Faroe Islands queen scallop 1
Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments
Faroe Islands queen scallop
Announcement Comment Draft Report
Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) DNV GL Business Assurance
Assessment team Jodi Bostrom, Giuseppe Scarcella, Tristan Southall
Fishery client O. C. Joensen
Assessment Type Initial Assessment
Date 29 October 2020
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 2
1 Contents
1 Contents ...... 2 2 Abbreviations and acronyms ...... 5 3 Executive summary ...... 6 3.1 Main strengths ...... 6 3.2 Main weaknesses ...... 6 3.3 Draft Determination ...... 7 4 Report details ...... 8 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 8 4.2 Version details ...... 9 5 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification and results overview ...... 11 5.1 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification ...... 11 5.1.1 Unit of Assessment ...... 11 5.1.2 Unit of Certification ...... 11 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 12 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 12 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 12 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 12 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 13 6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 14 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 14 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 14 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 15 7 Scoring ...... 16 7.1 Principle scores ...... 16 7.1.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 16 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 17 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 17 7.2.2 Catch profiles ...... 22 7.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 22 7.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales...... 22 ...... 22 ...... 25 ...... 26 ...... 29 ...... 32 ...... 34 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 36 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 36 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 43 ...... 43 ...... 45
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 3
...... 47 ...... 49 ...... 51 ...... 53 ...... 55 ...... 57 ...... 60 ...... 62 ...... 64 ...... 66 ...... 68 ...... 69 ...... 71 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 73 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 73 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 74 ...... 74 ...... 78 ...... 81 ...... 83 ...... 85 ...... 89 ...... 91 8 Appendices ...... 93 8.1 Assessment information ...... 93 8.1.1 Previous assessments ...... 93 8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 93 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 93 8.2.1 Site visits ...... 93 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 96 8.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 96 8.3 Peer Review reports ...... 96 8.3.1 Peer Reviewer A: ...... 97 8.3.2 Peer Reviewer B: ...... 97 8.4 Stakeholder input ...... 98 8.5 Conditions ...... 99 8.5.1 Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate ...... 99 8.5.2 Conditions ...... 99 8.6 Client Action Plan ...... 99 8.7 Surveillance ...... 100 8.8 Risk-Based Framework outputs ...... 101 8.8.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) ...... 101 8.8.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)...... 102 8.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable ...... 105
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 4
8.10 Client Agreement ...... 106 8.11 References ...... 107 8.12 Landing sites (if applicable) ...... 109 9 Template information and copyright ...... 110
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 5
2 Abbreviations and acronyms
ACDR Announcement Comment Draft Report CA Consequence Analysis CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened, or Protected (species) FCP Fisheries Certification Process MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PI Performance Indicator PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk-Based Framework SG Scoring Guidepost TAC Total Allowable Catch UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 6
3 Executive summary
The CAB shall include in the executive summary:
- Date and location of site visit. - The main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation. - From Public Comment Draft Report reporting stage only - the draft determination / determination reached with supporting justification.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.12, 7.18, 7.21 To be completed at Public Certification Report stage
This report provides information on the assessment of the Faroe Islands queen scallop fishery against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. The report is prepared by DNV GL for the client O.C. Joensen. The assessment was carried out using MSC Fisheries Certification Process (FCP) v2.2. For the assessment, the default assessment tree in Annex SA from the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.01, without any changes, was used.
The assessment covers one UoA targeting queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis or Chlamys opercularis) with scallop dredge within the Faroe Islands Exclusive Economic Zone, which is part of the FAO fishing area 27 and ICES area Vb1b. The queen scallop is indigenous to this area, and no enhancement takes place.
The assessment process was initiated by the announcement on the MSC website on the 29 October 2020, and the site visit will take place remotely during the week of 18 January 2021. A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations will be carried out during this period as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. This Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) was prepared as a desk study based on publicly available information and input from the client. A rigorous assessment of the MSC Principles and Criteria has been undertaken by the assessment team, and detailed and fully referenced scoring rationales are provided through the assessment tree scoring tables provided in Section 7 of this report. The risk-based framework (RBF) methodology was applied to PI 1.1.1.
If certified, the scope of the MSC fishery certification will be up to the point of landing, and Chain of Custody will commence from the point of landing and sale. The eligibility date for this assessment is expected to be the date when the Public Comment Draft Report is published on the MSC website.
3.1 Main strengths Table 1. Main strengths Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 1.2.1, 1.2.3 The main strengths of the UoA are its size with only one licence issued by the Faroe Islands on an annual basis, with no intention to increase. Also, the species has in general a high productivity. Taking into account that there is only one vessel the fishery is easy to monitor. In addition, the Faroe Marine Research Institute (FAMRI) provides relevant information related to stock biology and productivity. Principle 2 2.1.x, 2.2.x, The UoA has no main primary or secondary species and does not interact with any 2.3.1, 2.5.1 ETP species. The size and intensity of the UoA are limited so the impact on the ecosystem is minimal. Principle 3 3.1.1, 3.1.3 The 2018 Faroese Act on the Management of Marine Resources follows extensive review and has addressed a number of issues across the fisheries sector, providing clear objectives and an effective national legal system. As the fishery takes place entirely within the Faroe EEZ, no cooperation with other countries is necessary.
3.2 Main weaknesses Table 2. Main weaknesses Principle Performance Comment Indicator Principle 1 1.1.1, 1.2.2, The major weakness of this fishery are the absence of stock assessment and 1.2.4 accompanying reference points, formal fishery objectives, and harvest control rules. Although the move-on rule allows scallop beds some time to recover, there are no studies on the effectiveness of this strategy or the uncertainties associated with it.
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 7
Principle 2 2.3.2, 2.3.3, Regarding ETP species, more information is needed to better understand the risk 2.4.x posed by the UoA, the effectiveness of the strategy, and if a review of potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise mortality is needed. There is a lack of information on habitat impacts and distribution and on habitat management to ensure the UoA is not having serious or irreversible harm. Principle 3 3.1.3 Previous reviews have indicated that only a narrow range of stakeholder voices (science and industry) are represented in consultation processes. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, There is a lack of formal fisheries-specific management. This means that the objectives 3.2.4 for the UoA are only implicit, and the decision-making processes are not always clear. Furthermore, the overall management of UoA has not been subject to a fishery-specific review.
3.3 Draft Determination To be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage
The principle scores are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3. Principle scores Principle Score Principle 1 Principle 2 Principle 3
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 8
4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details
The CAB shall include in the report:
- Names of team members. - Specification of which person is the team leader. - Names of the peer reviewers. - Statement that peer reviewers can be viewed on the assessment downloads page on the MSC website.
If the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) has been used in assessing the fishery, the CAB shall state in the report which team member(s) has had training in the use of the RBF.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section(s) 7.6, 7.14, Annex PC Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage Table 4. Assessment team Name Jodi Bostrom Role Team leader, Principle 2 and traceability expert Qualifications: Jodi Bostrom is a senior assessor and team leader for MSC Fisheries at DNV GL Business Assurance. She earned an M.Sc. in Environmental Science from American University and a B.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Wisconsin. She has over four years of experience in MSC fisheries assessment services. Prior to that, she worked for five years at the MSC as a Senior Fisheries Assessment Manager. Among other things, she developed the MSC’s benthic habitats policy and the Consequence Spatial Analysis (a risk-based framework for assessing habitat impacts in data-deficient situations) as part of the MSC Standard revision. Prior to the MSC, Jodi spent 11 years with the US National Academy of Sciences’ Ocean Studies Board where she worked on various projects from fisheries management and policy to bycatch and dredging impacts to eutrophication and sea level rise.
Jodi’s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in Annex PC for the Team Leader and traceability responsible: has an appropriate university degree and more than three years’ experience as a team leader; has over 3 years’ experience in research in the impact of fisheries on aquatic ecosystems; has passed the MSC team leader training and is up to date on all trainings regarding modifications; has undertaken two fishery assessments as a team member in the last five years; has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and various stakeholder groups; meets ISO 19011 training requirements; and has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.
Jodi meets the Principle 2, RBF, and team leader requirements of FCP v2.2. Jodi will participate in the site visit remotely. Name Giuseppe Scarcella Role Principle 1 expert Qualifications: Giuseppe Scarcella is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of demersal stocks. He holds a first degree in Marine Biology and Oceanography (110/110) from the Unversità Politecnica delle Marche, and a Ph.D. in marine Ecology and Biology from the same university, based on a thesis "Age and growth of two rockfish in the Adriatic Sea". After his degree, he was offered a job as project scientist in several research programs about the structure and composition of fish assemblage in artificial reefs, off-shore platform and other artificial habitats in the Italian National Research Council – Institute of Marine Science of Ancona (CNR-ISMAR), now Institute for Biological Resources and Marine Biotechnologies (IRBIM). During the years of employment at CNR-ISMAR first and CNR-IRBIM later he has gained experience in benthic ecology, statistical analyses of fish assemblage evolution in artificial habitats, fisheries ecology and impacts of fishing activities, stock assessment, otolith analysis, population dynamic and fisheries management. Since 2018 Dr. Scarcella is in the permanent staff of CNR-IRBIM as researcher. During the same years, he attended courses of uni-multivariate statistics and stock assessment. He is also actively participating in the scientific advice process of FAO GFCM in the Mediterranean Sea as well as in the European context. He was member of the Scientific,
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 9
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for the European Commission (STECF) from 2012 to 2019 and is chair of the STECF-EWG Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities.
Giuseppe is author of more than 50 scientific paper peer reviewed journals and more than 150 national, and international technical reports, most of them focused on the evolution of fish assemblages in artificial habitats, stock assessment of demersal species and evaluation of fisheries management plans. For some years now, Dr Scarcella has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 1 of the Standard. Giuseppe meets the Principle 1, RBF, and team member requirements of FCP v2.2. Giuseppe has no conflict of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Giuseppe will participate in the site visit remotely. Name Tristan Southall Role Principle 3 expert Qualifications: Tristan Southall is a marine and fisheries industry analyst with a wide range of professional experience in questions of sustainable marine resource exploitation, with particular focus and expertise on the management and evaluation of capture fisheries. His consultancy expertise includes project management, fisheries liaison, feasibility studies, stakeholder consultation, policy analysis and management advice and draws on an extensive understanding of fishery management and operations, as well as knowledge of a number of other marine industries, such as offshore operations, aquaculture and marine recreation. This focus on management is supported by a solid understanding and appreciation of marine ecosystems and a practical understanding of working at sea.
Tristan has considerable professional experience of the EU Common Fisheries Policy and has coordinated EU fisheries training and promotion activities – covering all aspects of sustainable fisheries management and control. In addition, Tristan has excellent understanding of a range of non-EU fishery management systems in countries as diverse as Turkey, Suriname and the Gambia, meaning that his expertise is applicable to a wide variety of situations, enabling valuable comparative analysis. Tristan has undertaken many MSC sustainability assessments of fisheries around the world. In recent years Tristan has been contracted by MSC to develop capacity building tools and deliver capacity building training for prospective fishery clients and stakeholders; a recognition of his excellent understanding of MSC Certification Requirements, its practical application and challenges.
Tristan meets the Principle 3, RBF, and team member requirements of FCP v2.2. He acted as the team leader for the three surveillance audits that occurred as part of the fishery’s certification in 2013 so he possesses local knowledge as well as knowledge specific to this fishery. Tristan has no conflict of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Tristan will participate in the site visit remotely.
4.2 Version details Table 5 provides a list of MSC program document versions that were used in the assessment of this fishery.
Table 5. Fisheries program documents versions
Document Version number
MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2
MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01
MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4
Default Assessment Tree – MSC Fisheries Standard Annex SA Version 2.01
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 10
RBF Annex PF Version 2.2
MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 11
5 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification 5.1.1 Unit of Assessment The fishery is, to the knowledge of the assessment team, within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard according to the following determinations: The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal. The fishery does not use poisons or explosives. The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years. The client or client group does not include an entity that has been convicted for a shark finning violation in the last 2 years. The fishery has mechanisms for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery. The fishery is not enhanced or based on an introduced species.
The Unit of Assessment (UoA) defines the full scope of what is being assessed and includes the Unit of Certification (UoC) and any other eligible fishers. The UoA includes the target stock(s); the fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s), and/or practices; and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the UoC. The proposed UoA for this fishery assessment is specified in Table 6.
Table 6. Proposed UoA UoA Description
Species Queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis or Chlamys opercularis)
Stock Northeast Atlantic queen scallop
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Scallop dredge type(s) Client: O.C. Joensen Client group Vessel: Nordheim FD 795
Other eligible fishers None
FAO area: 27 (ICES Area Vb1b) Common name of the body of water: Faroe Islands Exclusive Economic Zone Geographical area Local fisheries management area: Faroe Islands Ministry of Fisheries Stock region: Northeast Atlantic
5.1.2 Unit of Certification The proposed UoC includes the target stock(s); the fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s), and/or practices; and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including entities initially intended to be covered by the certificate. The proposed UoC is stated in Table 7.
Table 7. Proposed UoC UoC Description
Species Queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis or Chlamys opercularis)
Stock Northeast Atlantic queen scallop
Fishing gear type(s) and, if relevant, vessel Scallop dredge type(s)
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 12
Client: O.C. Joensen Client group Vessel: Nordheim FD 795 FAO area: 27 (ICES Area Vb1b) Common name of the body of water: Faroe Islands Exclusive Economic Zone Geographical area Local fisheries management area: Faroe Islands Ministry of Fisheries Stock region: Northeast Atlantic
5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement
The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the assessment team on whether the fishery should be certified.
The CAB shall include in the report a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-maker in response to the determination recommendation.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2, 7.20.3.h and Section 7.21 To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage
5.2.2 Principle level scores
The CAB shall include in the report the scores for each of the three MSC principles in the table below.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.17 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Table 8. Principle level scores
Principle UoA
Principle 1 – Target species
Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts
Principle 3 – Management system
5.2.3 Summary of conditions
The CAB shall include in the report a table summarising conditions raised in this assessment. Details of the conditions shall be provided in the appendices. If no conditions are required, the CAB shall include in the report a statement confirming this.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Table 9. Summary of conditions Carried Related to Condition Performance Exceptional over from previous Condition Deadline number Indicator (PI) circumstances? previous condition? certificate? Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA Yes / No / Yes / No Yes / No / NA NA
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 13
5.2.4 Recommendations
If the CAB or assessment team wishes to include any recommendations to the client or notes for future assessments, these may be included in this section. To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
Table 10. Summary of recommendations Recommendation Recommendation Performance number indicator
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 14
6 Traceability and eligibility 6.1 Eligibility date The eligibility date for this assessment is expected to be the date when the Public Comment Draft Report is published on the MSC website. The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery will be implemented by the eligibility date.
6.2 Traceability within the fishery The systems of tracking and tracing within the fishery should ensure that there are no substitution risks that could be caused by vessels using non-certified gears, fishing outside the UoA/UoC, other non-certified fisheries fishing the same stock or any other risk of substitution that may occur between point of harvest and point of sale, such as transhipment, sale via auctions, etc. Queen scallops within the Faroe Islands exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are fished by only one vessel, which is owned by the client. Traceability within the fishery is outlined in Table 11, which is based on information gathered from previous assessments (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013). There appears to be a sufficiently effective system of tracking, tracing, and segregation in the Faroe Islands queen scallop fishery to ensure that all products originating from the certified fishery and sold as certified would be identified prior to or at the point of landing. These details will be verified with the client before or at the site visit.
Table 11. Traceability within the fishery Factor Description
Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of Certification (UoC)?
No. The UoC will never use another gear type when fishing If Yes, please describe: for the target species. - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same vessels, or during the same season; - How any risks are mitigated. Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic area? No. The vessel in the UoC will never fish outside the UoC’s If Yes, please describe: geographic area. - If this may occur on the same trip; - How any risks are mitigated. No. There is no on-board processing, and the catch from each fishing trip is weighed at the point of landing and Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and recorded by the processing factory. Landing and logbook non-certified products during any of the activities records are submitted to the Faroe Marine Research covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at- Institute. The catch is delivered to a single processing sea activities and on-land activities. plant, which is also owned and operated by the client, and the plant is dedicated to processing and storing the client’s - Transport scallop catch. If certified, the fishery certificate would - Storage include the vessel and the processing plant. - Processing - Landing Processing and trading subsequent to the point of delivery - Auction of semi-processed scallop from the client’s plant is potentially conducted by one or more operations and in If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. more than one country. Segregation of eligible fish products from non-eligible products will have to be verified by MSC Chain of Custody auditing all relevant facilities. Does transhipment occur within the fishery?
If Yes, please describe: - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or No. There is no transhipment within the fishery. both; - If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated.
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 15
Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution No. There is no indication of risk of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? between certified and non-certified fish since there is only
one vessel in the UoC. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.
6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody
The CAB shall include in the report a determination of whether the seafood product will be eligible to enter certified chains of custody, and whether the seafood product is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.
The CAB shall include in the report a list of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the fishery certificate, and sell product as MSC certified.
The CAB shall include in the report the point of intended change of ownership of product, a list of eligible landing points, and the point from which subsequent Chain of Custody certification is required.
If the CAB makes a negative determination under FCP v2.2 Section 7.9, the CAB shall state that fish and fish products from the fishery are not eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. If the client group includes other entities such as agents, unloaders, or other parties involved with landing or sale of certified fish, this needs to be clearly stated in the report including the point from which Chain of Custody is required.
Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.9 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 16
7 Scoring 7.1 Principle scores 7.1.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
Principle Component Weight Performance Indicator (PI) Weight Score
1.1.1 Stock status 1.000 ≥80 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.000
1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.250 ≥80 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.250 60-79 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.250 ≥80
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.250 ≥80
2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80
Primary species 0.200 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80
2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80
2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80 Secondary 0.200 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 ≥80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 ≥80
2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80
Two ETP species 0.200 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 60-79
2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 ≥80
2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 60-79
Habitats 0.200 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 60-79
2.4.3 Information 0.333 60-79
2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 ≥80
Ecosystem 0.200 2.5.2 Management 0.333 ≥80
2.5.3 Information 0.333 ≥80
3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 ≥80 Governance 0.500 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 60-79 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 ≥80
Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.250 60-79
Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.250 60-79 management 0.500 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.250 60-79 Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 0.250 60-79 evaluation
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 17
7.2 Principle 1 7.2.1 Principle 1 background Queen scallop biology The queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis or Chlamys opercularis) is a medium sized scallop that grows to a maximum shell height of about 90 mm. It is a commonly exploited species in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea (especially in the Adriatic Sea) with an approximate latitudinal range of 30°N to 70°N (Brand, 2006a). It occurs from the shallow subtidal down to about 180m but is most common in water of 20-45m (Mason, 1983). It is commonly found on bottoms of clean firm sand, fine gravel or sandy gravel, sometimes with an admixture of mud (Mason, 1983). It is frequently found together with the king scallop, Pecten maximus or Pecten jacobeous (in the Mediterranean Sea), on the same grounds but can live also on harder gravel and shelly bottoms because, unlike Pecten spp., it does not usually recess in the seabed (Brand, 2006a). The species is not considered a key Low-Trophic Level (LTL) taking into account that it is not in the list of Box SA1 of MSC FS v2.01.
All scallop species have a highly aggregated (i.e. contagious) spatial distribution within their geographical range (Brand, 2006a). Localized, dense aggregations are referred to as beds. Some beds are essentially permanent, being fairly precise in their location and separated by clearly demarked areas that are unsuitable for scallops, while others vary in their location from year to year, resulting from sporadic settlement or differences in early survival. The more permanent beds appear to be in areas where oceanographic features ensure a regular larval supply, but suitable temperatures, food availability and substrate are also important. Not all suitable substrates support high densities of queen scallops. The major aggregations of queen scallops that support commercial fisheries are relatively few in number and widely separated, notably in the western English Channel, Kish Bank, the north Irish Sea, Clyde, Orkney, Shetland, a few locations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and around the Faroes (Brand, 2006a). Of these, the largest and most valuable fisheries have usually been in the north Irish Sea, around the Isle of Man, though in recent years the fisheries around Faroes and occasionally the western Channel (with landings into France) have produced high landings (Brand, 2006b).
The queen scallop is a simultaneous hermaphrodite and the onset of sexual maturity occurs at a very young age, when they are about one year old. However, at this time the gonads are very small and do not make a significant contribution to total egg production until the later years. As with all scallops, fecundity of the adult queen scallop is high and increases with age. The annual reproductive cycle has been studied throughout the geographical range (Brand, 2006b). The general trend is for a single annual spawning peak at the northern end of the geographical range and multiple peaks at the southern end, but spawning patterns can vary considerably in some closely located populations. In the north Irish Sea, there are generally three more-or-less distinct peaks of spawning each year in the inshore populations, occurring in February-March, June-July and September-October, with the autumn spawning appearing to be the most important. However, for a deeper water population farther offshore Wanninayake (1994) reported only two peaks, with no evidence of the autumn spawning and the redevelopment of the gonads through the autumn and winter proceeding some two months earlier than for the inshore populations. This pattern is probably typical of offshore populations.
Spawning is often closely synchronised, and eggs and sperm are released into the water column where fertilization takes place. Fertilized eggs develop into ciliated veliger larvae that continue to swim and filter feed in the water column for some 3-6 weeks before developing adult characteristics and settling on the seabed as spat (attached juveniles). Initial settlement of queen scallops can be on stones, shells, algae, hydroids, bryozoans or other epibenthic organisms or made-made materials (ropes, nets etc) that provide an erect, silt-free, surface above the seabed (Brand, 2006a;). Kamenos et al. (2003) found that queen spat settled on living maerl in preference to dead maerl or gravel substrates, and maerl beds may be important habitats for juvenile queen scallops in some areas but many major queen beds occur remote from living maerl beds. Despite the apparent importance of the autumn spawning on most north Irish Sea grounds from the gonad studies, most spat settlement on benthic epifauna and artificial spat collectors over many years has come from spring or early summer spawnings (Brand & Tendal, 2000).
Queen scallops attach by secreting a group of byssal threads. Though capable of releasing the byssus and moving about, queen scallops retain the ability to attach until quite a large size, although the proportion that is byssally- attached falls with age and most queens larger than 50 mm are free-living (Paul, 1980). Once they cease to form a byssus, adult queens rest on the seabed and are excellent swimmers throughout life but swimming ability varies seasonally. In the warmer summer and autumn months, queens swim readily to evade predators or fishing gear. As a result, they are only caught efficiently in bottom trawls in the summer and autumn when they swim up off the seabed (Chapman, 1981; Jenkins et al, 2003), but can be taken in dredges throughout the year. Vision is an important factor in stimulating swimming and daylight catches in trawls greatly exceed those taken at night. Although swimming is an effective short distance escape response, queens are not capable of swimming far before they become fatigued.
DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 18
Scallops are filter feeders. Adult queens filter sedimenting phytoplankton, resuspended benthic diatoms and organic detritus from the bottom of the water column. They are unable to efficiently filter very small particles ( Many species of scallop can be reliably aged from prominent growth rings on the shell but this is not possible for many populations of queen scallops, which can be problematic in studies of population dynamics. The maximum life span of A. opercularis is 8-10 years but beyond 4-5 years old mortality is high and older individuals are rare on all fishing grounds. Queen scallops have a fast growth rate. In the north Irish Sea, queens reach a commercially acceptable size (50 mm shell height) at an age of 14-18 months and the fishery on all grounds is generally dominated by queens 2-4 years old (Brand, 1991). With so few age-classes present in the exploited populations, the success of the fishery in any year is highly dependent on the strength of recruitment, which can vary greatly both temporally and spatially (Allison & Brand, 1993). Queen scallops have numerous predators. During the pelagic phase, the larvae are eaten by larger zooplankton and planktivorous fish. After settlement, the principle predators are starfish, crabs, lobsters, predatory snails, octopus and various bottom feeding fish species. Around the Isle of Man the main predators of adult queens are the crab Cancer pagurus and the starfish Asterias rubens; both feed preferentially on queens, rather than the king scallop Pecten maximus, despite the better escape response of the queen scallop (Veale et al., 2000). Queen scallop is widely distributed all over the Faroese shelf, at depths from about 20 to 450 m (Tendal & Dinesen 2005), and they are reported to be common at depths of 50 to 200 m (Bruntse & Tendal 2001). Large concentrations of queen scallop occur on the Faroese plateau, one area north of the northern islands and the other east of the central islands. These two areas of large concentration make up a total of about 400 km2 (Figure 1). The beds are found at 60- 110 m on sandy, rocky or soft bottom (Nicolajsen 1997). Ursin’s 1956 study found highest concentration of scallops between 57-128 m off the northern island. Figure 1 - Distribution of queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis around the Faroe Islands. Dots show single stations, hatched areas show higher aggregations. (Source: Bruntse and Tendal, 2000) Status of the stock and management in the Faroe Islands For fishery management it is important to know the geographical boundaries of the stock in concern. The queen scallop stock off the Faroe Islands is well defined within depths and substrata (Nicolajsen 1997). No formal stock assessment has been carried out since the 1980s but there is a considerable amount of information available about the biology, ecology, stock abundance and distribution. Ursin (1956) mapped the distribution of the virgin scallop stock around the Faroe Islands which he related to substrata and strong tidal currents. He also determined age and growth. Hoydal (1980, 1981) assessed the stock at the outer banks of the eastern area to be 7,700 tons and at the inner banks 4,000 tons using the swept area method. Nicolajsen (1984) assessed the stock size, modelled scallop growth and estimated the fishing and natural mortality, based upon data from Ursin (1956). The estimated stock on the traditional scallop grounds based on the swept area gave 7,300 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 19 tonnes, but an estimate based upon catch and mortality gave a stock of 10,500 tons. Nicolajsen (1984) concluded that the fishable stock in the main fishing areas of 1970-1982, a total of 170 km2, was between 7,000-9,000 tonnes. Nicolajsen estimated the natural mortality to be 0.6 and fishing mortality 0.3. This mortality is almost the same as assessed for the queen scallop stock in the Irish waters, the Clyde fjord and the Shetlands islands (Mason et al. 1979). The abundance of queen scallops was measured both by the swept area method (46.5g/m2) and from CPUE (landings) (42,8g/m2) the same year (Nicolajsen 1984). Mean wet-weight of a scallops (60 mm high) is considered to be 20g (Nicolajsen 1984) giving a mean of 2 individuals/m2 or 200 ind/100 m2. This abundance assessed in 1984 is very high compared to what has been observed for the Isle of Man fishery in 2010 (25 scallops/100m2) (Andrews et al. 2011). Scientific advice regarding the exploratory fishing of the queen scallop stock in the Faroe Islands is provided by the Faroe Marine Research Institute (FAMRI or Havstovan). Even though stock assessment is not being conducted, CPUE in experimental areas in the north and Funningsfjord is monitored. The licensed fishing vessel is now fitted with a VMS transponder. The VMS data is used to map the distribution of the fishing activity. Fishing grounds are divided in rectangles and when CPUE falls below 1 ton/hour the area will be closed for two years. Fishing will continue in the designated area as long as CPUE rates are above 1.5 ton/hour. In the northern area and outside Funningsfjord (Djúpini sound) exploratory fishing licenses have been issued and monitoring of the stock through CPUE is carried out by the Marine Research Institute (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf- PCR, 2013). A precautionary TAC for the fishery in the northern area has been set for 2011 and 2012. Research on the impacts of dredging on the bottom community has been carried out in the northern area (Matras 2001). In 2013, it was estimated that the fishery covers about 34 km2 of fishing area annually, thus only covering about 8.5% of the main eastern and northern fishing areas1. The stock is of high-fecundity, fast growing, of low tropic-level and maintains high productivity resulting in low probability of recruitment overfishing. Stock abundance indices based on catch and effort data remain central to many fisheries assessments. Statistically significant relationship between relative abundance measured in surveys in the Isle of Man queen scallop fishery and CPUE derived from fishing logbook data has been observed (Andrews et al. 2011). Standardized CPUE is often used as information to influence the results of stock assessment model such as biomass dynamic models and statistical catch-at-age models. Catch rates are often considered as unreliable information because of many other influencing factors, rather than changes in the abundance (e.g., different boats, different fishing gears, seasons, areas, aggregation in the stock [none spatially refined CPUE data]) or discards. However, standardization models are used to remove the impact of these factors (Maunder & Punt 2004) leaving an annual effect that serves as a proxy of relative abundance that can be used directly to assess the stock (Maunder & Punt 2004). In April 2011 ICES workshop (WKCPUEEFORT, ICES, 2011) on the utility of commercial CPUE and VMS data in assessment was carried out. They concluded that integration of VMS and commercial catch data provides the opportunity to provide fine scale spatial distribution maps of fishing effort and catch distribution maps. However, the research beyond the mapping is only now beginning to come from the scientific community but in many respects the use of catch data for management purpose is still in its infancy. Common data collection format is now essential to ensure data from different sources are compatible (ICES, 2011). WKCPUEEFORT recommends the formation of a dedicated project to develop further the scientific and management use of spatially refined catch and effort data and other sources of new technologies (Anon 2011). In the scallop fishery in the Faroe Islands the catchability of the fishing vessel should remain constant over time. The nominal effort is stable and reflective of actual or effective effort. These are the assumptions that the linearity of proportionality between CPUE and stock status is based on. Similarly, the biases that have been pointed out weakening CPUE data as proxy for swept area data, are not afflicting the scallop fishery in the Faroe Islands, as there is (i) only one boat fishing, (ii) the same gear is used year after year, (iii) season closures have remained constant, (iv) there is one main fishing area, (v) the stock is sedentary and (vi) there is no discarding. With rapid advantages in electronic and satellite monitoring and data acquisitions systems being used, it has been possible to accurately monitor the spatial distribution of fisheries and to help refine effort estimators. Figure Figure 2 shows the estimate of CPUE from 2003 to 2019 as well as the landings of the vessel targeting queen scallop in Faroe Islands. Figure 3 shows the spatial distribution of the catches and effort of the same vessel. 1 The dredge is hoisted 40-45 times per fishing trip. Each tow is 1 mile (1852m), and the dredge is 7.4m wide (twin dredges of 12 foot each). The area covered per fishing trip is estimated as [1.852km (length of tow) x 0.0074 (width of dredge) x 42.5 (#of tows) = 0.58km2 per trip]. In 2011, 117 fishing trips were made, thus covering 68km2 in total. However, all tows are not side by side and it is estimated that each area is covered at least twice during a year, reducing the actual area fished to 34km2. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 20 Figure 2 – CPUE and landings of the queen scallop in Faroe Islands. Source: Client information. Figure 3 – Spatial distribution of the catches (left panel) and fishing effort (right panel) of the vessel targeting queen scallop in Faroe Island. Source: Client information. The commercial dredge fishery for queen scallops (Aequipecten opercularis) within the Faroe islands territorial waters (ICES 5b) began in the early 1970s in the eastern area (E) relatively close to shore, about 1–15 nm from the coast on sandy, rocky or soft bottom habitats The fishery expanded to the northern coast (N) in the 1990s but pressure from the traditional longline fishing for gadoids resulted in the interruption of further exploitation of the resource in this area (Figure 4). DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 21 Figure 4 – Comparison of queen scallop landings in East and North part of the Faroe Islands. Source: Client information. The fleet consists of a domestic vessel of around 30 m long using a double 12-feet dredge. There are indications of increases in gear efficiency, but evidence is poorly documented. The fishing grounds cover around 400 km2 and 100 km2 in the east and north, respectively. Though in recent years the northern fishing grounds have been exploited along a narrow fjord situated in the north-west of the islands with limited success. The fishery operates at depths ranging from 60 m to 110 m in the east and 90 m to 110 m in the north whereas the north-west fjord is slightly deeper than the latter. Initially the scallop fishery was highly seasonal (August till January) but at present it has extended until the beginning of the summer season. Marine specimens such as whelks, mussels, starfishes, brittle stars, sea urchins, and crabs co-exist in the main habitats of scallops. No assessments for scallops are carried out and therefore estimates of recruitment and fishing pressure are not available. The historical fishing grounds are managed through licenses issued annually whereas both the north (N) and north-east are managed with TACs allocations which have not been reached. A swept area survey was carried out in 1991 in the east and north coast. In 2012 and 2013, similar surveys were conducted in the northern area as well as in the north-west (DJ) fjord respectively (WGScallop; ICES, 2018). Size and age samples were taken to investigate growth patterns. Results suggest differences in the size composition of scallops between the N and DJ grounds. Average heights of 1-year old scallop (recruits) in the DJ and N areas are estimated at around 50 mm and 40 mm respectively. No significant differences in size were found for older age groups between the two areas. Growth rate is size-dependant with younger individuals growing 10–20 mm per year. Larger scallops tend to grow slowly at rates of 0–5 mm per year. Landings and effort data are available from official statistical sources and logbooks respectively (ICES, 2018). Since 1991, landings have fluctuated between 2300 and 6700 metric tonnes. Landings in 2018 are estimated at 3174 t. Standardized catch rates (GLM model) suggests no long-term decline of the scallop fishery. The index fluctuates around 1500 kg/hour with no clear trend while fishing effort has decreased which may indicate an increase in dredge efficiency. Although age disaggregated data is sparse it suggests that growth is spatially dependant within and among the north and eastern areas. In 2016, an experiment with an underwater camera was performed in fished and relatively un- fished grounds to assess the effect of dredging on the sea floor. Unfortunately, the results of the experiment cannot be used quantitatively but rather as a visual indicator of effects of dredging in both historical and contemporary fishing grounds. Fishery management of demersal fisheries in the EEZ uses limitations on effort and limitations on fishing in specific areas and seasons to control fishing mortality. This applies to the scallop fishery. The number of licensed vessels (only one) and restrictions on areas and seasons for fishing effectively limit the fishing capacity and hence the level of fishing mortality. The harvest control strategy for the queen scallop fishery are based on effort limitation and comprises various measures to that effect, as well as including monitoring and surveillance controls. These measures include: Number of vessels: only one vessel is licensed and an increase in the number of licensees is prohibited by the commercial fisheries act. Seasonal restrictions as specified in the fishing license. Spatial restrictions as specified in the fishing license. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 22 Catching capacity of the vessel must be unchanged as specified by the commercial fisheries act. This puts restrictions on the size/number of dredges and the size of the vessel used. All landings shall be logged and landed at the single processing factory. The landings are frequently verified by Ministry of Fishery officials. Logbooks are filled in daily and include records of catch (scallops, commercial fish species), total amount of “rusk” (non-commercial catch consisting mostly of a mixture of shell and stones and some invertebrate species are referred to as “rusk”) and fishing positions. The vessel is equipped with a transponder (VMS) and positions are sent every second hour to the Inspection services. The vessel is part of the general scheme of inspection in the Faroe Islands. Undersized scallops (<55mm) are returned to the sea having conservation benefit as they are considered to survive with little mortality (Currie and Parry 1996; Nall 2011). There is observer evidence (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf- PCR, 2013) from studies in the 80s that scallops are alive when returned to sea Triggering the RBF Given that the target species is not subject to specific stock assessment and biological reference point are not available, the MSC RBF was triggered, which uses a Consequence Analysis (CA) coupled to the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) tool as proxy for stock status, the results of which were used to score. In the present report, a single stock and a single UoA is considered. However, during the site visit the possibility to differentiate more than one UoA will be explored. 7.2.2 Catch profiles See Figure 2 for CPUE and landings data for Faroe Islands queen scallop 2003-2019. 7.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Table 12. TAC and catch data TAC Year 2020 Amount NA UoA share of TAC Year 2020 Amount NA UoA share of total TAC Year 2020 Amount NA Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount 5680 t recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 Amount 3415 t most recent) 7.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI). Met? NA – RBF NA – RBF NA – RBF Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 23 The RBF has been used to score this PI because no stock status relative to reference points is available for target species, derived either from analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches. It is not completely clear if the management of dredges in place uses thresholds of densities at sea of target stock to trigger certain actions (see Move on rule employed by the client in 1.2.1). However, such thresholds cannot be considered as empirical reference point which is in line with PRI or MSY biomass level. During the site visit and meeting with relevant stakeholders the availability of biological reference points will be explored. In Section Error! Reference source not found., the RBF outputs have been estimated using the available information. The population size has been chosen as the most critical subcomponent in the framework of CA, and considering the stability of CPUE trends, it was scored at 80. The results of the RBF assessment are: CA Score: 80 PSA Score: 91 The MSC FCR indicates that for scores at this level the overall RBF score awarded shall be at the mid-point of the two scores (see FCR v2.0, Table PF7). The final score is 86. Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has b Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a post level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? NA – RBF NA – RBF Rationale The RBF has been used to score this PI. References See references cited in the RBF section. Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point NA NA NA used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference point NA NA NA used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought More information about the status of the stock in Information gap indicator each area and about the stock configuration is needed. Such information will be used in the RBF DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 24 analyses especially to better score susceptibility in the PSA. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 25 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.2 timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Rebuilding timeframes A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not a Guide times its generation time. exceed one generation time post For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? NA NA Rationale The stock is not depleted. Rebuilding evaluation Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on b Guide stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, post timeframe. or previous performance that exploitation rates or previous they will be able to rebuild the performance that they will be stock within the specified able to rebuild the stock within timeframe. the specified timeframe. Met? NA NA NA Rationale The stock is not depleted. References Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range NA Information gap indicator NA Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 26 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to Guide a reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Elements of the harvest strategy for Faroese queen scallop fishery include the following: Data collection: fleet composition is known and logbooks containing information on dates, areas fished and catch support spatial/temporal restrictions. VMS data is also available to monitor/verify areas fished. Sufficient information is recorded in logbooks maintained by skippers for detailed CPUE series and to employ the move- on rule in the fishery. There is only one vessel fishing, thus fleet structure is known. Monitoring of the CPUE from FAMRI. The purpose of the Faroe Marine Research Institute (FAMRI) is to make studies of the Faroese marine environment and its living resources (see study of Ruiz and Matra, 2014), and to inform and advise the Faroese authorities and public about these conditions. FAMRI carries out a number of experimental fishery projects each year as well as the monitoring of the CPUE of the target species. The Institute also participates in Nordic and international projects in fisheries and marine science of various kinds and has undertaken several studies of the Faroese environment and fisheries in Faroese waters in the context of an upcoming oil industry. Spatial/temporal limitations: The fishery is only allowed to operate within specific areas, as specified by their fishing license for each area. The fishery in the main eastern area operates from August to March. Only 12 fishing days are allowed for the research license outside Funningsfjord. According to 2013 TUN PCR was estimated that the fishery covers 34 km2 a year, which is 8.5% of the main fishing scallop ground. However, queen scallops are widely distributed all over the Faroese shelf at depths from 20-450m (Tendal & Dinesen 2005), therefore the total distribution area of scallops are larger than the 400 km2 main fishing areas. Thus, in reality the fishery exploits less than 8% of the total distribution area of scallops around the islands. Catch restrictions: In the northern area there was a TAC set. In 2011 the TAC was 1000 tonnes. However, it is not clear if a TAC has been set in the following years. Mesh size: The mesh size of the scallop dredge is 75mm and belly ring size is 55mm, which allows scallops to spawn at least one or two times before being caught. Size at sexual maturity is 40mm (Ursin 1956). There is also a mechanical sorting grid on board connected to a shoot for returning smaller individuals alive to the sea where they have high possibility of surviving (Currie and Parry 1996). The company only processes scallops of larger than 55mm and the general size of landed scallops range from 55-65mm. Move on rule employed by the client: fishing grounds are divided in rectangles and when CPUE falls below 1 ton/hour the area will be closed for two years. When the CPUE goes below 1.5 t/hour in a particular scallop bed, skipper moves on to another area. This results in a rotation between areas, effectively “resting” the stock in other areas, as there is only one fishing vessel. Areas can be rested for 2-3 years before the vessel returns. Capacity increase and license restrictions: Additional vessels will not be allowed into the fishery. In the Faroese Islands only vessels that had a license in 1995 are allowed to fish under the fishing day system, and replacement vessels must be demonstrated to have the same or less capacity than its predecessor. These restrictions also apply to the single scallop fishing vessel. Taking into account that the CPUE series shows a stable pattern and that the elements of the harvest strategy listed above all combine and are geared towards keeping effort in the fishery stable and impact on the stock low (see susceptibility outputs in PSA), it is possible to conclude that the HS is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Therefore SG60 is met. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 27 Taking into account the main response to changes in stock status is that the boat has its own commercially driven move on rules which are mostly self-policed by monitoring of catch it is possible to conclude that the HS is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements of the HS are working together to maintain at levels reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Therefore SG80 is met. However, taking into account that the move on rules are based on a commercially driven reference level it is not possible to conclude that the HS is designed to maintain at levels reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Therefore, SG100 is not met. The elements of the harvest strategy will be further investigated during the site visit to understand if they are still in place and/or improved. Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is b post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The CPUE in the main fishing areas has been stable for the last decade with the present harvest strategies in place (see Figure 2) and the PSA score for the susceptibility is quite low. Therefore, these are evidences that the HS is achieving its objectives and SG60 and SG80 are met. However, there is no evidence of a full evaluation of the HS and SG100. Harvest strategy monitoring Monitoring is in place that is c Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes Rationale Logbooks are maintained and sent to authorities, and VMS data are sent on an hourly basis. The client also monitors CPUE and employs the move-on rule. The FMRI monitors CPUE for the two experimental areas in the north. Therefore, there is an effective system in place to monitor fishing effort and thus impact on the stock and SG60 is met. Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is Guide d periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? No Rationale There is no evidence that the HS has been periodically reviewed. Therefore, SG100 is not met. However, during the site visit this conclusion will be further discussed, taking into account if the 2017 fisheries act (Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017) has an effect on the target species HS. e Shark finning DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 28 Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA Rationale The target stock is not a shark. Review of alternative measures There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA Rationale Unwanted catches are quite low and there is evidence of high survivability of the discards specimens; therefore, UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock is negligible, and this scoring issue is not scored. References ICES. 2018. Report of the Scallop Assessment Working Group (WGScallop), 10–12 October 2018, York, UK. ICES CM 2018/EPDSG:13. 52 pp. Ridao Cruz, L. and Matras, U. 2014. Assessment of queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) north of the Faroe Islands in 2013. Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) Vottunarstofan Tún ehf, 2013. Sustainable Fisheries Scheme Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment - Faroe Islands Queen Scallop Fishery. Public Certification Report, 219p. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought The information needed to better score this PI is related to the new management rules implemented Information gap indicator in the last years. Moreover, it will be crucial to better understand the revision process of the HS and if this has been tested. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 29 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes No No Rationale Since the RBF was used in PI 1.1.1, informal approaches are assessed against PI 1.2.2 according to MSC GCRv1.1 (GCB 2.6.6). The limitations on effort currently in place are designed to maintain exploitation at an inherently low level consistent with the harvest strategy. Methods of restricting effort besides restriction to a single vessel include the following: Closed season - since there is only a single vessel landing and a single processor it would be virtually impossible to fish outside the closed season without being detected. Closed areas - only one main (eastern) area opened for commercial use plus the northern area at a lower level as an experimental area, enforced by use of VMS and since there is only one vessel it would be very difficult to avoid being detected if fishing elsewhere. MLS is enforced by regular inspection of catches. Move on rule [density of adults (500 kg per tow) and proportion of juveniles (30%)] - mostly self-policed by monitoring of catch and sub-samples but is also confirmed by inspections of the fishery. Number of licences limited to one (this is very precautionary) covering just one vessel and it is not possible to increase boat capacity. Therefore generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as density level is approached – the move-on strategy will prevent localised depletion while the overall effort control will limit overall exploitation of the stock. This can be considered in line with the generic reference points as PRI. Thus, SG 60 is met. Area and catch limitations are well defined in the fishing license, and increase in capacity and number of license holders is banned by law. Other informal approaches, e.g. size limits, mesh size and a move-on rule are all well- defined. Skippers also respond to a reduction in local CPUE (see the move-on rule). The move on rule effectively reduces local susceptibility when a particular scallop bed shows signs of overfishing. Skippers consequently move on to other scallop beds, and thus allow for “resting” (recovery) of scallop beds. Given the fact that this is a highly productive species with low susceptibility (see Appendix 1.2.2: Productivity- Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)), subject to effort limitation, the team concludes that removal from the fishery is maintained at levels, that is far below that which is likely to cause a risk to the target species. CA and PSA scores confirm that the species is exploited below full exploitation rate of MSY. Although effort limitations in the fishery are clearly stipulated in legislations, there is no limit reference point set and/or actions as an LRP is approached. Therefore SG80 and SG100 are not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 30 The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? No No Rationale Uncertainties cannot be determined, as no stock assessment is performed on this fishery. Also, the effectiveness of the move-on rule has not been determined and there is therefore some uncertainty in this regard. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are not met. HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale CPUE and landings have been maintained at a stable level the last decade, indicating a sustainable fishery, given that catchability in fishery has not increased. The implemented harvest control rules aim at limiting effort in the fishery and has resulted in less than 10% of the main fishing being fished annually, demonstrating that measures in place result in a low exploitation rate. The PSA score obtained in the fishery also concluded that exploitation levels are lower than full exploitation rates at MSY. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. Although CPUE indicates that the stock is stable, stock assessments are not performed, and SG100 is not met. During the site visit, more information about HCRs, the HCRs evaluation and the relative tools will be requested. References ICES. 2018. Report of the Scallop Assessment Working Group (WGScallop), 10–12 October 2018, York, UK. ICES CM 2018/EPDSG:13. 52 pp. Vottunarstofan Tún ehf, 2013. Sustainable Fisheries Scheme Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment - Faroe Islands Queen Scallop Fishery. Public Certification Report, 219p. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought The information gaps are related to the availability of well-defined HCRs in place. It will Information gap indicator be important to understand if the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties and if the tools in use are effective in controlling the exploitation. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 31 Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 32 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock a Guide support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as post environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale All relevant information to support the effort-based harvest strategy is available; i.e. fleet composition is known and logbooks containing information on dates, areas fished and catch support spatial/temporal restrictions. VMS data is also available to monitor/verify areas fished. Sufficient information is recorded in logbooks maintained by skippers for detailed CPUE series and to employ the move-on rule in the fishery. There is only one vessel fishing, thus fleet structure is known. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. Specific information on stock structure is not available. Therefore, SG100 is not met. Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree b Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Authorities require skippers to maintain logbooks, including all required details, although they do not “monitor” the CPUE series in the main eastern area. FAMRI monitors CPUE in the experimental northern areas. However, CPUE is monitored by fishermen, as they employ this information in their “move on” rule when a local scallop bed shows signs of depletion. Therefore, CPUE is regularly monitored by skippers. In addition, the fishery collects data on CPUE, which is submitted to FAMRI. FAMRI regularly monitors CPUE in experimental areas. CPUE in the main and exploratory fishing area is monitored by the client and skippers on an ongoing basis, which enable them to employ the move-on rule. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. Although information on fishing areas and CPUE is available to support the informal harvest control rules, this information is not monitored regularly by FAMRI and uncertainties cannot be determined. Therefore, SG100 is not met. During the site visit, more information about the monitoring in place and range of data collected will be requested. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 33 Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information on c all other fishery removals post from the stock. Met? Yes Rationale One vessel holds the only license for exploitation of scallops, thus there are no other removals from the stock. Other fishers in the area operate static gear with no likelihood of catching scallops. Therefore, SG80 is met. References ICES. 2018. Report of the Scallop Assessment Working Group (WGScallop), 10–12 October 2018, York, UK. ICES CM 2018/EPDSG:13. 52 pp. Ridao Cruz, L. and Matras, U. 2014. Assessment of queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) north of the Faroe Islands in 2013. Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought The information gaps are related on how the data Information gap indicator collection is conducted and which parameters of the population are monitored. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 34 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? NA NA Rationale Default score of 80 if RBF is used for PI 1.1.1. (See Section 8.8 for RBF Outputs.) Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? NA NA Rationale Default score of 80 if RBF is used for PI 1.1.1. (See Section 8.8 for RBF Outputs.) Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? NA NA NA Rationale Default score of 80 if RBF is used for PI 1.1.1. (See Section 8.8 for RBF Outputs.) Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? NA Rationale Default score of 80 if RBF is used for PI 1.1.1. (See Section 8.8 for RBF Outputs.) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 35 Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? NA NA Rationale Default score of 80 if RBF is used for PI 1.1.1. (See Section 8.8 for RBF Outputs.) References See reference in RBF section. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 36 7.3 Principle 2 7.3.1 Principle 2 background Primary and secondary species The catch of primary species is limited to a maximum total of 100 kg (total for all commercially viable species) per fishing trip, and discarding is not allowed in Faroese waters so all catch must be landed. Small amounts of cod (Gadus morhua), European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt), and monkfish (Lophius piscatorius) are caught (Table 13). These four species are primary species, but since none totals ≥5%, there are no main primary species within this UoA. Overall, the UoA’s impact on these species is negligible given the extremely low percentages. Table 13. Catch data for 2015-2019. Source: client Year Five- Percent Year of Species Catch (Tonnes) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average Catch Queen scallop 3288.00 3326.00 3149.00 3415.00 5680.00 3771.60 77.60% Cod 0.70 3.23 3.74 2.40 4.00 2.81 0.06% European plaice 0.08 1.00 1.45 0.70 0.79 0.80 0.02% Lemon sole 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.00% Monkfish 0.12 0.73 0.74 0.64 1.20 0.69 0.01% Horse mussel 82.35 89.96 93.51 18.19 22.48 61.30 1.26% Common whelk 28.00 39.00 35.00 20.00 20.00 28.40 0.58% Crab 34.68 28.98 26.09 16.96 26.75 26.69 0.55% Common starfish 46.19 36.36 54.02 71.21 167.44 75.04 1.54% Common sea urchin 7.82 12.26 5.56 5.14 5.75 7.30 0.15% Grass moss 7.95 9.29 7.02 9.25 8.37 8.37 0.17% Black quahog 39.00 40.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 16.80 0.35% Black quahog - shellsand 316.00 435.00 432.00 343.00 363.00 377.80 7.77% Common whelk - empty shell 95.00 124.00 61.00 31.00 38.00 69.80 1.44% Other empty shell and shellsand 400.02 474.16 351.81 342.25 497.21 413.09 8.50% Total 4345.92 4619.98 4222.12 4278.88 6836.07 4860.59 Secondary species include horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus), common whelk (Buccinum undatum), crab, common starfish (Asterias rubens), common sea urchin (Echinus esculentus), grass moss, black quahog (Arctica islandica), and other “rusk”2 (marked in blue on Table 13). Discarding of invertebrates is allowed, and they are returned alive to the sea. Studies show that the survival rate of invertebrates is highly variable since it depends greatly on the species’ robustness. Species with exoskeletons or shells or species that can regenerate missing limbs (e.g., starfish) have high survival rate (Kaiser and Spencer 1995, Jenkins et al. 2001, Pranovi 2001). Since none of the secondary species totals ≥5%, there are no main secondary species within this UoA. Overall, the UoA’s impact on these species is negligible given the extremely low percentages. Endangered, threatened, or protected species Endangered, threatened, or protected (ETP) species found within the area are likely to include marine mammals (particularly seals and whales) and seabirds. Onboard observer monitoring of marine mammal and seabird bycatch started in 2018 and is managed by Vørn (the Faroese fishery inspection department). As of 1 September 2020, marine mammal and seabird catches are required to be entered into the electronic logbook. Marine mammals According to the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, the following species occur within Faroese waters: Fin whale Humpback whale Long-finned pilot whale Killer whale 2 “Rusk” is non-commercial catch consisting mostly of a mixture of empty shell and stones. Sometimes there are small amounts of starfish, urchins, whelks, and/or horse mussels. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 37 White-sided dolphin White-beaked dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Harbour porpoise Grey seal The whale, dolphin, and porpoise species are generally further away from land. The UoA’s interaction with marine mammals is limited to a few sightings in the distance annually. ETP species have never been caught in the dredge gear. Overall, the team concludes that no ETP species are impacted by the UoA. However, this will be discussed in more detail during the site visit. Seabirds There is a large population of seabirds associated with the Faroe Islands. These are subject to varying levels of protection, although a traditional hunt does also take place. Most birds visit the Faroe Islands in spring and summer to nest and will be concentrated close to the coast and away from the UoA’s fishing area. ETP species have never been caught in the dredge gear. Overall, the team concludes that no ETP species are impacted by the UoA. However, this will be discussed in more detail during the site visit. ETP species management The Faroe Islands is party to several international conventions, either as the signatory or through Denmark. For example, the Faroe Islands is a founding member of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), which focuses on the conservation, management, and research of marine mammals. Through NAMMCO, there are management areas established throughout member countries’ waters, including the Faroe Islands, where various management measures are followed. Additionally, the Law of Parliament no. 18/2017 states the requirement to land any animals, plants, marine mammals, and seabirds or to register such bycatch and states the protection of sensitive animals, birds, plants, and ecosystems. Habitats Queen scallops are found on the sandy, rocky, or soft bottom plateau at depths 60-110 m, and there are two areas of particularly large concentrations: north of the northern islands and east of the central islands. These two areas total about 400 km2 (shown in light green in Figure 5; Nicolajsen 1997, Bruntse and Tendal 2001). Horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus) can form large, dense aggregations on hard bottom habitats (shown in dark green in Figure 5), and these areas are known to overlap with the UoA’s fishing area. A large number of invertebrates are associated with horse mussel beds, and these beds may also be important nursery areas for queen scallops and juvenile fish (Bruntse and Tendal 2001, Tendal and Dinesen 2005). During the previous assessment, the captain of Nordheim informed the assessment team that he “has reasonably good knowledge of these areas and avoids fishing in dense horse mussel beds”, and “if horse mussel is found in a tow, the vessel immediately moves to another area” (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013). These statements will be confirmed and/or updated as appropriate during the upcoming site visit for this new assessment. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 38 Figure 5. Map of benthic fauna and bottom types in the Faroese. Source: Bruntse and Tendal 2001 Commonly encountered habitats When comparing the habitat map with the VMS data (Figure 6), fishing does in fact focus on the high queen scallop concentration areas. Additionally, most fishing takes place at a depth of 30-80 m. Therefore, the commonly encountered habitats are: Soft bottom – fine substratum (i.e., sand), flat geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota (i.e., scallop beds) Mixed bottom – medium substratum (i.e., rocky gravel), low relief geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota (i.e., scallop beds) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 39 (a) Fishing trips from 1 January to 31 March 2019. (b) Fishing trips from 1 April to 30 June 2019. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 40 (c) Fishing trips from 1 July to 30 November 2019. (d) Fishing trips from 1 November to 31 December 2019. Figure 6. VMS data for the UoA vessel Nordheim FD 795. Source: client VMEs While various corals and sponges occur within Faroese waters, they do not overlap with the UoA’s fishing area for scallops (Bruntse and Tendal 2001; Figures 5-6). Additionally, horse mussel beds are considered an important living substrate for other species. They are distributed around the Faroe Islands, occurring at depths of 0-200 m with dense DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 41 aggregations forming in some areas at 65-95 m. These aggregations may be important nursing grounds for juvenile fish providing food and shelter (Tendal and Dinesen 2005). However, horse mussels are not protected in the Faroe Islands and are subject to a small fishery for local consumption and bait (Hoydal et al. 2011). Therefore, they are not considered a vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME), and there are no VMEs relevant to this assessment. The designation of horse mussels as well as the possible presence of Lophelia will be reviewed in more detail during the site visit. Habitat management The UoA’s habitat impacts are managed according to several laws, regulations, and other management measures. NEAFC and NAFO, to which the Faroe Islands belong, have measures to protect VMEs in international waters, from the fishing impacts. There is also an active technical cooperation between NEAFC/NAFO member countries on inspection and control issues (https://www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/oceans-fisheries-and-maritime- affairs/neafc/, https://www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/oceans-fisheries-and-maritime-affairs/nafo/). The Marine Environmental Act requires the protection of the marine environment with regulations implemented in line with international conventions, such as the MARPOL convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North Atlantic. The responsible authorities are the Environment Agency (Umhvørvisstovan), the Faroese Maritime Authority (Sjóvinnustýrið) and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection (Fiskiveiðueftirlitið). Other management measures include seasonal closures, the separation of different fishing methods between areas, minimum fish and mesh sizes, and the use of sorting grids to minimise unwanted bycatch. Such measures are based on scientific assessments, utilizing expert knowledge of fishermen familiar with Faroe Islands ecosystem. More information on habitat management will be gathered at the site visit. Ecosystems The Faroe Islands form an oceanic archipelago at 62°N and 7°W comprising 18 larger islands and a many smaller islets. The Faroe Plateau, depths <200 m around the islands, comprises around 20,000 km² (around 6.5% of the 308,000 km2 EEZ) while depths <100 m only constitute around 5400 km2. To the southwest of the Faroe Islands, there are a series of banks, the largest of which is the Faroe Bank, mostly <100 m depth. It is separated from the Faroe Plateau by the 800+ m deep Faroe Bank Channel. Other banks include Bill Bailey Bank, Outer Bailey (Lousy) Bank, George Bligh Bank, and Rosemary Bank. Although small in area, the upper parts of the banks (i.e., within the 200 m depth contour) inside the Faroese EEZ are important for commercial fisheries (Bruntse and Tendel 2001). Like most areas in the Nordic Seas, Faroese waters are very productive with most of the primary production (phytoplankton) occurring between May and September/October, and maximum production and biomass occurring during the spring bloom. The abundance of secondary production (zooplankton) is generally higher to the north of the Faroe Islands in the Norwegian Sea than to the south, and it is to these more northern waters that many pelagic, plankton-feeding fish species such as blue whiting, herring, and mackerel migrate each summer. A clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, such as fish and seabirds, has been found in the Faroe shelf ecosystem with a rapid response at all trophic levels to variations in primary productivity (Gaard et al. 2002). The productivity of the Faroese waters was very low in the late 1980s and early 1990s with naturally accompanying negative effects on fish recruitment and growth. It appears that this correlation may be driven by the strength of the sub-polar gyre southwest of the Faroe Islands, which is itself driven by the relative strengths of the warm and cold-water currents (Hansen 2011). Since then, however, fishery productivity appears to have reverted to “normal” conditions. In the Faroese ecosystem, there are two ecologically important prey species: sandeel and Norway pout. These species are important food sources for seabirds and demersal fish species. There are detailed records of saithe, cod, and haddock food consumption, and sandeel appears to be the preferred species when abundant (ICES 2008). Monitoring of environmental parameters started in 1990, and there is a clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels (ICES 2008), and fish production is clearly food limited (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013). Principle 2 scoring elements Table 15 shows all Principle 2 scoring elements within this fishery. There are no main primary or secondary species and no ETP species. There are two main habitats, both commonly encountered, and one ecosystem scoring element. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 42 Table 15. Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient Primary Cod Minor No Primary European plaice Minor No Primary Lemon sole Minor No Primary Monkfish Minor No Secondary Horse mussel Minor No Secondary Common whelk Minor No Secondary Crab Minor No Secondary Common starfish Minor No Secondary Common sea urchin Minor No Secondary Grass moss Minor No Secondary Black quahog Minor No Main (commonly Habitat Soft bottom No encountered) Main (commonly Habitat Mixed bottom No encountered) Trophic structure and Ecosystem Main No function DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 43 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be PI 2.1.1 impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the a Guide in place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence post ensure that the UoA does not of recovery or a hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Based on catch data, there are no main primary species. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. Minor primary species stock status Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI. Guide OR b post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? No Rationale The status of the minor primary species is not known; therefore, SG100 is not met. References None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 44 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 45 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or to necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary a Guide not hinder rebuilding of the maintain or to not hinder species. main primary species at/to rebuilding of the main primary post levels which are likely to be species at/to levels which are above the PRI. highly likely to be above the PRI. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Based on catch data, there are no main primary species. Therefore, measures and a partial strategy are not necessary. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not a strategy in place for managing main and minor primary species. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial b Guide plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly post comparison with similar information directly about the about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). fishery and/or species species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no testing to support a strategy. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is post achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Rationale There are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear evidence that a strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in SI a. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 46 Shark finning d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA Rationale The UoA does not catch any shark species so this SI is not scored. Review of alternative measures There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary catch of main primary species catch of all primary species, species. and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA Rationale There are no unwanted catches of primary species, and what little is caught is landed and sold or consumed by crew members. This SI is not scored. References None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 47 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and is adequate available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the to assess the impact of the assess with a high degree main primary species with UoA on the main primary of certainty the impact of the respect to status. species with respect to status. UoA on main primary species with respect to status. a Guide OR OR post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary attributes for main primary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale There is sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to support the statement that there are no main primary species in the UoA. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Some quantitative information b Guide is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor post primary species with respect to status. Met? No Rationale Catch data show that small amounts of cod, lemon sole, European plaice, and monkfish are caught and that these catches are individually <1% of the total average catch. The team concluded that the UoA’s impact on these species is negligible. However, the UoA’s impact with respect to these species’ status is not known so SG100 is not met. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to c support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 48 Catch data show that there are no main primary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no strategy to manage all primary species. References None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 49 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder a Guide recovery and rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Based on catch data, there are no main secondary species. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. Guide OR b post If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? No Rationale The status of the minor secondary species is not known; therefore, SG100 is not met. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 50 References None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 51 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. a Guide secondary species at/to levels rebuilding of main secondary post which are highly likely to be species at/to levels which are above biologically based highly likely to be above limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to UoA does not hinder their ensure that the UoA does not recovery. hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Based on catch data, there are no main secondary species. Therefore, measures and a partial strategy are not necessary. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not a strategy in place for managing main and minor secondary species. Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial b Guide plausible argument (e.g. measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, post general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly comparison with similar information directly about the about the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no testing to support a strategy. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Rationale There are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear evidence that a strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in SI a. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 52 Shark finning d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA Rationale The UoA does not catch any shark species so this SI is not scored. Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary catch of main secondary catch of all secondary species. species and they are species, and they are implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There are no main secondary species so there is no unwanted catch. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no biennial review of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species. References None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 53 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and adequate to available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the assess the impact of the UoA assess with a high degree main secondary species with on main secondary species of certainty the impact of the respect to status. with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary attributes for main secondary species. species. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale There is sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to support the statement that there are no main secondary species in the UoA. Therefore, SG60, SG80, and SG100 are met. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information b Guide is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor post secondary species with respect to status. Met? No Rationale Secondary species include horse mussel, common whelk, crab, common starfish, common sea urchin, grass moss, black quahog, and other “rusk” (non-commercial catch consisting mostly of a mixture of empty shell and stones). Discarding of invertebrates is allowed, and they are returned alive to the sea. Studies show that the survival rate of invertebrates is highly variable since it depends greatly on the species’ robustness. Species with exoskeletons or shells or species that can regenerate missing limbs (e.g., starfish) have high survival rate. The catch of these species is low with each species below the 5% threshold for “main” species designation. Therefore, there were no main secondary species. Additionally, it appears that the secondary species are unharmed when returned to the sea. Given this as well as the fact that these species are caught in very low numbers, this UoA’s impact on secondary species is negligible. However, the UoA’s impact with respect to these species’ status is not known so SG100 is not met. Information adequacy for management strategy c Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Guide support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary species. manage main secondary all secondary species, and post species. evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 54 strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Catch data show that there are no main secondary species so there are no measures or partial strategy. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no strategy to manage all secondary species. References Kaiser and Spencer 1995, Jenkins et al. 2001, Pranovi 2001 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 55 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set a Guide limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the is a high degree of certainty post population/stock are known MSC UoAs on the population/ that the combined effects of and likely to be within these stock are known and highly the MSC UoAs are within limits. likely to be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, this scoring issue is not relevant. Direct effects Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of b Guide UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental post direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale ETP species found within the area are likely to include marine mammals (particularly seals and whales) and seabirds. However, interaction with marine mammals are limited to a few sightings in the distance annually. Onboard observer monitoring of marine mammal and seabird bycatch started in 2018 and is managed by Vørn (the Faroese fishery inspection department). As of 1 September 2020, marine mammal and seabird catches are required to be entered into the electronic logbook. ETP species have never been caught in the dredge gear. Therefore, known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met. Given that the implementation of onboard observers and electronic logbooks is relatively new, SG100 is not met since it cannot be said with a high degree of confidence that the UoA has no significant detrimental direct effects. Indirect effects Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of Guide considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no c are thought to be highly significant detrimental post likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species. Met? Yes No Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, SG80 is met. Indirect effects of the fishery are possible (e.g., on the feeding efficiency of predatory crab species). Since not enough is known about the potential indirect effects, a high degree of confidence does not exist so SG100 is not met. References DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 56 None Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Catch data for ETP species will be used to reinforce these statements Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 57 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2 Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that minimise the UoA-related for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for mortality of ETP species, and impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact a Guide are expected to be highly including measures to on ETP species, including likely to achieve national and minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise post international requirements for designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed to the protection of ETP species. to achieve national and achieve above national and international requirements for international requirements for the protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; therefore, this scoring issue is not relevant. Management strategy in place (alternative) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for b Guide the UoA does not hinder the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to post recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; however, there are the Faroe Islands is party to several international conventions, either as the signatory or through Denmark. For example, the Faroe Islands is a founding member of NAMMCO, which focuses on the conservation, management, and research of marine mammals. Through NAMMCO, there are management areas established throughout member countries’ waters, including the Faroe Islands, where various management measures are followed. Additionally, the Law of Parliament no. 18/2017 states the requirement to land any animals, plants, marine mammals, and seabirds or to register such bycatch and states the protection of sensitive animals, birds, plants, and ecosystems. The team concludes that collectively these constitute a strategy; therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since this is not considered a comprehensive strategy. Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on c based on plausible measures/strategy will work, information directly about the Guide argument (e.g.,general based on information directly fishery and/or species post experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the involved, and a quantitative comparison with similar species involved. analysis supports high fisheries/species). confidence that the strategy will work. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 58 Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; however, there are the Faroe Islands is party to several international conventions, either as the signatory or through Denmark. For example, the Faroe Islands is a founding member of NAMMCO, which focuses on the conservation, management, and research of marine mammals. Through NAMMCO, there are management areas established throughout member countries’ waters, including the Faroe Islands, where various management measures are followed. Additionally, the Law of Parliament no. 18/2017 states the requirement to land any animals, plants, marine mammals, and seabirds or to register such bycatch and states the protection of sensitive animals, birds, plants, and ecosystems. Based on information directly about the fishery and species involved, there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work; therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no quantitative analysis to support high confidence. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive d Guide being implemented strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes No Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA; however, there are the Faroe Islands is party to several international conventions, either as the signatory or through Denmark. For example, the Faroe Islands is a founding member of NAMMCO, which focuses on the conservation, management, and research of marine mammals. Through NAMMCO, there are management areas established throughout member countries’ waters, including the Faroe Islands, where various management measures are followed. Additionally, the Law of Parliament no. 18/2017 states the requirement to land any animals, plants, marine mammals, and seabirds or to register such bycatch and states the protection of sensitive animals, birds, plants, and ecosystems. Therefore, there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and SG80 is met. SG100 is not met since there is not clear evidence. Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness Guide practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of ETP related mortality of ETP related mortality ETP species, species. species and they are and they are implemented, as implemented as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes No No Rationale There are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. The team has informed that the fishery client will set up at least one annual meeting by end of each year, with the authority and the research organization (Havstovan). The first one will be in December 2020 to review the state of the scallop resources in Faroe Island. These annual meetings will include review of catches, CPUE, and bycatch (which would detect any risk to ETP species or any trend on their population); and it would detect any change in interactions with Principle 2 species in general. In event of any ETP species will start to be detected in the catches or any new unprecedented circumstance occur in the UoA, then that will trigger extra meetings initiated by the fishery client to address those new circumstances. These meetings results will be published on either one or both websites of Havstovan and/or the fishery client. More information is needed at the site visit to assess this SI effectively; however, at this time, only SG60 is met. References DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 59 https://www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/oceans-fisheries-and-maritime-affairs/, https://logir.fo/Logtingslog/161%E2%80%90fra%E2%80%9018%E2%80%9012%E2%80%902017%E2%80%90um% E2%80%90fyrisiting%E2%80%90av%E2%80%90sjofeingi, https://nammco.no/marinemammals/ Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Evidence of a review of potential effectiveness and Information gap indicator practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 60 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 - Information for the development of the management strategy; - Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and - Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a UoA related mortality on ETP UoA related mortality and high degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related whether the UoA may be a impacts, mortalities and OR threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP species. consequences for the a Guide If RBF is used to score PI status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information ETP species. is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale ETP species found within the area are likely to include marine mammals (particularly seals and whales) and seabirds. However, interaction with marine mammals are limited to a few sightings in the distance annually. Onboard observer monitoring of marine mammal and seabird bycatch started in 2018 and is managed by Vørn (the Faroese fishery inspection department). As of 1 September 2020, marine mammal and seabird catches are required to be entered into the electronic logbook. Catch data show that ETP species have never been caught in the dredge gear. SG60 and SG80 are met. Given that the implementation of onboard observers and electronic logbooks is relatively new, SG100 is not met since the quantitative information is not sufficient to support a high degree of certainty. Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, b Guide species. impacts on ETP species. minimise mortality and injury post of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The information is adequate to confirm that there are no ETP species encountered by the UoA. Catch data are collected from each fishing trip, and NAMMCO regularly updates stock status and range for marine mammal species in the North Atlantic. Additionally, the Law of Parliament no. 18/2017 states the requirement to land any animals, plants, marine mammals, and seabirds or to register such bycatch and states the protection of sensitive animals, birds, plants, and ecosystems. Therefore, there is adequate information to measure trends and support a strategy. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 61 SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not the necessary level of information to support a comprehensive strategy. References https://nammco.no/marinemammals/ Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator Catch data for ETP species will be used to reinforce these statements Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 62 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to a Guide of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Both – Yes Both – No Both – No Rationale Queen scallops are found on the sandy, rocky, or soft bottom plateau at depths 60-110 m, and there are two areas of particularly large concentrations: north of the northern islands and east of the central islands. These two areas total about 400 km2. Horse mussels can form large, dense aggregations on hard bottom habitats (shown in dark green in Figure 5), and these areas are known to overlap with the UoA’s fishing area. A large number of invertebrates are associated with horse mussel beds, and these beds may also be important nursery areas for queen scallops and juvenile fish. During the previous assessment, the captain of Nordheim informed the assessment team that he “has reasonably good knowledge of these areas and avoids fishing in dense horse mussel beds”, and “if horse mussel is found in a tow, the vessel immediately moves to another area” (Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013). These statements will be confirmed and/or updated as appropriate during the upcoming site visit for this new assessment. When comparing the habitat map with the VMS data, fishing does in fact focus on the high queen scallop concentration areas. Additionally, most fishing takes place at a depth of 30-80 m. Therefore, the two commonly encountered habitats (i.e., scoring elements) are: 1. Soft bottom – fine substratum (i.e., sand), flat geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota (i.e., scallop beds) 2. Mixed bottom – medium substratum (i.e., rocky gravel), low relief geomorphology, small erect/encrusting biota (i.e., scallop beds) Several studies show stable, muddy, or structurally complex habitats recover more slowly than sandy sediment. Based on the habitat map, these two commonly encountered habitats extend well beyond the areas were the UoA operates. Therefore, it can be concluded that the UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Therefore, SG60 is met. More information is needed on the level of impact the scallop dredge has on the commonly encountered habitats or on horse mussel beds. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are not met since there is no information to support the higher unlikelihood. VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious harm. or irreversible harm. Met? NA NA NA Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 63 As noted above, horse mussel beds are considered an important living substrate for other species. However, horse mussels are not protected in the Faroe Islands and are subject to a small fishery for local consumption and bait. Therefore, they are not considered a VME so this SI is not scored. This designation as well as the possible presence of Lophelia will be reviewed in more detail during the site visit. Minor habitat status There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to c Guide reduce structure and function post of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? No Rationale There is not sufficient evidence with regard to minor habitats so the UoA does not meet SG100. References Nicolajsen 1997, Bruntse and Tendal 2001, Tendal and Dinesen 2005, Kaiser et al. 2006, Hoydal et al. 2011, Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought UoA impact on commonly encountered habitats, Lophelia, and horse mussel beds and whether or Information gap indicator not these areas can be and/or are avoided. If Lophelia, and horse mussel beds should be considered VMEs. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 64 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for a Guide place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Both – Yes Both – No Both – No Rationale The Marine Environmental Act requires the protection of the marine environment with regulations implemented in line with international conventions, such as the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North Atlantic. The responsible authorities are the Environment Agency (Umhvørvisstovan), the Faroese Maritime Authority (Sjóvinnustýrið) and the Faroese Fisheries Inspection (Fiskiveiðueftirlitið). Other management measures include seasonal closures and the separation of different fishing methods between areas. Such measures are based on scientific assessments, utilizing expert knowledge of fishermen familiar with Faroe Islands ecosystem. More information on habitat management will be gathered at the site visit; however, the team concludes that SG60 is met. SG80 and SG100 are not met since there is no evidence of a partial strategy or strategy in place for managing habitat impact. Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. involved. Met? Both – Yes Both – No Both – No Rationale Based on plausible argument, the measures are considered likely to work. The commonly encountered habitats’ ranges extend beyond the areas where the UoA operates. Therefore, the scale and intensity of the UoA’s fishing and an understanding of the vulnerability of the habitat types allow the team to conclude that SG60 is met. SG80 and SG100 are not met since there is no objective basis for confidence that the measures will work. Management strategy implementation There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being post being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Both – Yes Both – No Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 65 The commonly encountered habitats’ ranges extend beyond the areas where the UoA operates. Only one vessel exploits the target species, which has a stable population, and impacts the habitats it encounters. Therefore, there is some quantitative evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is no clear quantitative evidence. Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative d evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its Guide management requirements to management requirements management requirements and post protect VMEs. and with protection measures with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? NA NA NA Rationale There are no VMEs within the UoA’s fishing area so this SI is not scored. References https://www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/oceans-fisheries-and-maritime-affairs/neafc/, https://www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/oceans-fisheries-and-maritime-affairs/nafo/ Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought More information on habitat management, Information gap indicator particularly on whether or not there is a partial strategy Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 66 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range, understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable OR relevant to the scale and habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Both – Yes Both – No Both – Yes Rationale Benthic habitats within Faroese waters have been mapped, and the commonly encountered habitats are soft bottom and mixed bottom. VMS data show where the UoA operates. The combination of habitat mapping and VMS data allow the types and distribution of the main habitats to be broadly understood. Therefore, SG60 is met. The most recent available habitat mapping information is from 2001 so could be outdated and now inaccurate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the nature, distribution, and vulnerability of the main habitats are known. SG80 and SG100 are not met. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing b Guide OR gear. post If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative information attributes of the main is available and is adequate habitats. to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Both – Yes Both – Yes Both – No Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 67 Benthic habitats within Faroese waters have been mapped, and VMS data show where the UoA operates. Therefore, the timing and location of fishing activities are known. The fishing areas and impacts of the gear used are well established. Information is adequate to allow for the identification of main impacts of the UoA, and there is reliable information on spatial extent, timing, and location so SG60 and SG80 are met. The physical impacts of the gear on the all habitat have not been quantified fully so SG100 is not met. Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Both – Yes Both – No Rationale Any increase in risk to habitat would principally arise from change in fishing areas (i.e., extending onto sensitive habitats). Fishing location is well monitored via VMS data so any increase in risk would be detectable. Adequate information is collected to detect any increase in risk so SG80 is met. There is no monitoring of habitat distribution over time; therefore, SG100 is not met. References Bruntse and Tendal 2001, Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Information gap indicator Updated information on habitat mapping to assess impacts more accurately Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 68 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to Guide underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements a structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The key ecosystem element (i.e., scoring element) within the UoA is trophic structure and function. A clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, such as fish and seabirds, has been found in the Faroe shelf ecosystem with a rapid response at all trophic levels to variations in primary productivity. The productivity of the Faroese waters was very low in the late 1980s and early 1990s with naturally accompanying negative effects on fish recruitment and growth. It appears that this correlation may be driven by the strength of the sub-polar gyre southwest of the Faroe Islands, which is itself driven by the relative strengths of the warm and cold- water currents. Since then, however, fishery productivity appears to have reverted to “normal” conditions. In the Faroese ecosystem, there are two ecologically important prey species: sandeel and Norway pout. These species are important food sources for seabirds and demersal fish species. There are detailed records of saithe, cod, and haddock food consumption, and sandeel appears to be the preferred species when abundant. Monitoring of environmental parameters started in 1990, and there is a clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, and fish production is clearly food limited. Given that there is only one vessel in the UoA and a limited fishing area is exploited, it is highly unlikely that the UoA is disrupting the key element underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm so SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since more specific research about the ecosystem’s key elements and UoA would be needed to constitute “evidence”. References Gaard et al. 2002, Hansen 2011, ICES 2008, Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 69 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to a Guide impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There is no specific ecosystem management plan in place for the Faroese waters, but there is a series of coherent measures in place, which provide a partial strategy for managing the effects of the fishery on the ecosystem. These measures include implementing of a TAC for the target species, using of a gear that has limited bycatch of non-target species and impact on the habitat, and operating a UoA with only one vessel. The team concludes that there is a partial strategy in place that takes account of available information and is expected to restrain impacts on the ecosystem. SG60 and SG80 are met. The lack of a strategy with a plan means that SG100 is not met. Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Based on plausible argument, there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. The measures that constitute the partial strategy appear to limit impact on the target species, non-target species, habitats, and the overall ecosystem. Therefore, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not a high confidence based on testing. Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is c Guide is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 70 There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Based on catch information and VMS data, the measures that constitute the partial strategy appear to limit impact on the target species, non-target species, habitats, and the overall ecosystem. Therefore, the team concludes that SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since there is not clear evidence. References Bruntse and Tendal 2001, Gaard et al. 2002, Hansen 2011, ICES 2008, Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Information gap indicator More information on ecosystem management would reinforce these statements Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 71 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality a Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements of broadly understand the key post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes Rationale The key element of the ecosystem – trophic structure and function – is broadly understood. A clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, such as fish and seabirds, has been found in the Faroe shelf ecosystem with a rapid response at all trophic levels to variations in primary productivity. The productivity of the Faroese waters was very low in the late 1980s and early 1990s with naturally accompanying negative effects on fish recruitment and growth. It appears that this correlation may be driven by the strength of the sub-polar gyre southwest of the Faroe Islands, which is itself driven by the relative strengths of the warm and cold-water currents. Since then, however, fishery productivity appears to have reverted to “normal” conditions. In the Faroese ecosystem, there are two ecologically important prey species: sandeel and Norway pout. These species are important food sources for seabirds and demersal fish species. There are detailed records of saithe, cod, and haddock food consumption, and sandeel appears to be the preferred species when abundant. Monitoring of environmental parameters started in 1990, and there is a clear relationship between primary production and higher trophic levels, and fish production is clearly food limited. SG60 and SG80 are met. Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and not been investigated in some have been have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The main impacts of the UoA on the key ecosystem element can be inferred, and some have been investigated in detail. Catch data and VMS data show that the target stock is stable, non-target species bycatch is negligible, and habitat impacts are minimal. Additionally, benthic habitats have been mapped, and some impacts within the ecosystem have been investigated. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met since all main interactions have not been investigated in detail. Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, c Guide species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified post Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes No Rationale DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 72 As described above, the main functions of the components in the ecosystem are known, and the impacts of the UoA have been identified. SG80 is met. Since information of stock status of the target and non-target species are not available, it is not clear that the main functions of these components are understood so SG100 is not met. Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of d Guide the UoA on these the UoA on the components post components to allow some of and elements to allow the the main consequences for main consequences for the the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes No Rationale As described above, there is adequate information on the impacts of the UoA on these components to allow for some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 is met. Since information of stock status of the target and non-target species are not available, there is not adequate information on the complements and elements so SG100 is not met. Monitoring Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to e Guide collected to detect any support the development of post increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No Rationale Catch data and VMS data, which continue to be collected, are adequate to detect any increase in risk level so SG80 is met. There is no ecosystem strategy in place, and the available information does not appear to be adequate to support one. Therefore, SG100 is not met. References Bruntse and Tendal 2001, Gaard et al. 2002, Hansen 2011, ICES 2008, Vottunarstofan Tún ehf. 2013 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 73 7.4 Principle 3 7.4.1 Principle 3 background The jurisdictional context for the following description of relevant P3 management is that the fishery under assessment: Takes place entirely within the Faroe EEZ Is exploited by Faroe flagged vessel Lands only to a Faroe Islands port Meets the MSC definition of a “Single jurisdiction” fishery Does not include any other individuals or groups with rights of access to the fishery Legal Framework The Faroe Islands are a self-governing autonomous nation under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. Since the Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands (1948)3, the islands have been a self-governing community within the Danish Kingdom. This legislation authorises the Faroese people, through its elected representatives, the Løgting (parliament) and an executive Føroya Landsstýri (The Cabinet of the Faroe Islands) to assume responsibility for administration and government across sectors including “Territorial fishing and protection of fish”. Despite being an autonomous part of Denmark, the Faroes are not part of the European Union (EU) therefore the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) does not apply. The Ministry of Fisheries (Fiskimálaráðið)4 is just one of 7 ministries, with the Minister appointed by the Prime Ministr (løgmaður). The Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for Fisheries Management, Fisheries Research, Whaling, National Emergency Preparedness, Search and Rescue, and Meteorological Services. Since 1948 fisheries legislation and approaches to fisheries management have gone through several iterations. Initially, Faroese fisheries were open access, but as recognition of the risk of over-exploitation increased, access began to be regulated leading eventually to the introduction of licencing scheme in 1987. However, in an era of subsidy-driven fishing capacity, licencing failed to address the decline in fisheries and in 1993, the ICES Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management recommended complete closure of Faroese fisheries (Bromley (2018)). In the 1990s the Faroe Islands experienced an economic crisis and a condition of the Danish financial bail-out was that the fisheries management system was reformed to address issues of over-capacity and introduce a individual transferable quota system (ITQ). The new ITQ system (within the Commercial Fisheries Act (CFA) No. 28/1994) quickly proved controversial and problematic, in particular due to the mixed nature of the major demersal fisheries (cod, haddock, saithe), meaning high levels of discards. In 1996, the management regime was again reformed to an effort quota system, where the main control element is a limit of days at sea (without catch quotas). However, in time this system was also deemed to have failed leaving many key demersal stocks in a poor state and an unprofitable and over- capacity fleet (Hegland. & Hopkins (2014), Grétarsson & Danielsen (2014), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018)). The Commercial Fisheries Act stated that all harvesting licences were due to expire 1 January 2018. This date was therefore taken as an appropriate moment to introduce a new fisheries management regime. Today, the legal basis for fisheries management in Faroes is the Faroe Islands Act on Management of Marine Resources (18 December 2017), which came into force on 1st January 20185. The act allows executive orders to be issued governing vessel licences, area closures, gear and data requirements and other technical regulations6. The new basis for management includes a combination of both systems historically used in the management of Faroese fisheries - a catch quota system to be applied to single stock fisheries and an effort quota system to be applied to mixed stock fisheries. The new Act also makes any discarding at sea illegal. More details about objectives within the Act will be added once a translation is received. Governance The typical decision-making cycle in Faroese fisheries begins when scientific advice is produced by the Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan; Figure 7). The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (MFNR) passes this to the Committee on Fishing Days (Fiskidaganevndin), appointed by the Minister, which comprises representatives from the catching sector as well as a chairman who is not from the sector. The Minister drafts a proposal for the coming year’s 3 https://www.government.fo/en/the-government/the-home-rule-act/ 4 https://www.fisk.fo/ 5 https://www.government.fo/en/news/news/the-faroese-parliament-passes-fisheries-reform/ 6 Since the 2019 General election the current coalition government made several changes to the Act on Management of Marine Resources, which took effect from 1 January 2020. The primary changes being (1) cancellation of auctions as an allocation mechanism, (2) prolonging the duration of the fishing rights to rolling 12 year periods, (3) replacing fishing rights allocated for development purposes with ordinary fishing rights, (4) prolonging the period of foreign shareholders to leave the Faroese fishing industry to 12 years to 2032. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 74 fishing allocation based on the recommendations of both the FAMRI report and the report of the Committee. This proposal is in turn reviewed by the Fisheries Advisory Council (Fiskivinnurádid) which includes a wide range of fisheries representation and which advises of any requisite legislative changes. Finally, The Minister puts the proposed bill before Parliament, to enact (including any necessary legislative changes). As part of this process the Parliamentary Committee on Industry also consults with relevant stakeholders (Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (2008)). In addition to this legislative process The Ministry of Fisheries has the power to issue certain executive orders to regulate fisheries. Figure 7. Faroese fisheries decision-making process and key organisations / committees (adapted from Hegland & Hopkins 2014). Fisheries regulations are enforced by The Faroese Fisheries Inspection (Fiskiveiðueftirlitið). This includes inspecting catches and landings, and operating fishery inspection vessels and coast guard facilities in Faroese waters. Industry Governance The scallop fishery is subject to less scrutiny in the annual advisory / legislative round than other Faroese demersal or pelagic fisheries. There are several possible reasons for this. Perhaps most likely is the fact that there is just a single licenced vessel and the perception that this therefore means that over-exploitation of the resource is unlikely. Additionally, as there is no quota (either catch or effort) there is less of a requirement to make adaptive annual adjustments based on indicators of stock abundance. In spite of this there are some adjustable ‘tools’ which could be used to control the rate of exploitation within the fishery – adjustments to season length and spatial extent (and in the case of the Northern exploratory fisheries a TAC). As a result, much of the adaptive decision-making in relation to levels of exploitation is informally devolved to the single licenced fishing company (OCJoensen). The company has formalised certain operational rules in order to maintain catch rates and allow areas with reduced catch rates time to recover before being fished again. These are included in the unpublished “Fishing Manual for the Faroese Scallop Fishery” (OCJoensen 2015). This contains some simple objectives and a move-on rule to determine whether to continue fishing in a particular location (fishing grounds are divided into rectangles) based on three reference catch rates. Where CPUE exceeds 1.5t/hour fishing may continue. Where CPUE falls below 1t/hour the rectangle will be closed to fishing (by the company) for 2 years. It is not clear what analysis was used to determine the reference catch rates or whether this is formally monitored or reviewed. 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 75 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and - Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing a Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale There is an effective national legal system as evidenced by the hierarchy of subsidiary legislation which sits beneath the Home Rule Act of the Faroe Islands (1948). The most relevant of these is the recent Faroe Islands Act on Management of Marine Resources (18 December 2017), which provides the overall legal framework for fisheries management and authorises The Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture and its underlying institutions to manage all fisheries in Faroese waters and fisheries by Faroese vessels in other waters. This Act is capable of delivering management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 across a wide range of Faroese Fisheries. The fishery under assessment takes place within a single jurisdiction: the EEZ of the Faroe Islands. The only vessel which exploits the resource is Faroese. No other nations access the resource. There is therefore no requirement for cooperation with other international parties. As such cooperation is “not necessary” the SG80 statement relating to “cooperation with other parties” is met by default. Beyond the immediate focus of the scallop fishery, in the wider context of fisheries management and science, Faroe do cooperate internationally as evidenced by: Faroe (represented by Denmark) ratified The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on 16 November 2004. Faroe is represented by Denmark as a contracting partner of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) for the North East Atlantic, which coordinates management of fisheries resources in international waters. Contracting parties are bound by governing rules. Faroe is represented by Denmark as a member country of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), an intergovernmental marine science organization, which coordinates fisheries science in the North Easy Atlantic. Faroese scientists frequently participate in ICES Working Groups. The Faroe Islands have bilateral fisheries agreements with neighbouring countries in the North Atlantic region – the European Union, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Greenland. SG60 and SG80 are clearly met. SG100 requires not only that there is a national legal system and cooperation “to deliver” but that it “delivers” management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There is evidence both for and against this conclusion. On the one hand a number of Faroese fisheries are successfully MSC certified, which indicates that the management system must be capable of delivering management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. On the other hand a number of academic papers have highlighted significant issues in relation to management of (in particular demersal) fisheries, leading to over-fishing and lack of fleet profitability over many years (Jacobsen (2019), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018)). Since the implementation of the new fisheries act there appears to be the potential for these issues to be addressed although Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018b) caution that it is too early to tell if the intended changes have been successful. It is therefore concluded that SG100 is not met. b Resolution of disputes DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 76 The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The Ombudsman is elected by the Faroese Parliament. The ombudsman can investigate complaints about decisions made by the authorities, as well as about how they treat citizens and deal with cases. Should a public authority not follow the recommendations of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman may recommend that the complainant be provided with legal aid to support a lawsuit against the authority in question. Lawsuits can be bought to the local court (Føroya Rættur), with appeals made to the hierarchy of Danish courts and ultimately, to the Danish Supreme Court. In terms of transparency, the Ombudsman reports annually to parliament, detailing how cases have been concluded and any resulting action taken by the authorities. This mechanism is concluded to be both transparent and effective, thus meeting SG60 and SG80. SG100 is not met because no evidence is provided to enable a conclusion that this “has been tested and proven to be effective”. Respect for rights The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or c Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale In terms of relevant customary fishing rights for those dependent on fishing for food or livelihood there are no indigenous first peoples. Faroe Islanders have Norse–Gaels origin with a high degree of genetic homogeneity. As such, there is no indigenous community which needs to be recognised in legislation and instead the legislation seeks to recognise the rights of all Faroe Islanders. Over the years, with the development of quota allocation in some fisheries there has been no reports of forcible loss of access to traditional fisheries or remote coastal communities and all fisheries with historical track record appear to have had equal opportunity to continue to participate in the fishery, or indeed to leave the fishery, with licences being transferred to new participants. In the context of the MSC this issue of quota allocation or licence transfer does not relate to the customary rights of those dependent of fishing for food or livelihood. Marine resources in Faroese waters are property of the Faroese people and shall be managed for public good (Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (2008)). The Act on Marine Resources places considerable emphasis on social factors to ensure that the benefits of Faroese resources are retained in Faroe. For example, Faroese licenced fishing vessels are required to be at least two-thirds Faroese owned and controlled and subject to Faroese taxation. All landings must be made into Faroese ports. Therefore, SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because it has not been possible to confirm whether a formal commitment is contained within The Act on Marine Resources. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 https://www.faroeseseafood.com/fishery-aquaculture/international-cooperation/ DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 77 https://www.faroeseseafood.com/fishery-aquaculture/fishery-legislation-and-management/ Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (2008) Løgting Act no. 60 of 10 May 2000 on the Ombudsman of the Løgting as amended by Løgting Act no 157 of 20 December 2013 MSC interpretation on Customary Rights: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/3-1-1-Scoring-Issue-c- Respect-for-rights-SA4-3-SA4-3-5-1527262005730 Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Awaiting translation of the Faroe Islands Act on Information gap indicator Management of Marine Resources (18 December 2017) to determine if the ombudsman process has been tested in relation to fisheries policy. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 78 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale Responsibility for Fisheries Management (licencing, stock management, fisheries control, habitat protection) in Faroe lies with the Fisheries Ministry (https://www.fisk.fo/). Details of key individuals within the Fisheries Ministry are published on the Ministry website: https://www.government.fo/en/the-government/ministries/ministry-of-fisheries/staff/. The Faroe Marine Research Institute (FAMRI / Havstovan) is responsible for all government marine research. The individuals involved in key areas of marine science are clearly identified: https://www.hav.fo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=285&Itemid=269. The Faroese Fisheries Inspection (Fiskiveiðueftirlitið) is responsible for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). This includes inspecting catches and landings, and operating fishery inspection vessels and coast guard facilities in Faroese waters. The Fisheries Council (“Fiskivinnuráðið”) is an advisory board of stakeholders which is appointed for four years at a time. The council must be consulted prior to implementation of new fisheries regulations. This includes fisherman, ship-owners, academics, producers, unions and other interested parties. The names of appointees are publicly available: https://www.fisk.fo/fo/um-radid/nevndir-og-rad/fiskivinnuradid/. Additionally, there is also strong sector representation in Faroes, which includes the Vessel Owners’ Association, the Fishermen’s Union, the Shipmasters and Navigators’ Union and the Engineers’ Union. The Faroe Islands is a small nation and the fisheries sector is a small tight knit community with good understanding of the key players. It is therefore concluded that the SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels of “explicitly defined and well- understood” are met. Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 79 Rationale The decision-making process in relation to Faroese fisheries includes clear consultative steps with “major fisheries stakeholders” in relation to fisheries legislation, regulations and international negotiations. This occurs through standing advisory committees (i.e. The Fisheries Council (“Fiskivinnuráðið”) and Committee on Fishing Days (Fiskidaganevndin)) and more ad hoc consultative meetings dealing with specific issues. The Faroese Fishermen’s Association plays an important role of representing the views of fishermen. Fishing companies and Producer Organization (PO) also activity participate in consultation processes or in the written hearing process which is required before new regulations are introduced. This consultation process enables relevant information to be obtained from the “main affected parties” so SG60 is met. There is clear evidence that the government takes gives considerable consideration to the information provided by these “main affected parties” Hegland & Hopkins (2014). Thus, SG80 is also met. By way of example, the process of drafting the new fisheries Act included several consultative steps and a wide number of parties were consulted (https://logting.fo/casenormal/viewCommitteeState.gebs?caseState.id=17261&menuChanged=16 ). SG100 is not met because no evidence has been provided indicating that the management system explains how information from consultation processes is used or not used. Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and Guide interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? No No Rationale In the past there have been difficulties in obtaining a wide range of non-industry stakeholder viewpoints in Faroese fisheries, with science and industry often representing polarised views. In a discussion of the failures of the fisheries effort regime which was used to govern Faroe fisheries from 1996 to 2017, Professor Bromley (2018) notes: “…… only two “voices” were being heard in the discussion of fisheries policy. The absence of a credible environmental community—or general public participation—focused on fisheries meant that what is generally a three-way discussion and negotiation in most countries became seriously polarized”. Other commentators have noted the lack or wide consultation in relation to the routine fisheries decision-making and legislative process: “With the exception of FAMRI scientists, prior to the proposal’s submission to Parliament all stakeholders taking part formally in the process are from the fisheries industry. Thus, commercial fishing interests — especially from the catching sector ― have substantial influence on the decision-making process.” Hegland & Hopkins (2014). There is less evidence of any public consultation in relation to fisheries issues or management. Additionally, there is not strong representation from environmental NGOs in Faroe, so this perspective is also sometimes missing from consultative processes. Therefore, stakeholders with no direct interest in this fishery are not informed on a regular basis, but statistical information on the fishery is available from the Ministry. It is not clear if there are ‘other interested parties’ who are excluded from the consultation processes but who wish to be included. This question will be addressed during site visit. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are not met. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 Fisheries Ministry: https://www.fisk.fo/ Fisheries Inspection: https://www.vorn.fo/ Faroe Marine Research Institute: https://www.hav.fo/ DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 80 Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (2008), Bromley (2018), Hegland & Hopkins (2014). Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Awaiting translation of Faroe Islands Act on Management of Marine Resources (18 Information gap indicator December 2017) to determine whether this changes requirements for wider consultation, if stakeholders are consulted on the level of understanding of roles and responsibilities. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 81 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that PI 3.1.3 are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The long-term objectives for Faroese fisheries are set out explicitly in the Faroe Islands Act on Management of Marine Resources (18 December 2017). These are to maintain the industry and the fish stocks at sustainable levels, taking account of recommendations of experts in the field (more detail to be added once translation received). There are also clear long-term objectives which are legally binding on Faroes fisheries due to the ratification of international conventions such as UNCLOS and the agreement for its implementation (UNFSA). In a speech, at The Nordic House, Faroe Islands 23 February 2018, the Prime Minister Aksel V. Johannesen stated that Faroe will “to the best of our abilities” try to reach the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which includes: Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. The 2019 Coalition Agreement (Tórshavn, September 14th, 2019) between the People’s Party (Fólkaflokkurin), Unionist Party (Sambandsflokkurin) and Centre Party (Miðflokkurin) reiterates the objectives for fisheries including ‘biological and environmental sustainability’. SG60 and SG80 are therefore clearly met. SG100 is not met because it has not been possible to identify where clear long-term objectives are “required by management policy”. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 https://www.faroeseseafood.com/fishery-aquaculture/fishery-legislation-and-management/ https://www.government.fo/en/the-government/coalition-agreement/ https://www.government.fo/en/the-government/ministries/prime-ministers-office/united-nations-sustainable- development-goals/ https://lms.cdn.fo/media/10803/speech-un-development-goals.pdf?s=ASDyvOKyCEpcRiDSXAzpfAs5H3Q Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range ≥80 More information sought Awaiting translation of Faroe Islands Act on Management of Marine Resources (18 Information gap indicator December 2017) to be clear on its objections and determine whether any higher-level legislation stating that objectives are ‘required’. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 82 Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 83 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are Guide expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with a Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes No No Rationale There are two potential pieces of audit evidence which provide an indication of the fishery specific objectives (i.e. the specific objectives in relation to the Faroes Scallop Fishery). Neither of these are explicit. The first is by referring to the objectives described in 3.1.3, which although applicable nationally are none the less binding on all fisheries within the jurisdiction – so by implication apply to the Faroese Scallop Fishery. The second indication of fishery specific objectives is from the fleet’s own operational procedures. For example, the client fishery has a working objective of maintaining CPUE above a certain level, however this is not a formally adopted measure. The fishing company produced a “Fishing Manual for the Faroese Scallop Fishery” (December 2015). This states that the aim is “to ensure that the scallop fishery is managed systematically and in accordance with the MSC certification”. And goes on to state that “OC Joensen is committed to harvest the scallop beds in a sustainable way. It is important to dredge in a way which keeps the fishing grounds ecologically healthy so they are always able to regain and keep their value as scallop fishing beds”. There are no explicit objectives beyond those described above. These implicit objectives are broadly consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2 but are not explicit or defined in short or long terms. There is no official management plan in place for the Faroes scallop fishery. SG60 is met but not SG80 and SG100 due to the lack of explicit, fishery-specific objectives. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 OC Joensen (2015). Fishing Manual for the Faroese Scallop Fishery. Unpublished. Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Are objectives formally expressed in relation to the scallop fishery? For example, does the fisheries Information gap indicator licence describe an objective? Has the Ministry or FAMRI reviewed the Scallop Industry Fishing Manual, or has this been formally adopted? Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 84 Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 85 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established a Guide making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes No Rationale For most Faroese fisheries the annual decision-making cycle is established and begins when Faroe Marine Research Institute (FAMRI) produces its annual fishery report. The Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (MFNR) passes this to the Committee on Fishing Days (Fiskidaganevndin), appointed by the Minister, which comprises representatives from the catching sector as well as a chairman who is not from the sector. The Minister drafts a proposal for the coming year’s fishing allocation based on the recommendations of both the FAMRI report and the report of the Committee. However, the primary focus of this process is on other demersal fisheries. The main decision-making process of relevance to the fishery relates to the decision to offer an annual licence to the scallop fishery. This decision-making process offers the opportunity to introduce licence conditions and as result represents an opportunity for adaptive management measures to be applied. The licence can specify the length of the fishing season, the areas that can be fished, arrangements for any the exploratory fishery, and, in the case of the exploratory northern fisheries, a catch quota. Management decisions, in the form of licence adjustments may also occur within year. Fishing licences are issued for the main fishing area (area east of Nolsoy), and the two experimental fishing areas in the North (the northern area located north of 62°25’N, and Funningsfjord). The other decision-making process is that employed by the fishery, in what has been described as a co-management type approach, where some management decisions are (informally) devolved to the fishery licence holder. OC Joensen has developed a ‘harvest strategy’ to determine whether to continue fishing in a particular location (fishing grounds are divided into rectangles) based on three reference catch rates. Where CPUE exceeds 1.5t/hour fishing may continue. Where CPUE falls below 1t/hour the rectangle will be closed to fishing (by the company) for 2 years. It is not clear what analysis was used to determine the reference catch rates. Across these three decision-making processes, the requirements of SG60 are met. In order for SG80 to be met, it will be required to confirm that the Faroese Scallop fishery is subject to annual scrutiny as part of the established Faroese decision-making process and have a better understanding of how licence conditions (including TAC levels in the exploratory fisheries) are set. Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes No No DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 86 Rationale In the context of overall fisheries management in Faroe there is evidence of government responding to serious issues from previous evaluation to inform the development of the new fisheries Act. For example, the previous government commissioned a group of experts to prepare a report with analysis and recommendations. The working group had hearings etc in the process of producing the report in 2016 (only available in Faroese: https://lms.cdn.fo/media/8873/ein-n%C3%BDggj-og-varandi-fiskivinnuskipan-fyri- f%C3%B8royar.pdf?s=YCSeeiurqxjwXvKoIuQJxFy_zyA). In relation to the scallop fishery specifically, although there is an annual decision-making process in the form of a licensing process, which offer the potential for adaptive management, it is not clear how responsive this is. For example, the licence offers the potential for adjustments to the length of season, the size of the fishing area and (in the case of the Northern exploratory fishing areas) the catch quota. In the past there have been assessments done of the 2 northern exploratory fisheries (Ridao Cruz & Matras 2013a&b), but it is not clear that any more recent assessments have been done or that FAMRI offer the same annual cycle of advice to inform the scallop decision- making. The company / informal co-management decision-making process employed by the fishery, as described in the OC Joensen “Fishing Manual for the Faroese Scallop Fishery” (December 2015) is itself a response to serious and other issues identified in relevant research / evaluation. This has resulted in internal measures to spatially manage the resource based on an analysis of catch rates and efforts to limit bycatch. This is adaptive in so far as it contains mechanisms to adjust the harvest rate up or down depending on signals in the catch rate. It also, in theory, could lead to a cessation of fishing is catch rates fell far enough. Across these three decision-making processes, the requirements of SG60 are met. In order for SG80 to be met, it will be required to confirm that the Faroese Scallop fishery is subject to an adaptive decision-making process and that this looks beyond the most serious issues. Use of precautionary approach Decision-making processes c Guide use the precautionary post approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes Rationale In recent years the Faroese government have faced considerable criticism in the management of their domestic fisheries, including an apparent reluctance to apply precautionary measures leading to periods of over-fishing (Baudron et al (2010), Grétarsson & Danielsen (2014), Jacobsen (2019), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018b)). In decision-making processes, it has been reported that annual fishing decisions often reflect the wishes of the industry more than the views of the scientific advisers (Hegland & Hopkins 2014). However, this largely predates the recent significant changes in the management system (i.e. the new Fisheries Act) and also relates to other demersal fisheries so is therefore not directly applicable to the scallop fishery under assessment. In relation to the specific situation in the scallop fishery there is evidence of some precaution being applied in management decision-making. Since the inception of the fishery in 1970s the number of vessels licenced to operate in the fishery has reduced from a peak of 9 (and a period where a large factory vessel was licenced) to just a single vessel today (Nicolajsen 1997). It is understood that there a have been regular licence applications from vessel owners wishing to join the fishery, but the precautionary decision has been taken not to allow these – although this may reflect more about the reluctance of other fleet sectors in the advisory process to allow increased dredge effort in inshore waters than an inherent sense of precaution. The decision to issue exploratory licences rather than full licences in the Northern area and for these to be informed by stock assessments (Ridao Cruz & Matras 2013) could also be seen as precautionary. However, the issuing of an exploratory licence to fish grounds to the south of the main Eastern fishing grounds in 2015 did not appear to have been informed by either a stock assessment or habitat impact assessment. There may be sufficient evidence of precaution to allow SG80 to be met, but this will be confirmed at site visit. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 87 Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and Guide any actions or lack of action management actions and associated with findings and describes how the post relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes No No Rationale The Faroe Marine Research Institute publishes the results of its work on its website. In recent years, there is no evident publications in relation to scallops (the most recent being the 2013 assessments undertaken by Ridao Cruz & Matras. There is no formal reporting from the Ministry on this specific fishery, but information on fisheries in general are in the public domain in reports from the Statistical Office, in special reports and in connection with the annual cycle of the Parliament adopting the fishing days. This therefore meets the requirements of SG60, but further evidence will be required of explanations being provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, in relation to the UoA. SG80 and SG100 are not met. Approach to disputes Although the management The management system or The management system or authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly Guide challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions e a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. post the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes Rationale There is no evidence that the fishery or the management authority are subject to continuing court challenges, therefore SG60 does not apply. Likewise, there is no judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges, which must be complied with in a timely fashion therefore SG80 does not apply. SG 80 is therefore met. In the wider context of the scoring issue and with relevance to scoring at the SG100 level, it should be noted that disputes within the scallop fleet are unlikely as only a single vessel is licenced to operate. As noted in PI 3.1.2 there are strong consultative links between the industry and the management authority, which means that disputes between each can be proactively avoided. SG100 is therefore met. If a dispute did arise with the management authority this could be taken to the ombudsman (https://www.lum.fo/Default.aspx?ID=10211). References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 The Faroe Marine Research Institute publications: https://www.hav.fo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=286&Itemid=270 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 88 Baudron et al (2010), Grétarsson & Danielsen (2014), Jacobsen (2019), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018), Danielsen & Agnarsson (2018b), OC Joensen (2015). Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Better understanding of how annual scallop licence is issued and conditions determined. Is this based on an annual report on the fishery from FAMRI? How is the level of the quota set in the exploratory fishery? Is the scallop fishery part of the annual decision-making process of other Information gap indicator Faroese fisheries. After operating on an exploratory licence in the Northern fishery, will there be a review to determine whether this should become a permanent fishery? What information about the scallop fishery performance is published (aside from the 2013 assessments)? Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 89 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been a Guide the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is tailored to the regulations in place within the fishery. In the case of scallops the fact that there is no quota (aside from in the small northern exploratory fishery) and there is no minimum landing size, the focus for control and enforcement is spatial. The compulsory requirement for VMS therefore ensures that the spatial and temporal restrictions in the fishery are complied with (positions are sent every second hour to the Inspection services). There is a legal requirement for logbook and this data is cross-referenced with processing/sales information to highlight any reporting errors (although in a vertically integrated business, which owns both processing facility and vessel such errors are unlikely). In addition, weighing-in systems must be certified. The Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection (https://www.vorn.fo/) is responsible for fisheries inspections at sea and on landings. The inspectorate has two inspection vessels. Vessels from the Royal Danish Navy also participate in inspections at sea. Although not comprehensive (for example there is no electronic monitoring in place), it can be concluded that the monitoring, control and surveillance is systematically tailored to the regulations in the fishery. SG60 and SG80 are therefore met. Sanctions Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- b Guide compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and post applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale Sanctions are in place for infringements. These range from a warning for a minor-first time offence to fines, temporary withdrawal of license (typically for a two-week period), confiscation of gear for repeat or more serious offences. Formal prosecution and even permanent withdrawal of license is available for most serious or repeated offences. Given the lack of evidence of infringement in the scallop fishery it can be concluded that these are thought to (rather than demonstrably) provide effective deterrence. Given the lack of evidence of infringement it is harder to draw a conclusion about consistent application of sanctions, but the clear expectation of the client fisheries is that sanctions would be consistently applied in event of infringement. This is sufficient to meet SG60 and SG80. SG100 is not met because demonstrable evidence has not been provided. c Compliance DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 90 Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management system comply with the management Guide fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment, post including, when required, when required, providing including, providing providing information of information of importance to information of importance to importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Yes No No Rationale Previous assessments have indicated that fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system; however, evidence will be sought from the Fisheries Inspectorate at the time of the site visit to inform whether SG80 or SG100 are met. Systematic non-compliance d Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Yes Rationale No evidence of systematic non-compliance has been reported. Given the fact that there is a single vessel and a single landing site, plus the fact that most control measures are spatial and temporal (with no MLS or quota), systematic non- compliance is unlikely. SG80 is met. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 https://www.vorn.fo/ Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 More information sought Clarification sought on enforcement of: quota in the exploratory fishery discard ban. Information gap indicator Further questions? Consistent application of sanctions? Annual report? Confirmation sought from enforcement personnel about the compliance record of the client fishery. Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 91 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes No Rationale The Management of Marine Resources Act stipulates that the act will be reviewed annually. The first such review was presented to the Parliament on October 6th 2019 is found here in Faroese: https://logting.fo/files/casequest/110/F- 2.19%20Fragreiding%20um%20sjofeingi%202019.pdf. There have been a number of reviews (not necessary part of the management process) of the overall system of Faroese fisheries management which have shaped the development of fisheries legislation ( Jákupsstovu et al (2007), Baudron et al (2010), Grétarsson & Danielsen (2014) Hegland. & Hopkins (2014)). These have mostly focussed on the management of demersal fin-fish fisheries. It has been reported elsewhere that The Ministry of Fisheries submits annual reports to the Parliament on the fisheries management system and the Fisheries Inspectorate and Havstovan, produce annual reports. Taken in combination these represent the key parts of the management system and therefore SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not met because the reviews referred to above do not cover “all parts”. Internal and/or external review The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific Guide management system is management system is management system is b subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal post internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes No No Rationale The fishery-specific management system for Faroese scallop is internally ‘reviewed’ as part of the annual licencing round described in 3.2.2. FAMRI occasionally review the CPUE of the scallop fishery. The Management of OC Joensen also undertake informal review of the fishery. Taken in combination, this is perhaps sufficient to meet the intent of SG60, but without evidence of a holistic review of the Faroese scallop management system (which looks at all aspects of the management of the fishery), SG80 and SG100 are not met. It should be noted that SG80 also requires the review to be occasionally external. A condition is therefore likely. References Act on the Management of Marine Resources, Faroese Parliament, 2017 Jákupsstovu et al (2007), Baudron et al (2010), Grétarsson & Danielsen (2014) Hegland. & Hopkins (2014). OCJoensen (2015). Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Draft scoring range 60-79 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 92 More information sought Evidence of reviews of the following parts of the management system: Monitoring, control & enforcement Marine research Information gap indicator Any fishery specific review of the scallop fishery. Has there been any review (perhaps by Ministry or FAMRI or academic) of the Scallop Industry Fishing Manual (and the “HCR” and “Harvest strategy” therein)? Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Overall Performance Indicator score Condition number (if relevant) DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 93 8 Appendices 8.1 Assessment information 8.1.1 Previous assessments This fishery underwent full assessment in 2008-2011, and the determination to not certify was published on the MSC website in January 2011. Then in 2012-2013 another full assessment was undertaken, and the fishery was certified in September 2013 with five conditions (Table 16). Following the third surveillance audit, it was concluded that progress against two conditions (PIs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5) was not on target within 12 months of falling behind target, which triggering suspension in January 2017. Corrective action plans to address the causes of suspension were submitted by the client, but no fourth surveillance audit was conducted. The fishery was withdrawn from the MSC programme in March 2018. Table 16. Summary of previous assessment conditions Condition PI Year closed Justification 1 – SG80a: A limit reference point or proxy thereof and actions as the LRP is approached shall be implemented for the fishery. Since a LRP cannot be analytically determined, measures should be introduced to respond to changes in the fishery, e.g. by reducing susceptibility of the stock when the fishery is not heading in the direction of its objectives. SG80b&c: Evidence 1.2.2 NA NA must be provided that the harvest control rule is set at an appropriate level to allow for recovery of local scallop beds. Uncertainties regarding the set level of the limit reference point and the appropriateness of the tools used to control exploitation rate must be addressed as well. 2 – CPUE in the eastern area should be monitored by authorities in addition 1.2.3 NA NA to CPUE for the exploratory areas. 3 – Sufficient data must be provided to assess the impact of the dredge in 2.4.3 NA NA use on the habitat for the main eastern fishing area. 4 – A research plan for the fishery must be provided. 3.2.4 NA NA 5 – Formal mechanisms to review the fishery must be implemented. These mechanisms should provide for internal reviews on a regular basis and 3.2.5 NA NA occasionally external review. 8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries Table 17. Small-scale fisheries Percentage of vessels with length Percentage of fishing activity completed Unit of Assessment (UoA) <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore 1 vessel (Nordheim) 0% (29.3 m with LOA of 32.2 m) 100% 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 8.2.1 Site visits The CAB shall include in the report: - An itinerary of site visit activities with dates. - A description of site visit activities, including any locations that were inspected. - Names of individuals contacted. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 94 This ACDR was prepared as a desk study based on publicly available information and input from the client. The remote site visit is scheduled to be held during the week of 18 January 2021. On 2 October 2020, DNV GL submitted a variation request to the MSC, requesting approval to hold the site visit remotely given ongoing health and safety concerns regarding COVID-19. Currently, the team members are not able to travel to the Faroe Islands and/or would have to quarantine for several days, making an onsite site visit impossible. As part of this request, a review of the risks was completed (Table 18). The MSC approved this request on 9 October. In the variation approval, the MSC stated that DNV GL “shall include specific risk mitigation measures for conducting the RBF remotely.” The assessment team will review the risks and mitigations measures further as part of site visit planning. Table 18. Areas considered in risk assessment Risk Areas Key Risks Risk Mitigation Sufficient information to enable Ability to verify information Fishery reports, government documents, and an effective and robust fishery remotely. other relevant reports required for the assessment process and assessment against the MSC Fisheries comprehensive assessment Standard are available publicly and/or can be against the MSC Fisheries transmitted electronically. There are ample Standard opportunities and mechanisms to engage with clients and stakeholders including electronic forms of communication (videoconferencing, phone conferencing, email). These mechanisms are effective in this fishery so the team is confident that information can be verified remotely. Ability to engage with stakeholders, Electronic forms of communication and other deliver a robust stakeholder mechanisms to engage with clients and consultation process and conduct stakeholders (such as video conferencing, interviews with stakeholder. Please phone conferencing, email, phone) will be refer to FCP 4.2, GFCP 4.2, and efficient and effective in providing the 7.16. information required for a site visit for this fishery. Again, there are ample opportunities and mechanisms to engage with clients and stakeholders remotely so the team is confident that we can deliver a robust stakeholder consultation and interview processes. Ability to gather information and There are ample opportunities and carry out stakeholder consultations mechanisms to engage with clients and if the Risk Based Framework stakeholders remotely. As with any RBF (annex PF) is being used to assess workshop, materials will be shared with the data-deficient PIs. Please refer to stakeholders in advance, and extra time will PF2.3, PF3.2, PF3.3.2, PF4.1.5.b.ii, be scheduled within the agenda for the PF4.2, PF7.2, PF8.2, PF8.4.1, workshop to ensure sufficient interviewing and PF8.5.1, PF8.6.1 and PF8.7.1. information gathering can occur. Additionally, the team will determine which participatory Other relevant references: FCP tools will be most effective in a remote site 7.10.2.m visit situation (e.g., screen sharing of diagrams) and use what is appropriate to increase the effectiveness of the consultation. The team is confident that we can engage with stakeholders to deliver a robust RBF process. Availability of information: Fishery reports, government documents, and FCP 7.10.2.h requires CABs to other relevant reports required for the indicate the availability of assessment against the MSC Fisheries information used to score each PI Standard are available publicly and/or can be and to highlight potential transmitted electronically. Specifically, information gaps. If the CAB information necessary to assess the Principles identifies a large number of 1 and 2 information requirements (e.g., VMS information gaps in the ACDR the data, observer data, logbooks) are available CAB should consider if a remote electronically. Additional information can be site visit will be sufficient to obtain gathered from the client and stakeholders via the necessary information. videoconferencing or phone during the site visit or via email following the site visit. Please refer to the interpretation ‘Clarifications relating to the DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 95 Announcement Comment Draft’ For Principle 3, there is a sufficient level of which provides the MSC’s intent transparency in management, such that behind draft scoring ranges, information on the fishery is publicly available identification of information gaps to or known to the wider group of stakeholders. inform site visits and stakeholders Any information provided on the fishery can be consultation: “The MSC’s intent is easily verified. that the ACDR provides indicative scoring and rationales, and The team is confident that the current identifies where more information is information gaps highlighted in the ACDR can needed. One of the objectives of be addressed via a remote site visit during the ACDR is to assist the site visit client and stakeholder interviews. by facilitating stakeholder input to the assessment prior to the site visit, and to ensure the CAB, the client and stakeholders are better informed and prepared for the site visit…” CABs should consider the risk of an off-site initial fishery assessment if any Performance Indicator has a draft scoring range of <60 reported in the ACDR. Ability to understand the context, The team concluded that the assessment scale, and intensity of the fishery does not require investigation of physical operations. aspects of the fishery, but if questions arise, there are reliable mechanisms to enable verification of these aspects from a remote location. Additionally, one of the team members was on the previous assessment team so is already familiar with the context, scale, and intensity of the fishery’s operations. Sufficient communication Availability of information and The client, all team members, and all identified capability to effectively plan, communication technology (ICT). stakeholders can easily access ICT and are conduct interviews and Competency of assessment teams, competent in doing so. Team leader facilitate information sharing auditees, and stakeholders in using experience with some of these individuals and as per IAF ID 4: 2018. ICT. Please refer to IAF MD 4:2018. the client representative’s knowledge of them confirm this statement. Ability to clearly exchange The client, all team members, and all identified information between the stakeholders can communication effectively in assessment team, prospective English. Team leader experience with some of fishery client and stakeholders and these individuals and the client to be understood by all parties representative’s knowledge of them confirm when parties speak different this statement. languages. Ability to schedule remote site visit At the time of the remote site visit, the Cyprus- activities at reasonable mutually based team member will be two hours ahead convenient times when parties are the UK-based team member and the client located across different time zones. and stakeholders in the Faroe Islands. The US-based team leader will be eight hours behind the Faroe Islands. The team is confident that mutually convenient times can be found to accommodate all parties (e.g., early morning for the team leader). Additionally, as per the September 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic Derogation 1.2, DNV GL: Shall request an additional peer reviewer from the Peer Review College when implementing FCP 7.14. Shall conduct remote audits in alignment with IAF MD 4:2018 (IAF Mandatory Document for the Use of Information and Communication Technology for Auditing/Assessment Purposes, considering security/confidentiality and process requirements). Will utilize other mechanisms to ensure a successful remote site visit (e.g., ASI’s remote audit procedure, DNV GL’s remote audit procedure, ISO 9001 remote audit guidance). Will ensure that remote site visit replicates on-site visit as far as practicably possible. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 96 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation The CAB shall include in the report: - Details of people interviewed: local residents, representatives of stakeholder organisations including contacts with any regional MSC representatives. - A description of stakeholder engagement strategy and opportunities available. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.16 8.2.3 Evaluation techniques The report shall include: - Justification for how public announcements were developed. - Methodology used, including sample-based means of acquiring a working knowledge of the management operation and sea base. - Details of the scoring process e.g. group consensus process. - The decision rule for reaching the final recommendation e.g. aggregate principle-level scores above 80. If the RBF was used for this assessment, the report shall include: - The justification for using the RBF, which can be copied from previous RBF announcements, and stakeholder comments on its use. - The RBF stakeholder consultation strategy to ensure effective participation from a range of stakeholders including any participatory tools used. - A summary of the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings including the range of opinions. - The full list of activities and components that have been discussed or evaluated in the assessment, regardless of the final risk-based outcome. The stakeholder input should be reported in the stakeholder input appendix and incorporated in the rationales directly in the scoring tables. Reference(s): FCP v2.1 Section 7.16, FCP v2.1 Annex PF Section PF2.1 This ACDR was prepared as a desk study based on publicly available information and input from the client. Information on the assessment process will be made publicly available through www.msc.org at given stages of the assessment. DNV GL published the assessment announcement along with the ACDR on 29 October 2020. Following publication on the MSC website, relevant stakeholders were notified via email and given the opportunity to monitor the assessment process and provide feedback to the assessment team. During the site visit, a stakeholder meeting will be organized in order to complete the scoring for the CA and PSA. Given that the target species is not subject to specific stock assessment and biological reference point are not available, the MSC RBF was triggered, which uses a CA coupled to the PSA tool as proxy for stock status, the results of which were used to score. In the ACDR, a single stock and a single UoA is considered. However, during the site visit, the possibility to differentiate more than one UoA will be explored. The assessment team plans to hold an RBF meeting workshop during the site visit meeting, which will include Faroe scientists and fishery managers, harvesters, NGOs, client group, academics, and other interested knowledgeable stakeholders. The susceptibility part of the PSA carried out as part of the ACDR will benefit for more precise input since, in absence of this, some assumptions have been made. All the stakeholders will be provided with background documentation in advance of the meetings pointing out the specific elements for which the assessment will be seeking their valuable input on. The RBF workshop is estimated to require 4-6 hours to complete. The forthcoming agenda will provide a full list of activities and components to be discussed during the site visit. 8.3 Peer Review reports The CAB shall include in the report unattributed reports of the Peer Reviewers in full using the relevant templates. The CAB shall include in the report explicit responses of the team that include: - Identification of specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made; and, DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 97 - A substantiated justification for not making changes where Peer Reviewers suggest changes, but the team disagrees. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.14 To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage 8.3.1 Peer Reviewer A: 8.3.2 Peer Reviewer B: DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 98 8.4 Stakeholder input The CAB shall use the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ to include all written stakeholder input during the stakeholder input opportunities (Announcement Comment Draft Report, site visit and Public Comment Draft Report). Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’, the team shall respond to all written stakeholder input identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’. The ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ shall also be used to provide a summary of verbal submissions received during the site visit likely to cause a material difference to the outcome of the assessment. Using the ‘MSC Template for Stakeholder Input into Fishery Assessments’ the team shall respond to the summary of verbal submissions identifying what changes to scoring, rationales and conditions have been made in response, where the changes have been made, and assigning a ‘CAB response code’. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Sections 7.15, 7.20.5 and 7.22.3 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 99 8.5 Conditions 8.5.1 Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate No conditions were closed during the previous certification. 8.5.2 Conditions The CAB shall document in the report all conditions in separate tables. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.18, 7.30.5 and 7.30.6 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Table 19. Condition 1 Performance Indicator Score State score for Performance Indicator. Cross reference to page number containing scoring template table or copy justification Justification text here. Condition State condition. Condition deadline State deadline for the condition. Exceptional Check the box if exceptional circumstances apply and condition deadline is longer than circumstances ☐ the period of certification (FCP v2.2 7.18.1.6). Provide a justification. Milestones State milestones and resulting scores where applicable. Verification with other Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.2 7.19.8. entities Complete the following rows for reassessments. Check the box if the condition is being carried over from a previous certificate and include a justification for carrying over the condition (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.1.a). Carried over condition ☐ Include a justification that progress against the condition and milestones is adequate (FCP v2.2 7.30.5.2). The CAB shall base its justification on information from the reassessment site visit. Check the box if the condition relates to a previous condition that was closed during a previous certification period but where a new condition on the same Performance Indicator or Scoring Issue is set. Related condition ☐ Include a justification – why is a related condition being raised? (FCP v2.2 7.30.6 & G7.30.6). Check the box if the condition has been rewritten. Include a justification (FCP v2.2 Condition rewritten ☐ 7.30.5.3). 8.6 Client Action Plan The CAB shall include in the report the Client Action Plan from the fishery client to address conditions. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.19 To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 100 8.7 Surveillance The CAB shall include in the report the program for surveillance, timing of surveillance audits and a supporting justification. Reference(s): FCP v2.2 Section 7.28 To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage Table 20. Fishery surveillance program Surveillance level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit & e.g. Level 5 surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit re-certification site visit Table 21. Timing of surveillance audit Proposed date of surveillance Year Anniversary date of certificate Rationale audit e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2018, proposal to postpone e.g. 1 e.g. May 2018 e.g. July 2018 audit to include findings of scientific advice Table 22. Surveillance level justification Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that information needed to verify progress towards conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most e.g. 1 auditor on-site with e.g.3 e.g. On-site audit conditions will be closed out in year 3, remote support from 1 auditor the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 101 8.8 Risk-Based Framework outputs To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage 8.8.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) Table 23. CA scoring template Consequence Scoring element Consequence score subcomponents Population size Population size 80 Principle 1: Stock status outcome Reproductive capacity Age/size/sex structure Geographic range Rationale for most According to the available data the resources is mainly fished by dredge which should vulnerable subcomponent not be selective in term of age/size/sex structure and should not affect the reproductive capacity and the geographic range of the target species. Therefore, the population size was considered the most vulnerable subcomponent of the stock. Rationale for consequence CPUE trends and landings (≈ catches) show stability over the last 15 years with no score major changes (Figure 2). Changes to the population as a consequence of fishing are not detectable against the natural variability of the population. However, the absence of an estimate of the recruitment as well as a long-term series with fishery independent data would suggest a precautionary approach and a score of 80 is more appropriate here. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 102 8.8.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) Table 24. PSA productivity and susceptibility attributes and scores for queen scallop Performance Indicator 1.1.1 Productivity Scoring element (species) Queen scallop Attribute Rationale Score Individuals reach a size of ~40mm in two years and those over 40mm Average age at maturity were found to be mature. Thus age at maturity is 2-3 years of age 1 (Ursin 1956) Average maximum age 8-10 years (Brand 2006a) 9 years (Ridao Cruz and Matra, 2014) 2 Over 1 million eggs per year Fecundity 1 (http://www.genustraithandbook.org.uk/genus/aequipecten/) Average maximum size - - Not scored for invertebrates Average size at maturity - - Not scored for invertebrates Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner (Vause et al.2007) 1 The queen scallop is a benthic invertebrate, and a filter feeder, feeding on plankton and detritus and is at a relatively low trophic level (around Trophic level 2-2.5 according to Pauly et al. 1998). Scallops are not on the list of 1 LTL species given by MSC and are not a key LTL species in Faroese waters. If distinct brood stocks are heavily fished there is the likelihood that the Density dependence population will have reduce fitness (density dependence; see Vause et 3 Invertebrates only al., 2007). Susceptibility Fishery Only where the scoring Dredge element is scored cumulatively Attribute Rationale Score Based on the area covered by dredge fishing, it is estimated that more Areal Overlap than 30% of the population distribution is fished annually (see Figure 3 3). High. Scallops are bottom dwellers fished by a dredge; therefore, there Encounterability 3 is a high overlap of the species with the fishing gear. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 103 According to Figure 8, individuals smaller the size at maturity (55 mm) are rarely caught. Selectivity of gear type 1 Figure 8 - Queen scallop. age-length relationship from a survey conducted with the same gear in the north area. Source: Ridao Cruz and Matras, 2014 Post capture mortality For P1 species, a score of 3 is suggested. 3 Catch (weight) Only where the scoring There are no other fisheries. - element is scored cumulatively DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 104 Table 25. PSA scoring table for queen scallop Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only First of each Scoring scoring PSA Score element element Family name Scientific name Common name Species type Fishery descriptor atAverage age maturity Average maxage Fecundity Average maxsize Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level Density Dependance Total Productivity(average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) Catch (tons) Weighting Weighted Total Weighted Score PSA score PSA-derived MSC Risk Category Name MSC scoring guidepost Consequence Score (CA) Final MSC score (per scoring element) 1 First Pectinidae Aequipecten operculari Queen scallop Invertebrate Dredge 1 2 1 111 1 3 1.50 3 3 1 3 1.65 2.23 2231 1.00 2.23 2.23 91 Low ≥80 80 86 DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 105 8.9 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable The CAB shall include in the report all written decisions arising from the Objection Procedure. Reference(s): MSC Disputes Process v1.0, FCP v2.2 Annex PD Objection Procedure To be added at Public Certification Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 106 8.10 Client Agreement To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 107 8.11 References Allison, E. H. & Brand, A. R. (1995). A mark-recapture experiment on queen scallops, Aequipecten opercularis, on a North Irish Sea fishing ground. J. Mar. Biol. Ass., U.K., 75, 323-335. Andrews, J.W., Brand, A.R., and T.J. Holt. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for Isle of Man Queen Scallop Trawl and Dredge Fishery. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-eastatlantic/Isle-of-Man-queen- scallop/assessment-downloads-1/IOM_Queenies_Public_Certification_Report.pdf. Baudron, A., Ulrich, C., Nielsen, J. R., and Boje, J. (2010). Comparative evaluation of a mixed-fisheries effort- management system based on the Faroe Islands example. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1036– 1050. Brand, A.R. 2006a. Chapter 12. Scallop Ecology: Distributions and Behaviour. In: Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture (2nd Ed.). Shumway, S.E. & Parsons, G.J. (Eds). Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science. Vol. 35 p 651-764. Brand, A.R. 2006b. Chapter 19. The European Scallop Fisheries for Pecten maximus, Aequipecten opercularis, and Mima chlamysvaria. In: Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture (2nd Ed.). Shumway, S.E. & Parsons, G.J. (Eds). Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science. Vol. 35, pp. 991-1066. Brand, A.R., 1991. Scallop ecology: distributions and behaviour. In: “Scallops: biology, ecology and aquaculture” (Ed.) S. Shumway, pp. 517-584. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Bromley D.W. (2018). Bringing Market Reforms to Fisheries Governance: Faore Islands Leads the Way. Available on- line: https://lms.cdn.fo/media/12069/bringing-market-reforms-to-fisheries- governance.pdf?s=o6nvJUySI6QL2eJIp75fS7tGQ90 Bruntse, G. and Tendal, O.S. (Eds.) 2000. Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, Faroe Islands. GEM 2000-0024 Bruntse, G. and Tendal, O.S. (Eds.) 2001. Lophelia pertusa and other cold water corals in the Faroe area. In Marine biological investigations and assemblages of benthic invertebrates from the Faroe Islands (Bruntse, G. & Tendal, O.S. eds) pp 22–32. Kaldbak Marine Biological Laboratory, The Faroe Islands. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/217806.pdf. Chapman, C.J.H. 1981. The swimming behaviour of queens in relation to trawling. Scottish Fisheries Bulletin 46: 7-10. Currie, D.R. & Parry, G.D., 1996. Effects of scallop –dredging on a soft sediment community: a largescale experimental study. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 134: 131-150. Danielsen, R. & Agnarsson, S. (2018). Fisheries policy in the Faroe Islands: Managing for failure?. Marine Policy. 94. 204-214. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.010. Danielsen, R. & Agnarsson, S. (2018b). Analysing the fisheries policy reform in the Faroe Islands: On the path to sustainability?. Environmental Science & Policy. 90. 91-101. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.016. Gaard, E., Hansen, B., Olsen, B & Reinert, J. 2002. Ecological features and recent trends in physical environment, plankton, fish stocks and sea birds in the Faroe plateau ecosystem. In:. Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic (K. Sherman and H.-R. Skjoldal eds), pp 245-265. Elsevier. Grétarsson, H & Danielsen, R (2014). The Faroese Effort Quota Management System. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 5, 1/2014 pp. 100–122. Hansen, M. B. 2011. How will climate change affect Northeastern Atlantic and the Nordic seas? In The pelagic complex in the North East Atlantic Ocean (Jákupsstovu, S.H.í., ed.) pp 52–54. Copenhagen: TemaNord.Hoydal, K. 1980. Uppskot til loya veiðu á ytra felti. Fiskirannsóknastovan. Thorshavn. Hegland, T. J. & Hopkins, C. C. E (2014). Towards a new fisheries effort management system for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the meaning of fishing sustainability. Maritime Studies 2014, 13:12 Hopkins, C. C. E., Hegland, T. J., & Wilson, D. C. (2013). Review of the Faroe Islands’ Fisheries Governance System: Objective Setting and Implementation. Hoydal, K. 1981. Jakupsskel undir Føroyum. Fiskirannsóknastovan. Thorshavn. Hoydal, K., Holt, T.J., Houg, A. & Davies, S. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for Faroe Islands Scallop Fishery. ICES. 2011. Report of the Workshop on the utility of commercial CPUE and VMS data in assessment (WKCPUEFFORT), 5-7 April 2011, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:49. 71 pp. ICES. 2018. Report of the Scallop Assessment Working Group (WGScallop), 10–12 October 2018, York, UK. ICES CM 2018/EPDSG:13. 52 pp. Jacobsen, J. (2019). Path dependence in Faroese fisheries (mis)management. Marine Policy. 108. 103615. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103615. Jákupsstovu, S. H. í, Cruz, L. R., Maguire, J-J., and Reinert, J. 2007. Effort regulation of the demersal fisheries at the Faroe Islands: a 10-year appraisal. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 730–737. Jenkins, S., Beukers-Stewart,B. & Brand, A. 2001. Impact of scallop dredging on benthic megafauna: A comparison of damage levels in captured and non-captured organisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 297-301 Jenkins, S.R, Lart, W., Vause, B.J. & Brand, A. 2003. Seasonal swimming behaviour in the queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) and its effects on dredge fisheries. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 289 (2): 163-179. Kaiser, M.J. & Spencer, B.E. 1995. Survival of bycatch from a beam trawl. Marine Ecology Progress Series 126:31-38. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 108 Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Sommerfield, P.J. & Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis and prediction of the response of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 1-14. Kamenos NA, Moore PG, Hall-Spencer JM (2003) Substratum heterogeneity of dredged vs un-dredged maerl grounds. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 83:411–413 Mason, J., 1983. Scallop and queen fisheries in the British Isles. Fishing News Book, Farnham (UK). 144 pp. Matras, U. 2001. Stutttíðarávirkan av jákupsskeljaveiðu á tey størru dýrini á botninum. Fiskirannsóknarstovan juni 2001. 34pp. Maunder, M.N. and Punt, A.E. 2004. Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fish. Res. 70: 141-159. Ministry of Fisheries and Natural Resources (2008). Faroe Islands Fisheries & Aquaculture: Responsible Managament for a Sustainable Future. Available on-line at: https://lms.cdn.fo/media/3541/fo_fisheries_and_aquaculture_final_revised.pdf?s=kJ26LiGuDNeoWh6t8zoJGh u2MRM Nicolajsen, A (1997). The History of the Queen Scallop Fishery of the Faroe Islands. In C. L. MacKenzie,jr., V. G. Burrell,jr., A Rosenfield, and W. L. Hobart (eds.). 1997. The history, present condition, and future of the molluscan fisheries of North and Central America and Europe, Volume 3, Europe. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. 129, 240 p. Nicolajsen, Á. 1984. Jomfruøsters (Chlamys opercularis) i færøskfarvand, populationsdynamik affiskeri. Thesis Roskilde Universitet. Nicolajsen, Á. 1997. The history of the queen scallop fishery of the Faroe Islands, p.49-56. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 129, pp. 49-56. O. C. Joensen (2015). Fishing Manual for the Faroese Scallop Fishery. Unpublished. Paul, J.D. 1980. Upper temperature tolerance and the effects of temperature on byssus attachment in the queen scallop Chlamys opercularis (L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 46: 41-50. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres, F. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science. 279 (5352), 860-863. Pranovi, F., Raicevich, S., Franceschini, G., Torricelli, P. & Giovanardi, O. 2001. Discard analysis and damage to nontarget species in the “rapido” trawl fishery. Mar. Biol. 139: 863-875. Ridao Cruz, L. & Matras, U. 2013a. Assessment of queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) north of the Faroe Islands in 2013. Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan). 7pp. Ridao Cruz, L. & Matras, U. 2013b. Assessment of queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) in a northwest fjord (“Djúpini”) of the Faroe Islands 2013. Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan). 9pp. Ridao Cruz, L. and Matras, U. 2014. Assessment of queen scallop (Aequipecten opercularis) north of the Faroe Islands in 2013. Faroe Marine Research Institute (Havstovan) Tendal, O.S and Dinesen, G.E. 2005. Biogenic sediments, substrates and habitats of the Faroese shelf and slope. Biofar Proceedings 2005: 224-242. UNFSA (1995). Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Ursin, E, 1956. Distribution and growth of the queen Chlamys opercularis (Lamellibranchiata) in Danish and Faroese waters. Meddelelser fra Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havundersøgelser. Ny Serie Bind 1 Nr. 13 1956. 32pp Vause, B. J., Beukers-Stewart, B. D., and Brand, A. R. 2007. Fluctuations and forecasts in the fishery for queen scallops (Aequipecten opercularis) around the Isle of Man. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1124–1135. Veale L.O., Hill A.S., Hawkins S.J., Brand A.R. 2000. Effects of long-term physical disturbance by commercial scallop fishing on subtidal epifaunal assemblages and habitats. Marine Biology. 137: 325- 337. Vottunarstofan Tún ehf, 2013. Sustainable Fisheries Scheme Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment - Faroe Islands Queen Scallop Fishery. Public Certification Report, 219p. DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 109 8.12 Landing sites (if applicable) To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 110 9 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’. The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’ and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2019. All rights reserved. Template version control Version Date of publication Description of amendment 1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release 1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org). Senior Policy Manager Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected] DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com Faroe Islands queen scallop 111 About DNV GL DNV GL is one of the world’s leading certification bodies. We help businesses manage risk and assure the performance of their organizations, products, people, facilities and supply chains through certification, verification, assessment and training services across a wide range of industries. In the food and beverage industry, we help customers worldwide to achieve excellence in food safety and quality, environmental management, supply chain management and product sustainability. We combine technical, digital and industry expertise to empower companies’ decisions and actions. Partnering with our customers, we build sustainable business performance and create stakeholder trust. dnvgl.com/assurance DNV GL – Business Assurance assurance.dnvgl.com