FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES RE-CERTIFICATION
SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
Final Report
April 2013
Prepared For: Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd
FCI template version 1.3(29/05/12)
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Final Report
April 2013
Authors: Tristan Southall, Paul Medley, Nick Pfeiffer.
Certification Body: Client: Food Certification International Ltd Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG)
Address: Address: Findhorn House 1 Firthside Street Dochfour Business Centre Fraserburgh Dochgarroch Aberdeenshire Inverness IV3 8GY AB43 9AR Scotland, UK
Name: Melissa McFadden Name: Ian Gatt (Secretary/Director) Tel: +44(0) 1463 223 039 Tel: +44(0) 1346 510 714 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 i Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Contents
Glossary...... iv 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 8 2.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 9 2.1.2 RBF Training ...... 9 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 10 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 11 3.2.1 Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) ...... 11 3.2.2 Species and Fishing Practice ...... 13 3.2.3 Administrative Framework ...... 16 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 17 3.3.1 Management Unit ...... 17 3.3.2 State of the Stock ...... 18 3.3.3 Harvest Strategy...... 19 3.3.4 Reference Points and Harvest Control Rule ...... 20 3.3.5 Fishery Data ...... 23 3.3.6 Stock Assessment ...... 25 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 26 3.4.1 Retained catch ...... 26 3.4.2 Bycatch species ...... 27 3.4.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected species interactions (ETP) ...... 28 3.4.4 Habitat impacts ...... 29 3.4.5 Ecosystem impacts ...... 30 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 32 3.5.1 Governance & Policy ...... 32 3.5.2 Management Objectives ...... 35 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 37 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 37 4.1.1 Harmonisation Details ...... 37 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 38 4.2.1 Re-assessment with outstanding conditions ...... 38 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 39 4.3.1 Assessment Tree ...... 39 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 39 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 39
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 ii Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4.4.2 Consultations ...... 40 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 41 5. Traceability ...... 43 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 43 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 43 5.2.1 Evaluation of Risk of Vessels Fishing Outside of UoC...... 43 5.2.2 Risk of Substitution of Mixing Certified / Non-Certified Catch ...... 43 5.2.3 At-Sea Processing ...... 44 5.2.4 Trans-Shipment ...... 44 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 44 5.3.1 Eligible points of landing ...... 44 5.3.2 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate ...... 44 6. Evaluation Results ...... 45 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 45 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 45 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 46 6.3.1 Recommendations ...... 46 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 47 7. References ...... 49
Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationale ...... 51 Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria ...... 51 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 54 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 125 Condition 1 ...... 125 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 126 Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 126 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 147 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions ...... 175 Appendix 3.1 Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation ...... 175 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 178 Appendix 4.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score ...... 178 Appendix 5. Client Agreement ...... 179 Appendix 5.1 Objections Process ...... 179 Appendix 6. The Sustainable Policy of the Scottish Pelagic Industry ...... 180 Appendix 7. SPSG MSC Exceptional Events Log ...... 189
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 iii Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Glossary
ASCOBANS (Bonn Convention’s) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic. ACOM ICES Advisory Committee ACFA ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture ANIFPO Anglo North Irish Fish Producers' Organisation
Bpa Precautionary reference point for spawning stock biomass
Blim Limit biomass reference point, below which recruitment is expected to be impaired. ASCOBANS (Bonn Convention’s) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic. CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (UK) CFCA EU Community Fisheries Control Agency CFP EU Common Fisheries Policy CR Council Regulation DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFF European Fisheries Fund ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union F Fishing Mortality
Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to the biomass limit
Fpa Precautionary reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at the precautionary reference point FAM MSC’s Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FMAC Scottish Government’s Fisheries Management and Conservation Group GRT Gross Registered Tonnage HAWG ICES Herring Assessment Working Group HCR Harvest Control Rule ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing LOA Length Over All
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 iv Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North East Atlantic NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) P1 MSC Principle 1 P2 MSC Principle 2 P3 MSC Principle 3 PI MSC Performance Indicator PO Producer Organisation RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SAWG ICES Stock Assessment Working Group SFO The Scottish Fishermen's Organisation (PO) SFPO Shetland Fish Producers Organisation Ltd SI Scoring Issue (MSC) SONAR Sound navigation and ranging SSB Spawning Stock Biomass SPSG The Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom UoC Unit of Certification UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WWF World Wide Fund For Nature WGECO ICES Working Group on the ecosystem effects of Fishing Activities WGRED ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Description WGWIDE ICES Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks WoSH West of Scotland Herring
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 v Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
1. Executive Summary
» This report provides details of the MSC re-assessment process for the SPSG North Sea herring fishery for Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG). The re-assessment process began in May 2012 and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). » A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. » The Target Eligibility Date for this re-assessment is 14th July 2013 » The assessment team for this fishery re-assessment comprised of Tristan Southall, who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; Paul Medley who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and Nick Pfeiffer who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 2. Paul Macintyre was responsible for traceability / chain of custody considerations. Determination On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the SPSG North Sea Herring Pelagic Trawl fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Rationale / Client strengths » The North Sea herring stock is well managed with a precautionary long term management plan in place, which uses appropriate reference points to manage the exploitation rate in the fishery against clear objectives. » The conclusions in relation to stock status are drawn from a sound information base which is used to carry out a robust and regular stock assessment. » Pelagic fisheries for herring do not make contact with the seabed – thus reducing any likelihood of negative impact on seabed habitats. » Given the shoaling nature of herring, the dense aggregations of herring that occur at the time of fishery and the technologically advanced fish finding equipment, vessels are able to confidently fish on ‘good marks’, which greatly increase the likelihood of getting clean hauls with no species mixing. » The vessels covered in this assessment do not have any on board sorting equipment so high grading and discarding is not possible – unless the haul is ‘slipped’ (i.e. the cod end untied before the fish are pumped ashore). Slippage could be triggered by a catch of undersize fish or by the wrong species mix. The report describes a rationale why slippage is thought to be negligible – a conclusion supported by expert consultation, including evidence from observer coverage. » In the past there has been a good level of observer coverage seeking to quantify the level of interaction with endangered, threatened or protected species. This has shown a negligible level of impact, therefore the fishery is now considered low risk.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 6 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» The fisheries management process and infrastructure are appropriate to the fishery and are able to govern the level of fisheries exploitation in an informed and transparent manner, employing clearly defined decision-making process, which take account of the precautionary principle. » There is an excellent level of enforcement and control in this fishery, and a high level of confidence on the part of the authorities in the degree of compliance of the fleet with the fisheries regulations. » The fishery management is supported by a well-resourced and strong scientific capacity which helps to enable management to make informed decisions. Client weaknesses » Overall, relatively few weaknesses have been identified in the fishery assessment and scores are generally reasonably high. Weaknesses identified at the time of the previous certification have largely been addressed. The principle weaknesses identified in the fishery during the current assessment relate to the international management decisions and justification of decisions over the exploitation of the fishery. These weaknesses are not the same as those identified during the original certification. It is recognized that these are beyond the immediate control of the client. None the less, as these weaknesses meant that one performance indicator in principle 1 was not met at SG 80, the proper application of the MSC methodology requires that these trigger conditions. Conditions & Recommendations » In total, one performance indicator which contributed to the overall assessment score scored less than the unconditional pass mark (SG 80), and therefore triggered a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). Full explanation of this condition is provided in Appendix 1.3 of the report, but in brief, the areas covered by this condition is: » It must also be demonstrated that there are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place. Although there is an agreed harvest control rule in place, contained within the long term management plan, and this has been the basis for management decision making, there are some parameters of the rule which have not been applied as intended. Specifically a restriction of 15% on inter-annual variation was introduced, but this has not been applied at times of rapidly increasing stock biomass. » In addition, the assessment team made a number of recommendations. As these are not the result of a failure to meet the unconditional pass mark, they are non-binding; however in the opinion of the assessment team, they would make a positive contribution to ongoing efforts to ensure the long term sustainability of the fishery. Details of these recommendations are provided in Section 6.3.1 of this report. For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process. FCI Ltd confirm that this fishery is within scope.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 7 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1 Assessment Team
Assessment Team Leader: Tristan Southall Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Tristan Southall is an experienced fisheries assessor who has worked as both principle 2 and 3 as an expert on a number of previous MSC assessments, including the Scottish Pelagic assessments for both herring and mackerel. More recently Tristan led the IPSG Mackerel Assessment and has also been involved in the development and trialing of a new MSC assessment methodology, based on risk analysis, for use in data deficient situations. When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan specialises in fishing and marine industry consultancy, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure and management. This provides him with an informed position which balances the needs of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and wider environment with the practicalities of the industry operation. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Tristan’s professional experience also includes the evaluation of fisheries on sub-sea environments, analysis of fishery and fleet performance, and a wide range of fisheries and aquaculture planning and management studies, all of which seek to combine both socio-economic and environmental perspectives. Tristan has recently coordinated EU fisheries training and promotion activities – covering all aspects of sustainable fisheries management and control.
Expert team member: Paul Medley Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 Dr Paul Medley is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of pelagic stocks (amongst a range of marine fish stocks and ecosystems). He holds a first degree in Biology and Computer Science (1st class honours) from the University of York, and a doctorate from Imperial College, London, based on a thesis “Interaction between Longline and Purse Seine in the South-West Pacific Tuna Fishery”. He has travelled widely and worked with a range of fishery systems and biological stocks, both as principal researcher and as evaluator. He is familiar with MSC assessment procedures, having participated in a significant number of MSC full assessments across a range of fisheries, undertaken a substantial number of pre-assessments and acted as peer reviewer in still others. He is familiar with a wide range of fisheries in the North East Atlantic and other parts of the world, and over the period 2000 to 2005 he has been serving with the Centre for Independent Experts, University of Miami, as an evaluator of various US fishery research programmes. He has been working with the MSC on the development of guidelines for certification of small scale, data poor fisheries. He is based in York (UK).
Expert team member: Nick Pfeiffer Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Nick Pfeiffer is a fisheries and marine environmental specialist with a diverse experience and in-depth knowledge of marine fisheries. Nick’s experience as a fishery scientist spans 15 years and includes the development of fisheries technical conservation measures for commercial fisheries as well as the evaluation of the impacts of a variety of fishing methods on marine ecosystems. Nick is based in the west of Ireland where he is a founding director of the environmental and ecological services company MERC Consultants. As a marine ecologist and aquatic resource specialist with a particular interest in interactions between nature and both aquaculture and capture fisheries Nick provides a range of aquatic environmental and ecological services
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 8 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
mainly in support of aquatic nature conservation, fisheries and aquaculture and marine renewable energy. Nick heads up aquaculture and capture fisheries related aspects of MERC’s work while also contributing to other projects such as aquatic habitat mapping, benthic faunal studies and survey work in connection with appropriate assessments for fisheries and aquaculture in Natura 2000 sites. Nick’s academic background includes undergraduate studies in aquaculture and marine science at the University of Plymouth, while he also conducted postgraduate research in fisheries at the University of Georgia and at University College Galway. He was employed as a fisheries scientist with the Irish government from 1992 to 1995. Between 1995 and 1997 Nick was manager of the Marine Fisheries Environment Unit at University College Galway.
Expert advisor: Paul Macintyre MSC Chain of Custody and Traceability specialist / Lead Auditor 15 years of management experience within the aquaculture and fish processing sectors. 20 years of experience auditing ISO, HACCP, BRC, GlobalGAP, organic and conventional farming operations within the aquaculture production and fish processing sectors and including MSC Chain of Custody since 2005. ISO 9001 Lead Auditor (QMI 1991); Registered Organic Inspector (DEFRA); Diploma in Advanced Food Hygiene (Queen Margaret University Edinburgh); BRC v5 Food Manufacturing Auditor BRC (London and Manchester); GlobalGAP IFA Trainer (GlobalGAP Cologne) ; RYA Yachtmaster Offshore (RYA Southport) ; Diploma Photography (Photography Institute)
2.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were John Nichols and Stephen Lockwood. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.
2.1.2 RBF Training RBF will not be used for this fishery assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 9 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3. Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought
Food Certification International Ltd confirm that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought for the assessment as defined. Prior to providing a description of the fishery it is important to be clear about the precise extent of potential certification. The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method / gear and practice (= vessel(s) and / or individuals pursuing the fish of that stock)”. This clear definition is useful for both clients and assessors to categorically state what was included in the assessment, and what was not. This is also crucial for any repeat assessment visits, or if any additional vessels are wishing to join the certificate at a later date. The unit of certification for the fishery under consideration is as set out below. The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as:
Species: Herring (Clupea harengus) Stock: Autumn spawning stock in North Sea and Eastern Channel Geographical area: ICES divisions IV and VIId Harvest method: Mid water trawl with cod-end mesh size greater than 32mm Client Group: SPSG vessels targetting autumn spawning herring in ICES divisions IV and VIId using mid water trawl
Please note that whilst the Unit of Certification details the full extent of what is being assessed, it is the full and complete Public Certification Report that precisely defines the exact nature of certification for this fishery. This Unit of Certification was used as it is compliant with client wishes for assessment coverage and in full conformity with MSC criteria for setting the Unit of Certification.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 10 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.2 Overview of the fishery
3.2.1 Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) Fishery Ownership & Organisational Structure The client for this certification is the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd (SPSG), a grouping of Scottish pelagic fishing, processing and trading interests. The group was established specifically to oversee the certification of pelagic fisheries (initially North Sea herring and Western Mackerel, more recently Atlanto-scandian herring and West of Scotland herring). The members of the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group represent the whole industry, both catching and processing and encompass the whole Scottish pelagic fleet: » Scottish Pelagic Processors Association » Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd » Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association Limited » Shetland Catch Ltd » Shetland Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd In addition the SPSG encompasses all of the UK's RSW pelagic tank vessels. The post of secretary and the secretariat role is provided by the member organisation, the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association (SPFA). Seafood Scotland provides support and advice to the board of directors of SPSG. The Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) was established in 2007 for the specific purpose of commissioning and supporting the assessment of its fisheries to the MSC standard. Further details about the SPSG are available at http://www.scottishpelagicsg.org. All vessels that are covered by this assessment are members of the SPSG and conform to its guidelines and policies (further details of these policies are provided in Appendix 6). History of the Fishery & Management The herring fishery in the North East Atlantic and North Sea has a long tradition, stretching back many centuries. The arrival of the railways in the 19th Century heralded a rapid expansion of herring fishing enabling fishermen and agents to deliver their catches to markets much more quickly and expand into continental markets where herring was seen as a delicacy. The Scottish fleet would follow the herring, off the Scottish East coast during winter and spring, off the North coast and Shetland during the summer and, off the coast of East Anglia in autumn. Due to the fatty nature of herring, it had to be cured quickly to prevent it spoiling. So as the fleet followed the shoals, so an army of skilled curers, merchants, and the ‘herring lasses’ followed the fleet from port to port becoming a regular annual feature of ports such as Stornoway, North Shields, Whitby and Great Yarmouth. As the 19th and early 20th century progressed, the numbers of vessels continued to grow until the Scottish fishing industry became the largest in Europe. The peak of the herring fishery is often seen as being prior to World War I. However, as an indication of the on-going historical importance with respect to Scotland it is notable that within ten months of the formation of the Scottish Herring Producers’ Association on 9 February 1932, the Association had no fewer than 3,128 individual members grouped in 13 branches based in ports from East Fife northwards to Lerwick, across the north coast of Scotland and west as far as Stornoway. During the course of the 20th century the continued expansion and increasing industrialisation of the fleet eventually led to a decline in stock status in the 1960s and early 70s leading to the eventual collapse and closure of the North Sea herring fishery. Although the stock was able to recover,
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 11 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
renewed excessive fishing pressure once again led to the decline of the stock and TACs were halved in 1996, bringing into sharp focus the need for good management and responsible exploitation. Since then the stock has had a generally upward trajectory, and management has been able to more effectively restrict landings to prevent a further collapse. Fig 3.1 - Historical fishing levels (landings) in the North Sea herring Fishery (1947 – 2011)
Source: ICES 2012b Today the Scottish pelagic fleet has undergone considerable consolidation and technical developments resulting in a comparatively small fleet (certainly in a historical context) of large, highly specialized, state of the art Refrigerated Sea Water (RSW) fishing vessels. Although these vessels are almost unrecognisable from their drift netting predecessors of the last century, many still bear the same names and license numbers, are based in the same home ports and are crewed by the same families. Some key milestones in the evolution of management of the North Sea Herring fishery are noted below: » 1947 – catch data and sampling begun to inform initial assessments – this same data is still incorporated into the historical time series used in today’s stock assessments. » 1957 - Treaty of Rome, which created the European Communities (now EU), declares there should be a common agricultural policy that defined agriculture as including fisheries. » 1976 EU extends fishing waters from 12 miles to 200 miles – now encompassing the whole of the North Sea. At this same time the Common Fisheries Policy was created. » 1977 – North Sea Herring fishery closed » 1981 – North Sea Herring fishery re-opens alongside a system of total allowable catches (TACs) and species specific minimum mesh sizes. » 1983 – An explicit EU Common Fisheries Policy is formulated and ratified. » 1996 – 50% emergency cut in North Sea herring TAC in attempt to prevent a further closure of the fishery. » 1998 – Management agreement reached between EU and Norway to ensure a rationale exploitation pattern and provide stable and high yields. » 2003 - A revised CFP was introduced with increased emphasis on long term management plans, tackling fleet overcapacity, more robust and consistent monitoring, control & surveillance, greater stakeholder (fishermen) engagement in the management decision making process. All of these have had some subsequent influence on the shape of the North Sea herring fishery. » 2008 – EU Norway Management Plan for North Sea Herring revised.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 12 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Area Under Evaluation The fishery takes place entirely within EU waters within the ICES divisions ICES area IV (North Sea), mainly in divisions IVa and IVb. The diagram below (Fig.3.2) shows the extent of these ICES areas. Fig. 3.2 - Extent of ICES area
Source: ICES
From an ecosystem point of view, this area is still classified as the North Sea region by ICES. 3.2.2 Species and Fishing Practice Species The target species for the fishery under certification is Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). As indicated initially, this report does not intend to provide a scientifically comprehensive description of the species. Interested readers should refer to sources that have been useful in compiling the following summary description of the species. These include: » Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=24&AT=herring » ICES: Herring Assessment Working Group (stock Annex) (ICES 2012b) » ICES Fishmap: http://www.ices.dk/ » FAO Species Factsheet: http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2886/en Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) is a pelagic species, with stocks widely distributed throughout the north-east Atlantic, ranging from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the English Channel in the south. Young herring are typically found close inshore, in estuaries or in sea lochs, whilst adult shoals generally occur further offshore. Herring often travel huge distances between spawning, nursery and feeding grounds – a significant factor when considering the management of the fishery. During daytime, herring shoals remain close to the sea bottom or in deep water – though this is not so in all cases. At dusk they move toward the surface and disperse over a wide area. The herring is a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 13 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
very tender and fragile fish with large and delicate gill surfaces and scales. It has a low level of pollution tolerance and it has retreated from many heavily impacted estuaries worldwide. It is this characteristic that enables herring to serve as a bio-indicator of cleaner and more oxygenated waters. Fig 3.3 - General dynamics of the North Sea herring stocks
Source: CEFAS Herring are demersal spawners. Shoals of herring gather on the spawning grounds and spawn more or less simultaneously - releasing eggs in a single batch. Eggs are laid on the sea bed, on stones, gravel or sand beds. A female herring may deposit from 20,000 up to 120,000 eggs, depending on age and size. The eggs sink to the bottom, where a mucous coat enables them to form layers or clumps. Incubation time varies between 10 to 40 days depending on temperature. The larvae are between 5 and 6mm at the time of hatching, and early nutrition is provided by a small yolk sac. Only the eyes are well pigmented and the rest of the body is semi-transparent - virtually invisible underwater. The newly hatched larvae drift with oceanic currents. By the age of one-year, herring have a typical length of 10cm, and first spawning occurs at 3 years old. Adult herring have been reported as old as 20 years, but this is very uncommon. Clupea harengus play an important role in the food chain, consuming zooplankton (copepods, larval snails, diatoms, mysids, euphausiids etc.) and juvenile sandeels. There are no marked differences between the diets of small and large herring; only the proportions of the different food items change with size. Young herring typically capture prey individually, but where prey concentrations reach very high levels, such as micro-layers that occur at fronts, herring are able to swim forwards with open mouth and expanded opercula. Herring stocks can be categorised by their different spawning areas and times. Some different stocks are known to mix together for parts of the year but during the spawning season they migrate to their separate spawning areas. Although herring can be found spawning in almost any month, around Scotland the majority spawn in the autumn, between August and October. There has been a reasonable understanding about the discrete locations of many of the North Sea spawning grounds for much of the 20th century. This has triggered widespread debate and research into the degree of separation in stock identities, and thus to determine if distinct stocks or races exist. This research, more recently coordinated by ICES, has been vital in determining management strategies for the North Sea. The work concluded that there are three main herring stocks in the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 14 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
North Sea, with distinct spawning grounds, migration routes and nursery grounds. The three stocks are illustrated in Fig 3.3: » Buchan Herring: Spawn July–September off Orkney, Shetland and Scottish east coast, with nursery grounds in the Skagerrak, Kattegat and Scottish east coast. » Banks Herring: Spawn August–September off English east coast and historically on Dogger Bank, nursery grounds on the English east coast and west coast of Denmark. » Downs Herring: Spawn December–February in Southern Bight of the North Sea and Eastern English Channel. Fishing Practices The fleet included within the scope of this certification is the UK pelagic Refrigerated Seawater (RSW) pelagic mid water trawl (single and pair) fleet. Currently there are 27 vessels, fleet details are provided in the table below. These vessels fish out of Fraserburgh, Lerwick and Peterhead. All vessels are members of Producer Organisations (Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation, Shetland PO, Anglo North Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation, Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, Lunar, Klondyke). Table 3.1 - List of member vessels Name Vessel Reg. No. Name Vessel Reg. No.
Challenge FR226 Pathway PD165
Chris Andra FR228 Adenia LK193
Forever Grateful FR249 Altaire LK429
Kings Cross FR380 Antarctic LK145
Krossfjord BF70 Antares LK419
Ocean Quest BF77 Charisma LK362
Ocean Venture FR77 Research LK62
Prowess CY720 Zephyr LK394
Resolute BF50 Quantus PD379
Sunbeam FR487 Christina S FR224
Taits FR227 Serene LK297
Unity FR165 Voyager N905
Lunar Bow PD265 Havilah N200
Stefanie-M N265 Source: client An up to date vessel list can be obtained by contacting FCI using the following details: FCI Fisheries Department Contact Email: [email protected] Contact Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 (FCI main number) The vessels are modern and technologically advanced with on-going investment in state of the art technology and modern electronic equipment such as sonar, net and catch monitors, which have greatly improved the precision of this method of fishing. Pelagic trawls are towed at the appropriate level in the water column to intercept target shoals, with gear depth being controlled by altering
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 15 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
towing speed and/or warp length. The horizontal opening is maintained by mid-water pelagic trawl doors (or by pair trawling) whilst the vertical opening is maintained by chain on the groundline and floats on the headline – although these are not always required – depending on the way the net is rigged. The trawl used by the Scottish pelagic fleet is designed and rigged to fish in midwater, including in the surface water and is therefore not designed to come in contact with the seabed, and any inadvertent contact is extremely rare – and would risk causing expensive damage to the net. The large net (considerably larger than a demersal trawl net) consists of a cone shaped body, ending in a codend with lateral wings extending forward from the opening. Large mesh in the wings herd the fish before tapering to finer meshes in the square, belly and eventually the cod end. Fig. 3.4 – Schematic showing operation of mid-water trawl & image of a typical SPSG RSW Pelagic trawler
Source: Seafish basic fishing methods handbook & www.scottishpelagicsg.org Larger mesh near the start of the net is designed to facilitate the escape of escape of small fish and also pelagic invertebrates such as jellyfish which have the potential to be impacted by pelagic fisheries. Although some Scottish vessels retain the flexibility to use purse seine nets, this gear type has not been considered as part of this assessment and is not therefore included in the unit of certification. Other Resource Attributes and Constraints None.
3.2.3 Administrative Framework User Rights (Legal and Customary Framework) There are no small scale, artisanal or indigenous fisheries affected by this fishery. The Scottish fishing industry has traditionally been open access. Over the years fisheries management and fleet policy have gradually reduced the opportunities for anyone wishing to fish, with restricted licenses and restricted quotas now being a pre-requisite before fishing. Access to these has however been non – discriminatory and market economies have influenced the evolving shape of the industry. Although licenses and quotas are now expensive, those in possession of licenses and quota are most likely to be representatives of families that have fished the same waters for many generations, and have been able to take advantage of the opportunities to remain in the industry. Aside from this, there are no groups given any special access to the fishery, nor is this needed or being called for. Further details on the administrative framework are contained in section 3.5 of this report.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 16 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on the entire North Sea herring stock - not just activity by the vessels undergoing certification. However, the fishery under certification would be expected to meet all management requirements, such as providing appropriate data and complying with controls, therefore demonstrably not adding to problems even if the problems will not cause the certification to fail. In the following section the key factors which are relevant to Principle 1 are outlined. Almost all the information presented here can be found in the scientific advice (ICES 2012a) and the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG) report (ICES 2012b). The ICES web- site (www.ices.dk) is a useful source on all stocks for which they provide advice. In particular, the stock annex (ICES 2012b p.602-651) provides detailed information summarising the available data and the stock assessment approach being applied, and this is a good place to start for those interested in more information on this stock than presented here. It should be noted that the following summary covers on barely the complexities and long research history that has accompanied the fishery on these stocks. 3.3.1 Management Unit The North Sea Autumn spawning herring comprise a complex of at least four separate stocks: the Orkney–Shetland, the Buchan or Scottish group, the Banks or Central North Sea group and the Downs group, which spawns in the southern North Sea and the eastern English Channel. These stock units may mix and can be caught together as juveniles and adults. They have not been fully separated in the commercial catches, so the North Sea autumn spawning herring has to be managed as a single unit, although some separation can be achieved by area specific controls. The management area comprises ICES Divisions IVa, b, c and VIId. Stock assessment and management is complicated by the fact that four separate fisheries exploit North Sea autumn spawning herring. Only two of these fisheries are in the North Sea; the others are in ICES Division IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat). Mariani et al (2005) suggest that the current view of North Sea herring as a unit-stock is adequate, but also that there is a considerable degree of demographic independence of the herring populations in the English Channel. Despite major recent population collapses, genetic data indicated no evidence of bottlenecks affecting the genetic diversity of extant North Sea herring populations (Mariani et al. 2005). Prior to the second serious decline, in the 1990s, the only limitation on the by-catch of herring (mainly taken in the sprat fishery in the eastern North Sea) was a 10% by-catch limit. This resulted in some heavy mortality on juvenile herring which fluctuated with the size of the sprat fishery. The mortality on juvenile herring was not properly brought under control until the introduction of the by-catch limit in 1994 and some subsequent strong enforcement measures by Denmark. The Downs stock in the southern North Sea and English Channel has always been considered to be a separate management unit within the North Sea because the population in this area is clearly separated from the other components for most of the year (). Historically this component has always been subjected to a higher fishing mortality than the rest of the North Sea and is seen to develop independently of the other two stock units. As a consequence advice is now given separately for this
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 17 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
stock in order to give it special protection in the form of a separately allocated sub-TAC within the overall North Sea TAC. The four fisheries defined for the purposes of stock assessment are: A. Directed fisheries for herring with purse seiners and trawlers (with 32mm minimum mesh size) in the North Sea. (By-catches of herring in industrial fisheries by Norway are included). B. Herring taken as a by-catch in the small mesh fisheries in the North Sea (with mesh size less than 32mm). C. Directed fisheries in the Skagerrak and Kattegat with purse seiners and trawlers (with a 32mm minimum mesh size). D. By-catches of herring caught in the small mesh fisheries (with mesh size less than 32mm) in the Skagerrak and Kattegat. The fishery to be certified belongs to Fleet A. Each fleet is subjected to the same system of monitoring and sampling, which should give a complete picture of the catch composition. All the landings, including estimates of their discards, are used in the assessment process. It should be noted that the TAC constraint, which has been operating since 1981, is only applied to Fleet A - the North Sea directed fisheries. Other fishing mortality is controlled through bycatch limits and avoidance measures. 3.3.2 State of the Stock The stock size is well above the target biomass and fishing mortality well below that required for long term maximum sustainable yield (Fig. 3.5 and 3.6; Table 3.2). Table 3.2 - Stock status in terms of spawning stock biomass (SSB) and fishing mortality (F) with respect to reference points (ICES 2012a). 2011 (95% CI) Limit Target SSB/F as % of Trigger/Target SSB (‘000 t) 1963 - 2796 800 1500 156%
F2-6 (year-1) 0.074 - 0.118 N/A 0.25 37%
F0-1 (year-1) 0.026 N/A 0.05 52%
Fig. 3.5 - Estimated spawning stock biomass from the 2012 stock assessment for herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners), with the best estimate and 95% confidence intervals
Source - from ICES 2012a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 18 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Figure 3.6 - Estimated fishing mortality from the 2012 stock assessment for herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners), with the best estimate and 95% confidence intervals
Source - from ICES 2012a
3.3.3 Harvest Strategy The fishery is managed jointly between the European Union and Norway under a bilateral agreement. The harvest strategy’s main objective is to maintain the spawning stock size at the most productive levels, while allowing maximum sustained catches. This has the same intent as applying maximum sustainable yield, although the SSB at MSY remains undefined. Instead, the harvest control rule is designed to drive the SSB above the trigger level, which therefore is in effect a target region rather than point. It is believed that stock sizes above the trigger level should have the maximum productive potential. To apply the harvest control rule (management plan), the current fishing mortality and stock size is estimated, together with short term projections of the stock size under different fishing mortalities. The fishing mortality determines the Total Allowable Catch (TAC), which can be set in the following year. The TAC is the main management control. The harvest strategy also aims to reduce mortality on immature 0-1 year olds, and to protect each of the four spawning components. Maintenance of the full reproductive potential of each spawning component and the spatial diversity of the North Sea autumn spawners is an important objective of the harvest strategy, since this should provide increased resilience of the overall stock to both anthropogenic and non- anthropogenic effects. The spawning components are monitored by the larval and acoustic surveys, so fairly accurate estimates of overall and component abundance are available. Increased protection for the Down’s component through a sub-TAC allocation to ICES areas IVc and VIId has resulted in a recovery of this part of the stock. However, the spawning components are not explicitly addressed in the current harvest control rule, although fishing pattern and spawning stock sizes are monitored. Annual stock assessments provide estimates of fishing mortality and SSB, as well as reviews of the data and other issues requiring scientific advice. Importantly, the stock assessment and scientific advice will evaluate the management performance and the harvest strategy itself. The process is transparent in that the scientific evaluation and management actions are published on the internet in a timely manner each year and are available to anybody. ICES still considers the stock to be in a low productivity phase as the survival ratio between newly hatched larvae and recruits remains much lower than prior to 2001 (Payne et al., 2009; ICES 2012b). The harvest control rule has proven an effective tool in maintaining sustainable exploitation and conserving the North Sea herring stock during this lower productivity regime.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 19 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The EU–Norway agreement calls for a review of the current management plan no later than December 2011. This was however not achieved and ICES has indicated that a full evaluation has become more urgent with the changes in the stock assessment. Recent regulations have been introduced to constrain discarding and slippage of catch in EU waters. High grading is illegal, but it is legal to slip or discard catch if landing contravenes regulations such as minimum size or quota allowances. Discarding has been illegal in Norwegian waters for many years and the requirements for the reporting of slippage are currently under review. Slippage events should be counted against any vessel quota in Norway, although it would seem unlikely this could be achieved without 100% observer coverage. Independent review of ICES herring assessments has included the comment that ICES assessment scientists and others involved in implementing the harvest strategy have not being given enough direction from managers about fishery objectives to design the harvest strategy. Decision-making, particularly defining reference points, involves trade-offs between potentially competing fishery objectives (e.g. depletion risk vs. average yield), which cannot be wholly scientifically based. As a result, the harvest strategy has been developed over time in response to general performance and perceived problems, rather than through a more designed approach. As well as the stock, the scientific advice always indicates the importance of gravel substrate as part of its essential fish habitat. Herring spawning and nursery areas are sensitive and vulnerable to anthropogenic influences, and they point out that extraction of marine aggregates and other activities, such as construction, that have an impact on the seabed may be expected to reduce herring spawning. As a result of this advice, impacts on this habitat have so far been minimal. 3.3.4 Reference Points and Harvest Control Rule The harvest control rule is defined as the management plan, which was agreed by EU and Norway in 2008. ICES has evaluated this management plan and concluded that the plan is consistent with the precautionary approach. However, ICES has indicated that a full revision of the existing management plan is needed, primarily because the recent benchmark assessment has changed the perception of the stock dynamics and indicated that the stock is most likely in a better state than previously thought. Since the harvest control rule was agreed (see Box 1; Table 3.3; Figure 3.4), the basic formulation (Para. 2-3) has been overridden. In the first place to ensure that the TAC fell quickly enough when the stock recruitments were unexpectedly low over a number of succeeding years (leading to the addition of Para. 6), and more recently where the stock has recovered and TAC has increased slowly, so that the current fishing mortality has remained well below the target. This suggests that Para. 5, which attempts to enforce a limit on the inter-annual variation in the TAC, has conflicted with other elements of the plan. Biomass reference points are not defined based on MSY. However, they clearly have the same intent and, incorporated into the harvest control rule, should have the same outcome. ICES considers that the management plan is consistent with the MSY approach as required by EU policy. Herring (Clupeidae) is listed as a potential low trophic species (see Box CB1 of the MSC Certification Requirements Annex v1.2) unless evidence is available otherwise. Its abundance and importance in the North Sea ecosystem and ecosystem assessment do not provide evidence to the contrary. The working group (HAWG) has concluded that it is highly likely that the North Sea requires a certain threshold of herring biomass, but this is currently not defined. However, measures of connectance and proportion of consumer biomass suggests that it is not a key low trophic species as defined in the MSC requirements and guidance (MSC Certification Requirements Guidance V1.3; Essington and Pláganyi 2013), as it does not meet any of the sub-criteria (CB2.3.13).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 20 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Simple calculations (Table 3.4) suggest that the current target fishing mortality would divert around 40% of the biomass that would otherwise be available to the ecosystem to anthropogenic use. Whether this is acceptable would need ICES to consider the impact on other components of the ecosystem. Furthermore, herring is considered an important predator and competitor as well as prey, which may make it difficult to reach consensus on precautionary target reference points. It is hypothesized that if herring biomass is very low, other species, such as sandeel, may replace its ecosystem function (for example, the shift from herring to sandeel as prey for seals along the English coast in the 1970s, resulted from the collapse of the herring stock; ICES 2012b). It is also possible that the system may shift in a more dramatic way. Herring interact with cod and Norway pout population dynamics and it has been suggested that the current biomass of herring may prevent the recovery of the cod population even if fishing mortality on cod is reduced. Large populations of predator fish like saithe, cod and whiting, but also to some degree large cetacean or seal populations, will also impact the herring biomass. However, with current ecosystem models it is difficult to test the impact of increasing or reducing the herring biomass on the ecosystem functioning as a whole. Table 3.3 - The 2008 harvest control rule for setting the TAC for the adult fishery (A-fleet, ages 2–6) on herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId. The fishing mortality is used to define the TAC as the approximate proportion of the number of herring which can be caught for different levels of spawning stock biomass. F0-1 = 0.05 SSB is greater than the SSBMP upper trigger of 1.5 million t
F2–6 = 0.25 (based on simulations).
F0-1 = 0.05 SSB is between the SSBMP triggers of 0.8 and 1.5 million t F2–6 = 0.25 – (0.15*(1500000-SSB)/700000) (based on simulations).
F0-1 = 0.04 SSB is less than the SSBMP lower trigger of 0.8 million t (based
F2–6 = 0.10 on simulations). Source: ICES 2012b Table 3.4 - Simple calculation table of values reported in ICES (2012b) for calculating survival and the biomass-at-age attributed to natural mortality (M-biomass) with and without the target fishing mortality being applied. Based on these values, the proportion of M-biomass without the fishing mortality compared to that with fishing mortality was approximately 0.60. This indicates that the target fishing mortality would allow 60% of unexploited biomass used for “ecosystem functions”, and therefore that low trophic level of herring has been addressed to some extent. A full consideration of this issue would be likely to use the North Sea stochastic multispecies model (SMS).
Mean Weight Without F With F Without F With F Age M F (kg) Survival Survival M-Biomass M-Biomass 0 0.962 0.05 0.0069 0.3823 0.3636 0.0043 0.0042 1 0.650 0.05 0.0477 0.1995 0.1806 0.0087 0.0081 2 0.366 0.25 0.1438 0.1383 0.0975 0.0088 0.0071 3 0.346 0.25 0.1889 0.0979 0.0537 0.0076 0.0048 4 0.339 0.25 0.2207 0.0698 0.0298 0.0062 0.0030 5 0.319 0.25 0.2315 0.0507 0.0169 0.0044 0.0017 6 0.312 0.25 0.2389 0.0371 0.0096 0.0033 0.0010 7+ 0.305 0.25 0.2454 0.0000 0.0000 0.0091 0.0013
Source: ICES 2012b
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 21 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Fig. 3.7 – The harvest control rule for the adult fishery (A-fleet, ages 2–6) on herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners) and the performance of the fishery based on past biomass and fishing mortality estimates. The rule consists of trigger biomass points at which fishing mortality is adjusted with the objective that the stock remains above the trigger (green dotted line). The black dots represent estimated fishing mortalities and SSB from 2002 until 2011. Fishing mortality in 2012 (red dot) is estimated from the short-term prediction, based on the agreed TACs for the A-fleet.
Source - from ICES 2012a, Fig. 6.4.16.6
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 22 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Box 1 - Agreed Management Plan for North Sea herring According to the EU–Norway agreement (November 2008): The Parties agreed to continue to implement the management system for North Sea herring, which entered into force on 1 January 1998 and which is consistent with a precautionary approach and designed to ensure a rational exploitation pattern and provide for stable and high yields. This system consists of the following 1. Every effort shall be made to maintain a minimum level of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) greater than 800,000 tonnes (Blim). 2. Where the SSB is estimated to be above 1.5 million tonnes the Parties agree to set quotas for the directed fishery and for bycatches in other fisheries, reflecting a fishing mortality rate of no more than 0.25 for 2 ringers and older and no more than 0.05 for 0 - 1 ringers. 3. Where the SSB is estimated to be below 1.5 million tonnes but above 800,000 tonnes, the Parties agree to set quotas for the direct fishery and for bycatches in other fisheries, reflecting a fishing mortality rate on 2 ringers and older equal to: 0.25-(0.15*(1,500,000-SSB)/700,000) for 2 ringers and older, and no more than 0.05 for 0 - 1 ringers 4. Where the SSB is estimated to be below 800,000 tonnes the Parties agree to set quotas for the directed fishery and for bycatches in other fisheries, reflecting a fishing mortality rate of less than 0.1 for 2 ringers and older and of less than 0.04 for 0-1 ringers. 5. Where the rules in paragraphs 2 and 3 would lead to a TAC which deviates by more than 15 % from the TAC of the preceding year the parties shall fix a TAC that is no more than 15 % greater or 15 % less than the TAC of the preceding year. 6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5 the Parties may, where considered appropriate, reduce the TAC by more than 15 % compared to the TAC of the preceding year. 7. Bycatches of herring may only be landed in ports where adequate sampling schemes to effectively monitor the landings have been set up. All catches landed shall be deducted from the respective quotas set, and the fisheries shall be stopped immediately in the event that the quotas are exhausted. 8. The allocation of the TAC for the directed fishery for herring shall be 29 % to Norway and 71 % to the Community. The bycatch quota for herring shall be allocated to the Community. 9. A review of this arrangement shall take place no later than 31 December 2011. 10. This arrangement enters into force on 1 January 2009.
3.3.5 Fishery Data Data used in the stock assessment primarily consist of commercial catches and abundance indices and the biological sampling of these to get age, length, weight and maturity compositions. Catches are thought to be generally well recorded in this fishery in recent years. The indications are that large-scale discarding is not wide-spread in the directed North Sea herring fishery. A number of observer surveys have been conducted on Scottish, Dutch and Norwegian pelagic trawlers. The overall discard rate was less than 5% of the landed catch. It is likely that there are different discard rates between the specific fishing types. RSW vessels (the client in this case) do not have an opportunity to discard from deck since fish are pumped directly from the net into the hold. The catch may still be slipped however. Commercial catch data are reported by vessels to the responsible flag-state in most cases using electronic log-books. Herring are sampled for age, sex, maturity, length and weight as well as stock allocation from the landings. These data are then compiled by the national laboratories of nations exploiting herring in the North Sea and reported to ICES for the purposes of stock assessment. In strata where sampling is absent, a document system is applied to “borrow” information from other strata based on expert knowledge. A new system, InterCatch, for managing the data is in use, but does not yet fill all the needs of the stock assessment. The required level of sampling for the North Sea is 50 fish for size-based and 25 age-based measurements per 1000t of fish, although there are some allowable exceptions to this. A thorough examination of the precision of the international market sampling for North Sea herring in 2001
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 23 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
concluded that the fishery was well sampled. Specifically, estimates of catch-at-age from the combined international sampling programme for North Sea herring were precise and the contribution of this variability to the overall precision of the assessment at the time was relatively small and acceptable. Important errors in the assessment due to data limitations, such as modelling growth-dependent maturity in the projections, have been identified if not yet solved. There is disagreement about the amount of slippage compared to discarding by the differing fleets. Slippage consists of fish released from the nets whilst still in the water, whereas discarding consists of fish dumped back into the sea after having been brought on deck. Slippage is still very likely to result in the mortality of the fish caught. The strength of year classes influences discarding behaviour, particularly of undersized fish. The influence of strong herring year classes was apparent in the composition of discards with smaller, younger fish accounting for a high proportion of the fish discarded in 2001. Since the mid-2000s the stronger recruitment of mackerel has probably led to an increase in discarding due to mixed hauls of herring and mackerel. Abundance indices are provided through fishery independent scientific surveys. All surveys include biological sampling to get age and length compositions. Commercial catch-per-unit-effort data are not used. Acoustic surveys are used to estimate biomass. The ICES Coordinated acoustic surveys provides an index used in assessments extending back to 1989. By carrying out the co-ordinated survey at the same time from the Kattegat to Donegal, all herring in these areas are covered simultaneously, reducing uncertainly due to area boundaries as well as providing input indices to three distinct stocks. The surveys are co-ordinated under ICES Working Group for International Pelagic Surveys (WGIPS). The annual International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) started in 1966 to provide recruitment indices not only for herring, but for roundfish species as well. The survey has been considered fully standardised from 1983 onwards. The IBTS data are not used to track 2-5+ ringers because the data does not consistently track cohorts, suggesting a lack of precision as an abundance index of adults. The index for 0 and 1 ringer herring is thought to be a valid index and is used in the assessment to monitor recruitment. Surveys of larval herring started around 1880, and available scientific data goes back to the middle of the 20th century. However, the International Herring Larvae Surveys in the North Sea and adjacent waters (IHLS) started in 1967, and from 1972 onwards all relevant data are maintained in a data base (ICES PGIPS). The surveys are carried out annually to map larval distribution and abundance. Larval abundance estimates derived from these surveys are used as relative indicators of the herring spawning biomass in the assessment. For the spring spawning herrings (typically inshore stocks such as the Thames, and Wash herring), biological sampling can be used to separate the catches. For the autumn spawning stock, the sub- unit allocation is only based on the ICES area division and the commercial catches cannot be separated out. Of the latter, the most vulnerable is the Downs component. An index of the Downs and the other components’ abundance is available from the abundance surveys (ICES 2012b Fig 2.3.2.1-4). The annual international herring larval survey (IHLS) provides estimates of the individual spawning components since the early 1970s, so each component can be monitored independently. Catches from the stock components can be separated based on the number of vertebrae and since 2001 on otolith microstructure, which uses visual inspection of season-specific daily increment pattern from the larval origin of the otolith. The methodology to separate samples is undergoing further development.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 24 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The productivity of the spawning components varies, most likely influenced by different environmental drivers. Although the different components mix outside their spawning season and are exploited together, they are expected to have relatively independent population dynamics. Of the spawning components, the Downs component has the most different dynamics, and is therefore the main candidate for a separate stock assessment. However, because of the data limitations, it is not clear that a separate assessment would reduce uncertainty. The HAWG has proposed trials of separate assessments. There is now also some basis for the natural mortality used in the assessment. Natural mortality is applied as a time and age variant estimated by a North Sea multispecies model. The workshop felt that the underpinning science of the multispecies model was strong enough to provide robust information. This has been incorporated into the North Sea herring assessment to address variability in the ecosystem and account for changes in the impact of predators such as cod. 3.3.6 Stock Assessment ICES (2012c) describes the development of the new stock assessment model used for North Sea autumn spawners in the 2012 benchmark assessment. The assessment was carried out using FLSAM which is a state-space stock assessment model implemented in the statistical software R (http://cran.r-project.org/ ). The state-space model describes the population size as a probability rather than fixed number, which more accurately represents the information on the stock with some increase in complexity of the modelling. The basic population dynamics model remains the same as the previous stock assessment (ICA). However, the model now allows the introduction of random effects within the cohort and on fishing mortality, which can help smooth changes towards more realistic estimates. In contrast to previous stock assessments, the probability for the stock size is modelled explicitly and reported as part of the management advice (ICES 2012a). However, it should be noted that the software is not yet well documented and information available to assess it fully was lacking at the time of this assessment. The absolute values of SSB compared to the estimates of 2011 have changed mainly due to differences in the estimated selection of the fishery and natural mortality. These changes have been introduced through the benchmark assessment and are thought to be better indicators of absolute abundance.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 25 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
Principle 2 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. 3.4.1 Retained catch Like many northeast Atlantic herring fisheries, the SPSG fishery for North Sea herring targets aggregations of herring that tend to be quite homogenous resulting in characteristically clean catches. Official landings data was made available to the assessment team by Marine Scotland Compliance and this has allowed for an analysis of landings of all species of fish that were landed by SPSG member vessels while they also landed North Sea herring, for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. The data reveal that catches are comprised mainly of herring (upwards of 80%) while quantities of mackerel Scomber scomber may also be taken - amounting to between 5 and 15% of landings weight (Table 3.5). The list of other species captured along with herring frequently includes pouting, whiting and saithe. Small quantities of sprat and squid have also been landed from time to time. According to MSC assessment criteria, the only ‘main’ retained species is mackerel.
Table 3.5 - Aggregated landings by species for SPSG vessels when landing North Sea herring, 2009-2011 Retained catch 2009 2010 2011 t % t % t % Herring 17,811 81.10 18,179 89.06 22,375 82.23 Horse Mackerel 0 0.00 0 0.00 602 2.21 Mackerel 3,236 14.73 940 4.60 3,235 11.89 Other or mixed Demersal 157 0.72 484 2.30 241 0 Pouting (Bib) 757 2.97 344 1.34 0 0 Source: Marine Scotland Because of the tendency of herring to move in shoals and to form dense aggregations, vessels are able to utilise sophisticated electronics to aid in identification of suitable shoals prior to deploying fishing gear. This assures a degree of control over the resulting catch and it is rare for vessels to end up with catches that have a significant proportion of unmarketable or undersize fish mixed in with the catch. All catches must be recorded in log books and there is a high degree of inspection of vessels when landing in port. There are also mechanisms whereby landings declarations by vessels can be cross checked by compliance personnel. Sales notes can be cross referenced with landings declarations, while there is full traceability in processing units and factory outputs can be cross referenced to declared inputs by vessels. In addition to herring quotas, the vessels involved in the fishery all have quota entitlement for mackerel and horse mackerel and additional quota can be obtained through conducting quota swaps should there be a shortage of quota in order to legally record landings of other species. There are no retained catches of species that are considered depleted or have poor stock status or which are vulnerable. Mackerel is subject to a long term management plan and the stock is known to be above limit and precautionary reference points. While mackerel has been certified under MSC, the certification is suspended at present due to on-going catches in excess of the agreed TAC by the Faroe Islands and Iceland.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 26 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Overall, the SPSG North Sea pelagic trawl herring fishery is considered to be generally clean, with limited quantities of mackerel being the only routinely retained catch. All landings are reported by species and there is effective monitoring, control and surveillance. The management response is considered effective and appropriate to the nature and scale of the retained catch component. There is accurate and on-going collection of information in relation to levels of retained catch and there is effective management of retained stocks. There are mechanisms whereby vessels can obtain additional quota in order to legally land all retained catch. 3.4.2 Bycatch species There is no bycatch in the SPSG North Sea herring fishery. All catches are retained and landed. There are no mechanisms or installations on board vessels which would facilitate size or species grading and the bulk nature of the fishery means that all catches are handled using automated pumping techniques. As such, the time that would be needed in order to grade catches and discard unwanted fish would slow down the process of taking fish on-board, resulting in damage and significant loss of quality. Catches are pumped directly into RSW tanks and there is no further handling of catches until they are landed in port. Concerns exist in relation to the possibility of slippage (whereby entire catches may be dumped at sea) in some European pelagic fisheries. However, there are few economic incentives for slipping fish in this fishery. While it is thought that this most likely does occur, indications are that it is a very infrequent event and is more likely to result from technical problems with machinery and on-board equipment than for any other reason. Vessels occasionally make very large catches, however in general vessels will have sufficient capacity to hold 500 or more tonnes of fish. In the event of catches above capacity being made vessels will co-ordinate with other fishing boats in order to have excess catch landed by them. There are few incentives for slipping herring – catches can be graded at factory and vessels normally have sufficient quota held back in order to accommodate bycatch of mackerel. There is no price advantage for larger herring unlike some other pelagic fisheries including mackerel. Slipping of catches in the North Sea is illegal under European legislation and the ban extends into the eastern English Channel. The SPSG operates a sustainability policy which clearly refers to eliminating slippage in pelagic fleets and vessels have operated on-board recording systems in which slippage is recorded. Inspection of logs during the site visit did not indicate any slippage by SPSG vessels. Despite the low level of discarding through slippage that is believed to occur in the North Sea herring fisheries, there remains some uncertainty as to the precise level of slippage of North Sea herring. From the point of view of scientific assessment of stocks, a figure of 5% appears to be the estimate that is used as working figure for unaccounted fishing mortality. The SPSG fleet are encouraged to record slippage event son an on-going basis and to provide data to the scientific community in order to reduce uncertainty in the future. Occasional mortality of seabirds is likely in the fishery, as many birds will feed in and around the fishing gear once it is on the surface. Capture of seabirds occurs through enmeshing of diving birds and it is unintended bycatch. All available studies, observer reports and information point to this being a minor problem and instances of seabird mortality are very low. Overall, the management response to the bycatch issue in the herring fishery is considered appropriate to the species involved and the scale of the issue. There is sufficient on-going data collection to identify increased risks of bycatch in the fishery and current fishery management arrangements facilitate introduction of new in response to new and changing circumstances.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 27 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.4.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected species interactions (ETP) There is a reasonably extensive suite of legislation that is relevant to protecting populations of endangered, threatened and protected species. EU Directives including the Habitats and ‘Birds’ Directives as well as UK national legislation such as the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1998) and the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 identify a variety of animals that are subject to specific legislation to prevent their deliberate capture or killing. The UK is also a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). During the assessment, the team has reviewed all relevant international, EU and national legislation in order to identify those species which are considered as ETP. The North Sea herring fishery is conducted within the North Sea eco-region, where a range of ETP species (as defined by the MSC CR v1.2 Jan 2012) are known to occur (Table 3.6), including relevant determining convention/legislation etc.). While this is not an exhaustive list of all species that may be endangered, threatened or protected within the North Sea and eastern Channel, it is in accordance with the requirements of the definition of ETP species as per the MSC CR. Table 3.6 - ETP species known to occur within the North Sea NORTH SEA ETP SPECIES UK signatory UK transposed into national legislation Council Directive EU Council Reg Convention or legislative instrument CITES 92/43/EEC 57/2011 Habitats Directive SPECIES Appendix II Appendix II Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Harbour Seal Phoca vitulina Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus Angel shark Squatina squatina Common Skate Dipturus batis Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Spurdog Squalus acanthias Allis Shad Alosa alosa Sturgeon Acipenser sturio Priority species Source: assessment team Harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin are also listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive, requiring the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) to protect a representative range of their habitats. A regularly updated review of the current status on candidate SACs and SACs off the Scottish coast is provided by the JNCC at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk. In relation to this fishery, whereby its impact on small cetaceans and grey and harbour seals has been considered, there are a number of cSAC‘s along the Scottish coast (e.g. Trishnish Islands for Grey Seals – see 5), part of the Moray Firth for bottlenose dolphins, and the North West Rockall Bank, off North West Scotland for its reefs and Harbour porpoise. Under the Habitats Directive, member states are also required to put in place a comprehensive and on-going monitoring programme to ensure favourable conservation status. For cetaceans, there are permissible thresholds, or sustainable take levels, in use, based on criteria defined by international agreements: ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas) advises for example that the maximum annual bycatch of Harbour porpoises should not exceed 1.7% of the population in that year; the IWC (International Whaling Commission) states that if the number of small cetaceans captured is greater than 1% of their total population size, then this should cause concern. The ASCOBANS limit is increasingly
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 28 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
accepted as being most relevant for most small cetaceans, although ASCOBANS is moving towards a more precautionary approach to reduce the bycatch to less than 1% of the best available abundance estimate. No such limits have been proposed for some other ETP species including Basking shark, which may occasionally interact with the fishery. In general, populations of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are highly studied and well understood in the North Sea, with considerable work undertaken in relation to the regular monitoring of fishing activity through the deployment of on-board scientific observers, capture of anecdotal information, and a wide range of monitoring activity associated with the planning and management. The Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at St. Andrews has undertaken extensive surveys to determine the level of bycatch of sea mammals in UK pelagic fisheries. To date no cetacean or seal bycatch has been seen by independent observers in the pelagic herring trawl fishery. The level of interaction between this herring fishery and the relevant ETP species is considered not to be significant. All indications are that instances of capture of cetacean in the pelagic trawl fishery are rare or very rare. This is largely based on the interpretation of data from monitoring of pelagic trawl fisheries under Council Regulation 812/2004, and from scientific and discard observer studies in this and other fisheries. There have been no recordings of any cetacean capture while vessels have been engaged in pelagic trawling. There is evidence to suggest that instances of capture of dolphins, porpoises and some shark species do not always end in mortality of captured animals. There are reasonable grounds and some supporting evidence for surmising that some species have a high level of post capture survival once they are released. 3.4.4 Habitat impacts A broad range of sedimentary and hard seabed substrates are found in the North Sea. Several indicative maps are available that indicate the nature, distribution and extent of seabed habitats. In addition there are a multitude of more focused and detailed studies that confirm seabed type in a number of different areas. Other freely available data (E.g. OSPAR, SearchMESH) indicate the locations of known sensitive seabed communities in the North Sea and adjacent waters. There is good information in relation to the operation of the fishery and the location of the main sensitive seabed habitat types in the North Sea. All SPSG vessels carry Vessel Monitoring System equipment, meaning that data is collected on an on-going basis in relation to the spatial and temporal operation of the fleet while engaged in the NS herring fishery. Specific knowledge of pelagic fisheries and the manner in which this one operates has led the team to conclude that significant seabed habitat impacts are highly unlikely as vessels target shoals of herring in mid water and fishing gear used is not designed to withstand interactions with the send. The frequency of on-going data collection in relation to the operation of the fishery considered sufficient to allow for regular monitoring and detection of changes in risk to seabed types from fishing gear interaction in this fishery. Figure 3.8 indicates the general distribution North Sea herring catches by Scottish vessels for 2005 and 2006 from Scottish government data. More recent raw data on fishing effort distribution provided by Marine Scotland in relation to catches for the years 2009-2011 has been available to the assessment team. Data indicate that there has been no significant change in fishing effort distribution in these years over that indicated in Figure 3.8. A review of trawl tracks on-board SPSG vessels during the assessment site visit provided further evidence of fishing areas to the assessment team. This further supports the understanding that fishing areas have largely remained unchanged from those indicated in Fig. 3.8.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 29 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Fig. 3.8 - Distribution of North Sea herring catches by Scottish vessels in 2005 and 2006.
Source: Scottish Government
3.4.5 Ecosystem impacts There is considerable knowledge of the habitats and ecosystem of the North Sea, drawing on more than one hundred years of regular monitoring and research, the intensity of which has accelerated in recent decades. The food web of the North Sea has been extensively studied over many years and is well understood, and there is a good level of information on the trophic position of the herring’s key life stages within this web8. Many studies are available on the community structure in the North Sea and herring is a key low trophic level component of the wider marine ecosystem – both as prey and predator. The TAC ensures that the herring biomass in the ecosystem remains high and by-catch is low. There is no evidence that the pelagic herring fishery causes serious harm to the biological diversity, community structure or productivity of the North Sea ecosystem. Working with this background information and the knowledge of the North Sea herring fisheries, in general it is thought that the impact of the herring fishery across all P2 components is within acceptable limits. In the North Sea the herring diet is mainly made up of copepods (Calanus spp. & Temora spp.), euphausids, and small fish. Fish eggs and are unlikely to represent an important food resource for herring, however there are clear suggestions that increased predation on larval and juvenile gadoid fish by North Sea herring may account for some of the slower than expected recovery of some stocks. In contrast, herring represent an important prey species for many predators, such as cod and large gadoids, sea birds, marine mammals, sharks and dogfish. The North Sea herring population has suffered notable declines in spawning stock biomass in the past - most notably in the late 1970s, but Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) also fell below Blim in the mid-1990s. The subsequent recovery of the fishery after both of these events has provided considerable information to scientists about the potential of the stock to recover – without causing long-term consequences; this now provides the basis for the current precautionary management regime.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 30 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Whilst recent repeated poor recruitment to the North Sea herring stock may impact on the applicability of this historical information as a prediction for the future, the wider trophic impacts within the ecosystem from these dramatic declines in the herring population appear to have been limited. There is on-going research on the effects of fishing on the North Sea Ecosystem by national institutions within countries sharing an interest in North Sea resources and within ICES. For the North Sea (ICES area IV) several multi-species models have been developed including multispecies Virtual Population Analysis (MSVPA). Herring is one of 12 key species in this assessment, with clear quantitative information. The multispecies models are not used for stock assessment directly, but are used to inform on natural mortality in the single species assessments. There are increased efforts with respect to managing commercial fish stocks under an ecosystem approach to fisheries in the North Sea. It is likely that further development in this regard will be seen in the future and that future management planning will take greater account of the ecosystem role of key low trophic level species such as herring.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 31 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background
Principle 3 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. In the following section of the report a brief description is made of the key characteristics of the management system in place to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the fishery under assessment. 3.5.1 Governance & Policy Legal & Customary Framework The UK is a Member State of the European Union and its fisheries are therefore subject to the principles and practices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the EU. The North Sea Herring fishery is managed through the CFP in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation. The first EU common measures in the fishing sector date from 1970, when it was agreed that, in principle, EU fishermen should have equal access to Member States' waters. However, in order to ensure that smaller vessels could continue to fish close to their home ports, a coastal band was reserved for local fishermen who have traditionally fished these areas. It was also decided that the EU was best placed to manage fisheries in the waters under their jurisdiction and to defend their interests in international negotiations. The CFP came into being in the form we recognise today in 1983. It was reviewed thoroughly in 2002 and the current basic fisheries regulation (No.2731/2002) was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 20th December 2002. The current policy is again under review, and a revised policy is likely to be enacted in 2013. The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources and aquaculture, as well as processing and marketing of fishery products, covering related activities, both within EU waters and by any member state vessel or national – with due regard to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the flag State. The CFP regulation is a ‘chapeau’ regulation setting out the strategic aims of the CFP and enabling the Council of Ministers, or in certain cases the Commission, to make more detailed Regulations. In total there are in excess of 600 related regulations broadly divided into 4 categories (Structural measures, State Aid, Management of Resources, market organisation). Included within these are regulations dealing with almost all fisheries management related aspects from control requirements, to fleet structure, technical conservation, marketing, annual total allowable catches (TAC) and species management and recovery plans. Outside the CFP framework other EU legislation dealing with habitats and species protection and is also relevant to fisheries management and to fishermen. Consultation, Roles & Responsibilities There are several relevant organisations and bodies which take an active role in the fishery under assessment. Their roles are explicitly defined and well understood, and the interaction between them works effectively. Industry Representation There are several tiers of industry representation, which form a crucial role in providing the industry with an effective voice in both management and science. They also play an important role in lobbying at both national and EU level for the interests of fishermen.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 32 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The main industry representation role is undertaken by the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, all the UK RSW vessels are members of this body. However, SPFA liaises closely with all the pelagic Producer Organisations in all matters of fishing policy. SPFA and the PO’s form a vital conduit for information, communicating new management measures to the fleet and making managers and scientists aware of changes experienced on the fishing grounds. The CEO of the Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation Ltd is chairman of the Pelagic RAC. SPFA and the Shetland PO have seats on the board of the Pelagic RAC. A number of European pelagic fishing organisations and other stakeholders also attend these meetings. The creation of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) was one of the pillars of the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in response to the EU and stakeholders’ desire to increase the latter’s participation in the CFP process. The RACs are made up of representatives of the fisheries sector and other groups affected by the CFP while scientists are invited to participate in the meetings of the RACs as experts. The Commission and regional and national representatives of Member States may be present at the meetings as observers. The Pelagic RAC has greatly improved effective communication links between industry, managers and scientists. Scientific Advice The core backdrop to the management of this fishery is the advice provided by the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) which draws on the on-going work of international scientists from relevant research laboratories and institutions on the stock biology and marine science. The main working group responsible for North Sea herring advice is the ICES Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62° N (HAWG). The assessment of the working group are reviewed and evaluated by the ICES Advisory Committee which then provides advice on the status of target and non-target stocks to the European Commission. In Scotland, the main scientific body working in the area of fisheries science is Marine Scotland (Science) based at the Aberdeen marine laboratory (formerly Fisheries Research Service). Their scientists are closely involved in the stock assessment and egg survey work of ICES. Scottish scientists are key members of the ICES HAWG and have played a lead role in key herring assessment projects. National Management Bodies The UK Government’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the main fisheries management body in UK and is the representative at fishery negotiations at an EU level. However, some fisheries responsibility is also devolved to the Scottish Government, who play an increasingly active role at an EU level. The Scottish Government is fully responsible for inshore fisheries out to 12 miles, and between 12 to 200 miles are responsible managing quota, controlling effort and determining fleet policy. Control & Enforcement Marine Scotland (Compliance) is responsible for all monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) within Scottish waters. There is a high degree of enforcement and control in the Scottish North Sea herring fishery (in accordance with commission regulation (EC) No 1542/2007 on landing and weighing procedures for herring, mackerel and horse mackerel) meaning almost 100% inspection of landings, regular inspections at sea, and fleet activity is monitored by aerial surveillance and through a satellite mediated VMS (Vessel Monitoring System). Where considered appropriate, more detailed and focused inspections and investigations are undertaken, combining information already collected
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 33 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
with direct observation (off-loading and weighing of all catch) and inspection of further documentation. At processing plants, all landings must pass into the plant via weighbridges which have been calibrated, sealed and certified. The fish pass via a de-waterer and limited tolerance is allowed for water. In Scotland pelagic landings are typically pumped directly from ships into processing plants alongside the quay. This secure weighing of all pelagics entering processing plants allows inspectors the opportunity to undertake mass-balance exercises (a complete audit of a product from one vessel going into a plant, and product coming out of a plant). This is typically done to each vessel at least once a year, and each plant several times a year. Such activity forms the backbone of the CFP Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) system, and performance of this system against national and CFP targets, including details of infringements and prosecutions, is reported on an annual basis. These activities are coordinated through the EU Fisheries Control Agency based now based in Vigo, Spain. The new EU registration of buyers and sellers legislation, although not directly targeted at the pelagic sector, has also contributed to a major cultural shift within the industry, and there is now a sense of confidence on the part of Marine Scotland (Compliance) that strong systems, checks and balances are now in place to quickly identify and punish any illegal activity. As a result there is a widespread belief that non-compliance is no longer a problem in the Scottish pelagic industry. Decision making As North Sea herring is a shared stock, reaching beyond the boundaries of EU waters, the major decisions over the exploitation levels in the fishery are taken at an international bilateral level between the European Union and Norway. In other aspects of the fishery management system including licensing and regulations governing operational practices, the primary forum for decision making for the North Sea Herring takes place in Brussels, within a typical framework of European Decision making on pressure stocks. At the heart of the European Union legislative / decision-making process is The European Commission; the politically independent, civil service. The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare), is the administrative department of the Commission with responsibility for fisheries. The Commission is responsible for the preparation of proposals for new laws, which, once adopted by the Commissioners, are sent to The Council of the European Union, where elected national representatives, review the proposals of the commission makes Community laws, after reviewing proposals of the commission, and depending on their nature, after consulting with various committees and The European Parliament. In drafting legislative proposals DG Mare consults widely, including with, relevant groups, third countries and regional fisheries organizations including advisory committees – notably the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF). The opinion of STECF is crucial in the process of setting annual Total Allowable Catches TACs and quotas. Once enacted the European Commission (DG Mare) then has responsibility for implementation, management and control of community law in Member States. Where appropriate, European legislation is enacted at the national level through relevant primary and secondary legislation. The annual decision on quota allocations for the forthcoming fishing season provides an indication of the how the European decision-making process works. The ICES working groups with responsibility of stock assessment, submit annual assessments to ICES ACOM, who in turn review and disseminate to the European Commission (DG Mare). The advice will be reviewed by STECF before preparing recommendation for the commissioners. In doing so, every effort is made to consider and assess the implications of decisions in view of pragmatic solutions at stakeholder (Catching Sector) level. This process is facilitated by the RAC structure and ACFA will typically also contribute to this consultation
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 34 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
process. The Commissioners then pass recommendations to the Council of the European Union, who take the final decision at the annual December council negotiations. Although decisions on the setting of overall TAC and the share of that TAC between member states rests with the EU (in accordance with the principle of relative stability), decisions on how national quota allocation is divided among the fleet is taken by the member state (albeit in accordance with some overarching rules). National decision-making over how the Scottish share of the North Sea Herring TAC is divided therefore rests with the Marine Scotland. 3.5.2 Management Objectives EU level The EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS), adopted in June 2006, has as its objective: ‘improving management and avoiding overexploitation of renewable natural resources such as fisheries,…….., and restoring degraded marine ecosystems by 2015 in line with the Johannesburg Plan (2002) including achievement of the Maximum Yield in Fisheries by 2015’. In June 2008, the Marine Strategy Directive (MSD) was adopted and Member States and the European Parliament have committed themselves to further foster the integration of environmental concerns into other relevant policies, among them the CFP. The Marine Strategy Directive aims to achieve ‘good environmental status’ in the EU marine environment by 2021 at the latest. This is to be achieved through the development, by the Member States, of marine strategies for their territorial waters. The marine strategies are to include implementation measures that should be based on an ecosystem approach, and may include any of a number of approaches set out in an annex to the Directive. These include ‘spatial and temporal distribution controls’, i.e. management measures that influence where and when an activity is to occur; as well as co-ordination measures to ensure that different sectoral measures at different institutional levels are coordinated. In general, the aim is to meet the following targets by 2020: » populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish must be within Sustainable Biological Limits (SBL), exhibiting an age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock; » all elements of the marine food web must occur at normal abundance and diversity and at levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species. » biological diversity must be maintained as well as the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species are to be kept in line with prevailing conditions; » sea floor integrity is maintained at a level that ensures the safeguarding of structures and functioning of the ecosystems. The Commission in 2007 published the details of an EU Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). One of the five ‘action areas’ for policy development concerns fisheries. The IMP includes both that fisheries management ‘must take more into account the welfare of coastal communities’ and that ‘recovery of fish stocks will be energetically pursued’. Specifically, the Commission will take action to eliminate discards, destructive fishing practices and Illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU). The Commission’s Green Paper on reform of the CFP as from 2012 in many aspects takes its outset in the IMP and its environmental pillar, the MSD. Fishery Specific Nationally, the objectives of the fishery are very much bound by the stated objectives of both the CFP and the National Strategy Plan. These over-arching objectives will always serve as a guide to fishery specific management decisions. However, there are more fishery specific related objectives,
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 35 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
which give a more detailed definition of the policy direction for this particular fishery. For North Sea Herring the language of the Agreed Management Plan between the EU and Norway provides a key indication of fishery specific objectives – although arguably the focus of this on TAC level and Inter- annual variation is more focused on tools to meet the objectives rather than objectives per se. This management plan is currently (2012) under review, with completion anticipated in time for the 2013 fishery.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 36 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment
At the time of writing, 6 MSC assessments had already been completed on this stock (detailed below) and findings presented in published assessment reports. In addition 1 MSC assessments targetting this stock is currently underway (also detailed below). These formed an important background resource for the assessment team - collating and reporting on available stock and fishery information, as well as highlighting areas of stakeholder and assessment team concerns. Completed assessments » Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd (SPSG) North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/spsg-north-sea-herring » Astrid Fiske North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/astrid-fiske-north-sea- herring/astrid-fiske-ns-herring » Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/DPPO-North-Sea- herring/DPPO-North-Sea-herring » Norway North Sea and Skagerrak herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/norway-north-sea-and- skagerrak-herring/norway-north-sea-and-skagerrak-herring » Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/pfa-north-sea-herring/pfa- north-sea-herring-1 » SPPO North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/sppo-north-sea- herring/sppo-north-sea-and-baltic-herring-and-sprats Assessments in progress » SPFPO Swedish North Sea Herring (previously Astrid Fiske North Sea herring) (re-assessment): http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east- atlantic/spfpo-swedish-north-sea-herring 4.1.1 Harmonisation Details Harmonisation meeting/s No harmonisation meeting was carried out during this assessment. In spite of this, close attention was paid to both the scoring and the conditions and recommendations applied to other overlapping fisheries to ensure a broadly harmonised approach. This does mean strict adherence to the same scores – it is reasonable for there to be some degree of difference in interpretations or circumstance at the time of different assessments – but it does ensure that overall conclusions are broadly aligned, and importantly that conditions applied to one fleet are equally and fairly applied to other fleets with the same characteristics.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 37 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4.2 Previous assessments
Summary of previous assessments of the client operation, conclusions reached and past compliance with specified conditions: » Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd (SPSG) North Sea herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/spsg-north-sea-herring Assessment conclusion: Certified in July 2008 Compliance with conditions: 5 conditions, all on target » Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd western component of north east Atlantic mackerel: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/scottish-pelagic- sustainability-group-ltd-spsg Assessment conclusion: Certified in January 2009 Compliance with conditions: 2 conditions closed, 3 conditions on target, 1 condition not met, resulting in an ongoing suspension » Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group Ltd Atlanto Scandian herring: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/scottish-pelagic- sustainability-group-ltd-atlanto-scandian-herring Assessment conclusion: Certified in March 2010 Compliance with conditions: There are no conditions for this fishery » SPSG West of Scotland herring Pelagic Trawl : http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east- atlantic/spsg_west_scotland_herring_pelagic_trawl Assessment conclusion: Certified in April 2012 Compliance with conditions: Not applicable
4.2.1 Re-assessment with outstanding conditions Table 4.1 - Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions Condition Closed? Justification (Y/N)
1 Record all instance of Slippage Y A slippage log was introduced on board all vessels and evidence of their use. Indicated a low level of slippage. 2 Active support for research Y No indications of slippage in fishery since original assessment from into the survival rates of scientists, industry logs, enforcement officers or observers, coupled slipped fish provided. with logical rationale why slippage is unlikely to prevalent in fishery (as no price difference on herring size grades). In this context the specific question of slipped herring survival is now seen as a low priority for increasingly scarce research funding. Condition downgraded to recommendation 3 Annual verification available On Condition stated a timeline of ‘for the lifetime of the certificate’. This that the fishery makes no target has been ‘on target’ at every surveillance including the 4th. Effectively contribution to the overshoot closed out for recertification. This issue has not been raised again in of the TAC. the recertification scoring.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 38 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition Closed? Justification (Y/N)
4 Active support for a North Sea Y Stock has rebuilt. Stock size is well above the target level. The herring stock rebuilding plan rebuilding plan has been successful and a new phase of management provided. plan is now under development. The SPSG is now putting its full weight behind the re-evaluation and adjustment of the management plan, in particular through requests from the Pelagic RAC to ICES to examine different management plan parameters. 5 Active lobbying and support for On Condition stated a timeline of ‘for the lifetime of the certificate’. This the setting of TACs within the target has been ‘on target’ at every surveillance including the 4th. Effectively boundaries of the harvest closed out for recertification control rule, with fishing mortalities set significantly above the target, undertaken.
4.3 Assessment Methodologies
This fishery was assessed using version 1.2 of the MSC Certification Requirements and version 1.2 of the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template. 4.3.1 Assessment Tree The default assessment tree was used with no modifications for this fishery assessment (Annex CB from the MSC Certification Requirements v1.2)
4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
4.4.1 Site Visits In July, 3 members of the assessment team, undertook a site visit to Fraserburgh and Peterhead, Scotland. This enabled a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery – including skippers, scientists, fishery protection officers, fishery managers and technical support staff. Prior notification of this site visit was issued on the MSC website and in Intrafish in order that all relevant stakeholders were aware of the opportunity to meet with the assessment team. Itinerary of field activities Day 1 – Tuesday 17 July, 2012 – Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire » On day 1, the assessment team met with 1 stakeholder to discuss the fishery under assessment and provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments, additional information or ask questions of the assessment team. The assessment team also visited 3 vessels from the client group specified under the Unit of Certification and met privately with 3 vessel skippers. Day 2 – Wednesday 18 July, 2012- Peterhead, Aberdeenshire » On day 2, the assessment team met with 2 stakeholders to discuss the fishery under assessment and provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments, additional information or ask questions of the assessment team.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 39 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Day 3 – Friday 20 July, 2012 - Aberdeen » On day 3, the assessment team met with 2 stakeholders to discuss the fishery under assessment and provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit comments, additional information or ask questions of the assessment team.
Additional individuals contacted during field activities No additional individuals were contacted during field activities.
4.4.2 Consultations Stakeholder issues No written representations were provided to the assessment team. Instead all stakeholder input came through a planned programme of interviews with key stakeholders. A number of meetings with key stakeholders were scheduled by the team to fill in information gaps and to explore and discuss any areas of concern. Meetings were held as follows: Table 4.2 - Interview Programme Name Position Organisation Ian Gatt Chief Executive Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association Andrew Duthie Manager Klondyke Fishing Company Limited Willie Tait Klondyke Fishing Company Ltd Skippers Vessels “Taits”, “Challenge” Klondyke Fishing Company Ltd and “Chris Andra” Robert Paton Senior Analyst, Fully Marine Scotland Compliance Documented Fisheries Stuart McCubbin Manager Marine Scotland Compliance Gordon Ingram Manager Lunar FPO Emma Hatfield Population Biologist / Sea Marine Scotland Science Fisheries Group Leader Nick Bailey Sustainable Fisheries Marine Scotland Science Programme Manager
Summary of Information Obtained All meetings discussed the full range of the MSC standard and asked relevant questions, and requested supporting evidence pertaining to the MSC principles and Criteria. As this was a re- certification some focus also fell on providing an update of evidence previously obtained. There were no controversial points raised by any of the stakeholders interviewed and no stakeholders opposed the re-certification. The team is of the view that matters raised have been adequately debated and addressed as a part of the scoring process for this fishery, and that none of the issues raised, therefore, require separate attention beyond that represented in this report. All evidence received and all viewpoints expressed are reflected in the scoring assessment tree (appendix 1.1). There were no controversial points raised by any of the stakeholders interviewed and no stakeholders opposed the re-certification.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 40 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Public Consultation A total of 62 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment. The interest of others not appearing on this list was solicited through the postings on the MSC website, and by advertising in Intrafish. These were felt to be the most appropriate media for making these public announcements as Intrafish has significant readership / uptake in the primary stakeholder locations for this fishery and the processes used on the MSC website for tracking and announcing the various stages of the assessment as it progresses - from Full Announcement through to Certification - form an ideal tool through which to channel stakeholder interest and keep them abreast of the important stages of the assessment as a whole. Initial approaches were made by email and followed up by phone. Issues raised during correspondence were investigated during research and information gathering activities, and during interviews. Most stakeholders contacted during this exercise either indicated that they had no direct interest in this fishery assessment, or that they had no particular cause for concern with regard to its assessment to the MSC standard. Process The MSC is dedicated to promoting “well-managed” and “sustainable” fisheries, and the MSC initiative focuses on identifying such fisheries through means of independent third-party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries are awarded the opportunity to utilise an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling the MSC works to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management. The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles: » MSC Principle 1 - Resource Sustainability » MSC Principle 2 - Ecosystem Sustainability » MSC Principle 3 - Management Systems A fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria and a graphical representation of the assessment tree is presented as Appendix 1a to this report. The MSC Principles and Criteria provide the overall requirements necessary for certification of a sustainably managed fishery. To facilitate assessment of any given fishery against this standard, these Criteria are further split into Sub-criteria. Sub-criteria represent separate areas of important information (e.g. Sub-criterion 1.1.1. requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). These Sub-criteria, therefore, provide a detailed checklist of factors necessary to meet the MSC Criteria in the same way as the Criteria provide the factors necessary to meet each Principle. Below each Sub-criterion, individual ‘Performance Indicators’ (PIs) are identified. It is at this level that the performance of the fishery is measured. Altogether, assessment of this fishery against the MSC standard is achieved through measurement of 31 Performance Indicators. The Principles and their supporting Criteria, Sub-criteria and Performance Indicators that have been used by the assessment team to assess this fishery are incorporated into the scoring sheets (Appendix 1.1). Scoring of the attributes of this fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria involves the following process:
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 41 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Decision to use the MSC Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Certification Requirements (Annex CB) » Description of the justification as to why a particular score has been given to each sub- criterion » Allocation of a score (out of 100) to each Performance Indicator In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, the Scoring Guideposts are presented in the scoring table and describe the level of performance necessary to achieve 100 (represents the level of performance for a Performance Indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a Performance Indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each Performance Indicator for that type of fishery). The Assessment Tree and Scoring Guideposts for the SPSG North Sea herring fishery are shown as Appendix 1.1 to this report.
Scoring outcomes There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the Marine Stewardship Council’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery: » The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and Sub-criteria under each Principle. » The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator. A score below 80 at the Principle level or 60 for any individual Performance Indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment. A score of 80 or above for all three Principles results in a pass.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 42 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5. Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date
The Target Eligibility Date for this fishery will be the 14th July 2013. This means that any fish caught by the certified fleet following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product if and when certification is ultimately granted. The rationale for this is that it is the date of expiry of the current certificate and this ensures that if there are any delays to the projected date of re-certification fish can still be retained for future sale as MSC certified. The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – are detailed in the rest of this section. 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery
Traceability up to the point of first landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the systems in place are deemed adequate to ensure fish is caught in a legal manner and is accurately recorded. The report and assessment trees describe these systems in more detail, but briefly traceability can be verified by: » no transhipment; » a geographically restricted fishery enabling concentrated inspection effort; » accurate reporting – log books and sales notes (regularly inspected and cross-checked); » verified landings data (including data on other retained species) are used for official monitoring of quota up-take and national statistics; » a high level and sophisticated system of at-sea monitoring, control and surveillance, both in EU waters, including routine boarding and inspection, spotter planes, VMS; and electronic logbooks. » close cooperation between EU regulatory and enforcement authorities and no immunity from prosecution in other jurisdictions; » reporting prior to landing with limited tolerance; » a high level of inspection of landings prior to unloading. Officially calibrated weighing systems of landing. Routine inspection of entire factory process. The above is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery and no specific risk factors have been identified. 5.2.1 Evaluation of Risk of Vessels Fishing Outside of UoC There is no elevated risk of vessels claiming to be fishing inside the UoC whist fishing outside. The NS herring fishery is spatially restricted and occurs in a restricted season, according to tight controls – not least quota control. Vessels landing other species, or from other areas could not land these as North Sea herring. 5.2.2 Risk of Substitution of Mixing Certified / Non-Certified Catch The is a low risk of substitution of mixing of certified and non-certified catch. Other herring fisheries such as Atlanto Scandian and West of Scotland are also certified. Landing controls are such that the veracity of the stated species and origin of the landed catch can be assured. The Chain of Custody audit and surveillance process will address risks of substitution taking place later in the supply chain.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 43 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5.2.3 At-Sea Processing No at sea processing takes place in this fishery – not even gutting. The extent of the fishery certification is the landing of the fresh, chilled product (RSW on board storage) at ports where registration of landings is carried out and weights registered. 5.2.4 Trans-Shipment No transhipment takes place in this fishery.
5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
Only North Sea Herring caught in the manner defined in the Unit of Certification (Section 3.1) under restrictions detailed throughout the body of the final Public Certification Report for this fishery shall be eligible to enter the Chain of Custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing, at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo (under restrictions imposed by the MSC Chain of Custody standard). There are no restrictions on the fully certified product entering further chains of custody. The Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) does not require its own chain of custody certificate. 5.3.1 Eligible points of landing Although landings are typically into Scottish ports (Lerwick, Fraserburgh or Peterhead), vessels covered by this assessment may also land catches from this fishery into registered ports in other EU countries and Norway. All landings made to these non-UK ports are subject to the same scrutiny and reporting procedures and there is a well-established mechanism to enable port-of-landing authorities to report the landing to the relevant authorities in a timely fashion. There are no further restrictions defining port of landing, over and above those stated in national fishing regulations (for example vessels must land to registered ports). There is no requirement for the vessels to land at ports named in this report. There are no specific risk factors after the point of landing which need to be highlighted or that may influence chain of custody assessments. 5.3.2 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate Only UK registered pelagic RSW trawlers who are members of SPSG and fully compliant with all on board Code of Conduct and reporting systems may use this certificate.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 44 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6. Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores
Table 6.1 – Final Principle Scores Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 88.1 Principle 2 - Ecosystem 88.0 Principle 3 – Management System 86.5
6.2 Summary of Scores
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score 1.1.1 Stock status 100 Outcome (status) 1.1.2 Reference Points 80 One 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding n/a 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 75 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score 2.1.1 Outcome (status) 90 Retained Species 2.1.2 Management 90 2.1.3 Information 95 2.2.1 Outcome (status) 100 Bycatch 2.2.2 Management 90 2.2.3 Information 80 Two 2.3.1 Outcome (status) 85 ETP Species 2.3.2 Management 80 2.3.3 Information 80 2.4.1 Outcome (status) 100 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 95 2.4.3 Information 95 2.5.1 Outcome (status) 80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 80 2.5.3 Information 80
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 45 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Score 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 95 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 85 Governance & Policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 3.2.2 Decision making processes 80 Fishery-specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 95 Management System 3.2.4 Research plan 80 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80
6.3 Summary of Conditions
Table 6.2 - Summary of Conditions
Condition Condition Performance Indicator number 1 HCR 1.2.2
6.3.1 Recommendations There are three recommendations for this fishery. Please see details below: Recommendation 1 – Independent verification of at sea operations & impacts Historically, unaccounted mortality has been a challenge in pelagic fisheries. Today much of the uncertainty over unaccounted mortality has gone. Enforcement is much tighter, compliance is much improved, and scientific assessments point to a smaller and largely resolved problem of unaccounted mortality. The on board logs that fishermen have introduced to record any exceptional impacts (Appendix 7) are welcome, and there now exists a system for recording any instances of slippage, or ETP interaction, for example. To date these have shown zero interaction. At the same time, state funding for research and observer programmes has reduced in recent years, therefore there is now less independent corroboration of fisheries interactions at sea, than there has been in the past, although arguably past research and observations have led the focusing of scare resources on the (other) fisheries with higher perceived risk of impact. None the less, there remains considerable scope for improving the independent corroboration of the fisheries impact at sea. This has not been the subject of a condition as it is accepted that at current times the rationale and evidence available suggest that potential impacts are likely to be low – in particular in terms of slippage, ETP or habitat interactions. However, some form of independent corroboration, has a number of advantages, such as providing strengthened assurance of minimal impact and detecting any changes in the patterns of interactions. One form of independent observation which is rapidly becoming more accessible, affordable and tailored to the needs of the fishing industry has been the use of onboard CCTV cameras. These are being increasingly adopted in demersal fisheries and part of the catch quota scheme. Given the state of the art sophistication of UK pelagic fleet, and their pioneering progress in moving toward a position of assured sustainability, CCTV should be given careful consideration as a best practice tool to provide ongoing and independent verification of the fisheries minimal impact. Other EU pelagic fisheries are also currently examining the role and potential of CCTV on board, but as yet, none of
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 46 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
the EU pelagic fleet has taken the step. The assessment team are therefore of the view that this could be a useful addition to a fishery seeking to demonstrate their on-going sustainability. Trials of CCTV camera based systems have already demonstrated its utility in fully documented fisheries where the TAC is based on catches and landings, such as in various trials in North Sea demersal fisheries seeking to minimise cod bycatch. For other metiers it is understood that issues in relation to cost and practicality may still need resolving. It is thought that the European Fisheries Control Agency are looking into the practicality of options for implementation as a regulatory tool, such as the use of reference fleets whereby any non-observed vessels displaying anomalies of catches beyond the range defined by the reference fleet would be candidates for enhanced monitoring using CCTV cameras or observers (NWWRAC). Recommendation 2 – Fishery Specific Objectives It is a requirement of the MSC standard to have clearly stated fishery specific objectives which encompass the wider aspects of the fishery. In many fisheries managed by EU long term management plans, the EU regulation containing the management plan typically includes some statements in relation to the wider ecosystem objectives of the plan. In the case of North Sea herring, because the text of the agreed management plan has been determined at an EU Norway level, this has not been transposed into an EU regulation, therefore the text of the agreement really only describes the principle 1 harvest control rule elements and does not give any indication as to the wider ecosystem objectives which might shape management. In this case it has therefore been necessary for the assessors to look at a higher or more over-arching level (i.e. non fisheries specific) of national or EU policy to determine the binding ecosystem objectives which influence management decision making. Ideally, the renewed EU-Norway Agreed Management Plan on North Sea herring, would be presented in the context of the agreed wider objectives (both P1 and P2), perhaps in the introduction to the agreement, before stating the detail of the harvest control rule. Ideally this stating of the wider fishery specific objectives should be done in such a way as to be well defined and measurable. Recommendation 3 – Low Trophic Species Herring (Clupeidae) is a low trophic species as confirmed by its abundance and importance in the North Sea ecosystem. However, relationships with herring among its predators, prey and competitors are complex, and simplistic treatment of herring as a low trophic species may not be the most appropriate option. The ICES working group has concluded that it is highly likely that the North Sea requires a certain threshold of herring biomass, but this is currently not defined. The target reference point or region (FMSY and biomass > Btrigger) has been justified based on expected levels of recruitment and maximum sustainable yield, but has not explicitly addressed the role of herring in the ecosystem and whether the abundance under this level of fishing mortality would be adequate for herring to carry out its ecosystem functions. This indicates that the client should encourage and provide support to determine whether the target fishing mortality rate allows herring to fulfill its role in the ecosystem, and the client should support any adjustment recommended based on requirements to maintain the pelagic ecosystem.
6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 47 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
It is therefore determined that the SPSG North Sea herring fishery should be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, the determination will be presented to FCI’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 48 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
7. References
» Heath, M. R. 2005. Changes in the structure and function of the North Sea fish foodweb, 1973-2000, and the impacts of fishing and climate. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:847- 868. » Essington, T. and Pláganyi, É., E. (2013) Model and data adequacy for the Marine Stewardship Council key low trophic level species designation and criteria. January 2013. MSC Science Series. In Print. » Mariani, S. Hutchinson, W.F. Hatfield, E.M.C., Ruzzante D.E., Simmonds, J., Dahlgren, T.G., Andre, C., Brigham, B., Torstensen, E., and Carvalho, G.R. 2005. North Sea herring population structure revealed by microsatellite analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303: 245–257, 2005. » Payne, M. R., Hatfield, E. M. C., Dickey-Collas, M., Falkenhaug, T., Gallego, A., Gröger, J., Li- candro, P., Llope, M., Munk, P., Röckmann, C., Schmidt, J. O., and Nash, R. D. M. 2009. Recruitment in a changing environment: the 2000s North Sea herring recruitment failure. - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 272-277. » Heath, M., Scott, B., & Bryant, A. D. 1997. Modelling the growth of herring from four different stocks in the North Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 38: 413–436. » http://www.pelagic-rac.org/ » ICES 1998. Report of the Study Group on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. Feb 1998. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10. » ICES 2007. Report of the Workshop on Limit and Target Reference Points. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:05. » ICES 2008. Report of the Workshop on Herring Management Plans (WKHMP), 4–8 February 2008, ICES CM 2008/ACOM:27. » ICES 2011. Report of the Workshop on Herring Interim Advice on the Management Plan, 24 October 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:62. 35 pp. » ICES 2011. ICES Advice 2011, Book 6. 6.3.3.4 Ecoregion: North Sea. Subject: Joint EU–Norway request on interim advice on the North Sea herring management plan. Special request Advice November 2011 » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES. 2012c. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012), 13–17 February 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47. 572 pp. » Borges L, van Keeken O.A. van Helmond, A.T.M., Couperus, B., Dickey-Collas, M. 2008. What do pelagic freezer-trawlers discard? ICES J. mar Sci., 65: 605–611. » Napier, I.R., Newton, A.W. and Toreson, R. 1999. Investigation of the Extent and Nature of Discarding from Herring and Mackerel Fisheries in ICES Sub-Areas IVa and VIa. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 96/082. North Atlantic Fisheries College, Shetland Islands, UK. June 1999. » Napier, I.R., Robb, A. and Holst, J. 2002. Investigation of Pelagic Discarding. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 99/071. North Atlantic Fisheries College and the FRS Marine Laboratory. August 2002.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 49 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 50 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationale Appendix 1a – MSC Principles & Criteria
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 51 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over-view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in Appendix 1.1 of this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org). Principle 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed. Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.
Principle 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 52 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures. » There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species. Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.
Principle 3
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. » Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 53 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing SG Issue Met? Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
See SG100
80 a Y It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. See SG100 b Y The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. See SG100 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SSB below the limit reference point of 800 000 t would be likely to have impaired recruitment due to low spawning stock size as opposed to other causes, and there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is well above this level. Based on the stock assessment, the spawning stock biomass was estimated to be above 2.3 million tonnes in 2011 and projected to be 2.27 million tonnes in 2012 based on 2011 catches. The model used for the stock assessment is based on likelihood and provides confidence intervals. There is less than a 2.5% probability that the spawning stock biomass is below 1.9 million tonnes, which is still very much larger than the limit reference point (80000 t), where there is evidence that recruitment would be at risk. b Y There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. The current stock assessment indicates that the spawning stock biomass has been above the upper trigger point (1.5 million t) since 2007 and the lower confidence interval has been above this trigger point (within the target region) since 2009. Since there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been well within the target region over the last 4 years and is projected to remain in this region in 2013, the SG100 is met. » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa References and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19.
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative to point point reference point -1 -1 Target reference point FMSY F0-1 = 0.05 year F0-1 = 0.026 year in 2011 -1 -1 F2–6 = 0.25 year F2–6 = 0.093 year in 2011
>B trigger >1500000 t B2011 = 2343134 t
Limit reference point Blim 800000 t B2011 (lower 95%CI) = 1963435 t
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 54 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 55 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.2
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. See SG80
80 a Y Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Reference points have been developed based on the long history and time series available for this fishery. This allows appropriate reference points to be estimated from past observations on stock and recruitment and from detailed knowledge of the life history of the species. b Y The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity.
The Blim (0.8 million t) was set at a level below which the recruitment may become impaired. When the SSB has been estimated to be below this point, the model suggests recruitments have been more likely to have been below the mean or median recruitment. Blim has been formally adopted as the “Minimum Biological Acceptable Level” (MBAL). Although this value for Blim was accepted by ICES in 1998, it has been reviewed in 2007 and 2011, with the conclusion that there was no basis for changing it. A low risk of SSB falling below Blim has therefore been the basis of ICES precautionary advice. c Y The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. The biomass is thought to be fully productive (maximum reproductive output) at SSB of 1.5 million tonnes (Btrigger) and above. However, a BMSY has not been defined because the working group recognises that the environment influences changes in productivity over longer periods. Therefore, MSY, over the long term, -1 is thought to be derived from a fishing mortality (FMSY) of around 0.25 year (ages 2-6). This is used as the basis for the harvest control rule and management advice. d NA Key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Herring (Clupeidae) is listed as a mandatory key low trophic species (see Box CB1 CR Annex v1.2) unless evidence is available otherwise. Its abundance and importance in the North Sea ecosystem and ecosystem assessment do not provide evidence to the contrary. The relationships among herring’s predators, prey and competitors are complex, and simplistic treatment of herring as a low trophic species may not be the most appropriate option, although it would still be prudent that these relationships are considered in setting target biomass levels. However, a recent assessment of the proportion consumer biomass and measures of connectance suggest that falls below the required thresholds to be determined as key LTL (Essington and Pláganyi 2013, Table 6). The connectance score suggested that the proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involving this stock were not large (Box CB 2, a), so predator dependency was not significant. The connectance was estimated as 3.5% of all trophic connections involved North Sea herring, which is less that the 4% threshold level distinguishing key from non-key (Essington and Pláganyi 2013). Estimated herring proportion consumer biomass is 0.47%, less than the 5% threshold suggested in GCB2.3.12c for subcriterion Box CB 2, b. In addition, there are a number of significant planktivore stocks occupying the same trophic level, including sandeel, sprat and Norway pout, which together with the connectance and proportion
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 56 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) consumer biomass estimates, imply the ecosystem is not sufficient "wasp- waisted" to meet the criteria CB Box 2, c. This is supported by Heath (2005) who found that "bottom up" control of the planktivorous food web in the North sea resulted in the populations of other functionally similar species expanding to fill the vacant niches vacated by exploited stocks, thus maintaining the planktivore role in the system 100 b N The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues. No additional demonstrable precaution has been applied in setting the reference point. It is also noticeable that no specific reference points have been developed for the stock components. Specifically, with the recent recovery of the downs spawning (winter spawning) component, appropriate limit reference point to protect this and other vulnerable components would be more precautionary. c N The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. No additional demonstrable precaution has been applied in setting the reference point.
» ICES 1998. Report of the Study Group on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. Feb 1998. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10. » ICES 2007. Report of the Workshop on Limit and Target Reference Points. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:05. » ICES 2011. Report of the Workshop on Herring Interim Advice on the Management Plan, 24 October 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:62. 35 pp. » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. References Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » Essington, T. and Pláganyi, É., E. (2013) Model and data adequacy for the Marine Stewardship Council key low trophic level species designation and criteria. January 2013. MSC Science Series. In Print. » Heath, M. R. 2005. Changes in the structure and function of the North Sea fish food web, 1973-2000, and the impacts of fishing and climate. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:847-868.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 57 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.3
PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe.
80 a Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.
b A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.
c There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
100 a Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe.
b The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock.
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/A
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 58 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.1
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. See SG80 b Y The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. See SG80 c Y Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. See SG80 80 a Y The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The various aspects of the strategy include overall exploitation level, local depletion of spawning components, size composition, catch market quality and bycatch. The management is shared between EU and Norway. That these elements work together has been demonstrated. A stock assessment is updated annually and the exploitation level is adjusted accordingly. Benchmark stock assessments, which review the performance of the current and alternative stock assessment methods, are also carried out periodically. In all cases, stock assessments report the state of the stock, give scientific advice to management and evaluate past management performance. There is careful quality control of the advice. Since the development of harvest control rules, there has been clear and appropriate response of the decision-making to the scientific advice. The harvest control rules have been defined based on the limit reference point and target stock level. b Y The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy is currently undergoing some change as its performance has not met the expectation of stakeholders. While in general terms the harvest strategy has been tested, until it has settled down to a consistent form, it will be difficult to test it rigorously. Therefore it has not been fully tested. Parts of the decision making are not transparent, although why decisions have been made can be inferred from the available information. The harvest strategy is certainly achieving its conservation objectives, since SSB has been built well above the Btrigger despite low recruitments due to environmental effects. However, the harvest control rule is not meeting stakeholder objectives since catches have not responded quickly enough to meet their expectations. This issue is covered in PI 1.2.2. 100 a N The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The number of recent problems in the harvest control rule in particular illustrate that the harvest strategy cannot be considered to be “designed”. On completion of the current round of negotiation and evaluations, this could change, but only if the multiple objectives are better defined so that trade-offs among them can be accounted for within the strategy. For example, the limit on changes to the TAC is more appropriate as an objective of a rule rather than part of the rule itself.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 59 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. See SG80
d Y The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. There is clear evidence that the harvest strategy is under review. Evaluations are reported by the scientific working group, PRAC, EU and Norway is being updated and requests are made for advice to consider updates to the harvest control rules and technical measures that control the fishing activities. » http://www.pelagic-rac.org/ » ICES 1998. Report of the Study Group on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. Feb 1998. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10. » ICES 2007. Report of the Workshop on Limit and Target Reference Points. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:05. » ICES 2008. Report of the Workshop on Herring Management Plans (WKHMP), 4–8 February 2008, ICES CM 2008/ACOM:27. » ICES 2011. Report of the Workshop on Herring Interim Advice on the Management Plan, 24 October 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:62. 35 pp.
References » ICES 2011. ICES Advice 2011, Book 6. 6.3.3.4 Ecoregion: North Sea. Subject: Joint EU–Norway request on interim advice on the North Sea herring management plan. Special request Advice November 2011 » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES. 2012c. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012), 13–17 February 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47. 572 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 60 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.2
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generally understood harvest rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. See SG80
c Y There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. See SG80
80 a N Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. A well-defined harvest control rule is in place. However, it has proved to be not entirely consistent with the harvest strategy and can be considered to be still under development. One of the intentions of the HCR was to limit variation in TAC by applying an artificial cap on the level of change. This part of the HCR has been overridden both while the stock has declined through the addition of a clause to the rule, and more recently when it has prevented TAC recovering. Although the HCR is broadly working to maintain the stock size consistent with the harvest strategy, as demonstrated by the latest stock assessment which indicates that the stock is well within the target region, the ad hoc adjustments prevent this scoring issue being met at this time. b Y The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. The harvest control rule has been tested through computer simulation which has included past observed uncertainty in recruitment and observation error. The main uncertainties, most probably related to recruitment regimes, have been considered and the Btrigger was raised in response. However, current on-going adjustments to the HCR have responded to events indicating that the HCR is still responding to uncertainty in the stock dynamics. Specifically, the inter-annual variation (IAV) limit has not coped with recent events in the fishery to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. The uncertainties that have so far been considered are therefore limited. c Y Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. The tools in use are the TAC which is allocated as a quota. This has been demonstrably effective in reducing and limiting fishing mortality. However, there is some slippage and unrecorded mortality. The target fishing mortality should account for this as it is likely to be proportional to the TAC and should be less than 5% of the catch.
100 b N The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. See SG80
c N Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Because recent fishing mortality has been set to very low levels by the harvest control rules, it is unclear whether the level of error in the TAC produced through
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 61 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) unrecorded mortality is acceptable or not. This would only become apparent as the fishing mortality returns to its target level. » ICES 2007. Report of the Workshop on Limit and Target Reference Points. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:05. » ICES 2008. Report of the Workshop on Herring Management Plans (WKHMP), 4–8 February 2008, ICES CM 2008/ACOM:27. » ICES 2011. Report of the Workshop on Herring Interim Advice on the Management Plan, 24 October 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:62. 35 pp. » ICES 2011. ICES Advice 2011, Book 6. 6.3.3.4 Ecoregion: North Sea. Subject: Joint EU–Norway request on interim advice on the North Sea herring References management plan. Special request Advice November 2011 » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES. 2012c. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012), 13–17 February 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47. 572 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 62 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.3
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.
See SG100
b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. See SG80
80 a Y Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. See SG100
b Y Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Stock abundance is annually monitored through scientific surveys. The ICES Coordinated acoustic surveys (HERAS) started in 1979 around Orkney and Shetland with the first major coverage in 1984. An index derived from that survey has been used in assessments since 1994 with the time-series data extending back to 1989. The survey covers three distinct herring stocks simultaneously, aiding in stock separation. Larval surveys are carried out annually to map larval distribution and abundance. Sporadic surveys of larval herring started as far back as 1880, and available scientific data goes back to the middle of the 20th century. Larval abundance estimates derived from these surveys are used as relative indicators of the herring spawning biomass in the assessment. Commercial CPUE is available, but is not used in the stock assessment. Therefore the surveys are monitored at the level of accuracy, frequency and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule. Fishing mortality of herring through fishing is reasonably well monitored. Uncertainty in the catch data has generally been described as very good. The precision of the international market sampling for North Sea herring and for the period 1991 to 1998 is good. Estimates of catch-at-age delivered by the combined international sampling programme for North Sea herring made a small and acceptable contribution to the variability of the assessment. Routine uncertainty is calculated for the catch numbers -at-age, which can now be incorporated into the stock assessment. Discards are not routinely recorded, so this contributes to the uncertainty in mortality due to fishing. The indications are that large-scale discarding is not wide- spread in the directed North Sea herring fishery. A number of direct-observer surveys have been conducted on Scottish, Dutch and Norwegian pelagic trawlers, but overall discard rate was less than 5% of the landed catch. There are different discard rates between the specific fishing types. The amount of slippage compared to discarding by the differing fleets is disputed. There are no opportunities for RSW vessels to discard, although vessels may still slip fish. c Y There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. It remains uncertain the extent to which discarding and slippage occurs in herring fisheries, and further work is required. Discarding is most likely less significant than
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 63 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) slippage. Discarding has been estimated as less than 5% of the landed catch, is illegal in Norwegian waters and likely to become illegal in EU waters. Slippage is legal, often unrecorded, and likely to be more widespread. Therefore, while there is some unrecorded fishing mortality, this is sufficiently low that it does not undermine the harvest control rule to any significant extent. It is important to note that this scoring issue depends upon on-going reporting of slippage by the client fishery and the inclusion of this mortality in the stock assessment. 100 a Y A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. The range of information on North Sea herring is comprehensive. Fleet composition is complete, including vessel characteristics which can be used to estimate capacity. The surveys measure the abundance for the various locations, so that the abundance of the spawning components (stocks) can be monitored. Catches from the stock components can be separated. Both survey and commercial catches are well sampled for biological data on the stock. There is now also some basis for the natural mortality used, which is now included as a time and age variant value taken from a North Sea multispecies model. Detailed and on-going environmental monitoring of the North Sea is carried out. Information includes temperature, salinity as well as primary productivity based on remote sensing. These data are generally not used for the harvest control rule. b N All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. This falls short of all information, because some catch remains unrecorded, including processing losses and slippage. » Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 Annex III 5b » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » Borges L, van Keeken O.A. van Helmond, A.T.M., Couperus, B., Dickey-Collas, M. 2008. What do pelagic freezer-trawlers discard? ICES J. mar Sci., 65: 605– 611. References » Napier, I.R., Newton, A.W. and Toreson, R. 1999. Investigation of the Extent and Nature of Discarding from Herring and Mackerel Fisheries in ICES Sub- Areas IVa and VIa. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 96/082. North Atlantic Fisheries College, Shetland Islands, UK. June 1999. » Napier, I.R., Robb, A. and Holst, J. 2002. Investigation of Pelagic Discarding. Final Report. EU Study Contract Report 99/071. North Atlantic Fisheries College and the FRS Marine Laboratory. August 2002.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 64 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.4
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 b Y The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.
The stock assessment estimates current F2-6 and SSB which can be compared directly with reference points. c Y The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. See SG100 80 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. See SG100 c Y The assessment takes uncertainty into account. See SG100 e Y The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. See SG100 100 a Y The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The model is a standard age structured model, but incorporates a process error and models stock size as a probability density rather than fixed point estimate. The use of age structure allows some specific biology, such as growth, natural mortality and recruitment pattern to be accounted for in the assessment. The assessment makes use of time-variant estimates of natural mortality.
c Y The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The new benchmark stock assessment model is a state space model. It models and estimates probabilities of the stock status and includes a consideration of a number of different issues which affect the uncertainty of the determination of stock status. This is in contrast with the previous ICA model which accounted for only observation error explicitly. Importantly, key population indicators are reported as probabilities in the management advice in a way that can be used in the decision-making. While not Bayesian, the model is sufficiently probability based that it meets this scoring issue.
d N The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Generally, the new SAM modelling framework is only as yet poorly documented. While it does appear to be a useful tool and a significant step forward for the stock assessment, its robustness is unclear at the time of this MSC assessment, and therefore this scoring guidepost cannot be met.
e Y The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. The assessment has been subject to internal peer review through the working group process. This includes the development of a new benchmark stock assessment in 2012. The stock assessment reports give the results of the analyses prepared before the working group meeting as well as those conducted at the meeting itself. In addition, the stock assessment report has been externally reviewed. The Review Group’s comments are appended routinely to the end of the HAWG report, and there is a response the following year, where it is considered necessary.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 65 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Four independent reviewers were present at the benchmark assessment meeting and their comments are included in the report. This appears to be a more rigorous external review of the benchmark assessment than applied to the update assessments.
» ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM References 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES. 2012c. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Pelagic Stocks (WKPELA 2012), 13–17 February 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:47. 572 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 66 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and PI 2.1.1 does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a y Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue d below). See SG 80
c y If main retained species are outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. See SG 80
d y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. See SG 80
80 a y Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue c below). The SPSG herring fishery is by and large a clean fishery that features low volumes of retained species catch. Aggregated data for landings of all species when NS herring was also landed by the client fleet for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 has been provided to the assessment by Marine Scotland. Data indicate the total retained catch whenever NS herring was landed. Accordingly, the data also include catches where the vessels were not engaged in targeted fishing for NSH, hence the catch data include a greater mix of species, as well as volume, of retained species than might be expected during targeted fishing operations exclusively for NSH. Arguably, this is the retained catch data that should be considered as relevant since all herring landed as part of these catches may be eligible for certification. The data indicate retained catches as follows:
% make up retained catch 2009 2010 2011 Herring 81.10 89.06 68.32 Horse Mackerel 0.00 0.01 2.21 Mackerel 14.73 4.60 11.89 Other or mixed Demersal 0.72 2.30 0 Pouting (Bib) 2.97 1.34 0 Accordingly, the only main retained species identified for the fishery is north east Atlantic mackerel. Norway pout and other mixed demersal species are also captured however the relative volumes landed are not sufficient to consider these as main retained species. Catches of other species are so small as to be considered insignificant (CB3.5.3 of the CR). The level of bycatch in directed or targeted NS herring fishing is much lower in reality. SSB has increased considerably since 2002 and remains high, above Bpa and MSY Btrigger, but is currently declining. Current NEA mackerel SSB estimate is close to 2.7 million tonnes – above Bpa (2.3Mt) and Blim (2.2Mt) and well above Blim (1.67Mt). Fishing mortality in 2011 is estimated to be 0.31, above FMSY and Fpa. The total predicted catch of mackerel in 2012 is 930,135 tonnes. This corresponds to a fishing mortality of 0.36, which is well above FMSY and the stipulated range in
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 67 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and PI 2.1.1 does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) the management plan for this stock. Maintaining such a catch in 2013 and 2014 would result in a decrease of the stock size in the short term. (ICES, 2012a) c y If main retained species are outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Main retained species are within biologically based limits. 100 a n There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and target reference points are defined for this stock. While the stock has been above target reference points for a number of years the stock is now in decline. If current levels of fishing morality continue, the decline is expected to continue below Bpa and eventually reaching or dropping below Blim. b y Target reference points are defined for retained species. Biomass and F reference points are defined for the stock.
Source: ICES, 2012a. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM References 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES. 2008. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2008. ICES Advice, 2008. Book 9. Section 9.3.2.1.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 68 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
60 a y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. See SG100
b y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See SG100 80 a y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. See SG100
b y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. See SG100
c y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. 100 a y There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. There is a management plan in place for mackerel and the fishing mortality is managed through an overall TAC which is normally set in accordance with ICES advice. The EU-Norway agreement aims to ensure that removals do not exceed the overall TAC and national quotas are agreed upon at the annual coastal states meetings. The management plan features both biomass and fishing mortality reference points and a well-defined harvest control rule. The strategy is backed up by a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance programme that includes prior notification of landings, in port and at sea inspections, electronic logbook reporting and vessel monitoring systems. Additional technical controls apply to the fishery such as minimum landing sizes and minimum mesh sizes. At operational level, the fleet utilise modern electronic aids to identify target shoals. The herring is a targeted fishery and vessels leave harbor with intent of catching and landing North Sea herring. Therefore they actively seek to avoid catches of mackerel or mixed shoals of fish as unintended catches of other species normally lead to less than optimal economic function for client vessels. b y Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is an analytical stock assessment and ICES issues annually updated advice. There is good information in relation to total annual removals spatial and temporal operation of fisheries targeting NEA mackerel. The management plan includes a clearly defined harvest control rule that has been reviewed by ICES and has been tested for appropriateness, although it has yet to be implemented.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 69 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
c n There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The management strategy has been implemented successfully in the past, however recent events surrounding unilaterally declared quotas by Iceland and the Faroe Islands have undermined the effectiveness of the strategy and therefore the likelihood of it meeting with long term success. d n There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. The evidence available points to the mackerel stock declining in recent years. This is most likely as a consequence of the increased level of fishing mortality, well above the precautionary level identified in the management plan. There are clear indications that the management strategy will not achieve its overall objective in the future in the context of unilateral quota declarations leading to overall removals that are well above scientific advice and TAC. The absence of comprehensive international agreements on the exploitation of the stock (between all nations involved in the fishery) remains a critical concern, and prevents control of the total exploitation rate. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » ICES 2011. Advice for Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Divisions IIIa, References IVb, c, and VIId (North Sea stock). ICES Advice 2011 Book 6. » ICES. 2011. Report of the Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks (WGWIDE), 23–29 August 2011. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:15.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 70 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See SG100
b Y Information is adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See SG100 c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. See SG100 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See SG100 b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See SG100 c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. See SG100 d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Data in relation to landings are routinely collected and verified for all vessels in the certified fleet. Landings declarations are made once final catch breakdowns have been received by vessels from the factories. Landings are frequently witnessed and verified by Marine Scotland. Given the comprehensive reporting requirements, it is highly unlikely that there are significant information gaps with respect to landings of retained species. 100 a Y Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. The NS herring fishery is a bulk fishery in which no grading or sorting of catch takes place at sea. Fish is landed directly to processors where it is then separated out by automated systems, allowing for accurate weighing and reporting of retained catch. All landings are sorted and reported in this way. The landings declaration information is verifiable in that Marine Scotland inspectors may witness landings and may audit processing units. Landings records can also be verified by cross referencing landings declarations with sales notes, adding to the validity of the data. Sales notes can be verified by cross checking with factory output audits. b Y Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. Data are routinely collected and available for the SPSG NS herring fishery that allows for the estimation of outcome status with respect to all retained species with a high degree of certainty. Reporting of all retained catch is a legal requirement and catches must be recorded in official electronic logbooks. Data are
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 71 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) considered to be reliable as catches are sorted automatically onshore prior to final landings declarations being made. c Y Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Data in relation to the retained catch in the NS herring fishery by SPSG vessels is considered to be comprehensive and covers all significant stocks with a high degree of accuracy. Data is collected at a sufficient resolution on an ongoing basis. The data are sufficient to assist with the evaluation of the impact of the fishery on mackerel in particular but also with respect to assessing the risk that the fishery may present to lesser ‘minor’ retained species. The data support evaluation of the effectiveness of any management strategies and responses in the context of achieving objectives with a high degree of certainty. d n Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all retained species. Monitoring of catches of mainly demersal species, including some whitefish species, is not carried out in sufficient detail that would allow the assessment of ongoing mortalities. Despite the low percentage of the total catch weight that may be made up of such species as whiting and Norway pout, actual volumes may reach several hundred tonnes. Evidence given to the assessment team suggests that catches of some species, although in very low volumes, are recorded collectively rather than by species at some landing events, where such mixed catch may comprise very small volumes (<20kg). » Marine Scotland (pers comms). Stakeholder interview. References » SPSG 2012 – client meeting and vessel visit. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 72 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). See SG100 b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. See SG100
c Y If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. See SG100
80 a Y Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below). See SG100 b Y If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. See SG100 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. There is a high degree of certainty that there are no bycatch species in the fishery. Discarding of undersize herring (the target stock) may occur through slippage from time to time, however herring is considered under Principal 1. The only other species that is captured in any significant volume is mackerel. Mackerel is a valuable species for which the SPSG fleet has quota entitlement. Mackerel is therefore landed where there are mixed catches and mackerel catch is fully accounted for in landings declarations, as are catches of all species. Because it is a bulk fishery and the mechanized manner in which catches are taken aboard and landed to shore (via pumps), there is no capacity for grading and discarding of any catch while at sea. Vessels utilize modern electronics including sonar to aid in target shoal discrimination, unintended catch is therefore very rare. In consequence there is a high degree of certainty that there are no bycatch species. There may be occasional bird bycatch in the fishery. This is reported anecdotally and is a feature for many pelagic fisheries. Bird bycatch is incidental in nature and may occur through diving birds becoming enmeshed in the gear once it has been hauled to the surface and birds attempt to feed on the fish opportunistically. While no data are available to specifically evaluate the impact of the fishery in this regard, information from other fisheries and inference suggests that bird bycatch is infrequent and is highly unlikely to present a significant threat to any populations.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 73 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or PI 2.2.1 species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) References » Marine Scotland (pers comms) » SPSG 2012, stakeholder interview with vessel skippers.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 74 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. See SG100
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See SG80
80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. See SG100
b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. Information provided by enforcement officers, scientists and skippers during stakeholders consultations all suggest that there is little slippage of target species and effectively no slippage of unwanted catches in the fishery. This understanding is corroborated by onboard observation of fishing operations by Marine Scotland Science observers in previous years. Although the observer programme has been cut back and no longer covers the certified fleet, the decision to discontinue coverage has been based on the understanding that there is little or no risk of bycatch in this fishery. Accordingly, the management response is appropriate to the scale of the problem. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. The SPSG vessel maintain onboard slippage logs in which they record slippage events. Inspection of logs from previous years does not indicate any significant slippage in this fishery. It is the clear understanding of both enforcement personal and scientific officers that bycatch (discarding) of other species does not occur and this is supported by a limited number of observer reports from previous years. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing and minimizing bycatch. There is a strategy in place for managing this fishery’s impact on bycatch species. From a legal perspective, slippage is not permitted within the North Sea or Eastern Channel as per the provisions of Annex III (Vb.1; Vb.2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009. The EU regulation refers explicitly to high-grading in the North Sea and Skaggerak, but it can also be interpreted as meaning that slippage is banned, although it is not explicit in this regard. From an operational perspective, SPSG vessel use sophisticated onboard electronics to aid in shoal identification. Electronics are a useful tool for locating shoals and also allow for a degree of discrimination in terms of species, shoal size, density and mix. Under normal operational conditions, experienced fishing skippers are capable of reliably interpreting sonar data to aid them in determining whether shoals are of the target stock, or if they are comprised of a high proportion of mixed stocks or undersized fish. The SPSG North Sea herring fishery is a particularly targeted fishery, vessels leave port to catch fish so that onshore processors can fill
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 75 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery PI 2.2.2 does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) specific orders. In that regard the vessels tend to wait until the most opportune times to pursue the fish, which is when they form dense homogenous shoals with relatively low levels of species mixing. Communications between SPSG vessels during the herring season ensures that information in relation to mixed shoals and undersize fish (criteria that can increase the risk of slippage) is shared rapidly and openly between member vessels. In the event of mixed catches occurring however, the onshore processing units are quite capable of handling mixed catches, therefore the presence of unwanted species in the catch is not an event that would force a vessel to slip an entire haul of fish. SPSG vessels do not carry grading equipment onboard vessels. It is a bulk fishery whereby catch handling is entirely automated. There is no scope for vessels to grade fish according to size or species as catches are coming aboard. The SPSG have a policy in relation to bycatch. According to the sustainability policy of the SPSG (http://www.scottishpelagicsg.org/images/stories/SPSG_sustainable_policy.pdf): » Member vessels will make all reasonable efforts to minimise unintended bycatch and discards which have a detrimental effect to the fisheries in which they operate and on the wider ecosystems of the marine environment. Overall the strategy that is in place is considered comprehensive and designed to manage the impact on the bycatch component specifically. It is also appropriate to the nature and scale of the bycatch issue as it understood to exist within this fishery. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. While there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, the strategy is not tested on an ongoing basis. There is no onboard CCTV coverage of certified vessels and the observer programme once operated by Marine Scotland Science is no longer active. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Scored at SG80. While there is evidence that the strategy has been implemented successfully in the past, some level of ongoing independent verification of bycatch composition and quantity would however be appropriate in order to be clear that the strategy continues to be implemented successfully on an ongoing basis. d y There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. The fleet operates a strategy that aims to minimize slippage or discarding. The onboard slippage logs do not indicate any significant levels of slippage of any stock. The fishery under certification has not been implicated in slippage or discarding by any other fisheries for the same or other stock/s. References » Council Regulation (EC) 43/2009 » http://www.scottishpelagicsg.org/images/stories/SPSG_sustainable_policy.pdf
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 76 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the main bycatch species affected by the fishery. See SG80 b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits See SG80 c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. See SG80 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Reasonable levels of information to support a bycatch management strategy are available from past Marine Scotland Science observer reports as well as SPSG onboard recording of slippage events. While the data are no longer collected routinely under the observer programme, pelagic trawl herring fisheries have operated in the North Sea for decades and there is a large body of general knowledge and information, that’s supports an understanding of the component in relation to bycatch species and quantities. This supports scoring at SG80. Inference from other similar fisheries for other herring stocks in the north Atlantic for which there are additional data available also further supports the understanding of the nature and scale of the bycatch issue in the SPSG North Sea herring fishery. b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. As there are no bycatch species identified for this fishery, the requirement for supporting discarding or slippage data is much less. It is generally understood that there is little if any discarding in the fishery. Based on landings data, those species potentially captured alongside North Sea herring include mackerel, horse mackerel, Norway pout, sprat and a broad range of demersal whitefish species. Catches cannot be graded onboard, therefore it is reasonable to assume that bycatch events (slippage), although very rare, are most likely to involve the same species that are considered as retained (indicated above). However, observer data, stakeholder contribution and anecdotal information indicate that the fishery’s impact on stocks of other pelagic and demersal species is insignificant. c Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Information in relation to the scale, spatial location and timing of the fishery provide a means by which to monitor the overall risk of bycatch. Together with information collected in onboard slippage logs and information from earlier observer reports and at sea monitoring and inspection programmes (MCS), available information is adequate to support the strategy to manage bycatch species.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 77 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). It is understood that there are no main bycatch species, based on the view of scientists and enforcement personnel, supported by those directly involved in the fishery including skippers and processors. Information in relation to the scale, spatial location and timing of the fishery provide a potential means by which to monitor the overall risk of bycatch to particular species, should the bycatch component change in this fishery in the future. Landings are monitored with a high frequency (100%) and accuracy and onboard recording of slippage is carried out by SPSG vessels on an ongoing basis. 100 a N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Scored at SG80. There is no verifiable recording of the level of bycatch. While it is understood that slippage is an unintended and rare event, the scale of the problem is not precisely known and is not monitored to an appropriate degree for scoring at SG100. b N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Scored at SG80. Information is not collected routinely in relation to bycatch species or volumes at a level of accuracy that supports estimation of outcome status with respect to biologically based limits for bycatch species with a high degree of certainty. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Scored at SG80. Available information is not adequate to support the evaluation of the management strategy to the point where there is high degree of certainty that it is achieving its objectives. Bycatch information is not collected routinely by an independent source and the understood levels of bycatch, although they are generally understood to be low, cannot be verified. Therefore the effectiveness of the strategy cannot be verified with a high degree of certainty. d N Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species. There is no ongoing observer programme or CCTV coverage of the vessels while engaged in the herring fishery. Therefore there is no independent verification of bycatch or slippage in the SPSG fleet. References » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » Marine Scotland Compliance 2012 (pers comms)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 78 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk PI 2.2.3 posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 79 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. See SG100
b Y Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
See SG80
80 a y The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. Scored at SG100
b y Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species.
There is no significant bycatch of ETP species in the fishery. Accordingly, the fishery is highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts for any ETP populations. This is corroborated by observer reports, reporting under Council Regulation 812/2004 and general understanding of the ETP species footprint of pelagic trawl herring fisheries. Occasional interactions may occur but these do not necessarily always lead to mortality of affected individuals, although this is a likely outcome through drowning in fishing gear. Despite the likely outcome, the overall situation is likely to be within limits of acceptability based on knowledge of the animals involved and the relatively low frequency of interaction. c y Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Indirect effects could emanate from depletion of the target species which could be a key food source for some species, pollution or through physical disturbance, underwater noise or other technical interactions. Given the species involved – mostly highly mobile and opportunistic feeders that are not reliant exclusively on herring for a food source, it is highly unlikely that the fishery reduces the herring stock to a point where it would adversely affect ETP populations. The target stock has been subject to an effective and precautionary management regime in recent years. The current stock assessment indicates that the spawning stock biomass has been above the upper trigger point (1.5 million t) since 2007 and the lower confidence interval has been above this trigger point (within the target region) since 2009. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been well within the target region over the last 4 years and is projected to remain in this region in 2013. The fisheries take place well away from shore where seal pupping haul outs may be located. It is known that pinnipeds and cetaceans have sensitive hearing, however they become rapidly accustomed to ships noise and indeed this may attract them to a vessels whereabouts. Vessels aim to minimize pollution from fuel and ship generated wastes and all oils and solid wastes are processed or disposed of ashore.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 80 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
100 a y There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. A range of ETP species are known to occur within the North Sea and Eastern English Channel where the fishery operates. Amongst these are both Grey and Harbour seal and Harbour porpoise; all of which are protected under CITES Appendix II and Council Directive 92/43/EEC (the ‘Habitats Directive’). Other protected species known to occur include the Angel shark, Common skate and spurdog –all of which are listed as prohibited catch under EU Council Regulation 23/2010. Both Allis shad and sturgeon are also listed under the Habitats Directive, while sturgeon is listed on CITES Appendix II. The basking shark was included in the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1998) and more recently the Bonn Convention in Migratory Species (2005). Leading in 2006 to the prohibition of deliberate capture and landing in EC waters under CFP regulations and more recently to a ban on retention on board of any specimens under CR 23/2010. Although the vast majority of recent basking shark sightings have been concentrated on the West Coast of Scotland and Irish Sea, there have been isolated sightings off the Grampian and Moray coast, and in the coastal waters around Orkney and Shetland. As the Basking Shark shares are diet with herring, there is the possibility of interaction with the SPSG fleet. In spite of this there have been no reported interactions – despite extensive Sea Mammal Research Unit observer coverage and coverage under CR 812/2004. Under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has a duty to provide scientific advice to government on matters related to the management of seal populations. NERC’s Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) provide advice annually which is informed by the latest scientific information provided by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU - St Andrews). In its annual submissions for recent years, SCOS does not point to a significant interaction (direct mortality) between pelagic herring trawl fisheries and either species of seal. This concurs with the general understanding that while individual captures may occur from time to time, seal bycatch is not a regular occurrence.
The UK has been active in annual reporting of bycatch in capture fisheries the under the requirements of EU Council Regulation 812/2004 that lays down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries. While incidental captures of harbour porpoise and possibly common dolphins are possible or even likely from time to time, no significant interactions have been reported under the 812 monitoring programme, concerning the fishery under certification. The report of the ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected species refers to instances of catchers of river herring or shad (Alosa spp) in pelagic trawl fisheries in the USA and in European waters. While the present fishery is not referred to explicitly, it is acknowledged that there is potential for herring fisheries to have significant interaction with shad. Shad are protected under EU law. No data indicating catch of shad in the herring fishery has been indicated by observer reports available to the assessment. No concern has been expressed by scientists or stakeholders on the basis of observer reports or anecdotal information for the fishery in relation to shad. Basking sharks are known to have increased in abundance in UK waters in recent times. Basking shark distribution in UK waters is believed to be closely linked to the availability of their main diet - Calanus copepods, whose seasonal blooms are linked to increased light, nutrients and phytoplankton abundance. While incidental capture of basking shark in pelagic herring trawl is theoretically possible, there are reasonable grounds to surmise that the capture of basking shark in the fishery by SPSG vessels is very unlikely and may not always end in mortality for the captured specimen. Fishermen have no commercial interest in landing basking shark and they are aware of their protected status. There is some possibility of a large animal
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 81 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
being released prior to the net being taken aboard, meaning that an unlikely encounter could result in an animal being released alive. b n There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. While there is a basis for confidence that the fishery has no significant detrimental direct effects on ETP populations, it cannot be said with a high degree of confidence in the absence of greater levels of qualitative and quantitative data that would address all off the potential ETP species identified. For cetaceans, there are permissible thresholds, or sustainable take levels, in use, based on criteria defined by international agreements: ASCOBANS advises for example that the maximum annual bycatch of Harbour porpoises should not exceed 1.7% of the population in that year; the IWC (International Whaling Commission) states that if the number of small cetaceans captured is greater than 1% of their total population size, then this should cause concern. The ASCOBANS limit is increasingly accepted as being most relevant for most small cetaceans, although ASCOBANS is moving towards a more precautionary approach to reduce the bycatch to less than1% of the best available abundance estimate. c n There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. There are insufficient grounds for scoring the fishery at SG100 for this scoring issue. References » CITES appendix II » Wildlife & Countryside Act (1998) » Conservation of Seals Act 1970 » Council Regulation 23/2012 » Council Regulation 92/43 EEC » http://www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk/documents/678.pdf » WGBYC 2011. Report of the Working Group on bycatch of protected species. ACOM:24 ICES 2011. » ASCOBANS- www.ascobans.org » Berrow, S. etal, 1998. Discarding practices and marine mammal bycatch in the Celtic Sea herring fishery. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy of Biology and Environment 1: 1-8. » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 812/2004 – on laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 82 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Scored at SG80 b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). Scored at SG80 80 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on ETP species. The fishery operated within a clear legal framework which limits the volume of the harvest as well as the spatial location and timing of the fishery. From a legal stance, there are clear provisions setting out the status of ETP animals under UK, EU and International legislation and Convention. The UK has ratified CITES and is considered to be fully compliant under the EU environmental legislation. The UK is also a member of ASCOBANS – the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas. The aim of ASCOBANS is to promote close cooperation amongst contracting nations with a view to achieving and maintaining a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans. The SPSG Standard Operating Practices Promoting Responsible Fishing document standardizes certain operations (including ETP interaction reporting) of the fleet in accordance with their sustainability policy and in order to promote best practice. The fleet is committed to recording interactions and the SOP includes a practical onboard guide to aid in identification of relevant ETP species. There is a clear undertaking to research the impacts that this and other fisheries may be having on ETP species. To date this has been achieved by Marine Scotland Science observer recording while on pelagic fishing trips. The UK has implemented an observer programme in order to meet the requirements of EU Council Regulation 812 of 2004 (implemented in Scotland under the SSI 2005 No.330 SEA FISHERIES The Prevention and Monitoring of Cetacean Bycatch (Scotland) Order 2005). Under Article 6, Member States are required to report annually on the implementation of the Regulation, and the annual report must include estimates of the overall incidental catches of cetaceans in each of the fisheries concerned. Stakeholder interviews with Marine Scotland: Science showed that observations on ETPs is collected on a monthly basis and sent to SMRU (Sea Mammal Research Unit) for compilation and analysis. Implementation of the requirements of the regulation resulted in observers making 9 trips on SPSG vessels in 2010, during which no ETP interaction was observed.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 83 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Annual reports in relation to the implementation of the regulation are available. The consistent conclusion is that there is little bycatch of cetaceans in pelagic trawl fisheries. Considerable effort has been expended by Sea Mammal Research Unit observers since the programme has been operational. According to the low number of observed instances of cetacean interaction, it is considered highly likely that the management strategy will achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. b Y There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The fishery is limited by quota and targets herring that form dense shoals. The fisheries are relatively clean and catches are made in relatively short hauls that are targeting specific shoals which have been previously identified. ETP species are known to occur in the areas fished but most do not occur in large numbers and any interactions are likely to involve only individual specimens. Interactions do not always lead to mortality as there is some scope for animals to be released from pelagic trawls when the net is hauled aboard. Due to the generally short hauls there is a greater potential for post capture survival. Continued voluntary reporting of interactions by the fleet and ongoing observer coverage of pelagic fleets by SMRU will assist in ensuring the strategy remains valid and appropriate to the fishery’s potential to impact ETP. The management response to the potential issue of ETP bycatch is appropriate both in scope and in the measures that it implements in order to avoid impacts. Based on knowledge of ETPs that may be affected by this fishery, as well as the low level of interaction and comparisons with other pelagic trawl fisheries for herring, there is an objective basis for stating that the measures in place are likely to avoid unacceptable impacts to ETPs. c Y There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Overall levels of bycatch in this fishery are exceptionally low, for both bycatch and ETP species. There is high degree of compliance by the UK with EU directives and regulations concerning protected species and monitoring of the effects of fisheries on cetaceans. There are no regular reports of cetacean, pinniped or shark mortality that coincide with the operation of this fishery. Both populations of seals are believed to be stable or increasing in the North Sea. There are concerns over the level of harbor porpoise bycatch in fisheries however the main threat to porpoise is from static net fisheries, not pelagic trawls. The fishery itself has shown a very high degree of compliance with quota and fishery rules in recent years. There is no indication of systematic illegal activity or non- compliance with regulations by any member vessels. 100 a N There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Scored at SG80. The strategy in snot considered comprehensive in that it has not been designed to manage the impacts on the ETP component specifically.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 84 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Scored at SG80. There is insufficient data to allow for a quantitative analysis of the impact of the fisheries on all affected species. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Scored at SG80. There is insufficient information in relation to the interaction of all fisheries with respect to most ETP species and there is no clear evidence that the strategy being implemented by the SPSG is being successful a limiting the extent of the fishery’s impact. Clearer evidence would require greater consideration of indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. d N There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Scored at SG80. There is insufficient information in relation to the interaction of all fisheries with respect to most ETP species and there is no clear evidence that the strategy being implemented by the SPSG is being successful a limiting the extent of the fishery’s impact. Clearer evidence would require greater consideration of indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. References » SPSG Standard Operating Procedure » ASCOBANS – www.ascobans.org » UK reports on implementation of Council Regulation 812 of 2004. Available at www.defra.gov.uk » ICES – WGMME – reports since 2008. at www.ices.dk/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 85 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Scored at SG80
b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. Scored at SG80
c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species. Scored at SG80
80 a Y Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. There are a number of sources of data in relation to ETP interaction. At vessel level, SPSG members have undertaken to record and report, using onboard logs, instances of ETP interactions while engaged in the NS herring fishery. Under regulation 812/2004 the UK operates an observer programme that aims to establish typical catch rates for cetacean species in a number of fisheries using pelagic trawl gears. The obligation to apply minimum levels of observer coverage is largely complied with, although difficulties have been experienced by all member nations in fully implementing the requirement of the regulation. The assessment team is aware that Marine Scotland: Science is constrained by funding and will need to divert valuable observer time to focus on fisheries that present the greatest risk to marine mammals. Although regulation 812/2004 specifies observer coverage levels per region and fishery, there is an ongoing debate as to the appropriateness of some of the target observer coverage levels with a view to possibly amend the regulation. The assessment team strongly recommends that the fishery encourages greater compliance with regulation 812/2004, while continuing to contribute to efforts for reform of the regulation. In the meantime, the fishery continues to facilitate observer presence as per regulation 812/2004 in its present form. Additional sources of data in relation to ETP interaction are observer programmes operated by Marine Scotland Science and CEFAS, although coverage of pelagic trawl vessels has been discontinued at the present time in response to the low level of risk that the fishery is believed to present to ETP species. However, while operating, the discard observer programme has recorded occasional catches of seals and zero catches of cetaceans (ICES 2011; Pierce 2001). Accurate catch information is collected annually for the SPSG fleet and there is good information in relation to the spatial operation of the fishery. Data are adequate for estimating fishery related mortality for ETP species. As a participant in ASCOBANS, the UK provides annual national reports with respect to activities that are relevant in the context of managing human impacts on cetacean populations. The reports are a useful reference and summarise annual activities
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 86 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) and data that are relevant in the context of estimating fishery impacts.
b Y Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. There is adequate information in relation to the ETP species that may be affected by the fishery and the mechanisms of impact. There is reasonable information in relation to the status of affected populations, particularly seals and harbor porpoise. While not conducted with the level of resources applied to a stock assessment for commercial fish species; estimates for ETP populations have been arrived at through a range of methodologies and can be considered best available estimates. There is reliable and ongoing collection of data in relation to the fishery and its direct impacts on ETP species, including total catches, spatial extent and timing, ETP interaction. Information is highly likely to be sufficient to determine the implications for affected ETP species. c Y Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. There is adequate ongoing collection of information in relation to catches of target species, as well as the spatial location, timing and extent of the fishery. Sufficient information has been collected in ongoing observer programmes in order to conclude that the present fishery does not present a significant risk to ETP populations and to support an appropriate strategy to manage impacts. The observer programme run by SMRU has been focusing effort on other fisheries in recent years having generated sufficient data to conclude that the pelagic trawl herring fishery presents a relatively low risk to cetacean species. AT SG80, for populations of other ETP species including pinnipeds and basking shark, sufficient data are recorded using onboard ETP logs to support a full strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. The data are compiled annually by the SPSG and are available to interested parties outside of the SPSG. 100 a N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. Scored at SG80. Information is not adequate to estimate outcome status at SG100. Data from onboard ETP logs cannot be verified and there are data gaps in relation to possible interactions with less high profile ETP species including Atlantic sturgeon and shad Alosa spp. b N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. Scored at SG80. There is not adequate or comprehensive information in relation to the indirect effects of the fishery on all ETP species. c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Scored at SG80. Information does not support a comprehensive strategy. Information is collected by a range of organizations and often as part of a voluntary
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 87 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) undertaking. Data collected by the fishery cannot be verified. Information is not complete for all potentially affected ETP species. » http://www.ascobans.org/pdf/ac19/AC19_2-10_NationalReportUK.pdf » Hammond, PS, etal, 2002. Abundance of harbour porpoise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of Applied Ecology 2002 39, 361– 376 » SCANS - II– see www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk and http://biology.st- References andrews.ac.uk/scans2/documents/issue9_Dec06.pdf » Pierce G, 2001. Pelagic fisheries in Scotland (UK) and Galicia (Spain): observer studies to collect fishery data and monitor by-catches. At www.abdn.ac.uk/marfish/marmamm/pelagic.htm. » http://www.ices.dk/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 88 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Scored at SG100
80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Scored at SG100
100 a Y There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Herring shoals are targeted by the SPSG fleet when they form dense shoals and are located at some point in the water column above the seabed. Herring is a pelagic species which apart from demersal spawning events, spend their entire lifecycle above the seabed where they feed on a variety of copepods and carry out large migrations in pursuit of zooplankton aggregations. Herring are most abundant in areas of open water, where they tend to aggregate in large three dimensional shoals above the seabed. Because they are a shoaling pelagic species, herring are most efficiently caught using mid-water trawls, which are used to fish the upper layers of the water column. The SPSG fleet target herring with pelagic trawl gear that is not designed or intended to come into contact with the seabed. No heavy ground ropes, chains or wires reinforced with rubber rollers are necessary and the upper and lower leading edges of the nets usually are made of heavy rope that is not armored in any way. Because of this, even the briefest encounter between fishing gear and the seabed can cause extensive damage to fishing gear. Pelagic trawl doors or large clump weights (up to 2 tonnes) are normally used to submerge a pelagic trawl and to prevent the net rising as the net is towed at speeds of up to 5 knots. Weights are suspended forward of the net on the towing bridle and can be raised and lowered using the trawl winch. Trawl doors or weights do not normally or intentionally make contact with the seabed during fishing operations. Trawl gear geometry and net position in the water column is closely monitored using electronic net mensuration equipment. Data available to skipper in real-time includes the depth of the headline and the footrope, as well as clearance from the footrope to the seabed. Vessels are also fitted with forward looking sonar meaning they have a clear view of the seabed for up to 1 mile ahead of the vessels path. This assists skippers in avoiding seabed contacts by providing advance warning of obstructions, thereby providing sufficient time to take action to avoid damaging and expensive interaction between fishing gear and the seabed. » Scotland’s Marine Atlas 2011 www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications » OSPAR Maps of Sensitive seabed communities in the Northeast Atlantic. At: References www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/MPA.htm
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 89 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on PI 2.4.1 a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 90 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. Scored at SG100
b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). Scored at SG80
80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. Scored at SG100
b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. The method of fishing employed is well known and knowledge of the behaviour of herring shoals is also well developed. There is good information on the spatial location and timing of the fishery. Detailed information on the benthos is becoming available through on-going research for Scotland’s Marine Atlas, and OSPAR, as well as the GIS project Marine Europe Seabed Habitat (MESH), and UKSeaMap 2010. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.
Scored at SG100
100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.
Herring aggregate in mid-water during feeding and only aggregate close to the seabed when spawning. Fishing operations target the discrete shoals in mid-water, normally well above the seabed. The pelagic trawl fishery seeks to actively avoid contact with the seabed in order not to damage expensive fishing gear that is not designed to withstand seabed contact. Measures that minimise fishing gear/ seabed interaction are in place across the fleet, including: » The use of electronics, such as depth sounders, sonar and trawl position monitoring systems. Forward looking scanning sonar on all vessels reveal seabed topography and contours up to 1.5miles ahead of the vessel, allowing sufficient time to change course or raise the net when approaching seabed obstructions are observed. Rapid changes to the position of the net can be made from the bridge using trawl winches or by adjusting vessel speed. All vessels use trawl monitoring sensors attached to the net, and monitors on the bridge display data on the height and spread of the net opening, depth of footrope of the net, and clearance between footrope and seabed. » Real time radio communication between vessels » The most experienced skippers are normally present on the bridge and in control of the fishing operation, meaning that accidental contacts with the seabed are highly unlikely to occur.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 91 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. Scored at SG80. There is incomplete information in relation to the distribution of sensitive habitats in the areas fished. There is no recording of seabed contact events on-board SPSG vessels. c Y There is clear evidence that that strategy is being implemented successfully.
The fishing gear used in this fishery is not suitable for situations where the gear would routinely touch the seabed. North Sea herring spawning areas are known, and VMS data confirms that fishing effort is concentrated in open waters away from the coast. d Y There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. The fishery does not interact with the seabed. There is no evidence of routine interaction with the seabed. Therefore it is sufficient to award the scoring issue at SG100. » MESH, www.searchmesh.net » OSPAR Commission 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission, References London. 108 + vii pp. At www.ospar.org » 2011. Scotland’s Marine Atlas www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications » UKSeaMap 2010 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2117
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 92 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There is basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. Scored at SG100
b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. Scored at SG100
80 a Y The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Scored at SG100
b Y Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Scored at SG100 c Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). There is ongoing collection of data in relation to catch of target species (quota take up monitoring) as well as the spatial location, extent and timing of the fishery. There is also ongoing monitoring of fishing gears in use and vessels are required to record the method of capture. 100 a Y The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. The distribution of habitat types is available from various surveys and studies (OSPAR, MESH) - and the information is improved upon with on-going research (Ocean 2025). Although seabed mapping for the area in which the fishery operates is incomplete at a scale relevant to the present fishery, this is of little consequence to this assessment, as the fishery occurs in mid-water and does not directly impact on benthic habitats. Mapping of vulnerable seabed habitats, such as Lophelia pertusa reefs, carbonate mounds and burrowing megafauna can be accessed on http:/www.searchnbn.net/hosted/ospar/ospar.html and www.ospar.org .
b Y The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully.
The fishing gear does not impact or make contact with the seabed. There are no physical impacts. There are no known impacts of the fishing gear on the pelagic habitat; the only possible physical impact of the gear on benthic habitat would be through net entanglement if the gear was to make contact with the seafloor. The nets would snap and break easily, and since nets are expensive, any contact with the seafloor is strenuously avoided. Scoring at SG100 is appropriate. c N Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. Scored at SG80. Changes in habitat distributions for all sensitive habitats in the North Sea are not measured over time at a scale that is relevant to fisheries impact management.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 93 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 94 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. See SG80
80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Herring (Clupeidae) qualifies as key low trophic species under current MSC assessment methodology and its abundance and importance in the North Sea ecosystem and ecosystem assessment do not provide evidence to the contrary. Herring is the key pelagic species in the North Sea and is thus considered to have major impact as prey and predator to most other fish stocks in that area. As plankton feeders they form an important part of the food chain up to the higher trophic levels. Both as juveniles and as adults they are an important source of food for some demersal fish, birds and for sea mammals (Dickey- Collas et al., 2010). Over the past century man has exerted the greatest influence on the abundance and distribution of herring in the North Sea. Spawning stock biomass has fluctuated from estimated highs of around 4.5 million tonnes in the late 1940s to lows of less than 100 000 tonnes in the late 1970s (Mackinson, 2001; Mackin-son and Daskalov, 2007; Simmonds 2007). The species has demonstrated robustness in relation to recovery from such low levels once fishing mortality is curtailed in spite of recruitment levels being adversely affected (Nash et al., 2009; Payne et al., 2009). A potential ecosystem impact of the North Sea herring fishery is the removal of fish that could provide other ecosystem services. In the North Sea, herring provides the trophic link to graze the plankton and act as prey for other organisms. If herring biomass is very low, other species, such as sandeel, may replace its role or the system may shift in a more dramatic way. Interaction of herring with cod and Norway pout population dynamics has been considered in the past and again in recent years (Cushing, 1980; Huse et al., 2008; Fauchald, 2010). Speirs et al. (2010) suggest that the current biomass of herring will prevent the recovery of the cod population even if fishing mortality on cod is reduced. Large populations of predator fish like saithe, cod and whiting, but also to some degree large cetacean or seal populations, will also impact the herring biomass (ICES WGSAM REPORT –ICES, 2011). It is highly likely that, for Good Environmental Status (GES), the North Sea requires a certain threshold of herring biomass (ICES, 2012). For NS herring, SSB below the limit reference point of 800 000 t would be likely to have impaired recruitment due to low spawning stock size as opposed to other causes, however there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is well above this level. Based on the most recent stock assessment, the spawning stock biomass was estimated to be above 2.3 million tonnes in 2011 and was projected to be 2.27 million tonnes in 2012 based on 2011 catches. The model
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 95 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) used for the stock assessment is based on likelihood and provides confidence intervals. There is less than a 2.5% probability that the spawning stock biomass is below 1.9 million tonnes, which is still very much larger than the limit reference point (80000 t) (the point where there is evidence that recruitment would be at risk). The current stock assessment indicates that the spawning stock biomass has been above the upper trigger point (1.5 million t) since 2007 and the lower confidence interval has been above this trigger point (within the target region) since 2009. ICES classify the stock as being at full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably, below the current management plan and FMSY targets. The agreed management plan between EU and Norway has been evaluated (ICES, 2011a) and ICES concluded that the plan, which has primacy over the ICES MSY framework when providing advice, is consistent with both the precautionary approach and the MSY approach. The analysis carried out by the benchmark workshop (ICES, 2012b) has revised the perception of the stock and FMSY needs to be re-evaluated. Thus a full revision of the existing management plan for North Sea autumn spawners is needed. The continued use of the current management plan is considered precautionary until this can be carried out. A well-defined harvest control rule is in place which is designed to ensure that the harvest is curtailed once the precautionary stock biomass reference point is approached and in any event does not drop below the limit reference point. The issue of whether the reference points have been set at a level which is importance in the context of the stocks likely role in the ecosystem has been scored under PI 1.1.2 (Reference points) and this has resulted in a recommendation. The evidence is that appropriate biomass levels are being achieved in practice, but this might be formalised. Given the current SSB which is approximately half of the estimated all-time high for the stock with predictions for little change in the immediate future if the current management regime is continued it is considered highly likely that the North Sea herring fisheries (all fisheries combined) are being conducted at a level which will not deplete the stock to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There are clear suggestions that the current stock biomass is leading to reduced recruitment of groundfish species such as cod and saithe. It is considered highly unlikely that the fishery disrupts key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a significant degree such as might be indicated by trophic cascade, severely truncated size composition, depletion of top predators, gross changes in biodiversity or genetic diversity.
The fishery does not take place on spawning grounds or if spawning aggregations are targeted, there is no direct interaction with the seabed. 100 a N There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 96 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) See SG80. There is insufficient justification for scoring the fishery at SG100.
References » Cushing D. H. 1980. The decline of the herring stocks and the gadoid outburst. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 39: 70-81. » Dickey-Collas, M., Nash, R.D.M., Brunel, T., Damme, C.J.G. van, Marshall, C.T., Payne, M.R., Corten, A., Geffen, A.J., Peck, M.A., Hatfield, E.M.C, Hintzen, N.T., Enberg, K., Kell, L.T., and Simmonds, E.J. 2010. Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: a review. - ICES J. mar. Sci., 67: 1875-1886. » Fauchald, P. 2010. Predator–prey reversal: A possible mechanism for ecosystem hysteresis in the North Sea? Ecology, 91: 2191–2197. » Huse, G., Salthaug, A., and Skogen, M.D. 2008. Indications of a negative impact of herring on recruitment of Norway pout. ICES J. mar. Sci., 65: 906– 911. » ICES 1998. Report of the Study Group on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. Feb 1998. ICES CM 1998/ACFM:10. » ICES 2007. Report of the Workshop on Limit and Target Reference Points. ICES CM 2007/ACFM:05. » ICES 2011. Report of the Workshop on Herring Interim Advice on the Management Plan, 24 October 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:62. 35 pp. » ICES 2011a. Report of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM). ICES CM 2011/SSGSUE:10 » ICES 2012a. 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). ECOREGION North Sea. Book 6. Pp.19. » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. » Mackinson S. 2001. Representing trophic interactions in the North Sea in the 1880s, using the Ecopath mass-balance approach. In Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic ecosystems: models and analyses, pp. 35-98. Ed. by S. Guenette, V. Christensen, and D. Pauly. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 9 (4). » Mackinson, S., and Daskalov, G. 2007. An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an eco-system approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Science Series, Technical Reports, Cefas Lowestoft, 142: 195pp. » Nash, R.D.M., Dickey-Collas, M., and Kell, L.T. 2009. Stock and recruitment in North Sea her-ring (Clupea harengus); compensation and dispensation in the population dynamics. Fish. Res., 95: 88-97. » Payne, M.R., Hatfield, E.M.C., Dickey-Collas, M., Falkenhaug, T., Gallego, A., Gröger, J., Licandro, P., Llope, M., Munk, P., Röckmann, C., Schmidt, J.O., and Nash, R.D.M. 2009. Recruitment in a changing environment: the 2000s
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 97 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) North Sea herring recruitment failure. ICES J, mar, Sci., 66: 272-277. » Simmonds, E.J. 2007. Comparison of two periods of North Sea herring stock management: success, failure, and monetary value. ICES J.mar. Sci., 64: 686–692. » Speirs, D.C., Guirey E.J., Gurney W.S.C., and Heath, M.R. 2010. A length- structured partial eco-system model for cod in the North Sea. Fish. Res., 106: 474–494.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 98 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary.
See SG80
b Y The measures take into account potential impacts of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. See SG80
c Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). See SG80 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary. The development of fisheries management policies and strategies since the early 1990 has increased focus on and consideration of the ecosystem approach to managing exploited populations of living aquatic resources.
Multiple users of marine resources have been acknowledged to a greater degree. The recommendations from numerous international agreements, conferences and summits held on the subject reflect the changing approach to resource management (ICES 2008b). A broad range of regulatory measures in place which aim to limit adverse effects of fishing on the marine ecosystem; including EC2371/2002, EC92/43/EEC, EC2008/56/EC, Resolution 2009/C 68 E/05, and EC 1010/2009. It is acknowledged by governance and science that there is a shortage of well- defined P2 objectives principally those that might better capture the role of herring in the ecosystem. However, in practice higher level regulations do contain relevant ecosystem objectives, such as those contained in the CFP regulation and these serve as binding objectives for all relevant EU fisheries including this one. The client fishery also states clear objectives in terms of P2 elements, in its code of practice. These can be viewed on the SPSG website. These make specific reference to minimising impact on the environment through minimising bycatch, avoiding slippage, and avoiding interactions with ETP species. There is no evidence that the recent request to ICES to re-evaluate the management plan has highlighted the need for any particular ecosystem objectives – other than to maximize long term yield for the target stock. Clearly at this time when there is likely to be a revision of the harvest control rule there is a clear opportunity to agree and state more explicitly the stated intent of management in terms of wider ecosystem interactions – ideally even exploring how this may be well defined or measurable. Other ecosystem risks that may be associated with this fishery, such as bycatch (retained and discards) and habitat impacts, are managed effectively by a range of measures (see under 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 above). The fishery is subject to effective MCS (monitoring, control and surveillance) to ensure all landings are recorded and there is high compliance in the fishery.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 99 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The strategy takes into consideration relevant information in the stock assessment including the ecosystem role of NS herring, albeit in an implicit manner rather than explicitly. The range of information on North Sea herring is comprehensive. Fleet composition is complete, including vessel characteristics which can be used to estimate capacity. The surveys measure the abundance for the various locations, so that the abundance of the spawning components (stocks) can be monitored. Catches from the stock components can be separated. Both survey and commercial catches are well sampled for biological data on the stock. There is now also some basis for the natural mortality used, which is now included as a time and age variant value taken from a North Sea multispecies model. Detailed and ongoing environmental monitoring of the North Sea is carried out. Information includes temperature, salinity as well as primary productivity based on remote sensing. Managing the fishery according to currently defined objectives using catch limits and a clearly defined HCR is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery so as to prevent serious or irreversible harm; thereby maintain outcome status at SG80 or higher. c Y The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). The principal potential impact of the fishery is depletion of the herring stock itself, which is an important prey species. The stock biomass has been significantly above precautionary and limits reference points for an extended period of time. There is some evidence that the herring biomass in the North Sea is such that recruitment of demersal stocks such as cod and whiting may be affected through predation by herring. d Y There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. There is evidence that the management strategy is effective in that the multi- annual NS herring fishery management plan is designed to apply constraint to the year-on-year change in TAC, based on SSB and F. The fact that the analysis carried out by the benchmark workshop (ICES, 2012b) has revised the perception of the stock and indicated that FMSY needs to be re-evaluated is indicative of the strategy being revised and updated, rather than being fixed in time and non-adaptive. There is no evidence of significant detrimental effects on other ecosystem components (see also 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4.1). There is no evidence of overshoot of TAC, nor any evidence of systematic non-compliance. 100 a N There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place. Se SG80 b N The strategy, which consists of a plan, contains measures to address all main impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 100 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm.
See SG80
c N The measures are considered likely to work based on prior experience, plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. See SG80
d N There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. See SG80
» ICES 2011a, Advice, Book 5. » ICES 2008b. Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities. (WGECO), May 6–13 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:41. 269 pp. » ICES. 2008c. Report of the Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED), 25–29 February 2008, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2008/ACOM:47. 203 pp. » ICES. 2009. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 15–21 April 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:20. 190 pp. » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy CR (EC) References No 2371/2002. » COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EC) 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. » COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EC) 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) » Council Resolution 2009/C 68 E/05, on Reduction in unwanted by-catches and elimination of discards in European fisheries » COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2009 on laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 101 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g., trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity). See SG80 b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have not been investigated in detail. See SG80
80 a Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.
There is good information in relation to both biotic and abiotic elements of the ecosystem. Understanding of the role of Atlantic herring in the ecosystem of the North east Atlantic is adequate for scoring at SG80 Information in relation to food web structure and key predator/prey relationships is adequate to understand the role of herring in the North Sea as well as the relative importance of the stock as a grazer that provides an essential link between plankton and higher trophic levels. There is a good understanding of the oceanography and hydrography of the North Sea and how the herring stock may be influenced at a macro level by relative changes in temperature, salinity and nutrient availability. The locations of most spawning grounds are known within the North Sea. b Y Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail. The herring fishery under assessment catches very little by way of other species, which strongly supports the assumption that the main impacts of this fishery are associated with the removal of the target species (herring). This means that other potential impacts are likely to be negligible, as well as tightly managed within the management measures specifically designed for the fishery. There has been no evidence of damage to the ecosystem structure by way of trophic cascading, depletion of top predators, or gross changes in species diversity in the area, for example. There have been extensive studies investigating the impacts of trawl fisheries on the ecosystem of the North Sea; however these have focused mainly on seabed interactions and the potential for negative seabed impacts from this fishery are known to be insignificant. Some detailed investigations have been carried out into the role of herring in predation of gadoid and other finfish species in the North Sea. Regular and detailed monitoring and focused investigations are carried out into environmental parameters that play a major role in the functioning of the North Sea ecosystem. c Y The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. There is considerable information on the target species, herring, both biological and within its ecological context in the eco-region (ICES HAWG 2011, 2012). It is an important prey species for a wide range of piscivorous fish as well as marine mammals (WGECO 2008). There is a good understanding of the role of retained species (mackerel) in the northeast Atlantic. There is no significant bycatch in this fishery, and significant bycatch of ETP species has not been observed. The fishery does not interact with the benthic habitat.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 102 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. The main consequences for the ecosystem as a result of the fishery are highly likely to be restricted to consequences arising from removal of a proportion of NS herring stock. Sufficient information is available on the impact of catches of retained species, bycatch species, ETPs as well as interaction with the seabed habitat, in order to allow a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the likely consequences for the ecosystem. There is no significant bycatch, retained species are well documented and there is no significant habitat interaction. Ecosystem consequences can therefore be expected to be low. e Y Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Data on the fishery, as well as biological and oceanographic elements of the ecosystem continue to be collected on a routine basis by various national institutions amongst nations sharing an interest in the North Sea and the herring and other stocks. Data are regularly reviewed and considered in a variety of ICVES working groups, as well as more specific research projects. It is expected that research efforts and data collection undertakings will continue into the future and will be augmented by data from the fishery in relation to removals and spatial and temporal aspects of the fishery. It is considered that current quantities and quality of data available and collected on an on-going basis are highly likely to be sufficient to allow for an increase in risk to any components to be detected. 100 b N Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated.
Scored at SG80
c N The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Scored at SG80
d N Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Scored at SG80
e N Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Scored at SG80
» WGECO, 2008. Report of the Working Group for Ecosystems effects of fishing. ICES ACOM:26. ICES Denmark. » HAWG 2011. ICES. 2011. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for References the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:04.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 103 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » ICES. 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06. 835 pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 104 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. At level of international law, the UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 1996. The principle legislative instrument for fisheries management in the EU is the Common Fisheries Policy, which aims at achieving sustainable fisheries management across the EU. This clearly aims to achieve both P1 (stock management) and P2 (wider ecosystem impacts). For example, the regulation states The scope of the CFP extends to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources ………. bearing in mind ……UNCLOS. The objective of the CPF should therefore be to provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources …….. in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner. Underneath the umbrella of the EU CFP, there are many binding regulations covering all aspects of fisheries, which are amended and updated as required. For example, some of the key recent pieces of legislation include the regulations on IUU and on control & enforcement. The UK and Scottish national legislation implements all aspects of the reformed EU Common Fisheries Policy. (2371/2002) and establishes licensing, MCS and penalty procedures and as such aims at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance to MSC P1 and P2. b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Scored at SG 80 c Y Although the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability of the fishery. Scored at SG 100 d Y The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Scored at SG 100 80 b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The main mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes is the Scottish judicial system. In event of a fisheries infringement Marine Scotland (Compliance) pass details to the procurator fiscal, the public prosecutor in Scotland with responsibility
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 105 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) for investigating reports from Marine Scotland (Compliance) and deciding whether to prosecute. Fishermen or industry representatives can appeal to the full judicial process, although details of the appeals process, or indeed the presence of an appeals officer is less obviously apparent than in some countries. The outcomes of public prosecutions of fishery offences are published at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Compliance/enforcement c Y The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion within binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. Scored at SG 100
d Y The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Scored at SG 100
100 b N The management system incorporates or subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. Scored at SG 80
c Y The management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. There are a number of mechanisms in EU and UK fisheries management which act proactively to avoid legal disputes, and these are much improved in recent years. Following the review of the CFP in 2002, much increased emphasis was placed on stakeholder engagement in the management process as a means of proactively avoiding disputes. Stakeholder consultation through Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) is now an integral part of the functioning of this system. For the fishery under assessment the Pelagic RAC plays an important role in bringing parties together (industry – across all sectors, science, NGO) early on in the management process, thereby reducing the likelihood of management measures which trigger dispute. In June 2011, the Scottish Government renewed the process of routine stakeholder engagement in fisheries management decision making by announcing the establishment of a new fisheries co-management group, the Fisheries Management and Conservation (FMAC) Group, to serve as both a decision making body and discussion forum for sea fisheries management. The group is chaired by Marine Scotland with representatives from industry representative bodies, Producer Organisations, Environmental NGOs and Marine Scotland policy and science. This is a welcome initiative to play an important function in the proactive avoidance of legal disputes, by ensuring effective engagement between industry and regulators / enforcement officers, and helps to ensure good understanding of changing regulations.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 106 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; 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. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The EU CFP sets out a formal commitment to the legal and customary rights of people dependent on fishing, through a commitment to relative stability (meaning Member States are consistently allocated the same proportion of particular stocks): “In view of the precarious economic state of the fishing industry and the dependence of certain coastal communities on fishing, it is necessary to ensure relative stability of fishing activities by the allocation of fishing opportunities among the Member States, based upon a predictable share of the stocks for each Member State.” How the allocation is divided within member states is then laid out at national level in the National Strategy Plan (in accordance with EC no 1198/2006). The UK National Strategic Plan for the European Fisheries Fund (2007 -2013) explicitly considers fishing communities and includes a number of socio-economic objectives, which can be achieved whilst remaining consistent with P1 & 2 (stock management & ecosystem) objectives. These are primarily included under Theme 4, whose principle objective “is tackle social exclusion and promote long term prosperity in communities traditionally dependent on the catching sector”. This national strategy was developed by both UK and devolved administrations (including Scotland). Further detail on how these broad objectives will be achieved is contained within the UK Operational programme for the EFF (2007 – 2013). The Scottish Government has also outlined complimentary objectives. » EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59-80. » http://www.pelagic-rac.org/ » The United Kingdom National Strategic Plan For The European Fisheries Fund References (2007 – 2013) » The United Kingdom Operational Programme For The European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013) » Securing the Benefits (All Administrations), Fisheries 2027 – a long term vision for sustainable fisheries (Defra); » A Sustainable Framework for Scottish Sea Fisheries (Scottish Executive)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): n/a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 107 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.2 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 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood.
Scored at SG 80 b The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. Scored at SG 80 80 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Section 3.5 of this assessment report provides a description of the key roles and responsibility in the fishery management process. Briefly, these include: » Management / administration: EU DG Mare, DEFRA, Marine Scotland. » Scientific Advice: ICES, EU’s STECF & ACOM, Marine Scotland (Science). » Control & Enforcement: EU Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) , Marine Scotland (Compliance) » Industry Representation: Producer Organisations (i.e. Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association, SFPO, SFO, ANIFPO etc.). » Industry / NGO / Scientific liaison: Pelagic RAC » State Agency for Fisheries Development: Seafish / Seafood Scotland In each of the cases highlighted above there is clear and transparent explanation provided (most simply found on their respective websites) on the roles and responsibilities – both for those with statutory and non-statutory roles. Offshore pelagic fisheries do tend to generate less interest from an NGO / environmental perspective. As a result some of the roles / responsibilities in relation to potential environmental interaction and how any perceived impacts would be managed may be slightly less clear. In some instances the devolution of responsibilities creates the potential for confusion in the minds of stakeholders, although clear lines of responsibility are stated in legislation. Although minor, these have contributed to this scoring issue being scored at 80 rather than 100. b Y The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. Examples consultative systems are evident at EU level, the work of the Pelagic RAC, and at national level, the work of committees such as the Scottish Fisheries Management and Conservation (FMAC) Group. The RAC is a formalised industry consultation process which has contributed much in recent years to the development of multi-annual plans for a number of fisheries, and there is clear evidence of the work of the RAC being used by the EU. These meetings are regular and provide an effective conduit for local knowledge into the management system. However, both in the case of EU consideration of RAC proposals and the work of
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 108 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
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 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) the Scottish / UK Government / industry consultation, there is not always a clear explanation provided (minuted outputs or summaries) of how the information is used or not used. c Y The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. Scored at SG 100 100 a N Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Scored at SG 80 b N The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Scored at SG 80
c Y The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. A good recent example of the consultation process has been on the reform of the common fisheries policy (which itself closely mirrors the consultation process that preceded the drafting of the reformed CFP in 2002). The 2009 Green paper on the reform of the CFP expressly states that its purpose is “to trigger and encourage public debate and to elicit views on the future CFP. The Commission invites all interested parties to comment on the questions set out in this Green Paper”. Clear guidelines were provided on how, where and when to respond. The UK Government and Scottish pelagic industry and other interested parties have actively taken up the opportunity to respond, as have the Pelagic RAC. Contributions to this consultation process can be viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/consultation/received/index_en.htm The UK / Scottish government have also undertaken consultation at a national level, for example consultation was conducted on the UK Operational Programme (which determines how fisheries grant money is prioritised and spent). The Scottish Government routinely consults on policy proposals for both fisheries management and marine conservation. Details of past consultations are readily accessible on the Scottish Government website. » http://www.pelagic-rac.org/ » http://www.seafoodscotland.org/ » http://scotland.gov.uk/About/Directorates/marinescotland References » http://cfca.europa.eu/pages/home/home.htm » http://www.ices.dk/
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 109 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
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 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » Safeguarding Our Fishing Rights: The Future of Quota Management and Licensing in Scotland Interim Outcome of Consultation Report February 2009 © Crown copyright 2009 ISBN: 978-0-7559-5963-1
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 110 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) 60 a Y Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy Scored at SG 100 80 a Y Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. Scored at SG 100 100 a Y Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. At the governance and policy level, clear over-arching long term objectives are set out in the EU common fisheries policy. The reform of the CFP in 2002 heralded the explicit adoption of “a precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems, and to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities ...... ”. These long term objectives are clear and explicitly defined and entirely consistent with MSC P&Cs. The 2002 reform of the CFP also embraced a more long-term approach to fisheries management, involving the establishment of multi-annual recovery plans for stocks outside safe biological limits and of multi-annual management plans for other stocks. It aimed to progressively implement an eco-system- based approach to fisheries management. Article 15 of Council Regulation EC 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, requires that all member states: “Shall adopt, following appropriate consultation...... a national strategic plan covering the fisheries sector (which) ...... sets out the priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial resources (in accordance with the CFP) .....for: (a) adjustment of fishing effort / capacity with regard to the evolution of fisheries resources, promotion of environmentally-friendly fishing methods and sustainable development of fishing activities; (e) the sustainable development of fisheries areas, (g) preserving human resources in the fisheries sector, through upgrading professional skills, securing sustainable employment and enhancing the position and role of women; (h) protection and enhancement of the aquatic environment related to the fisheries sector”. The UK Government has complied with the requirements of the above regulation in ‘The UK National Strategic Plan for the European Fisheries Fund (2007 -2013)’. This clearly sets out national long term objectives such as promoting sustainable fishing and the precautionary approach, including a clear commitment to long term social objectives, to support the sustainable development of the sector and the resources on which it depends.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 111 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) » EC 2002. Council Regulation No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union L 358, 59- 80.
References » COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1198/2006. On the European Fisheries Fund » The United Kingdom National Strategic Plan For The European Fisheries Fund (2007 – 2013) » The United Kingdom Operational Programme For The European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 112 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) 60 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. Scored at SG 80 80 a Y The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise. Since the 2002 revision of the CFP, subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing have stopped. There is no support to increase capacity, or to compensate for low catches. There are some minor forms of subsidy which could be identified for this fishery, however, in the opinion of the assessment team these do not contribute to unsustainable fishing and are consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. These are: » The industry does not pay directly for management or science (although this is funded through taxation) which could be construed as effective subsidy. » A preferential tax system is applied to diesel across all EU primary production sectors, which could be considered a subsidy relative to other economic sectors, but this is difficult to argue for fisheries as a whole as European countries apply a far higher level of taxation on fuel than any other economic block in the world (with the exception of Japan). » The EC’s structural funding mechanisms to the fishery sector –the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) – provides targeted financial support to the sector, but funding restrictions have been significantly tightened (focus on improvements in safety and environmental impact). » No detrimental subsides, which contribute to unsustainable fishing practices have been identified for this fishery. » At national level, the management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing. These include: » Significant penalties exist for overshoot of member quota share, including immediate criminal proceedings. Such penalties act as an economic and social incentive for compliance. » International responsible fishing schemes demonstrate positive environmental awareness and sustainable activity that provides economic incentive via produce certification and market share security. » The 2002 Reform of the CFP did not explicitly consider incentives, focusing instead on the priorities of fleet capacity, stakeholder engagement, improved enforcement, removal of subsides and long term planning. By contrast the most recent review of the CFP does address the question of incentives much more explicitly in particular in the form of ‘transferable fishing concessions’ explicitly stating that these incentivise operators to increase their concessions. Themes in the latest reform proposals also
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 113 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/P/N) include increased industry responsibility and even self-management – again motivated by the need to incentives fishermen to become involved in the stewardship of their resource. Article 29 of the proposed new CFP regulation states: “When allocating transferable fishing concessions ...... a Member State may provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear that eliminates unwanted by-catch”. However, overall, within the context of the EU CFP it is concluded that explicit consideration of incentives is not yet included in regular review although the assessors do conclude that the management system provides for incentives. and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise. In addition, the Scottish pelagic fleet effectively operates to an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system in respect of the eligibility to exploit UK pelagic quota. This gives skippers and owners greater discretion as to how they organise the harvesting of available quota. In addition, skippers know their annual allocation of quota in advance of fishing. This means that fishing operations can be carefully planned and timed best for both to maximise market value, and fish at times of best fishing efficiency. Minor overshoots of quota can be accommodated within the tradable quota system to ensure that quota is fully used, but that there is reduced likelihood of slippage if an individual exceeds quota on a given haul. 100 a N The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Scored at SG80
» Common Fisheries Policy EC (2371/2002) » European Fisheries Fund (EC) No 1198/2006 » COM (2011) 417. Communication from the Commission to the European References Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. » COM (2011) 425 final. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Common Fisheries Policy.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 114 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system.
Scored at SG80 80 a Y Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. There is no fishery specific EU regulation setting out the short and long term objectives for this fishery. Instead management is based upon the EU-Norway agreement of November 2008. This agreement clearly states the management parameters in terms of reference points. More generally, by way of introduction the agreement states that it is intended to be “consistent with a precautionary approach and designed to ensure a rational exploitation pattern and provide for stable and long term yields”. More recently, ICES have concluded that this is consistent with both the precautionary and MSY approach. Long term objectives are reflected in the fact that the agreement is a long term management plan, with a constraint on inter-annual variation in TAC. The short term objectives are reflected in a clear rule to set catch limits designed to exploit the fishery at MSY. There is however a lack of well-defined P2 objectives, such as reflecting the role of herring in the ecosystem or minimizing the fisheries impacts on other components of the ecosystem. However, in practice management does include a consideration of P2 impacts, such as impacts on bycatch or ETP and these are clearly highlighted in annual ICES advice which shapes management decisions. Furthermore, higher level regulations do contain relevant ecosystem objectives, such as those contained in the CFP regulation and these serve as binding objectives for all relevant EU fisheries including this one. The client fishery also states clear objectives in terms of P2 elements, in its code of practice. These can be viewed on the SPSG website. These make specific reference to minimising impact on the environment through minimising bycatch, avoiding slippage, and avoiding interactions with ETP species. There is no evidence that the recent request to ICES to re-evaluate the management plan has highlighted the need for any particular ecosystem objectives – other than to maximize long term yield for the target stock. Clearly at this time when there is likely to be a revision of the harvest control rule there is a clear opportunity to agree and state more explicitly the stated intent of management in terms of wider ecosystem interactions – ideally even exploring how this may be well defined or measurable. A recommendation has been raised in relation to this PI. 100 a N Well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Scored at SG 80 » Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (2012). Version 3. The Sustainable Policy of the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group. August 2012. References http://www.scottishpelagicsg.org/images/stories/SPSG_sustainable_polic y.pdf
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 115 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) » ICES (2012). Herring in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId (North Sea autumn spawners). 6.4.16 Advice May 2012. » Joint EU–Norway request on interim advice on the North Sea herring management plan. 6.3.3.4 Special request Advice November 2011. http://www.ices.dk/ » Joint EU-Norway request on management plan for North Sea herring. 6.3.3.1 Special request Advice April 2011. http://www.ices.dk/ » Joint EU-Norway request to ICES on options to revise the long-term management plan for herring in the North Sea. 6.3.3.6 Special request, Advice November 2012. http://www.ices.dk/ OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): n/a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 116 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Scored at SG 80
b Y Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. Scored at SG 80 80 a Y There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The existence of the binding management plan helps to ensure that outcomes of decisions from firstly the EU-Norway negotiations and secondly the EU Council are both predictable and understandable – removing much of the doubt that was often characteristic of decisions prior to the adoption of a management plan. The fishing industry is extremely well informed about this decision-making process. b Y Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The EU –Norway management plan is informed by science and evaluated by science before adoption. During revision of the plan, EU and Norwegian scientists and industry play a key role in highlighting serious issues for conclusion or consideration. For example, where monitoring (and to a certain extent science) identified a known risk in relation to illegal landings from pelagic fisheries, the management authority (EU) responded accordingly by increasing the binding stipulation for weighting and inspection requirements. In particular the industry play a key part in contributing to management proposals, and it is clear from resulting management decisions, that the proposals of industry – where merited and supported by precautionary science – have been given serious consideration by management decision makers. In particular the role of the pelagic RAC is crucial in enabling the industry to effectively engage with management in a positive and proactive way. Representatives of this fishery play a key role in the pelagic RAC and in shaping management proposals that are put to the EU, which decision makers in turn respond to appropriately. c Y Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. The long term management plan for the fishery explicitly states that management of the fishery will apply the precautionary approach. ICES has also evaluated the management plan as precautionary, indeed this was seen as important pre- requisite of adoption of the plan. The latest proposal for a reformed regulation for the CFP also explicitly states that “The CFP shall implement the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management”.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 117 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Generally speaking explanations are provided for management decisions, and it is possible to see the trail of evidence leading up to a decision. With a long term management plan in place and functioning properly, there is no need for management explanation of annual catch limits, as it is simply an interpretation of the scientific advice against the management plan. The annual scientific advice also highlights different scenarios in event of different management decisions. It is also possible to see the trail or correspondence between the pelagic RAC and ICES on the revision of the harvest control rule, to understand the reasons and rationale for changes. Furthermore, some of the minutes of meetings which have begun the process of management plan revision, including both industry, science and regulators are available on-line (albeit not always very easy to find). That said, there are some aspects of the outcomes of the negotiations which are less transparent. For example, as the 15% HCR limit on inter-annual TAC variation has come under increased pressure, in response to the rapidly increasing SSB, managers / negotiators have taken a decision to set TACs above the strict interpretation of the HCR, although still within the MSY approach. In spite of this deviation from the HCR there is a lack of explanation over exactly how or why the final TAC determination has been reached. Some sources suggest the final figure was simply the midpoint between the EU position and the Norwegian position. This is not ideal, although reasons for the deviation may be inferred from other sources. Looking ahead, it is expected that with the revision of the long term management plan, such deviation from the HCR should become rare, so the need for explanations of TAC setting will be removed. 100 b N Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Scored at SG 80 d N Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Scored at SG 80 References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 118 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. Scored at SG 100 b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Scored at SG 100 c Y Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Scored at SG 80 80 a Y A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Scored at SG 100 b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Scored at SG 100
c Y Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Some evidence of good compliance comes in the form of verification from Marine Scotland Compliance that the fleet under assessment has a good compliance record. There is no contrary evidence in the form of sanctions. Overall the level of compliance in the North Sea herring fishery is much improved. Cooperation between the industry and the various departments of Marine Scotland – including policy, compliance and science appears good. d Y There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. There is no evidence of systematic noncompliance. This has been confirmed by Marine Scotland (Compliance) 100 a Y A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The system of monitoring, control and surveillance in place for the Scottish and Northern Irish RSW fishery is comprehensive providing tight control of quota uptake, through inspections at sea, on landing and via spotter planes. Marine Scotland Compliance currently employ 262 staff and have 3 Marine Protection Vessels (MPVs): MPV Minna (42 m LOA, 781 GRT, 15 Knts top speed, crew of 15), MPV Jura & MPV Hirta (both 84m LOA, 2818 GRT, 18 knts top speed, crew of 17). Marine Scotland Compliance also owns two Reims Cessna Caravan II F-406 aircraft used for aerial surveillance. All vessels covered by this assessment have tamper proof VMS, are only able to land at designated ports, must give prior notification of landing, are subject to strict landings tolerance margins of 10%. In addition, all fish buyers / processors are registered and subject to inspection. There are strict
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 119 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) pelagic weighing requirements, sales record requirements and other traceability requirements. Commission Regulation 1542/2007 has led to a substantial tightening in the control requirements for landings of herring. Although this has now lapsed, the measures contained in the new EU Control regulations (1224/2009) continue the requirement for similar rigor. Although the majority of landings are made to UK ports in this fishery (Lerwick, Fraserburgh, Peterhead), there is scope for vessels to land overseas in event of more favourable prices justifying the cost of steaming to more distant ports. Similar forms and degrees of inspection are exercised in those other countries where the Scottish fleet lands in particular Ireland, Norway or Denmark – and again, vessels are only permitted to land to registered ports within those countries. b Y Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. In the middle of the last decade there was a substantial change in the approach and resources applied to monitoring, control and enforcement – in particular focused on the pelagic sector, in both the UK and Ireland. This has been described by both industry and enforcement officers as a ‘huge change’. This was in response to identification of substantial under-reporting, which resulted in fines and quota payback requirements for both the UK and Ireland. Since then there has been clear evidence of improving compliance across the pelagic sector. Details of recent enforcement activity resulting in prosecution are available in the Marine Scotland (compliance) website (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Compliance/enforcement).This shows that the last pelagic penalties to UK pelagic vessels were in early 2010 for minor misreporting offence. c N There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Scored at SG 80 References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): n/a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 120 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.4
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scored at SG 80 b Y Research results are available to interested parties. Scored at SG 80 80 a Y A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. ICES strategically establishes study groups based on information requirements identified by national delegates, including through industrial representations. Members of various ICES Working Groups focused on such elements as climate change, plankton, multi-species fisheries (ecosystem), etc. All review research, identify research requirements and undertake appropriate work. There is good communication between Working Groups (via ACOM), and between researchers through their specialist interests. The annual meetings of the ICES Council ensures that members’ research programmes are coordinated to meet strategic aims of robust and relevant stock assessments. The Key working group in relation to this fishery is the Herring Assessment Working Group (HAWG). Research / investigation are undertaken in relation to specific requirements, which generally come from the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Working Group. Members of the ICES community keep abreast of developments within the scientific community of relevance to the fishery under consideration. This ICES community is wider than Europe and includes relevant research elsewhere. Research contracts are left to other organisations, including Universities, (e.g. through the EC) to supplement scientific understanding relevant to the fishery and related ecosystem. Scientists from the marine lab in Aberdeen (Marine Scotland (Science) – formerly Fisheries Research Services) are integral players in this research community, contributing significant resources and expertise to relevant research. All protocols for data collection and analysis of fisheries data to support fishery management decision-making are clearly laid out in Annex 5 of the HAWG working group report and this provides a clear guide and plan for routine on-going targeted fisheries research. Where specific need arises, HAWG will also highlight recommendations for research (e.g. recently for work on the recruitment index), and there is evidence that this is followed up on by research institutions – in particular Marine Scotland (Science). Marine Scotland (Science) produce policy documents and annual reports (all publicly available on the web) that detail their comprehensive on-going research on herring stocks. These policy documents also maintain a comprehensive and strategic overview of the national fishing capacity relative to UK and EU policy.
b Y Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
These ICES working groups provide reliable and timely information of research results which is disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and is widely and publicly available (for example via the ICES website). ICES also publish the peer reviewed periodical journal, the ICES Journal of Marine Science, which is another way for disseminating research findings. In addition, the findings of Marine
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 121 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Scotland (Science) work are widely published – where possible in peer review format. 100 a N A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scored at SG 80 b N Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available. Scored at SG 80
References » Scottish Fisheries Research Reports are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/Publications/FRS- Reports/Research-Reports » Marine Scotland (Science) (formerly Fisheries Research Services) annual report are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/Publications/FRS- Reports/reports » Complete archive of the ICES journal is available at: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/by/year
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): n/a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 122 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. Scored at SG 80 b The fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review.
Scored at SG 80
80 a The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system There is a comprehensive system of routine monitoring of information relevant for management decision-making and stock assessment purposes. The monitoring programme in place principally focuses on landings from the fishery, i.e. quota uptake. Due to the systems described in 3.2.3 this monitoring forms an accurate reflection of actual fishing mortality. Additional monitoring is also in place to provide sufficient information to support stock assessment purposes (for example length / weight monitoring). High quality, well-documented procedures exist to reduce harvest in light of monitoring results. These can be quickly implemented (near real-time recording of catch levels and quota uptake – and annual review of stock status). The CFP system allows the Commission to make a proposal to the Council for an immediate (in-year) reduction in quota. Additionally there is a well-established system to of management evaluations. For example, there have been a number of directly relevant evaluations of the management system. These include: » Review of the CFP (2002 & 200 ) » Annual Report on Fishing Fleet Capacity » The ICES Working Groups (referred to in 3.2.4) also effectively serve as routine evaluations of management performance, by comparing fishery performance to pre-determined targets. » Vigo EU EFCA – Joint Deployment Plans – these very much act as a monitoring and evaluation tool, albeit the focus is on sharing best practice and capacity building for enforcement among member states. Although it is understood that the CFCA do review the performance of national control and enforcement agencies, the result of these evaluations are not public. The CFCA themselves undergo independent external evaluation Management proposals arising from the pelagic RAC receive thorough review prior to being put forward for consideration by the EU, prior to adoption. In addition, EU would likely only implement management proposals if these were first evaluated as precautionary by ICES and members of the STECF. The Agreed EU-Norway management plan clearly stated at its adoption, when it was to be reviewed. During 2012 the EU-Norway North Sea herring management agreement is indeed under review, in line with the original intent. The new agreement will also clearly stipulate the date that its performance is due for review.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 123 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
b The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The majority of the evaluations undertaken are ‘internal’ either within ICES or the EC. However, ICES work brings together a wide range of national scientists, in so doing so builds external perspectives into the assessments. Additionally this work is periodically externally reviewed. One way in which this is done is by inviting visiting scientists (from outside of the Europe) to attend benchmarking evaluation exercises. 100 a The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. Scored at SG 80 b The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review. Scored at SG 80
» Group Blomeyer & Snaz SL and Evalutility Ltd (2011). Community Fisheries Control Agency; Five year independent external evaluation report. References http://cfca.europa.eu/pages/docs/basic%20docs/5%20year%20independent% 20external%20evaluation%20of%20EFCA.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): n/a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 124 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1.3 Conditions
There is 1 condition for this fishery. Condition 1 Performance 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator
Score 75
A well-defined harvest control rule is in place. However, it has proved to be not entirely consistent with the harvest strategy and can be considered to be still under development. One of the intentions of the HCR was to limit variation in TAC by applying an artificial cap on the level of change. This should only work with curtailing random fluctuations around a long term Rationale mean, as might occur with high observation error for example. The HCR has been overridden both while the stock has declined through the addition of a clause to the rule, and more recently when it has prevented TAC recovering. Although the HCR is broadly working to maintain the stock size consistent with the harvest strategy, as demonstrated by the latest stock assessment which indicates that the stock is well within the target region, the ad hoc adjustments prevent this scoring issue being met at this time.
The current management plan (HCR) has not proved to meet the objectives for the fishery. Condition Specifically, the inter-annual variation (IAV) limits which are defined in the rules have been overridden. This is an aspiration rather than a rule, and it appears that an alternative smoothing process on the TAC may be desired to avoid random fluctuation in TAC, which should be the real objective. 1st Surveillance Audit: A report should be reviewing the management plan and indicating appropriate adjustments for achieving fishery objectives. 2nd Surveillance Audit: There should be evidence that a new management plan has been established and is being applied. Milestones 3rd Surveillance Audit: The new management plan should still be in place and should be applied. It should be possible to compare the TAC from the management plan with that which was agreed and the actual catch of the previous year. 4th Surveillance Audit: The new management plan should still be in place and should be applied. It should be possible to compare the TAC from the management plan with that which was agreed and the actual catch of the previous year. SPSG will work with all relevant stakeholders, including the Pelagic RAC to establish a revised Client action plan management plan for North Sea herring within the first year of certification. SPSG will provide evidence within two years that a new management plan has been adopted and implemented. During years three and four SPSG will demonstrate that the terms of the management plan have been applied and adhered to. Catch information will be provided on an annual basis. Consultation on This issue has been discussed with the Scottish representative from Marine Scotland (Science) condition who sits on the ICES Herring Assessment Working Group.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 125 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewer 1
Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes/No Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Noted Yes: With the two conditions in place coupled with some assurances that the client will address the recommendations of the report the conclusion that the fishery should be certified against the MSC Principles and Criteria for a sustainable fishery is a reasonable one.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: Condition 1 has been removed, so there is now only 1 condition. The team has identified the major weaknesses in relation to the current management issues with North Sea herring and has correctly addressed these in the two Conditions raised. For Condition 1, related to the ecosystem role of herring, the potential actions and influence of the SPSG are limited. However they are involved the Pelagic RAC and have access to the scientists involved in the Herring Assessment Working Group. It is through their influence within these organizations that they can help to ensure that due consideration is given to the ecosystem role of herring in the proposed review of the management plan. Condition 2 is also related to the proposed revision of the long term management plan and the comments above regarding the input of SPFPO are equally applicable.
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to Yes/No Certification Body Response close the conditions raised? Justification: In the new template the client action plan is included with the condition in appendix 1.3. Not provided This was included.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) This is a well written, concise report, full of relevant facts and all the necessary supporting references to the scientific literature, ICES reports and various websites. The report is structured in a way that makes for easy reference back to the scoring issues in each of the three MSC Principles. This is a great help to a peer reviewer and is much appreciated.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 126 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Generally speaking the report is non-controversial and the team has correctly identified those areas where Conditions and Recommendations are necessary. As indicated in the guide to Peer reviewers the report will doubtless be subjected to a further proof reading. This is definitely needed in order to address a few minor problems in this draft. There are examples where the text has suffered from ‘cut and paste’ errors for example reference to West of Scotland herring in section 3.5.1. FCI comment: Amended.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 127 Final Report –SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Indicator Review
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Strong evidence has been presented in No response required. the report together with all relevant references in support of the ‘high degree of certainty’ regarding the current ststus of the stock.
1.1.2 Yes Yes Yes: It is The team have highlighted the fact The stock has now been determined as not a key low imperative that in that the ecosystem role of this LTL trophic level stock according to criteria provided. the long term species is not adequately taken into Therefore, the condition referred to here has been management of account in the assessmsent and changed to a recommendation. this fishery that management of the stock and in this issue is particular the establishement of properly reference points. This issue needs to addressed and be adressed in any revision of that reference themanagement plan and the team points do in has rightly raised a Condition in this future take the respect ecosystem role of herring as an LTL species into account.
1.1.3 N/A N/A N/A No response required.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 128 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.2.1 No No N/A In my opinion the harvest strategy is The evidence highlighted by the reviewer are issues very robust and designed to be related to the harvest control rule addressed below. responsive to the state of the stock. It We accept that this requires interpretation of what is firmly related to reference points “designed” means. We are trying to avoid scoring and has an additional precautionary the HCR twice here, but we are using it as evidence element regarding annual TAC changes of a lack of design. The +/-15% change on the TAC is of +/-15%. 100a is therefore achieved not only not precautionary, but clearly not accepted and the score increased to 90/95. by stakeholders. We have used that as evidence that the approach to developing the harvest strategy could be improved (i.e. a lack of design). This is now indicated in the text.
1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes. There are There is an unecessarily complex and The complexity has been reduced as far as possible, opportunities for tortuous explanation of the problems but we use this evidence to indicate an underlying the client to fully with the recent operation of the problem in the harvest strategy i.e. it seems unlikely support the harvest control rules under 80a. This is that a “designed” HCR would be ignored quite so implementation also true in section 3.3.4 of the report. often. of the HCR Quite simply the TAC in recent years through its has been set outside the constraints of influential paragraph 5 of the HCR ie. a > 15% involvement with annual increase. This alsone justifies the Pelagic RAC. the N and the subsequent score <80.
1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A The evidence provided fully suports No response required. the score of 90. The failure of the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 129 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
fishery to achieve scoring issue 100b is reasonable in spite of HAWG assurances that the levels of unrecorded mortality through slippage and wastage are negligible.
1.2.4 Yes No N/A In spite of the rigorous process of We do share the concerns of the reviewer. However, change to a new assessement model we have applied the MSC methodology with respect in 2012 I would be more cautious at 100c and 100e – that is the stock assessment meets this stage and allocate a score of 85 the scoring guidepost as written. It is difficult to see rather than 95. The new perception of how the concerns of the reviewer relate to 100c and both SSB and F has changed quite 100e guideposts. considerably and until the new model has been used for two or three years we cannot be certain regarding its sutability for North Sea herring assessemnt. Concerns are rightly expressed under 100d and they should also be reflected under c and e.
2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A All the evidence presented, which No response required. includes independent observer data, suggests that the only main retained species in this fishery is North-East Atlantic mackerel, ie comprising
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 130 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
greater than 5% of the total catch. Failure to achieve scoring issue 100a rightly reflects the current serious problems with the management of NEA mackerel with excessive annual catches and SSB decling to below precautionary levels.
2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A As in 2.1.1 above the failure to achieve No response required. scoring isses 100 c and d refect the current problems with the management of NEA mackerel (the only main retained species in this fishery). Quite clearly there are strategies in place to manage the stock with a clearly defined HCR linked to an annual TAC and firm monitoring control and surveillance. Equally clearly the current strategies are not working because of unilaterelaly declared quotas by the Faroes and Iceland outside the HCR.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 131 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A I am not going to disagree with a Under 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 mackerel was considered as reduction of 5 points for faiiling to main retained species. However, here we are meet scoring issue 100d. However I considering ALL retained species – not just main, as must comment that in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 required when considering a fishery at SG100. we have been dealing only with NEA Accordingly, a small deduction was made as mackerel as a main retained species. information is not complete for retained stocks that Failure to reach the requirments of the fishery encounters in much smaller volumes. 100d appears to be based not on mackerel but a raft of mainly unspecified demersal species.
2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A There is strong evidence that this is a The methodology requires species to be considered relatively clean fishery with minimal either as retained or bycatch , not both. The species catch of bycatch species. Species such referred to have been considered as retained as Norway pout whiting and other species (2.1.1) and it is not appropriate to consider demersal species mentioned in 2.1.1 them elsewhere therefore. above should have been mentioned here as by catch species although their exclusion does not affect the conclusions and score.
2.2.2 Yes Yes N/A The mono-specific nature of this No response required. fishery supported by sophisticated electronic aids and skipper experience ensures that this is a relatively claen
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 132 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
fishery with little impact on by catch species. The team have provied sufficient evidence of this in the report and references. Within SG 100 the team has rightly chosen to point out that the evidence for the low levels of discarding could be improved. This would require improved levels of observer coverage and improved onboard monitoring techniques. The issue has been correctly identified for inclusion as a reccomendation.
2.2.3 Yes No N/A There are no allocated marks against Marks allocated. All SG 80s are met, but no SG 100s. any of the scoring issues. I am Therefore a score of 80, as originally noted remains. assuming from the scoring comments that the fishery does not achieve any of the SG 100 scoring issues. From the evidence presented this is a reasonable conclusion. It is a relatively clean fishery and observer and on board recording in the past has confirmed this. The current level of checking in terms of observer
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 133 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
coverage is not sufficient to support the stricter requirments at SG100. Decisions not to comit to expensive observer coverage for this fishery are reasonable.
2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A The evidence in suport of the low level No comment required. of direct and indirect impact of this fishery on ETP species is well presented in the report and supported by appropriate references. The team has chosen to accept that there is not a high degree of confidence (80% probability) that the fishery directly or indirectly impacts on ETP species. In that context they have reasonably erred on the side of caution.
2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A The comments and references in the No comment required. report fully support the evaluation of the fishery in terms of all the SG 80 scoring issues. The team has reasonably concluded that, whilst the strategy appears to be working, in that there is little or no impact, it cannot
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 134 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
be described as comprehensive and it has not been specifically designed. There is also a lack of verifiable quantitative information or clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its objectives.
2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A Comments at 2.3.2 above are also No comment required. applicable to this PI which concentrates on the level and quality of the information in support of the strategy to manage ETP impacts. Evidence presented in the report, regarding levels of observer coverage and on board recording support the conclusion that the fishery does not achieve the levels of confidence in the data required for any of the scoring issues at SG 100.
2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A All the evidence on the operation of No comment required. modern midwater trawl gear supports the conclusion that there is little or no impact on the sea-bed habitat and therefore very little potential for
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 135 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
serious damage to that habitat. The only area where this might not be the case is in the spawning fishery on the Downs componenet in the shallow waters of the southern North Sea and Eastern English Channel The ScoPSG fleet operates mainly well offshore in deep water in the central and northern North Sea.
2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A The basic strategy is to avoid any Y / N notation added. contact with the seabed by any part of the fishing gear, including the wing end clumps, in order to avoid loss of or expensive damage to the gear. Sophisticated electronic monitoring of the gear, bridge control of winches and vessel speed and forward looking sonar giving early warning of the sea bed well ahead. These realatively modern aids, which are improving all the time ensure the success of the avoidance strategy. It is not completely clear from the lack of Y/N notation, which of the SG 100
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 136 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
scoring issues is marked ‘N’. However from the comments it appears that the team has concluded that there is insufficient information on the distribution of sensitive habitats in the areas fished and also that there is no system for recording / reporting any accidental contact between the fishing gear and the seabed. This is supported in the text of the which could usefully include a chart showing the general fishing areas operated by ScoPSG vessels and the location of known sensitive seabed habitats.
2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A Once again there is no indication of Y / N notation added. The assessment team were which of the scoring issues are Y or N. able to view the general area fished by the fleet on GPS plotters during vessel visits. However no VMS I do not disagree with the score and plots for fishing effort were available to the team am assuming that it is 100c which is and hence it has not been possible to include such a not achieved. As commented in 2.4.2 chart. Given the understanding that the pelagic above the report in spite of the gears in use by the fleet do not make contact with website references provioded, the the seabed it was deemed sufficient to understand report itself would benefit from a that there has been no shift in fishing patterns from chart showing the general fishing previous years in which the fishery was certified, and areas operated by ScoPSG vessels,
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 137 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
perhaps VMS tracks, and the location thus no increased risk to seabed habitats. A map and of known sensitive seabed habitats. suitable text indicating fishing areas for NSH by the Scottish fleet for 2005 and 2006 along with text describing that for the years 2009-2011 has now been added to section 3.4.4. More recent VMS data has been provided by Marine Scotland however this is not in a format that is of use to the assessment report. It does however indicate that catches are being taken mainly north of ICES statistical rectangle row 44, corresponding to approximately 57 degress N.
2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A With only the single scoring issue at Reference to the recommendation triggered under each SG the fishery inevitably only principle 1 has been added as suggested. There is scores 80 because of the lack of firm now no condition on this issue. evidence on the ecosystem impact of the fishery. Quite clearly the main potential impact is the removal of biomass of a lower trophic level species. Whilst the historic performance of the stock suggests that the overall fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt key elements of the ecosystem, the evidence to fully
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 138 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
support this conclusion is not sufficient in spite of numerous scientific studies as evidenced by the reference list. It is worth noting here that taking account of the role of herring as an LTL species, in the management of this stock, has been addressed as a Condition in this assessment.
2.5.2 Yes Yes N/A The team has focussed on all the No comment required. relevant issues in terms of the raft of strategies in place in relation to ecosystem structure and function. These strategies are all underpinned by the EU common fisheries policy and a raft of referenced regulations and dirctives. These are seen to be effective at the SG 80 level only. The client has identified clear Principle 2 objectives in its code of practice.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 139 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A As noted above the main potential No comment required. ecosystem impact of the fishery is on the removal of the biomass of a lower trophic level species. Whislt the inferred knowledge and information on this is adequate at the SG 80 level there is insufficient verifiable information to fully understand the consequences of biomass removal, on the overall ecosystem, to support any of the SG 100 scoring issues.
3.1.1 Yes No N/A The justification at SG 80b regarding a There are some issues in relation to legal transparent mechanism for the mechanisms and an overall score of 95 seems resolution of legal disputes appears to reasonable. For example, as this is not fisheries me to fully support the requirements specific, at this point of the assessment tree, at SG 100b namely that the system in difficulties in resolution of legal disputes in other place is transparent, tested and fisheries within the managament juridiction could proven to be effective. This PI should also apply. The team were of the view that the score at 100. mecghanisms were adequete and adequately transparent but that ‘testing’ was less clear to The other SG comments are all well conclude. supported in the descriptions of the system in the report.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 140 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A I accept that the team are right to No comment required. point out, albiet minor, problems in relation to the roles, responsibilities and interactions of some of the organisations involved in the management of the fishery. This has resulted in the score being reduced to 85.
3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A All the relevant evidence is provided in Long term management plan for the fishery is the report and summarised and referred to later under the “fishery specific” properly referenced in the SG 100 performance indicators. scoring comments in suport of the 100 score. In addition to the overarching EU policies and UK specific plans the basic ICES long term management plan for the fishery could also be included here.
3.1.4 Yes Yes N/A The team have provided a No comment required comprehensive and honest analysis of the situation regarding incentives, or lack of them, for sustainable fishing. With only the single scoring issue at SG 100 they are right to conclude that a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 141 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
score of 80 is appropriate in the absence explicit consideration and regualr review of the policies
3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A The comments at SG80 which are well No comment required. referenced and fully supported in the report itself. The team are right to highlight issues in relation to Principle 2 objectives. There is a lack of any firm evidence that these issues will be given due consideration in the proposed ICES re-evaluation of the long term management plan. It is worth noting that the clients written code of practice for this fishery has clearly stated objectives in relation to the MSC Principle 2 criteria. Because the fishery does not achieve the higher level requirments at SG 100 a Reccomendation has been raised to highlight the problem that due consideration of these issues does not appear to be on any agenda for review of the ICES long term management plan for the fishery
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 142 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
3.2.2 Yes Yes N/A Bearing in mind the current state of No comment required. the stock and the improvements in the management of the fishery over recent years one would expect this PI to be scoring 100. In particular the way that the Pelagic RAC has improved communication across the relevant disciplines involved and the imprioved transparency in decision making. However there are issues, in particular with strict adherence to the management plan now that the stock status has improved. I suspect that the Pelagic RAC are not entirely guiltless in this respect in particular their attitude to the 15% HCR rule. The team are right in highlighlighting the problem by allocating a score of 80. The wider issue is also addressed in a Condition linked to Principle 1.
3.2.3 Yes Yes N/A This is an area which has seen an The assessment team are of the view that an overall appropriate response to major score of 95 reflects the fact that the MCS system is problems in the past. In terms of strong as noted by the reviewer. The PI which is not monitoring control, survellance and met relates to the provision of additional
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 143 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
enforcement this fishery is now information of importance to the effective amongst the best in European waters. management of the fishery. For example this might The systems of balances and checks in include voluntary information or providing voluntary place by Marine Scotland for this access to the boats. Whilst this occurs to some fishery are well described in the extent, the team were of the view that this did not report. I would not argue with the fully meet the intent of the SG100. reduced score at 95 but personally I am be sure, at the 80% level that fishers comply with the management system and do supply all the relevant information. The penalties imposed in the past for non compliance are a huge deterrent.
3.2.4 Yes Yes N/A The question of the existence of a Yes, this is difficult one. As the reviewer notes, the formally designed and specific ICES research in this area is exemplary however the research plan is always a difficult one. MSC methodology clearly requires a written fishery It is just not the way fisheries research specific research plan. The awarded score of 80 and management works within the reflects that the current situation is ‘good practice’ ICES umbrella. Perceived problem which does not require either a condition or a areas are anticipated and investigated recommendation. In short the system works to within relevant working groups and support management and the teams scoring seems solutions sought and recommended. to be a reasonable compromise between the Excellent examples of the system in contraints of the methodolgy and the practicalities operation in relation to North Sea of the real world.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 144 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
herring are the response to the long period of poor recruitments, long term changes in weight at age and maturity at age and the extensive investigations carried out in relation to these issues. ICES is also very good at quickly disseminating the results of it reasearch. A score of 80 here is harsh and a closer examination of the facts in relation to herring research could fully justifies a score of 100. However one has to accept that a comprehenmsive written research plan widely availabvel to the public does not exist for North Sea herring (neither is it ever likely to in my opinion!)
3.2.5 Yes Yes N/A The team has provided ample No comment required. evidence in the report and a reasonable rationale in the scoring comments in suport of the score of 80. The definition of a regular external review in this context is always
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 145 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performanc Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response e Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by information and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional used to score this Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
difficult and the team have erred on the side of caution in this respect.
Any Other Comments Comments Certification Body Response I am content with the approach of the team in the way they have organised their We understand that the scoring template will soon change following response from specific comments at each SG issue by referring them up to the next level where the CABs about this scoring table and in particular the problem of having to repeat appropriate. However in my experience, and my interpretation of the MSC guidance, justifications at each scoring guidepost. The assessment team are of the view that a simple comment at each level is required e.g. at each SG 60 issue even if all the SG given the current template it is clearest to write the justification against the scoring 80’s are achieved. As I said I have no problems with the team’s pragmatic approach issue that is met – rather than repeating it at all lower guidepost levels. but I anticipate that the MSC may have and I need to draw that to your attention.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 146 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Peer Reviewer 2
Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Certification Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Yes
Justification: None required. The assessment team has an understanding of the basics necessary to undertake and MSC assessment of a fishery. It has collected a reasonable range and depth of information to meet the minimum requirements to answer the questions posed at the various SG levels, even if the information has not been presented as effectively and coherently as one might wish. This shortcoming may result in challenge from stakeholders who are less familiar with the fishery or the science but still wish to be convinced that certification is merited. On balance, however, I am satisfied that the final conclusions are correct.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are appropriately Certification Body Response written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? No – need rephrasing Justification: The reviewer’s comments seem to be directed at the MSC methodology rather Condition 1 is justified from a purely scientific perspective but I am than its application. Both conditions are far from convinced that even if the condition is met in full it will required by the MSC methodology. In make a significant difference to the effective management of this addition, the CR 1.2 requires a change in fishery or the long-term stability of the stock. On specific details: outcome of the scores given and conditions “Show evidence that scientific authority (ICES) has considered this are worded accordingly. That the client has issue ---“ is an expectation beyond the competence of the client. no direct control over the outcome can be The client can be expected to show evidence that they have clearly seen from the action plan. The canvassed for such action to be taken but they are in no position to conditions are set according to CR 1.2 (C29 require ICES to consider the issue. ICES might judge it’s a scientific 27.11 pg. 161), and the reviewer does not waste of their time and simply ignore it. The condition needs present any information to suggest rewording to ensure that it is possible for the client to meet all otherwise or what sort of re-phrasing is aspects. required to meet the SG80 outcome. Condition 2 is justified, not least as a means to get closer adherence Indeed, the reviewer implies that “re- to what purports to be an international agreement on how to phrasing” is required which we do not think manage the fishery. Nevertheless, as above, it is essential that the meets CR 1.2 27.11. terms of the condition and the milestones by which compliance will NB: Condition 1 has been removed be judged are couched in terms that are realistic for the client. It is following review at the public comment beyond the client’s competence to ensure that the current stage. management regime is reviewed and modified; all they can do is to lobby for such action to be taken. The client should be asked to provide documentary evidence that that is what they have done rather than expect them to “provide evidence that a new management plan has been established and is being applied”.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 147 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient to close the Yes – if Certification Body Response conditions raised? rephrased Justification: Condition 1 Whilst the condition is expressed in terms beyond the This overall concern is raised again by the client’s competence, the action plan is expressed more reviewer at specific points later on in the circumspectly and recognizes that they can only lobby, canvass and review and the FCI response id provided at exert influence. This is all perfectly reasonable and appropriate. these points. Condition 2 It is beyond the client’s competence “to establish a Nb. Condition 1 has been removed at the revised management plan for North Sea herring within the first year public comment stage and changed to a of certification”. Similarly it is beyond the client’s competence “to recommendation. provide evidence within two years that a new management plan has been adopted and implemented” without that is what the competent authorities want. See relevant comments above; they must provide documentary evidence that they are working with others lobbying for these objectives.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) For anyone who has an understanding of the subject and knowledge of the fishery, species, ecology, assessment and management, as I do, the information presented is adequate to support the overall scores and conclusions reached, but no more than adequate. It falls short of what might reasonably be expected by the interested reader who does not already have detailed knowledge of the subject and fishery. The text report, which is the place where all the key information should be presented, reviewed and discussed, is superficial and ill structured. The authors have chosen to present information in the order that topics appear in the scoring sheet. While this has an element of logic, it results in a lack of scientific rigour in what follows. It would help the reader if the order took the line of a coherent story: what, when, where and how of the fishery; who, what, when and where of the science and data gathering; how the data are applied to the assessment, estimating stock status and formulating scientific advice; ecosystem considerations, including retained, bycatch, ETP and habitats; management. If this approach was followed and all the relevant information and the appropriate (primary) references were included in the text, the score-sheet comments could be both clearer and more succinct than is currently the case. Style apart, the biggest single flaw is the totally inadequate citation of source material. Whilst the ICES working group reports provide useful epitomes of much background information, there greater use should be made of primary source material. Where official documentation is available on the web (e.g. EU fishery regulations, CFP, Marine Strategy Framework) the specific web reference for the document should be cited. FCI comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees. This enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment tree. The addition of an executive summary has also helped to provide a simplified summary for non-technical readers. This is a certification report, not a scientific review. In particular, it is misleading to the reader to imply we provide a technical review of the science. What we do is check such reviews take place for example, and that problems that are identified to not undermine the fishery management to the degree that it does not meet the standard. Furthermore, a technical review would not only be
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 148 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
incomplete, it would unnecessarily increase costs of the certification, but could not lead to any change in substantive outcome for the fishery. While we accept that our approach is far from perfect, we do not agree that suggested by the reviewer would improve the clarity of the text or why scores have been allocated. Our view is quite the opposite, that the scoring tables should be enhanced so an interested reader should be able to identify and check key issues with respect to the certification requirements rather than have to refer to the main text all the time in understanding why particular scores should be allocated (particularly as a reviewer suggests re-arranging the main text). We also believe that this is particularly true in the case of North Sea herring and many ICES fisheries which have many excellent reviews, reports and other materials, which are much better than we could hope to produce in the available time. We believe that. Specific comments on the text report are given below: text in italics are quotes from draft report; roman text give comment on the quote.
» P7 - advanced fish finding equipment, vessels are able to confidently fish on ‘good marks’, which greatly increase the likelihood of getting clean hauls with no species mixing.
But not always; there is a 5 – 15 % mackerel catch, which is significant. FCI comment – this does not say always, it says greatly increase the likelihood. » P13 - 1957 - Treaty of Rome, which created the European Communities (now EU), declares there should be a common European policy for fisheries.
This is not strictly true. The Treaty of Rome created a common agricultural policy that defined agriculture as including fisheries. An explicit CFP was not formulated and ratified until 1983; a date omitted from this historical background summary. FCI comment – amended. » P 18 - is a useful source on all stocks with which they are required to provide advice As an autonomous scientific body, ICES is not ‘required’ to do anything; it receives ‘requests’ for advice. FCI comment reference to a requirement removed. » P 18 - genetic data indicated no evidence of bottlenecks affecting the genetic diversity of extant North Sea herring Reference required. FCI Comment: Done » P 18 - the population in this area is clearly separated from the other components for most of the year. Reference required. FCI Comment: There are many primary references for this. We give only the latest. » P 19 - The stock size is well above the target biomass and fishing mortality But this has not been the case throughout the period of the current certification. A little more discussion and explanation should be included in this somewhat minimalist section of text. FCI Comment: This is a new certification. We have kept this section short on purpose since past recruitment does not have an impact on scoring. » Fig 3.6 - What is the blue pecked line? It should be labelled. FCI Comment: Fpa=Fmsy which is labeled.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 149 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» P 20 - reduce mortality on immature 0-1 year olds (“ringers”) If you are not going to explain the significance of ‘ringers’, omit it. As it stands, its inclusion is meaningless. FCI Comment: Removed » P 20 - spawning components are monitored by the larval and acoustic surveys What surveys are these? We have been told nothing about the research work underpinning this assessment and management advice. FCI Comment: These are briefly described under the data section. » P 20 - published on the internet in a timely manner each year and are available to anybody (see www.ices.dk). The specific hearing working group and ACOM advice web sites would be more appropriate than the generic ICES web page. Omitting them is just lazy and does not inform the reader. FCI Comment: We are making a more general point about transparency, which is relevant, rather than providing web addresses to any particular source, which will change. Website has been removed (and is available in the references). » P 20 - The management plan has proven an effective tool in maintaining sustainable exploitation What is the management plan; how long has it been in force; what safeguards does it include? We should be told. FCI Comment: Corrected » P 21 - should be counted against quota in Norway What quota is this? We have been told nothing about vessel quota allocation or management; we should be told. FCI Comment: Edited » P 21 - Independent review of ICES herring assessments Reference and, or more detailed background explanation is required. FCI Comment: Information is provided in the scoring table necessary for scoring. » P 21 - As a result of this advice, impacts on this habitat have so far been minimal. This paragraph is opaque and arguably misleading as the gravel extraction industry is the largest extractive industry in the southern North Sea. The paragraph hints at a problem but does not illuminate the subject, or the reader. FCI Comment: This is really outside the scope of this certification. We include a note that the issue exists and does not prevent a sustainable fishery existing. » Section 3.3.4 The harvest strategy – management plan have still not been given or explained and the reader has no idea to what “paragraph 6” and “paragraph 5” refer. These are significant omissions from this report. FCI Comment: Corrected » P 22 - It is hypothesized that if herring biomass is very low References are required, not lest with respect to the putative change in seal diet. it has been suggested that the current biomass By who? Reference required. This entire paragraph is unacceptably superficial. There has been a lot of ecosystem modelling around these specie interactions but they are barely hinted at here, let alone outlined or properly cited. FCI Comment: This is brief, but ecosystem is also covered under Principle 2. This is primarily background on whether NS herring as a key low trophic species as in CR 1.2, not a review of North Sea ecosystem modelling. Reference added.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 150 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Table 3.3 & 3.4 - Without supporting text, these tables are meaningless and quite probably incomprehensible to many potential readers. FCI Comment: We tend to agree that these are not easy to understand, and in retrospect probably do not add clarity to the report, although they are evidence for meeting the MSC guideposts. Some explanatory text has been added. » Fig 3.7 - This figure caption may well be a cut and paste from the ACOM report but it does not illustrate the “Harvest control rule for the adult fishery (A-fleet, ages 2–6)”; it shows the pattern of F and SSB with respect to biological reference points (which help define the –as yet unexplained – harvest control rule) over the past decade FCI Comment: The caption has been altered to explain the relevance of this evidence. The harvest control rule, which depends on the stock assessment, is given and appears diagrammatically on the figure. » Neither Table 3.3 nor Figure 3.4 is referred to in the text. These omissions tend to highlight the inadequacy of this report’s style of data preparation, presentation and discussion. FCI Comment: Added » P 24 - Now we have the HCR – it should have been presented much earlier in the text, with explanatory expansion as necessary. FCI Comment: The HCR is given. The specifics of the plan are not likely to enlighten the uninitiated reader, much in the same way as Table 3.3. » 3.3.5 Fishery data As the estimate of stock status and management advice are dependent on these data, it would seem sensible to present this account first. As it is, information appears rather like the cart before the horse. FCI Comment: This is entirely debatable chicken-egg argument. We follow the scoring structure mainly because it is likely interested persons will read the outcome of the certification and then the scoring table to see why scores are allocated. Having sections in another order would then seem perverse. » P 24 - RSW vessels (the client in this case) do not have an opportunity to discard from deck since fish are pumped directly from the net into the hold. The catch may still be slipped however. Tosh! The fish are pumped into a draining box to allow water to escape before the fish run down chutes to hatches over the RSW tanks. Skippers have been known to redirect the chutes away from hatches, close hatches and allow fish to spill onto the deck and overboard, or even pump- out the tanks while at sea – in addition to slipping the catch. FCI Comment: Although this may be true (but anecdotal), we have no evidence that vessels do this, or any reason why since slipping seems easier, and appears much more likely to occur with these vessels. The effect should be the same. » 3.3.6 Stock Assessment: » P 26 - What does FLSAM stand for? It is not defined in the text and is omitted from the glossary. FCI Comment: It’s the name of the software. FL indicates that it is implemented in the Fisheries Library (in R) and we presume SAM that it’s a (state space) stock assessment model. » P 26 - The population dynamics ------can be explicitly inferred from the data is fitted. This paragraph is meaningless jargon and gobbledygook. Don’t simply insert “integrated out” if you don’t know what it means; if you do, explain it to the reader in simple English. Remember, the majority of interested followers (critics) of the MSC scheme are not professional stock assessment fishery scientists. FCI Comment: The text has been greatly simplified and the paragraph now focuses on its objective.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 151 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» P 26 - revisions in the estimated selection of the fishery and natural mortality This reads as if the ICES HAWG didn’t like the look of the result so they changed the selection of values until they got something more to their liking. I doubt that this is what happened – or what is meant. Say what you mean and mean what you say. FCI Comment: Text changed P 27 - exceptionally rare for vessels to end up with catches that have a significant proportion & herring fishery is considered to be exceptionally clean, with small quantities of mackerel Mackerel catches of 5–15% are significant and hardly ‘exceptionally clean; they qualify as a main retained species. FCI Comment: Edited » P 28 - Bycatch: All available studies, observer reports and information What are these studies, reports and information; provide references. FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment tree. » P 28 - There is sufficient on-going data collection to identify increased risks of bycatch As above – details and references required. FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment. » P 28 - Surely, seabirds qualify as ETP rather than mere bycatch. They are virtually all protected under UK – EU legislation. FCI Comment: Bird bycatch in this fishery is exceptionally rare. Some seabirds qualify as ETP while others do not. “They are virtually all protected under UK – EU legislation”- the main protection for most seabird species (gulls, fulmars, kittiwakes, gannets, shags and cormorants) encountered in the fishery is EU legislation. However, Annex I of the Bird’s Directive refers to the need to protect the habitats of a range of species (through so called SPA’s), while Annex II refers to their deliberate capture or hunting. In order to qualify as ETP species, bird species need to be protected under binding national or international agreement or legislation. The Bird’s Directive intends to protect the areas that are important to protected bird species and the legislation affords no direct protection to the species themselves. The legal status of protection that applies to those seabird species with which the fishery may interact is not as clear as it is for some other marine species such as sturgeon or harbor porpoise. For this reason it has been considered more appropriate to capture incidental seabird mortality under the Bycatch PI. CR 3.11.1 refers to definitions for ETP species. Birds have been considered under bycatch PI in some previous MSC assessments, presumably for similar reasons; however most assessments have overlooked bird interactions entirely. The issue has been given reasonable consideration in this assessment.
» Table 3.6 - There is no reference to this table in the text and what relevance does the Celtic Sea have to the fishery under review? FCI Comment: Reference to the table is made in the text. Incorrect sea area has been changed.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 152 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Also, I think ASCOBANS is probably of greater immediate relevance than CITES, and possibly also the Bonn, Bern and OspPar conventions. FCI Comment: ASCOBANS and the latter conventions are not legally binding. CITES is. This distinction is clearly referred to in the MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance. » P30 - trawl doors or large clump weights (up to 2 tonnes) are normally used to submerge a pelagic trawl Are the ‘clump weights’ used with doors by single-boat trawlers or only pair trawlers? If only by pair trawlers, how many pair trawlers and how many single trawlers are there? Are the clump weight attached direct to the bridles or do they hang from ‘legs’? If they are attached to legs, how long are they and are they used as feelers that enable the skipper to bottom skim (the trawl rising clear of the bottom as the weight comes off the clumps as they drag along the bottom)? If they are attached to long legs, the gear probably does interact with the seabed. FCI Comment: Text has been clarified. Vessels fish single rig only and no clump weights are used. » P 30 - populations of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are highly studied and well understood in the North Sea, There is no mention of any of this work; no mention of the ICES working group on marine mammals, nor the working group on seabird ecology. Both of these working groups’ reports are relevant to this review but none has been mentioned; they should be FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment. Sufficient references are given in the relevant scoring tables. P 30 - There is evidence to suggest that instances of capture of dolphins, porpoises and some shark species do not always end in mortality What evidence, where? FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment. Sufficient references are given in the relevant scoring tables. P 30 - Habitats: indicative maps are available Where are these maps? References required FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment. Sufficient references are given in the relevant scoring tables. References for locations of maps are given in 2.4.1
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 153 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
P 31 - There is considerable knowledge of the habitats and ecosystem of the North Sea Another unsubstantiated assertion; why not refer to the ICES REGNS report, if nothing else? FCI Comment: The approach taken by FCI over many years is to shift as much technical justification into scoring assessment trees so as that the general reader can quickly develop an understanding of the issue. A more interested reader may refer to the justification tables. Including reference material there enables the rationale for scores to be clearly communicated and limits the need to constantly refer between the chapters and the scoring sheets. This also eases the process of harmonisation for other assessment teams. For this reason, references are deliberately concentrated into the scoring assessment. Sufficient references are given in the relevant scoring tables. P 32 - The West of Scotland Herring fishery is managed through the CFP What relevance does this have to a review of the NS fishery? FCI comment: amended. » Table 4.1 - Slippage: if vessels have been recording instances of (zero) slipping over the period of the current certificate, these data must be presented in this review. FCI comment: See recommendation 1. The logs are in paper form in the SPSG office and the assessors have had a chance to review these, however these have not been analyzed, primarily because they contain little indication of slippage. Recommendation 1 states that, whilst welcome, ideally further tools for independent verification are needed. » P 41 - Most stakeholders contacted “Most” implies that some did have concerns; what were they and who expressed them? FCI comment: the sentence relates to whether stakeholders wanted to have an input into the assessment. Most did not want to either because they have no interest in the fishery or no concern. See “summary of information obtained” for an indication of what was actually stated in consultations.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 154 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Indicator Review Please complete the table below for each Performance Indicator which are listed in the Certification Body’s Public Certification Draft Report.
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Somewhat minimalist reference list for such No comment required a critical item but the rationale, conclusion and score are correct.
1.1.2 No Yes If the condition can The references cited here are limited to ICES Information brought into the assessment be met it will reports, there are no references to primary indicates that the stock need not be treated as a undoubtedly raise literature, neither here nor in the text, yet it key low trophic level stock, and therefore the the scoring to the is the primary research that underpins ICES condition referred to here no longer apply, but a SG80 level but it is conclusions on such matters as risk of recommendation has been made instead. far from obvious recruitment failure and ecological We are applying the MSC CR 1.2 methodology. If that it will improve importance of the stock and species. As a they are to move to ecosystem based the performance of condition has been placed on this PI, it is management, then justifying the target what is already a imperative that all relevant information reference point by including possible ecosystem well-assessed stock (references) is presented to the reader. effects seems a good place to start. and well-managed fishery A recommendation has been placed because there is no link given between the reference point and the ecosystem. We are unsure what primary research to refer to or even what ICES conclusions are on these matters.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 155 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.3 NA NA NA NA No comment required.
1.2.1 Yes Yes NA There appears to be a ‘not’ missing from the Corrected. penultimate sentence of 80 b. While one cannot dispute the rational of the case presented here, the main text report fails to present the HCR information clearly, particularly with respect to its shortcomings, or in a logical order. There is room for significant clarification in the text.
1.2.2 Yes No Yes Again, the presentation and explanation of Corrected. the problems highlighted here should be set out more clearly than they are in the text. Although 100c is scored as a Yes, the supporting comments are those that support a No. A change to No will have no bearing on the overall PI score.
1.2.3 Yes No NA Once again there is a serious disconnect We have attempted to clarify and improve the between the text and the text report. While text. the scoring comments certainly do not However, including detailed information on present a full picture of what surveys are
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 156 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
undertaken, they give more information “when, where and how of the surveys and than appears in the text. Nevertheless, the exactly how the data are used to support the reader should still be told the when, where stock assessment” may be of interest to some and how of the surveys and exactly how the (who should be directed to the working group data are used to support the stock report), but has no impact on the scores, so such assessment. detail hardly clarifies in this respect. We are One must assume that all the references are rather checking that processes are in place that relevant but as they are not cited in the text identify and deal with problems appropriately. It report nor a summary given of their might be appropriate to identify important findings, it is difficult to make an uncertainties or gaps in the data, but we have appropriate connection or conclusion. found no significant problems. The clue to the content of the references is in their full title, which is provided for this purpose in the scoring table as well as the reference section in the report. The text of the report provides a summary of the contents, but we agree that for audit tracing purposes, we could improve.
1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Over time the assessment has been shown This is a new assessment, so any past robustness to be robust but the No score for 100 d is is mainly due to the high quality data. but justified with respect to the current
methodology, if somewhat stringent.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 157 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.1 No No NA The authors have overlooked a key The decision to score at SG100 was taken difference between SG80 and SG100. Only because retained catches of other species are SG 80 deals with Main retained species; SG considered to be so small as to be insignificant. 100 applies to (all) ‘retained species’. CR 3.5.3 refers SG 100 may be considered where Information is required on status of horse “retention is exceptionally rare and negligible in mackerel and as bib are not subject to its impact, then the fishery would meet SG100.” assessment, SG100b must be a No, with the Volumes of bib and horse mackerel retained are overall score limited to 80. insignificant in the context of the assessed References relating to the mackerel (and fishery’s stock level influences. scad etc.) have been omitted.
2.1.2 No No NA This MUST be rescored. The comments Rescoring is not appropriate or necessary. CR presented here in SG100 only apply to clearly sets out the rationale for considering mackerel and should, therefore, appear other species that are caught very rarely or in under SG80. Additional comments will be exceptionally low volumes as insignificant, and required under SG100 relating to scad, bid thereby allowing for scoring at SG100. The 2.1.1 etc. and 2.1.2 scores for this fishery has been What is the relevance of the HAWG harmonised with that of other similar certified reference? Where is the reference to NSH fisheries. mackerel (scad and bib)? HAWG provided general information of retained catches. Reference to mackerel and horse mackerel is provided. Horse mackerel and bib retained catch considered so low as to be negligible in impact.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 158 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.1.3 No No NA This MUST be rescored. The comments Rescoring is not appropriate or necessary. CR presented here in SG100 only apply to clearly sets out the rationale for considering mackerel and should, therefore, appear species that are caught very rarely or in under SG80. Additional comments will be exceptionally low volumes as insignificant, and required under SG100 relating to scad, bid thereby allowing for scoring at SG100. The 2.1.1, etc. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 scores for this fishery has been harmonised with that of other similar certified NSH fisheries.
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA All fish are retained, therefore, as explained, There is no significant fish bycatch. there is no bycatch. The rationale for considering seabirds as bycatch has been set out in a previous response to this Seabirds are not bycatch, they are ETP peer reviewers comments. Seabird bycatch is species. The reference to birds should be exceptionally rare and the legal protection for deleted and moved to 2.3 many is uncertain. The decision to include birds under bycatch remains and is within the terms of the CR. Moving to ETP is arbitrary and has no material implication for the assessment outcome.
2.2.2 No No NA There is an inconsistency between this SG The previous section of the report that refers to comment and what has appeared earlier. In discarding in the Norwegian sector does NOT the text report we are informed that it is include the word “only”, that word has been only in the Norwegian sector that added by the peer reviewer in the commentary.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 159 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
discarding/slipping/dumping is prohibited The sentence referred to simply states a fact, it but here it states that there is and EU is not exclusive. regulation that prohibits slipping. Which is
it? We need a consistent story. The EU regulation refers to high-grading Too much new information presented or however it can be interpreted as also meaning implied here. Taken at face value, the that slippage is banned, although it is not information and rational support the score explicit. This point has been clarified in the text. but detailed information on slippage logs, As for new information being presented here – observer programmes and the like have the earlier sections of the report present more either been ignored or glossed over in the general reading which has been the strategy of text report, yet that is where the reader FCI reporting for many years. Greater levels of wants (expects) to find the detail, discussion detail and information (including slippage logs and supporting references. observer programmes and the like) that are used in order to support scoring decisions are appropriate to present at this stage.
2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Although one can infer where ‘N’ and ‘Y’ are Y / Ns added. FCI reporting strategy is to include appropriate, they have been omitted specific detail required to support scoring throughout this set of SGs. justifications in the scoring tree rather than to As ever, the text report lacks the desired include it in general descriptive narrative. detail to support the summaries presented here.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 160 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.3.1 No No NA There is far too much information presented The assessment team consider that the here that should be presented and appropriate place to present this information is discussed in the text report. It is difficult to at the point where it has been used to make judge the relevance of these references scoring decisions. The nuts and bolts of an MSC when they have not been attached to a assessment are in the assessment tree scoring specific point in the text report. Also, it is tables. That has been the team’s consistent difficult to accept that the topic has been approach. covered adequately when the reports of ICES working groups on marine mammals and seabird ecology have been ignored Regarding references, the quality and scope of completely. Both of these working groups reference material relied upon to make the review fishery interactions. scoring decision is adequate to support the scoring decision. There is no requirement for the reference list to be exhaustive, just adequate Nowhere has there been any reference to and reasonable, which it is in this case. The the significant dolphin catch in the English SGBYC is of greater relevance the WGMME that Channel midwater (bass) fishery. If there is a the reviewer refers to – and this has been problem there, why must we simply accept included in consideration of information. WGME that it is not a problem in the North Sea? is referred to under 2.3.2.
The peer reviewer refers to dolphin bycatch in the English Channel bass fishery - This is a different fishery, in a different area, using different gear and with different operational
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 161 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
practices, so it not relevant.
2.3.2 No No NA All comments as above. How do we know The word ‘most’ has been inserted in front of that there are few small cetaceans in the ‘do not occur in large numbers’. The information area? These species feed on herring; one given is the justification is adequate to support a would expect a close association. There are score of 80. Most small cetaceans are not ETP ICES-ASCOBANS coordinated marine species. The only small cetacean present in the mammal surveys that report on abundance area and that has been recorded very and distribution; why has none of this occasionally in bycatch is harbour porpoise. The information been presented to the reader? fact that they may be associated with herring – We are expected to take too much on trust as are many other species is not of vital of the authors’ judgment. importance – the point is that the fishery meets with binding international agreement and legislation for the protection of ETP. The marine mammal abundance surveys are referred to under 2.3.1 – ETP information.
2.3.3 No No NA Comments as above, not least with respect As explained, new information included here has to additional reference material. been done so deliberately in support of scoring. As before, there is too much new Seabirds included under bycatch PI. information presented here and it is both
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 162 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
confusing and contradictory. We are told Regarding the observer programme – the text that there is an (EU?) regulation that belongs here and not in the main body of the requires observers and that observers are report. The text below has been copied from the deployed – but the observer programme scoring justification: has been discontinued. This needs to be
clarified (by being presented fully in the text report). “The reports are a useful reference Under regulation 812/2004 the UK operates an and summarise annual activities ---“. observer programme that aims to establish Indeed, we frequently told how much data typical catch rates for cetacean species in a there but none of has been presented in number of fisheries using pelagic trawl gears. this document. The obligation to apply minimum levels of observer coverage is largely complied with, As with all other parts of 2.3, there has been although difficulties have been experienced by no mention of seabirds. all member nations in fully implementing the requirement of the regulation. The assessment team is aware that Marine Scotland: Science is constrained by funding and will need to divert valuable observer time to focus on fisheries that present the greatest risk to marine mammals. Although regulation 812/2004 specifies observer coverage levels per region and fishery, there is an ongoing debate as to the appropriateness of some of the target observer coverage levels with a view to possibly amending the regulation. WRT to presentation of data – the data from
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 163 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
monitoring under 812 of 2004 suggests that there is no impact associated with the fishery under certification – the team have reviewed the data and there finding has been relayed in the report. References to the source data are provided for the interested reader – this is adequate and it is not necessary to repeat tables with 0’s in the narrative of justifications. Additional references are included.
2.4.1 No No No Virtually all of the text under SG100a is a cut Some of the text given in the main report has and paste from the text report; this is both been removed or amended and the text in the tedious and unnecessary. All that is needed scoring justification has been left in place. This are a few key reminders – the detail – with should reduce repetition and concentrates the appropriate references – should be in the relevant detailed text where it belongs (in the main text. scoring justifications). Clump weights are not used and the text is The key information that is missed is the amended. who, when and why relating to the clump weights. Potentially, this is a significant with respect to seabed interactions.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 164 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
2.4.2 Yes No NA As none of the Y or N have been inserted, it Y / Ns inserted. Scoring is now transparent. is not possible to see by what criteria or rationale the finals score is 95 rather than 100. On balance, a score of 100 would seem reasonable.
2.4.3 Yes No NA As none of the Y or N have been inserted, it Y / Ns inserted. The justification for a 95 score is is not possible to see by what criteria or transparent. rationale the finals score is 95 rather than 100. On balance, a score of 100 would seem reasonable.
2.5.1 Yes No NA Y & N omitted – again. Y & Ns added.
“The fishery does not take place on The reviewer cites a section of a sentence given spawning grounds" - Tosh! What are the in the scoring justification in the commentary. major herring fisheries if they are no The remainder of the relevant sentence reads spawning fisheries? The reason the season “or if spawning aggregations are targeted, there starts at Shetland and works south to the is no direct interaction with the seabed”. No Strait of Dover is that the fleet if following further response is necessary. the successive aggregations of spawning fish. The reasons for including detail at this section of As ever, there is too much text here, in the assessment report have been explained particular, too much new text – with above. The text remains unchanged here. references. This new text and the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 165 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
references should be in the text report so that the reader can see how text and A score of 80 was agreed at the team scoring references are linked – which are meeting as being appropriate. The score supporting what. remains at SG80.
With the information presented the way it is, it is difficult to assess the rationale in context but intuitively, one feels that a score of 80 is somewhat stringent.
2.5.2 Yes No NA Y & N omitted – again. Y & Ns added. A score of 80 was agreed at the team scoring The assessment of this PI is too stringent, a meeting as being appropriate on review of all score of 90, if not 95 is justified. There is information in the context of the scoring issues. both a strategy and a plan. The strategy is to The score remains at SG80. limit catches through TAC – quota controls, The assessment team work their way logically which – we are told – are subject to rigorous through each scoring issue, beginning at 60 and enforcement with a high degree of then moving up as may be appropriate compliance. according to the information available. This is The strategy is also based on maintaining the correct way to score a fishery, not by stock above specific critical levels and the starting at 100 and moving downwards. The role of herring win the ecosystem is under team decided that the measures in place (mainly specific consideration. If there is any reason quota and TAC) was a partial strategy (SG80). All for reducing the score on this PI, it is that
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 166 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
only because it might be argued that a more scoring issues at SG 100 refer to there being a precautionary approach could be taken to strategy in place, therefore scoring any issues at safeguard the exosystem role of herring. SG100 was not indicated.
2.5.3 Yes No NA Y & N omitted Y & Ns added. SG1200b – YES, “ A score of 80 was agreed at the team scoring Main interactions between the fishery and meeting as being appropriate on review of a these ecosystem elements can be inferred reasonable amount of information in the from existing information, and have been context of each scoring issues. The score investigated”, a string of more relevant remains at SG80. references than those cited here were given The authors have not given responses to any for PI 2.5.1. This SG doesn’t ask that we scoring issues at SG100 as these scoring issues claim to know and understand everything; it were not deemed to have achieved SG100. asks about ‘main interactions’, inference and ‘have been investigated’ Without a doubt this is a Yes.
SG 100 c – qualified Yes – the impacts are understood. If we believe what we have been told that the interactions of this fleet with bycatch and ETP species are trivial, the impacts must be trivial – even if we do not understand their ecosystem function (but are we really so ignorant on these
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 167 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
matters?).
SG 100 d – again ‘inferred’ There are positive comments and conclusions that can be made here.
SG 100e if we believe that the bycatch and ETP interactions are trivial, surely this SG can be scored with positive comments too.
An overall score of 80 may be too stringent but it is difficult to be certain as the authors have not given appropriate responses to any of SG 100.
3.1.1 No No NA We are told that the fishery occurs Enforcement occurs throughout EU waters by throughout the western half of the North whichever member state has jurisdiction, either Sea. This being the case, the vessels of any at the point of fishing or the point of landing. nation fishing in UK waters south of the The report has therefore focused on the primary Tweed Estuary are subject to the tier of enforcement, which for this fishery will be jurisdiction of the English courts, not just overwhelmingly Marine Scotland. In practice in the Scottish courts. This is a significant pelagic fisheries most enforcement and omission both here and in the text of the inspection occurs at the point of landing, which report. in the most case is in Scotland. Landings to other member states are most likely to be to Ireland
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 168 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
One assumes that the failure to reach SG or Denmark, or outside of the EU to Norway. 100b is because of the (disputable) There is excellent cooperation between Marine reference to appeals officers. In which case Scotland (Compliance) and enforcement the comment should be moved to SG 100. If agencies in these countries. Landing reports are it remains where it is, one might argue that submitted to Marine Scotland and any quota the correct response to SG 80b is No, in infringements would be dealt with there. which case a condition should be raised.
3.1.2 No No NA The text report is too brief and lacks Further websites of institutions have been references and references are also lacking added. The scoring issues which have not been here. Three web sites are given, why not met relate to the explicit definition of roles and give them for all the institutions listed under responsibilities and the degree to which 80a; they are readily available? management provides an explicit consideration of how consultation responses are use or not. A score of 85 reflects that the management As the description of the role undertaken by system is strong in the area of this PI and is at a these various bodies is limited, we are level required for an MSC fishery. There are no unaware of any (minor) confusion among conditions or recommendations. However the stakeholders. This being the case, one assessment team are of the view that there is cannot see why SG100 is not scored as a scope within the management system to seek Yes. and accept relevant information from fishermen Similarly, with respect to SG80 & 100 b. and other stakeholders and clearly explain how There has been minimal description or this is used. This is not particularly a criticism of discussion of these matters and we are in the management structure – the system works. the dark as to where the system falls short of meeting SG100b criteria. Personally, I
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 169 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
suspect that the CEOs of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation would feel affronted at the implied criticism that they fail to get adequate explanations of the how and why of annual assessments and management measures. They pass this information on to their members by websites, letters and regular meetings.
Overall, I think the score is too low.
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Full agreement. No comment required
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Agreed No comment required.
3.2.1 Yes No NA As in earlier examples, including negatives The approach taken to scoring has been to only comments against SG80 scores implies that write in a single scoring guidepost for each the score should be No, with concomitant scoring issue. This is so as to make it as clear as reduction in the overall score. If SG80 is a possible which scoring guidepost has been met. Yes, all the comments must be positive. If In doing so the reasons why a higher scoring there are negative aspects that prevent guidepost has not been met are also included. SG100 being a Yes, the negative comments We understand the latest draft of the MSC should appear against the SG100, not SG80. scoring template endorses this approach by only
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 170 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
The ‘references’ are inadequate. Provide having a single space for scoring justification for the correct reference so Yes that the each scoring issue. The Y / N column makes it interested reader can find them clear which are met and which are not. References have been clarified.
3.2.2 Yes No NA Again – negative comments against SG80 The approach taken to scoring has been to only imply a score of less than 80. If SG is scored write in a single scoring guidepost for each as a Yes, the comment supporting it must be scoring issue. This is so as to make it as clear as positive. If there are negative comments possible which scoring guidepost has been met. that indicate a score of less than SG100, In doing so the reasons why a higher scoring they must appear against the appropriate guidepost has not been met are also included. SG 100. We understand the latest draft of the MSC scoring template endorses this approach by only having a single space for scoring justification for The information is all there – it is just in the each scoring issue. The Y / N column makes it wrong place. clear which are met and which are not.
3.2.3 Yes No NA I am amazed to find SG100c scored as a No A score of 95 for monitoring control and when the text report was all positive and surveillance is excellent – much higher than came across that the authors found a high most fisheries in the MSC program. It is not an degree of confidence etc. If there are indication of problems. No conditions or problems and shortcomings, they need to recommendations are raised. be made plain in the text. The assessment team are of the view that an
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 171 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
Yet again, there is new information overall score of 95 reflects the fact that the MCS appearing here that should be presented system is strong. The PI which is not met relates and discussed in the text report but it would to the provision of additional information of be more enlightening to read how the importance to the effective management of the enforcement assets are deployed to ensure fishery. For example this might include voluntary compliance (risk-based targeted information or providing voluntary access to the inspections) rather than providing trite boats. Whilst this occurs to some extent, the information on vessel names, lengths and team were of the view that this did not fully complement. meet the intent of the SG100. With regards to the new information appearing in the assessment tree. The assessment team are of the view that the assessment tree is the primary location for key information and justification. This means that reasons for scoring decisions are clear and can be easily followed by other assessment teams wishing to harmonise. This also limits the need to constantly refer back to the chapter. The chapter then forms a non- critical summary or overview of the fishery / structure & interaction. This has been the approach taken for many years by FCI.
3.2.4 No No NA Both Marine Scotland policy and science Further text has been added picking up on the would be justified in feeling aggrieved at reviewer’s comments about Marine Scotland what is written here. Marine Scotland policy annual reports and reference links have been
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 172 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
documents and Marine Scotland (Science) provided to these and other research outputs. annual reports (all publicly available on the The assessment team have experience of asking web) show that Marine Scotland maintains a wide range of member state representatives a comprehensive research plan relative to on ICES working groups about this specific herring stocks, their assessment, biology performance indicator. Indeed this particular and ecology. These policy documents also performance indicator was discussed with maintain a comprehensive and strategic Marine Scotland staff on this fisheries site visit overview of the national fishing capacity where they concluded that although Marine relative to UK and EU policy. Scientifically, Scotland does set out a future strategic research the annual meetings of the ICES Council plan for year ahead, it lacks on detail. This would ensures that members’ research include ad hoc research in support of mgt., programmes are coordinated to meet routine observations and 5 year research strategic aims of robust and relevant stock projects. It is not however a fisheries specific assessments. I believe that together, these research plan. As peer reviewer 1 notes, the meet the demands of SG100a. Similarly, national / ICES research in this area is exemplary through various agencies websites (should however the MSC methodology requires a be given in the references), consultation written fishery specific research plan. The groups (e.g. RAC), trade, popular and awarded score of 80 reflects that the current scientific peer-review journals, plans and situation is ‘good practice’ which does not results are disseminated in timely and require either a condition or a recommendation. readily available manner. The authors’ view In short the system works to support of these matters is far too proscriptive. management and the teams scoring seems to be a reasonable compromise between the constraints of the methodology and the practicalities of the real world. This scoring is
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 173 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Certification Body Response Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring information and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
also in line with many other MSC certified fisheries which fall under the ICES umbrella.
3.2.5 Yes No NA Yet again, negative aspects that should The approach taken to scoring has been to only appear as justification for not giving a Yes at write in a single scoring guidepost for each SG100 appear against SG80, which implies a scoring issue. This is so as to make it as clear as score of less than 80. possible which scoring guidepost has been met. In doing so the reasons why a higher scoring guidepost has not been met are also included. Keep SG80 comments positive and then We understand the latest draft of the MSC provide comments that demonstrate why scoring template endorses this approach by only SG100 is not met. having a single space for scoring justification for each scoring issue. The Y / N column makes it clear which are met and which are not.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 174 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions
a) Written submissions from stakeholders received during consultation opportunities on the announcement of full assessment, proposed assessment team membership, proposed peer reviewers, proposal on the use or modification of the default assessment tree and use of the RBF. None. b) All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits pertaining to issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment3 regarding the specific assessment. None c) Explicit responses from the assessment team to submissions described in a. and b. above. None
Appendix 3.1 Amendments made to the PCDR following stakeholder consultation
MSC Re Type of Page Require- Reference Details PI f. Finding ment
1 Major (now 43 CR- Any date prior to the Target eligibility date needs checking. Guidance) 27.6.1.2 certification of the fishery up The earliest date allowed by the to a maximum of six months Certification Requirements would be 6th prior to the publication of the September 2012 (as PCDR published on most recent Public Comment 7th March 2013). Draft Report. FCI Response: Email correspondence with MSC has resulted in this finding being downgraded to ‘Guidance’. Wording amended in Section 5 Traceability to clarify the rationale for choosing the date of 14 July 2013.
2 Major Anne CB2.3.14 3651 Teams shall determine The method by which NS herring is x CB, whether a species is to be designated as a Key low trophic level Page considered a key LTL species (LTL) species in this report is inconsistent C60 based on its status at the time with the MSC requirements. Specifically, of assessment. The the justifications in how that conclusion determination shall be is reached are not explicit enough to the reviewed at each surveillance 3 ecosystem criteria defined under CB audit 2.3.13. This states that a species shall be designated as a KEY-LTL species if it is listed in Box CB1 and it meets one or more of the sub-criteria in Box CB2. Although NS herring is indeed listed in Box CB1 you have not specifically stated whether or not this stock specifically meets the 3 criteria in Box CB2, i.e. the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, defined by; a. degree of trophic connectivity b. volume of energy passing through this species to higher trophic levels
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 175 175 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Re Type of Page Require- Reference Details PI f. Finding ment c. its role in forming an integral part of a wasp-waisted system
Only in cases where it can be shown that a stock does not meet any of these criteria, should that stock be designated as Key-LTL. In cases where a stock is designated as KEY-LTL, it must be scored according to CB2.3.17 to CB 2.3.21 as the basis to the default scoring issue a at the SG 60 level. Specifically, to meet the SG 60 level, it needs to be proven that the default KEY- LTL TRP is set substantially above the TRP determined according to CB 2.3.3. Therefore, if a stock is considered key, it needs to be justified that the TRP already takes into account the ecological role of the stock. It is therefore critical that PI 1.1.2 is re- evaluated using the ecosystem criteria described in BOX CB2. As guidance in this matter, the team is invited to review the paper by Essington and Plagayani, 2012, which is referred to in the MSC Guidance, v1.3. The analysis in this paper suggests that NS herring would not be designated as KEY-LTL, based on the information available. FCI Response: The report has been updated based on this information. The condition has been removed and placed as a recommendation because the team believes that the issues raised should still be addressed, if possible.
3 Guidance 43- CR- The CAB shall determine if the It is understood from page 43 that there 44 27.12.1.2 systems of tracking and is little risk of the vessels fishing outside tracing in the fishery are of the Unit of Certification. However, sufficient to make sure all fish information on page 44 contradicts this and fish products identified because it implies that vessels may be and sold as certified by the harvesting herring both eligible for the fishery originate from the MSC ecolabel and not. In other words, is certified fishery. The CAB shall all their catch MSC certified or not? consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of certified products: The possibility of vessels fishing outside of the unit of certification. FCI Response: Sentence amended to make clear that there is a low risk of vessels fishing outside the UoC, claiming landings from within the UoC. Vessels do not fish outside the UoC on the same trip and log books clearly distinguish between catches of one and catches of the other. In short, the systems of tracking and tracing in the fishery are sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery
4 Guidance 44 CR- The CAB shall determine if the If there is a possibility that vessels are 27.12.1.1 systems of tracking and fishing outside of the Unit of tracing in the fishery are Certification, details are required on sufficient to make sure all fish identification and segregation systems in and fish products identified place. and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. The CAB shall
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 176 176 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Re Type of Page Require- Reference Details PI f. Finding ment consider the following points and their associated risk for the integrity of certified products. FCI Response: These are the systems as described in the report sections and scoring relating to monitoring and enforcement. Misreporting (where one stock is reported as another stock) is a key focus of monitoring, control and surveillance and the system has been shown to be effective in recent years.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 177 177 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency
Table A4.1: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from CR Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table C3 Category On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance Normal 2 surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- surveillance audit audit audit certification site visit
Appendix 4.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score
This fishery assessment makes use of the default assessment tree (0), has between 1 and 5 conditions (1), has principle level scores above 85 (0). The first of the 2 conditions relates to reference points, this is considered an outcome PI, therefore it cannot be concluded that conditions are not on outcome PIs (1). Overall therefore the score is 2 – meaning that a normal level of surveillance is required.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 178 178 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 5. Client Agreement
(Details to be added at the Public Certification Report (PCR) stage)
Appendix 5.1 Objections Process
(If applicable, details to be added at the Public Certification Report (PCR) stage)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 179 179 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 6. The Sustainable Policy of the Scottish Pelagic Industry
I. Introduction The UK RSW (Refrigerated Sea Water) pelagic industry, centred in North East Scotland and Shetland, ranks among the best in the world. A modern, technologically advanced fleet of RSW vessels supplies a progressive, well-equipped processing sector. The industry is involved in the catching and processing of some of the finest fish stocks found in the North East Atlantic and North Sea. The species involved include herring, mackerel, horse mackerel and blue whiting. Today, there is an increasing expectation and demand that the harvesting of the world’s fishery resources should be from demonstrable sustainable sources. This industry-led document addresses the sustainability issues involved in the fisheries exploited by the UK RSW pelagic industry. The Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group (SPSG) was established in 2007 following a strategic review by the Scottish pelagic industry. The SPSG represents all sectors of Scotland’s pelagic industry from catching and processing through to marketing. The SPSG took ownership of the industry’s sustainable policy as well as launching a number of additional sustainability initiatives which includes entering all of its main fisheries for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment. II. Background The pelagic fisheries in the North East Atlantic have become a commercially driven and developing sector of the food industry for participating nations. Commercial advantage has been achieved through investment in modern fishing vessels and processing factories in response to growing international demand for pelagic fish and fishery products. With competition for a highly valuable natural resource, very careful and often complex regulation and control is required between Parties to ensure pelagic resources remain sustainable with controlled exploitation and development. It has long been recognised that this scenario is common throughout fisheries worldwide. If fish stocks are to be maintained with enough fish for future generations then everyone involved in fishing must help conserve and manage these resources. It was with this in mind that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) developed and subsequently adopted the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. The Code sets out principles and standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources. The Code recognises the nutritional, economic, social and environmental importance of fisheries and takes into account the biological characteristics of the resources, their environment and the interests of consumers and other users. Within the EU, management of fisheries has been developed by Member States and the FAO Code is applied through the regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (2371/2002) which was adopted into EU law from 1st January 2003. The existing CFP is undergoing extensive review and modernisation, a new and improved CFP is currently being negotiated and is scheduled to come into effect across the EU in 2013. However, given the complexities of agreeing the new policy, the final timeline for adoption is currently not certain. The scope of the policy states under Article 1; “The CFP shall cover conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources, aquaculture, and the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products…” Furthermore the common objective of the policy states ‘The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions’ (Article 2).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 180 180 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
III. Concepts and definitions of sustainability In the context of this document it is necessary to clearly state the meaning of sustainable operations and sustainability at the outset. The definition in the world wide exploitation of fisheries and complex fishing operations can often have a varied and broad meaning; conversely it can refer to a very specific aspect or topic within a larger socio economic or ecological framework. In its simplest or truest form sustainability can be defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and this will be the guiding principle of this policy. In the context of marine ecosystems, sustainability is the characteristic of resources that are managed so that the natural capital stock is non-declining through time, while production opportunities are maintained for the future1. However, the use of sustainability is often used in fisheries management as a shortened term for sustainable development. Sustainable development can be defined as the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment of continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development conserves (land) water, plants and (animal) genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable2. When describing specifically sustainable fishing activities, those are activities which do not cause or lead to undesirable changes in the biological and economic productivity, biological diversity, or ecosystem structure and functioning from one human generation to the next3. In terms of the catch or yield from a defined stock, the sustainable yield is the amount of biomass or the number of units that can be harvested currently in a fishery without compromising the ability of the population/ecosystem to regenerate itself4. Over recent years EU fisheries management has moved to adopt management measures based on the principle of maximum sustainable yield (MSY). MSY describes the largest average catch that can be continuously taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Fishing at MSY level means catching the maximum proportion of a fish stock, that can be removed from the stock while at the same time, maintaining its capacity to produce sustainable returns, in the long term. IV. The Sustainable Policy of the Scottish pelagic industry The Scottish pelagic industry is committed to the achievement and on-going principle of sustainability in all fisheries in which it operates, and regards this policy as an essential tool in pursuit of this goal. The Scottish pelagic industry considers the following principles to be the underpinning basis of this policy: » The industry will take all appropriate and necessary measures to ensure that the pelagic fisheries in which they operate are fished and managed responsibly to preserve the sustainable use of all marine resources and their habitats for current and future generations.
1 Sutinen, J.G., ed. 2000. A framework for monitoring and assessing socioeconomics and governance of large marine ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-158, 32 pp 2 FAO (1989): Sustainable development and natural resources management. Conference. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. C 89/2 – Sup. 2. August 1989: 54 pages 3 Anonymous (1998): Sustaining Marine Fisheries. A report of the Committee on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Fisheries; Ocean Studies Board; Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources; National Research Council. National Academy press. 4 FAO (1997): Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4: 82 p
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 181 181 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» The industry acknowledges that pelagic fisheries are a shared resource at national and international level; and as such will cooperate with all industry stakeholders and regulatory authorities in their sustainable management. » Vessels will make all reasonable efforts to minimise unintended bycatch and discards which have a detrimental effect to the fisheries in which they operate and on the wider ecosystems of the marine environment. » The industry promotes the participation in and equitable implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as a means to apply and build upon the framework of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. » The industry takes full note of the ICES advice as the basis of best scientific advice which will contribute to management measures governing pelagic fisheries. » The industry is committed to the maximization of product quality through the application of best practice in all fishing activity; from the methods of fishing employed; methods of bringing the catch aboard; the storage conditions of the product on board to the discharging of the catch once in port. It is also committed to encouraging training of personnel to achieve these objectives. » The Scottish pelagic processing factories are based in North-East Scotland and Shetland. As such they are near to the main fishing grounds. All the primary processing plants are modern and equipped with the latest machinery for receiving, grading, filleting, packing, and freezing herring and mackerel. With high capacities they can ensure quality is maintained throughout the processes. V. Operational management Instrumental to the sustainable development of the Scottish pelagic industry is the on-going viability of both businesses and communities from a socio-economic perspective. If this aim is to be achieved, it is of paramount importance that the industry meets these goals whilst operating to the highest standards of maritime and employment safety. Therefore, the Scottish pelagic industry will: » Operate vessels and carry out fishing activity to the highest possible standards of maritime safety. Ensuring that all gear conforms to safety requirements, that regular inspection and scheduled maintenance are carried out in addition to statutory inspections; paying particular regard to engines and safety equipment. » Endeavour to provide a safe working environment for all members of crew and any third parties at all times, whilst promoting a friendly and amicable working environment which seeks to encourage strong teamwork. » Ensure that all training needs of fishermen are met in terms of the statutory minimum MCA requirements, and furthermore; will strive to provide the best training, education and awareness programmes to the benefit of all members. » Practice a reasonable and mutually respectful attitude to all sea vessels and other users towards the exploited resource and the marine environment as a whole. In particular, where competition for sea space arises whilst working on fishing grounds, amicable agreement or compromise will be sought with other fishing parties to avoid conflicts of interest while paying particular regard to historical rights in the area.
The quality of product and marketing opportunities such product will attract are the basis to the success of the industry sector. Therefore all stakeholders of the pelagic industry will constantly work to:
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 182 182 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Maintain the highest possible standards of hygiene on-board vessels and through the process chain. » Optimise the conditions in which the fish are caught, held, handled and processed in order to maximise their market value and encourage the widest choice of value adding potential. This will assist in preserving not only quality but additionally the nutritional value of the fish. » Provide advanced landing information concerning quality, size, volume and traceability of the catch in order to maximise processing potential and improve the efficiency of landing activities. » All of the processing plants are subject to strict Quality Control procedures laid down by both local Environmental Health Departments and by their customers.
VI. Promoting sustainable fisheries through Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification and other environmental enhancement programmes. The Scottish pelagic industry is committed to sustainable fisheries. In order to evidence this the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group was established in 2007 with the principal aim of this grouping to secure independent accreditation of the main fisheries. The North Sea herring and Western mackerel fisheries were entered immediately into Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment. The MSC standard uses an objective and scientifically verifiable method of assessing the sustainability of fisheries. It is based on the United Nations FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The certification process evaluates the following three key principles: 1. The status of the target fish stock or stocks: The fishery must be conducted in a way that does not lead to overfishing or depletion of target stocks 2. The impact of the fishery on the marine ecosystem: Fishing operations must be undertaken in a manner that minimises fishery-related impacts to the ecosystem on which the fishery depends 3. Performance of fishery management systems: The fishery must be subject to an effective management system that promotes responsible and sustainable fishing Since its formation in 2007 the SPSG has worked continuously and vigorously across all major Scottish pelagic fisheries to achieve demonstrable success in the sustainable operation and management through MSC certification. Through these efforts, in less than six years, over 96% of all Scottish pelagic fisheries have achieved MSC status: Stock MSC Certified
North Sea Herring July 2008 NE Atlantic mackerel January 2009 Atlanto-Scandian herring March 2010 West of Scotland herring April 2012
Currently, the NE Atlantic mackerel fishery has been suspended due to the failure to agree international management measures between the EU and Norway with Iceland and the Faroe Islands. A joint EU/Norway industry corrective action plan has been put in place to address this issue through on-going work and negotiation with the single aim of reinstating this certification. Furthermore, the Scottish pelagic industry will seek to explore the potential benefit of any programmes or projects which promote and enhance the marine ecosystem and environment as a
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 183 183 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
whole, thus reducing the environmental impact and footprint the fleet may have during fishing operations. In particular pelagic vessels will: » Follow practices that minimise the emissions of dangerous substances during all fishing activities. As an absolute minimum, vessels will meet national standards but will endeavour to operate at a level promoting best practice. » Optimise energy consumption in all fishing operations. » Consider programmes/projects and new technologies to optimise fuel consumption and other practices to save energy. » Follow good fishing practices which minimise gear loss and make every effort to follow procedures/protocols to mark and report lost gear. Wherever possible vessels will make every effort to retrieve lost gear and to retrieve any redundant gear which may become apparent during fishing activity. All such gear will be taken to shore and disposed of through a safe and recognised route. » Vessels will have a waste management plan in place on-board and will communicate and implement the plan during all operations. Because pelagic trawling takes place in mid-water, the capture and collection of marine litter rarely occurs. Nevertheless, the Scottish pelagic industry recognises the importance of bringing back to shore any litter or debris trawled up and has therefore endorsed the KIMO Fishing for Litter scheme and recommended that all members sign up and actively participate. VII. Responsible fishing In the markets for food and fish, consumers have never been more knowledgeable, aware, discerning and interested about the products they buy than they are today. Today’s consumer does not only require high quality fresh fish, but is also seeking reassurance that their fish has been caught in a responsible manner. These consumer demands place pressure on retailers, large or small, and on the supply chain in general; to be able to demonstrate that their products can indeed satisfy these requirements. Major retailers throughout the world now take the business of corporate social responsibility (CSR) very seriously. Businesses and organisations now draft CSR policies clearly stating their position with respect to their impact on environment, waste and recycling and codes of conduct for product sourcing. These policies influence board decisions on how businesses are run and affect both the medium and long term strategy of the business. All stakeholders expect and demand that these policies and codes be followed. The running of a fishing vessel can be thought of in similar terms to any other business, and therefore vessel operators should be aware of the changing demands of their customers and seek ways in which to satisfy them. At an operational level for fishing boats, there has, up until now, been no single recognised standard of good practice which can be used to demonstrate to the supply chain how the fish has been caught. The operational responsibility of a vessel can be thought of as having to satisfy a number of stakeholders: » the people and businesses to which the boat supplies its catch; » the financial shareholders of the boat; » the environment; and, » the crew and the communities in which they live.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 184 184 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The development of the specification of good practice for fishing vessels, a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) written on behalf of industry by the British Standards Institution (BSI) provides an industry guide from which the Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS) has been developed. The RFS can be used as a tool in both the catching sector and the supply chain to raise standards, and demonstrate that the supply of fish has been caught by a vessel which complies with current good practice. The Scottish pelagic industry fully supports this scheme as a means by which the pelagic industry can provide reassurance to customers; the supply chain, the ultimate consumer and society in general of their ability to follow good operational practice. All Scottish pelagic vessels are in membership of the scheme to demonstrate a recognised standard of good practice and provide the supply chain with the reassurance that pelagic products have been fished responsibly. The benefits of the Responsible Fishing Scheme to pelagic vessels are that they can: » demonstrate that they operate to industry good practice guidelines. » provide assurance that the fish from the vessel has been caught responsibly. » provide a tool to differentiate the fleet in the global marketplace. The industry realises that this scheme has been developed to recognise good practice and that it will, over time, require modification and improvement in order to keep it practical, relevant and meaningful to pelagic fishing operations. It is therefore willing, able and keen to participate in further development processes to forward and strengthen such tools which help to raise standards and seek continuous improvement for the benefit of the industry. VIII. Management regimes and Coastal State/bilateral agreements The fishing activity of all the major NE Atlantic pelagic species are covered by international agreements other than the current dispute over mackerel management. Of the main stocks prosecuted by the Scottish pelagic fleet; mackerel has been managed by a Coastal State agreement supplemented by a North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) agreement 5 which regulates fishing in international waters. Blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring are now regulated by Coastal State and NEAFC agreements. North Sea herring is under the joint-stock management of the European Community and Norway, West of Scotland herring, North Sea horse mackerel and western horse mackerel are all under the management of the European Community. North Sea herring, Atlanto Scandian herring and blue whiting management plans are all currently in the process of review; any amendments to these plans will be adopted during the autumn 2012 Coastal States consultations. The Scottish pelagic industry follows the annual talks closely and keeps stakeholders up to date with new developments in the management of the various fisheries. IX. Management plans The relevant Parties have agreed management plans for mackerel, North Sea herring, Atlanto- Scandian herring, and West of Scotland herring. Recently, the European pelagic industry has, through the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council, been heavily involved in the development of management plans for both horse mackerel and Irish Sea herring and boarfish. The Scottish pelagic industry holds a seat on the Pelagic RAC Executive Committee and a number of seats on the RAC working groups. In addition, the chairman of the Pelagic RAC is one of the founding members of the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group. The RAC advises the European Commission on fisheries management issues and recommends the level of TAC’s for pelagic species on an annual basis based on MSY principles. A key role undertaken by the RAC is the formation of fisheries
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 185 185 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
management plans, currently work is on-going to establish plans for boarfish, and several herring stocks. X. Sustainability principles In order to realise the goals of the sustainable policy as described in section IV, members acknowledge that they must operate in a manner which clearly demonstrates these principles. It is recognised that pelagic stocks are an international resource which migrate through EU, third country and international waters throughout different seasons of the year. In order for such a policy to operate the Scottish pelagic industry must demonstrate its commitment by: » Supporting protocols which promote international cooperation between both Member States of the EU and third countries and all stakeholders of this multi-national industry, who are involved in the exploitation of such pelagic fisheries. » Accepting that to have a correctly managed and fairly allocated share of fishing opportunity for all pelagic species; fish stocks have to be estimated using the most reliable and robust scientific and mathematical techniques available. The quality of such data is paramount to the accurate process of determining Total Allowable Catches (TACs). » Accepting that in order to prevent over fishing and ensure sustainability, the methods required to support such TAC’s need to be effectively monitored and regulated. This will entail the accurate registration of catches; and may include the use of technical measures in permitted gear. » Actively supporting and assisting in the gathering and provision of scientific data on the state of pelagic fish stocks; thus securing the most detailed information available for use in the assessments necessary for sustainable fisheries management. XI. Scientific support It has long been recognised that a successful and responsible fisheries policy requires sound scientific advice and data. All stakeholders of such fisheries should ensure sufficient resources and facilities are available to provide a comprehensive foundation in order that the necessary research can be carried out. Such research requires monitoring of the stocks, the condition and size distribution of the fish within the stocks, and observations of the marine habitat and wider ecosystem of such stocks if the fishery is to be managed with a successful policy. This needs to be coupled with the necessary research and assessments concerning the fishing methods undertaken to fish the stock and the levels of effort which are being undertaken. Such information can include biological, oceanographic, meteorological and operational types. Additionally samples may be taken for further analysis in laboratory conditions ashore. The value of such research is of particular importance when factors within the overall framework are likely to change in such a way as to influence the ecological balance of the fishery as a whole.
The Scottish pelagic industry fully supports the view that such scientific study is invaluable to the future sustainability of the pelagic fisheries in which it operates. It will therefore cooperate and assist in the gathering of such scientific information and will wherever possible undertake to:- » Co-operate in research and assessment programmes focussing on stock assessment, recruitment and fecundity of pelagic fish stocks. » Participate in research and provide data to assess the levels of effort which are contributing to the exploitation of pelagic fisheries.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 186 186 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Conduct research to assess new fishing gears, and promote new fishing gears and practices which are consistent with sustainable fishing practices. » Assist, initiate and participate in research programmes which support environmental protection. The Scottish pelagic fleet already has a close working relationship with Marine Scotland Science on various projects such as the observer programme and may undertake further studies through cooperation with government, management and scientific programmes; with international scientific institutes or through their own initiated desire with other co-funding partners including the Scottish Industry Science Partnership (SISP). Furthermore, the SPSG fleet undertakes to record any interactions during fishing activities and fishing trips with endangered threatened and protected (ETP) species. The fleet participates in the Seafish Responsible Fishing Scheme and as such is committed to make every effort to minimise unselective fishing practice and minimise interactions with incidental by-catch. Concerns have been raised in some pelagic fisheries of interactions between cetaceans and fishing gear, the SPSG fleet has co-operated fully with cetacean observer programmes over many years with no observed bycatch incidents. However, as a measure of additional best practice vessels undertake to record any interactions, should they occur. Species included in this reporting scheme include whales, dolphins, porpoises and turtles. XII. Monitoring and compliance Stakeholder compliance with national and international management regimes is fundamental to the sustainable policy of the Scottish pelagic industry. The industry recognises that pelagic fisheries are most effectively controlled by TAC’s and quotas and believes that quotas must be respected if stocks are to remain healthy. The monitoring of fishing activities is an essential part of the sustainable policy of any fishery. The main goals and objectives of any fishery monitoring programme will generally be:- » The collection of information on catch; bycatch; protected species; discards and wider environmental data which is used for management and stock assessment purposes. » The monitoring of fishing activity in adherence to regulations governing the fishery. » The monitoring of fishing activity and effort to develop a better understanding of the operation of the fishery. At-sea observers offer one means of gathering independent, cost effective data, and may be used to reduce conflicts between stakeholders; concerns regarding over-exploitation and to provide a better understanding of how particular fisheries work. Whatever their motivation for use, they should provide outputs that contribute to the development of international management measures that encourage good fishing practices and promote both stock and fishery sustainability. To this end the Scottish pelagic industry supports their use as one means to provide this assurance and information, and will work with scientific agencies, and industry groups to facilitate such programmes where considered appropriate. The Scottish pelagic fleet already has strong relationships in this field with Marine Scotland Science (MSS) and the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), St Andrews University and will cooperate and comply with monitoring programmes put in place under agreed protocols to ensure that these goals can be met in line with cooperation provided by fishermen from other nations fishing pelagic stocks in the North East Atlantic. It is recognised that monitoring programmes help to provide evidence and demonstrate compliance of conservation, mitigation and technical measures in place for the management of the fishery. Therefore, when appropriate the industry will consider establishing, in consultation with relevant
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 187 187 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
regulatory agencies, bodies and industry groups, effective monitoring systems to record and evaluate adherence to sustainable principles and practices. In Scotland, vessels may only land to buyers who are registered within the compliance regulations laid down by the Scottish Government. Under this scheme the buyers are obliged to keep records and be open to inspection by Marine Scotland Compliance at any time. This, added to the existing regulation on the catching sector, extends control throughout the supply chain. The Scottish pelagic industry regards this as an essential tool to deliver total and uniform compliance with all fisheries management regulations. It is however essential that there is parity within the EU and for all third countries. A pelagic inspection protocol governing the inspection and monitoring procedures for pelagic processing plants has been agreed between Marine Scotland Compliance and most of the pelagic processing industry. It is understood that the provisions of this protocol will be implemented throughout the entire industry. This is essential to ensure widespread and total confidence in the pelagic monitoring and compliance regime. XIII. Optimising selectivity to promote conservation Pelagic fishing by its very nature targets mid-water fish shoals and has very little impact on the seabed. Another feature of pelagic fisheries is that bycatch of non-target species is insignificant. Cetacean bycatch is not an issue within Scottish pelagic fisheries. This has been verified by studies carried out by SMRU, initially under a voluntary agreement, and now covered under regulation. Within the framework of Scottish pelagic fisheries, the methods of fishing and the natural habitat and characteristics of the target species mean that the incidental bycatch of other non-target marine species is extremely rare. On some occasions discards can occur due to fish size within a shoal of fish. The European pelagic industry has, and will continue to consider, how best to mitigate this issue through fleet-wide measures. A scheme has been established under the auspices of NPWG (Northern Pelagic Working Group) whereby any fishing vessel encountering unmarketable pelagic fish on the fishing grounds can communicate that information to the international fleet immediately. Within its Vessel Operating Manual, the Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group has issued instructions to the fleet on operating practices. This includes, the identification of shoals, pre-fishing sampling of mackerel shoals and guidelines for communication within the fleet in the event that small fish are encountered. Slippage or high grading contradicts the whole spirit of the sustainable policy and has been prohibited since January 1st 2010 under control measures agreed by the Coastal States. Vessels may on occasion, be required to discard catches of juvenile fish in order to comply with minimum landing size regulations. Scottish pelagic vessels are required under the SPSG vessel operating manual to make every effort to avoid small undersized fish and do not carry grading equipment on board. XIV. Conclusion This “Sustainable Policy of the Scottish Pelagic Industry” lays out the current views of the whole industry and provides a statement of intent outlining a general plan of conduct. The Scottish pelagic industry is committed to ensuring this policy is followed during all direct and indirect operations concerning the fishing, processing and business activities of all stakeholders to Scottish pelagic resources. The Scottish pelagic industry will make this policy fully available and transparent to all parties within industry and to society in general. Furthermore, it will welcome feedback and critical examination of the policy. The Scottish pelagic industry will undertake to review this policy at regular intervals, will take on board relevant comment and suggestions received and any amendments arising from the review will be published accordingly.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 188 188 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 7. SPSG MSC Exceptional Events Log
Logsheet - Occurance of Exceptional / Unusual Events During Fishing Activity.
Vessel Skipper/Master:
Gear Trips from: To:
This logsheet should be used to record any excetional/unusual events during fishing trips. This will include slippage events, interactions with endangered, threatened or protected species and gear contact with seabed or gear loss. Types of event are detailed at the foot of the page.
Detail of Slippage Event ETP Interaction Detail Event Code Catch Composition (tonnes) Discard Composition (tonnes) Reason Date Time Position Species Number of Condition: Species Additional/Other Comments (See Below) Est'd Est'd Est'd Est'd Est'd Est'd Est'd (Discard Encountered Animals Dead/Alive Fished Bulk Retained Dscrded MAC HER HMA Other Code) Examples 01/01/2012 09:25 58°00' N, 8°50' W ETP Orca 2 Alive Mackerel Following bag when hauling
03/01/2012 00:30 59°50' N, 9°50' W SL 750 500 250 250 XQ Gear came fast on shooting and setting nets, significant damage incurred to net. Recovered, and spare net shot 06/01/2012 12:35 59°10' N, 9°00' W HAB away
SPSG vessels are requested to completed these forms for data collection and information gathering in accordance with the operating conditions of all MSC certified pelagic fisheries. Forms should be completed and submitted to the SPSG Office, Fraserburgh.
Event Description Code To record: Information required Discard Code SL An occasion when fish have been released/slipped from the net. Details entered into the slippage event section C Composition ETP An intercation with any Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species Details entered into the ETP Interaction section US Under sized GL An incident where gear has been lost during fishing activity. Comments leading to the loss. Whether later recovered. D Damaged HAB An incident where there has been significant known gear contact with the seabed. Comments and additional details of event XQ Exceeded Quota AO Any other exceptional event which the may have an impact on the fishery/environment. Record details and provide comment as necessary. O Other (Specify)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES April 2013 189 Final Report – SPSG North Sea herring Fishery