 N N NA The level of independent scientific observer coverage The team has revised the text and scoring appears to be overstated. Looking at Table 12, the total commentary accordingly, including the FFA catch of pollock sampled relative to the TAC ranges from inspection statistics, which raises the coverage to 1.2-3.8% per year. In 2010 the figure is less than 2%. Under 24.2%. Clarity has been provided regarding the PI 2.2.1 it is also pointed out that Table 13 suggests observer coverage and the scientific sampling and independent observer coverage is low (4% on large vessels; compliance inspection levels. The tables have been 1% on smaller vessels). This gives a very different flavour revised and the related text changed to remove than the 20.5% coverage of hauls reported for 2010 in the confusion. scoring comments. It would be good to see a more detailed examination of the adequacy of monitoring to ensure Additional references have been used to support the sufficient catch sampling to allow estimation of outcome team’s assessment. In particular, the state of stock status with respect to biologically based limits at least for reviews (2010) on the commercial species and the those stocks for which substantial proportions of TAC/PC majority of the retained species in the pollock fishery are taken (see comments at PI 2.1.1). This is important also has been considered. (This information was as part of the considseration of what constitutes “main” provided in Russian and needed translation by a species – are any of the species in question “vulnerable”as team member). per the FAM 7.2.2 definition? With this clarity, the team agreed no scoring Either here or at PI 2.1.2 there needs to be recognition of adjustments were needed. how information from the pollock fishery is or is not used and may or may not matter to assessment of bycatch species. One option might be to score the second SI at 60, giving an overall score of 75 and leading to a condition being set. It is also debatable if other SG are suported at the 80 level. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 221 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.2.1 N N NA There appears to be some confusion in the background The background text and references have been sections and at PI2.1 and 2.2 definitions. PI 2.1 relates to tidied up and this should make the scoring rationale species that are retained, and which may then be used by the team to separate main and minor categorised as main or minor. PI 2.2 relates to species that species classifications (in accordance with MSC are discarded, and which may also be categorised as main guidance) and retained and bycatch clearer. or minor. Definitions are given at FAM 7.1.1, 7.2.1 and 7.3.1. The background presented at section 5.3 seems to confuse retained, bycatch and discards, as does the text at PI 2.1.2 and the reference to various tables. In MSC terms, “bycatch” is the same as discards and does not relate to retained catch. As presented, the logic to define main and minor species seems valid, but the low levelof coverage and complex tabulations are cause for concern. The first as it is fundamentally an issue of relevance. It is hard to be sure that the basis for determination is adequate. Usually in peer review , specific recommendations are given to help move forward. In this case, it is difficult due to the lackof background presented specific to retained species and the apparent confusion between retained and bycatch categories. 2.2.2 N N NA There appears to be a residual, unchanged cut and paste Tables have been moved and appropriate reference to ICCAT and DFO. The change made in the supporting text added. same text at PI 2.1.2 is probably intended. The table seems misplaced and more relevant to retained species at PI 2.1.2. The final sentence, referencing the text table, again seems to equate bycatch to all non-pollock catch, rather than just to discards. 2.2.3 N N Y The text is brief and does not well support the scoring Supporting text has been improved and scoring conclusions. The conclusions themselves appear valid. rationale changed to better support the conclusions. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 222 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.3.1 ? N NA The background section refers to mammals and birds, as The text has been changed and rationale enhanced well as salmon and sleeper sharks. The latter two are also with more references. mentioned under byctach but are not alluded to further under ETP. Table 15 appears to be a complete list of species More specific information has been provided on the considered as ETP according to FAM 7.4.1 (and as guided main ETP speciesit should now be clearer and the by 7.4.2). However, the ensuing text refers to multiple scoring substantiated. species not listed and has little information on those listed, especially in respect of fishery interactions and direct or No scoring adjustments were deemed necessary by indirect impacts. the team. The scoring comments include slightly more information (that should be in the background). For example, there is a comment explaining why sea otters are not affected directly by the fishery. No consideration is made of possible indirect effects (e.g. through food availability). The third paragraph of the scoring comments starts with a comment on northern fur seals (not included in the list at table 15), though the subsequent sentence refers to Steller sea lions. On Steller sea lions the sentence referring to which listings don’t trigger ETP standing in MSC terms is irrelevant. The text is often confusing. On large cetaceans, no information is provided to support the conclusion that competition is unlikely. Overall, the scoring seems to be lenient, affirming all three 80 level SG. There is little or no information provided to support scoring the third 80 level SG. Direct effects (2nd 80 level SG) seem to be low,although monitoring is low and the conclusion may not be robust. It is also hard from the information provided to support the first 80 level SG – the effects of the fishery do not seem to be known although the known effects do appear likely to be within requirements (as for 60 level scoring). Overall, as presented, it is hard to justify any of the 80 level SG scores. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 223 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.3.2 N N NA Many of the scoring comments refer to The team has provided clarification where possible. monitoring/information and would be more pertinent under PI Definition of a strategy or partial strategy is premised 2.3.3. The comments used to justify the SG80 level score on there being information collected on the are terse but seem to be relevant and could be expanded components, an assessment/ feedback loop to somewhat to create more compelling arguments in support fishery management, measures to control impacts of the scoring. and some level of response from managers when necessary. This PI is investigating how those four pieces work together. 2.3.3 deals specifically with fishery impact information collection. Where possible, the text has been rewritten in parts and additional reference material provided. 2.3.3 N N N Scoring comments here and at PI2.3.2 seem to overlap The text has been expanded and more detail substantially. Both suggest there are few or no interactions provided on the main ETP species. with the pollock fishery but that observation is low and confidence too. Although work is noted on, e.g. sea lions, no The team agreed no adjustment to the score was details are provided in the abckground and it is unclear what necessary. information is available or considered in pollock management. The condition relates only to albatross. The lack of information presented suggests that fuller reporting and consideration is needed for all species. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 224 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.4.1 N N NA Very little background material is presented. Greater detail It is correct that very little background material on on habitat mapping would be useful, as well as commentary habitats, per se, has been provided. Apart from the on any changes that might have occurred in the last decade. geological map there is no more concise spatial Note that in section 5.5, page 70, there is reference to mapping provided. However, benthic research and survey “in the 2000’s” but the references are dated 2001 and surveys are extensive. The assessment takes into 2002 implying coverage at most in 2000 and perhaps 2001, consideration that impact of the fishery on bottom not “the 2000’s”. No information is presented on the gear in substrate using mid-water trawl fishing gear section 5.3 or elsewhere to support the contention that “mid- deployed is highly unlikely. Further, there is water gear does not make contact with the sea bed”. Many supporting information stating that historically mid-water gears do make regular contact with the sea bed pollock were targeted using bottom gear – the and supporting evidence that this is not the case would be fishery in fact switched from a bottom gear to a useful. Note that the reference in the text is to Heileman and midwater trawl specifically to mitigate habitat Belkin (2009) but the reference quoted is for 2010 and impacts . unpublished. The text and scoring rationale has been changed to The scoring comments refer to demersal fish catches that reflect this more clearly. Specifically the work and might imply bottom-contacting gear but the statements made surveys undertaken on benthos is better referenced. are unsupported and inconclusive. The comments at paragraph 2 refer to a “series of of benthic surveys…in the No scoring adjustments were made. 2000s” but the dates of the references make the statement questionable. The score of 80 is not supported by the background or scoring comments. From the limited materials presented, a score of 60 would seem more appropriate. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 225 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.4.2 N N NA It is stated in the scoring comments that bottom trawling is The background to address this concern has been not permiited, but there is no indication of this in the more clearly provided in the text and additional background section or elsewhere in the assessment report. references provided. Certainly the monitoring of this If the claim is to be made in support of SG100 scoring, then permit requirement is very difficult to substantiate. evidence needs to be provided. Is the prohibition regulated However, this would apply to most fisheries using or informal? How is it monitored given that vessels may take midwater gear. multiple gear types and target various species? The statement that the information is based on fishery The regulation was verified as an actual prohibition characteristics does not support that bottom gear is within the fishing rules, i.e. not informal. The PCA prohibited. Neither does unseen (in the assessment response to P3 indicator 3.2.3, with respect to document) evidence provided by the PCA on gear loss. No compliance showed no convictions for this permit evidence is provided on compliance with the no bottom condition noting that there is fairly good coverage of trawling rule (if it exists). catcher vessels by inspectors. Also an element of practicality needs to prevail – the gear is relatively The score is not supported by the background or scoring benign – having no trangressions is not unexpected. comments. From the limited materials presented, a score of 60 would seem more appropriate. If evidence is provided for The concern raised around the carrying of multiple the no bottom trawling rule and for compliance with the rule, gear is clarified in the text and also by the PCA. a score of 80 or even higher might be possible. 2.4.3 N N NA Information presented is minimalist. Reference to “active The background information and scoring rationale benthic research” and to habitat conparisons seem to be have been revised and improved and the concerns linked but it is not clear if they are in fact so. The habitat of the reviewer addressed. surveys appear to relate to the 1980s and to the very early 2000s only and there is no mention of attention to vulnerable Clarity has been provided on the use of multiple habitat types as required for SG100 scoring. Changes in gear and the team are satisfied that the scoring is habitat types over time may or may not be measured – no justified. Key to the issue is that multiple gear is only evidence of actual results is shown. At the SG80 comments, carried for species which the operator is permiited to there is a logical inconsistency between the SG3 target and that these speceis are under requirement and statement made – the SG requires data management. Critically, catchers report daily on collection in order to detect risk whereas the statement says operations and also when species and gear may be that because data are collected the risk is minimal. These switched – this is not a common occurrence but is are different. clealry managed and controlled. Overall, the SG100 level scores are not supported by the materials presented. At least SG3 at the 80 level is also poorly framed. On the evidence provided the score would be less than 80, requiring a condition. It would perhaps be useful to strengthen the background and scoring comments to enable better scoring justification. If that is done, then credible scores for all of PI2.4 would be more likely, including at this PI. Even if strengthened, however, it is difficult to expect scores as high as those currently given. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 226 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 2.5.1 Y Y NA It is notable that some discussion at section 5.6 and in No major changes applied – some text and editing scoring comments is relevant to earlier PI under P1 and P2 changes with addional references. but was not referenced. The background document notes the importance of pollock in the SOO ecosystem both as predator and prey, including its importance to marine mammals. In the 1980s it is estimated that predators accounted for up to 78% of annual losses of pollock, suggesting a potential conflict between fishery and predators at least when biomass is in decline – this could be an imporatnt issue in choosing a target reference point. Nevertheless, although the materials presented are again limited, the scoring justification seems sound. 2.5.2 Y Y Y The materials presented are again limited; nevertheless, the No major changes applied – some text and editing scoring justification seems sound. changes with addional references. The intent and sequence of the two conditions seem appropriate. However, it would be simpler to raise 1 condition, requiring conformity with SG80 SI by the fourth surveillance audit, with milestones by the third and fourth surveillance audits in line with the separate conditions as written. 2.5.3 Y Y N The materials presented are again limited; nevertheless, the No major changes applied – some text and editing scoring justification seems sound. changes with addional references. The condition uses language similar to the 5th SG80 but substitutes an “i.e” for “e.g.”. This shifts the emphasis of the condition on to the compoenent part outcome indicators rather than to the outcome for PI 2.5.1. The important thing at PI 2.5 is to understand and manage risks to structure and function, not just components. The condition should be reworded to reflect this. Given the difficulty of delivering on conditions for PI 2.5, the requirement for evidence by the second surveillance audit seems quite aggressive. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 227 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.1.1 Y N NA Some comments at SG2 reflect matters perhaps best dealt The team considered these comments and with at PI 3.1.1.2 (on consultation) while some comments at understood the reason why they were made. The SG3 might perhaps be better reflected at PI 3.2.3 first comment about where matters should be dealt (compliance). with is a fair one, but in the team’s opinion, there is nothing wrong in using evidence that has been At SG3 it is unclear how the system acts proactively to avoid assimilated for more than one SG, and in this case it legal disputes. As written, SG3 is unconvincing at the 100 has been. In other words, comments motivating level. A score of 80 could more esily be justified. support in the scoring table for the second scoring issue are also considered at PI 3.1.2 and similarly comments supporting the third scoring issue are also considered at PI 3.2.3, though perhaps less obviously to the reviewer at review and even now with redrafting because we have obtained the crucial compliance statistics he suggested to support better the scoring against PI 3.2.3. In terms of the second comment, the team notes that the third scoring issue requirement/guidance is that the management system/fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. The key word here is “or” which is underlined. The team’s opinion, backed up by proof provided and commented upon in the report, is that the management system under consideration leans heavily towards the latter, which means that a score of 100 is indeed justified for SG3 of this PI. The overall score is maintained. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 228 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.1.2 N N NA It is unclear from the background presented and scoring The reviewer’s comments request additional proof of comments precisely how participation in consultative encouragement to participate. The assessment team processes is encouraged (or not), who actually participates reiterates that much of the scoring rationale is and the extent to which different parties are heard and anyway drawn from the main text of the report and opinions considered (as at FAM 8.2.15); this is relevant to the team feels that in terms of the third scoring SG2. Information on meetings, participation, evidence of guidepost, the FAM wording and guidance has been records and use of feedback, formal submissions and used. In terms of proof of encouragement to responses, etc, could be used in support. participate, the team highlights here again the statement in the report that “the certification The MSC FAM (at 8.2.17) recognises the cultural context for assessment team were fully convinced during the consultation alluded to (somewhat clumsily) in the comments visit that all appropriate steps were taken to involve on SG3; it might be better to rephrase these comments to as many of those interested in the fishery and reflect the FAM. It is notable at PI 3.2.2 SG2 that counter affected by it as possible, and as representative a comments seem to be made. group of those stakeholders as possible, in the consultation process. It was clear that there were Overall scores at SG of 100, 80 and 100 were given. Without numerous opportunities in the management cycle for supporting evidence on encouragement, facilitation and pollock for stakeholder participation”. The team active involvement, it is hard to support the 100 level score reiterates in the report and scoring rationale at SG3. If this score were at the 80 level, the overall score elsewhere that it tried hard to find evidence during would be 90. the site visit of this representativity and encouragement to participate, but although copies of meeting documents (in Russian) were tabled and supporting views by stakeholders were aired that they had plenty of opportunity to contribute, confirmatory hard evidence is elusive. What else the team could supply in support of the third scoring issue score of 100 is therefore questioned here, but it is noticeable that both the other peer reviewers support the score as appropriate. In the team’s opinion, by world standards, the Russian system for pollock is good in terms of allowing participation, so the score should stand as is and no further justification is necessary. 3.1.3 Y Y NA No comment on scoring and scoring comments. No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.1.4 Y Y NA The background section is succinct but useful, being clearly No response required. The score is supported and aligned to FAM guidance, and the scoring comments reflect agreed by the reviewer. it well. The 80 level score seems well justified. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 229 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.2.1 N N NA Scoring comments reflect matters that might more properly In the opinion of the assessment team and be considered under PI 3.1.4 (and possibly PI 3.2.3). This supported by guidance given in the FAM, this PI is section, following FAM 8.3.2-3, should reflect whether or not designed to show that fishery-specific objectives (in fishery specific objectives exist consistent expectations this case, long- and short-term ones) actually do measured in P1 and P2. exist and that they are consistent with expectations being measured under P1 and P2. The PI does not The PI needs to be reconsidered and rescored. ask that those expectations be spelled out and each one addressed again. The evidence presented clearly in the scoring comments, which it is agreed does overlap with that against other PIs (which the team does not consider to be wrong usage of material) and drawn from the background section of the report shows this. The team draws attention again to the regular and rigorous arms-length review by other institutions in the process and especially the comments on long-term perspective on how to maintain sustainability and ecosystem health. The team agrees that the objectives and expectations are not measurable (which would allow a score of 100), but does not agree that insufficient background is currently provided to require complete reconsideration of the score awarded to this PI. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 230 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.2.2 Y N Y I am not sure that “gratifying” and “commendable” are The offending judgement words are amended in appropriate judgments in a certification assessment. At text, though the team points out that where good SG1, it would be useful to point explicitly to the processes practice is identified by an assessment team, it is that result in a) measures and b) strategies to achieve generally considered useful to acknowledge it in the fishery specific objectives (see FAM 8.3.4). However, current most appropriate manner/wording possible. scoring at PI 3.2.1 does not identify fishery-specific objectives so this might be difficult. The main text on this SG The reviewer also considers that comparative is sound, but an example or two would help to suppot the 80 comments on other systems (many certified already) level score. are not appropriate here. Such comments were drafted, however, not to defend the Russian pollock At SG2, the issue of cultural context and transparency management system or to excuse differences seems to conflict with comments made at PI 3.1.2. It is between it and other similar systems, but to unclear frim the comments here if scoring at PI 3.1.2 is demonstrate that by world standards, the system sound. Scoring at this SG is difficult, and even more so is being assessed is demonstrably good (though a the raising of a condition (below). condition was raised against SG2 on the basis of proven transparency and reactivity, which the Comments are made here (and elsewhere) on systems reviewer deems appropriate). elsewhere, apparently in defence of what is done or to excuse differences. This is inappropriate. The MSC standard Fishery-specific objectives of the system include is all that matters for scoring purposes. Consideration of many of those suggested in the FAM, e.g. long-term wider aspects while ensuring use of best available sustainability and participative governance, so information and adopting a precautionary approach is the concentrating on “an example or two” here would, in over-riding issue. From the comments made, this appears to the opinion of the assessment team, focus attention be the case and scoring is sound. away from what is generally believed by the reviewer and the assessment team to be a fair score At SG4, again, comments on other systems are irrelevant, across the board. Given the latter, the scoring is as too are opinions as to legacies. Comments other than maintained unchanged. those generally support 80 level scoring. Overall, although scoring comemtns could usefully be amended, the scores seem sound and the overall score credible. Given 60 level scoring at SG2, a condition is raised. This is appropriate. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 231 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.2.3 N N NA As above, comments on other systems or what may or may In the opinion of the assessment team, and as not be desirable are not relevant. Commetns need to stated in 3.2.2 above, comments on other systems consider eveidence in support of scoring against the MSC are relevant against this PI, especially so given the standard as reflected in the FAM – no more or less. As fact that stakeholder input to the team made much written, the assessment team’s opinion seems to be heavily mileage of it. The background sections dealing with caveated and it is diffiult to draw out from the text if an 80 compliance and sanctions (merely summarized in level score is apropriate. The background section on MCS the scoring comments) provide full support for the provides a little more information but does not fully address first scoring issue score of 80 given the extra the key aspect of SG1. Is there a “demonstrated ability to information added now to both the main information enforce….” Allowing 80 level scoring or just a “reasonable section (with tables of compliance statistics) and expectation…” consistent with 60 level scoring? From the scoring rationale. – there is, the team believes, background and comments, a 60 level score would seem stated and proven ability to enforce management appropriate. If an 80 level score is to be given, firmer support rules robustly. Regarding the second scoring issue, is needed. statistics of sanctions have now been provided and we thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to At SG2, no statistics are provided in the background or this clear deficiency in the original report. On site, scoring comments to support the assertion that operators individual examples of punitive sanctions were have been removed . Such statistics must exist. Where is provided to the team, and we were convinced then there evidence of consistent application as required for 80 that there was no room for manoeuvre or reprieve level scoring? As written, the comments would support 60 from failure to adhere to the stated rules. Simply, no level scoring, not 80, and certainly not 100. operator was exempt, and the penalties were being implemented severely. Although statistics supporting At SG3, the lack of statistics on compliance available to the third scoring issue are now no longer lacking, assessment is of concern. The assessment team seems to nothing was ever taken on trust – hard queries for have taken much information on trust. The scoring factual information were levelled during the site visit comments are not compelling. to individuals who could not have conferred, and the results were consistent. Together with the now- SG4 is a weak condition and in this case the lack of provided compliance statistics covering three recent evidence seems to justify the 80 level score. years, the score of 80 is considered to be fully justified. Overall, scoring is not well supported. The lack of statistical evidence and extent to which the assessment team seems to have worked on trust should not lead to 80 level scoring on a number of SG. It appears the overall score should be based on SG scores of 60, 60, 60, 80, giving an overall 65 and raising of a condition. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 232 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.2.4 N Y NA “eye teeth” and exclamation marks are superfluous. Simialrly Words that offend this reviewer, though not the other “gratifying” and comparisons to the Soviet era. Otherwise, two reviewers, have been changed. However, scoring seems to be sound, although direct cross-reference comparisons with the Soviet (virtually closed) era in to wider ecosystem, ETP, habitat, etc research would be the report are deemed by the team to be worth useful, and possibly to any economic research that might be drawing, because what is particularly noticeable in relevant to understanding operation of the management this management system is the speed (in years) with system. which good democratic governance has been initiated in the fishery, learning from errors made by other countries and designing a system of high standard by worldwide norms. Ecosystem research is adequately covered, and P3 refers several times to economics input to the overall review system. ETP and habitat research is covered in the P2 section. The reviewer seemingly supports the scoring, so no change is needed. Given his comments in general and his support for the scoring, the “N” in column 2 is rather strange –perhaps he was just stimulating the provision of further information. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 233 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report 3.2.5 N N Y Comments properly note FAM 8.3.18 and the CR. However, The assessment team was led more by the the scoring comments, while quite long, do not focus clearly comments of reviewers 2 and 3 for this PI, both of on mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the whom know the Russian management system from management system, internally or externally. The comemnts personal experience. Reviewer 1 says that scoring seem to reflect an assessment team desire to identify what beyond 60 for the whole PI is inappropriate, but the might informally take place but do not support scoring formal management system in Russia (described in beyond the 60 level. the background section and in the comments against PIs) is defined clearly and in the opinion of The condition is appropriate, usefully excluding the scientific the team currently justifies the score of 80 for that assessment to clarify that the management regime per se is scoring issue. what needs to be subject to review. It would be too easy, otherwise, to respond by reviewing scientific components. Internally to the country the system is demonstrably The three year timeframe is arguably generous and perhaps proven to be rigorous, taking a long time to unhelpful if future review identifies necessary changes deliberate transparently on everything relating to requiring time to be implemented. assessment and management. The latter are key parts of the overall management system for the fishery, but the wording of the report and comments here clearly point to a need within a short period to have the total system reviewed externally, as the reviewer intimates, while acknowledging the value of what is in place at the moment. Currently there is limited totally external (to Russia) peer review (other than the scientific discussions that take place at PICES), but the fishery has still achieved much in a very short period of time. The reviewer is incorrect in his assumption that there was “desire on the part of the team” to identify what might take place informally as a key part of the system – the focus of the team’s attention was the formal system in place. Finally, In the opinion of the team, three years is the minimum time-frame needed to implement a formal independent, external peer-review of the system. Overall, the reviewer does not consider this score to be justified by the evidence, although the condition is believed to be appropriate. Given that reviewers 2 and 3 support the score (one suggests it be increased), the scoring is maintained as is. Any Other Comments Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 234 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response Language/translation has clearly been a problem for the assessment team. This is Although language/translation has been a challenge for this assessment, excellent support was provided reflected in the background documentation and references and in scoring comments in-country and outside, and virtually no opinions and statements made in the report were taken on trust. This fact needs to be emphasized. Both assessment teams (SOO and WBS/NAV) conducted interviews which often seem to take provided opinions and statements on trust without being jointly. Alexei Sharov, a member of the WBS/ NAV MSC assessment team and fluent in Russian, provided able to dig deeply in to the evidence. confirmation of the quality of translation during the site visits. Where any perceived differences were noticed during discussions, Dr. Sharov clarified the intended translation through cross-questioning. The language used in the report is also at times slightly difficult and frequently lapses The system is a complex one, and in the team’s opinion, the structure is well thought out and the scoring in to unnecessary phrasing. It should keep strictly to the issues reflected in the SG issues clearly addressed. and provide evidence to support conclusions and scoring. The layout of the background section was adapted partially from that of a recent assessment report The background section could usefully include a clear description of vessels and example by a different team. There are many ways that the report could have been structured; the current structure is one and the reviewer suggests another good one. The team certainly acknowledge that gear. In general, the section should set out all relevant information and evidence, PI perhaps not enough attention was given to cross-referencing between sections, but given the complexity by PI. Currently, the sections are not clearly labeled by PI and it is not always easy to and depth of the evaluation, available time was surpassed. Where the team does not agree with the cross-refer. There is a general lack of clear evidence to support later scoring reviewer is that there is a general lack of evidence to support scoring comments; that is unfair. The team comments (e.g. at PI 3.2.3). Ideally, scoring comments should not introduce went out of its way, individually and comparatively, to find evidence for and to support every score given, listening to independent remarks as well as each team member’s personal views. The team contends that information beyond that in the background section. In this assessment, scoring the scoring issues formed the basis of the requirements for what was written. In the team’s view the comments often seem unrelated to the background. Scoring comments need to scores are fully justified. Finally, it is in the team’s view necessary to refer to systems elsewhere – met and reflect the SG requirements to the background section and to interpret the unmet examples of MSC standards elsewhere help on what is needed in the Russian pollock example. information to allow and justify scoring. Scoring comments frequently (in P3) refer to systems elsewhere, apparently in defence of what is done or to excuse differences. This is inappropriate. The MSC standard is all that matters for scoring purposes. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 235 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report PEER REVIEWER 2 Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessment team concluded with a No response required. recommendation that the fishery be certified. This is an appropriate conclusion given that the average score for each of the three principles was above 80 and no single score below 70. The assessment builds on relevant information about the fishery in question. The report reflects a good understanding of the Russian system for fisheries management, which is the primary competence of the present reviewer. Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: All the conditions are well connected to the To address this specific request for identified gaps in the management of the Sea of Okhotsk more robust evidence of compliance in pollock fishery. I suggest an additional condition for 3.2.3 the fishery, the team requested and unless the team demonstrates more robust evidence of received recent compliance statistics compliance in the fishery. from the PCA. Scoring rationales and scores were revised where necessary, and also added a condition. If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) I think the report reflects a good understanding of the Russian system for fisheries management, which is the primary competence of the present reviewer. I agree with the main tendencies in the report that the Russian system includes impressive research efforts and well- developed mechanisms for user-group consultations. I also agree that the legal framework has been vastly improved over the first decade of the 21st century. However, I miss more critical reflection on whether the formal framework is followed up in practice, as well as on actual fisher compliance, especially in view of the general public image in Russia of the Far Eastern fishery management system as being corrupt and haunted by IUU fishing. Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 236 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report IMM Response: While the team acknowledges the reviewer’s comments on the possibility of compliance and IUU issues in the current fishery, the MSC assessment process is dependent on evidence. To this end, the team endeavored to obtain additional information on compliance in the fishery and based its scoring upon this. Russia has a long tradition of having legal and administrative frameworks in place, but not abiding by them in practical politics. This is also evident in the fisheries sector. In the Russian Barents Sea fishery, for example, it has been demonstrated that the same strict reporting requirements as exist in the Sea of Okhotsk have been routinely misused (see Hønneland, 2004, 2012). The vessels reported deflated catch figures to all the required channels, and Russian inspection services were not able to discover this, as physical controls were at best superficial. It was only in the encounters with Western inspection services that the underreporting was detected, in the bilateral regime between Norway and Russia and in the multilateral NEAFC port state control regime. References: • Hønneland, Geir (2004), Russian fisheries management: the precautionary approach in theory and practice, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. • Hønneland, Geir (2012), Making fishery agreements work: post-agreement bargaining in the Barents Sea, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. IMM Response: The concerns raised by the reviewer are acknowledged by the team. However, based upon the information on compliance and monitoring provided to the team, there is no evidence of similar misreporting activities to those in the Barents Sea currently occurring in the Sea of Okhotsk. It could be that overall compliance and enforcement has improved since the quoted study. The team displays the necessary critical attitude on other issues in the report, e.g. regarding transparency, but less so regarding compliance. IMM Response: The team paid particular attention to the issue of compliance and monitoring, knowing that this was a problem in the past of the fishery. The information that it received after peer review fully support the current scoring as provided in this report. As further elaborated in my comments to the scoring tables, I would have liked to see inspection statistics that substantiate the assumption that compliance is generally good (knowing that such statistics are hard to come by, which on the other hand underscores my concern). There might be reason to assume that IUU fishing is eliminated, e.g. the present good stock situation. This could be further corroborated in the report. The important thing is to avoid criticism for having disregarded public images (which might very well be exaggerated or even false) of the formal framework as being little more than a veil intended to allow established corruption practices to continue. If compliance statistics are not available, the team could build up an argument based on the combination of a good stock situation and an improved legal framework. IMM Response: Compliance statistics were provided to the team and have been included in the report. These were used to support the scoring of the fishery. Minor comments: - p. 36, 2. paragraph: I am not quite sure whether it is correct that there was a change in objectives from the late Soviet years to the new Russian Federation in terms of formal objectives. As far as I know, the objective of “protection and rational use” was used in Soviet times and has remained to this day. Hence, it represents a Soviet “heritage” or a continuation from Soviet into post-Soviet Russia. IMM Response: The text on page 36 has been changed to reflect the reviewer’s comment. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 237 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report - same place: the abbreviation FFA is used both for the Federal Fisheries Agency and the Federal Fisheries Act; I suggest it is reserved for the Agency in order to avoid confusion. - same place: Russia’s international obligations according to international treaties actually stand above formal law according to the 1993 Constitution. IMM Response: Abbreviation for Act has been changed to Fisheries Act. - same place: It is not correct that the Federal Fisheries Act was a response to international treaties. The Russian Parliament (the Federal Assembly, consisting of the State Duma and the Federation Council) worked on the fisheries act from 1992 to 2004, corroborating and rejecting a number of propositions until the Act was finally adopted. Various domestic concerns determined the different turns of events; cf. Hønneland (2004). International obligations were not an issue. IMM Response: The sentence has been removed and replaced by the text above provided by the reviewer. - p . 84, 1. paragraph after bullet points, 9. line: Although it can be argued that Russian fishery objectives correspond rather well with the FAO’s definition of precautionary management, I cannot see that there is foundation to say that the precautionary approach is explicitly stated in the Russian objectives. IMM Response: Text has been changed from ‘expressed explicitly’ to ‘clearly intended’. - p. 85, 2. paragraph: It is stated that “international colleagues, especially US scientists at NOAA/NMFS, are able to peer-review the science and advice of Russian scientists…”. Does this actually take place? IMM Response: Clarification on quoted information by the peer reviewer, the P3 assessor does not actually state in text that the peer review happens, only that the possibility exists by virtue of scientists being together, i.e. credit is given for some interchange of ideas. Scientists sharing ideas is a form of review – whether the Russian scientists acknowledge this in a formal sense, of course, is the point raised by the reviewer. - p. 102, table 17: For 2.2.3, a score of 75 is listed. In the scoring tables, the score for this SI is 70. This reduces the average score for P2 from 81.3 to 81, cf. p. 101, table 16. IMM Response: A score of 75 was awarded, the scoring table and scoring rationale have been standardized. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 238 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report. Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Example:1.1.2 No No NA The certifier gave a score of 80 for this PI. The 80 scoring guidepost asks for a target reference point that is consistent with maintaining the stock at Bmsy or above, however the target reference point given for this fishery is Bpa, with no indication of how this is consistent with a Bmsy level. 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 90 was given, as the first SI is met at SG100, No response required. while the second SI is met at SG80, but not at SG100. The current biomass can be judged to be at target, but this cannot be stated with a high degree of certainty. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 100 was given as all SGs are met. The team In addressing another reviewer’s comments, it was argues well that on balance the limit reference points are considered that there was not enough support for set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk scoring the fourth SI of SG80. (ecological role). Thus the of impairing reproductive capacity, and that they score of this PI was reducted to 90. consider the ecological role of the stock. 1.1.3 Yes Yes NA The stock is judged not to be depleted and thus this PI is No response required. not scored. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 239 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes A score of 70 was given, as all three SIs are met at No response required. SG60, but only the first of the two SIs at SG80. While the harvest strategy is likely to work, it is too early to conclude since it was used for the first time in December 2010 to inform TAC decisions for 2012. 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given since all SG60s and SG80s A clarification has been added on at-sea coverage of were met, but not the two SG100s. The HCR does not fishing activities and the link of this PI to PI 1.2.3. consider the wider implications of fishing mortality on the ecosystem, and evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the HCR is effective due to uncertainties regarding observer coverage. 1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes A score of 70 was given. The first SI was scored at A clarification has been added on the monitoring of the SG80 as sufficient but not a comprehensive range of at-sea coverage of fishing activities. information is available to support the harvest strategy. Fishery removals are monitored, ensuring the SG60 is met for the second SI, but it is not clear that the level and accuracy of monitoring is sufficient to meet SG80. The third SI of SG80 is not met either, since there is inadequate information for the seine fishery on the West Kamchatka shelf. 1.2.4 Yes Yes Yes A score of 75 was given. The first SI was scored at 80 No response required. since assessment is appropriate for the stock and the HCR and evaluates stock status relative to reference points. The second SI is scored at SG60 since the assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty, but only takes these into account to a limited extent. The last SI is met at SG80 as the assessment of stock status is subject to peer review, but not at SG100 since the level of external participation in reviews is uncertain. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 240 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. The team concluded that there No response required. are measures in place to ensure that fishing practice does not adversely impact all retained species. There are no main retained species. The information available on minor species did not allow scoring at SG100. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 85 was given. The team concluded that a No response required. strategy is in place for managing retained species, ensuring SG100 for the first SI. It did not consider that sufficient evidence was presented to respond to the three remaining SG100 issues, while the two remaining SG80 criteria were met since there is some confidence that the strategy will work and some evidence that it is being successfully implemented. 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. All SIs are met for SG60 and No response required. SG80, but none for SG100 since the information is not considered sufficiently detailed, accurate and verifiable. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 241 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. The team concluded that there The team agreed that the information on discard species are no main bycatch species. All minor bycatch species was not of sufficient quantity to conclude that there is a are an insignificant portion of the overall catch. It is High degree certainty they are All within biologically therefore considered highly likely that the fishery is based limits. having negligible impact on them and that they are within biologically based limits. I would have liked to see a more elaborate argument, though, why SG100 is not met. 2.2.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 85 was given. There is a strategy in place for No response required. managing bycatch, some confidence that it will work and some evidence that it is being implemented successfully, thus meeting all SG80s. SG100 is met for the first SI, as a strategy is in place for managing and minimizing bycatch, but there is no evidence that the remaining two SG100s are met. 2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes A score of 70 was given. All SG60s are met, as With the exception of one, all scoring guideposts at the qualitative information on bycatch species is available, 80 level are met. Score of 75 is awarded. adequate to broadly understand outcome status and to support measures to manage bycatch. Some quantitative information is available, sufficient to support a partial strategy for the management of bycatch. Hence, two of the SG80s are met. The remaining two SG80s are not met since information is considered insufficient to estimate outcome status and detect increase in risk to main bycatch species. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 242 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. All SG60s and SG80s are met, No response required. as there are no known effects of the fishery on any ETP species. However, available evidence makes it difficult Note this scoring criteria was changed in response to to conclude with a high decree of certainty, necessary to Peer Reviewer 1 to include more specific background meet the SG100s. information. 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. There is a strategy in place for No response required. managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, confidence that it will work and evidence that it is being implemented successfully. However, there is no comprehensive strategy in place, so the three SG100 scoring issues are not met. 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes A score of 70 was given. All three SG60 scoring issues A score of 70 is retained – the scoring issues guidance are met, as there is information available to broadly was verified and the team agreed there was no understand the fishery’s impact on ETP species, support requirement to revise the score or scoring rationale. measures to manage impacts and qualitatively estimate fishery-related mortality. The first SG80 is met as information is considered sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat, but the data are not considered sufficient to quantify the mortality of short- tailed albatross in the fishery, hence the second SG80 scoring issue is not met. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. The single SG80 was met, as No response required. mid-water trawl gear is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure to the point of irreversible harm. More evidence is necessary to conclusive and award SG100 for this single scoring issue. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 243 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 95 was given. All SG60s and SG80s are met, The background text and scoring rationale have been as a partial strategy is in place to achieve the Habitat improved to further substantiate the 95 score. Outcome 80 level, some confidence that it will work and some evidence that it is being implemented successfully. Two of the three scoring issues at SG100 are met, as there is a clear strategy in place, based directly on the fishery operational characteristics - with high confidence that it will work. However, clear evidence on the successful implementation of this strategy was not provided. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA A score of 95 was given. All SG60s and SG80 were met, No response required. as the habitat types relative to the scale of the fishery are known, with data collected on an on-going basis. The distribution of habitat types is known over their range and there have been surveys to measure habitat distribution over time, allowing for SG100 for the first two scoring issues. However, physical impacts have not been determined rigorously, so the third SG100 is not met. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 85 was given. Based on qualitative No response required. assessment, expert judgment and some quantitative evidence, the fishery is considered highly unlikely to alter the ecosystem irreversibly, thus meeting the SG80 scoring issue. There is some evidence to this effect, allowing for partly meeting the single SG100 of this SI. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 244 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.2 Yes No Yes A score of 75 was given. Both SG60 scoring issues are This Performance Indicator relates to the ecosystem as met, as there are measures in place to take into account a whole. The team were satisfied that elements of an potential impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, likely ecosytem approach were being applied in the fishery to be effective. There is a partial strategy in place and management system. In this respect the team some evidence that it is being successfully implemented, concluded that a “partial” strategy was being followed. meeting the first and third SG80 scoring issues. The There is also evidence that these partial elements are second SG80 scoring issue is not met. The scoring being implemented successfully therefore a score of 80 comments separate between a partial strategy relating was awarded (revised up from 75). to retained species, bycatch and habitat components, which is considered successfully implemented, and trophic modelling, whose application in management has not been demonstrated. It is also stated under the discussion of SG80 that no explicit ecosystem management strategy is defined. It does not follow clearly how this reasoning relates to the three SG80 scoring issues, however. Why is it so that there is some evidence that the measures are being successfully implemented (SI 3), while the strategy is not considered likely to work (SI 2)? The 75 score might be correct, but it should be better substantiated. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 245 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.3 Yes Yes Yes A score of 75 was given. Through surveys and No response required. ecosystem modeling, information is adequate to identify and broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting the first SI of SG60 and SG80. The main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem components can be inferred from the ecosystem modeling, but have not been investigated, meeting the second SI of SG60 and SG80. The main functions of the ecosystem components are generally known, but the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, ETP species and habitat have not been identified, meeting the third SI of SG80. Sufficient information is available to allow inference of some but not all of the main impacts of the fishery, meeting the fourth SI at SG80. In order to detect any increase in the risk level to ecosystem components, the team considers that more quantitative information on impacts is necessary, so the fifth SI of SG80 is not met. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 246 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 90 was given. The first SI of SG60 is met as No response required. The score is supported and the management system is generally consistent with agreed by the reviewer. local, national and international fishery standards aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries. The second SI is met at SG60 and SG80, since the management system incorporates a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. However, the system has not been tested and proven to be effective, so the SI of SG100 is not met. For the third SI, SG100 is met as the management system works proactively to avoid legal disputes and rapidly implement binding judicial decisions. There is evidence that the fishery is self- policing to a large extent. There are no indigenous people dependent on fishing in the fishery under assessment. 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA A score of 95 was given. For the first SI, SG100 is met No response required. The score is supported and as evidence indicates that the functions, roles and agreed by the reviewer. responsibilities of individuals and organizations involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. For the second SI, SG60 and SG80 were met as the management system includes consultation processes and demonstrates consideration of the information obtained, even beyond TAC setting. However, there is no evidence that authorities regularly explain how they use this information, so SG100 is not met. For the third SI, SG100 is met as the consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. I agree that well-developped consultation processes is a great asset to Russian fisheries management. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 247 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA A score of 100 was given as SG100 was met for this The reviewer makes a valuable comment here, and single SI. Clear long-term objectives consistent with wording has been amended to address this issue in the MSC principles and the precautionary approach are descriptive part of the report ( and the scoring rationale). explicit and required by management policy. It should be Otherwise, no change is needed because the score is noted that the precautionary approach as such is not supported and agreed by the reviewer. incorporated in Russian fisheries legislation. However, Russia is part of several international agreements that include the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and international agreements stand above national law according to the Russian Constitution of 1993. Further, the traditional Russian principle of “conservation and rational use” of natural resources resembles the principle of sustainability. More importantly, practical harvest control rules incorporate a precautionary element. 3.1.4 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. This single SI is met at SG80, No response required. The score is supported and as the management system provides for incentives that agreed by the reviewer. are consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. Russian fisheries law is well developed, with marked improvements during the last half of the first decade of the 21st century. However, there is no evidence that the management system explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy, so SG100 is not met. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 248 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA A score of 85 was given. There was evidence of well- No response required. The score is supported and defined short- and long-term objectives in the agreed by the reviewer. management system, meeting the SG80 and partly the SG100 scoring issues. However, there was no evidence of those objectives being measurable, as required to fully meet SG100. 3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes A score of 75 was given. The established decision- The team accepts that this is a valid comment. it is making processes meet the requirements of SG60 and obvious that the original report commenting that proof of SG80 for the first SI. For the second SI, SG60 was met, transparency might have been been lost in some of the but not SG80. The team finds it hard to conclude that translation or interpretation issues faced in the processes are transparent throughout, and “were not assessment is insufficient. The argument for the score that convinced that the culture of the system in Russia has been strengthened now by showing better why the promoted the form of transparency to which we are degree of transparency achieved recently in this fishery accustomed in the western, developed (by definition) is about as good as in other certified fisheries (the team world.” I fully agree with the team here, the lack of was provided good evidence of this) and specifically, transparency being one of the most problematic sides of that the system is taking cognizance of the wider Russian fisheries management (or Russian bureaucracy implications of decisions taken. The statement about more widely). However, if lack of transparency is indeed how the Russian system incorporates the precautionary the Achilles’ heel here, SG60 would not be met either, approach has also been corrected, as in 3.1.3 above. as the difference between SG60 and SG80 does not lie in different emphases on transparency, but in the latter’s inclusion of “other important issues” (not just “serious issues”) and its requirement that decision-making processes “take account of the wider implications of decisions” (not just “some account” of them). (to be continued under “Any other comments below” due to space limitations). Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 249 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.3 Yes No NA A score of 85 was given. For the first SI, SG80 was met, Regarding the first scoring issue, this has now been and not SG100, insofar as a MCS system is in place, but covered as mentioned agaist the general comment to arguably not a comprehensive one. I agree with the this reviewer’s Introduction. In terms of the second scoring, although it could certainly be argued that the scoring issue, clear compliance statistics have now been system is comprehensive – doubts are rather about how obtained. The reviewer asks that an attempt be made to it works in practice, cf. my general comment in the demonstrate that there has been an improvement in introduction to this peer review report. For the second fisher behaviour over time, but this is virtually impossible SI, the team concludes that SG100 is met, as sanctions except through a reduction in the number of punitive are not only consistently applied, but demonstrably sanctions applied. The text has been strengthened to provide effective deterrence. I am not completely show this – fishers are, in the opinion of the team, convinced about this since no compliance data (e.g. responding to management interventions. The score is inspection statistics) are provided in the report (cf. my therefore maintained unchanged (and no condition general comment in the introduction). I would therefore raised), given the clarity of the compliance statistics recommend a score of 80 instead of 100 here. As for the provided and now included in the report. last SI, the team states that, “No evidence could be found of non-compliance of those licenced to operate in the fishery, though allegations of IUU fishing in some areas do exist for the past, especially before Russia signed its adherence to the principle of eradicating IUU fishing. SG80 has in the opinion of the certification team been met.” (to be continued under “Any other comments” below) Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 250 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA A score of 80 was given. The team correctly notes that No response required. The score is supported and Russia has exemplary long time-series, although agreed by the reviewer. scientists carry out research that has “always” been going on rather than strategically evaluating the worth of the varioius components. I agree that 80 is the right score for the first SI since a research plan exists but hardly satiesfies the requirements of a comprehensive plan in terms of having a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3. I also agree with the 80 score for the second SI, as research results are disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion, but are not widely and publicly available to all stakeholders. 3.2.5 Yes Yes Yes A score of 70 was given. SG60 is met insofar as some No response required. The score is supported and parts of the management system are subject to agreed by the reviewer. occasional internal review. SG80 is partly met, as there are mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system. However, there is no documentation of external review. I agree that 70 is the correct score here. Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response 3.2.2. continued: Based on the main report (and my general knowledge of the Russian system), I 3.2.2 – Comment provided above. think it is fair to conclude that really serious issues are responded to in a transparent way, so I do Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 251 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report not conclude that a score of 60 is not warranted. However, this should be more explicitly laid out in the scoring comments, which now focus on the lack of transparency per se and say little about the difference between transparency in “serious” and “other” issues. As for the third SI, the single criterion SG80 is considered met insofar as adherence to the precautionary principle as defined by the FAO is strong. I agree with this, although – as stated earlier – the precautionary approach as such is not incorporated into Russian fisheries law. Finally, SG80 is met for the fourth SI, but not SG100, since explanations are provided in publicized minutes from management meetings, although there is no formal reporting to all interested stakeholders. 3.2.3. continued: I tend to agree that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance at the moment (a criterion for SG80), but I am not convinced that evidence exists to demonstrate that fishers comply (another SG80 criterion). Especially in light of the Russian Far East fisheries’ reputation of IUU fishing, it is important to bring forth evidence that actual compliance is 3.2.3 - – Comment provided above. improved (i.e. fisher behavior), not just the enforcement side of the issue (i.e. public policy). I accept that fishers might be “generally thought” to comply (the central SG60 criterion), but would like to see more evidence in the form of inspection statistics in order to agree with the SG80 scoring. To sum up, I would suggest reducing the score from SG100 to SG80 for the second SI and from SG80 to SG60 for the third SI. This gives a total score of 75, which would invoke a condition. If the team agrees, I would suggest a condition that sets forth a requirement that some aggregated data on the results of inspections at sea and on shore are presented, indicating that compliance is generally good. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 252 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report PEER REVIEWER 3 Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: The team notes that the reviewer’s comment that The assessment team made the comprehensive review of Russian Sea there is no evidence of “stimulation measures” being used widely in the fishery, (which the team of Okhotsk Pollock Fishery. The detailed analysis of scientific interpret as punative measures) and agree. methods for the investigation of pollock stocks state was performed. The conclusion was made that pollock stocks are in stable state at present time. However the lack of evidence that the use of scientific information is sufficient for strategy management was noted. The requirements of laws, Fishing Rules and other regulate documents are not always followed, so the lack of tight control can be indicated. There are no arguments, which prove the fact that stimulation measures for the protection of pollock stocks are widely used in fishery. So I have come to the conclusion that the assessment team made the correct estimation of the situation of Sea of Okhotsk Pollock Fishery where the comprehensive scientific investigations (for my opinion – the most important at Russian Pacific Ocean Fishery) are not always followed by adequate administrative measures and measures for their realization. Document: Template for Peer Review of MSC Fishery Assessments v1 Page 253 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: MSC_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: This statement is supportive of the I think that the score of SG 80 could be achieved at the nearest assessment model provided to and future, because the scoring rationale notes of the assessment team to supported by the team. This reviewer the points where the score is below 80 could be disputed or stresses that the proof of its disavowed. So the team did not agree with the management strategy effectiveness is still to come. However, because Stock Stores Synthesis Model was accepted only in 2010 the reviewer goes on to say that the and there is no confidence that fishery management strategy would model works effectively for other work. However, during the last decade, this method was approved at fisheries (some with poorer data than other commercial fish species such as cod, and at other types of this one), so there should be optimism fishery such as bottom and long-line trawls. Only after this time it that it will work. was adopted for pollock trawl catch as a promising method. My other comments are presented at the table. At the majority of cases The team has provided specific available scientific information does not prove the low scores of the comments regarding low Principle 2 assessment team (pollock catch structure at trawl and shore fishery, performance indicator scores, as well as the dynamics of by-catch fish resources, the absence of harm for response to the PI 3.2.5 within the seabirds). scoring table below. The conclusion of the assessment team about the insufficient outside control of pollock fishery (point 3.2.5) is very important, because it proves the opinion of Russian specialists about the necessity of the wider discussion of the questions connected with the use of biological resources (Matishov et al., 2009; Balykin, Karpenko, Ponomareva, 2011; Balykin, Kyshnarenko, 2012 etc.). During last 30 years, as the result of TINRO investigations the base of ecosystem fishery was created when not only the stores of some commercial fish species are determined, but the state of the whole ecosystem. So I think that there are sufficient data to claim that the result of SG 80 could be achieved in the nearest future. If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: No response required. I think that the action plan of client – Russian Pollock Catcher Association, is directed to achieve the score of 80-100 and it will allow to achieve it. The united policy of all pollock catch companies in foreign market at the sphere of cooperation with Russian administrative structures, scientific and nature-conservative organizations would promote that. The MCS certification of pollock catch will attract to Russian Pollock Catcher Association all fishery companies. This will improve the use of pollock stocks and fishery management. General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) The command of experts has performed greater work and has prepared the full characteristic of the Russian fishery of a Alaska pollock in sea of Okhotsk except for some nuances. IMM Response: No response required Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 254 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Conformity Assessment Body’s Public Certification Draft Report. Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 1.1.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 1.1.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 1.1.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 255 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 1.2.1 Yes No Yes In the report it is claimed that a harvest strategy consists The score of this PI is 70, not 60. of all necessary elements; however this strategy is newly implemented, having been used for the first time in 2010 No evidence was presented to the team that the to inform TAC decisions in 2012, so there is no strategy, as designed for the pollock fishery, has been guarantee that that it will work. It is stated that future implemented over the long-term on other stocks. It is not research is needed in order to determine the key evident that the HCR, a major element of the strategy, indicators of the population. It seems that this opinion is which includes precautionary reference points, has been not correct. During last 45 years, Russian fishery did not widely implemented in other Russian fisheries, including lead to the exhausting of the stocks; therefore, this this one. harvest strategy was working, however not all necessary elements were presented in this strategy. During this The MSC guidelines require evidence of the new harvest period of time the Monitoring System of stock state was strategy operating in the current UoC is meeting its developed. This made the determination of such key objectives, which is outstanding. parameters as М, Вlim and others possible. The data obtained allowed to adopt the present harvest and The score of 70 remains unchanged. management strategies. Therefore, I think that the score of the assessment team at SG 60 is too low for this item. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 256 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 1.2.3 No No Yes See Peer Reviewer Comment below. It is acknowledged that there is a wide array of information on Sea of Okhotsk pollock. The issue was not a lack of information but rather the sources of uncertainity in some of these data, particularly the ichthyoplankton/trawl survey and fishery removals. It is important to understand these to better inform the harvest strategy. Further, while it is acknowledged that there is information on the coastal fishery, TINRO acknowledged that it is too preliminary for inclusion in the assessment. The score of 70 remains unchanged. In the comments on the point (section?), where the necessary information gathering for the support of the strategy is discussed, it is stated that coastal fishery is not studied enough. Therefore, the information about pollock stock structure is not complete.The information about the catch structure of costal fishery have been regularly gathered by regional institutes (KamchatNIRO, MagadanNIRO) . These institutes possess large info bases. The research results showed that the catches of trawlers and costal seine consist of the pollock of different age, length and weight. The fishes of middle age (less than 10 years) and less than 50 cm length were presented in the catches. Pollock stocks, being harvested by coastal fishery, consist of fishes, have moved to the bottom life because of the age and therefore have left the influence of trawling (Shuntov et al., 1993). So the pollock of adult age and larger size are eing caught by coastal fishery (Balykin, 2006; Balykin, Byslov, 2010 etc.). Consequently, the influence of coastal fishery on pollock stocks by trawling is absent. In my opinion, the question concerning the pollock catches structure during trawl and nearshore fishery shows the necessity of the investigations not only of the separate kind of fishery, but of the state of the whole ecosystem (including the aquatic biological resources stores) of Northern Sea of Okhotsk. Different fishing gears are used for different fish (pollock, cod, halibut, rockfish etc.) harvesting. Length, age, sex structure and other biological indexes are not similar for different fishery gears. 1.2.4 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 257 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.1.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.2.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.2.3 Yes No Yes It is noted that most of the caught species are scarce, The team reconsidered the scoring. The background text and therefore could be classified as by-catch (additional and scoring rationale have been improved. The team catch). However, there is not enough data for by-catch agreed that a higher score could not be justified. harvest strategy management. Almost all by-catch species have no commercial value, therefore the strategy for their harvest stock management is not needed. Long-term trawling surveys showed that the trawling does not influence the composition and structure of ichthyocenosis from the Sea of Okhotsk (Ilinskyi et al., 2011). Thus, I believe that the score 70 is too low for this section. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 258 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.3.3 Yes No Yes The assessment team noted that no species are being The team reconsidered the scoring for this PI and could threatened directly by pollock trawling in the Sea of find no objective basis to raise the score (which is Okhotsk; however there is lack of information about the maintained at 70). correlation between fishery and the mortality of short- tailed albatrosses. It is known that high birds mortality was caused by net and trawl fishery (Matishov et al., 2010), while the data on bird mortality during trawling are absent in contrast to the data on Steller Sea Lion and Cetacean mortalities. So, I believe that the score 70 awarded by the assessment team is too low for this section. 2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 259 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.5.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 2.5.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.1.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.1.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.1.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.1.4 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 260 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant information and/or rationale raised improve documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) 3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. 3.2.5 Yes Yes Yes No further comment No response required. The score is supported and agreed by the reviewer. Any Other Comments Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response The assessment teams for both the Sea of Okhotsk and the West Bering Sea/ Navarinsky conducted the At certification of the Russian fishery it is expedient to include in a command of site audits. The WBS team member, Alexei Sharov, who is Russian was present during all discussions. experts of the expert who is knowing Russian as the majority of scientific He also provided specific translations to the SOO team, upon request, as well as verifying some of the publications on this subjects it is written in Russian I know some Russian specialists, source materials used by the PCA in the preparation of their submission documents. who could be recommended as experts. However it ought to find out their opinions at Detail has been added to the report (Executive Summary) to further clarify how the team achieved first. Besides Russian specialists, the participation of specialists from Ukraine independence in view of the language barrier between the majority of the team and the client and fishery (Kerch, Southern Research Institute of Fishery) and Poland (Shecin, the Marine management and scientific organizations. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 261 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Institute of Fishery) is possible. Document: Peer Reviewer Template Page 262 Date of issue: 19 January, 2011 File: TAB_D_031_peer_reviewer_template_v1.doc © Marine Stewardship Council, 2011 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Appendix B: Example of Scientific Observer Log This particular log was filled in by an observer onboard the commercial vessel “Aeronaft” during winter- spring period of 2010 in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk (Source: PCA, 2011) Vessel Date Area Water temp. Catch Catch per trawling hour Trawling depth Time Trawl type Trawling speed Locations Species composition in catch Per trawling hour Numbers Fish size Weight kg Numbers Weight total Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 263 Date of issue: January 2013 Russian Sea of Okhotsk Mid-water Pollock Trawl Final Certification Report Bycatch of sea animals Komandor squid – 1 specie – 215-320 gr Northern squid – several specie – weight of each, total weight Fish measuring Document: FCM15 MSC_Full_Assessment_Report_SOO_FCR_Final_140113v3.doc page 264 Date of issue: January 2013